The Coastal Zone Environment
7
Coast Protection (Erosion)
Not unlike sea defence, legislation for coast protection was first started by a Royal
Commission in 1906. It recommended that there should be controls on the removal of
beach material, and that Local Authorities’ works should be brought under central
supervision. However, at that time they found no case for making coastal protection a
Central Government responsibility. In 1939, the Coast Protection Act introduced
provisions for the control and removal of beach material, and the Board of Trade was
empowered to make orders restricting the removal of beach material wherever there was
thought to be a danger of erosion. World War II saw the deterioration of protective
structures, and by 1946, neglect and storm action had allowed erosive damage. It was
apparent that private land owners lacked the funds to provide protection works, and the
new Coast Protection Act of 1949 for the first time gave Local Authorities powers to
carry out works under the general supervision of Central Government. This act was
supervised by the Department of the Environment (DoE) until 1985, and is still used to
administer funding today.
The Land Drainage Act 1976 and the Coast Protection Act 1949 appear to have
separated flooding and erosion into two distinct issues. However, Carter (1988) argues
that this historical dichotomy of interests may not have been the best way forward for
coastal management. Far from being integrated, management in many ways has been
fragmented and ill co-ordinated, with two similar problems being dealt with by two
different government departments; MAFF and DoE. Park (1989) believes that this
distinction may be particularly problematic where uncontrolled encroachment by the sea
leads to flooding. In other words, a matter of erosion becomes one of flooding as well,
and the difference between defence and protection becomes a grey area. In the wake of
the 1953 storms, the Waverley Committee examined this point. Although they thought
that there might be some advantage in bringing defence and protection together under
one body, they believed that the River Boards and Coast Protection Authorities had
different functions to perform, concluding that “there were no stretches of coast where
interests were duplicated or left completely uncovered by either body” (Park, 1989, p.
14). By comparison, Carter (1988) maintains that the distinction served only to
exacerbate conflicts at the coast, particularly where funding for coastal works was
concerned. An excellent example of this, common in the literature, is known as the
Whitstable Judgement.
In 1978, Canterbury City Council set out proposals for a coastal scheme at
Whitstable, consisting of a 22-foot high wall, protecting against erosion and flooding. It
was defined as a protection scheme and, therefore, applications for funding were sent to
the DoE. However, the DoE determined that the main purpose of the wall was to
prevent flooding, and was, therefore, more appropriately administered under the Land
Drainage Act at a lower rate of funding. Canterbury City Council did not accept this
judgement, and the disagreement reached the High Court, who in 1980 decided that
erosion, encroachment and flooding are often inseparable. Therefore, works preventing
both flooding and erosion could be considered under the Coast Protection Act.
The Whitstable Judgement led to a review of separate coast protection and sea
defence schemes, and in 1985, a key institutional change brought defence and
7
Coast Protection (Erosion)
Not unlike sea defence, legislation for coast protection was first started by a Royal
Commission in 1906. It recommended that there should be controls on the removal of
beach material, and that Local Authorities’ works should be brought under central
supervision. However, at that time they found no case for making coastal protection a
Central Government responsibility. In 1939, the Coast Protection Act introduced
provisions for the control and removal of beach material, and the Board of Trade was
empowered to make orders restricting the removal of beach material wherever there was
thought to be a danger of erosion. World War II saw the deterioration of protective
structures, and by 1946, neglect and storm action had allowed erosive damage. It was
apparent that private land owners lacked the funds to provide protection works, and the
new Coast Protection Act of 1949 for the first time gave Local Authorities powers to
carry out works under the general supervision of Central Government. This act was
supervised by the Department of the Environment (DoE) until 1985, and is still used to
administer funding today.
The Land Drainage Act 1976 and the Coast Protection Act 1949 appear to have
separated flooding and erosion into two distinct issues. However, Carter (1988) argues
that this historical dichotomy of interests may not have been the best way forward for
coastal management. Far from being integrated, management in many ways has been
fragmented and ill co-ordinated, with two similar problems being dealt with by two
different government departments; MAFF and DoE. Park (1989) believes that this
distinction may be particularly problematic where uncontrolled encroachment by the sea
leads to flooding. In other words, a matter of erosion becomes one of flooding as well,
and the difference between defence and protection becomes a grey area. In the wake of
the 1953 storms, the Waverley Committee examined this point. Although they thought
that there might be some advantage in bringing defence and protection together under
one body, they believed that the River Boards and Coast Protection Authorities had
different functions to perform, concluding that “there were no stretches of coast where
interests were duplicated or left completely uncovered by either body” (Park, 1989, p.
14). By comparison, Carter (1988) maintains that the distinction served only to
exacerbate conflicts at the coast, particularly where funding for coastal works was
concerned. An excellent example of this, common in the literature, is known as the
Whitstable Judgement.
In 1978, Canterbury City Council set out proposals for a coastal scheme at
Whitstable, consisting of a 22-foot high wall, protecting against erosion and flooding. It
was defined as a protection scheme and, therefore, applications for funding were sent to
the DoE. However, the DoE determined that the main purpose of the wall was to
prevent flooding, and was, therefore, more appropriately administered under the Land
Drainage Act at a lower rate of funding. Canterbury City Council did not accept this
judgement, and the disagreement reached the High Court, who in 1980 decided that
erosion, encroachment and flooding are often inseparable. Therefore, works preventing
both flooding and erosion could be considered under the Coast Protection Act.
The Whitstable Judgement led to a review of separate coast protection and sea
defence schemes, and in 1985, a key institutional change brought defence and