Coastal Erosion

Neil Hudson Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)]

I am pleased to present the sixth report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, “Erosion of trust: the impact of coastal erosion on communities”. I will start by talking about not policy or funding, but people and their stories—stories that our report rightly sought to share.

Ten weeks ago, I told the House that we had lost four homes to coastal erosion in the village of Thorpeness in my constituency. It is with great sadness that I tell the House today that the number has now risen to 11. That is 11 family homes lost to the sea this winter. We have a 90-year-old who is displaced, with no home to go to. We have an 88-year-old who lost her family home, which was full of memories—all now gone. Too many have lost the only home that they owned, and so many of them are now relying on the generosity of friends, quite simply because no other help is available.

Of course, this is not just about Thorpeness. This story is repeated across the country. The sea does not stop for these homes. Happisburgh, Hemsby, the East Riding, the Isle of Wight—all those places and more are losing land and properties to the sea. The realities of climate change and rising sea levels mean that we can no longer ignore this crisis. The Environment Agency predicts that within 80 years, more than 10,000 properties could be destroyed by or lost to the sea, along with 180 km of road.

This report is the first output from our inquiry on climate and weather resilience. We heard from local authorities, scientists, community groups and residents living with the daily reality of coastal change, and the message was consistent: coastal erosion is not just an environmental issue, but a housing issue, a public health issue, a mental health issue, an economic issue and, above all, a human issue.

People spoke about grief. They told us that this is not just about the loss, but the years leading up to it. They told us about anxiety, isolation and the strain on families and communities. They told us about a sense of injustice—a sense that they are bearing the cost of a problem that they did not create, and that systems that do not properly support them. We also heard about trauma tourism; people are flocking to visit erosion sites and demolished homes, filming the belongings that were left behind, and sharing those stories online. It is difficult to overstate how distressing that is for those going through that loss. This report makes it crystal clear that the human impact must be properly recognised in policy and funding decisions. Crucially, communities must be part of those decisions. For too long, they have been talked about; it is time that they were talked with.

We also found that the system is failing people from the very start—from the moment they buy their home. Coastal erosion is not consistently disclosed in property transactions, despite the fact that the data exists and is publicly available. Madam Deputy Speaker, if my home were about to fall into the sea, I could sell it to you legally today, with no duty to tell you about the risks. That cannot be right, and it certainly should not be legal. Our report therefore recommends that coastal erosion be treated as material information in conveyancing. As for insurance, there is simply no equivalent to Flood Re for coastal erosion. That leaves families exposed and unsupported. If we can make schemes like Flood Re work —which it does—we should be exploring how we can do the same for properties facing erosion risk.

At present, the coastal erosion assistance grant provides £6,000 towards demolition costs for homes that need demolishing because of the coastal erosion threat. That amount has not increased since 2010, and demolition now costs around £35,000, and often more. This winter in my constituency of Suffolk Coastal, the cost reached as high as £50,000. On top of that, eligibility for the fund is restricted to those who bought their home before 2009. In Thorpeness, residents who bought after that date face the prospect of paying for the privilege of demolishing their own home. The council stepped in, because it could see that that was plainly wrong, but that cut-off is arbitrary, out of date and unfair. The Committee’s report makes it clear that this fund must be reviewed.

I welcome the Government’s recent funding announcement for coastal communities. It is a step in the right direction, but short-term funding is not the same as a long-term plan. There is no national strategy for what happens when people lose their homes; families are often left to navigate this alone, or have to rely on already-stretched local housing systems and are forced away from jobs, schools and support networks. We have seen pilots that show what can be achieved, such as the coastal transition accelerator programme; however, those programmes are time-limited. We cannot keep piloting solutions without ever embedding them. Our report calls for a long-term national strategy for relocation and financial support, one that builds on what we already know and gives communities certainty about their future.

We also need to stop creating future problems through the planning system. Shoreline management plans provide a long-term view of coastal change, but they are not consistently used in local planning decisions, meaning that development is still being approved in areas that we know may not be protected in the future. That is not sustainable, and it is not fair on future residents, so we are recommending that those plans be properly embedded into the planning system. Finally, we must address how we fund coastal protection and how we value our coastline. Too often, the system does not capture the true value of coastal communities—their economies, their heritage, their role in our national infrastructure, and the real human cost when things go wrong. In Suffolk Coastal, our coastline is our economic powerhouse, driving energy, tourism, and of course our port. However, we do not place economic capital on it, or value it sufficiently.

Underlying all of this is a simple question that people ask me time and again: “Why does support so often fail to reach us?” Our Committee’s report sets out practical, achievable steps to change that—to recognise the human cost, fix what is not working, and put in place a more joined-up, longer-term plan. Coastal communities deserve more than sympathy; they deserve action, support and long-term funding. The Committee has listened; we have pulled together our report, and we are now asking the Government to do the same. I commend this report to the House.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on her powerful contribution, and also congratulate the cross-party EFRA Committee on its thoughtful and thought-provoking report. Coastal communities are at the frontline of adverse weather events and the negative effects of climate change, and the report highlighted the human impact on those communities, and specifically their mental health. It echoed a lot of the findings of the previous EFRA Committee in the last Parliament—we produced a report on rural mental health that highlighted some of the impacts, including anxiety and trauma. Will the Select Committee put pressure on the Government to look at both this report and the previous report on rural mental health, so that the mental health of rural communities can be supported in the long term?

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter]

The hon. Member is absolutely right that our report highlights the significant strain that coastal erosion places on communities, and the impact that has on their mental health. I will read with interest the report from the last Session and see what its recommendations are, because I have no doubt that there are a huge number of parallels between the two reports.