Twenty-eighth Report Adapting Institutions to Climate Change Cm ...

Chapter 3
3.88
3.89
3.90
3.91
3.92
3.93
In some cases where the final recommendations of the SMP did not meet with local agreement,
local action groups were formed. We met representatives of the Coastal Concern Action Group
at Happisburgh in North Norfolk. Locally-raised funds (from residents, businesses and donations
from visitors), supplemented by money set aside by North Norfolk District Council (NNDC),
were used to protect parts of the coastline vulnerable to erosion (see for example Figure 3-VII).
This course of action went directly against the SMP, which recommended ‘no active intervention’.
However, it was felt by the NNDC that once the decision of the SMP had been accepted there
was a policy vacuum with no obvious adaptation mechanism or support to fulfil it. 78 The NNDC
therefore intended to use the funds to ‘buy time’ until adaptation mechanisms could be developed
and initiated. Coastal protection would therefore remain on a temporary basis (paid for by locallyraised
funds). This action formed part of a much wider Coastal Management Plan, which involved
the local community and made them feel part of the negotiations that would decide on the future
of their homes and businesses.
We also note the potential for conflicts between policies for managing coastal risks and land use
planning, and mechanisms for controlling development in future high-risk areas. 79 Generally,
local planners will work to a time horizon of around 20 years, which may be short in relation
to the longer timescale required for thinking about climate impacts. In addition, planners may
also often come under considerable local political pressure to contribute to the regeneration of
coastal economies through continued development of coastal areas. As a result, there are areas
where businesses and homes have been built in locations which will be at risk of flooding or
erosion in the future.
Additional sources of potential conflict arise where local communities witness investment in
restored local habitats to comply with the EU Birds and Habitats Directives, while their own
livelihoods remain neglected. As we saw when we visited Happisburgh, this can result in very real
feelings of anger and tension.
We note that the challenges of managing the coast will become greater in future. We saw evidence
that the current institutional arrangements for dealing with coastal communities affected by the
threat of coastal erosion are not perceived to be working as well as arrangements for inland needs.
So one of the key questions is whether or not the institutional arrangements are in place to enable
communities to respond to these challenges, including the possibility of relocation, if coastal
protection schemes are not a viable and sustainable long-term solution.
Under the terms of the Flood and Water Management Bill, the right of Regional Flood and
Coastal Committees to consent to local levies for land drainage would be extended to coastal
erosion risk management as well as inland flooding. This would permit money to be raised to
support locally important coastal erosion work. In addition, the Government has expressed an
interest in receiving views on whether, even with this, sufficient local discretion exists to invest in
projects which are not centrally funded. 80
81
In response to the challenge of coastal change, Defra launched a consultation in June 2009.
The consultation document set out Defra’s ideas on how coastal communities can successfully
adapt to a changing coastline. The document also described the new coastal change pathfinder
programme. In addition, CLG consulted on new planning policies on coastal change which seek
to provide a planning framework for the continuing economic and social viability of coastal
communities and the planning tools that will be needed to help communities to adapt. 82 CLG
aims to publish the final policy in spring 2010.
60