Final Report to DEFRA - Jurassic Coast

they are unable to move quickly to take advantage of such opportunities. A further
lesson for Government is that such programmes need to be more medium-term
(minimum three years) to provide the best chance of recruiting stable, qualified teams
to deliver the programme. This said, we were ultimately very fortunate to recruit a
strong project team which climbed a steep learning curve swiftly and which has won
plaudits for its work from many stakeholders.
Perseverance with engaging elected representatives
At the outset of the project we invited all County Councillors representing the six case
study sites to a briefing and strongly encouraged District Councils involved in the
project to do likewise. Not all councillors accepted the invitation and after several
attempts in some instances we did not pursue these contacts further. On reflection,
we could have been more persistent in pursuing these elected representatives and
building their understanding of, and support for, the aims of the project.
4.3 Unintended consequences?
As the Pathfinder process was approaching a conclusion, a group of residents in
Sidmouth submitted a planning application to East Devon District Council for 200m of
rock armour to defend Pennington Point from coastal erosion. This was interpreted
by some as a failing of the Pathfinder process. While it is difficult for the project team
to be objective about this, our conclusion is that such an application would probably
have been forthcoming regardless of whether the Pathfinder process had taken
place. The application is so clearly at odds with both the Shoreline Management Plan
and the World Heritage Site Management Plan that it would certainly have been
preferable for the current proposal not to come forward. If there was a failure, it was
perhaps the failure to engage the residents who have submitted the application fully
in the Pathfinder process. This was not for want of trying, and from the outset there
were significant elements of the community in Sidmouth who resisted engagement in
Pathfinder precisely because they were concerned that it would delay progress
towards engineering solutions which they were convinced were necessary.
The lesson from this is perhaps not that community engagement can open a
Pandora’s box of unintended consequences, but that statutory bodies and local
authorities need to engage early with communities facing change before they have
convinced themselves that defence is the only option. This further emphasises the
importance of publishing information about long-term risk as this information provides
the only incentive to encourage communities to think about adaptation before it is too
late.
4.4 Other lessons learnt
Our baseline survey highlighted the fact that significant proportions of the population
do not feel engaged in the decision-making process around coastal change. The
workshops confirmed this and drew attention to frustration in some communities at
the costs and time involved in negotiating the consenting process for defence works,
particularly in relation to environmental designations. One community in particular
was concerned that the cost of works which it considered necessary was exceeded
by the costs of negotiating the approval process. The Pathfinder team was not in a
position to confirm or refute this, but we did agree to feedback to DEFRA a plea for
greater clarity, simplicity and speed in the consenting process. It is important to
emphasise, however that this did not amount to a demand for the stringent tests
which apply in special environments like the Jurassic Coast to be weakened as most
stakeholders recognise the need for high levels of protection to be maintained. But
31