SEA defence experts said today they might soon be unable to guarantee safety to thousands of residents of a seaside caravan park because it is too expensive.
Low-lying land behind the
Medmerry sea defences at Selsey has repeatedly been battered by high tides and stormy weather over recent winters.
The Environment Agency has used bulldozers to form a huge shingle bank in a bid to keep back the waves, but despite the expense, which runs into millions of pounds, the defences are regularly breached during bad weather.
And the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which part-finances the agency's coastal defence work, says caravans are not of enough value to warrant extra funding.
Now the agency says it may eventually have to leave the beach to the forces of nature.
Selsey South ward councillor Eddie Vines is furious about the plans, saying the cost to the town will be enormous.
He added: "It spells the end of Selsey as a sustainable town. It's desperately serious. There are 4,000 caravans on that site and they bring in around £25 million a year to the town.
"It would turn parts of the town into an island. The Environment Agency should look more closely at the
effect on people."
But Peter Midgley, Sussex area manager for the Environment Agency, said: "We are extremely concerned for the safety of people who choose to live and holiday in areas at risk from flooding.
"While we can issue flood warnings and encourage evacuation planning, such arrangements are not fail-safe when dealing with
massively powerful and often unpredictable natural events.
"This is why we now object strongly to proposals to develop in flood risk areas."
The Environment Agency's latest coastal strategy involves minor realignments of the coastline at Medmerry, to reduce the movement of sand and shingle.
But, even then, it says a significant risk of flooding remains.
Mr Midgley added: "Medmerry is one of the most vulnerable stretches on the Sussex coastline.
"The long-term future of this very low land and its use even as a short-term holiday home for thousands of people must be questioned by the planning authorities."
Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article