Cuckmere Estuary Partnership

Q: Why can Coastguards Cottagers not join the CEP?

A: Current membership of the Partnership consists of local organisations who have direct responsibilities for the estuary, for example as land owners and/or land managers. However, the Partnership is happy to consider applications from others who have a substantive interest in the estuary. The Partnership has met with representatives of some of the Coastguard Cottage owners to discuss the possibility of them joining. Given the Partner’s preferred option of working with nature rather than against it, the owners in question chose not to join at that time. However, they have continued to attend individual meetings, and we see no reason why this cannot continue. Discussions are continuing with some of the owners and we are hopeful that they will soon be represented on the Partnership.

Comments Off Posted by admin / News

Q: Why can’t Parish Councils contribute to the Partnership?

A: Current membership of the Partnership consists of local organisations who have direct responsibilities for the estuary, for example as land owners and/or land managers. However, the Partnership is happy to consider applications from others who have a substantive interest in the estuary.

The Partnership has met with the Chairman of Cuckmere Valley Parish Council to discuss the possibility of them joining. Given the Partner’s preferred option of working with nature rather than against it, the Parish Council chose not to join. However, they have continued to attend individual meetings, and we see no reason why this cannot continue.

Comments Off Posted by admin / News

Q: Could I have the details of what membership of Partnership would cost/benefit to consider joining the group?

A: There are currently no specific costs associated with joining the Partnership, although costs do arise, for example those associated with the current engagement events. Future costs may include studies into key issues, e.g. understanding the historic environment and potential impacts on the local economy. For practical reasons, membership of the Partnership is currently limited to those with a direct responsibility for the estuary, e.g. landowners/land managers. This does not exclude other organisations or individuals working with the Partnership and we welcome this.

Comments Off Posted by admin / News

Q: I am concerned that any decision will be based on economics and not on people and their priorities.

A: Given the current financial climate, it is a reality that decisions will ultimately have to be based on cost. However, by working together, we hope that we can find a solution that is cost effective and also one that meets the priorities of the majority. Working in Partnership also broadens opportunities for external funding.

Comments Off Posted by admin / News

Q: We need to seek outside funding, such as a tourist levy or EU grants

A: Depending on the broad option that is chosen for the future management of the estuary, there are various opportunities for external funding, such as biodiversity grants, countryside stewardship and European grants. Once a way forward is agreed, detailed options can be costed and bids to potential external funders (including the EU) can be made.

Comments Off Posted by admin / News

Q: How much does the EA spend per annum on maintaining flood defences at Seaford beach? What would be the estimated cost of dredging the meanders per year? And by whom?

A: The Environment Agency spends around £250,000 per year on Seaford beach. 

The cost of dredging the meanders is very difficult to estimate.  The minimum cost would be £150,000 per year, but this could rise to up to £1.5 million, depending on the difficulty of disposal and the nature of the site. Gaining approval for this work would be very difficult, and there would be huge volumes of silt which may change the nature of the site.

Comments Off Posted by admin / News

Q: Misinformation about the future of the estuary seems to dominate the media, the negativity of the issues are highly profiled. The Partnership needs to explain more about why the mudflats are good and why the valley will not be permanently underwater.

A: We talk regularly to the media and we feel that reporting in the local papers tends to be balanced and responsible.

We can’t tell the press what to write, but we will continue to be in regular contact with them and to do our very best to ensure that media coverage is factually correct.

Comments Off Posted by admin / News

Q: Will the report must be made available / presented to the public in a format that is accessible by a large number of people? Effort needs to be put into drawing their attention to it so that all this effort to bring the communities of interest together isn’t lost.

A: We are committed to making sure that the report is widely available, to as many people as possible. We will publish it on the CEP website, and we will also make copies available in Council offices. We will also look into making copies available for inspection in local libraries.  We will issue a press release once the report is published, to draw people’s attention to it.

Comments Off Posted by admin / News

Q: The ‘Back to Nature CERP’ publication mentioned two features which were not mentioned in the introductory presentation at the engagement events:  1) a proposal to fill in the straight cut, and 2) to reinstate flow through the meanders.

A: The options outlined by Dr Williams in his introduction to the public engagement events should be considered as broad options rather than definitive schemes as they were general alternatives that were considered by the Environment Agency as part of the Flood Risk Management assessment.

One of the main aims of the engagement events was to explore alternative ideas for the future of the estuary. Filling of the cut and reinstatement of flow through the meanders are both still possibilities that could be explored if it was agreed that a managed approach would be the preferred way forward. The second of these two options – reinstatement of flow through the meanders – is of particular interest to the Partnership who have identified the maintenance of the meanders as a landscape feature as a priority for the future. We believe that re-establishing flow through them could be one of the best ways to achieve this, but clearly this would need to be assessed as to whether it would be technically feasible.

Comments Off Posted by admin / News

Q: Why were people ‘allowed’ to attend more than one of these sessions? This will bias the outcome!

A: The Partnership had initially asked that people only attend one session each, to allow a range of different voices to be heard. However, some representatives of the ‘Rescue the Cuckmere Valley’ campaign felt very strongly that they should be allowed to attend all three events to ensure they had the fullest opportunity to put their point of view across.

The final report will capture all of the many different views expressed during the engagement process. However it will not come up with a “preferred option” and in that sense there is therefore no outcome to be biased.

Comments Off Posted by admin / News