Latest Newsletter

Documents marked need
Adobe Reader to view. In the unlikely event that it is not on your computer, it is available free of charge from:-

This page is validated to XHTML 1.0

This page is validated to CSS

Ongoing controversy over the SMP

As it still stands, DEFRA's Shoreline Management Plan will mean the abandonment of much of the East Anglian coastline to the sea due to lack of funding provision for adequate defences. The SMP currently dictates that businesses, farmland, coastal houses, whole villages and their infrastructure will be lost to the sea without compensation.

The ill conceived and non-thought out 'plan' will in fact means the loss of much inland treasure too, as the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads will become salinated.

BBC TV's last 'Nature of Britain' programme revealed how precious the Norfolk Broads are as one of Europe's largest fresh water reserve. They were accurately quoted as being of unique value in providing a vital habitat for rare species such as marsh harriers, dragonflies, hobbies and numerous other scarce precious lifeforms. They also form a tourist attraction providing essential income to Norfolk's economy. The programme further pointed out the vulnerability of the 300 square kilometre protected habitat due to the threat of saline intrusion from the sea.

But how can the Broads be claimed to be protected when so little is being done by government bodies to maintain them? We have at this time of ever rising sea levels, the government's imposition of the Shoreline Management Plan and its refusal to maintain adequate sea defences, their support of erosion producing offshore aggregate dredging, their negation of a Bure and Yare barrage, and little realistic action on causative global warming.

If no meaningful action is taken, soon the sea will enter the entire broadland waterways system to destroy all that we hold precious. Furthermore, apart from giving land to the sea, ingress to the broadland system will salinate both essential agricultural land and water supplies, so gravely reducing crop yields at a time when drought and erratic storms due to global warning climatic changes are already hitting production.

The governments policy of short-term economic measures in denying defensive measures and by ignoring the prime causes will surely result in a catastrophic long term loss, both environmental and economic.

One of the great problems now facing us is the diminishing supply of potable (fresh) water. The sea rise of some 3.2 mm per annum and the land sink of East Anglia and Kent of 2 mm per year coupled with the loss of our coastlines to what is now mostly man made erosion is hurrying the loss of coastal fresh water resources not only in East Anglia but in much of the world.
Unfortunately for our world's population, most of us seem to live along our coastlines. The infiltration and intrusion of salt water into coastal aquifers, the forcing of salt water far inland through deeply dredged canals and the loss of land protecting these water resources through ill-conceived policies and practices threaten our very lives, not just those of the flora and fauna life being drowned in this salt water.

But the hazard is particularly acute in East Anglia, where much of the coastline and the sea defences will be abandoned to the sea if DEFRA's myopic policies are allowed to come into being. As given, not only will much of the valuable agricultural land be lost, this at a time of future threatened droughts and increasing demand, but irrigation supplies will become salinated. The valuable eco-system of the Norfolk and Suffolk broads will be lost also.

The short-term economics of the current governments policy will create a huge loss to future generations unless sanity prevails. Thankfully, many concerned councils, organisations and individuals are at last beginning to understand this.

The following three items come from the pages of The Lowestoft Journal, indicating the ongoing and rising tide of protest at DEFRA's Shoreline Management Plan.

Sea defence controversy
The Lowestoft Journal 05 October 2007

A leading coastal and climate change campaigner has warned of a potential rift among local authorities in East Anglia over controversial plans to manage sea defences, thanks to a "barmy" council decision.

The division between the various district and borough councils concerned with shoreline management plans (SMP) could leave victims of coastal erosion open to a postcode lottery when it comes to possible compensation in the future. It could also play into the hands of government officials keen on getting their own way, warned Malcolm Kerby, co-ordinator of the Coastal Concern Action Group (CCAG).

The latest generation of SMPs propose that large sections of coast under go "managed realignment" rather than "hold the line", leaving communities at the mercy of the North Sea and thousands of properties at risk.

Although CCAG is based in the coastal erosion hotspot of Happisburgh, it has become involved at a national and international level on the issue of coastal defence, having its voice heard from Westminster to Europe. Yesterday Mr Kerby described a recent decision by Waveney District Council to accept the SMP governing the coast between Kelling and Lowestoft as "utterly barmy and without reason".

While on the face of it the Waveney decision to accept the SMP might appear to be the same stance as that taken recently by North Norfolk District Council, it is vastly different, said Mr Kerby. "Both councils have in some eyes accepted the SMP, but North Norfolk has been very clear in the fact they are only accepting it with a string of key conditions," said Mr Kerby.

"That conditional acceptance is a world away from the non-conditional acceptance which Waveney are guilty of. "Most important of the North Norfolk conditions is social justice and the debate about compensating people who suffer wholesale losses of their properties, losses they never expected to face until the change in policy was suggested. What Waveney has done in accepting without conditions demonstrates a complete lack of foresight. What is stopping Defra turning round in the future and saying 'the communities of north Norfolk wanted compensation, so they can have it, but the people in Waveney didn't want it, so they can't have it'. What an unmitigated disaster."

Mr Kerby said Waveney would realise their "dire mistake" once the next SMP, for the section of coast from Lowestoft to Felixstowe, started to be discussed in earnest. "If anyone thinks there is a problem now, wait until that SMP comes out - then the muck will really hit the fan. A few people might need to duck." Julian Walker, Waveney's principal service manager for coast protection, said: "There is not sufficient development and economic value in that area to justify government funds to undertake very high-cost coastal defences in the future. It is a government requirement that you do not spend more money to protect than the value of the houses. There are heavy constraints and we have got be realistic."

======================================

Save our coastal villages appeal
by Alan Thompson, also The Lowestoft Journal 5th October 2007

Coastal communities this week rose up against a coastal management plan which threatens to allow hundreds of homes to be swallowed by the sea. The Shoreline Management Plan which leaves places like Scratby and Winterton unprotected with no hope of compensation came in for a beating at meetings across the borough.

At Scratby campaigners are pressing the borough council to fund £150,000 worth of studies and preliminary works - a crucial first step in the bid for a rock berm from California to Scratby. Around 100 people turned out to the Village Centre in Ormesby St Margaret on Monday to ask that a policy of "no active intervention" be changed to one of "holding the line" and unanimously showed their opposition to the SMP in its present form with a show of hands.

Jim Bratton, secretary of the Scratby Coastal Erosion Group, said he was staggered to be told a crucial environmental study would cost more than double the £60,000 figure he was quoted - although officials say it was always a multi-phase scheme over two years and that the £60,000 sum amounted solely to this year's commitment.

Head of regeneration services Tim Howard said: "There is no allocation in this year's budget for this work or next years. So in order to start it the council is going to have to find £60,000 this year and more as the scheme progresses. This is more expensive for the council than people realise." He said the final decision lay with members.

Around £10,000 of the total sum is earmarked for a study at Hopton.

Mr Bratton said: "It was a good meeting and well supported. I thought that it was going well until I heard about the £150,000. I think now our bid could be in jeopardy. Fortunately the parish council has agreed with us. But what I find incomprehensible is the fact that 150 homes will be affected, it would cost around £2 million for the sea defences and the homes are worth a total of £25 million. It's ludicrous when you consider what the government spends money on elsewhere. We've been campaigning for something positive be done for three years now. It is like a snakes and ladders board."

The erosion group acknowledges the need for an SMP but calls for a more balanced approach, including:

That a short or medium plan protection is provided to Scratby beach by extending the existing rock berm from California to Newport. The designation of "no active intervention" to Scratby beach is changed to "hold the line" for a specified period and a "managed retreat" thereafter.

That a social justice clause is written into it providing compensation at full pre-blight market price to all those adversely affected by coastal erosion.

That discussions begin as soon as possible regarding specific plans for the managed retreat of the community from the present coastline.

Mr Bratton added: "We feel it is imperative that the coastal communities all work together and present a united front to defend our heritage and avoid any friction caused by misinformation and lack of communication."

After the meeting Ormesby St Margaret with Scratby Parish Council chairman Geoff Freeman said: "If it was a case of four houses being affected then it would be worth just considering compensation, but 150 homes are at stake. What I can't comprehend is the fact that we have had consultative processes over wind turbines and other things, but where has the common sense gone to?"

Yarmouth MP Tony Wright was also at the meeting. He said: "We can't protect the entire coastline around the country. If you do have a plan then ministers and the secretary of state will look at the options. We can't hold back the forces of nature and it is the responsibility of the local authority to come up with the plan and say what you require. There are communities that need to be protected and they should be, so there must be a plan."

Council head of regeneration Tim Howard warned that if no shoreline plan is adopted there will be no money coming from the government. He said: "The sooner we draw up a suitable shoreline management plan that everyone is happy with, the sooner we are likely to get the funding."

Ormesby St Margaret with Scatby Parish Council is to debate the issue at its meeting on Monday.

Of the northern coastal villages it only remains for Caister to make a decision with its meeting scheduled for 6.45pm on Monday at the council hall in the village.

======================================

Campaigners say 'hold the line' on coast'
- also from the Lowestoft Journal but 16th October 2007

The Shoreline Management Plan came in for its final beating this week in meeting of Caister Parish Council.

For the past two weeks the plan has been a central issue in meetings of coastal communities in the borough with campaigners calling for a policy of "no active intervention" at Scratby to be changed to one of "holding the line."

And it was a similar story at the council hall on Monday evening where 18 people turned out to hear the borough council's environmental services manager Simon Mutten explain the plan in its present form and why it should be adopted.

Parish council chairman Tony Overill said that while it was agreed Caister's coastline was relatively safe it was the parishes to the north that were the weak part of the coat and that they should be protected at all cost. He said: "As a coastal community we feel that it is imperative that we all work together and present a united front to defend heritage and avoid any friction caused by misinformation and/or lack of communication."

The parish council recommended that the short/ medium plan protection is provided by extending existing rock bund from California to Newport, change the proposal of "no active intervention" on the Scratby to Newport coastline "hold the line" policy, that a social justice cause is written into the plan providing compensation to those adversely affected by coastal erosion and the discussions begin as soon as possible about plans for the managed retreat of our communities.