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

Shoreline Management Plans

  MARINET comments Anglian Coastal Authorities Group on Kelling to Lowestoft Ness SMP, Nov.2006

Shoreline Management Plans

Under the auspices of DEFRA, the government have promoted a number of shoreline management plans, one example of which is the 'Kelling to Lowestoft Shoreline Management Plan Review 2004'. This Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) which took four years to complete is to be found on Internet at www.acag.org.uk   It is claimed by the authors to be a coastal defence management document that presents a vision of the North East Norfolk and North Suffolk coastline over the next 100 years.

The plan is partnership based, with its production led by North Norfolk District Council, Great Yarmouth Borough Council, Waveney District Council, the Environment Agency and English Nature.

The group members of the plan consist of representatives of Colchester Borough Council, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, English Nature, Environment Agency, Great Yarmouth Borough Council, King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council, Maldon District Council, North East Lincolnshire Council, North Norfolk District Council, Rochford District Council, Southend-on-Sea Borough Council, Suffolk Coastal District Council, Tendring District Council, Waveney District Council, with associate members from Associated British Ports, Babergh District Council, Great Yarmouth Port Authority, Harwich Haven Authority, Port of Boston Ltd, English Nature Regional Offices of Essex, Norfolk, Lincolnshire and Suffolk, but with the noticeable absence of any independent organisations or groups representing the environment, the fishing industry and householders. Although these were invited to the open meetings, they were excluded from meetings of the steering group both as participators and observers. Thus MARINET, the North Sea Action Group, Friends of the Earth and many other aware expert groups, organisations and individuals were unable to contribute of their knowledge, findings and advice. The result of this failure to consider and cooperate have now become obvious.

The fundamental strategy of the plan was based on the latest Southern North Sea Sediment Transport Study Phase 2 (SNS2) findings that can be found on the Internet at www.sns2.org   This is a document written by HR Wallingford, which company were claimed to have available not only the latest scientific knowledge of the effects that the North Sea will have upon our coastline, but also upon the current legislative and funding arrangements for coastal defence construction. Much of HR Wallingfords income originates from work performed for the offshore aggregate dredging companies.

Public 'consultation' on the SMP ran until 29th April 2005. This welcomed 'comments' on the document from all members of the community. By the end of the consultation period over 1,000 such comments resulted, when it was intimated that over 95% were bitterly opposed to the strategy proposed, with less than 2% in full favour.

Rather surprisingly, a few environmentalists unfamiliar with coastal issues actually voiced support for the governments draft 'Shoreline Management Plan'(SMP) that espouses allowing the demise of sea defences and the committing of large areas of our coastline to the sea. That some not aware of the deeper and far more complex picture demonstrated such support is not surprising, as at first glance the methodology would appear to be both environmentally friendly and effective, permitting the establishment of a natural coastline uninhibited by the ugly concrete walls that impair the drift of sediment along the coastline. To allow high sand cliffs to erode to provide large levels of sand and gravel to nourish the areas seriously depleted because of seizure from offshore aggregate dredging makes good sense on the simple proviso that the inland areas committed to the sea do not form a valued and vital habitat themselves.

That the plan is co-ordinated by a totality of coastal councils is to be welcomed. For over twenty years now the North Sea Action Group (now a part of MARINET) has fought, with the support of four coastal MPs, for an integrated and comprehensive national coastal defence plan. Up to now coastal management has been dealt with by over 30 separate agents and authorities. The variables of funding has meant that the defences instituted at one part of the coastline were parasitic upon adjacent non-defended areas, as the beach sand and dunes maintained no longer acted as a littoral flow supply sources to those deprived of the loss of their cover. With ailing defences and beach draw down caused by the replacement demand of offshore aggregate dredging, coupled with the sea rise and worsening weather climate brought about by Global Warming, those permitted protection were seen as denying sediment supply to other often more deserving cases. Thus it transpired that natural environmentally excellent areas and small coastal communities, assumed by current economic monetarist policies to have little value could be permitted to disappear, whilst high value areas might benefit at their expense.

Thus we see highly profitable privately owned industries such as the Bacton Gas Terminal adequately defended, funded by public money, whilst the immediately adjacent village of Bacton itself is denied protection. The same is true for numerous villages and coastal communities close to the Norfolk and Suffolk shoreline, e.g. Overstrand, Trimingham, Mundesley, Bacton, Walcott, Ostend, Happisburgh, Eccles, Sea Palling, Waxham, Horsey, Winterton, Hemsby, Newport, California, Scratby, and many, many more extending down through the Suffolk coastline right down to Essex. The loss through a failure to fund defences and allow the sea to come in is also threatening the future of many low laying inland areas of the Norfolk Broads such as Lessingham, Sutton, Hickling, Martham, East Somerton, Ingham, Potter Heigham and many more of the more delightfully scenic villages and valuable habitats such as Martham Broad, Winterton South Dunes, etc.

This map shows part of the area to be inundated when the sea breaks through due to a failure to maintain the existing defences, part of which is formed by a sea wall and part by natural marram dunes and in some places protected hitherto by wooden groynes.

The fundamental plan strategy, placed under the headings of 'managed retreat', 'coastal realignment' and 'making room for water', is to permit the loss of 'low value' areas of the coastline in the hope that new areas will naturally form from the sedimental material freed. Although the costs of sea defences to be lost due to the recent government marine defence funding cuts were not exactly advertised, it could be argued that the rather ugly concrete walls costing over £9,000 per metre (£9m per kilometre) were denying a natural coastline whilst at the same time aiding and abetting the sand loss that would have otherwise provided littoral drift downtide sediment supply to those large areas of the coastline denied such defences.

A further problem is that with sea levels rising and beach material being stripped, these walls were being undermined at the base, with a consequent risk of collapse in high storm periods, so suddenly permitting serious flooding of the large areas of low laying land and villages behind them. But sadly the plan failed to recognise the historic effectiveness of the simple low cost groyne and dune defences that could and should have been maintained.

Photograph showing how a concrete seawall, having had the beach sand stripped, holds back the sea, but allows no beach whatsoever at high tide. Underminement can soon follow.

Photograph shows underminement damage to the old concrete protective sea wall at Caister-on-Sea following beach stripping, high winds and a minor surge over Christmas 2002.

The ability of the members to think other than in short term economic impact of high cost engineering was so evidenced.

There is no doubt that in addition to the losses of sand and shingle brought about by offshore dredging, the piecemeal defence of selected parts of our shoreline by concrete walls has prevented sediment provision to those areas not so safeguarded, which have suffered from a lack of sand and gravel supply as a consequence. Similarly, that the lack of sediment supply replacement coming down the North Sea (see www.sns2.org ) has all but ceased since intense dredging came about off the Humber Estuary and in The Wash.

Similarly there is no doubt that global warming is taking its toll of our coast, the East Anglian coast in particular. The thermal expansion the sea and the melting of icecaps and glaciers are causing the sea to rise by 6 millimetres per year, and this is increasing. But added to this is the annual 2 millimetre plate sink of eastern England, from Norfolk down to Kent, which fortunately is decreasing. Increasing periods of stronger and more frequent northerly winds, a further component of global warming, are also taking their toll by increasing the degree of erosion by transporting the beach cover out to sea on the onshore to offshore undertow. The net result is a steady and relentless landward advance of the sea, with grave long-term consequences for low laying terrain.

The encroachment of the North Sea has been taking place for over ten thousand years. Once it would have been possible to walk through dense oak forests from eastern England to Germany and Scandinavia. The only reminders of this today are the semi-petrified roots of ancient oaks that are being revealed at places such as Holme next the Sea as the beach becomes denuded of its sand cover, and the long preserved stumps that appear on our beaches following heavy storms.

Other than the sudden impact of severe storms, the rate of erosion has been relatively small in the long term. In fact, much of the Norfolk and Suffolk coastline now being lost had been accreting for the past 100 years. This reversed only when commercial scale offshore aggregate dredging began to take its toll. Global warming has been escalating since the industrial revolution, but only in the past thirty years has the rate of shoreline loss magnified to the serious level known today. Thus, correlation of the loss of shoreline relates far more to the commencement of intense and cumulative offshore aggregate dredging than to the impact of global warming, which itself gives rise to serious concern. Yet, the SMP barely mentions this major factor.

But a deeper investigation of the full results of the SMP suggests a hidden agenda, and it would be regrettable to see our well meaning colleagues misled into the support of government plans placed through the medium of DEFRA and English Nature that have purely a fiscal advantage in saving the government large sums that could and should otherwise be allocated for preservation and defence as practiced in Europe. This particularly so when the results of placing the SMP into hard practice would result in the loss of many very precious wildlife areas, coastal businesses and communities, so creating severe social hardship, inequality and inequity. This is the main cause of major hostility to the SMP's producers, enactors and supporters.

For the many villages and communities refused defence, compensation and reimbursement for such loss is not to be forthcoming. The tourist trade of the locality would be destroyed, as would the beaches that attract the holiday visitors. Wildlife sites and even the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads that also attract tourist income would also be lost to the sea. Coastal footpaths would disappear, Camp sites, Golf courses, much valuable farmland would be lost. Devaluation of threatened property is already seen, and coastal towns and villages are already blighted.

As well as Salt Marshes, the soft cliffs planned to be lost are important too. They are the home to many rare wildflowers which in turn form the habitat of internationally important communities of rare insects, spiders and other invertebrates such as the ground beetle Nebria livida only to be found on a few cliffs of Norfolk and Yorkshire. The dunes inland of the coast are the habitat of adders, the (not so) common lizard, natterjack toads, nightjars and other rare creatures, whilst the variety of grass types and flora to be found behind the dunes are unbeatable.

Dune Poppies by Norma Gowen - a painting of the flowers that appear in the spring on the dune banks between Hemsby Gap and Winterton-on-Sea.

Not all environmentalists, particularly those outside East Anglia, will have a good understanding of coastal morphology, nor of the impact of offshore dredging, nor of the government's bad record of aiding and abetting this non-sustainable and damaging practice of exploiting the seabed for corporate and treasury gain. Thus, a number of points need to be brought to their attention.

The draft SMP is based on assumptive predictions based upon computer simulations rather than established empirical findings and factual historical data. The valuable knowledge and information supplied by fishermen and those that have a good practical understanding of coastal processes has been ignored and sidelined in the decision making process.

Yet the decisions projected by the document affect the welfare and livelihood of the entire East Anglian region, so essentially needs to be based upon realistic data and a totality of well founded factual data, without the exclusion of facts that could prove uncomfortable to the continuing fiscal dependency demand of the government.

Earlier studies that the SMP is based on were carried out by consultants Halcrow, who, using computer simulation, produced erosion line predictions as the sea approach line covering the following sixty years, i.e. by 2052. Many of these lines produced were crossed within five years, i.e. by 1997, twelve times that rate of loss to the sea predicted. Awareness of this has produced a lack of confidence in the projection, which can now only be seen as a series of vague assumptions. This serious inaccuracy was undoubtedly because the Halcrow Report did not allow for the impact of Offshore Aggregate Dredging. When that factor enters the equation, the apparent anomaly becomes fully explainable. The new SMP must consider this major cause if it is to have any credence, yet it barely has a mention in the SMP.

There is powerful evidence that the huge level of offshore aggregate dredging off East Anglia and to its north has radically reduced sediment transfer by interception. It has brought about beach draw down along coastlines previously accreting, the loss due to recapture of the dredged area needed to form from the onshore-offshore drift. By beach draw down it has permitted the encroaching tide level to reach far further up the beach to undermine and undercut natural dune and soft sand cliff defences. It has brought about beach steepening, causing many a sandy beach to become stony at low tide and even absent at high tide. It has reduced formerly protective offshore sand bank height that previously served to break the more powerful eroding waves. It has changed tidal sea flow paths, consequently bringing about a level of coastal erosion and tide line ingress some eight times greater than that which can be calculated when considering marine expansion and glacial and icecap melt in isolation. Simple geometric and trigonometric comparison of present to pre-dredging tidemarks relative to beach slope and sand depth conclusively proves this fact. Yet the impact of intensive offshore aggregate dredging has never been investigated in the UK for the long term. The cumulative and wider area damage produced has never been identified in past Environmental Impact Assessments, nor has it in the SMP.

North Norfolk cliff erosion shows the amazing sculpture created by the sea when it undermines the cliffs between Cromer and Overstrand following a beach draw down. One could be forgiven for thinking that this was a fossilised dragon. (Well they did dig out a fossilised elephant a bit futher down the coast at West Runton.)

Coastal Morphology research performed by independent surveys outside Britain have long concluded offshore aggregate dredging to be a main cause in the loss of a coastline. Nevertheless the SMP has completely ignored such evidence in favour of national partisan claims to the opposite.

The SMP suggests that the loss of shoreline is due to the restriction of littoral sediment flow by the imposition of existing flood defences. But consider that the annual deficit of our East Anglian coastline's sediment budget is currently running at 300,000 - 450,000 cubic metres per year with little or no sediment flow now coming down the North Sea and across The Wash compared with that known prior to sediment removal by commercial scale offshore aggregate dredging, and it comes as no surprise.

Conventional defences blamed for the littoral flow restriction, such as groynes, are 'full' already and have long been so. Once 'full' their holding capacity no longer inhibits the littoral sediment flow. Yet additional beach material, not less, has been and is being released by the permitted demise of many of these original defences. What is more, that sand and gravel now released by these and by increasing sand cliff, dune and beach erosion does not appear in the sediment budget. Thus a serious deficiency is indicated that can only be explained by offshore aggregate dredging capture, this factor being the only new component in the equation. Marine aggregate dredging offshore to the Humber, Lincolnshire and Norfolk removes between 10,000,000 and 12,000,000 cubic metres per annum. This is obviously the main factor in the balance, but is not even considered in the SMP.

This photograph shows how Waxham beach was stripped of its entire sand cover following the capture of the littoral sediment flow by the newly placed protective reef at Sea Palling.

The huge profit made from dredging by the Government through royalties to The Crown Estate of 40 to 60p per tonne taken created £147,334,680 from the 137,817,564 tonnes of aggregate stripped offshore to Norfolk alone over the past 13 years. Taxation on the landed product at 17.5% (£3-50 per tonne) created £1,031,342,805 for the exchequer from that self-same 137,817,564 tonnes of aggregate. Far more than this went to the dredging companies and their shareholders, but imparting knowledge of this profit and the turnover was refused by BMAPA. It may be estimated as some ten times more. It can thus be envisaged that this is the real reason for government controlled agencies not including the effects from offshore dredging in the SMP. At the same time the government are reducing funding for coastal defence and denying compensation for those losing their homes, livelihoods and businesses because of fiscal policies. It can thus be perceived even in the most simplistic terms that the release of material from our soft sand cliffs and beaches, as promoted by the SMP, is a means of providing fresh material to promote the continuity of the dredging industry and to provide further income to those vested interests that benefit from their activities.

That the dredging area offshore to Great Yarmouth (Area 254) was abandoned three years ago due to there being no commercially viable deposits remaining, and that the dredging industry was moving to the South Coast and the Channel, gives credence to the loss of sediment flow. That a new application has just been made for a licence for further dredging in that area shows that new deposits must have been laid down. With a near zero sediment flow, these new deposits could only have come from the eroding coastline on the onshore to offshore drift. This drift, little mentioned in the studies, is well understood by the fishermen who are well aware of their bottom net drift patterns and by those unfortunate swimmers who are swept far out to sea by the undercurrents prevalent on our East Anglian coastline. This strong onshore to offshore movement is particularly significant during high and surge tide times. It requires identification and recognition, this lacking in the most recent Southern North Sea Sediment Transport Study (SNSTS) which did however clearly admit to this deficiency of understanding. However, the SMP heavily relies upon 'data' from this incomplete study despite its serious shortcomings and limitations.

The state of the art Eurosion document produced for all European Member States and Municipal Authorities, added to by findings based upon research carried out in the Middle East, New Zealand, various parts of the USA, Belgium, The Netherlands, Germany, Portugal, Indonesia, Malaysia, Ireland, Italy, etc. all show quite clearly that dredging can both cause and exacerbate coastal erosion. Britain uniquely continues to claim that no such evidence exists. What little 'research' has been performed in the UK has been carried out for the Environmental Impact Assessments by consultants selected, appointed by and paid for by the dredging companies themselves. Such cannot be seen as being impartial, and was criticised as long ago as 1992 when the House of Commons Environmental Enquiry on Coastal Planning and Protection required a second opinion and stated "We were concerned to find that the whole area of the impact of marine aggregate extraction on the coastal zone is under-researched and based on premises years out of date." Reports and numerous independent experts before and since then have reasserted this view. But nevertheless later UK 'research' has used much of that dubiously theorised information in place of the actual practical investigation necessary to prove the situation.

The SMP makes the claim that wildlife areas will be protected by the plan, whilst precisely the opposite is the result. Already dredging coupled with sea rise and greater storms plus the failure to maintain the protective groyne systems has resulted in the loss of much valuable habitat along the East Anglian coast. The seal colonies of the north east Norfolk shoreline have been lost, as have Little Tern breeding colonies. The loss of sand cliffs has decimated the sand martins soft cliff nesting areas and those of fulmars that nest on the higher cliffs. The loss of dune habitat has severely hit nightjars, adders, skylarks, natterjack toads, grass snakes, lizards and many other species, whilst the sea life has been enormously reduced since offshore dredging commenced.

If whole villages and properties are to be sacrificed to the needs of profitable industry and government fiscal plans, poorly disguised and claimed to be for the good of the national interest, then it is incumbent on the nation to recompense those affected. The SMP is decidedly unsustainable and lacks social and moral scrupulousness.

In addition to the major loss of coastal material, added to by the impacts of Global Warming, a further cause is that coastal defences have been long underfunded and have been allowed to decay over a time when dredging continues unabated, when global warming is escalating and unpreventable tectonic sinkage of East Anglia goes on. All of these factors add directly to effective and apparent sea rise and coastal loss. Yet money has been switched from coastal defences to fluvial flooding areas to protect the interests of the major builders of new housing built on flood plains. From a total Flood and Coastal Defence Budget of £570 million, only £47 million (8.25%) is shared between 75 maritime authorities. It is therefore not surprising that locally funded sea defences are crumbling from lack of maintenance, this through the lack of funding, and that the causes of erosion and general coastal loss dominate the scene.

In 1938 and again in 1953 serious flooding and loss of life came to East Anglia when a tidal surge overwhelmed coastal defences that, despite warnings, had not been maintained. The consequent economic loss alone was far greater than the sum required to keep the marine defences in good order. The risk of a repeat of marine inundation, but of an even higher level, is now greater than ever.

The Norfolk coast is rich in historical and cultural heritage. It supports a major tourist and holiday industry, a precious wetland system, a valued natural habitat, numerous vital wildlife sites and the remains of a previously thriving (prior to offshore dredging) fishing industry. These are by far the main source of external income for the area. The projected current SMP will destroy this dependency, as habitats, beaches and accommodation will disappear. The Broads and tidal rivers will become salinated, valuable agricultural land destroyed and many low lying inland villages lost to the sea. The economic cost of losing all this is far greater than the cost of stopping the fundamental cause of the damage and the provision of essential protection as provided in coastal Europe. The true and real cost to the community has not been addressed by the SMP. Where it was provided, serious misinformation was supplied.

A typical example of this was the coastal village of Overstrand in North Norfolk, where the report claimed the value of the property due to be lost would be £7.7m and that the cost of defences would come to £8.6m. But the local action group brought in their own expertise in the form of independent consultants and evaluators in accountancy, economics, science and the environment, who calculated the loss to be £89.5m and the cost of defence £4.5m, totally reversing the 'findings' of the SMP that recommended the abandonment of the sea defences and a policy of 'managed retreat'.

Major flaws were also noted in the coastal morphology in that the SMP claimed that defending the village was making it a promontory, stopping 70% of the sediment flow needed to supply beaches further along the coast. Independent research proved that the vast majority of sand movement happened further offshore, so evidencing that it would not be affected as claimed. The independent report also showed that rapid collapse of the local cliffs would muddy the shoreline waters and further damage fish spawning grounds.

This show how the Sea Palling defensive rock protection reefs out to sea has allowed the capture of sand opposite the bunds, but has denuded the beach right up to the concrete sea wall at the shoreline where there are gaps between the reefs.

The SMP assumes that only the highly costly sea walls currently at some £9,000 per metre is the relative cost reference basis, when far less costly methodology could and should be considered. Even at the times of the Saxons, Romans and later Normans East Anglia was growing as large areas were being reclaimed from the sea by proven technologies. These are not outdated methodologies. Alternative sea defence measures that have been successfully employed for over well over a thousand years have not been explored in sufficient detail, whilst at the same time more modern proven methods of coastline stabilisation have been similarly ignored. The many viable and functional groyne systems that maintained our coastline in balance for hundreds of years seem to have been forgotten.

If the decision to forego ones property and livelihood were seen as being for the general good and long term benefit as suggested and proposed by the SMP, the plan might be seen as acceptable. But in the present highly myopic form it can only be seen as a means of further exploitation of the vulnerable coastal community and the wider environment all for the gain of vested powerful interests. It is seen by the vast majority of those who would suffer the consequences as being unfair, unbalanced, morally corrupt, lacking in equity, socially unacceptable, lacking the basic principles of justice, unethical, indiscriminate, and invoking of Article 8 of the 1st Protocol and Article 14 of the Bill of Human Rights. The Shoreline Management Plan fails to address the issues of Environmental Impact, Social Justice, Cultural Heritage and Natural Process and is thus patently unsustainable. Indeed, far from solving the problems it greatly increases them along with the huge financial burden it will undoubtedly impose upon future generations.

Above all, it fails to address the main cause of the problem. The obvious first thing to do is to stop the prime cause of the erosion, that of the exploitation of the millions of tonnes of sand and gravel that serve to keep the coastline in balance. But even if this were terminated today, we would still see severe erosive loss of our coastline and further destruction of the marine eco-system for at least the next ten years whilst the imbalance is equated.

Cartoon taken from the Eastern Daily Press

Pat Gowen, 30th May 2005

North Norfolk District Council- Shoreline Management Plan Position Statement

We accept the basic integrity of the technical analysis of the coastal processes within the prescribed parameters set by DEFRA, with the exception of the huge uncertainty of the impact of offshore dredging.

However, we cannot accept the application of the technical analysis to the proposed SMP ie, the principle of managed realignment in the absence of consideration of the human, social and economic consequences for the coastal zone and inland communities.

Furthermore, we cannot accept the total lack of social justice caused by a fumdamental change of policy, from "hold the line" to retreat.

To address the current shortcomings, we believe the following actions need to be undertaken:

1. a detailed analysis of the impact of the large-scale and long-term offshore dredging as currently practised.
2. a full and professional cost analysis of what is at risk if the plan were to be implemented, specifically to include infrastructure, assets and economic activity.
3. a comparison of (b) with the cost of appropriate defence strategies - ie soft and hard solutions.
4. the development of a compensation scheme to remove the potential for blight by ensuring social justice and maintaining confidence in our coastal communities and in the local economy.

To allow (a-d) to be undertaken, we believe it is essential that

• the further application of the draft SMP is suspended pending the outcome of the various studies.
• suitable measures must be taken to address those locations at immediate risk of erosion.

Campaigners 'pushing back' defence plan

from the Eastern Daily Press of 13th December 2005 by Richard Batson

Coastal campaigners feel they are turning the tide against plans to abandon sea defences along Norfolk's holiday shores.

A string of seaside communities have been up in arms after a new Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) suggested abandoning all but a handful of major resorts to the mercy of the waves. Even established holiday villages like Overstrand and Mundesley faced losing the defences installed in Victorian times, under the controversial blueprint, which advocates a more natural "managed retreat".

But campaigners in North Norfolk say adding human and social costs to the bare property values in a funding formula changes the picture - and justifies spending cash on defences. And they add that the proposed shoreline plan also has to be looked at again because it breaks the Government's own policies encouraging sustainability.

District council deputy leader Clive Stockton said the SMP's figures reckoned that every £1 spent on sea defences saved only 60p worth of property - making it unjustifiable. But the council had redone the sums, adding on costs to the economy such as tourism, roads, farming and heritage. It then looked at intangible elements, including health and community togetherness. Combined, they brought the figure up to £16 worth of benefit for every £1 spent, making defences justifiable.

"We know it is a best-case scenario, but it takes account of social justice as well as technical matters, and the difference is staggering," said Mr Stockton.

The SMP covers a stretch from Kelling to Lowestoft, and even its basic figures say £250m worth of property would be lost in the next 100 years under managed retreat. Only built-up resorts like Sheringham, Cromer and Yarmouth would continue to be protected, while the holiday village area of Bacton, Walcott and Ostend faced the biggest loss, totalling £65m.

But Mr Stockton said the SMP's idea of protecting some places and abandoning others drove a coach and horses through the Government's own UK Sustainable Development Strategy. "It leaves a series of promontories and bays, which are not sustainable. The erosion rate at Happisburgh has increased 10 times to 10 metres a year - because we are currently between two defended areas," added Mr Stockton, who owns a pub in the village.

The SMP is still under review by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, which was analysing feedback from the public consultation. Results were due back in October but may be taking longer than expected because 2600 letters of objection flooded in from East Anglia.

It left North Norfolk "in limbo", added Mr Stockton, but a study was also being carried out looking at some of the "nitty gritty" social issues in the communities affected.

There were signs that the Government was listening to the points raised by North Norfolk because a review of an overall coastal strategy called Making Space for Water was now looking at social justice and wider costs - thanks to public pressure which was "making a difference".

He is due to visit a national strategy meeting in February.