archive Natural England Response to Questions SHAUN THOMAS REGIONAL DIRECTOR NATURAL ENGLAND – EAST OF ENGLAND Response to questions raised by David Andren Q 1: Why is Natural England refusing to agree to the local and national protocols which would permit landowners to rebuild river defence walls to the same height as agreed following the 1953 floods? A: I can reassure you that Natural England has agreed the national sea wall protocol with the Environment Agency (EA); the organisation which provides the framework for sea wall maintenance by land owners. We are also supporting EA locally on their work with coastal flood wall owners in Essex, and are working with landowners wishing to maintain their own walls on the Blyth. We will work openly with all parties wherever proposals come forward from landowners wishing to carry out their own flood management, and consider each case in the context of the local circumstances. Q 2: Given the extent of man-made intervention in contrast to the Norfolk coast and Essex coasts where there are many more estuaries and rivers running east-west, why does Natural England not recognise that in many cases it is impractical to permit natural processes to determine the configuration of the Suffolk Coast? A: We do recognise that it is impractical to allow natural processes to completely determine the shape of the Suffolk coast, but we do think that it is right, in principle, to work with coastal processes as far as possible. This will be increasingly necessary if, as predicted, climate change accelerates change at the coast. However, we recognise that coastal change needs to be managed very carefully, in a way that tries to take account of all the various interests and which does include the meaningful involvement of local communities, like those on the Alde-Ore. Q 3: Given we cannot rely on US governments to maintain GPS satellites is it not fair to say that it is in the national interest that Orford lighthouse should be preserved? Is this not consistent with the EU Habitat Regulations? Is Dr Phillips prepared to send us a position statement setting out Natural England objections to the options currently under consideration for inclusion in our December newsletter? A: Natural England is not, by itself, preventing the retention of the lighthouse. We are advising Trinity House and Suffolk Coastal DC on the implications for the natural environment of whatever options are available, and eventually chosen. Our advice will be weighed against the other interests needing consideration. We are working closely with Trinity, SCDC and other interested parties to assess a range of possible solutions, and as far as possible to agree one which meets everyone’s needs. We do think that the views of the local community should be taken into consideration in reaching a solution. However we don’t think it would be appropriate, at this time, for us to offer just our view on the lighthouse, since our advice and views are only one part of the process which is looking for an acceptable solution. Perhaps this is one of the issues we could discuss when we meet. Q 4: Many of our members would like to be able to walk from Slaughden to the ferry point opposite Orford Quay. We are in the process of agreeing dates for walks with National Trust staff. However we understand that the coastal access legislation is intended to follow the coast as far as possible and where appropriate to existing ferry points. We now see no prospect of establishing a ferry from Slaughden Quay to the opposite bank. Will the National Trust agree to talks with the leader of our rights of way and footpaths team, Angela Sydenham, who is one of England’s leading authorities on rights of way and with the National Trust on longer term options? A: The Marine and Coastal Access Act has just received royal assent, so work to roll-out the coastal access project will begin in earnest. The first step is a consultation on the coastal access draft ‘scheme’, beginning now. This document provides guidance on how routes will be aligned and managed. There will be an East of England consultation event on this in January, and we will make sure that you receive an invite to this on behalf of the Alde-Ore Association. The Project is a long term one, and will be rolled out on a county by county basis; it is likely to begin in Suffolk in either 2011 or 1012, led by Suffolk County Council. Until this time it isn’t possible to definitively answer detailed questions like options for crossing the Alde-Ore, although we are certainly happy to listen to ideas and suggestions. In terms of whether the National Trust will meet with you, although we are sure they will be keen to engage with coastal access in Suffolk, we cannot speak for them, so we would suggest that you invite them to discuss this matter directly with yourselves. Q 5: Why are Natural England and Environment Agency opposed to Stephen Hawes beach stabilisation plan at Thorpeness. Is Natural England prepared to meet with the owner of the land, Stephen Hawes and the Association to discuss options for resolving these issues? A: We understand that this refers to the proposals for geotextile groynes at Thorpeness. The area of the proposed groyne field, as well as the access routes and works compounds are within the Leiston-Aldeburgh Site of Special Scientific Interest, which is notified for the important vegetated shingle habitats on the beach. Natural England has not objected to the planning application, but we have asked for more details so we can properly advise Suffolk Coastal District Council (SCDC) on any likely impacts of the proposals on the natural environment. The shingle to the north of the proposed groyne field supports very good examples of vegetated shingle which could be damaged by physical disturbance during the construction process, or by coastal process effects of constructing groynes immediately to the south. We have discussed this with SCDC and in principle support a 5-year consent, with monitoring and review, to examine possible impacts on the SSSI. We would be happy to meet with the applicant and their representatives to discuss the proposals. Any such meeting would need to be led by Suffolk Coastal District Council. Natural England is only one of a number of consultees advising SCDC as the competent authority determining the planning application in this case. Q 6: Given Natural England’s views on river wall reinstatement on the Blyth Estuary (as stated in CO9/1030/FUL), would we support efforts to obtain more accurate monitoring arrangements of tidal flows, heights and sedimentation in the Alde-Ore as part of ACES and Alde-Ore Futures? A: We support monitoring and studies that improve our understanding of how estuaries and coasts like the Alde-Ore work. The monitoring of the Alde-Ore needs to be fit for purpose and sufficiently detailed to enable us to confidently advise on impact of coastal management decisions on the natural environment. We anticipate that ACES and the Futures project will provide a wealth of information to inform this, and this should include information in tidal flow, height and sediment. Ideally it should also investigate just what various ‘breach’ and ‘non-breach’ scenarios might mean for how the estuary behaves and the impacts on the use and features of the Alde-Ore.