1 / 20

Wolferton Creek to South Hunstanton and Scratby and California Pathfinders

Wolferton Creek to South Hunstanton and Scratby and California Pathfinders. Teresa Fenn Risk & Policy Analysts. Acknowledgements. Our approach has been built around views and feedback from key stakeholders and local communities: Key Stakeholder/Management Group

yale
Download Presentation

Wolferton Creek to South Hunstanton and Scratby and California Pathfinders

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Wolferton Creek to South Hunstanton andScratby and California Pathfinders Teresa Fenn Risk & Policy Analysts

  2. Acknowledgements • Our approach has been built around views and feedback from key stakeholders and local communities: • Key Stakeholder/Management Group • Scratby Coastal Erosion Group (SCEG) • Workshop attendees • Drop-in sessions • People who have responded to newsletter articles and questionnaires • Also had a lot of support, advice, information, guidance and comments from BCKLWN and GYBC

  3. No rock berm Two Very Different Projects…

  4. Two Very Different Projects…

  5. Two Very Different Projects…

  6. Scratby and California Coastal erosion Looking at adaptation in case there is no money for extension of rock berm and in long-term Wolferton Creek to South Hunstanton Coastal flooding Securing contributions to continue maintaining defences Two Very Different Projects…

  7. …with Commonalities • Both faced with obstacles and unknowns, especially: • money • awareness of risks • what local communities want • Need to identify options to enable the communities and businesses at risk to continue

  8. Finding Funding • Need money whether you are providing defences or adapting • Defences in short-term may cost less… • …adaptation has to be long-term solution to reduce future risks but with help for those that need it

  9. What do the Communities want? • Defences…and many think Government should pay • up to 78% in Scratby • 34% suggested Government in Wolferton Creek to South Hunstanton • Not to have to move • people wanted to contribute to defences rather than have to adapt • Scratby people preferred options that allowed them to stay in their properties • Not to feel victimised (by lines on map, having to pay for what others get for free) • …but were willing to talk about contributions, adaptation and to look at long-term solutions

  10. How Much Money do We Need? • What could come from central Government… • Payments for outcomes…not much • Wolferton Creek to South Hunstanton: • up to £97,000 per year • 12% of annual costs (£800,000 per year) • Scratby and California: • around £3 million • …but adaptation options start at around £8 million…and go up to £50 million

  11. What Can be Raised Locally? • What is local? • Just those who are affected? • Should just those affected pay, or should they pay a bit more (a surcharge?) • Contributions through parish precepts - not preferred…and could extend beyond direct beneficiaries • ‘Shoreline Drainage Board’ – whose members are the direct beneficiaries • Those who may benefit indirectly? • Contributions from across the Borough • …but those who are paying may also want to benefit, increasing the costs? • Wider: County? National?

  12. What Might Communities be Willing to Pay? • Wolferton Creek to South Hunstanton: • Overall (80): £33 per household per year • Questionnaires (52): £41 per year • Drop-in session (9): £31 per household per year • Newsletters (19): £14 per household per year • Scratby (per household per year): • To help fund purchase of properties (129): £9 • To pay for ‘property swap’ (118): £5 • To help pay for buy and rent back (96): £5 • To help cover maintenance costs (112): £8 • …but this is willingness to pay of direct beneficiaries or the affected communities

  13. Scratby and California Wolferton Creek to Hunstanton Borough-wide How Much Might They Have to Pay?

  14. What Do Businesses Want? • Very little response, to either project • Some caravan parks willing to contribute • Others not affected by previous flooding, less sure they could pass costs on • Awareness is being increased… • Chamber of Trade comments based on affordability for retail sector

  15. What Can We Deliver? • Mechanism for securing contributions: • Regional Flood and Coastal Committee: • allocation of GiA • raising local levy • Council Tax/Parish Precept: • but concerns over capping • use of Council Tax to procure others • Business Improvement Districts: • single sector business or Tourism BID • …Shoreline Drainage Board: • but potential issue with legislation • Adaptation: • Planning policies (Coastal Change Management Area, enables rollback) • Change to housing policy (safety net) • Hard to do more without funding to pump-prime options

  16. What Needs to Change? • Attitudes and awareness of risk: • low turnout at drop-in sessions • 12 at Heacham (in snow!) • 9 to workshop for those living in most at-risk properties at Scratby • Need to improve consistency of understanding: • Scratby: some people far back from the cliff top were concerned about their properties • Scratby: confusion over SMP and what it was showing • Heacham/Hunstanton: 19 replies to newsletters…but still ‘theoretical’?

  17. What Needs to Change? • Localism Bill: • Council Tax – referenda? capping? • Parish precepts – not transparent enough? • Contributions: • EA policy – support where some money comes from local sources • RFCCs – allocation of GiA • Defra payments – too open to interpretation and yet too restrictive • Other options: • New Homes Bonus – too focused on additional homes? • Housing Associations – restricted, e.g. by Decent Homes Standard • Planning Gain – but limited by community views on additional development • Community Interest Company – needs local people to come together to manage…but still needs funding

  18. Recommendations • For Local Authorities: • ongoing two-way communications plan (businesses, community, landowners) • Coastal Change Management Area and associated policies • potential for small-scale planning gain (linked to New Homes Bonus?) • change to social housing policy to help those affected by coastal change • Local MP: • Influence Defra payments for outcomes to help ensure they cover adaptation options • Potential for funding not allocated to defences to be used to help pay for adaptation • General: • Where do you draw the line between who pays and who does not, or who pays a surcharge and who does not? • If collecting a flood levy locally, how do you make it transparent and accountable?

  19. Project Achievements • Both were community-led projects • opportunities for everyone to be involved • decisions proposed and agreed by the community • Scratby: • door-to-door canvass and questionnaire delivery produced good response rates • development of CCMA through concept statement, agreed by community • development of future Community Development Plan • allayed concerns of many residents about coastal change • Wolferton Creek to South Hunstanton: • consensus that local contributions are an appropriate way to help fund coastal defences • stakeholder agreement on acceptable approach • raised awareness of issue of future funding…and of the risks

  20. Any questions? RPA Farthing Green House, 1 Beccles Road, Loddon, Norfolk, NR14 6LT Tel: 01508 528465 Email: teresa.fenn@rpaltd.co.uk

More Related