Final Report to DEFRA - Jurassic Coast

Issues like coastal change, natural disasters and climate change illustrate the
importance of geography in the curriculum in ensuring that future generations have
the know-how to be resilient in the face of change, so the project had an additional
aspiration to promote the subject.
It was clear from the feedback, summarised in section 3.6, that, as well as better
equipping students to understand issues like coastal change and promoting
geography within schools, the project delivered a wide range of additional benefits.
We believe that this project could be replicated in a wide range of coastal areas for
relatively limited cost. This would ultimately lead to a significantly higher level of
coastal literacy among the coastal residents and decision-makers of tomorrow.
Expectations are high – but can be managed
Expectations on the role of the state in dealing with coastal change are very high,
nowhere more so than in people’s perception of the ‘right’ to compensation for the
value of property threatened by coastal change. The idea of ‘market value’ of such
property has arisen often in the Pathfinder discussion and merits some scrutiny. Most
homeowners at risk feel that the only acceptable alternative to coastal defence for
their properties would be purchase by the state in some form at full market value, and
this is often asserted on the assumption that the state has a legal obligation to
defend property which, of course, it does not. Clearly, if the state waits long enough,
the ‘market value’ of at risk property will approach zero. Those homeowners who
understand that there is no compensation mechanism are more inclined to accept
that they are sitting on declining assets, and in terms of financial support to relocate,
take the view that ‘something’ would be better than ‘nothing’. Others would regard
anything less that ‘market value’ as unacceptable.
Most residents we encountered were also unaware of the legal obligation on property
owners to demolish property at risk. Many regard the up to £6,000 demolition grant
introduced in 2009 as something of an insult, even though it technically puts them in
a better position than they were before the grant was introduced. Many suggested
that if they were losing a property they would simply walk away and take their
chances with the possibility of enforcement action. This suggests that calculating the
likely annual total of the demolition grants which might be paid out in future, and
allocating this to a central fund (either nationally or locally) to ensure adequate clean
up might produce more consistent results as well as more efficient delivery. The offer
of a £6k grant is likely to result in £6k worth of expenditure, whereas co-ordinated
public procurement of demolition services should lead to economies of scale and
better specification of standards to which demolition should take place (e.g. in
relation to environmental impacts). As more property is lost to erosion, the risk of
coastal areas being strewn with the dangerous and unsightly remains of collapsed
property will increase unless co-ordinated action is taken to address the problem.
A key learning point for the project was that most people in property at risk were
pragmatic and while there may be understandable emotional attachment to such
property, we encountered very few people who would not be prepared to consider
relocation if an appropriate package of support was available. This suggests that
options for roll-back being looked at by other Pathfinder authorities should be given
very serious consideration by Government, ideally being rolled out as part of a single,
fair and transparent national system.
27