SCAR response to Blyth Estuary Strategy

25 February 2008

From: Graham Henderson, Chair SCAR (Suffolk Coastal Against Realignment)

To: Dr Charles Beardall, Environment Agency

Dear Charles,

SCAR, as you are well aware, continue to beat the drum of "Hold the Line" and will not waver from this belief. This is the focal point of our Position Statement and we enclose a copy of the statement with this letter to reaffirm this.

Since the start of the Blyth consultation SCAR has grown to represent a widening group of organizations and individuals across Suffolk. In addition there are an increasing numbers of organizations with strong opinion against the proposal of significant abandonment. SCAR supports the views on the strategy of the CLA, The Blyth Estuary Group, the Blyth Strategy Group and the Alde & Ore Association to name a few of the Suffolk representative bodies. In addition we have established links so far with similar bodies in Norfolk, Essex, Yorkshire, Kent, Sussex and Cornwall and links continue to grow. All this background information is to make The Environment Agency and your masters DEFRA and The Treasury aware that proposals for the Blyth we see as a test case for other areas. We have developed a belief that a policy of divide and rule around the country has been established for "managed retreat" and we wish you to know that we are not going to accept this policy without a major battle.

Specifically we highlight the following major flaws in The Blyth strategy.

1. Your policy is based on predictions of Sea Level Rise from an earlier IPCC report of a 1m tidal rise by 2100. This increased predicted height is now outdated by significant reduction in subsequent reports. In addition there is no North Sea Tidal evidence currently that shows acceleration of tidal rise to date. By leaving decisions for 20 years and properly maintaining the existing situation will give more time for
2. decision-making based on fact rather than speculation. Even the IPCC predicts less than a few centimeters rise in 20 years.
3. Your abandonment of maintenance responsibility does not take into consideration the financial effect in other areas that you have no responsibility for. Specifically:

   a The potential cost of disruption and flooding to the A12 and A1095 together with the economic consequences.

   b The Harbour wall maintenance at Southwold and the downside effect to this wall of additional tidal flow through the harbour mouth.

   c The responsibility of provision of legal footpaths, and the right to roam the coastline.

   d The indirect effect on loss of tourism to the area.

   e The cost of replacement of environmental habitat that is needed to provide relocation of freshwater habitat as it is lost.

   The millions of pounds tied up in these above aspects appears to have been totally ignored to enable the Environment Agency to live within a DEFRA budget. An "I'm all right Jack attitude".

4. Your inadequate maintenance over the last decades and your recent abandonment of work after the November flooding, in advance of a policy decision not yet out of consultation, appears to shows that consultation is a farce and just a process that you have been told to go through. Maintenance work on the Suffolk river walls has been non existent for many years and any work done has been repair as and when necessary, not maintenance. Maintenance should be maintaining the structure to the height originally built, which has not been done.
5. No significant consideration is being given to loss of property nor compensation offered, whether this is farmland or homes. The government is responsible for all the people of this nation and adequate compensation must be provided for all the individuals affected. In this context it would be cheaper to maintain the defences than to have to pay the compensation. One lost human rights court case by you through the EU will cost significant compensation and bring a torrent of follow up cases.

Having stated some of the major reasons that the Blyth Strategy is flawed, and there are certainly other aspects that we have not presented but others have, we would like to conclude by offering the following advise to the Environment Agency.

Align yourselves alongside the people that fund you, the taxpayers, and fight DEFRA and the Treasury for more money. Show the people of this County and this Country that you in th front line, are on their side. The government can always finds additional finance when the chips are down from some contingency fund. Stop sitting on the fence and hiding behind Government policy.

Work alongside and with the landowners and reinstate the river walls to the original height established after the 1953 floods and then help landowners maintain these heights using cheaper resources such as by product sub soils from road building.

Don't continue to be downtrodden by Natural England putting restrictions at every turn and hiding smugly behind EU legislation. Natural England is currently perceived by many of us as a primary enemy in this battle. They appear to have an over zealous attitude to any encroachment into their area rather than taking into account the bigger picture. They must learn to look outside their box.

We are aware that these views are put in a simplistic way covering a complex subject but sometimes it pays to pair back the layers and get to the core. Other organizations have put forward information and views to you in a much more complex manner with more practical detail. We take the view that you already have this information.

We realize your restrictions, particularly financial, but ask you to fight alongside us to overcome the problems and find local partnerships to create a new policy for the Blyth rather than your present proposals.

Please be assured that we have no intentions of giving up the battle and nationally this will become a war in the due course of time unless there is a policy change.

Yours sincerely,

Graham Henderson, Chair SCAR.