MALCOLM KERBY,
Coastal Concern Action
Group,
Grub Street, Happisburgh.

I read with great interest your report (EDP, August 25) on the RSPB’s decision to sacrifice part of Titchwell Marsh (pictured) to the sea. Whether that decision is either technically or theoretically correct I leave to others better qualified than myself to judge. What really interests me is the short paragraph concluding the article referring to new (compensatory) habitat being created elsewhere. Here we go again. Flora and fauna get 100 pc compensation when it is decided to ‘realign’ the coast yet people and communities get nothing and are forced by central government to absorb 100 pc of the cost of an abortive and wholly unnecessary coast management policy. Is man not as much a natural inhabitant of this country as other indigenous birds and mammals etc? Whilst the government would say this particular example is a matter for the RSPB, and nothing to do with them, it does highlight the discrimination which abounds in the central government’s coast (mis)management policy.