1. What is the scale and nature of the risks posed by coastal erosion and landslips to communities, the economy and the environment? 

• Cornwall Council manages the longest stretch of coastline of any county in England. Cornwall has 700km of coastline and no town or village in Cornwall is more than 20 miles from the sea. What happens on the coast affects everyone who lives, works and holidays in Cornwall – whether through direct impacts to people, buildings and infrastructure or indirect impacts from lost tourism revenues and housing pressures. The population of Cornwall is circa 0.5 million, with visitors totalling nearly 5 million. One of the hidden risks is a large visiting population who are not accustomed to the dangers of coastal erosion (i.e. holiday makers setting up under cliff shadows in rockfall risk areas)
• Using the Environment Agency’s National Coastal Erosion Risk Mapping 2 (NCERM2) the Council has carried out a more detailed analysis of risk at Cornwall’s coast and this includes 9,980 properties at risk of coastal erosion (6,554 – Residential, 3,426 Commercial*). *Many of these commercial properties have residential accommodation above
• For Cornwall a particular vulnerability is communities being cut off due to losing their road access. Significant numbers (circa 111km) of major connecting roads run directly along the coastline in areas subject to coastal erosion.
• The Council keeps a record of significant coastal erosion events and report this on a quarterly basis to the South West Regional Flood and Coastal Committee. There are circa 180 records since 2012 when reporting and recording of events was introduced. Further records pre 2012 are in the process of being added from the British Geological Survey archives.
• Cornwall Council has conducted the Cornwall Climate Risk Assessment which is a bespoke assessment for climate risks within Cornwall. This assessment highlights accelerating coastal erosion and the increasing risk of landslips due to more intense rainfall and properties discharging from cliffs.
• It is important to set the right context for this question by considering the role natural coastal evolution has played in creating the present-day coastline which we celebrate. The mindset should be about accommodating and harnessing the natural adaptive capacity of the coastline. Protection therefore becomes the exception to the rule, rather than the norm / business as usual. But this is different from understanding risk, which becomes a required parallel stream of work, which must be very much integrated with land-use planning, with the ambition being to reduce and minimise over time the exposure to risks associated with erosion and land instability.

2. What strategies are currently in place, or needed, to reduce the risks of landslips and coastal erosion, and what research gaps exist? What policies are in place nationally and locally, such as within the Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management (FCERM) Strategy, for mitigation of hazards associated with landslips and coastal erosion? How effective and well-resourced are they and what types of impacts are considered within the policy framework?  

• For understanding & planning for future risk, the Shoreline Management Plans (SMP), used together with the National Coastal Erosion Risk Mapping 2 (NCERM2)) are the main tool used in setting the direction. Within the SMP local intelligence regarding the understanding of risk of erosion and landslip is collated and used to inform local policy and planning. However, an understanding of risk does not necessarily mean that the likelihood of it occurring is reduced. SMP policy and intent, where adhered to, can however reduce the risk of receptors being impacted by the physical processes, by ensuring that development is steered away from areas which might experience erosion or instability.
• Whilst the SMP is our best approach in balancing economic, societal and environmental decisions in how we managed the coast, its delivery is not resourced, and the number of actions mean that there are serious questions over its affordability. The community consciousness of climate change is very different even to where it was in 2011, when it was adopted, which has left many of Cornwall’s communities feeling they do not have a voice in how their coastline changes and community is affected. As a result, they feel they have been ‘done to’ rather than ‘co-design’.
• There is currently low public awareness of the Shoreline Management Plans and the effects the policy intentions have on the future of communities. Coastal Change Management Plans and the designation of Coastal Change Management Areas are needed, in order to prepare communities. However, there is very little (if any) public funding available for this work, which is extremely resource intensive if it is to be successful. In our experience the role of this engagement often falls to the Local Authority officers, which places further strain on their existing resources, and can lead to challenging situations when discussing the futures of communities.
• Following Cornwall Council’s Climate Emergency declaration in 2019, the Climate Emergency Development Plan Document (DPD) provides a framework for planning in the context of the climate emergency. The DPD introduces two local coastal change policies. These policies aim to ensure coastal erosion and coastal change issues are taken into account in determining the appropriateness of development, whilst also setting the future strategic pathway. Ultimately, they ensure development will be safe, sustainable and fits with strategic plans (the Shoreline Management Plan) across the course of its lifetime. The two new policies are:

CC1 - Coastal Vulnerability Zone

This policy designates a Coastal Vulnerability Zone (CVZ) around the whole of the Cornish coast, showing the predicted 100-year erosion zone and is based on the National Coastal Erosion Risk Mapping 2 (NCERM2). As a result of this policy, Cornwall Council, acting as the Coast Protection Authority, is a statutory consultee to planning applications that fall within the CVZ. There are three key strands to this policy:

• New development, including replacement dwellings, is only permitted where it can be demonstrated though a Coastal Vulnerability Assessment (CVA) that it is safe, sustainable and strategic*. *Further details of the definition of safe, sustainable and strategic are contained within the policy
• Private sea defences or cliff stabilisation works are only permitted where the works accord with wider coastal management objectives.
• Soakaways and other infiltration based sustainable systems within 5 metres of the Coastal Vulnerability Zone or discharge of surface water over or down the face of a cliff will not be permitted unless demonstrated through a Coastal Vulnerability Assessment that the proposed drainage method would not adversely affect coastal stability.

CC2 - Coastal Change Management Areas

This policy identifies fifteen candidate communities at risk of coastal change and creates a further level of precaution in terms of decision making in these areas beyond the immediate CVZ. The policy also sets out a series of principles development should follow in the absence of a Coastal Change Management Plan.

Two years implementing these policies has led to a number of key outcomes and lessons learned: 

• Positive results with landowners, developers and planning committees in relation to new development.
• An understanding that by shaping the future of the coast, we are moving beyond just ‘risk management' interventions and into the realm of ‘place shaping’.
• Raising the profile of coastal change with planners, elected members, developers and the public.
• Acknowledgement that coastal change planning needs to be considered in the context of the wider ‘planning balance’. 
• The impact of implementing new policy on already limited resources.
• Linked to Policy CC1 above, many of the issues we experience in Cornwall in relation to landslips and coastal erosion are not from coastal processes. They are in many instances where permitted development rights have been used to carry out construction or drainage activities at the cliff edge which has in turn created instability.
• Following the implementation of the Cornwall Climate Emergency Development Plan document and the success of the implementation of Policy CC1 ‘Coastal Vulnerability Zone’, Cornwall Council suggests that something similar to policy CC1 should be included in the NPPF and that a “sequential test for coastal erosion” much like the ones that already exist for flood risk should be included. As part of this it should also be recognised that some development e.g. lifeboat stations, surf lifesaving clubs, marina/harbours works can be deemed as "coastal compatible" much like "water compatible" in the sequential test. There is also a policy gap in that there is a need for a mechanism for allocating and safeguarding adaptation roll-back land within the Planning system much like the current ‘Site Allocations’ process.
• The intention to develop Coastal Change Management Plans with communities, and the designation of Coastal Change Management Areas in Neighbourhood Development Plans (NDPs) has been undermined by the recent withdrawal of funding for NDPs. Local Plans now need to be the main route for designation, or designation by the Local Authorities, which actually removes decision making away from communities at a time when they are being asked to be more involved. This is something that will be a key focus in the development of the new Cornwall Local Plan.
• The Coast Protection Act 1949 is significantly outdated and does not reflect the current approach regarding risk management and adaptation. It inhibits the ability to manage the coast effectively without relevant supporting legislation. It is still stuck in a defence/protection mindset and as a result the adaptation/sustainability focus it can bring is limited. If we are considering new planning mechanisms/reforms nationally, it provides the ideal opportunity to update the primary legislation (Coast Protection Act) that it supports. New legislation should include some consideration of Local Authorities that are both Coast Protection Authorities and Local Planning Authorities, to reduce conflict between these two legislative roles.
• Department for Transport, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Defra need to better collaborate on incentives, funding and strategies for risk from coastal erosion. We currently have a disjointed approach where local authorities struggle to access FCERM Grant in Aid funding via Defra for coastal erosion assets (especially where it protects highways not property) on the assumption that it is available from MHCLG/DoT, when often the view from those departments is that it is something that is covered by Defra and FCERM GiA. Outcome Measure 3s, which are part of the FCERM Grant in Aid funding metric for properties better protected from coastal erosion, has also not been updated since the Partnership Funding Calculator’s inception, and as a result has lagged significantly behind OM2s (properties better protected). Protecting Infrastructure is also not well prioritised in the current (or proposed) funding system for coastal erosion.
• Cornwall has one of the highest numbers of coastal flooding/erosion assets in local authority/private ownership (nearly 90%). As a result, it is difficult to access funding for maintaining assets (because it is only available to the Environment Agency). This places a greater burden on the Local Authority with the longest coastline in England, not recognising that Cornwall Council is more than just a Coast Protection Authority with many pressures across the services it provides and budgets available.
• Many of the studies that are funded in relation to coastal erosion largely focus on data gathering but then do not have a pathway to identifying a strategic outline case defence/adaptation options. Better join up between the gathering of information and what it informs is required to avoid collecting data for the sake of it. Studies also often raise the expectation of communities, and then when there is no way to access further funding or pathway to delivery it can undermine relationships with local authorities
• The question only considers the issue from a perspective of mitigation. In reality, in Cornwall we cannot prevent these events from occurring, the greater need is for adaptation. Coastal erosion is permanent and many places in Cornwall have a No Active Intervention or Managed Re-alignment Shoreline Management Plan policy.
• Two major Flood and Coastal Innovation projects are trialling work around community engagement and adaption to coastal change in Cornwall. The Making Space for Sand Project aims to encourage the more sustainable use and development of the coastal fringe to allow for a more natural, ecosystem approach to coastal management where traditional coastal protection is not possible. It is working with communities across Cornwall to increase their knowledge about sea level rise and coastal change, identify how these may potentially impact coastal communities in the future, and support community groups to build coastal adaptation and resilience plans. Future Coast Bude focuses more specifically on one community and aims to encourage coastal adaptation, whilst considering the social and economic challenges presented by a naturally changing coastal environment. Key interventions include the ‘roll back’ and adaption of infrastructure and assets at risk of coastal erosion, improvements to beach access, the development of a ‘Coastal Vision’ and designation of a Coastal Change Management Area.
• The Devon, Cornwall & Isles of Scilly Climate Adaptation Strategy identifies ‘Ensure the region is ready for, and resilient to, flooding and coastal change’ as a strategic goal to reduce the impact of coastal erosion, particularly on the infrastructure sector, but also health and the built environment. This strategy brings together key stakeholders at a strategic level across the Southwest, to make best use of limited resources and coordinate action on these risks.
• The Cornwall Local Nature Recovery Strategy identifies the impacts of coastal erosion risk to the coastline from an ecological perspective. It aims to create a ‘coastal wildbelt’ and has highlighted habitats at risk and roll back opportunities.

3. What are the social, economic, and psychological impacts of landslips and coastal erosion on affected communities? And how can these be addressed? 

• The hazards posed by damaged or poorly maintained coastal assets, exposes members of the public to risk and opens local authorities up to possible litigation, which has a compounding impact on resources. Danger of death from collapsing cliffs on popular tourist beaches. There have been a number of examples of this in recent years in Cornwall.
• The risk to people is to life, as evidenced in the Looe landslip in March 2013. In areas where landslips and coastal erosion are posing a risk to housing it has the potential to impact housing stock and also businesses that support the local economy through hotels, Airbnb, etc.
• Beaches, coastal car parks, coastal roads and the coast path are, in various locations, no longer accessible or present a public safety issue. This has in many instances led to significant revenue costs, as the Council has to monitor and maintain restrictions to these areas. In some instances, it has even led to closures of whole beach locations/accessways (an example of this is Whipsiderry Beach, Newquay). This presents further challenges for emergency services and RNLI volunteers when responding and impacts tourism and access to natural spaces (e.g. Whipsiderry, Bedruthan steps, Pedn Vounder).
• In many locations, the South West Coastal Path has had to be diverted inland, sometimes onto roads, where coastal squeeze prevents it from being rolled back. This can be problematic for the local authority as it is a public highway and needs to be maintained, but often the alternative route is via private land, highway or far inland which can be costly and challenging. This also impacts the appeal of the coastline, which is an asset that is estimated to generate £439 million per annum to the Southwest.
• Loss of coastal farmland is also often a hidden issue. Over 80% of Cornwall is agricultural land, with this forming the majority of sections of the coastline. This loss of farmland often links to other pressures around the coastline e.g. continuation of the South West Coastal Path.
• Habitat loss is of real concern in many locations along the Cornish coast, many coastal habitats are squeezed by urban infrastructure that allows no space for roll-back. This is a common conflict between SMP policy intentions and community views, as the restoration of intertidal areas or encouraging natural protection from erosion (e.g. dunes) is often a highly contentious topic and can create divisions within the community. Examples of this include the gradual loss of Summerleaze Car Park in Bude, and the restoration of intertidal habitat at Boscawen Recreational Park, Truro.
• Linked to this, there are psychological impacts to communities and individuals. Communicating coastal erosion risks is sensitive, people don’t like to hear the places they love are going to change, even though the coast is a changing place. Tourists with no experience of living by the coast are often surprised and uninformed about how beaches change during the tides and seasons. Current anti-climate change narratives aren’t helping with community engagement on this issue.
• People are emotionally attached to the places they live, local history and place memories are important to communities. They often also have a view of what they remember, but do not consider it in the wider timescale of the coast being a changing environment. Work has been done within the Making Space for Sand and Future Coast Bude projects to capture this and ensure it feeds into adaption planning for communities.
• Many of the defacto defences are historic structures which are intrinsic to people’s social sense of place and a view of ‘Cornwall’ but challenging to maintain. See more detail re Harbours in question 5.

4. Is there sufficient support available to those who have sustained damage or loss of property due to landslips or coastal erosion, and are items such as financial compensation, relocation assistance, and wellbeing services considered in this support

• Each case is taken on its own merits. If a house is uninhabitable due to a landslip and the inhabitants are made homeless then there is a statutory duty placed upon Cornwall Council. There is limited financial support in place and welfare will again be on a case-by-case basis, though some residents will already be known to Cornwall Council services due to a vulnerability, and others may become vulnerable. Some further information is here Humanitarian assistance and evacuations - Cornwall Council.
• There are a number of locations around the coastline of Cornwall that maintain a Hold the Line policy across both the medium- and long-term epochs of the Shoreline Management Plan.  These are often in coastal towns and villages and contain elements of critical infrastructure (water treatment, highways etc.) and residential property.  The current funding mechanism does not present a pathway to delivery for this management intent, as Outcome Measure 3s (properties at risk of erosion) are undervalued when compared to Outcome Measure 2s (properties at risk of flooding) in the current Defra funding mechanism.  This creates a bias towards channelling funding towards Environment Agency responsibilities (sea/tidal and riparian flooding) and is compounded by the fact that local authorities cannot access capital maintenance funding.  The burden of funding falls upon Coast Protection Authorities (Local Authorities) to provide, in many cases, match funding of over 50%. This burden comes at a time when Local Authorities are struggling to maintain existing assets and under enormous budget pressure from other responsibilities (e.g. Adult Social Care etc.).  Without being able to fund the Hold the Line policy interventions, we are at risk of losing valuable housing stock in an area already experiencing housing pressure.  When housing targets are set by the government, they do not consider houses being lost to the sea.  One of the factors that the funding mechanism does not consider is how much will it cost to replace these houses?  What will it cost to replace the infrastructure?  Is there space to replace these assets in or near the community where they are lost?
• Support for property owners on assets lost to coastal erosion is generally poorly understood at the local authority level and poorly publicised and communicated at a national government level. We are aware that the CLIFF project in North Norfolk are doing significant research work in relation to options for this. As previously explained, the council incurs significant revenue costs (circa £1M per annum at the moment) to manage the safety of the sites where coastal erosion and rockfalls have occurred.
• With regards to compensation for properties affected, a high number of coastal homes are high value second homes and holiday homes. Giving these properties financial support could be controversial whilst there’s a housing crisis and inland over-development caused by these underused properties.
• Properties have been damaged by landslips in Looe and there was a fatality. During the 28-29 August 2025 rainfall event a landslip made a family homeless – Cornwall Fire & Rescue supported them to declare themselves homeless to the Council’s housing service. These are not coastal landslips or caused by coastal erosion.

5. Are emergency services and local authorities sufficiently resourced and trained to respond to the increasing risks of landslips and coastal erosion linked to extreme weather events, particularly in rural, coastal and hard-to-reach areas? 

• Cornwall Fire & Rescue Service have specialist training in rescue situations; the Police have search and rescue protocols, and the ambulance service employ the Hazardous Area Response Team (HART) to such situations. Local Authorities have a role in humanitarian response and will deploy support services, including temporary shelter where a homeowner, currently living in a property, has been impacted and has no other course of action, including insurance or staying with family or friends.

• Much of the Cornwall Council’s focus is on risk assessment and the mitigation of risks as opposed to just managing impacts when they occur. The Council undertakes geohazard assessments including drone surveys to better understand the condition of our coastal assets.  It also undertakes routine beach safety inspections undertaken throughout the year (6 per year).  The Council undertook an audit of all of our assets and have improved educational and warning signage on all the main access to sites that may be impacted by cliffs.  During the summer season RNLI Lifeguards deploy enhanced the signage using A Frame warning signs.   The Council also undertakes regular social media campaigns to highlight the risks around cliff falls, and we work with other partners to do the same.  At high-risk sites where there are more serious ongoing issues it has separate specialist monitoring in place e.g. Whipsiderry, Great Western.

6. To what extent is the protection of and access to significant natural landscapes and heritage sites being undermined due to coastal erosion or landslips, what are the impacts of this, and how could this be addressed? 

• It is important to recognise that the present-day coastline has been shaped over millenia by natural coastal and marine processes. Change, has, and always will, happen. Cornwall would not have the rugged and wild coastline, and wide sandy beaches and dunes, which it is famous and much valued for, (and a source of colossal economic benefit to the region) without these processes having taken place. Ongoing dynamic erosional and depositional processes are integral components of many coastal habitats. Coastal habitats are generally not static. As much as possible therefore we need to seek to work with, rather than against coastal change.
• Conversely, heritage assets are generally very static and immovable, however there are examples (such as the Bude Storm Tower) where relocation is possible. This approach is demonstrated by the National Trust (a huge landowner of the coast in Cornwall) aiming to preserve, maintain, whilst it is sustainable to do so, but not looking to protect at all costs, and so recording and mapping the heritage, the creation of digital twins etc. One converse example of this and a challenge to adaptation is Cornish Mining Landscape World Heritage Site, UNESCO base the whole designation on how the site is now and this severely limit adaptation or climate mitigation actions like tree planting
• A key issue for Cornwall is the presence of many listed harbour structures which act as defacto sea defences or coast protection. Some of these are categorised as orphan assets (no verifiable owner). Many quaysides, piers, breakwaters etc which originate in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries are themselves listed structures. Many heritage assets at the coast also sit with the Cornwall and West Devon Mining Landscape World Heritage Site. Many are also in private ownership, or managed by charitable trusts, who have small annual turnovers. In order for these structures to continue to provide flood and coastal erosion protection into the latter part of this century and beyond will require very significant ongoing investment. This investment needs to cover both maintaining their heritage value and continually improving their performance in the face of sea level rise and the increasing hydrodynamic and hydraulic forces they will need to resist. This is often challenging for charitable harbour trusts, both in terms of funding and expertise, who rely on significant amounts of grant funding to undertake capital maintenance, see Polperro Harbour example. In these defacto defence examples FCERM GiA cannot be passed directly to the third party and means the local authority must act as the grant recipient, placing further pressures on their already stretched resources, and exposing them to financial and reputational risks. It is suggested that the committee look into instances of allowing FCERM GiA to be provided directly from the Environment Agency to third party assets such as these.
• On a general level we have hundreds of heritage assets that are at risk from coastal processes in Cornwall. The Heritage at Risk Information Tool (HARIT) is a mapping tool developed by Cornwall Council that can be used to identify heritage sites vulnerable to coastal erosion. HARIT is designed is to help communities understand the impact of climate change on our historic environment. Working with communities we aim to support informed decisions on the management of these risks as part of the wider community climate adaptation planning in Cornwall.
• Significant amongst these would be the large number of lime kilns, mine workings and features from both world wars that are routinely impacted by any high tide. Most communities have their own collection of listed buildings that are routinely impacted.
• Cornwall’s cliff castles are clearly at risk but any attempt to reverse this is destined to fail, although access improvements may have merit in specific circumstances. Trevelgue Head, for example, has significant footfall due to its location and is an important area of green space within easy reach of a significant urban area. Other scheduled features such as the Castle remains at the mouth of the Fowey, the Blockhouse at Polruan and St Catherine’s Castle are distinctive features that positively enhance the character of Fowey and Polruan. Other sites include are the Multi-period archaeological landscape at Trevarbeth and St Levan Chapel site. Both of these sites have been subject to assessment and survey as part of the Cornwall National Landscape Monumental improvement project. Historic England have produced the Rapid Coastal Zone Assessment Survey for South-West England to enable a desk based assessment of assets at risk
• The Cornwall Local Nature Recovery Strategy identifies the impacts of coastal erosion risk to the coastline from an ecological perspective. It aims to create a ‘coastal wildbelt’ and has highlighted habitats at risk and roll back opportunities.
• As part of its work using natural processes for better protection against coastal erosion in communities, Making Space for Sand addresses the impacts on sand dune habitats and works with volunteer groups and communities to encourage the establishment of dune networks.