A scheme to help people whose homes are threatened by coastal erosion has come under fire amid claims that people in Reydon have not had enough input in the project.

To send a link to this page to a friend, you must be logged in.

Concerns were raised during an extraordinary parish council meeting tonight (Thursday September 6), where people could air their views about a potential housing scheme that could see families in erosion-threatened Easton Bavents moved to nine new properties at Rissmere Lane East, Reydon.

The meeting, held at Reydon Youth Club, heard how people were angered that they were not involved when planning advisors identified one potential site for the homes – despite looking at six possible sites in the village.

Fears were also raised about the encroachment of the development onto Reydon Smere – an area of outstanding natural beauty - and concerns that some home owners at Easton Bavents may use the scheme to sell their properties at a greater profit once built.

However, a panel featuring representatives from Waveney District Council, planning advisor Pellings and Waveney Pathfinder - the organisation behind the scheme - said they would take people’s views into consideration as the project moved forward.

A spokesman for Pathfinder said: “The Pathfinder Board is sensitive to the views of the potential host community and has kept the parish council informed of developments as it has progressed”

Speaking after the meeting, MP for Suffolk Coastal Therese Coffey called on the Waveney Pathfinder board to be “transparent” about the decision to choose Rissmere Lane East. She said: “I would like them to give transparent reasons as to why they have recommended that particular site over others. It would be helpful for the residents of Reydon.”

The Waveney Pathfinder Project sets down a land rights transfer policy allowing people living in Easton Bavents to relocate to safe sites inland and build similar properties under the same planning permission.

The outline planning permission applied for by the district council in Reydon would establish that land can be developed, but further planning consent would be needed before properties could be built.

3 comments

  • Again with all these things, let us coldly look at what is happening here. Houses that have been identified as being under risk of being lost to the sea and their owners are been given the chance to find a safer area to live. That sounds honourable to me. They may sell at a profit as may anyone at any time if you are lucky. As for an area of outstanding beauty, well I do enjoy walking my dog down Rissmere Lane however let us take a virtual stroll down there now! There is a messy park with allotments alongside, one that has a large pigeon loft. Only a short distance down the lane on the left and opposite the proposed site is a caravancamping area. Follow the road round and there is farm only 500 yards away that has a massive solar panel array sparkling in the sun, and if you want to get me started, head round the other corner towards the Old Dairy house, there are two modern houses that sit-out like sore thumbs as they are not in keeping with anything in this outstanding beautiful place. If they looked at 6 possible sites and they picked this one, then fine. Get over it. Oh, and by the way, stop plastering signs all over the village. Fly-posting is illegal in the UK.

    Report this comment

    Mooncat

    Friday, September 7, 2012

  • Mr Boggis had a solution by protecting the toe of the cliff. I think it was 'free of charge'. Whatever happened to this idea and other means of coastal protection?

    Report this comment

    Dave01

    Friday, September 7, 2012

  • As at Happisburgh and now Reydon, this sort of decision could be affecting several coastal villages now that the sensible plan of managed retreat in most locations has been adopted. Being fair, once we assume the right to relocation, people should be able to live as close to their original community as possible, but without detracting from situation of the homes already in place. It would be reasonable to expect some sort of covenant to be put in place to put a brake on selling on at large profits or to restrict sales to those who have been living locally. What I do think would be undesirable would be allowing those who have been compensated for coastal properties which have not been used as full time residences to relocate -there should have been a minimum number of years of use as a genuine residence. I am in favour of managed retreat but as someone who put some thought into the effect of future erosion when buying my home, my sympathy for those who buy places obviously built as holiday homes bang on soft cliffs is a bit stretched. Easton appears to be somewhat different though.

    Report this comment

    Daisy Roots

    Friday, September 7, 2012

The views expressed in the above comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this site

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Norfolk Weather

Overcast

Overcast

max temp: 9°C

min temp: 10°C

Five-day forecast

loading...

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT