logoSave our Selsey

Campaign for Coastal Defence

SOS’s Preliminary Response to the North Solent Shoreline Management Plan

SOS attended the North Solent Shoreline Management Plan (NS SMP) meeting at Havant on 23 March 2009.  The NS SMP covers all the coastline between Southampton and Selsey Bill and involves consideration and possibly review of our Pagham to East Head Coastal Defence Strategy (PEHCDS).  Representation from Selsey is needed to ensure that the best interests of this part of the Peninsula are looked after.  Our preliminary comments on the NS SMP were invited and you will find these below: 

1. General

I would like to quote from the first page of the North Solent Shoreline Management Plan:  “A shoreline management plan is a non-statutory document that provides a broad assessment of the long-term risks associated with coastal processes.  It offers guidance to coastal engineers and managers to identify and recommend strategic and sustainable coast defence policy options for particular lengths of coast to reduce the risks to people, the developed and natural environments”.  My greatest concern regarding this broad commitment is that the SMP’s Administration Board appears to have no specific representation of local communities and commercial groups (with due respect to the unitary authorities who work to current parameters), neither are there any engineering bodies.  Therefore, the social and domestic interest - which is the well being of the community - may not be truly represented.  To lose land, housing and commercial property without a coherent policy and without including the aspect of social justice - especially in highly established areas such as Selsey - may lead to property blight and collapse of the local economy, with the associated social problems.  The power of Natural England effectively to veto or refuse a coast defence plan on the grounds of environmental impact serves no interest in the long-term if erosion is the result, other than causing delay, frustration and mistrust.

Another concern we have which I am sure will be addressed but, nevertheless, needs to be highlighted is the large percentage of coastline which is owned privately.  It is likely that many private owners will not be able to afford repairs, which will lead to uncontrolled flooding behind already defended areas. 

In addition, the system whereby coast defences are repaired, sustained or new build using the Government’s cost:benefit ratio system (plus the new outcome measures) is fundamentally flawed because smaller towns will never benefit.  Will we reach the scenario that only the large towns will survive and all the small coastal towns will be left to deteriorate as they are flooded or eroded? This is particularly significant with this area from Southampton to Selsey Bill.  Small towns should not be discriminated against; they are part of the heritage of the British Isles.

2. Specific to the Manhood Peninsula

With regard to our own part of this SMP, I would like particularly to highlight as an example the Medmerry area.  This is destined at the moment for realignment under the policy of our Pagham to East Head Coast Defence Strategy (PEHCDS).  SOS has always disagreed with this policy which will result in the loss of farmland and possibly the loss of some of our caravan site and houses.  The Medmerry has not yet to my knowledge been surveyed and thus the plan is to be implemented on an “unformatted” basis.  Realignment will satisfy Government policies and probably compensatory habitat creation requirements.  Taking land for compensatory habitat has thus now been done “by the back door”, not by getting owners’ permission but by purchasing the land in a secretive deal and not by consultation.  Perhaps the wider community wanted the land to continue farming (similar to seeking change of use in the planning framework where local opinion is sought).  Taking the land for compensatory habitat appears not to have been done in the interests of the community but rather in the interests of the Environment Agency.  Accepting a buyout (rather than facing financial ruin) is understandable viewed from the farmers’ point but only highlights the ridiculous situation where land/property can be compensated for in a realignment habitat creation situation but not in respect of housing and commercial property, when its defence is deemed not to be cost effective under the present cost benefit ratio formula..  The EU Directive says that there is no preference between the two aspects of this argument (i.e. habitat and people), yet compensatory habitat creation gets the compensation.  This aspect needs addressing now.  In twenty years’ time, the need for farmland will outstrip the need for compensatory habitat, the need for which is dubious.  Selsey does not want to be surrounded by “natural habitat” to the detriment of its economic viability.  Bird watchers will not support our local economy anywhere near the same extent to that which agriculture and caravan parks do.

If this realignment is to go ahead, we ask the SMP to consider the minimum amount of realignment requirement but also to insist that recreational amenities (e.g.cycle track,/ ramblers’ walkway/bird watchers’ hides) and possibly the construction of an emergency access road for Selsey be included.

Thank you for inviting us to comment.  We look forward to further participation in this ongoing process.

Richard Dearsley

Chair – SOS