Sunday, January 08, 2006

So Your House is About to go Over the Cliff...

When I was in North Norfolk one of the first things I got involved with was the issue of coastal erosion. No, don't stop reading, it's a serious issue. Especially for Diana Wrightson. She faces having to move out of her home during the next few months as it is about to disappear over the cliff. It was good to see The Times highlighting her plight yesterday. The following piece is written by Richard Batson of the Eastern Daily Press.

"Di Wrightson's home and business are just yards from obilivion as wintry waves gnaw away at the cliffs separating the holiday village of Happisburgh from the sea. She has become used to living life on the edge after years of watching the cliffs crumble and campaigners grumble about the lack of Government action to replace worn out sea defences. Three years ago she was told the end was nigh, but, as Miss Wrightson says: "We're still here." However, as the EDP's aerial picture shows, this could be the last season for the popular tea shop - if she even decides to open it. There is just 15m of back garden left behind the pair of Edwardian homes which make up the Cliff House guest house and tea rooms at Beach Road. "When it gets to 10m the council has said we will have to go," said Miss Wrightson. "We don't want to move out and close the business until we absolutely have to. "Every year it becomes more and more difficult to decide what to do. "There are things that need doing to the house and business, but what is the point of spending money on a place that will be lost in a couple of years? "The dining room gets a coat of paint, and we patch things up, but nothing major gets done," explained Miss Wrightson, who bought the place 26 years ago - when there was a road, a row of bungalows between her property and the clifftop. "At the time the council had every intention of maintaining the defences, and the coast had changed little since I used to visit it as a child 50 years ago." The buildings are one of the few brick ones in a road mainly consisting of wooden holiday chalets - the low value of property being one of the reasons coastal engineers have struggled to make the sums work to justify Government spending on sea defences. The substantial homes sprung up in the heydays of Edwardian holidaymaking when there were plans to extend the railways as far as Happsibrugh, and build an esplanade. The houses were built by an enterprising speculator awaiting trains full of tourists. It never happened, but Cliff House was a popular bed and breakfast spot anyway. However trade has dropped off as the cliffs have crumbled - which also made it impossible to invest in the business and provide the en-suite facilities wanted by modern-day tourists. The tea rooms continue to thrive in spite of - or maybe because of - the erosion. "People still love coming to see the coast, how it has changed since their last visit, and are glad to see we are still here," said Miss Wrightson. It normally opens from Easter to November, but the rate of erosion over the rest of the winter will now determine whether that will be possible. Some temporary rock defences, put in to buy time, had helped in recent years. But a large lump fell off over the festive period, including a chunk of the concrete base of garages which were pulled down last winter for safety. Miss Wrightson said campaigners were still busy fighting the cause for Happisburgh, and the whole coastline - which is under threat from the planned abandonment of defences. "Officials are now starting to talk about compensation, but it may come too late for us," she added. She has a "plan b" in place, with a rented home already lined up inland. It was a decision sparked when council officials called and asked her to fill in a "homelessness" form - which "brings you up with a bit of a jolt." Rather than go on the council housing list however Miss Wrightson decided to rent. "When it goes I will lose everything and will be upset. Until then we live from day to day," she said."

The Government has washed its hands of people like Diana and have decided to abandon the North Norfolk coastline to the elements. And if your house goes over the edge? You get diddly squat. Yet if you turn up in this country wanting asylym you get provided with a rent free house. Welcome to Britain in 2006.

Note: The picture illustrates the level of coastal erosion at Diana Wrightson's tea shop from 1999 to 2005. For more information visit www.happisburgh.org.uk

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Let's pretend the strange and cheap shot of trying to semi-detach Happisburgh to asylum just didn't happen eh?

What is happening to this village is chilling and ghastly. Some of the people knew this would happen when they bought their house but lots didn't.

It doesn't have to be this way, but if the choice is made that it will, the humane thing to do is make sure that the residents feel they still have a good and secure future and haven't lost their whole world when they lose their home.

Well done you for highlighting

Anonymous said...

I'm afraid I have very little sympathy here. It's not that different from someone who owns a house on a flood plain complaining that it gets flooded all the time.

Iain Dale said...

There are two differences.

1. A house being flooded is rather different in magnitude to it going over the cliff

2. When Diana Wrightson bought her house 25 years ago she had no reason to suspect that a Government twenty years later would abandon the sea defences.

Andy DM said...

I'm sorry Iain but that sob story just doesn't cut it with me.

Di has been unlucky in that she's the one in possession of that property when it disappeared but she cannot be considered blameless.

Di probably got the property for cheaper than the going rate. In the article there are the examples of the Isle of Wight properties going for £65k when similar properties not threatened by erosion are worth 5 times that price. She was told at the time that it was safe for 100 years, but you can't predict the weather for 100 years. All it was and all it should have been treated as was an estimate.

If it had been really 100 years and in the 26 years since only a quarter of the garden had gone, then Di would have been happy. But she took a gamble against the weather and now the weather's won, she wants the state - me and you to pay out as if she'd won. As she herself says "Even then we thought someone would stop it before it got to us... I thought I'd be able to sell up and enjoy a nice retirement." Well, she can have a nice retirement, she can have a little council flat and a state pension like millions of other people have no choice but to do.

Also I have difficulty believing Di's account - David Will says that he's been concerned about Happisburgh since the 70s - that is during the time when Di lived in Happisburgh but before she bought the doomed houses. Note two houses - I would have more sympathy if it was just a home, but it was an investment.

And despite his concern David Will's still selling bungalows near the cliffedge. They are safe for 25 years he says, but as we both know, a bad storm this winter could cut that time in half. Will you be campaigning for state money for those new buyers too ten years down the road?

This is sadly typical of you, Iain. Antipathy against poor people but if middle class property owners might lose a bit of money then you want the state to step in. What about all the people who will never be able to buy property - near a cliff edge or not?

Anonymous said...

Ugh, DM Andy, typical socialist, so middle class people have no feelings or nothing to lose do they?

So where's the North Norfolk MP when they need him - plotting coups? I seem to remember one certain candidate for North Norfolk who actually wanted to DO something for the people of Happisburgh.

Andy DM said...

Hi Lady F, long time no debate,

Of course middle class people have feelings, I just get annoyed about people demanding state help when they are the very people who would deny it to everyone else.

Diana (and the others involved) have gambled their money. They assumed that the cliff edge wouldn't crumble away so fast and even if it did then the government would spend tens of millions on sea defences. Her gamble failed, I feel sorry for her to a certain amount but not enough to want to give her my money.

It's as if I put £100 on some old nag tomorrow and then cried when it finished on Friday. Diana Wrightson gambled and lost. Simple as that. The state will be there as a safety net, but the taxpayer can't be there to bail out every investment that goes wrong.

I'm surprised that anyone who believes in the free market thinks the state should pay anything to compensate the Happisburghers

Anonymous said...

Crikey DM,

Do you know her? Do you know for a fact she'd deny state help to somebody else?

No doubt you agree with the ghastly Polly Toynbee that Narnia is a wicked Christian plot to ensnare unsuspecting children!

Why are socialists always so damned uncharitable and po-faced?

Andy DM said...

As a practicing roleplayer, I could never disrespect Narnia even if the film is much worse than the book.

I will admit that I am po-faced over this. She doesn't deserve full compensation. Simple as that.

What she is entitled to is a roof over her head. She decided to scoff at the council's offer of housing and provided for herself. That's her right to refuse help but someone who was genuinely homeless would not.

I am not uncharitable but I'll reserve my charity for those people who deserve it.

Anonymous said...

Erosion happens, and it's not the government's job to stop it. King Canute tried that and got soaked. At the end of the day no government can stop erosion.

Even sea defences just push erosion further along the shore and make someone else's farm fall into the sea. Even GCSE geography would tell you the hopelessness of the situation. We live on an island and this is how things work.

Anonymous said...

Bless him! He hasn't realised that the new party line means you're not supposed to try every cheap shot to link immigration and asylum to any issue going. The new leader now studiously avoids this kind of solecism (see the 6th para of http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4596118.stm ) So Ian's out with the new broom, then.