Whilst watching a recent episode of the BBC series Coast, I was reminded somewhat poignantly that Cuckmere Haven is not the only part of the south-east to face the dilemma of the irresistible elements, and like King Canute attempting to turn back the tide, we are, for all our arrogance and ingenuity, powerless to subdue the forces of nature.
We are not an immovable object. I wonder why we try to be?
Like Tantalus attempting to slake his thirst, the solutions to our problems, though seemingly tangible, often recede from our tentative grasp to become infuriatingly quixotic and mercurial. Even those we succeed in apprehending, butterfly like in our nets, occasionally prove impractical and idealistic when implemented and we are left to marvel at the naivety of our faith in them – or more often our faith in ourselves. It is at times like that these therefore that we should ask not ‘how do we strive to overcome this difficulty?’ but rather ‘how do we best prepare for the inevitable?’
The sea is coming whether we like it or not and continuing to fight it for even ten years, let alone fifty, is merely burying our heads in the sand. For all our good intentions we may, by deferring a long term or even permanent solution, be guilty of making the whole issue ‘someone else’s problem’. We are already leaving an unfortunate legacy for generations yet to come and despite recent warnings, many still refuse to accept the truth. So when faced with the dilemma of working with nature or ‘holding the line’, I would, for the sake of our children’s, children’s children, like to put in one small, plaintive vote in favour of the forces of nature - who don’t really need our help, but will punish us mercilessly for any contempt.
[Image courtesy of Science & Society Picture Library]
Categories: thoughts
Presumably timed to coincide with the recent engagement events, Rescue the Cuckmere Valley – seemingly rebranded as The Cuckmere Valley Campaign and now referring to itself as an ‘environmental group’ – have been making noises in the local press again. In a statement by Alan Edgar, The Cuckmere Valley Campaign has re-launched its failed rescue proposal to raise the existing banks of the Cuckmere River.
Though marketed as a ‘new bid’ in The Argus, the plan is apparently the same one proposed in 2004 (see the plan – rescue the cuckmere valley) and thrown out under objection by Lewes District Council on two counts: the absence of a flood risk assessment and the absence of an ecological assessment. It is not clear from the articles in The Argus and the Sussex Express whether these objections have been addressed in the ‘new’ proposal.
One thing that is clear from the two articles, however, is the uncertainty about how much of a saving The Cuckmere Valley Campaign’s project will produce. In The Argus Alan Edgar claims that their costing of £900,000 should be offset against the Environment Agency’s planned £2.9 million scheme whereas in the Sussex Express he claims that the alternative will cost £18 million!!!
Seems to be a slight discrepancy there.
As Mr Edgar states in The Argus article: “It is a significant saving on the public purse. The other proposal is a big money scandal.” It seems to me however that the biggest scandal of all has been perpetrated by Mr Edgar himself as he attempts to mislead the public about the cost of the alternatives. In the two days between these articles he has changed the Environment Agency proposal costs by a mere £15.1 million. I wonder which one is correct – if indeed either of them are?
There is a lot of good work gone into the objections raised by Rescue the Cuckmere Valley and their patron Nigel Newton, and they highlight some important and valid points. But how you present your argument is every bit as important as the argument itself.
Members of the Cuckmere Estuary Partnership, whose professional status and government affiliation demand a certain decorum, are expected to be modest in their comments and press releases. News agencies would have a field day with public objection should they behave otherwise. Accordingly, any attempt to slur the name or good standing of those opposing managed realignment would be seen as unfair, an abuse of power, bullying even ... and rightly so. They have to remain professional – and they do a very good job of it.
Strangely this shoe doesn’t seem to fit on the other foot!! Enter Alan J Edgar BA FRTPI MBII.
Mr Edgar was hired by Nigel Newton to act on behalf of Rescue the Cuckmere Valley back in 2003 [date requires confirmation]. As a professional Town Planner, and principal of Plan Sussex, one might reasonably expect Mr Edgar to behave with the same civility as members of the Cuckmere Estuary Partnership ... might one not?
Looking at the Plan Sussex website it’s somewhat curious to discover that Mr Edgar spends a lot of his time helping proposals gain approval in areas where most people might reasonably object to them: houses in AONB designated areas, a Green Belt fringe application for 2 large houses, an Orange network pole in an ANOB [sic] and near a SSSI/Nature Reserve, etc, etc. It seems logical, however, that his expertise in overcoming such obstacles to development gives him enormous experience in how to defend against them.
But many of the comments he makes are nothing more than insults and provocative exaggerations and we should be cautious how much credence we give them. Sadly, as history frequently demonstrates, misleading an impassioned public can lead to catastrophe. We must hope that nobody really believes the members of the Cuckmere Estuary Partnership to be capable of some of the heinous crimes Mr Edgar accuses them of.
The following comments are taken from articles that Rescue the Cuckmere Valley link to though their own website and display, we are to assume, with pride. They have all been made by Alan J Edgar BA FRTPI MBII:
“The Environment Agency is using bureaucratic terrorism to scare us ...” [Article]
Hmm – not sure what ‘bureaucratic terrorism’ is, but this is how the OED defines terrorism:
A system of terror.
1. Government by intimidation as directed and carried out by the party in power in France during the Revolution of 1789-94; the system of the ‘Terror’ (1793-4):
2. gen. A policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorizing or condition of being terrorized.
Now I fail to see how the Environment Agency has ‘terrorized’ or ‘intimidated’ anyone! C’mon Mr Edgar – a little less vitriol if you please. Surely this is slander?
“In the teeth of huge opposition from technocrats in the Government’s quangos we’ve won a great victory for local people.” [Article]
I love this one! It’s very visual. I imagine hordes of snarling, highly qualified, respectable experts bearing down menacingly upon us; their teeth bared, a frightful rictus running from ear to ear, salivating obscenely as they approach. Basically it’s just name calling ... not very mature really.
“It [the Environment Agency] fears our plan is more benign – a low-cost, low-impact alternative to the draconian plan offered by the Environment Agency – a plan which will create ecological mayhem, ethnic cleansing for the current ecostructure.” [Article]
Blimey! It’s lucky he stopped short of accusing them of genocide or culpability in the Holocaust!!!
Mr Edgar said the plans would infringe the human rights of the residents of the coastguard cottages. He believes they have the rights to access to their properties. [Article]
And this one is just nonsense. The ‘access’ he refers to is a footpath that the residents almost never use and which the Environment Agency has already agreed to maintain following managed realignment in order to preserve the very rights that Mr Edgar claims are being infringed. His comments here are deliberately misleading. Get your facts right Mr Edgar – this is just a lie!!
Though I have to admire Mr Edgar’s enthusiasm, his methods are vulgar and counter-productive to the aims of Rescue the Cuckmere Valley. But I fear we haven’t heard the last barrage of insults from him and with the engagement events coming up soon I suspect that further displays of impropriety are imminent. I begin to wonder why those who support Nigel Newton, and want their objections to be taken seriously, haven’t reined Mr Edgar in and I thereby wonder whether there are any supporters left at all? If there are, then he is doing them no favours. Sadly I am left with the distinct impression that Mr Edgar is flogging a dead horse ... a horse that he may have unintentionally killed himself.
Categories: publicity
Setting aside any ecological and aesthetic concerns surrounding the proposal for managed realignment, one issue that’s clearly a weighty item in the arsenal of Rescue the Cuckmere Valley is the question of tourism. And rightly so. The Cuckmere Estuary Partnership can claim what they will about the economic viability of maintaining the sea defences, the rising sea levels resulting from global warming and the importance of salt marshes in a country where such habitat is declining, but if local tourism, and potentially the community that relies on it, really will be destroyed by managed realignment, then it becomes a little less easy to justify for the sake of a few hectares of sodden marshland.
I was quite surprised therefore to stumble upon a 2005 report on the Assessment of Potential Impacts of Managed Realignment which looks specifically at this aspect of the Environment Agency’s proposal for the Cuckmere valley.
What surprised me - though I’ve no real idea why it should - was the discovery that English Nature had commissioned this report. Now some of you may claim that this automatically makes the recommendations biased in their favour. Well ... it’s a compelling claim ... but I have to disagree. After all, if it were true then it doesn’t say much for the professionalism of the company who conducted the report (Risk & Policy Analysts Limited) and from what I can gather they are a very reputable company indeed!
Never-the-less, I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions after reading the full report. What follows is a brief extract from their Conclusions and Recommendations:
“The suggested changes to the Cuckmere Valley to provide sustainable flood management within a more natural estuary will change the landscape and the present facilities enjoyed by visitors. However, if the change is properly managed there may be economic advantages to the area. This is predicted to arise because income lost from those visitors that choose not to visit Cuckmere because of the changes to the site following managed realignment may be more than compensated for by additional income from birdwatchers, with this being distributed more evenly throughout the year.”
Categories: controversy, tourism
I said that I would remain neutral, unbiased ... on the fence (if you wish) and I intend to do so. But that shouldn’t stop me from pointing out items that are clearly wrong or misleading. One of the problems facing the public in a situation like this are the inaccurate claims designed, it seems, to stir up sentiment, and thereby support, for a cause. Below is just such an extract from the website Lewes Conservatives dated 5th February 2008.
‘The Environment Agency plans to flood the Cuckmere Valley by breaching the embankments allowing the incoming tides to swamp the valley with seawater and by non-clearance of the river mouth, which will cause flooding upstream and will endanger the A259. When visiting the site Jason Sugarman said “This deliberate flooding will mean the loss of four footpaths in the beautiful valley which will decimate the local tourist trade. These age old meanders are a recreational and educational resource for generations of students and local families, that will be lost under mudflats.”’
Now many of statements in this piece – presented, apparently as facts – are actually just Mr Sugarman’s opinion (albeit a misinformed one ... I trust!) Please note, therefore that:
1) There is no evidence that the Environment Agency’s plans will cause flooding upstream and in fact one of the great benefits to tidal mudflats and salt marshes is their ability to act as a natural barrier against flooding. [See: RSPB Article and Intertidal Salt Marsh Survey]
2) There is no evidence that the tourist trade will be decimated (which, if I’m going to be truly pedantic means ‘reduced by 10%’ and is frequently misused by ignorant people who seem to think it means something completely different). I have heard this argument used many times and the truth of the matter is that for all we know more people might come to visit the Cuckmere after it becomes a salt marsh.
3) The meanders are silting up anyway and will disappear eventually of their own accord. Allowing the sea back in probably won’t help, but it’s not fair to blame the Environment Agency for their disappearance when keeping things as they are will result in the same outcome.
Categories: controversy, publicity
This is the proposal put forward by Nigel Newton on behalf of Rescue the Cuckmere Valley.
1. Proposal
1.1. The proposal is to raise the height of flood protection banks alongside the River Cuckmere by 300mm, from Exceat Bridge (adjacent to the Golden Galleon public house on the A259) to the sea. This stretch of river was canalised in the nineteenth century and the flood banks are relatively straight manmade features running either side of the channelled main course of the river. The flood banks double up as public footpaths, giving access from Exceat Bridge to the beach and coastal paths. The Vanguard Way (north-south) public path passes along the western side of the valley floor within Lewes District.
1.2. At the south end, the district boundary follows the course of the river and the proposal therefore includes raising the height of the banks which are within Wealden District. Planning applications have therefore been submitted to both Councils for the respective development within each area. This report considers the planning application which has been submitted to Lewes and, further, considers the response from this Council (as consultee) to Wealden DC on the application submitted to that Authority.
1.3. The Cuckmere Valley at this point is open and undeveloped. To the west of the river is lowland meadow and to the east is coastal floodplain and grazing marsh, together with the original meandering course of the river which forms a striking feature in the landscape. This area, including the Seven Sisters Country Park, is popular and is visited by substantial numbers of visitors enjoying the scenery and using the paths.
1.4. As indicated above, the proposal is to raise the height of the existing banks along both sides of the river by 300mm. The top surface would be level and grassed, and approximately 1.5m wide so that the existing footpaths are reinstated following completion of the works. A new bird hide would be constructed approximately 750m south of the Exceat Bridge.
1.5. The applicant’s agent has submitted the application as an alternative to an earlier proposal by the Environment Agency (EA) to “remove parts of the tidal protection banks and so cause tidal flooding of the fields either side of the River Cuckmere and the well known meanders”, which the applicant considers to be wholly unacceptable. The EA’s proposal did not proceed to a planning application and is currently understood to be under review, pending preparation of an Environmental Impact Assessment. The purpose of the current application is “to demonstrate that there is a reasonable and benign alternative to flooding the valley even under conditions of sea level rise…” It is presented as “a relatively low cost way of maintaining the status quo of footpaths important to the tourist industry, of visual amenity also important in that respect, and avoids dangers of erosion and environmental mishap.” The agent states that, with a net increase in sea level each year of 6mm, the 300mm increase in height of the banks would give approximately 50 years extra life to the tidal banks and the existing landscape, which would give time for “much mature reflection, and the assimilation of more definitive information on island tilt and global warming than is available today”. The agent also points out that, under the EA proposal, a right of access to the applicants property would be lost.
1.6. In total, the applicants claim that the proposal would require the importation of about 13,000 cubic metres of chalk for the raising of the banks, which is expected to generate a total of 1300 road delivery journeys, phased so as not to exceed 6 per day. Road access would be from the A259 both to the east and west of Exceat Bridge (to the west through the car park of the Golden Galleon public house), possibly requiring temporary traffic light control. Material would be delivered to temporary works compounds on either side of the river, and access to the working sites would be provided along the top of the existing tidal banks.
1.7. The application has been accompanied by supporting information covering ecological and engineering issues.
1.8. Implementation of any planning permission granted by the District Council would also require a separate consent from the Environment Agency under flood defence legislation, for works adjacent to a “main river”.
[Source: Nigel Newton Proposal]
Categories: plans
The Environment Agency is today (10 December 2008) announcing its decision to restore the Cuckmere estuary to a tidal floodplain, allowing this popular landmark to adapt to the impacts of climate change and providing great benefits to both visitors and wildlife.
Climate change, sea level rise and past interference by man have put the Cuckmere estuary under increasing pressure. Current flood defences are not high enough to cope with sea level rise, the river has not flowed through the winding meanders since the 1840’s and each year the Environment Agency spends up to £50,000 removing shingle from the mouth of the river.
Andrew Pearce, Environment Agency Area Manager for Kent and East Sussex, said: “We believe there is a better way to manage this special place. Climate change is presenting us with many challenges and the way we manage flood risk here has to change. Restoring the Cuckmere estuary to a tidal floodplain will allow the area to adapt to climate change and will bring with it great opportunities and benefits for visitors and wildlife.”
Last year the Environment Agency offered people the opportunity to give their views on the recommendation to stop maintaining the existing defences. The Environment Agency has now finalised its flood risk management strategy for the Cuckmere estuary and all those who own or occupy land in the area have now been informed of the decision to withdraw maintenance after a two year notice period.
Andrew Pearce continued: “This is a beautiful landmark and an undeveloped area and it wouldn’t be right to continually build bigger defences here. Our decision will not increase flood risk for any properties in the Cuckmere River catchment. But it will save valuable flood risk management money which can then be directed to where it is most needed to protect people and properties.”
Each year the Environment Agency spends up to £50,000 of flood risk management money removing shingle from the river mouth to enable the river to flow out to the sea and reduce the risk of flooding upstream at Alfriston and Westdean. Following the 2 year notice period, the Environment Agency will continue to do this work for as long as it is required. When the tidal floodplain is restored, the river will be able to keep itself clear. This could take up to 15 years.
Andrew Pearce added: “We do know there will be a lot of concern for the future of this popular landmark and we are not just walking away, We believe a more natural estuary will still provide plenty of opportunity for people to continue to enjoy this wonderful area and as a member of the Cuckmere Estuary Partnership we will work with local residents and businesses to identify how to manage the changes to the estuary in the future so that the public can continue to enjoy this area and wildlife can thrive.”
In its draft flood risk management strategy, the Environment Agency compared several options for managing flood risk on the Cuckmere estuary. More than 100 people responded to the draft and over 250 people attended exhibition sessions. Over half of those who responded to the consultation between September and December 2007 believed that some kind of management change needs to happen.
[Source: The Environment Agency]
Categories: plans