| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8 Mar 2005 : Column 433WH—continued
Shoreline Management (Norfolk)
4.30 pm
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD): I am very pleased to raise an issue of great concern to people in my constituency. I am also pleased to see the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) in the Chamber. We have worked together on the issue, and I think that our views on it are similar.
The draft shoreline management plan has hit coastal communities in north Norfolk like a bombshell. Some of the people most directly affected are present today. They feel strongly about the issue and its impact on their futures and livelihoods. I hope that the Minister will also take their concerns seriously and understand why they feel as strongly as they do.
My purpose today is to inform the Minister of the local reaction to the draft plan, which has been prepared in accordance with his Department's approach as outlined in the consultation document "Making Space For Water". As the Minister will know, we are in the middle of our own consultation process on the draft plan. It is fair to say that there is great public cynicism these days about the process of consultation. Most people assume that decisions have already been taken and that whatever the reaction to such a consultation exercise, it will make no difference. My first question to the Minister is therefore whether he will listen to what we are saying and act on the genuine and serious challenges that we are making to the proposals.
It is important to make a few things clear. I do not claim to speak as an expert on coastal erosion and I do not claim fully to understand, for example, the impact of offshore dredging. However, I speak on behalf of a number of coastal communities who feel deeply disturbed by a change in approach that threatens their homes, their security and in some cases everything that they have ever worked for.
I accept and understand that the management of the coastline is a massive challenge for any Government. I can remember walking along the cliff top in the mid-1990s with the then Conservative Minister. The district council was putting forward a proposal for a defence scheme for Happisburgh and seeking grant aid from the Government. The money was not forthcoming and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food stated as its policy that
"to attempt to protect every inch of coastline from change would not only be uneconomic but would work against the dynamic processes that determine the coastline and could have an adverse effect elsewhere and on the natural environment."
That was the Government's position in 1993.
I also understand that erosion of the coast has been going on for centuries. Many lost villages along the coast of East Anglia bear testament to that. None the less, people want their homes and communities protected. That is their main wish and top priority.
I am also aware of the potential impact of climate change. We are told that the country is tilting, with the east coast dropping by a millimetre or two every year. With climate change causing sea levels to rise by 4 or 5 mm a year, the combined effect is that the sea level is rising by about 6 mm a year. Given that much of north and east Norfolk is close to sea level, the potential implications are clear for everyone to see.
8 Mar 2005 : Column 434WH
We do not approach the subject seeking to deny clear and stark facts. But we demand that people are treated fairly and in accordance with the principles of social justice. I want to demonstrate to the Minister the immediate impact of the publication of the draft plan. The plan, as he will know, contains maps, which are already inaccurate because of the rate at which erosion is changing the contour of the coastline. Those maps show clearly properties that are expected to be lost to the sea within specified periods of time. Without the plan's even having been approved, there has been an immediate and significant impact on property values, particularly in certain locations, on the saleability of property and on people's ability to secure a mortgage and to obtain insurance.
However, the impact goes well beyond the properties shown to be at risk on the shoreline management plans. Predicting the rate of erosion is a notoriously inexact science, as the Minister will recognise. For example, a plan drawn up for Happisburgh in 1992 by Halcrow, which is now responsible for the shoreline management plan, showed a line where the coast would be in 60 years' time. We overtook that line in 2004, after just 12 years—an inaccuracy factor of five. The uncertainty that results from the inexact nature of the science means that the plans have blighted far more properties than might be imagined. Just last weekend, I heard about a property situated a mile from the coast that had lost 25 per cent. of its value. It is in no realistic danger for a considerable time, but it is suffering the real effect on property values.
Let me read from a letter from a constituent, who makes the point very well:
"just over two years ago. Because of my wife's ill health we decided to move from our current period property to a bungalow which would be easier for her to manage. We received and accepted an offer for our property in the middle of January and had an offer for a bungalow accepted. The moving process was well under way and we anticipated completion by the middle of March. Last week, our buyer pulled out because of the present uncertainty regarding the future of Overstrand. They were very keen to move to Overstrand and they had registered their children at the local school".
That is an example of the impact of the proposed shoreline management plan on two families. It is having a devastating effect and must not be allowed to go forward.
In the past few weeks, we have held public meetings in Happisburgh, Bacton, Mundesley and Overstrand. About 1,000 people have attended, at very short notice. That number in itself demonstrates the strength of feeling on the issue. People have told me of their circumstances both at those meetings and by letter. How does the Minister respond to people who have purchased property in the past few years, when the official policy was to hold the line, to defend the coastline? They are likely to have bought with the benefit of a mortgage, and could suddenly be plunged into negative equity. They will be left paying off their mortgages in the knowledge that there will be little or no capital asset left when they have finished paying.
The situation has been described as "a creeping paralysis" by Clive Stockton, deputy leader of the district council and a business owner in the village of Happisburgh, who is here today. His business is a pub,
8 Mar 2005 : Column 435WH
which is profitable and successful. He has now had it valued at less than half what it cost to buy 14 years ago. That illustrates the real and current impact of the plan. I challenge the Minister to tell us whether he believes that it is socially just that a generation of people who happen to own properties in the affected villages could lose everything as a result of the Government's decision that it is too expensive to defend the coastline. What is disturbing is the absence of any indication that the Government recognise the human cost of effectively abandoning stretches of coastline.
I want to consider the matter of compensation. I understand that in France there is a compensation scheme called, in a typically French way, a solidarity fund. The Minister will be aware that I have written to him about compensation. When he wrote back to me on 16 November 2004, he confirmed that there were "no current plans" to introduce a compensation scheme, and that there was "nothing to discuss". However, I have spoken to civil servants in his Department who tell me that the matter is being considered. In his letter, the Minister did, perhaps, hint at the possibility of some movement, when he recognised that the issue was "of great interest", and that the Government would consider
in the Government response to the consultation "Making Space For Water".
The introduction of the compensation scheme would immediately address the problem of blight. Our suggestion is that payment is made at the point when the property is lost to the sea, and that it is based on the value of that property without the problem of erosion. I recognise that such a scheme must be carefully designed, and I understand that any Government must be careful about open-ended commitments, but the case for such a scheme is overwhelming. It would immediately address the problem of blight described in the letter that I read to the Minister, because it would give people renewed confidence to buy into these communities. Purchasers would know that their investment was safe. What hope can the Minister give those communities that do not have such a scheme?
Importantly, the scheme would also have another very beneficial effect. At the moment, a decision to abandon a stretch of coastline is a no-cost option for any Government, so it looks very attractive. A compensation scheme would force any Government to judge more effectively whether to abandon the coastline or to defend it. They would have to balance the cost of compensation against the cost of defence.
I therefore directly challenge the Minister on this crucial subject. Does he accept that the principle of compensation is being discussed in his Department? Does he acknowledge that the publication of the shoreline management plan has now made this an urgent and pressing issue, because of its immediate impact on communities? Does he also accept the real and serious risk of blight in coastal communities unless the Government act?
Two other issues have not been adequately dealt with in the draft shoreline management plan—the impact of dredging, and the basis on which we establish the total cost of what is at risk if coastal erosion is not controlled.
8 Mar 2005 : Column 436WH
Extraordinarily, given its implications, the draft shoreline management plan says little about dredging. It states:
That is all it says, but at least it acknowledges that the impact is uncertain. I become very frustrated when I hear the dogmatic assertion that dredging has no effect on the rate of erosion.
I pay tribute to Malcolm Kerby of the coastal concern action group, who is in the Chamber today. He has put body and soul into representing the interests of these communities, and does it very responsibly. He and I, and Peter Frew from North Norfolk district council, travelled to Brussels some time ago to meet Stefan Lombardo, who was head of the research project Eurosion, which is funded by the European Commission. He made it clear that offshore dredging could increase the rate of erosion. One must examine each case to determine the potential impact. Furthermore, he made it clear that he was not satisfied that the process of environmental impact assessments in applications for dredging licences was robust enough. The precautionary principle must be applied.
The problem is that substantial sums of money are made from dredging. In 2002 alone, the Crown estate received £5.2 million, which is 40 per cent. of its total income from the whole country, from marine minerals dredging off the Norfolk coast alone. The construction industry inevitably demands ever-increasing volumes of aggregate to meet, apart from anything else, the Government's own building plans.
When the Minister replied to a parliamentary question from me back in January 2004, he confirmed that research was under way on the impact of dredging. Will he provide any more information on the outcome of that research? I know that research has been done, but what about the research that he said was under way last year?
Many people argue that until we have a greater understanding of the impact of dredging, there should be a moratorium on dredging anywhere close to the coast. There must surely at least be a case for tougher assessment of new licence applications. Alternatively, there is surely a case for some of the revenues raised from dredging to be used for defending our coastline, or for building up a compensation fund.
The draft shoreline management plan presents a false picture of the real cost of doing nothing. Appendix H.3.1.1 states that
"losses and benefits have been calculated only on the basis of residential and commercial property values. Other assets, such as utilities, and highways, and intangibles such as recreation, impacts on the local economy or environment, have not been valued or included".
That makes nonsense of the whole plan. Surely, before taking decisions on how to progress with something so fundamental, which affects so many people's lives, we should have a clear understanding of the full cost and of the impact on the Norfolk broads, tourism, relocation of communities and our precious heritage.
It is ludicrous that a decision of the district council to refuse an application for planning permission in a place close to the cliff edge where it is ludicrous to build new properties can be overturned on appeal by Government
8 Mar 2005 : Column 437WH
inspectors. I accept that that is not the responsibility of the Minister's Department, but it is a failure of joined-up government.
The draft shoreline management plan is fatally flawed. It touches on the crucial issue of dredging in one sentence, but reaches no conclusion; it says nothing about the real social and economic impact of abandoning the coastline; it cannot address compensation because that would require Government action; and it fails properly to identify the full cost of doing nothing. Unless and until those crucial issues are addressed, the plan will be overwhelmingly rejected by local people and, no doubt, by members of North Norfolk district council.
Finally, I repeat my request to the Minister to meet local people. Will he meet them, preferably in Norfolk but, if not, here? This matter is crucial to them, and they deserve the chance to tell him their views directly, as well as having me represent them and put forward their views.
4.46 pm
Mr. Anthony D. Wright (Great Yarmouth) (Lab) rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam) : I take it that the hon. Gentleman has the permission of both the Member who secured the debate and the Minister?
Mr. Wright : Yes. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall be brief because I respect the fact that this is the debate of the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb); I simply want to make a few pertinent points. The hon. Gentleman has made all his points admirably and I agree with many of them.
As far as the coastline is concerned, my responsibility for my constituents is from Winterton down to Hopton. Some issues affecting that area may be different to those raised by the hon. Gentleman, but I want to raise one or two relevant issues with the Minister, some of which have been touched on. The first such issue has been raised by my constituents. Responsibility for different parts of the coastline falls to different agencies. In one area in Winterton, it is probable that Great Yarmouth district council is responsible for one part and the Environment Agency for another. We should consider making one agency responsible for the whole coastline.
Property blight, on which the hon. Gentleman touched, will probably affect many areas along the coastline. There is also the issue of planning blight. Most planning legislation looks only 20 years ahead. Development is already under way in areas that could be lost. What should we tell people when issuing land searches?
Important wildlife habitats could be under threat should the shoreline management plan go ahead. We have limited or no resources to fund coastal defence work through the borough council strategy. New sea walls would cost around £10,000 a metre; one groyne would cost around £30,000. Are more resources available? Is there a relationship with offshore dredging? The report says conclusively that there is no scientific
8 Mar 2005 : Column 438WH
evidence; I call again for the immediate cessation of at least the export of aggregates, which would reduce the need for dredging by 40 per cent.
The SMPs were prepared using guidance and methodology provided by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Perhaps that is why issues such as social justice are not considered. In nature's terms, the coastline is totally interrelated; what is taken from one part must affect another. If North Norfolk district council invests in defences and we further south do not, the coastline lower down will suffer accelerated erosion.
Will the Minister consider our proposal for an underwriting scheme under which the Government may pay the market value for properties that are lost? That would enable them to withdraw from sea defence expenditure in certain areas without punishing those who live in affected areas. Will they take control of all coastal protection issues in order to give consistency, put resources in place and deal with defence?
I shall end now as I realise that the hon. Member for North Norfolk needs to receive a response. I simply wanted to put my points forward as the MP for a constituency with a substantial amount of coastline.
4.49 pm
The Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment (Mr. Elliot Morley) : I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on securing the debate. He has written to me on several occasions and I am aware of local residents' concern. I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman about many of the points that he raised. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) has also been very active on behalf of his constituents, and has written in similar vein.
I want to respond by setting out the strategy in context. There has been some misinformation on the issue and people have been misled. Also, many people want to look for simplistic solutions when the situation involving coastal dynamics is complex.
The hon. Member for North Norfolk will know that the Government have provided major increases in investment for the funding of flood and coastal erosion risk management in recent years. That is set to continue in the next three-year spending period. However, we cannot mislead people and suggest that we can defend every inch of the coastline. I know that the hon. Gentleman was being very reasonable and realistic about that in the case that he made.
The issue is not just finance but sustainability, technical solutions and what will work. My understanding is that the original shoreline plan, even where it currently recommends holding the line, was arrived at by overruling the expert engineers and consultants. They advised local authorities at that time that the defences were not sustainable and would not withstand the coastal movement and dynamics that were involved. They have been proved right.
8 Mar 2005 : Column 439WH
Norman Lamb : Will the Minister at least accept that it is reasonable for local people to work on the basis of what the shoreline management plan said? Whether or not it was made by overruling experts, it was the plan that local people worked on.
Mr. Morley : I accept that local people would not have been aware that expert advice was overruled on the basis of a very similar argument to the one being made in the current round of consultations. I also want to make it clear that the Government are committed to social justice, given the increasing risks connected to climate change and development. However, we must set priorities for who gets schemes first, on the basis of need. We have tried to operate them in an open and transparent way, through such things as a priority scoring system, so that people can see their position on the list and why the scores have been set as they have. That is new, and we have done it so that we can be open and honest with people, and not mislead them.
DEFRA encourages operating authorities to take a strategic approach to flood and coastal defence problems. As part of that, it has indeed issued guidance for coastal defence authorities, to assist with the preparation of shoreline management plans. Those plans are designed to enable a strategic approach to be taken to flood and coastal defence works along the coastline, based on the detailed understanding of its natural processes, planning issues, current and future land use, defence needs and environmental considerations. All the points that the hon. Gentleman raised about infrastructure and the Norfolk broads are taken into account in relation to shoreline management plans.
The draft SMP for north Norfolk is one of three to be used to carry out a trial of guidance for the second generation of SMPs; the aim is to provide a large-scale assessment of the risks associated with coastal processes and present a policy framework for reducing risks to people and the developed, historical and natural environment, in a sustainable manner. Those are the very points that the hon. Gentleman raised.
The draft was published in December last year and people living in North Norfolk, Great Yarmouth and Waveney are being asked for their views on how the coastline from Kelling to Lowestoft Ness should be managed. The consultation ends on 31 March. The work is funded by DEFRA and is the culmination of two years' work by engineering consultants who have been appointed by, and work for, North Norfolk district council, Great Yarmouth borough council, Waveney district council, the Environment Agency, English Nature and Great Yarmouth port authority. They engage experts and consider the coastal dynamics.
The draft SMP has, of course, not been completed. It has not been sent to DEFRA for agreement. That happens at the end of the process. I have not seen the details of the shoreline management plan. I am not involved in such matters, nor should I be. It is a locally-led process and it should be based on local consultation. The hon. Gentleman raised many points. If there were errors in the plan, the consultation process is the right way in which to deal with such matters and to bring about amendments. He asked me to meet residents, but that would be a pointless exercise. I am interested in people's views, and he knows that I read his letters
8 Mar 2005 : Column 440WH
in great detail, but there is nothing that I can input into the shoreline management plan because it is determined locally. I will not see the final plan until it is complete and sent to me. People are being misled if they think that, by lobbying me, the plan will change.
Norman Lamb : But the Minister knows that, even under his existing priority scoring scheme, there is no chance of the communities having a scheme that will meet the criteria to obtain funding. It is nonsense to suggest that there is any possibility of their obtaining funding from DEFRA. The process is being driven by DEFRA. The Minister has already said that the new shoreline management plan is being prepared on the basis of guidance from his Department and in accordance with "Making Space for Water", which was issued last October. He cannot opt out of it.
Mr. Morley : I repeat that I have no input into the shoreline management plan. Each one has to be designed to take into account local circumstances and needs, and that is right and proper. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's argument. There are communities that think that they are facing immediate threat, but which may not face a threat for 50 or 60 years. At present, the scheme could cost millions and defend houses in single figures, but in 50 years the cost-benefit analysis and the scoring system may have changed. It is likely that there will be several revisions of the shoreline management plan during that time. So it is wrong therefore for people to think that they are immediately under threat, that the shoreline management plan will be the only shoreline management plan and that there will not be changes in the future. It is true that some people may be more immediately affected than others, but we must recognise that those are the circumstances of the case.
As for assistance to communities—my time is short, so I must be quick—I confirm that there are no current plans for compensation. The present arrangements have been the same for all Governments. I note that that is also Liberal Democrat policy. It is certainly the Conservative party's policy, although we are in a pre-election period and I very much fear that some people will make all sorts of false and unsustainable promises. I am trying to be honest about such matters.
As for our plan, we recognise the impact on communities so we are considering issues further with a view to clarifying future policy and its implications. We hope to publish a formal response soon to the points that have been made on such issues as part of the consultation on "Making Space for Water". Compensation is one of several different approaches to help individuals and communities adapt to change. However, there has never been a compensation scheme in this country, given that we provide coastal defences under permissive powers. The implications are not only for Norfolk. If a scheme is introduced, it will apply throughout the country. We must then ask ourselves whether it should be applied to flood victims or people who have already lost their homes to coastal erosion. It is difficult.
I am always open to evidence that aggregate dredging is a problem. We insist that a coastal impact study is carried out to provide information on a scheme to make sure that proposed dredging is far enough off shore to
8 Mar 2005 : Column 441WH
ensure that there is no beach draw-down into deepened areas. There has not been evidence that offshore dredging has caused coastal erosion. We keep an open mind on such matters. We look for such evidence, but those people who say that it does cause coastal erosion have an obligation to bring forward the evidence. None has been forthcoming from any source, including the
8 Mar 2005 : Column 442WH
European Union source that was mentioned. No criticism has been made of the environmental impact assessment study that is applied in such cases. I regret that my time is coming to a close. The hon. Member for North Norfolk might wish to raise other points with me as a result of the debate and I shall be only too pleased to answer them in further detail.
| Index | Home Page |