MINUTES
COASTAL PATHFINDER PROGRAMME
Property Acquisition at Beach Road, Happisburgh
24 September 2010
2pm Committee Room, NNDC Offices, Cromer
Attendees
Councillors
CMT
Coastal
Management
Reference
Group
Happisburgh
Liaison Group
Cllr. Angie FitchTillet
Steve Blatch
Brian Farrow
Malcolm Kerby
David Mole
Cllr. Eric Seward
Sheila Oxtoby
Peter Frew
Dan Corbett
Jim Whiteside
Cllr. Lee Walker
Rob Young
Tony Nash
George Siely
Cllr. Clive
Stockton
Marti Tipper
Rob Wise
Jack Hall
Cllr. Peter Moore
Rob Goodliffe
Sue Willis
Jane Archer
Janice Howell
Glen Berry
Ian Coupe
Apologies
Cllr. Hilary
Nelson
Item
Attending
1
Introduction
Introductions were given by the chair Cllr. Peter Moore, and Sheila
Oxtoby.
The attendees introduced themselves.
Action
2
Outline of Pathfinder Bid and Programme – Rob Young
RY explained the original Pathfinder bid and the fact that that the
Happisburgh Projects within Pathfinder are an integrated package. The
bid included: facilitating the relocation of houses on Beach Road;
purchase and lease back of houses; beach debris clearance; and cliff top
enhancement by relocating the car park, public toilets and construction of
a beach access from the cliff top.
Defra did not amend any of the highlighted outcomes and the Council
took the decision to implement the projects as submitted; however, it was
emphasised that the projects’ success depends upon local support.
3
Explanation of property acquisition approach – Peter Frew
PF explained to the group how the method for the acquisition of property
for demolition on Beach Road was approached. Section 8 of the Cabinet
report was referred to. PF talked in depth about how the methodology and
values were formed by employing external consultants Bruton Knowles.
Bruton Knowles developed a 3 staged valuation formula.
1. The value as of today
2. The value due to the eligibility of the EN12 role back policy (EN12
gives the right to owner to rebuild because of imminent loss due to
erosion)
3. Additional funding to help assist residents to be able to move on
(similar to the ‘home loss’ value in compulsory purchase examples)
This 3 staged formula is considered to be repeatable, transferable and
lawful.
4
Roll-back policy EN12 - Steve Blatch
SB detailed the EN12 policy and its possible use in the purchase of Beach
Road properties in Happisburgh. The policy allows for the building of a
replacement property to the one at risk (at risk within 20 years) in a ‘less
at risk’ location followed by the demolition of the at risk property. The
policy is not location specific but it would be beneficial to Happisburgh (to
enhance the village and provide continuity) for replacements to be
constructed in the village. This is not however binding on the current
residents.
The intention of the policy is to help individuals to move on, as well as a
community to survive. Coastal erosion is significant on Norfolk’s coasts
and this policy was to help manage the consequences. It was
emphasised that the policy isn’t exclusive to NNDC’s Pathfinder
Programme; Pathfinder does however provide an opportunity for EN12 to
be put into practise.
It was explained that the scheme could not be retrospective for people
who have already lost their homes, as the EN12 policy relates to current
properties at risk of erosion. There is no obligation for the Beach Road
residents to participate, however such opportunities as Pathfinder may not
be reproduced again, or at least in the near future. It was hoped that
central Government would apply the methodology nationally in the future
if deemed appropriate.
EN12 rebuilding options were explained in summary as follows:
•
•
•
•
Individual owners could, if they so wished, use their right to build
(under the EN12 policy) a private property in Happisburgh.
Individual owners could, if they so wished, use their right to build
(under the EN12 policy) a private property away from Happisburgh.
NNDC could purchase the EN12 “rights” from individual owners
and develop a housing scheme within the village – with the existing
residents having an opportunity to access any social housing built
(possibly on a shared equity scheme).
NNDC could purchase the EN12 rights from individual owners and
develop a housing scheme within the village for new residents to
live in.
If the Council were to purchase properties in Beach Road, it would not be
the intention of the Council to sell EN12 rights to an outside developer to
build beyond Happisburgh. The Beach Road EN12 owner’s could
develop in certain other locations beyond Happisburgh.
It was asked if the EN12 asset values could be reinvested as a fund for
the future, to help other at risk properties. It was confirmed that it was the
intention to recoup the costs of purchasing the EN12 and then use this to
fund future purchases. This pot of funds would then be recycled until it
diminished.
It was explained that due to the EN12 policy enabling planning consent to
be gained on land which would otherwise not be eligible, plot values
should be somewhere between existing land use values and a normal plot
with planning consent. The share of the plot value is expected to be a
ratio of 60:40, split between the EN12 developer and the landowner. This
will however be investigated further to confirm that this is the right
proportion.
5
Presentation of Legal Advice – Ian Coupe
IC – provided a note on the legal position for all to digest, which could be
shared outside the meeting.
The starting point has been the voluntary acquisition of Beach Road
properties at risk. The Council has sought professional advice on all the
issues and this should not be disregarded.
The group discussed elements of risk to the Council regarding legal
issues and decisions to be taken. It was agreed that it was important for
the legal advice to be read and adhered to. There was a great deal of
difference between what NNDC might like to do and what they can do.
The meeting was reminded that there is currently no basis nationally to
compensate people who loose their homes to the sea. Twenty six
properties have been lost in the last 20 years. If NNDC were not to move
forward with the financial offers developed through this Pathfinder project,
more homes will disappear with owners receiving nothing. NNDC will
continue to lobby Parliament for compensation to be offered to those who
lose their homes in these circumstances.
It was suggested that the properties in Beach Road have always been at
risk and therefore this would have been reflected in the values to some
degree.
NNDC is possibly the lead Local Authority nationally in developing
procedures to help communities respond to coastal change. If NNDC
were to try to allocate more funds simply by ignoring ‘risk’ it would no
doubt find its methodology challenged and criticised by central
Government.
6
Questions /discussions – Coordinated by Chair – Cllr. Peter Moore
Costs incurred by owners
NNDC has said to owners that the Council will pay their legal costs for
private valuations. NNDC could provide other assistance, for example
advice from housing officers.
A discussion on the cost aspects of relocating a property inland took
place. Three cost aspects were generally agreed:
1. Purchase of land
2. Design of property
3. Cost of the build
Home owners would have to pay for the new land (at somewhere
between the value of agricultural land and the value of a building plot with
planning consent). The reason why the land is not full market price is
because the only way in which it could be developed is through Policy
EN12.
Fluvial v Coastal Flood Compensation
In answer to a question PF explained that full compensation claims are
thought to be available in relation to fluvial works but under the 1949
Coast Protection Act (where an authority has permissive powers to do
works) no claims can be made when there is a reduction in the standard
of coastal defence. It was agreed that there needs to be something more
just from central Government. The reasons for the difference may be due
to Government underwriting the insurance previously written by the
private sector for fluvial flooding. A differentiation between the two
requires explanation from Defra.
It was suggested that most of the houses were built before the defences
were constructed in 1959, therefore the price of those properties reflected
some sort of risk. In response it was suggested that this was the case
when they were built, but not necessarily when they were purchased by
the present owners (once the defences were in place).
It was agreed that where loss results from a a policy change, we have to
continue to lobby central Government to provide us with means to
address this. Currently Pathfinder is the best opportunity we have. The
EN12 opportunity for home owners will continue on after Pathfinder.
Tony Nash stressed the huge importance of this debate: how we handle it
today will inform how it will be addressed in future. He was appreciative
of all the work that has been put into the programme.
Jim Whitehouse queried whether a ’shared ownership’ option could be
included in respect of the properties developed under Policy EN12. It was
agreed that this will be considered.
Benefits of Pathfinder
It was agreed that the Pathfinder has been an opportunity to explore
issues and solutions, and a milestone for coastal management. Indeed if
there had been no Pathfinder there would be no opportunity to achieve
any solution for the Beach Road owners. Pathfinder is an ideal
opportunity to highlight examples to central Government.
Home owners’ choice
There is no compulsion for owners to sell. If they decide to hold out for a
greater offer from central government that is their choice and NNDC will
continue to lobby on their behalf. There are known concerns amongst
Defra officers regarding the payment of what might be perceived as
compensation. NNDC has a duty to continue with Pathfinder and will
need to use any funds not taken up thorough these property purchases on
other Pathfinder Projects.
Enabling property owners to move on
It was of concern to Cllr. Lee Walker that the valuations were not sufficient
for owners to move on. She felt this was still an urgent situation that
should be addressed before any of the other projects within the Pathfinder
Programme are implemented from the £3 million fund. She felt it was a
golden opportunity to show Government what was really needed,
financially, to solve the resident’s issues in Beach Road.
It was agreed that there is a legal and moral dilemma, which must be
reconciled in a way that enables the Project objectives to be achieved .
Options viewed by a Beach Road resident
Jane Archer summarised the options available to her as follows:
1. Stay where we are and use EN12 before your home is lost.
2. Sell the house to NNDC and meet your own housing needs
3. Sell to NNDC and seek to occupy one of the houses built as a
redevelopment of those that are acquired.(e.g. via a housing association)
Process
Cabinet recommended the proposals to Full Council and it will now be
considered on 14 October 2010. Should the proposed approach be
agreed the property owners will be made offers as soon as possible.
Final Closing Comments
The Chair asked if those in attendance felt they had had sufficient
opportunity to clarify any misunderstandings about the Pathfinder
Programme. The following points were noted.
1. It was recognised that some of the owners may choose not to take
up the offer. This would impact upon the delivery of the project to
remove debris from the beach. This issue would have to be dealt
with should it arise. The Project to develop a new car park and
other facilities could still go ahead although options for enhancing
the cliff top environment would be more limited.
2. Rob Wise commended the Coastal Team for the tremendous
amount of work they had done on the Pathfinder Programme,
especially regarding Beach Road. He hoped that some people will
take up the offers, however, he understood that owners are going
to have to make their own individual decisions. From a national
perspective it is hoped that some owners do take up the offer as it’s
not believed that Government will offer anything better in the
foreseeable future. The Pathfinder Programme does provide
opportunities for central Government to be lobbied for funds to
carry on programmes such as this.
3. A Council meeting had deferred a decision in order to clarify any
issues prior to the offers being made. The Group agreed that the
Council now needed to put the offers forward. If not the whole
project could collapse. It may not be to the value some would like
to be able to offer, but if we wish to progress, an offer has to be
made.
4. It was agreed that each owner should be written to before the Full
Council meeting on the 14th October to inform them of their right to
speak (for 3 minutes).
5. The question was raised as to whether the owner of a vacant plot
at the end of Beach Road would qualify for payment. In response it
was suggested that as there was no dwelling then a replacement
could not be developed under Policy EN12. There was therefore
little to be gained for the community and it was beyond what this
project set out to achieve.
6. It was confirmed that the Council is prepared to go as far as it is
allowed to; any further would be considered as exposing the
Council to unacceptable risk.
Thanks were given to everyone and the meeting closed at 4pm.