EVIDENCE
OF WEST
SUSSEX COUNTY
COUNCIL
Need for Adequate Resources
The County Council is concerned about current
and future levels of expenditure by national government on this
issue. The vulnerability of the low-lying coast of West Sussex,
predicted increased storminess and relative sea level rises are
highlighted in the two shoreline management plans produced—the
implications in terms of future financial commitment must be carefully
assessed now—the coastline is heavily built-up and significant
communities cannot and would not wish to "retreat"—public
safety, property value, employment, historic heritage, tourism
potential and the desire of local people to maintain as far as
possible the communities and surroundings they are familiar with,
all point to the need to invest properly in defending the built
up areas.
Local authorities face a considerable on-going
financial burden—this must be tempered by high levels of
support from national government both for flood defence and coastal
protection, in terms of the total funding available to the County
area and the proportion of grant aid available for each scheme.
The West Sussex coast is a local, national and indeed international
asset.
The County Council has traditionally contributed
50 per cent of the local authority contribution to coastal protection—this
has been done in the spirit of partnership with the District Councils.
Public v Private Finance
The County Council hopes that national funding
will increase to meet all future coastal defence needs. However,
as costs rise and defence solutions become more difficult to implement
the impact on the tax payers and charge payer will rise. Whilst
some of the cost should be spread across the whole community a
review of financial responsibilities must be carried out to consider
the options for public and private financing of coastal defence.
At the moment there seems to be an assumption
that in some situations the cost of defence of built development
will be too high and therefore a retreat solution is the only
option (eg within the next 50-100 years). Whilst in some cases
such an approach may be logical and practical the community should
be allowed to decide. The facts should be presented to them regarding
the type of defence (if practical and safe) that would be required
to protect the current coastline and property; what the aesthetic,
recreation and other implications would be and what the cost,
in terms of capital and maintenance, would be. If it is clear
that there is a practical solution, but the public purse cannot
meet the cost, the local community should be given the option
of finding a mechanism to meet the shortfall through private funding
(professional advice should be given to assist them in their deliberations).
Such arrangements would be in addition to the current private
finance initiative which has yet to be used in this area.
Responsibilities and Coordination
The current mix of responsibilities can be made
to work. Sufficient time should be allowed to experiment with
the new arrangements of SMP's, Scheme Strategy Plans and local
and regional liaison groups to ensure that they do work.
To give some certainty to the success of the
approach responsibilities need to be tightened—at the moment
it relies too much on the good will of "interested and committed
authorities" to pull it together to make it work. Responsibility
to set up and operate coastal liaison groups should be clearly
defined. The agreed chairman must have sufficient power to operate
effectively. Regulations should be introduced to require the Environment
Agency and coastal authorities to work together, produce the appropriate
documentation and organise necessary joint studies/research within
a set period (supported by MAFF). The Environment Agency's financial
contribution to such work should be clearly defined. County Councils
should have full membership rights on such groups, particularly
when they make a significant financial contribution to coastal
defence.
Essential tools that must be seen as priorities
are:
(a) knowledge of inshore as well as off-shore
sediment movements (including fine sediment);
(b) a reliable, carefully recorded and monitored
tide gauge network to meet the needs of local scheme designers;
(c) detailed, up to date, publicly disseminated
flood risk maps at appropriate scales—showing the extent
and danger of risk;
(d) coastal/maritime archaeological sites
and monuments records.
The Role of the Local Authorities
The existing arrangements should be tightened
up and sufficient time given to prove they will work. The local
authorities should continue to play a prominent role in the process—they
have the local knowledge and, with their consultants, the expertise.
They are close to and represent the local communities who are
directly affected—they understand the priorities, local
concerns and the acceptability of alternative solutions. They
need to be allowed to present their local case for funding within
the regional and national context. They have local knowledge going
back in time; and they understand and have responsibility for
a number of related coastal management issues. They can take an
integrated approach. Local maintenance regimes are more effective
run by local authorities on the ground. A regional or central
single agency would be relatively remote and would not serve the
local need and interest as well.
The local authorities are best placed to identify
and represent the views of the local community, both through their
Members and direct dialogue with the public. The district councils
should continue to be responsible for coastal protection and the
EA's role on flood defence should be made as effective as possible.
Whatever the longer term arrangements there
must be a high degree of local community involvement/consultation
and accountability to local democracy and the local priorities
for assistance/finance for new schemes, maintenance or emergency
works must be given full weight.
If any proposals for a single agency come forward
for consideration in the future then it must be made explicit
how it would be financed and in particular exactly what the cost
would be to the local council tax payer and the County and District
Councils. It should be made clear what control the local authorities
would have on holding down or indeed increasing (if essential
works are wanted) the level of support (ie any precept). In particular,
would they be paying more or less than they pay out now for coastal
protection and flood defence for the same level of service? The
local authorities' potential level of representation on/consultation
by such an agency would also need to be clearly defined.
Powers
Unless there is proven scope for and potential
environmental benefits from "managed retreat" solutions
in open rural areas, the mechanisms to achieve a logical, coordinated,
environmentally friendly approach must be put in place.
Adequate compensation measures are required
for land that is to be lost.
Habitat creation/replacement must be based on
a structured, realistic, sub-regional strategy and there must
be mechanisms to ensure that the responsible authorities and landowners
cooperate to achieve well reasoned wildlife objectives.
Private landowners or harbour authorities that
may have legal responsibility for coastal protection (eg in Chichester
Harbour and Shoreham Port) must be controlled (and perhaps subsidised)
in their choice of protection solutions to achieve the broader
strategy.
Authorities must have powers over land to retreat
into or to create new/replacement habitats.
Greater recognition of and mechanisms for the
conservation and recording of the historic heritage of the coast
need to be built into the process.
Relationship with Land Use Development Plans
If shoreline management plans are to be implemented
they must be related to the statutory planning policies and decisions
on the location of new development in development plans—the
relationship/relative status of the two plans must be clarified
and the onus placed on the development plan process to ensure
that a practical, publicly agreed shoreline management approach
is achieved. More guidance is required on the potential wording
of appropriate policies to control development at the coast and
allow for appropriate retreat or defence structures.
Community involvement and public consultation
on all coastal protection and flood defence approaches needs to
be made mandatory and a clear methodology identified—citizens
forums may need to be formed which would be consulted on long,
medium and short term approaches and on individual schemes. The
development plan consultation process can play a part, but the
timescales and timing of the production of each plan review may
not always meet the particular needs of the coastal defence process.
Development Plans and Shoreline Management Plans
need to be linked by coastal zone management plans on all stretches
of coast—the production of such plans should receive financial
support from central government in the same way as shoreline management
plans.
Research Programme
There are a plethora of organisations, both
private and public, research programmes and data bases but our
overall knowledge is very scant. Responsibilities are still unclear,
access to much useful data is extremely difficult (eg Crown Estate/English
Nature/Mineral Dredging industry research) and the results of
much research are not widely disseminated. There is considerable
scope for duplication of effort and some key studies are not undertaken
because they seem to fall through the net. As well as its own
research programme, MAFF may need to direct that certain key studies
are undertaken or information gaps plugged, by other organisations
by providing a high proportion of the cost. It may need power
to direct that coastal groups (including the Environment Agency)
undertake specific studies, working jointly across a considerable
stretch of coast.
Monitoring
The County Council would welcome value for money
reports on the local coastal protection and flood defence programmes.
Aggregate Supplies
Impact assessments on mineral dredging licence
applications and subsequent monitoring of abstraction should be
conducted thoroughly. More research is required into the subject
and, in particular, the cumulative effects of dredging licences
in specific areas should be fully addressed. The issue of the
free market and free competition is recognised, but where it is
acceptable to dredge marine aggregate the needs of the coastal
defence of the UK should take precedence over foreign exports.
Marine aggregate is a finite resource.
16 April 1998
1 
