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