Coastal issues and the Select Committee Inquiry into coastal towns

The SCI recommendations

• National policy. The lack of cross-departmental working on coastal towns is disappointing. The government should establish a permanent cross-departmental working group on coastal towns.
• Vulnerable adults and children. Placing authorities should communicate in advance with host authorities, consider the impact of placements on the receiving communities, and take responsibility for the financial impacts of placements.
• Tourism. It was recommend that the government should conduct an immediate study on coastal tourism, including evaluating the levels and spend of domestic and inbound visitors.
• Benefit claimants. The government should investigate the trend whereby coastal towns have experienced a disproportionately high rise in the number of people claiming sickness and disability benefits. It was ‘unacceptable and extraordinary’ that the government should have no knowledge of this situation.
• Diversification. Coastal towns need to diversify and the government should encourage the sharing of best practice on economic diversification.
• Seasonality. It was surprising that the significance of seasonal work in coastal towns was not recognised by the Department for Works and Pensions. This is suggestive of a wider lack of understanding in government of the specific employment patterns in many coastal towns.
• Housing. Resort housing is often characterised by a dual economy of high house prices and low-quality private rental sectors. Coastal houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) provide cheap, short-term accommodation that contributes to the transience in many coastal towns. Local authorities should use the powers available to manage HMOs where they contribute to social problems and costs.
• Affordable housing. The shortage of affordable housing can be exacerbated by inward migration and the purchase of second homes.
• Climate change. The government should put in place a fair and transparent national approach to coastal adaptation to enable local communities to plan their futures, be it behind enhanced defences or planning for managed retreat.
  
• Sea defences and regeneration. The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and the Environment Agency (EA) should work together to maximise the regeneration potential of sea defences.
  
• Physical isolation. Physical isolation is a considerable barrier to economic growth, development and regeneration in many coastal towns.
  
• Demographics. The in-migration of older people to coastal resorts can place significant additional demands on public services, particularly health and social care.
  
• Transient populations. Coastal resorts experience a higher than national average level of transience populations: inflows and outflows of individuals and families attracted by seasonal employment, cheap rental accommodation and/or the quality of resort life. This can have negative consequences for education, public services, regeneration initiatives and social cohesion.
  
• Regeneration. The government should support a permanent network to facilitate the spread of best practice in coastal town regeneration.
  
• Funding. The government should evaluate the impact of the termination of any funding streams on coastal town regeneration with a view to addressing any funding gaps.

This long list of coastal-specific issues will be expanded on below, and elaborated on, from various perspectives, in the following chapters.

The Select Committee also noted that there was no standard definition of coastal towns for policymakers or practitioners, and that government departments and coastal organisations use a variety of topographies to define coastal settlements for their purposes. This means that it is extremely difficult to compare national and local coastal resort research over time, and between areas, if standardised definitions and datasets are not employed. This situation requires resolution if the reality of coastal resorts is to be articulated and available to inform national policy and programmes.

While the Select Committee used the broadest definition of coastal towns – settlements by the sea, excluding ports – in order not to restrict its scope, this Handbook is concerned with coastal resorts. These are seaside settlements that evolved as, and are still predominantly, tourist destinations.

Figure 2-3 colour codes the 2007 Indices of Multiple Deprivation for England, which illustrates how deprivation rings the country. The map also shows that many northern resorts service large urban areas that also experience above-average deprivation. If we were to roll up the English coast into its own region, the level of compressed deprivation would qualify the area for substantial European Union and national regeneration funding. As it is, many of the dispersed pockets of coastal deprivation fail to qualify for such support because of their size and their location.

Figure 2-3 Multiple Deprivation 2007

The Select Committee’s recommendations came as no surprise to coastal practitioners, but some inlanders could argue that, with the exception of, say, erosion, seasonality and elderly migrants, most of the issues highlighted are experienced, to some degree, throughout the country. This may be true, but it is the concentrated mixture of rural and urban problems, within peripheral, undynamic economies and 50 per cent hinterlands, that combine to create the unique deprivation of our seaside resorts, and which require unique solutions.

For example, resorts suffer from the rural problems of poor communications, isolation, poor access to services and jobs, lack of opportunity, recruitment issues, and access to affordable housing. Added to these are the urban deprivation issues of transient populations, poor housing, worklessness, poor health, low educational attainment, crime and lack of community engagement. It is the consequences of this cocktail of social and economic problems, often in attractive settings, that require new thinking and new approaches.

All coastal resorts are affected because, while they may be diverse by size, prosperity, access, popularity, culture and prospects, they all share the consequences of the ‘seasonality – low wage – cheap housing – transience’ nexus that distinguishes resort deprivation and places unrewarded costs and burdens on coastal local authorities and other public service providers.

The scale of resort deprivation can range in intensity from being the dominant and debilitating characteristics of many smaller resorts, such as marginalised Mablethorpe, to being almost submerged beneath the cosmopolitan vibrancy of Bournemouth and Brighton, or the niche market prosperity of towns such as Salcombe. It could be argued that the socioeconomic problems of coastal resorts produce the conditions for sustainable deprivation

For example, the availability of cheap rental housing maintains a transient population that can be very disruptive in schools, where the turnover of pupils can reach 40 per cent during a year. Similarly, the ageing coastal population and the influx of summer visitors can make considerable demands on medical and social services, as indeed do higher teenage pregnancy levels, high numbers of benefit claimants, and established coastal worklessness. The additional demands placed on coastal public services can be further compounded by the difficulty of recruiting public and private sector professionals in many coastal areas. Chapter 12 describes the ageing coastal population and the opportunities they may create, while Chapter 11 debates coastal health issues.

Location and transport links often defy efforts to diversify resort economies, as do the lack of critical masses in customers, skills and business culture. In addition many coastal towns lack connections with the economies and dynamics of major conurbations, except for visitors and retirees. Often businesses that are attracted to resorts move away because of costs, distance, recruitment issues and an undynamic business environment.

The funding available for regeneration may not be conducive to resort development, in so far as coastal outputs are often dearer to achieve than in larger urban areas, and this can influence funders where set targets are their priority. Also, current thematic EU funding assumptions, with the focus on innovation, R&D, technology and the environment, reduce opportunities for support in resort areas where tourism-related employment fails to qualify.

The quality of coastal education provision can be undermined by transient populations and low attainments can be another barrier that maintains deprivation. The lack of further education in many resorts is also a disincentive to retaining the young and talented, while efforts to retain young people can be expensive and time-consuming for limited success. In addition, poor resort education provision can deter families from moving to resorts.

Compounding the effects of resort deprivation is the local authority funding formula that does not cover the costs generated by transient populations, looked-after children, mental health issues, homelessness, housing benefit dependence and worklessness; while traditional services such as waste collection, street cleaning and car parking need to be elastic in dealing with the volume of resort visitors.

There is also the national issue of regeneration and deprivation timescales. As the coalfields, and many other former industrial areas have shown, with sufficient resources land can be developed and jobs relocated, but the impact on deprivation can be marginal and it may require years of effort to improve community aspirations, education and skills. As in the case of many national deprivation issues, these problems are magnified at the coast, where they may be less responsive to conventional regeneration stimulation. For this reason, coastal regeneration and deprivation require a national debate, particularly relating to economic growth, deprivation and wellbeing. Chapter 6 outlines the challenges of ‘enterprising the coast’.

Deprivation is, therefore, a major challenge and burden for coastal local authorities, particularly district councils. Overstretched service budgets can undermine efforts and resources aimed at community engagement, developing existing attractions, stimulating businesses growth, or engaging in the costly uncertainty of inward investment promotion in order to diversify and enrich the local economy.