The Seafront & Engineering Manager introduced the report as set out in the agenda papers.

In response to questions from the Chair, the Seafront & Engineering Manager clarified that there had been no proactive engagement from the Council with local communities at risk of coastal erosion, but the Council offered support if there were enquiries.  The Head of Environment and Leisure added that currently the Council was providing the passive approach as set out in paragraph 2.10 on page 28 of the report.  The Seafront & Engineering Manager advised that although the Council was a Local Coastal Erosion Risk Authority, it was not obliged to undertake active engagement with local communities.  However, the report was to explain what levels of engagement were possible.  

The Chair invited comments and questions from Members, and these included:

·         Considered the Environment Agency (EA) needed to change their policy with regard to coastal erosion;

·         the Conservative Group view was to not apply the ‘active’ engagement approach as residents would know the risks of coastal erosion when purchasing properties and concerns that the Council would be spending money on something they did not have to provide;

·         how many properties were at risk of coastal erosion within the next five years?;

·         some residents could have purchased their property fifty years ago so would not have been aware of coastal erosion at that time;

·         residents should feel safe where they lived and have access to the best advice about how coastal erosion might impact their property;

·         some of those affected might be renting their property;

·         how long was the boundary from Graveney to Seasalter in terms of holiday lets affected by coastal erosion?;

·         there was a danger we engaged but then could not do anything to change the outcome;

·         the Council needed to ensure that residents were aware of the risks and some midway engagement would be best, but with the option to use the £60,000 for future years if the situation got worse on a risk assessment basis;

·         could the issue be considered at the Councillors and Residents Fora?;

·         had any notices referred to in paragraph six under ‘Legal, Statutory and Procurement’ on page 30 of the report been issued?;

·         could the money be used when certain ‘trigger points’ came into effect rather than in one hit;

·         could information about any properties at risk be included with their council tax; and

·         there was a coastal erosion risk to new dwellings at Warden Bay.

The Head of Environment & Leisure clarified that the committee had at a previous meeting agreed not to continue to try to change the EA policy on coastal erosion and agreed that officers investigated engagement options.

The Seafront & Engineering Manager advised that the level of coastal erosion was difficult to predict, however the engagement plan was initially focused on the Eastchurch area, the Shoreline Management Plan information and the SMP Explorer did not draw a distinctive line around property boundaries but would provide a risk erosion area.   He estimated that for the Eastchurch area within the next five years there could be either no properties lost, or five properties lost.  He was aware that two Hazard Awareness Notices had been served so far.

In response to a query about whether it was 12 or 1 months, the Head of Environment & Leisure confirmed that the Engagement Officer post would be on an 18 month contract if that option was agreed and the £80,000 included all employment costs, not just the salary.  There was not the resource currently for the issue to be discussed at the Councillor and Residents Forum.  The onus was on householders to ensure they carried out due diligence when purchasing a property.

The Head of Environment & Leisure confirmed that Recommendation (2) was not relevant as the budget for 2026-27 had already been agreed but dependent on the option chosen by Members the budget did not need to be spent. 

Councillor Ashley Shiel proposed recommendation (1) and that the ‘midway’ engagement approach be undertaken.  This was seconded by Councillor Derek Carnell.

Following discussion around the remaining £60,000 funding being ring-fenced, Councillor Shiel moved the following motion:   That the Policy and Resources Committee be requested to consider reserving the remaining £60,000 for engagement with the local community on coastal erosion.  This was seconded by Councillor Carnell.

Resolved:

(1)      That the principles of the Community Engagement Plan be agreed and the midway engagement approach be undertaken.

(2)      That the Policy and Resources Committee be requested to consider reserving the remaining £60,000 for engagement with the local community on coastal erosion.