Shoreline Management Plans

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Westminster Hall

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

I thank Mr Speaker for granting this debate on an important issue. I wish that more of my colleagues were here today. I am new to Suffolk Coastal, which is the only constituency with the word “coast” in its name—and as may be imagined, the debate subject is one of the biggest issues there—but I am not new to coastal erosion. I grew up as a little girl in a place called Formby, which is also well known for its shifting sands. I recognise that I am very new to Suffolk, and I commend the work done thus far to protect the coast. I pay tribute in particular to my predecessor, the recently ennobled Lord Deben.

I want to raise awareness of the issue of shoreline management plans and invite Members of Parliament to consider joining the all-party coastal and marine group, which decided to include the plans among our particular issues. I am slightly thrown, because I expected the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) to be here, and was therefore about to pay tribute to him. However, I am sure that the Minister of State will pass on to him the gratitude that is still felt in my community for the fact that within only a few months of joining the Government, he came to Norfolk and Suffolk constituencies. That was very well received.

I also want to say well done to the many councillors and Government agencies that have worked hard to produce the shoreline management plans. Although I do not agree with every word that is in the plans, on the whole those responsible have done a great job—constrained by the policy visited on us by the previous Government. The shoreline management plans were driven by the policy in “Making Space for Water”. I recognise that what led to that was severe flooding across the country. However, in my view, much of what went into “Making Space for Water” and subsequent reviews, such as the Pitt review, had nothing to do with coastline management; it was trying to deal with flooding. That is typical of much of the approach that has been taken to flooding and erosion.

Flooding is temporary. It is very disruptive to people; I recognise that. There have been some severe incidents; but it is not terminal, whereas erosion is. Once shoreline is gone, it is generally gone for good. There might be a little movement of sediment up and down the coast; but, as to houses, there is a village in my constituency, Covehithe, that is not expected to exist in 40 years’ time. That is quite an impact for the people who live there.

I shall not compare our situation with that of Holland. I do not pretend to be Canute or to think that we can change nature. However, perhaps I may make use of an analogy with our neighbours across the North sea, who have made their country bigger by reclaiming land from the sea. Their shoreline is roughly the length of that of Essex. Yet they manage to spend €1.5 billion a year on their shoreline defences, and to supply on average about 9 million cubic metres of beach recharge, as opposed to the 2 million enjoyed across the UK. As an aside—although there is no conclusive evidence on this—I understand that Holland does not allow aggregate dredging within 10 miles of its shoreline, and, indeed, that it buys aggregate from the United Kingdom.

To return to “Making Space for Water”, I am not going to get into the debate about rising sea levels and similar issues; that is not the purpose of this debate. However, what is relevant is the fact that the plans are now effectively based on 25, 50 and 100-year decisions. We are making 100-year decisions on the basis, to some extent, of a three-year budget. I am not surprised that the consequence is a disproportionate impact on communities that are not densely populated. I should prefer a rethink on “Making Space for Water”. I do not suggest it should be complete and fundamental or that we should turn back the clock in every respect. However, I suggest that instead of making 100-year decisions we should continue with what was the tradition in this country until fairly recently, and make decisions for 25, 30 or 40 years, so that one generation can pass on the challenge to the next, but also do its bit for that generation; and so that one generation will not take decisions that leaves nothing for future generations. That is what is happening in places. I am thinking of places such as Happisburgh, in North Norfolk, as well as parts of my constituency, where people know that their village will not exist in 40 years and there is nothing they can do about it.

Among various things that have happened, more and more powers have been given to the Environment Agency. I understand that the strategic aspect of that was to try to put responsibility in one area and take an integrated approach. With the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 there has been strengthening of the regional flood defence committees. I am concerned that those committees cover a large area. That almost goes against the mantra of the big society and the idea of enabling local communities to take decisions, which of course should mean working with neighbours but should not mean being told, from the regional perspective, “This is what you can and cannot do; this is what we can and will not fund.”

I want to spend a little time focusing on my area of Suffolk. Shoreline management plan 1 was published in 1998 and it continued the “hold the line” philosophy that we should do what we can to preserve the coast. Shoreline management plan 2, which has still not, to the best of my understanding, been signed off by the Secretary of State, contains a significant change, in that properties will be lost. The Under-Secretary came to my constituency and met people who will be affected. I wanted him to meet such people—Mrs Flick, Mr Chandler and Mr Monson —and see the tears in their eyes because of the effect of the policies.

In my maiden speech I mentioned Thorpeness, where something happened that is supposed to be a one in 50 or one in 100-year event—I cannot remember which; within 50 days of the passing of the plan at local council level, a significant loss of beach was suffered. It does not give residents much confidence when there has been a downgrade to no active intervention, and something that seemed far off happens. I pay tribute to the council and the Environment Agency for pulling together and doing some remedial work. It required the financial intervention of constituents, who have put in money. Not all my constituents are particularly cash rich, but they have done that to try to protect their homes for another 30 years. That relates to the policy I mentioned earlier.

Another aspect of the shoreline management plan that is relevant to my constituency is the suggested breach just south of Aldeburgh, moving into the estuary. When the shoreline management plan was initially being made, there was a separation between it and the estuary management plan. I am pleased that there was recognition from the council and the Environment Agency that that was wrong, and such matters cannot be considered in isolation. Under the Alde and Ore futures initiative, work is now being done to examine the impact of breaches of the shoreline among wider areas of the estuary. There were reports yesterday on the BBC that if there were a “one in 100” big North sea storm, Cambridge would be a coastal town. That is the impact suggested by some of the modelling, which I do not decry; but the impacts of smaller storms could wipe out many properties in my constituency, and much agricultural land and habitat.

Two councillors have brought to my attention their concern about the consultation process. I am not clear on this, so I do not speak with complete authority, but my impression from meeting residents is that those who are not on the electoral roll, discouraged because they were second home owners, may not have participated fully in the shoreline management plan. Indeed, some residents have said that they had never heard of it until the impact was known. That is a cause for concern: people whose houses would be lost as a result of the shoreline management plan did not know about it. That needs to be reflected upon, and I hope the Minister and the Secretary of State will consider that when they sign off the plans.

The impact on people and on agriculture is real. One concern about the funding formulas, when we start looking at the cost of coastal defences along different parts of the shoreline, is that issues such as heritage assets and agriculture have not been taken account of in a valid way. I understand that Suffolk produces a great many potatoes for our country, and I am sure they are delicious and are enjoyed by many hon. Members. One of the features of our agriculture, however, is that we have two or three seasons of potatoes, and some of that could easily be lost if there was a breach of the shoreline and subsequently the estuary.

The previous Government looked at ways of mitigating and carrying out managed retreat, using schemes such as the pathfinder grants. Constituents feel that although that was jolly nice, it was a waste of time. More hope is coming from the community right-to-build proposals brought in by the Minister for Housing and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps). Instead of people being told that they have to move to a town, they are now working with councils to get planning permission to go into other areas. Frankly, if they live on the edge of the coast they do not want to live in a town; they are living in an isolated rural hamlet. Some moves have been made on that, but I am not sure that pathfinder money has been spent in the best way. I have been told on several occasions, “We would rather have used this £1.5 million grant actually to put some defences in, rather than being told we will lose our homes.”

In terms of compensation, more and more awareness exists about the human rights impact of the decisions that are made about the change in policy no longer to hold the line. Those who will be impacted by High Speed 2 will receive compensation for the fact that their houses will be moved as a result of a change in or an introduction of Government policy. That does not happen in coastal erosion, where we have decided not to hold the line. I believe, although I am not certain, that those who suffer from fluvial flooding also receive compensation. In Happisburgh there were schemes looking at giving people 40 to 50% of the value of their homes. Frankly, trying to rebuild a home sometimes costs more than that, and trying to buy elsewhere can easily cost more than that. That needs to be looked at. I recognise that traditionally, compensation has not been a feature of coastal erosion policy, but we have not been putting in black and white as effective policy, “You are going to lose your home, and we are not going to compensate you for anything.” I understand that compensation is available for landowners where land has been deliberately allowed to flood, but that is limited to agricultural situations.

Returning to the idea of not trying to be Canute, this country does not have billions of pounds to put a ring of steel or a ring of stone around our shorelines, and that would not necessarily be best for our coast. The Minister has heard from some of my constituents the can-do attitudes they can bring to decisions on how to fund future defences—in particular, the initiative with Suffolk Coastal district council and landowners around the Bawdsey area. Gerry Matthews engineered a scheme whereby exceptional planning permission was given to build some houses on greenfield land. The money from that paid for defences around the Bawdsey area. That has been welcomed, and it was pioneering at the time. Although some of my constituents are concerned that that will mean we will pay for our coastal defences for ever, at least we have been given the choice to do so. In this day and age, it is about making choices for ourselves and not simply expecting the Government to write a blank cheque, especially in these difficult times. Other schemes could be possible up and down our coast.

One aspect that we must get right is that the partners of Natural England and the Environment Agency should not have the sole judgment over whether defences can be done. At the moment the EA and Natural England have some quite restrictive powers, and they can say “No, you cannot put those hard defences in.” It is hard to argue with a constituent who says they are happy to pay for defences or to arrange some match funding, and who is subsequently told that they cannot do so. That has led to some extreme reactions in parts of my constituency: frankly, dumping a whole load of rubble on the beach is not ideal either, and I would not recommend that as a course of action. There are, however, situations where landowners desperately need to be able to maintain their defences. They should be able to enhance their defences if they need to. I recognise the importance of the various directives we have signed up to on habitat, but people are still more important than fossils or certain kinds of birds. If there ever was a case for the Human Rights Act, that is one: humans have a right to live and to defend their homes.

Moves are afoot in the Ministry, and I want to recognise those. The consultation is out now for the national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy. We have heard about future funding, the draft guidance is out for consultation and people are working together—the National Farmers Union and the Country Land and Business Association, with DEFRA, Natural England and the Environment Agency—to look at protocols on the subject. I call on the Government to consider that, as I have said, coastal erosion is terminal and we are not reclaiming anything; flooding is temporary. Please bear that in mind when we are looking at the different schemes and at allowing people to make the big society a reality, not just hot air. We must encourage the Environment Agency and Natural England to work with the people on our coastal shorelines to recognise that they can do things. It is not about damaging the future; a lot of the land around the coastal shorelines and slightly inland has been held in families for generations. They do not want to destroy such places; they want to enhance them and to keep them, not only for their descendants but for the enjoyment of many people across the country.

Councillor Sue Allen from Southwold has written to me making the point that we had set aside £1.6 billion for the habitat creation programme, and in writing off Benacre Broad, Covehithe, Tinkers Marsh, Delacroix Marsh, Hen Reedbeds, Reydon Marsh, Dunwich Marsh and Minsmere aspects, 950 hectares of land has to be recreated. The habitat has to be recreated elsewhere, and the estimated cost is £50 million. That sum could produce a significant number of defences in that area. I do not see that as a Ponzi scheme, but I want to encourage Ministers who say, “We are not going to spend money on it from this pot, but we will spend money from that pot” to think about that. That does not make sense to me, and we need to have a rethink.

This is one of the most important issues in my constituency. It does not affect everybody there, but there is a recognition that our coast is important to us. We do not want to see too many more towns such as Dunwich, which can appear more interesting under the sea than they are on shore. I encourage DEFRA to look, as I believe it is doing, at innovative and different ways of protecting the coast—methods such as artificial barriers and artificial reefs, looking at constituents’ ideas for defending their own shorelines, or thinking again about some aspects of the consultation—so that people in areas that have moved to no active intervention, and who, in their view, were not made aware of that, are allowed a second chance to express views to their local councils.

I give credit to the Government agencies, councillors and others who have worked very hard on shoreline management plans within the constraints of “Making Space for Water”. I hope, though, that the Government reconsider the issue fundamentally and recognise that 100-year decisions being made today have impacts on people in the shorter term, not just 100 years hence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paice]

I am very grateful for that. I think that my hon. Friend will find that I was chairman of Essex Young Farmers, rather than the National Farmers Union. In those days, believe it or not, I was young. My hon. Friend also referred to the 1953 floods and the memories of them. I am probably one of the few people in the House who remembers them—just. I was a very small child at the time, living just outside Felixstowe. The flood came close to where I was living and it was horrendous. That sort of memory lives on. People will always be frightened if they have been through that awful experience.

My hon. Friend referred to the importance of agricultural land. As a Minister with responsibility for agriculture, and coming from such a background, too, I am very concerned about it. However, I accept that against someone’s home, it comes second; we must all realise that. I hope that the point I will come to in a minute about other Government proposals will reassure colleagues that it is something that we are trying to address, albeit in a different way. I take his point about the involvement of local landowners in shoreline management plans and I am very much aware of the work of Andrew St Joseph in trying to drive that forward and in generating dialogue.

My hon. Friend and one or two other hon. Members referred to the role of Natural England. Although it has a vital role to play, it is important that it adopts a more enabling and supportive role and that it recognises that other issues are involved. We are making some substantial changes to the way in which Natural England is organised and run, which I hope will make it more responsive to local needs and understanding, and I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance.

My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon also referred to the difficulty of landowners in doing maintenance work. I am not sure whether that happens just in his constituency, but an Essex farmer, who had better remain nameless, told me that he was given permission by the Environment Agency to do some maintenance work on the sea wall, which involved several hundred tonnes of stone. Natural England then came along and told him that the stone had to go in by helicopter, which stopped the process in its tracks.

Mobile homes, to which a number of hon. Friends referred, are included in the cost benefit analysis, although at a lower rate than a fixed building because they can be moved. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) referred to the issue of consultation and to the apparent priority of the habitats directive, which allows projects to go ahead, even where damage to protected sites is foreseen as a consequence. Projects that damage European protected sites can still go ahead if there are imperative reasons for overriding that public interest or if there are no alternative solutions and if necessary compensatory measures are in place.

The issue of how cost benefits are calculated, to which my hon. Friend also referred, are addressed on the DEFRA website. I will write to him with more detail, because I fully appreciate that people have a right to know. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) referred to the solidarity fund promoted by the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb). I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, is, in principle, supportive of that, but it is a matter for local people to take forward. Although the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) cover a devolved issue, I appreciate his point about the liability aspect.

As the hon. Member for Leicester South said, no two places on the coast are the same, which is one reason why greater local involvement is necessary if we are to get this job right. The powers of consent for work rest with the local authority, except where there are certain European obligations to achieve, and then the powers rest with the Secretary of State. The House is aware that the coalition Government are determined to be the greenest Government ever, and that includes protecting and enhancing the natural environment. None the less, we need to be more creative in the way in which we serve those interests as well as meeting our international obligations and protecting agricultural land wherever possible.

Greater local involvement is at the heart of the Government’s proposed “payment for outcomes” funding approach, which we launched for public consultation last Wednesday, alongside the joint consultation with the Environment Agency of the national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy. The consultation suggests changes to the way in which Government funding is allocated to flood and coastal defence projects. That follows recommendations by Sir Michael Pitt in his review of the 2007 flooding. The reforms aim to provide improved transparency and greater certainty over potential funding levels from the general taxpayer for every flood and coastal defence project. They will also allow local areas to have a bigger say in what is done to protect them. Over time, local ambitions on protection no longer need be constrained by what national budgets can afford, and the reforms will encourage innovative, cost-effective solutions in which civil society can play a greater role. This is about saying what the Government think the cost-benefit analysis is and, therefore, what funding might be available from Government. If that is not enough to do the work, the local community has the option to find funding to enable it to happen.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

One of the criticisms that sometimes comes out is about over-engineering and, therefore, the high costs of work. That is a constant refrain from landowners who believe that they could do a lot of the work at a much lower cost.

[Mr Paice]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend; she makes a point that has been made many times. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury is conscious of that issue and is working with the Environment Agency to see how we can alter the situation, which I do not think necessarily means reducing the specification of what is done. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter.

The proposals to which I have just referred are subject to consultation and final decisions will be made in the spring after the consultation closes on 16 February 2011. I hope that this will mark a significant step forward in how we go about things. I think I have referred to most of the issues that hon. Members raised; if I have not or if I have answered their concerns inadequately, perhaps Members could let me know.