Climate adaptation and emergency response

Coastal erosion and landslides have profound and far reaching consequences for individuals, families, and communities. While the physical loss of homes, buildings, and infrastructure is visible and measurable, the broader human and social impacts are equally severe but are not fully recognised. Impacts include harm to mental wellbeing, the deepening of existing social inequalities, the loss of essential community assets, increased isolation, and the erosion of social cohesion. (Conclusion, Paragraph 7)

Defra should, in its response to this report, set out how it recognises and incorporates the full range of human impacts of coastal erosion into policy development and funding decisions, including clear actions or criteria for doing so. It should also provide a defined approach to community engagement that details how affected individuals and communities will be identified, involved, and consulted throughout coastal management policymaking. (Recommendation, Paragraph 8) Properties, insurance and conveyancing

The estate agent and conveyancing processes fail to reliably identify or disclose coastal erosion and landslide risks, leaving homebuyers without vital information. This is unacceptable given that clear risk data is already publicly available through tools such as National Coastal Erosion Risk Map (NCERM) and the Digital Shoreline Management Plan Explorer Tool. The absence of requirements to treat these risks as “material information” creates a regulatory gap, and buyers are not being equipped to make informed choices. The MHCLG consultation on home buying reform presents an important opportunity to introduce mandatory risk disclosure and standardise material information in property transactions. (Conclusion, Paragraph 13) 20

Coastal erosion and landslide risk should be included as material information in conveyancing, and the Government NCERM website should be signposted. The conveyancing profession and estate agents should be required to inform prospective homebuyers if a home falls within the risk zone in any of the scenarios projected in the NCERM. Guidance should also consider the surrounding area of the property, and wider potential impacts such as access and utilities, mortgage availability, and the availability of insurance products. (Recommendation, Paragraph 14)

Communities affected by coastal erosion and landslides face significant financial vulnerability due to the lack of comprehensive insurance coverage. The Flood Re programme demonstrates that government-backed schemes can dramatically improve affordability and access to insurance for high-risk households. (Conclusion, Paragraph 19)

Defra should work with insurers to commission a review into feasibility of implementing a Flood Re-like Government-backed insurance product for coastal erosion and landslides. (Recommendation, Paragraph 20)

The restriction in eligibility for the Coastal Erosion Assistance Grant (CEAG) to properties purchased before June 2009 is arbitrary. It also fails to reflect the reality that erosion risks continue to be poorly communicated during property transactions and are intensifying due to climate change. The grant value has also not increased since 2010, and the £6,000 per property available is substantially below the true costs of demolition, leaving homeowners and local authorities with significant costs at an already vulnerable time. (Conclusion, Paragraph 23)

Defra should commit to reviewing the current 2009 property purchase qualifying date and value of the Coastal Erosion Assistance Grant (CEAG) and, by June 2026, launch a structured assessment of whether this threshold and available grant remain justified. This review should examine evidence on historic and ongoing shortcomings in coastalerosion risk communication, alongside updated projections of climatedriven changes in erosion rates and associated property exposure, and true costs of demolition. Defra should publish revised, evidence based eligibility criteria and an increased grant value by December 2026 together with the analysis that led to those revised figures and dates. The updated criteria and grant value should be implemented no later than April 2027. (Recommendation, Paragraph 24)

Innovative adaptation measures, including property purchase and relocation schemes, have been successfully piloted through the Coastal Change Pathfinder and the ongoing Coastal Transition Accelerator Programme (CTAP). However, these benefits remain confined to selected pilot areas for a limited period, and longterm support for communities affected by coastal erosion is not assured. (Conclusion, Paragraph 31) 21

When the CTAP pilot concludes in 2027, Defra should move away from a selective piloting approach. In its response to this report, it should commit to establishing a longterm national strategy that provides financial assistance and relocation support for properties at risk of coastal change. This strategy should be in place no later than March

Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs) are not consistently integrated into Local Plans, resulting in planning decisions that do not account for future coastalchange risks. The mismatch between Local Plan timescales and the longerterm horizons of SMPs could lead to developments being approved in areas that are not expected to remain protected, creating avoidable future risk for communities and infrastructure. (Conclusion, Paragraph 36)

The Environment Agency should work with MHCLG to strengthen the role of SMPs within Local Plans and use the ongoing Local Plan reforms to establish a statutory requirement for coastal planning authorities to incorporate SMPs as a core part of the evidence base for planmaking, with compliance monitored through the Local Plan examination process. By December 2026, Defra and MHCLG should publish a fully costed roadmap for coastal planning authorities to achieve this. (Recommendation, Paragraph 37)

Past FCERM funding arrangements have limited support for coastal management by relying on narrow benefit assessments that overlook wider, nonmonetised risks from coastal erosion and the existential pressures facing coastal communities and industries. We welcome the Government’s intention to incorporate broader nonmonetised benefits into the prioritisation process from 2026. However, it remains unclear how these benefits will be defined, how the strategic priorities will apply to coastal erosion projects, and whether they will meaningfully address existing funding barriers to adaptation. We are also concerned that, as flood and coastal risk management projects are funded under the same programme, the proposal to automatically fund projects under £3 million could divert resources away from highercost coastal schemes. (Conclusion, Paragraph 45)

In its response, Defra should provide a plan setting out how wider nonmonetised benefits for coastal erosion projects will be incorporated into the reformed FCERM funding model. This plan should: 22 a. Specify the benefits to be included in the 2026 FCERM prioritisation process and provide the methodology for assessing them. b. Commission independent research to determine the health cost of coastal erosion, to ensure parity with existing flooding assessments. c. Explain how benefits that are challenging to monetise will be incorporated, including tourism, the longterm viability of coastal communities, and impacts on coastal industries such as energy. (Recommendation, Paragraph 46)

In response to this report the Government should publish an indicative ratio or allocation range for projects under £3 million, broken down by flood and coastal projects, to prevent unintended competition between inland and coastal schemes and ensure balanced investment. (Recommendation, Paragraph 47) 23