Shoreline No.3 - £5,622,000 tourism income and 187 jobs appear overlooked
OH YES THEY DO LIKE TO BE BESIDE THE SEA AT OVERSTRAND
Overstrand's Shoreline Management, Economics Committee, believe consultants preparing the Shoreline Management Plan on behalf of the officers of North Norfolk District Council, Great Yarmouth Borough Council, Waveney District Council and the Environment Agency,have seriously under-estimated the village's contribution to North Norfolk's tourism industry, placing businesses and jobs at risk.
The Shoreline Management Plan writes Overstrand off as merely a residential coastal village, not a tourist centre of any significance (as reported in the first edition of Shoreline).
However the early research of Overstrand's Shoreline Management Committee Economics team confirms what villagers knew.
Tourists do like to be beside the sea at Overstrand! Almost 200,000 of them visit the unique, historic, conservation village by the sea annually.
Over night stays
34,700 of the visitors stay over night in the village, bookings at key tourist assets, Kingswood's Overstrand Hall and at risk Ivy Farm Holiday Park, Sea Marge Hotel and The Pleasaunce.
These over night numbers are completed by holiday makers who stay at smaller lodges like popular Danum House, Cliff Cottage, Poppyland Cottages and many more privately owned holiday cottages scattered about the village.
Overstrand's allegedly insignificant contribution to tourism provides 95 full time local jobs. Boosting North Norfolk's regional economy to the tune of £5,622,000.
Visitors come to Overstrand because it offers some thing different. Its blend of unspoilt fishing and elegant cliff top seaside village, keeps them coming year after year.
Arts & Crafts style terraces, traditional flint Norfolk cottages, fine Victorian and Edwardian houses line the streets.
Wide, uncrowded sandy beaches, stunning cliff top walks ftom Cromer, picturesque traditional cricket ground with thatched pavilion.
Good amenities, pub, cafe, shop and hotel. But not a "Kiss Me Quick" hat or amusement arcade in sight. A North Norfolk gem, worth fighting for. Overstrand's Shoreline economists reckon 160,350 day trippers come to the village yearly.
The preferred option of the SMP threatens the viability of most of the village's tourist trade and its jobs.
Not just leisure implementation of SMP would not just affect leisure businesses. Village inftastructure would also be gradually hit by "managed" erosion. Increasing concerns about the future of all businesses and employment.
Around 165 people currently work full time and 110 part time in all village employment.
Regional factor
Regionally Overstrand's tourism factor creates 187 jobs. Tourism and employment are emerging as issues that may not have been given full consideraration in the Shoreline Management Plan. M.J.C.
FACE TO FACE with Terry Oakes
SHORELINE CHECKS ON PROGRESS OF THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSULTATION PERIOD ... HOW CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMENTS ARE CONSIDERED AND RECORDED ... YES, ALL LETTERS DO COUNT!
INTERVIEW BY MICHAEL CLARKE
Who are the partners Terry Oakes & Associates conducting the consultation stage of SMP for?:
We are undertaking the consultation on behalf of the SNIP Client
Group which comprises representatives from North Norfolk District
Council, Great Yarmouth Borough Council Waveney District Council,
English Nature and the Environment Agency.
How is the consultation period progressing?:
We are half way through the consultation period which began on 15th
December and ends on 29th April. Last week we held the last of the
planned public exhibitions which were held at Corton, Great Yarmouth,
Sea Palling, Winterton, Mundesley and Overstrand.
Some people claim the wording on the consultation form is "loaded" or difficult. If the form is used and entries fail to meet the targeted answers criteria, will such submitted responses be discounted from consideration?:
No all comments made on the form will be recorded and considered.
If correspondence concemning SMP is submitted without the pro forma is full consideration still given to its content?:
Yes we are receiving responses in a number of formats-letters, e-mails
at the exhibitions, our proforma and another proforma distributed at
the meetings held in a number of locations in the Great Yarmouth and
North Norfolk areas. All responses are being recorded.
What happens to each letter and form when received at your office?:
We record the date of receipt of the response. Each reponse is given
a unique number, the name, first line of the address, the postcode
of the person making the comment, the format in which the comment
is made and a summary of the response of comments made. We pay
particular attention to the accuracy of the summary as we want to
make sure we make reference to all the comments made in the response.
In using the information contained in the database, we have to
observe the provisions of the Data Protection Act.
Are all letters and forms given the same full and equal consideration?:
Yes We approach the task of recording the comments in the same way
for all responses.
If an emotional objection is received, for example on the grounds of personal property blight or attachment to Overstrand simply for holidays, e.g. "It should be saved because its a lovely place for holidays" or aspects not covered in SMP, will this type of correspondence be put aside as "irrelevant"?:
Certainly not. It is our job to make certain that all comments are
recorded and passed to the Client Group.
How many staff are involved dealing with SMP consultation letters and what actions do they take on receipt of correspondence?:
We employ an administrative assistant and a typist who are responsible
for over-seeing the administrative process and entering the details on
the database. I read every response received on a daily basis to
determine whether the respondent is asking a question which requires
a response from us. If an answer is required I send a reply or
acknowledge the request if I need to seek information or clarification
before I can answer the question.
Who decides which correspondence is submitted to decision makers and what is the criteria for submission as evidence?:
As I said previously, a summary of all responses will be submitted to
the Client Group who will also have access to a file containing a hard
copy of every response.
What response has been received to the reccommendations for Overstrand and which areas has correspondence been received from?:
As of 2nd March we have recieved 83 responses concerning Overstrand
and all against the proposals for Overstrand. These responses are
mainly from the Overstrand area, but there are responses from Norwich,
Kent and Sussex.
The SMP is the preferred option of its authors can correspondence from objectors really make any difference?:
The purpose of the consultation is to seek the views of the public
on the draft policy options for the future management of the coastline
before the proposals are finalised and presented to the elected
Members for their acceptance or otherwise.
How many letters / forms have been received accepting / rejecting the proposals to date?:
As of 2nd March we have 569 responses.
What happens after the consultancy period closes on April 29?:
All responses made by the closing date of 29 April will be recorded
and summarised, as explained. We will then prepare a report by the
end of May on the outcome of the consultation. This report will be
considered by the Client Group so they can make recommendations on
the need for ammendments to their Elected Members. The final decision
on whether to adopt the plan and its proposals for their length of
coastline will be made by the three Councils and the Environment
Agency individually.
Why is hold the line preferred for only 25 years at Overstrand and 50 years for Mundesley?:
Firstly, each location has been assessed on its own merits. It is
not appropriate to draw comparisons between the two villages
because there are different issues which influence the proposals.
The plan explains in policy statements 3b06 and 3b08 that the defences
at Overstrand have an effective life of 20 years while the defences
at Mundesley have a longer effective life of 50 years. This means
that there is a justification for retaining a Hold the Line policy
at Mundesley for a longer period.
Send him a letter, the sooner the better...
THE SMP IS SO INVOLVED AND CONSEQUENCES SO FAR REACHING IT'S UNDERSTANDABLE IF YOU ARE STRUGGLING TO WRITE A LETTER. REALLY THERE'S NOTHING TO BE AFRAID OF, JUST USE YOUR OWN WORDS. HERE'S A FEW IDEAS TO HElP GET YOU STARTED ...
- The plan is disturbing andthreatens the homes and security and in some cases every thing individuals have worked for.
- Causes alarm distress and offers prospects of both short term and long hardship.
- People should be treated with the principles of social justice.
- The uncertainty of the plan is blighting villages both economically and socially. If adopted for Overstrand the future of the entire village would be at risk. Long term "Hold the line" is vital for survival of the village.
- Overstrand could be lost as a result of Government's decision that its too expensive to defend the coast line without recognition of human cost by compensation.
- Despite DEFRA advice Overstrand's community was not consulted during development of the SMP.
- Heritage. Overstrand's unique conservation status with high concentration of classic listed Sir Edward Lutyens architecture is ignored.
- Overstrand's tourism totally overlooked. Placing businesses and jobs at risk.
- Overstrand property grossly under value in the plan.
- Further advice on writing a letter of objection is published in a
special Overstrand Parish Council leaflet ...
Write to: TERRY OAKES & Associates PO Box 186 Lowestoft NR33 OWY email smp3b@terryoakes.com
Shoreline
Informal discussions between Overstrand Parish Councillors and Shoreline's editorial team resulted In a decision for independent funding of the newsletter.
The decision was made to enable editorial freedom and topical publication times. The change came too late to be reported in Shoreline's second issue.
Shoreline appreciates the Parish Council's financial support for the first edition and continues to work closely with the council on the campaign against the Shoreline Management Plan.
Publication of the previous edition and this third issue would have been impossible without the generosity and support of our readers. Thank you.
With your continued support Shoreline aims to keep you informed about SMP matters In easy to read, news style.
Parish issues letter guide
As reported on page 3, Overstrand Parish Council are distributing a special letter writing guide as a reference for anyone who is still uncertain how to object to the shore plan.
1500 copies of the leaflet have been printed aimed at boosting objections to SMP.
The leaflet will be distributed to every village household. Copies will also be available at Overstrand's shops, cafe, pub and club, targeting Easter holiday makers.
Only five weeks remain before the SMP consultation period closes. The Council leaflet lists more topics to consider when writing to object to the plan.
Overstrand three at Westimster
Three villagers, Michael Cox with Parish Councillors Audrey Brittlebank and Michael Clarke represented Overstrand in a 50 strong North Norfolk coast SMP protest at Westminster on March 8.
The London trip was organised by Coastal Action Group to hear local MP Norman Lamb lobby Environment Minister, Mr. Elliot Morley about the SMP.
Happisburgh, Mundesley, Bacton, Walcott, Trimingham, Eccles and Overstrand were all represented at Westminster as Mr. Morley responded to Mr. Lamb.
"Not involved"
The Minister who heads the Department for Environment, Food, Rural
Affairs (DEFRA), surprisingly said. "I have not seen the details of
the SMP because I'm not involved in it
It should be a local process, involving local consultation. There is no point lobbying me."
The 30 campaigners who had squeezed into the gallery, reacted by murmuring disbelief at his response, causing the Deputy Speaker to call for "Order".
The Westminster trippers, have helped to focus media attention on the coastal plan issue. Resulting in increased television, radio and newspaper coverage.
Bittern pill to swallow
Summarised the Shore Plan produces some very unreliable forecasts of rates of erosion, likely cost of retaining defences as they currently exist and arrives at a judgement based entirely on financial criteria.
It bears no relationship to the special features of an area of great natural beauty or appalling effects on homes and livelihoods of people living on the coast.
The Plan, not surprisingly, arrives at the conclusion, based on the formula used that the Government, with one or two exceptions, should withdraw its support for all coastal protection.
If implemented the results would be horrific. Virtually all domestic and commercial property in coastal regions would be unsaleable and uninsurable. Support from financial institutions would become unavailable too.
Movement into and out 0f the region would become virtually impossible. Young people with growing families and changing needs would be unable to move on.
Older inhabitants would be unable to release capital tied up in their houses when needed.
But the Government Minister involved, Mr. Elliot Morley in reply to our MP Mr. Norman Lamb, has no intention of compensating victims of this Government action.
But this is England, renowned for its pride, heritage, democracy, freedom and it does have money to spend on the welfare of its land. The Environment Agency recently announced an award of half a million pounds to preserve reed beds, improving the habitat of 20 endangered bittern.
It will be encouraging to see, as coastal homes slide into the sea,
the bittern settling down to its nuptials in its new luxurious sexy
quarters.
Geoffrey Cofe, Overstrand