Reply on behalf of Norman Lamb (Lib Dem)

26 April 2005

Now the general election has been called and Norman ceased to be an MP when Parliament was dissolved on 11th April, he is very keen that as much of his correspondence as possible be dealt with throughout the election period. He has therefore asked me to answer some of his emails and letters to avoid any delay.

I believe that you will be familiar with Norman's position on the issue of the Shoreline Management Plan as he has been working closely with Malcolm Kerby of CCAG.

I note from your web site that you have already published the joint letter from Norman and Malcolm Kerby but you may like to also publish the joint response from Norman and Vince Cable, our shadow chancellor, on the Liberal Democrat position on the draft shoreline management plan. I am also attaching a copy of the letter which Norman sent out to all the coast villages.

I hope this helpful. Please do get back to me if you want anything further.

Kind regards,

Alex Howe (Mrs.)

Caseworker to Norman Lamb

Liberal Democrat Prospective Parliamentary

Candidate for North Norfolk

Draft Shoreline Management Plan: The Liberal Democrat Position

Following discussions between Norman Lamb, Member of Parliament for North Norfolk and Vince Cable, Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor, the Liberal Democrats can announce the following:

1. The draft Shoreline Management Plan for Kelling to Lowestoft Ness should be withdrawn because it is a fatally flawed document.
   
   

   It fails to assess the full cost of abandoning the coastline. The document confirms 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".
   
   

   This makes a nonsense of the whole plan. It is unacceptable to reach a decision to abandon a stretch of coastline, affecting whole communities, without a proper assessment of the economic impact. Such an assessment could justify a different conclusion.
   
   

   The draft plan makes only a passing reference to the potential impact of off-shore dredging stating: "Whether or not there are links between offshore dredging and coastal erosion is uncertain."
   
   

   Given this uncertainty there should be further research commissioned into the impact of dredging on the rate of coastal erosion before any new plan can be properly considered. The European Commission funded Eurosion report has highlighted the fact that dredging can have an impact on coastal erosion. In 2002 alone, the Crown Estate received £5.2 million income from aggregate extraction just off the Norfolk coast. Consideration must also be given to introducing a much more robust environmental impact assessment before dredging licences are granted.
   
   

2. There must be a scheme of compensation for those whose homes are lost to the sea. It is unacceptable that one generation of people who happen to live and own properties in coastal communities at a time when the rules are changed from a position of defending the coastline to one of abandonment should lose everything. Without compensation, blight could set in now, not at some indeterminate date in the future. A compensation scheme would give people renewed confidence to buy into these communities. It would also force any Government to reach a more objective judgement about whether to defend a stretch of coastline. At present, abandonment is a nil cost option. A scheme of compensation would force the Government to balance the cost of defending the coastline against the cost of compensation.
   
   

   We will consider options for funding a compensation scheme including use of revenues received from offshore dredging and achieving savings from within the Defra budget