Questions in Parliament
Written answers to questions - Coastal and Flood Defence
Commons Hansard 10 Jan 2005 : Column 164W
**Norman Lamb:** To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will separate the budgets for coastal defence works from that for flood defence works. [206609]
**Mr. Morley:** The budgets are currently managed jointly as coastal processes affecting flood and erosion risks are hard to separate and such risks need to be managed together in many cases. We also see significant difficulties in separating budgets for river and sea flooding as all flood risks, including those arising in estuaries, need to be managed holistically and prioritised jointly. The Environment Agency, working though regional flood defence committees, leads in all flood risk management issues.
We have, however, recently consulted on a new Government strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk management in England, as part of which we are considering the future arrangements in coastal areas. We aim to publish a first response to this in spring 2005.
**Norman Lamb:** To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much will be allocated to the maritime authorities for costal defence projects in 2005–06. [206665]
**Mr. Morley:** The total allocation for grant and Supported Capital Expenditure (Revenue) for local authorities for 2005–06 is £47 million. This will be spent on both inland and coastal improvement projects to reduce risk but by far the greater part will be invested by maritime councils on coastal projects.
**Norman Lamb:** To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the estimated cost of beach nourishment on the Eccles on Sea to Winterton section of the Norfolk coast is for the years 2004 to 2014. [206666]
**Mr. Morley:** The Environment Agency is the principal authority responsible for flood risk in England. The Eccles to Winterton coastline is the subject of regular monitoring by the Agency and I understand that a review of the sea defence strategy for this frontage is nearing completion. It is currently anticipated that expenditure in the order of £11.4 million will be required for beach nourishment and associated works over the five year period 2005–06 to 2009–10 inclusive.
Predictions beyond this period are less certain but, for budgeting purposes, the Environment Agency is assuming a further £11 million for the succeeding five years to 2014–15.
Implementation of these works will be dependent upon their satisfying the Government's criteria for public funding.
Written answers to questions - Erosion
Commons Hansard 10 Jan 2005 : Column 169W
**Norman Lamb:** To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much and what percentage of the budget for 2005–06 for flood and coastal erosion will be spent on beach re-charge. [206664]
**Mr. Morley:** Total Central Government funding for management of flood and coastal erosion risk in 2005–06 will be £570 million. The flood and coastal defence operating authorities (Environment Agency, local authorities and internal drainage boards) will use most of this for operation and maintenance of existing risk management infrastructure and improvement projects. For coastal flood and erosion risk control the management of beaches through recharge and recycling of sand and shingle can be a very effective response. However, no sum is specifically set aside for beach re-charge projects though such work is likely to feature in a number of projects.
Written answers to questions - North Norfolk Coast
Commons Hansard 11 Dec 2003 : Column 543W
Norman Lamb: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her Department's strategy for the stretch of coastline from Happisburgh to Winterton in North Norfolk; and what the cost of implementing this strategy is. [141989]
Mr. Morley: Development and implementation of options for defending against flooding and coastal erosion is the responsibility of the flood and coastal defence operating authorities—the Environment Agency, local authorities and, in areas with special drainage needs, internal drainage boards.
The Environment Agency is responsible for a 14 kilometre length of sea defences from south of Happisburgh village to Winterton-on-Sea. This coastline has a long history of erosion and breaching of the defences, causing flooding of a large low-lying hinterland, extending into the Norfolk Broads area.
Defra agreed the Agency's current sea defence strategy for this frontage which recommends maintaining the existing system of sea defence structures by implementing a programme of beach recharge and groyne replacement. The estimated cost of this strategy is now £60 million, if continued over the next 50 years.
This strategy accords with the Hold the Line defence policy recommended in the
current Shoreline Management Plan. This plan is currently being reviewed.
Written answers to questions - Coastal Erosion
Commons Hansard 30 Oct 2003 : Column 333W - 334W
Norman Lamb: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the impact of offshore dredging on coastal erosion. [134761]
Keith Hill: There is no evidence that licensed marine minerals dredging has an impact on the rate of coastal erosion but, as a precaution, each environmental statement that accompanies an application to dredge must include a coastal impact assessment. This is subjected to close scrutiny to ensure that the results are satisfactory before a licence can be given. Most licences are subject to monitoring conditions and no licence has been terminated because of adverse impacts on the coast.
Norman Lamb: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what studies he has commissioned into the impact of offshore dredging on coastal erosion. [134762]
Keith Hill: The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not commissioned studies into the impact of offshore dredging on coastal erosion. Every marine minerals dredging proposal is subjected to environmental impact assessment. Every dredging licence application is therefore accompanied by an environmental statement that includes a specific coastal impact study. This is subject to wide consultation and publicity. It is carefully scrutinised by the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Sciences on behalf of Defra to determine whether the proposal is environmentally acceptable. Only if the proposal is acceptable is a licence for dredging issued. The licence is normally subject to conditions requiring environmental monitoring and is time limited so that account could be taken of unforeseen environmental impacts if any were to occur.
Norman Lamb: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the sites of dredging activity offshore; and if he will place a map of sites in the Library. [134763]
Keith Hill: Dredging activity offshore is statutorily controlled by a number of bodies including the Crown Estate, coast protection authorities, the Department of Transport, harbour and port authorities, local planning authorities and some private owners of seabed.
There is no central record of all types of offshore dredging. However, most marine minerals dredging is licensed by the Crown Estate and I have asked it to provide a schedule and maps of all currently licensed dredging areas. I will forward these to the hon. Member as soon as I receive them and will arrange for copies to be available in the Library of the House.
Information about offshore dredging licences issued by the Crown Estate is also available on the Crown Estate's website: www.crownestate.co.uk which is regularly updated.
Norman Lamb: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many licences have been granted in each of the last five years for dredging off the coast of Norfolk. [134764]
Keith Hill: Nearly all marine minerals dredging is licensed by the Crown Estate which informs that no new or extended licences were issued in 1998, 2000, 2001 or 2002 off the coast of Norfolk. In 1999, revised licences were issued for Areas 436 and 202 so that the tonnage to be dredged was not increased. In 2003 an existing licence for Area 254 was extended for a further 15 years.
Norman Lamb: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what income has been received by Crown Estates in each of the last five years for dredging licences in respect of sites off the Norfolk coast. [134822]
Keith Hill: The Crown Estate inform me that its Royalty Income from off the Norfolk Coast was:
£ million 1998 4.44 1999 4.77 2000 6.16 2001 5.36 2002 5.29
Written answers to questions - Coastal Erosion (Norfolk)
Commons Hansard 31 Mar 2003 : Column 498W
Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the risk to the Norfolk Broads as a result of coastal erosion in the Happisburgh area. [103778]
Margaret Beckett: Responsibility for assessing such risks rests with the local operating authorities. The Environment Agency has sea defence responsibility for the length of coastline from Cart Gap, Eccles to Winterton, which fronts the low lying hinterland including the Norfolk Broads. North Norfolk district council has coast protection responsibility for the cliffs at Happisburgh . There is some concern abut the risk of a breach in the frontage at Cart Gap as a result of cliff erosion, but both operating authorities judge that such a risk is not expected for at least 15 to 20 years. Both authorities are keeping the position under review, and the Council monitors the rate of erosion monthly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commons debate on Flood and Coastal Defence Policy Commons Hansard 13 Mar 2003: Column 466-468
Mr. Sayeed: Before I leave the question of coastal defences, I have to mention the plight of Happisburgh, because it illustrates how coastal erosion is destroying homes and livelihoods. Worse, it threatens to obliterate entire communities. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) visited Happisburgh, which is on the north Norfolk coast. The Minister would not recognise that coast, which he visited in 1998, because so much of it has been eroded by the sea. Erosion has accelerated at a rate that exceeds anything predicted by Whitehall or by independent experts. An entire community feels frightened and abandoned by Government. The plight of Happisburgh mirrors that of other villages and small towns on the south coast of England, for the Government have recently changed the formula for assessing bids for new coastal defence works. Happisburgh would have qualified under the old system, but is now in effect being told that nothing can be done. Indeed, the local council told my hon. Friend that even a town the size of Cromer would find it hard to qualify for coastal defence works under the terms of the new formula. I am sure that that cannot be the Government's intention. Will the Minister explain what value the Government place on the survival, not only of individual buildings or businesses, but of an entire community? Will he confirm that they will look again at the formula?
Mr. Morley: I am of course familiar with Happisburgh, as the hon. Gentleman says, as I am with all coastal issues. There is a contradiction in his comments. He supports soft defence, which I am pleased about—it appears to be something of a policy U-turn—but soft defence requires a dynamic coastline, and a dynamic coastline means recognising that erosion has taken place for centuries. Local authorities are the lead bodies for coastal erosion issues. The scheme that was submitted to us in DEFRA was withdrawn by the local authority because it had problems with local objections and land ownership issues. It is a matter for the local authority, and we will judge its application on its merits when we receive it. Of course, I am sympathetic to the situation in which people in that community find themselves.
Mr. Sayeed: There is a considerable difference between letting local farmland drop into the sea and compensating farmers for it, and letting whole communities fall into the sea. The Minister did not answer my question about the changes in the new formula, but he may care to consider it.
I urge the Minister to ensure that the criteria used to identify areas that qualify for flood defences be re-evaluated to take into account all the impacts and costs associated with flooding. That point has been made forcefully to me by Norwich Union. I congratulate that insurance company, which has done much more work on flooding than any other commercial organisation. It remains concerned that February's change to the scoring system did not clarify whether the cost and benefit evaluations took account of social and health costs, which can be significant. The risk is that some communities will not receive schemes because they are not prioritised correctly.
Will the Minister review the distinction that was made in the Coast Protection Act 1949 between coastal defence and river flooding? If the sea breaks through at Happisburgh, it could surge right through the Norfolk broads, causing irreparable damage to the national park. Despite that danger, the Environment Agency has apparently told local people that it cannot get involved in their campaign for coastal defences because its remit is limited to river flooding. There seems to be a serious lack of joined-up thinking.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Earlier, I referred to Castlehaven, and I accept that its case is not as bad as that of Happisburgh. However, in all such cases, does my hon. Friend agree that twists and turns in policy and designation, and the length of the process, can delay the implementation of proposals that local authorities are prepared to make? That can cause great stress to residents.
Mr. Sayeed: I agree with my hon. Friend's point, but I would admit that the Government are, at long last, moving towards reducing the number of different conflicting organisations that have an input to such cases. I agree that the planning system is a cause of considerable delays.
I want to discuss public information. I welcome the facts that householder comprehension of flood risk is said to be on the increase and that the Environment Agency is advocating more self-help. Yet I wonder whether that increase in comprehension is enough. In its "Home and Dry" advice pack, launched on March 5, Norwich Union states:
"more than 90 per cent. of homeowners in some of the country's high-risk flood areas admit they haven't even taken the simplest of steps to protect their property—such as moving valuables upstairs—and say they don't really know what measures they can take."
In addition, 67 per cent. of the people surveyed in February this year were worried that not enough is being done about flooding and that sufficient progress has not been made in the past 12 months. Property owners must be made fully aware of the threats that are associated with living on a high-risk floodplain, and encouraged to take precautionary measures on a seasonal basis. For instance, I would have thought it logical—although it seems hardly to occur in practice, even in new homes—that electrical connections should be placed at a higher level above the floor. We can all disagree over the causes of global warming. However, what is indisputable is that the dual spectre of coastal and inland flooding looms increasingly large. The exercise of those forces of nature is out of our control, but the minimisation of their impact lies in the hands of the Government. Although they cannot turn back the tide, stop the rain or reverse rising sea levels, they can do much to protect us from what is foreseeable today and may become a catastrophe tomorrow.
Reform is undoubtedly the key to environmental protection and value for money. Moreover, the implementation of the Association of British Insurers' statement of principles on the provision of flooding insurance, which applies from January of this year, is dependent on Government action. Even that commitment still leaves up to 200,000 homes in the most high-risk areas without flood insurance. Ultimately, if the insurance industry considers that it can no longer provide cover for certain domestic properties and small businesses, the onus will be on the Government to provide cover as the insurer of last resort. Flood prevention is actually the cheap option. The Treasury has to learn that. The delivery of a policy that looks beyond sandbags to a long-term preventive strategy is essential before the next disaster catches us as unprepared and underfunded as we were in 1953.
...
- Mar 2003 : Column 472-473
Norman Baker: The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire mentioned Happisbrugh, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who is taking a very close interest in the issue, has asked me to raise it in the House this afternoon. He is currently either speaking or intending to speak in the debate in Westminster Hall—one of the casualties of our double Chamber system. He has asked me to reiterate the fact that nearly 300 people have written to him about that issue.
My hon. Friend has taken up the matter with the Minister and asked for a meeting—I hope that the Minister will agree to that—and he has asked me to pass on his view that the people of that area feel neglected and that no investment has been made in protecting their community. I shall not go into the details for soft defences and managed retreat, but there is a strong feeling in that community, and the issue needs to be addressed. Clearly, that has not been done satisfactorily so far.
Mr. Morley: I can certainly confirm that, as with all Members who have a pressing constituency problem in relation to coastal defence, I will be happy to meet the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and discuss those problems. However, I want to deal with another problem: there has been misinformation about Happisbrugh. The responsibility for drawing up the scheme lies with the local authority, as the lead authority. It is true that we have new criteria to assess flooding and coastal defence, but I am pretty sure that the original application that was made and then withdrawn used the old system and that the local council's advisers were concerned about some issues, so we have not been able to give proper consideration to any scheme proposed by the local authority to defend Happisbrugh. Of course, if the local authority can put together a scheme that meets the three criteria—technical, environmental and cost benefits—we will consider it, but those criteria must be met.
Norman Baker: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention, as well as for his willingness to meet affected parties. It is good that he put that on the record, and I shall draw it to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk.
(CCAG co-ordinators comments)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Written Questions for Answer on Monday 17 March 2003 Notices given on Thursday 13th March
- Mr David Lidington (Aylesbury): To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, when officials from her Department last visited Happisburgh, Norfolk to assess the risks of coastal erosion. (103776) Margaret Beckett: Responsibility for assessing the risks of coastal erosion at Happisburgh rests with North Norfolk district council. While DEFRA has provided funding for related studies, it has not been necessary or appropriate for officials to visit for this purpose.
- Mr David Lidington (Aylesbury): To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what assessment she has made of the risk to the Norfolk Broads as a result of Coastal erosion in the Happisburgh area. (103778) Margaret Beckett: Responsibility for assessing such risks rests with the local operating authorities. The Environment Agency has sea defence responsibility for the length of coastline from Cart Gap, Eccles to Winterton, which fronts the low lying hinterland including the Norfolk Broads. North Norfolk district council has coast protection responsibility for the cliffs at Happisburgh. There is some concern abut the risk of a breach in the frontage at Cart Gap as a result of cliff erosion, but both operating authorities judge that such a risk is not expected for at least 15 to 20 years. Both authorities are keeping the position under review, and the Council monitors the rate of erosion monthly.