In view of impact of climate change accelerating the rate of the erosion of the Sheppey cliffs, this Council wishes to change Government policy to prevent further unsustainable erosion, thereby protect the existing, expanding, & future population of Sheppey. Swale Borough Council undertakes to seek the removal of the government coastal policy of non intervention, with its serious social & commercial implications, and replace that policy with a policy of protection of the coastline.

Proposed by Cllr MacDonald

Seconded by Cllr Ingleton

Councillor Peter MacDonald proposed the motion as set out on the Agenda.  He said that policies could be changed and described a previous occasion where the Environment Agency (EA) had proposed to abandon sea defences from Leysdown to Rushenden but changed that policy.  He highlighted the increase in coastal erosion.

In seconding the motion, Councillor Ken Ingleton gave a history and technical explanation of the erosion of the Sheppey coastline.   He also suggested measures of how to address the erosion and referred to the decision taken by the EA, Medway Estuary and Swale Flood Coastal Management Strategy in September 2019 to take no active intervention to prevent further loss of property.  He said that a change in policy to active intervention could start a long term process to protect what would remain of the Isle of Sheppey cliffs.

The Cabinet Member for Environment said there were two approaches that could be taken, to either stop the erosion or to manage the retreat from the cliff edge.  He referred to the Shoreline Management Plans from 1996 and 2008 and said that the previous administration chose not to challenge the policy of no active intervention for the Eastchurch area.  The Cabinet Member for Environment said that there had been meetings between officers, residents, and Members in March 2020, before the cliff collapse, and in September 2020 and an expert report of the erosion was commissioned.  The EA had advised that the policy of no active intervention was founded on good evidence.  The Cabinet Member for Environment outlined that in order for the policy to be changed, detailed evidence would have to be submitted via the South East Coastal Group and SBC officers did not have the required expertise.  He concluded by saying that the EA had advised that the scheme proposed by Councillor MacDonald would not be successful and that a total of 21 properties were affected by the erosion of the cliffs.

In the debate that followed, Members raised points including:

·       Disappointed with the response from the Cabinet Member for Environment;

·       the proposal was not about SBC doing the work but for a change in policy;

·       residents were victims of a national policy;

·       should do the best for the residents and not just accept the policy;

·       referred to previous press release from administration expressing opposition to the Shoreline Management Plan;

·       should call on support from the Sittingbourne and Sheppey MP;

·       welcomed the motion;

·       had sympathy, but needed to consider the larger area - if policy was changed to prevent coastal erosion, it would impact elsewhere;

·       needed to look at the whole management plan;

·       should not be a priority during the current Covid-19 pandemic;

·       changes to the Site of Special Scientific Interest were necessary to allow interventions to happen;

·       should support the residents;

·       erosion over the past 50 years was well known and documented;

·       non-intervention by the EA was the correct policy;

·       owners in the area were aware of the erosion when properties were purchased and many were un-insurable;

·       motion was divorced from reality;

·       the former administration were content with a managed retreat;

·       should not raise the expectations of residents as nature would take its course;

·       the enormous costs of the policy change would fall to the whole Borough;

·       the motion was about Sheppey Cliffs, not the impact elsewhere;

·       action could be taken within managed retreat but the EA were just letting nature take its course; and

·       the situation needed to be managed.

Councillor MacDonald said that building the natural beach up with groynes and beach material would slow down the cliff erosion.

In accordance with Procedure Rule 19 (2) five Members requested a recorded vote, and voting was as follows:

For:  Baldock, Beart, Bowen, Carnell, R Clark, Darby, Dendor, Ellen, Fowle,  Hall, Horton, Hunt, Ingleton, Jayes, MacDonald, Marchington, McCall, Palmer,  Pugh, Simmons, Tatton, Whiting, Woodford. Total equals 23.

Against: Bonney, Gibson, Gould, Harrison, Jackson, Knights, Ben A Martin, Ben J Martin, Perkin, Saunders, S Stephen, Thomas, Truelove, Valentine, and Whelan. Total equals 15.

Abstain: S Clark, Davey, A Hampshire, N Hampshire, Rowles, P Stephen, and Winckless. Total equals 7.

The Mayor advised that the motion was carried.

Resolved:

(1)  That in view of the climate change accelerating the rate of the erosion of the Sheppey cliffs, this Council wishes to change Government policy to prevent further unsustainable erosion, thereby protect the existing, expanding, and future population of Sheppey.  Swale Borough Council undertakes to seek the removal of the government coastal policy of non-intervention, with its serious social and commercial implications, and replace that policy with a policy of protection of the coastline.