A registered resident of Burnham-On-Sea has expressed frustration over what he views as unfulfilled promises for flood defense infrastructure, particularly the construction of a Tidal Barrier. During a recent meeting of the Burnham and Highbridge Town Council, Tony Lynham recalled plans from 2014, wherein the Environment Agency committed to building the barrier to mitigate the risk of coastal flooding. This initiative, he noted, was pegged at a budget of £44 million and was meant to protect both Burnham and Highbridge.
“We were promised one in 2014, and Section 106 funding was allocated to it when they drew up the plans for Highbridge, and what they put before the Treasury, including sea defences for the town,” Lynham articulated at the council meeting.
Response from the Environment Agency, though, clarified potential misunderstandings around the announcement. They stated, “the 2014 announcement related to the Bridgwater Tidal Barrier,” indicating plans for Bridgwater, with total funding of £249 million, emphasizing no imminent plans are set for additional defenses for the Burnham-On-Sea area.
According to the Agency, existing coastal defenses—primarily the sea wall constructed after the devastating 1981 storm—are still considered effective and well-maintained, boasting annual inspections confirming their sound condition. “There are no imminent plans for new defences as the sea wall and current defences provide a good standard of protection,” they reiterated during the discussion.
Lynham remains firmly convinced of the need for enhanced flood protection as climate change intensifies the threat of rising sea levels and flooding. He pointed out the inadequacies of current measures and fears what could happen should another serious weather event occur.
On matters of residential development, the attention shifts to the proposal submitted by Simon and Sophie Dixon Smith. They have applied for major renovations to their home at Burnham Overy Staithe, aspiring to give the property—a 1970s house—a more suitable appearance relative to its picturesque harbor setting.
The Dixon Smiths' application includes replacing existing windows with more fitting sash types, incorporating repositioning for aesthetic improvement, and constructing a new steeper roof to facilitate additional attic rooms. Given the current architectural surroundings characterized by Victorian and Georgian buildings, they deem their property “rather incongruous.”
According to their planning statement, “The design concept is to transform the appearance of the existing house by reconfiguring the massing, detailing and materials.” This approach stems from their earlier planning permission, initially allowing for the demolition of the existing property to build anew. They have since opted for refurbishment instead.
“Refurbishing the existing house is a more economical and sustainable approach when compared to demolishing and building from new,” stated their planning document, reflecting the broader awareness of environmental sustainability within contemporary construction practices.
The juxtaposition of these community issues—both environmental and domestic—highlights the complex interplay of development, infrastructure, and local sentiments surrounding growth and preservation. Lynham's calls for enhanced flood defenses resonate with residents concerned about safeguarding their community against increasing climate threats.
Meanwhile, the Dixon Smiths showcase how individual property transformations can contribute positively to the local aesthetic without resorting to complete teardown and rebuild—a concept aligning well with sustainability principles embraced widely today.
Moving forward, as the Environment Agency re-evaluates coastal defenses and potential developments like the Dixon Smiths' renovations progress, the local community finds itself at the crossroads of history, community identity, and future resilience.
