Shoreline Management (Norfolk)

Speech by Norman Lamb delivered to Westminster Hall Adjournment Debate on Tue 8th Mar 2005

I am very pleased to raise an issue of great concern to people in my constituency. I am also pleased to see the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) in the Chamber. We have worked together on the issue, and I think that our views on it are similar.

The draft shoreline management plan has hit coastal communities in north Norfolk like a bombshell. Some of the people most directly affected are present today. They feel strongly about the issue and its impact on their futures and livelihoods. I hope that the Minister will also take their concerns seriously and understand why they feel as strongly as they do.

My purpose today is to inform the Minister of the local reaction to the draft plan, which has been prepared in accordance with his Department's approach as outlined in the consultation document "Making Space For Water". As the Minister will know, we are in the middle of our own consultation process on the draft plan. It is fair to say that there is great public cynicism these days about the process of consultation. Most people assume that decisions have already been taken and that whatever the reaction to such a consultation exercise, it will make no difference. My first question to the Minister is therefore whether he will listen to what we are saying and act on the genuine and serious challenges that we are making to the proposals.

It is important to make a few things clear. I do not claim to speak as an expert on coastal erosion and I do not claim fully to understand, for example, the impact of offshore dredging. However, I speak on behalf of a number of coastal communities who feel deeply disturbed by a change in approach that threatens their homes, their security and in some cases everything that they have ever worked for.

I accept and understand that the management of the coastline is a massive challenge for any Government. I can remember walking along the cliff top in the mid-1990s with the then Conservative Minister. The district council was putting forward a proposal for a defence scheme for Happisburgh and seeking grant aid from the Government. The money was not forthcoming and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food stated as its policy that "to attempt to protect every inch of coastline from change would not only be uneconomic but would work against the dynamic processes that determine the coastline and could have an adverse effect elsewhere and on the natural environment."

That was the Government's position in 1993.

I also understand that erosion of the coast has been going on for centuries. Many lost villages along the coast of East Anglia bear testament to that. None the less, people want their homes and communities protected. That is their main wish and top priority.

I am also aware of the potential impact of climate change. We are told that the country is tilting, with the east coast dropping by a millimetre or two every year. With climate change causing sea levels to rise by 4 or 5 mm a year, the combined effect is that the sea level is rising by about 6 mm a year. Given that much of north and east Norfolk is close to sea level, the potential implications are clear for everyone to see.

We do not approach the subject seeking to deny clear and stark facts. But we demand that people are treated fairly and in accordance with the principles of social justice. I want to demonstrate to the Minister the immediate impact of the publication of the draft plan. The plan, as he will know, contains maps, which are already inaccurate because of the rate at which erosion is changing the contour of the coastline. Those maps show clearly properties that are expected to be lost to the sea within specified periods of time. Without the plan's even having been approved, there has been an immediate and significant impact on property values, particularly in certain locations, on the saleability of property and on people's ability to secure a mortgage and to obtain insurance.

However, the impact goes well beyond the properties shown to be at risk on the shoreline management plans. Predicting the rate of erosion is a notoriously inexact science, as the Minister will recognise. For example, a plan drawn up for Happisburgh in 1992 by Halcrow, which is now responsible for the shoreline management plan, showed a line where the coast would be in 60 years' time. We overtook that line in 2004, after just 12 years—an inaccuracy factor of five. The uncertainty that results from the inexact nature of the science means that the plans have blighted far more properties than might be imagined. Just last weekend, I heard about a property situated a mile from the coast that had lost 25 per cent. of its value. It is in no realistic danger for a considerable time, but it is suffering the real effect on property values.

Let me read from a letter from a constituent, who makes the point very well:

"My wife and I moved to Overstrand—" one of the villages affected— "just over two years ago. Because of my wife's ill health we decided to move from our current period property to a bungalow which would be easier for her to manage. We received and accepted an offer for our property in the middle of January and had an offer for a bungalow accepted. The moving process was well under way and we anticipated completion by the middle of March. Last week, our buyer pulled out because of the present uncertainty regarding the future of Overstrand. They were very keen to move to Overstrand and they had registered their children at the local school".

That is an example of the impact of the proposed shoreline management plan on two families. It is having a devastating effect and must not be allowed to go forward.

In the past few weeks, we have held public meetings in Happisburgh, Bacton, Mundesley and Overstrand. About 1,000 people have attended, at very short notice. That number in itself demonstrates the strength of feeling on the issue. People have told me of their circumstances both at those meetings and by letter.

How does the Minister respond to people who have purchased property in the past few years, when the official policy was to hold the line, to defend the coastline? They are likely to have bought with the benefit of a mortgage, and could suddenly be plunged into negative equity. They will be left paying off their mortgages in the knowledge that there will be little or no capital asset left when they have finished paying.

The situation has been described as "a creeping paralysis" by Clive Stockton, deputy leader of the district council and a business owner in the village of Happisburgh, who is here today. His business is a pub, which is profitable and successful. He has now had it valued at less than half what it cost to buy 14 years ago.

That illustrates the real and current impact of the plan. I challenge the Minister to tell us whether he believes that it is socially just that a generation of people who happen to own properties in the affected villages could lose everything as a result of the Government's decision that it is too expensive to defend the coastline. What is disturbing is the absence of any indication that the Government recognise the human cost of effectively abandoning stretches of coastline.

I want to consider the matter of compensation. I understand that in France there is a compensation scheme called, in a typically French way, a solidarity fund. The Minister will be aware that I have written to him about compensation. When he wrote back to me on 16 November 2004, he confirmed that there were "no current plans" to introduce a compensation scheme, and that there was "nothing to discuss".

However, I have spoken to civil servants in his Department who tell me that the matter is being considered. In his letter, the Minister did, perhaps, hint at the possibility of some movement, when he recognised that the issue was "of great interest", and that the Government would consider "the issues further with a view to clarifying future policy and its implications" in the Government response to the consultation "Making Space For Water".

The introduction of the compensation scheme would immediately address the problem of blight. Our suggestion is that payment is made at the point when the property is lost to the sea, and that it is based on the value of that property without the problem of erosion. I recognise that such a scheme must be carefully designed, and I understand that any Government must be careful about open-ended commitments, but the case for such a scheme is overwhelming. It would immediately address the problem of blight described in the letter that I read to the Minister, because it would give people renewed confidence to buy into these communities. Purchasers would know that their investment was safe. What hope can the Minister give those communities that do not have such a scheme?

Importantly, the scheme would also have another very beneficial effect. At the moment, a decision to abandon a stretch of coastline is a no-cost option for any Government, so it looks very attractive. A compensation scheme would force any Government to judge more effectively whether to abandon the coastline or to defend it. They would have to balance the cost of compensation against the cost of defence.

I therefore directly challenge the Minister on this crucial subject. Does he accept that the principle of compensation is being discussed in his Department? Does he acknowledge that the publication of the shoreline management plan has now made this an urgent and pressing issue, because of its immediate impact on communities? Does he also accept the real and serious risk of blight in coastal communities unless the Government act?

Two other issues have not been adequately dealt with in the draft shoreline management plan—the impact of dredging, and the basis on which we establish the total cost of what is at risk if coastal erosion is not controlled.

Extraordinarily, given its implications, the draft shoreline management plan says little about dredging. It states: "Whether or not there are links between offshore dredging and coastal erosion is uncertain".

That is all it says, but at least it acknowledges that the impact is uncertain. I become very frustrated when I hear the dogmatic assertion that dredging has no effect on the rate of erosion.

I pay tribute to Malcolm Kerby of the coastal concern action group, who is in the Chamber today. He has put body and soul into representing the interests of these communities, and does it very responsibly. He and I, and Peter Frew from North Norfolk district council, travelled to Brussels some time ago to meet Stefan Lombardo, who was head of the research project Eurosion, which is funded by the European Commission. He made it clear that offshore dredging could increase the rate of erosion. One must examine each case to determine the potential impact. Furthermore, he made it clear that he was not satisfied that the process of environmental impact assessments in applications for dredging licences was robust enough. The precautionary principle must be applied.

The problem is that substantial sums of money are made from dredging. In 2002 alone, the Crown estate received £5.2 million, which is 40 per cent. of its total income from the whole country, from marine minerals dredging off the Norfolk coast alone. The construction industry inevitably demands ever-increasing volumes of aggregate to meet, apart from anything else, the Government's own building plans.

When the Minister replied to a parliamentary question from me back in January 2004, he confirmed that research was under way on the impact of dredging. Will he provide any more information on the outcome of that research? I know that research has been done, but what about the research that he said was under way last year?

Many people argue that until we have a greater understanding of the impact of dredging, there should be a moratorium on dredging anywhere close to the coast. There must surely at least be a case for tougher assessment of new licence applications. Alternatively, there is surely a case for some of the revenues raised from dredging to be used for defending our coastline, or for building up a compensation fund.

The draft shoreline management plan presents a false picture of the real cost of doing nothing. Appendix H.3.1.1 states 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".

That makes nonsense of the whole plan. Surely, before taking decisions on how to progress with something so fundamental, which affects so many people's lives, we should have a clear understanding of the full cost and of the impact on the Norfolk broads, tourism, relocation of communities and our precious heritage.

It is ludicrous that a decision of the district council to refuse an application for planning permission in a place close to the cliff edge where it is ludicrous to build new properties can be overturned on appeal by Government inspectors. I accept that that is not the responsibility of the Minister's Department, but it is a failure of joined-up government.

The draft shoreline management plan is fatally flawed. It touches on the crucial issue of dredging in one sentence, but reaches no conclusion; it says nothing about the real social and economic impact of abandoning the coastline; it cannot address compensation because that would require Government action; and it fails properly to identify the full cost of doing nothing. Unless and until those crucial issues are addressed, the plan will be overwhelmingly rejected by local people and, no doubt, by members of North Norfolk district council.

Finally, I repeat my request to the Minister to meet local people. Will he meet them, preferably in Norfolk but, if not, here? This matter is crucial to them, and they deserve the chance to tell him their views directly, as well as having me represent them and put forward their views.