(Reply from Eddie Brophy, DEFRA to Malcolm Kerby)
01 September 2005
Dear Mr Kerby
Thank you for your letter of 28 July to the Minister of State, Elliot Morley, about the Kelling to Lowestoft Shoreline Management Plan (SMP). I have been asked to reply and am sorry for the delay in doing so.
I have to start by saying that the SMP is most definitely not "a Defra document presented by the local authorities". Although the work to review the SMP is being funded by Defra and developed within the framework of Defra guidance[1], responsibility for the work falls to the lead authorities (North Norfolk District Council, Great Yarmouth Borough Council, Waveney District Council, the Environment Agency, English Nature and Great Yarmouth Port Authority). The draft SMP will not be sent to Defra for agreement until these authorities have adopted it. I understand some 2000 responses to public consultation on the draft SMP were received and are being analysed by the consultants to the lead authorities.
SMPs are technical documents that assess amongst other things the coastal defence needs in the light of issues such as climate change. They recognise Government policy including the need to ensure that approaches are sustainable. They are also used to inform other development etc plans on the coastline. An objective is to clarify the longer term flood and erosion risks of future developments in the coastal areas. They form part of the process of developing policy for the coastline by setting out the strategy proposed for managing the protection of the shoreline. As such they are only part of the jigsaw which makes up Integrated Coastal Zone Management. No one would claim to be able to predict the future with certainty but planning for it is better than not doing so. We must do the best we can with the expertise and knowledge base available to us at the present time. This SMP will be revised periodically in the future. The current exercise is in fact revising the previous version completed in 1996.
Human Rights Act 1998
The Human Rights Act recognises the need for a balance between public interests and private rights. Without prejudice to consideration of the circumstances of individual cases, we consider that reasoned decisions not to continue to maintain and renew existing coastal defences that are not sustainable, following consultation, deliberation and proper pre-planning (including the provision of a reasonable period of notice to those affected), can be carried out without any infringement of human rights.
Funding
The Government is committed to the effective management of both flood and coastal erosion risk and has increased funding significantly in recent years - to £570 million per year as compared with £310 million in 1996-97.
The £47 million Defra support for local authority improvement projects for 2005-06 that you quote as the total figure for coastal defence as opposed to inland flood risk management understates the full extent of public investment along the coast. The Environment Agency is also responsible for significant investment in managing risk of flooding from the sea (and, indeed, is one of the lead authorities engaged in the above SMP). The local authority figure is supplemented by a further £12 million in annual funding from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to support local authorities' coast protection maintenance and operational costs.
Prioritisation of Improvement Projects for Defra Grant Aid
Defra's priority scoring system for the funding of improvement projects was revised in 2003 in the light of experience and following extensive consultation. It seeks to ensure that all projects, coastal and inland, are assessed on a consistent, fair and open basis with no bias. If any unintended bias were demonstrated Defra would consider changes to the system.
Strategic Overview of Coastal Erosion for the Environment Agency
The first Government response to views expressed in the consultation exercise on a new strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk[2] - Making space for water - proposes giving the Environment Agency a strategic overview of all sources of flooding and coastal erosion. This had been supported in the consultation. This should enable better assessment of risk and prioritisation and ensure the long-term and sustainable management of flood and coastal risk that achieves sustainable development and value for money in terms of reducing the risks to people and property. The precise nature of the Agency's overview has yet to be decided and the Government is currently working with key stakeholders such as the Local Government Association in taking forward this consideration. However, you can be assured that maintaining engagement at the local level is a key consideration for the work in this area. It should be noted that the Agency already engages with local stake holders in the development of projects.
Marine Aggregate Dredging
The potential impact of dredging on the coastline has always been taken very seriously. A Crown Estate Dredging Licence will only be granted if the Deputy Prime Minister first issues a favourable Government View (GV) on the environmental implications of the proposed dredging. Applications must be accompanied by an Environmental Statement and a Coastal Impact Study and are subjected to wide publicity and consultation. If there is any indication that a dredging proposal may have an adverse effect on the coast, it proceeds no further. In addition, favourable GVs are subject to conditions requiring environmental monitoring and are time limited so that account can be taken of any environmental implications that could not have been foreseen at the time that the GV was considered. The Crown Estate imposes GV conditions on any subsequent Dredging Licence that it issues.
The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (OD PM) is responsible for the preparation of the Government View and this is not shared with Defra. Defra advises on the effects on the marine environment. Neither Department issues the commercial licence.
Modelling and field studies on the impact of both individual offshore dredging licences, and of the cumulative impacts of such licences have concluded that UK offshore dredging, e.g. off the Norfolk coast, has not contributed to coastal erosion. It should be noted that there was some confusion because early draft reports from the European study of Coastal Erosion (EUROSION)[3], from which you quote, wrongly suggested a link between aggregate dredging and coastal erosion for the East Anglian Coast. This suggestion was removed from the final report because it was recognised that there were adequate controls in place to avoid such impacts.
There may be a potential impact on the coastline in relation to estuary and near-shore dredging for navigation purposes. However, in these cases, there is a clear need to balance economic and social imperatives of continued port operations with any environmental impact.
You mention that the Department's Chief Engineer, Mr Purnell, had served on the Board of H R Wallingford, the implication being that this might in some way discredit work undertaken by that company. Senior civil servants such as Mr Purnell have been encouraged to serve as unpaid non-executive directors of public companies to gain wider experience of the business world, provided this would not entail any conflict of interest. Mr Purnell did serve on H R Wallingford's Board of Directors from March 1994 to September 1997. However, he is not on the current Board and nor are any other Government officials. H R Wallingford produced a Coastal Impact Study (to support the Hanson Aggregates Marine Ltd licence application to dredge for marine aggregates) in August 2004, long after Mr Purnell had left the Board. This has been pointed out to you previously and we ask that you amend your website to correct this misleading impression.
I should also point out that while, as in this case, an applicant company may use H R Wallingford to carry out an assessment of sediment processes and the effects on the coast, they are not used by Central Government as consultants in the decision making process.
I have passed copies of your letter to Defra Marine & Waterways Division who co-ordinate Defra input into licence applications and also to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to note your comments.
Managing Change
The issue of how communities could be supported in adapting to working with a changing coastline is of great interest. This has been picked up in responses to our recent consultation document Making Space for Water which sought views on proposals for the new Government strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk management in England[4]. Defra has considered the issues further with a view to clarifying future policy and its implications, and the Minister of State published a formal response to the points made on 24 March.
It is important to note that there can be no right to compensation for damage from flooding or coastal erosion given that defences are provided under permissive powers. This has been the line of successive governments and there is little prospect this will change in the foreseeable future. However, approaches to helping individuals and communities adapt to change are to be considered as part of this developing new strategy. Before any decisions could be made on alternative approaches, we will need a better evidence base to allow a rational consideration of all the issues. A project is being taken forward to look initially at how communities and individuals can be helped to adapt to changes on the coast and then to consider if there are any lessons to be taken forward in relation to fluvial change too. It will look at a range of tools, including possible financial incentives and planning, and is expected to run for around a year and a half.
Yours sincerely
Eddie Brophy
Flood Management Communications Team
[1] http://www.defra.gov.uk/environ/fcd/policy/smp.htm
[2] http://www.defra.gov.uk/environ/fcd/policy/strategy.htm