Memorandum submitted by Chris Blunkell
(FL 160)
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
I am a communications advisor and writer, working
extensively with central government and academic organisations
in recent years. In July 2007 Iinitiated and designeda collective
consultation response to the draft Shoreline Management Plan for
North Kent on behalf of my community, and am now pursuing ideas
for improving the quality of public engagement in regional decision-making.
SUMMARY OF
EVIDENCE TO
FLOOD INQUIRY
— Government should be applauded for
exercising foresight with regard to the possible impacts of climate
change, and I have no issue with Shoreline Management Planning
(SMP) in principle. However, current policy, and my experience
of its application, suggest that it is unlikely to succeed in
its objectives and satisfy principles of governance and sustainable
development.
— SMP is a dense and fluid policy area
involving many players and agendas, which places an onus on the
consulter to properly educate consultees as part of the consultation
process. Procedural guidance advocates a participatory approach
for shoreline management, with arguments made for coastal communities
discussing their futures with relevant officers prior to SMPs
being commissioned.
— This has not been my experience in
the case of Faversham Road where, despite the valued support and
advice of local authority officers, poor process has been mitigated
substantially by the efforts of private individuals at their own
cost.
— There is evidence that operating
authorities as well as communities stand to benefit from structured,
properly-funded, and wide-ranging exercises in public participation
with the aim of developing strategic futures. Such exercises should
encourage imaginative approaches from all quarters, and rule out
no solutions in advance.
— As it stands, the SMP policy places
a significant burden on those affected by decisions to pursue
managed realignment resulting in the loss of sea defences. Rectifying
this requires policy and recommendations to contain mechanisms
for compensating in full those affected by, for example, loss
of property.
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT
PLANNING IN
NORTH KENT
CHRIS BLUNKELL,
FAVERSHAM ROAD
RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION
1. Since July 2007 I have campaigned on
behalf of local people for changes to the recommendations to the
Shoreline Management Plan for North Kent (SMP) as it applies to
our stretch of coastline. This submission offer some thoughts
on issues of policy making and governance, and underlines the
importance of public engagement in contentious issues such as
this.
Faversham Road and its people
2. The SMP policy recommendation that affects
the community represented by the Faversham Road Residents Association
runs along the Thames estuary from Faversham Creek at the western
end to the Blue Anchor, Seasalter, at the eastern end. The majority
of land—that to the west of the Sportsman—is uninhabited.
That between the Sportsman and the Blue Anchor—with beach
to the front and marshland to the rear is occupied—by permanent
residents, holiday home owners, and a small minority that falls
in between the two groups. A significant proportion of these people
have enduring roots in the area, but whilst this attachment runs
deep, it is not blind. People are conscious of a flood risk (although
they may not agree with the authorities on its severity), and
some have suffered floods. But, as one local has put it on making
the decision to buy there: "we understood the risks of flooding
but felt the benefits outweighed the drawbacks and accepted the
risks".
3. A summary of the draft Shoreline Management
Plan for North Kent was received by residents on 9 July 2007.
To paraphrase, we were told that the South East coastal group,
recommended " . . . a policy of `managed realignment' for
our stretch of shoreline, and that possibly in as little as 20
years time the maintenance of existing defences would cease and
a new defence line constructed inland". We were told that
our homes were likely to be lost in the process, with no prospect
of being compensated as things stood.
4. Faversham Road residents applaud the
government for exercising foresight with regard to the possible
impacts of climate change, and have no issue with Shoreline Management
Planning in principle. However, we believe that in its current
form the policy is unjust—placing a significant burden on
those affected by decisions to pursue managed realignment—and
contrary to accepted international, national and regional principles
of governance and sustainable development.
5. We believe that in this case the draft
plan:
— failed to acknowledge the importance
of this stretch of coastline and marshland to people who live
in and visit the area;
— failed to recognise the true historical,
cultural and economic importance of the area; and
— threatened the well-being of people
who are resident, and who own property and businesses in Faversham
Road.
6. These failures in this case, we believe,
were predicated on weak processes, patchy use of data and analysis,
and insufficient adherence to procedural and other guidance and
advice in developing the plans recommendations. And we consider
the policy of SMP itself to be deficit-based, unjust, narrow,
and contrary to agreed principles of international, national and
regional governance.
SMP—the planning process
7. Defra procedural guidance stresses that
plans do not: " . . . set policy for anything other than
coastal defence management (although) development of the plan
cannot be carried out in isolation". (Defra 2006:11) The
draft plan itself expanded upon this line, explaining that Defra
recommends compliance with guidance in the shape of Directive
2001/42 EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, "
. . . which is intended to ensure that environmental considerations
are taken into account alongside other economic and social considerations".
(Defra 2006:8). Given that it failed to raise the issue of the
"real-life" economic and social impacts on residents
materially affected by the change of policy, we did not believe
the plan satisfied the spirit of this directive.
Data and analysis
8. Procedural guidance for SMP explains
that it: "needs to consider people, natural historic and
socio-economic realities" (Defra 2006: 12), and that "
. . . key requirements are for the decision-making process to
be robust; transparent and auditable ... The requirement for auditability
requires ... that recommendations are traceable back to source
information". (Defra 2006: 13) To this end, the guidance
continues: "The SMP should seek to maximise the use of existing
information, assessments and knowledge" and that "any
additional information gathering is conducted prior to commencing
SMP development." (Defra 2006: 14) Whilst the draft plan
arguably satisfied the guidance with regard to technical matters
(despite omissions and inconsistencies to which we will return),
it was our view that it failed with regard to issues concerning
people, natural historic and social-economic realities. Whilst
some residents understood the argument of sacrificing the area
for the greater good should it be required, the majority of residents
felt that the plan undervalued Faversham Road and its environs
culturally, historically and economically.
9. As well as sacrificing unique and hitherto
protected marshland, residents believed the loss of this area—including
what one described as "a pioneering group of buildings unique
in Kent" would deprive the area—heavily reliant on
tourism—of an important part of its appeal. But in the absence
of figures to support the plan's conclusion that such activity—both
current and potential—is inconsequential, it was hard to
avoid the conclusion that "rural = expendable" is considered
analysis enough by decision-makers.
Climate change and risk assessment
10. Residents acknowledge that the International
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is broadly agreed that climate
change is happening and on the nature of its likely effects. However,
there have also been calls from noteworthy sources for caution
in predicting both the extent and timing of those effects, and
in making social policy around such predictions. Parsons et
al point to substantial errors in loss prediction undertaken
by this SMP's consultant Halcrow in North Norfolk, and SMPs undertaken
for South Foreland to Beachy Head, and Beachy head to Selsey Bill.
Lowe (2005:2) points out uncertainties associated with climate
modelling.
11. Our response also drew attention to
the fact that no notice has been given to the knowledge and experience
of the people who have lived here and observed conditions on a
day-to-day basis—in some cases for several decades. If,
as we suggested, the plan has failed to take into account the
testimony of local people in its assessment of, for example, tidal
activity and its impacts, then we really cannot commend its analysis
as being properly evidence-based.
12. To conclude on this point, residents
no not argue that the operating authority was necessarily wrong
in its use of data, simply that there is an element of contestability
in forecasts and other perspectives to consider, and that due
caution should be exercised when imposing policy that has such
severe implications. To quote one academic, "Identifying
the middle ground—the point at which risk mitigation is
both precautionary and acceptable, appears to be the challenge
for actors from all sectors who are aware of the potential for
change but are also wary of overstepping the boundaries of what
is deemed `acceptable'." (Lowe 2005:3)
13. Accordingly, our collective response
to the plan recommended:
— An amendment of the "hold the
line policy" from 20 years to 50 years between The Sportsman
and the Blue Anchor.
— That, as previously agreed, funds
should be released for sea defence and beach maintenance work
at Faversham Road.
Policy, principles and governance
14. Although we are now hopeful that at
least some of our recommendations will be accepted as part of
the final SMP, due for ratification in 2008, the plan will contain
no consideration of forms of compensation for those who stand
to lose by it over time. Although we accept that the blight we
feared will probably not now materialise in the same way—at
least not for now—others will not be so fortunate as the
same process unfolds elsewhere. As things stand, a single generation
of residents is expected to shoulder the burden of any loss for
the public good—a point eloquently made by Malcolm Kerby
of the Coastal Concern Action Group.
15. He points out that Article 1 of the
First Protocol of the Human Rights Act (1998), which enshrines
the European Convention on Civil Rights into British Law, says
that people are entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.
Article 8 says that everyone has a right to his or her home and
that, certain caveats notwithstanding, there shall be no interference
by a public authority. Article 14 says that government has a duty
to prevent discrimination on any ground—including that of
property. I agree with his view that SMP as it stands does not
comply with the spirit of these articles.
16. Nor does SMP satisfy regional principles
for strategy-making and planning. The vision document, "Kent
People in Partnership for a Better Tomorrow", places great
stress on sustainable community strategies, and principles which:
"Integrate social, economic and environmental interests and
make progress on all three fronts together, not promoting one
at the expense of the other." (Kent Partnership 2006:6) The
document goes on to describe sustainable communities as being
"inclusive and safe", "well run—with effective
and inclusive participation, representation and leadership",
and "fair for everyone." By contrast, a recent study
by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research—"Living
with a changing coastline: Exploring new forms of governance for
sustainable coastal futures" (O'Riordan et al 2006:17)—finds:
"The Defra base of flooding and coastal management to be
too narrow a policy setting . . ."
17. Defra's own UK principles of sustainable
development (www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/what/principles.htm),
to which the UK government as a whole has signed up, says that
for a policy to be sustainable it must respect all of the following
five principles—reproduced here in abridged form.
(i) Living within environmental limits .
. .
(ii) Ensuring a strong, healthy & just
society: Meeting the diverse needs of all people . . . promoting
personal well-being, social cohesion and inclusion, and creating
equal opportunity for all.
(iii) Achieving a sustainable economy: Building
a strong, stable and sustainable economy . . . in which environmental
and social costs fall on those who impose them (Polluter Pays)
. . .
(iv) Using sound science responsibly: Ensuring
policy is developed and implemented on the basis of strong scientific
evidence, while taking into account scientific uncertainty (through
the Precautionary Principle) as well as public attitudes and values.
(v) Promoting good governance: Actively promoting
effective, participative systems of governance in all levels of
society—engaging people's creativity, energy and diversity.
18. Whilst it is clearly concerned for the
environment (principle 1), SMP positively avoids the question
of the well-being of those affected by managed realignment. The
principle of "the polluter pays" articulated in principle
3 also suggests that it should not be the victims of climate change
who pay the price for its effects—in our case the people
of Faversham Road—but the perpetrators. If that is all of
us, it is surely legitimate for those affected by the policy—itself
developed in response to forecasts of climate change driven by
pollution—to be compensated for any loss from the public
purse. Principle 4 invokes the "precautionary principle"—a
moral and political principle which states that if an action or
policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public,
in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue,
the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the
action.
19. So—the "precautionary principle"
not only makes unsafe any policy that will harm people, it
places the onus on the policy maker to demonstrate that the policy
is safe in this regard. By contrast, our experience is that
consultation has placed the onus on the community to demonstrate
that the policy is wrong.
Consultation and public engagement
20. Shoreline management is a complex and
fluid policy area, and that simply giving information to residents
and asking for coherent responses is wholly inadequate. I would
estimate that I have spent upward of 150 hours contesting the
North Kent SMP—time that I could, and should, have spent
supporting my family.
21. By contrast, SMP procedural guidance
(Defra 2006: 25) states: "A participatory approach for SMP
preparation is recommended. This will involve other bodies . .
. including, for example . . . community interests". Given
the gravity of the implications of the draft SMP for them, residents
were unimpressed with the operating authority's decision not to
involve them a) as participants, and b) given its decision to
consult, not to have done so more rigorously, and earlier in the
process. Although, residents were nominally represented in the
consultation process by a regional politician, they were surprised
not to have been approached for their views for this purpose early
in the proceedings and, given this concern, were dubious as to
how effectively their interests had been articulated and pursued.
Other local elected members also reported being in the dark over
the proposals until late in the day. Accordingly, we believe that
the draft SMP failed the Defra test of being "inclusive"
(Defra 2006: 26). Failure to link environmental rights to human
rights through appropriate consultation may also constitute a
breach of the Aarhus Convention, to which the UK is signatory.
22. Whilst residents are conscious of (and
grateful for) the efforts of local authority officers to provide
residents with information and guidance, we would observe that
these efforts were "discretionary" when what was really
required was a structured, formal and transparent process.
23. Instead, the consultation process has
bred mistrust and encouraged the belief that ulterior motives
are at play. Some believe that the area is to be sacrificed to
absorb the effects of sea defence work elsewhere, whilst others
are concerned that plans may be afoot to develop the area. Whatever
the rights or wrongs of such views, poor consultation practice
has left an "information void" that encourages negative
speculation and the view that consultation is a "tick box"
exercise rather than a genuine attempt to involve local people
in a decision of seminal importance to them.
24. Accordingly, our collective consultation
response made a third recommendation:
— A detailed commitment in the SMP
for the operating authority to partner residents, property owners
and business owners, and other stakeholders in developing a vision
for the area that covers issues of social justice and well-being
as well as environmental, historic and economic concerns.
Conclusion
25. SMP is unjust and must be changed. As
it stands, the policy asks those affected by recommendations of
realignment to shoulder its costs on behalf of society, and we
believe those affected are disadvantaged from the second that
recommendations are accepted. This offends the Human Rights Act,
and Defra's principles of sustainable development. A failure to
address this—and to demonstrate that it has been addressed—surely
sees the policy fail by the precautionary principle.
26. Rectifying this is perfectly simple.
First, SMP recommedations must contain mechanisms for compensating
people in full for any loss incurred as a consequence. Second,
SMP procedural guidance with regard to involving people in decision-making
must be followed, with operating authorities leading structured,
properly-funded, and wide-ranging exercises in public participation.
It is not enough to tell people that they are to lose their homes
without compensation, to tell them that if they want to challenge
recommendations they must do so on the basis of the data, and
then to simply give them a pen and a piece of paper.
Democracy in action?
27. If, as we hope, a revised recommendation
to "hold the line" for a minimum of 50 years is approved
for Faversham Road, one could argue that democracy has been served
and an acceptable solution found. By contrast, I would argue that
poor democratic practice and policy making have mitigated largely
by the efforts of private individuals at their own cost with the
encouragement and assistance of particularly diligent and helpful
local authority officers.
28. SMP procedural guidance (2006:25) recommends
a participatory approach involving community interests and Hutchinson
et al (2006:p.iv) argue for coastal communities discussing
their futures with officers of both operating authorities and
the local planning authority or regional planning body before
SMPs are commissioned. Such discussions, he says, requires long
and careful nurturing and for capacity-building to ensure participants
have a secure grounding in the issues.
29. I would go further. I want to see processes
involving residents, other stakeholders and local people and with
the aim of developing strategic futures. Such processes should
look at where people will live, and how. They should analyse the
economic, cultural, social and environmental potential of areas
under consideration—with a view to ensuring they are enjoyed
by all. Perhaps most important of all, such processes should aim
to free up the imagination of all those taking part, with no solution
ruled out. Issues of climate change should of course be a key
component, providing a great opportunity for authorities to educate
people on these issues, and to gain a clear idea of what people
want and are prepared to do towards that end.
30. Guidance on good participation/consultation
can be found in O'Riordan et al "Living with a changing
coastline: Exploring new forms of governance for sustainable coastal
futures" (2006:1) advocates " . . . improved dialogue
between the multitude of stakeholders who are affected by coastal
change" and that "It is apparent that social issues,
as well as economic and environmental matters need to be carefully
considered". It also offers a methodology for consultation
that appears to me to be thorough, manageable and—in stark
contrast to the deficit-based approach that seemed to characterise
the SMP as it applies to Faversham Road—places the development
of shared solutions at its centre.
Bibliography
Canterbury City Council. Canterbury District Local
Plan First Review. (July 2006).
Canterbury City Council & Environment Agency.
Coastal Defence Strategy Plan: Faversham Creek to Whitstable
Harbour, Summary Report. (2004).
Defra. www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/what/principles.htm.
Defra. Shoreline Management Plan Guidance Volume
2: Procedures. (2006).
Hulme, M, et al (2007). Limits and barriers
to adaptation: four propositions. (2007) Tyndall Centre for
Climate Change Research, Norwich.
Hutchinson et al (2006). Adapting to Changing
Coastlines and Rivers. Making Space for Water: Strand SD2 Taking
forward a new Government Strategy for flood and coastal erosion
risk management. Developing a Broader Portfolio of Options to
Deliver Flooding and Coastal Solutions. Executive Summary.
Kent County Council. Towards Kent 2010.
Kent Partnership. Kent People in Partnership for
a Better Tomorrow. (2006).
Kent Partnership. Kent Prospects 2007 to 2012.
(2007).
Lowe, T (2005). "Dangerous claims': Is the
way we perceive climate change leading to a precautionary approach
or an irrational response? Tyndall Centre for Climate Change
Research, Norwich.
McFarland, S. North Kent Shoreline Management
Plan; Potential implications for residents of Faversham Road,
Seasalter. (2007). Canterbury City Council.
O'Riordan, T, Watkinson, A, & Milligan, M. (2006)
Living with a changing coastline: Exploring new forms of governance
for sustainable coastal futures. Tyndall Centre for Climate
Change Research.
Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI). Human
Rights Act. (1998).
Parsons, A, Hutchison, J & Home, R. (2007). The
Adaptation Toolkit: Developing Sustainable Policy.
South East Coastal Group & Halcrow. Isle
of Grain to South Foreland Shoreline Management Plan Consultation
Draft. (2007).
South East Coastal Group. Isle of Grain to South
Foreland Shoreline Management Plan Consultation Draft summary.
(2007).
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Convention
on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making
and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention).
(1998).
Chris Blunkell
January 2008
| 
