(Letter from Malcolm Kerby to Elliot Morley, DEFRA)

07 August 2005

Dear Mr. Morley,

You will, of course, by now be aware of the strength of feeling locally against the Kelling to Lowestoft Ness draft Shoreline Management Plan ( SMP ). Known locally as the DEFRA WMD, Weapon of Mass Devaluation!

The overwhelming response to that proposed SMP was I believe unprecedented and was effectively a referendum on HM Government's handling of and intentions in the matter of Coast Protection both locally and nationally.

As far as the proposed SMP is concerned it is fatally flawed in that it is not a management plan at all and can never be accepted as such because it fails to address many things, primarily the question of Social Justice and the ever increasing concern over Marine Aggregate Dredging and its effect on coastal process. Any SMP which fails to address these two overarching issues, in full, will be unacceptable not just in North Norfolk but nationally.

Any plan or policy purporting to be looking 100 years ahead which makes such serious and far reaching recommendations based upon and subject to further research and study is fundamentally misconceived.

Only after said further research and study is carried out can it be possible to know whether the policy and path it advocates is justifiable or implementable and therefore capable of adoption.

It seems to me expressing a policy based on incomplete knowledge and research over the timescale proposed leads to unjustifiable and unnecessary property and planning blight. Local Valuers here in North Norfolk tell me on publication of the draft SMP there was an immediate and ongoing devaluation of some 25% throughout the coastal strip.

It is fully appreciated that within the Coast Protection Act 1949 coast defences are provided under permissive powers which do not give rise to a statutory duty to compensate owners for property or land lost either now or as a result of policies advocated in the draft SMP. However central government and the authorities promoting the SMP will no doubt be aware that the Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated into UK law various provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. Including the right to respect for a person's home under Article 8 and the right to peaceful enjoyment of a person's possessions (which includes his or her home) under Article 1 of the first protocol.

Both of these rights are qualified rights but the qualification of the rights gives rise to considerations of proportionality and fairness. It is arguable that failure to implement the current hold the line policy or the adoption of a policy of managed retreat or coastal realignment which is the subject of further studies, lacking proper effective economic assessment with the consequent loss of property, land and homes without compensation is contrary to the Human Rights Act as being disproportionate, grossly unfair and contrary to natural justice.

I would further contend that Government is discriminatory in its treatment of coastal property owners and communities by structuring a cost / benefit and point score system for the provision of coast protection funding which is not about fair distribution of available funds but designed to switch funds away from the coast to inland, fluvial areas. Never has this been more graphically illustrated than in this year's (05-06) flood and coast protection budget and spending figures. From a total of 570 million pounds only 47 million pounds is to be shared by some 70 maritime authorities for coast defence.

Article 14 of the Human Rights Act specifically, though not exclusively, prohibits discrimination on grounds of property. Clearly the DEFRA criteria discriminates against coastal property in favour of inland property, by design.

The Government's first response (published March 2005) to the Making Space for Water consultation exercise further underlines bias and discrimination against coastal issues and communities. Here is a 47 page document of which less than 2 pages deals with coastal issues and the consequent total loss scenario for, potentially, thousands of coastal dwellers.

Many people believe that first response contains an error of judgement which could have significant knock on effects. I refer to the intention to give the Environment Agency (EA) strategic control over all coast protection, coastal flood and erosion risk management. If control is handed to this huge government quango it will undoubtedly further limit funds available for coast protection, cause more confusion over what and how much goes where. Local input and accountability will surely suffer. This would be an unmitigated disaster all around the UK coast. Rightly or wrongly, I make no comment either way, you should be aware of the low esteem in which many stakeholders hold the EA. That agency is widely seen as a DEFRA (Central Government) super quango of leviathan proportions which suffers from the same lack of joined up thinking as Government itself.

Making Space For Water was ground breaking in that it brought so much into the public domain for discussion and opened up opportunities to get it right. It would be a matter of great regret if those opportunities are wasted. The Coast Protection Act 1949 should be consigned to history and replaced with a statutory instrument flexible enough to meet the challenges of the 21st Century and deliver real solutions rooted in social justice. The protection of our coast and its communities has completely different drivers and solutions to those encountered and required in fluvial flood risk management. Accordingly, whilst being very comfortable for DEFRA, I believe overall strategic control for coast protection being given to the EA would solve nothing, create new problems and make what is already a confused and flawed system even worse.

I note the comments in chapter 8 of the first response particularly that in 8.14 concerning the EU recommended forthcoming Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) strategy and would take this opportunity to inform the minister when I discussed ICZM with its policy makers in Brussels one of it's (ICZM) founding principles was that "due regard should be paid to coastal communities and their cultural heritage" and the "precautionary principle" should be applied when determining coastal policy. I fear this principle will be forgotten in the seeming Whitehall! Westminster clamour to reduce still further spending on coast protection.

The Government first response under the heading' Vision' states "full account will be taken of the social, environmental and economic pillars of sustainable development," and" The true costs of providing, and not providing, flood and coastal defences".

Under the heading' Aim' is stated the intention "To manage the risks from flooding and coastal erosion" so as to "reduce the threat to people and their property"

The previously mentioned draft SMP ( very much a DEFRA document presented by the local authorities) is a complete contradiction of your stated Vision and Aims not least by failing to address the current lack of Social Justice and the problems associated with Marine Aggregate Dredging. Indeed it actually states that the effects of dredging on coastal process is ""uncertain" yet offers no advice, solution or plan to mitigate or manage the consequence and effects of dredging on coastal process. Furthermore the draft SMP hugely increases the risk to the built and natural environment, it is therefore unsustainable even in the short term. .

I trust the Kelling to Lowestoft Ness draft Shoreline Management Plan will be withdrawn completely, that a further draft SMP be presented only when ALL further research and study is complete and full account is taken of social justice only then can any plan truly be regarded as a management plan.

All reference to the, hopefully, withdrawn plan should be deleted as I believe it is necessary for the authorities to show they have a completely open mind to what policies should be recommended following the previously mentioned further research and study.

I would urge you most strongly, Minister, to ensure a more holistic view is adopted and to draw on the lessons of Happisburgh for what is proven here is a very stark reminder that to cease defending in isolation is as dangerous as defending in isolation. The fact that Happisburgh is being left undefended, flanked on either side by defences is producing a very unnatural process and a significantly increased rate of erosion. This surely cannot fit with what your department is saying it wants.

The Happisburgh based Coastal Concern Action Group ( CCAG ) has recently broadened it's base after contact from other communities and is now becoming a regional vehicle for voicing concerns. We have also been contacted by communities in the South East, South West, Wales and the North East. What is emerging is the widespread mistrust of DEFRA and the worry that we / they are being misled. This may in part be due to your department trying to push ahead it's mission (second generation draft SMP's) with an incomplete mission statement by failing to square the management circle before pushing the Maritime Authorities along a route they plainly can not go until Central Government has provided adequate management tools set within a clear concise policy framework.

As I am sure you are aware app. 16.9 million people (almost one third of the UK population) live within 10km of the coast. The issues of coastal governance, social justice, aggregate dredging and Shoreline Management Plans are going to play a rapidly increasing role of significantly greater proportions.

Constant denial of responsibility will only serve to exacerbate the fears of, and further inflame, coastal stakeholders.

Enclosed for your perusal are copies of some of my comments on new governance and marine aggregate dredging. For further comment and an insight into wider public reaction and comment I would respectfully refer you to our ( CCAG ) website www.happisburgh.org.uk of which we are extremely proud. Recent user audits show the site is receiving almost 20,000 visits and almost 50,000 page impressions per month and is widely used by a variety of academic institutions. It is also providing us with the knowledge that we have the support of a significant proportion of the population.

Yours Sincerely

Malcolm R. Kerby
Co-ordinator, Coastal Concern Action Group

cc. Norman Lamb MP
Tony Wright MP
Phi lip Burton Chief Exec. NNDC

Follow on:
(Reply from Eddie Brophy, DEFRA to Malcolm Kerby)