Hemsby Stakeholder Group meeting minutes (2 February 2026)

Agenda

1. Update on recent erosion and impact

• GB ran through an update on recent storm events and their impact.
• Focused on Jan storm - significant impacts - touching significant wave-height thresholds - normally 4 per year, but we've had more than that since mid October. 10-15 metres have been lost, while some clay-rich sandy soil is now emerging from the cliff. This is eroding at a similar rate to the sand cliff at present.
• Spring tide tomorrow with easterly wind - suspect it will cause further erosion of cliff face.
• 26 properties have been demolished since mid December.

2. Revised Risk Map

• GB ran through the revised risk map. 
• Annual storm we could lose up to 10m, exceptional storm up to 20m, erosion in some areas is tracking the 2055 erosion line and Environment Agency erosion maps (NCERM) need to be updated.
• GB liaising directly with those under threat to support them to understand potential timescales and the risk posed to their property.
• GB pointed out that throughout the recent storms there has been no risk to life due to the work undertaken to clearly explain the situation to residents.
• KK asked about the weight of diggers - parishioners are asking if they are adding to the stress on the cliffs. GB said no - the distributed weight of the diggers is about the same as a 12-stone person walking on the clifftop. No detrimental impact on neighboring properties when one is being demolished - GB stood in a property while the demolition of the neighbouring property was in progress: no shaking, shuddering or movement of any sort was detectable.
• GB updated on NCERM 2 - 2055 line - Most extreme climate change forecast "Upper End" estimated 41m between now and 2055 for Hemsby. We have already lost half of that in places. See action for GYBC, above, to work with EA to update NCERM mapping.
• 61 further properties at risk over next three years - based on current rate of erosion.
• We are now starting to see clay-rich lines outcropping from the cliffs. It will still spoil for an undetermined period of time while the land settles. Top layer of cliff is a mix of sand and clay so still susceptible and rate of erosion being seen is similar to the sand cliff.
• It was stated that some people are basing decisions to buy properties on the 2055 erosion line - it is essential the public is updated around the fact that this has changed due to the extensive loss of the cliffs in recent months. EA to work with GYBC to update the 2055 line. Needs to be a caveat warning to the public. May need to advise public that 2055 line is more like 2030. JW asked for a timeline around the publication of new mapping. GV advised there is a process to follow and no definitive response time available right now.
• KW said GYBC should be reviewing planning applications around the new 2030 timeline. NF confirmed that planning team is taking this into account on all current and future applications.
• CS stated that the rate of erosion in past 10 months far exceeds what was expected.
• CS thanked the Lifeboat crew, staff and officers at GYBC, James Bensly and volunteers who helped with the work carried out in recent months. CS noted hostility due to misinformation on social media . CS noted that there has been no visit by EA or Government to Hemsby during the recent events.

3a. EA funding announcement

• CS asked EA to update on last week's funding announcement. Due to misinformation, some people believe Hemsby will be getting the full £18m allocation for adaptation work and this is not the case.
• This funding is not for sea defences and is to be shared between East Riding, North Norfolk Great Yarmouth and East Suffolk local authorities.
• GV clarified that this was his current understanding of this funding, however the details and funding criteria will not be released until about April 2026:
  • DEFRA announcement from Minister - £30m for coastal adaptation and flooding works for 2026 - 2029.
  • Funding is to continue, and build upon, existing adaptation strategies.
  • £12m of the funding is for erosion and flood risk works
  • Assumption of a 10% contribution from local authorities towards any future schemes
  • Funding is not to deliver an operational response for emergencies
• GV advised that EA has worked with GYBC and other councils since before Christmas and it is feeding back to DEFRA to ensure it knows the challenges residents on the coast are facing.
• CS advised people have been given hope of sea defences being paid for out of the monies that were announced - however that is not the case.
• CS noted we urgently need to know what our allocation is and what it can be used for.
• SO quoted from the Defra press release where it states the funds can be used for 'selective property purchases' where there is a clear public benefit. She asked the Environment Agency what this means and whether the funds are capital or revenue.
• GV advised it was capital funding, but is requesting further clarity around what is meant by selective property purchase.
• CS advised we look forward to receiving confirmation of funding criteria as a matter of urgency.
• SO clarified the position on a rock berm: while planning permission was secured for a berm, the amount of funding that Hemsby qualified for towards this was about £1.6 million towards a scheme estimated to cost about £20 million (in today's costs). GYBC had been advised by the EA not to submit an application for funding due to the lack of required partnership funding contribution to deliver the project under the existing funding guidelines. However, as the fund criteria has since been revised, should the council apply?
• GV confirmed that the funding guidelines are about to change, however the full detail on this is yet to be provided. It should be available around April 2026.
• SO advised the EA that consideration of a scheme under the new criteria was required, but that this should not be done by carrying out further studies and assessments, which would be at significant cost.
• GV said once details around funding are in place - it will discuss with GYBC.
• GV advised we need to go forward with caution re what any allocation of funding will be.
• SO advised that we need a definitive response re whether or not a sea defence is feasible. GV advised he's happy to support GYBC to progress this assessment once the new funding guidelines have been released.
• Residents have lived in hope for a long while - we really need to be able to give them a definitive answer around whether or not a defence is possible.
• NH advised that DEFRA has halved the funding available nationally for capital schemes to £10 billion from 2025 - 2035. This is half the budget for the previous 10 years.
• GB asked the EA to ensure that Hemsby received a fair share of the new adaptation funding allocation as it has more than 80 properties impacted, with 61 at risk in the next 3 years to 2029 funding deadline. It probably has more properties at risk than the other authorities combined mentioned as part of the funding package. CSm said we really need to shout loudly about the work carried out to date in Hemsby. This will hopefully stand us in good stead when it comes to funding allocations.
• GV said GYBC is trailblazing with the work it is doing around adaptation, hence GYBC is part of the funding pot.
• JW said it's unhelpful that EA isn't able to give us any detail despite the announcement being made some time ago. MP has said it's not good enough. SO pointed out that DEFRA made an announcement regarding the funding pot and not the EA. It is down to DEFRA to advise on details/funding criteria. EA/Council/MP are left with many questions.
• GV said he understands the frustration - funding guidance should be available in April.  GV said they will continue to feedback to all.  SO said this could be an opportunity for us to work with EA to help develop the criteria for this funding.
• CS said making the announcement and not having the funding criteria in place is not helpful. It builds up hope and could prevent people from making decisions around the safety of their property and when to leave, because misinformation/lack of information might make them feel that there may be more funding available soon for the purchase of their property if they remain in situ.
• CS advised that lots of promises have been made by successive governments and there is still no solution for any defences.

3b. Scratby Gabions

• GB advised that the damaged/leaning crates will have to be removed for public safety reasons.  They were obliterated in the storms in January. Jacobs report pending which will be circulated ahead of a meeting with Scratby community.

  • Action: GB/CB to arrange meeting.

• Beach clean up - Large chunks of detritus on the beaches. Crown Estate is speaking to adjoining property owners re clearing up.  It was noted that Whatlings (Norwich) Ltd no longer responsible for the entire land frontage.  Some has been transferred to private landowners.
• Sewerage/water mains/power supply etc - GYBC is working with relevant parties re realignment of these assets as needed.

4. Resilient Coasts

• Work package 9 - Adaptation relating to the purchase of planning development rights from affected properties. This does not provide a plot to a property owner to replace their property. It means that council will shortly be able to purchase the planning right from a property owner, and use these planning rights to develop a housing site, the profit derived from this can then be used to support the next group of property owners in the same way.
• Savills is carrying out a piece of work to identify suitable sites.
• This is not about relocation - it's about GYBC buying the planning right with a limited value, with a limited life span. SO reiterated this would be a modest sum of money based on a funding methodology.
• KW asked if GYBC is looking beyond the Highfield site. NF advised 'yes', beyond Highfield site.
• KK asked about the Pontins site - NH said it's privately owned and we have asked about it. NH said it's never progressed. As this site already has planning permission there would be no use transferring planning development rights to it.
• KK said if he purchased a property near the sea would he be able to put in for a planning right?  SO said policy is still being worked on. The message is that there won't be an opportunity for speculators to make money out of the planning right.
• Estate agents are still selling properties in the area - estate agents won't stop selling. Where buyers are using a solicitor, they should be advising their client around the erosion risks.   Properties are also being auctioned.

5. Communication and Engagement

• Unfortunately, social media is a source of significant misinformation.
• GYBC will be carrying out more drop-in sessions for residents who are directly affected by the ongoing erosion.
• 26th Feb is the next planned community engagement event - invitation only, for those directly affected.
• TW said the utility companies need to communicate clearly with the residents/public around their services.
• SO advised that of those who have recently had their homes demolished, 8 have been found permanent accommodation by the council and seven further applications are still being assessed. We can house people who are homeless but would much rather have assessments completed before people are in a crisis situation.
• KK made the observation that, despite a call for residents to attend the last parish council meeting to discuss the latest situation in Hemsby, only 11 people attended.
• CS reiterated that GYBC is doing the best it can with the resources and information that is available.
• JW asked for some information he can offer when receiving enquiries from the public. TW pointed JW to the Hemsby section, including FAQs, on the GYBC website.
• KW said the parish council is getting lots of suggestions for what could be tried to tackle the erosion at Hemsby. GB advised that the assets on the beach are accelerating erosion. We need to take all the assets off the beach - The Crown Estate will be licensing any existing assets on the beach and asserting rights to ensure their removal at an appropriate time.
• KK said he'd been approached by someone with the suggestion of closing the beach to the right of the Lifeboat station. GYBC advised that it can't do that because it is not its beach.
• JW said the MP's office gets emails advising that there are some defences in front of the Lifeboat station which are clearly working.  GB advised that this is incorrect - they are not working, they must be repeatedly moved back and the ramp re-built.
• It was also noted that the continuous costs for moving Hemsby assets, due to movement of sand/tides, would be unsustainable.

6. Next Steps 

• CS advised that GYBC will continue to support the residents at Hemsby.

7. AOB

• CB asked if the council would get behind a middle option - using existing science that some form of defence would give a window of opportunity to give more time to come up with a solution i.e. 20 years more to play with.
• GB stated the Jacobs report was clear that a rock berm was a short-term solution that may last up to 20 years to buy time for adaptation. It will not, and never will be, intended to fully protect from coastal erosion. The funding is still not available, and with the various named storms this year we have witnessed about 20 years of predicted erosion losses in the past 10 months, this would have caused significant damage to the asset if it had been in place and some homes would have been lost as well. Also need to bear in mind that it is not just the capital cost for the rock berm defences, but also the huge costs of maintaining them.
• GB said the most significant issue remains in the offshore - circa 1km wide, 10m-plus deep - channel along Hemsby frontage that is being forced landward by the seaward sandbar. This erosion is causing the beach lowering, enabling deeper water near to shore. Deeper water =  bigger waves, bigger waves = more erosion.  For the beach to remain in equilibrium, it must move landward. If defences were in place, the beach would, in effect, be squeezed and subject to further lowering and total loss over time. This would prevent all beach use over this section and would likely have significant financial implications for the local economy. GB posed the question that what are we buying time for? What's the destination as a community? What do you think will be achieved by spending money on defences that are unlikely to save the cliff top homes nor enable healthy beach conditions essential for the tourist industry?
• GB said that, with the announcement of the portion of the EA funding, subject to the pending guidance, there is a good opportunity to decide as a community what good could look like and secure funding support to adapt community assets. Improving car parks, relocating the lifeboat or businesses for example.