Here's why we want to flood the estuary

Members and guests heard a full and professional address on the scheme from project manager Mark Elliott.

Using slides to illustrate his points, Mr Elliott gave a clear explanation of the Environment Agency's rationale of the project.

He spelt out that the estuary area is below sea level and the earth banks that keep the sea back are very low, undercut and eroding.

Although the Agency dredges the river mouth annually, using the dredged material to reinforce the west beach, it is losing the battle with the sea, which will break through within the next three years. Therefore, it has been decided to deliberately breach the defences and allow the sea to flood 100 acres of land on the Seaford side of the estuary.

This fertile grassland will become mudflats and salt marsh. Mr Elliott insisted that mud flats do not smell, despite the hydrogen sulphide (bad egg gas) they contain.

A system of creeks will facilitate the flooding, ensuring that the inter-tidal mud spreads to create wide salt marshes. The A259 will remain, although abutment work will be needed to reinforce the road.

The car park will be flooded, but Mr Elliott hoped it would be possible to build one elsewhere. The footpath will be destroyed, but: 'I would like to put a new footpath in before we breech the flood defences,' he said.

He pointed out that if the footpath were lost to the sea accidentally the path would legally cease to exist, whereas deliberate flooding would ensure an attempt to resite a footpath above the five-metre level.

Mr Elliott did not appear enthusiastic about the called-for public inquiry into the Cuckmere Estuary Project. Both local MPs, Norman Baker and Nigel Waterhouse, proposed a public inquiry when they heard the strength of public opinion against the flooding of the Cuckmere Valley during a meeting at the Golden Galleon last month.

Mr Elliott discouraged any inquiry on grounds of expense, saying: 'If there is a planning inquiry we may have to back out.'

Protests raised at Friday's meeting, which was attended by 70 people, included fears that the Golden Galleon would be forced to close if tourism fell by as little as 10 per cent; claims of misuse of a country park as a nature reserve rather than a site of public access to the countryside; and a plea to reveal the funding formula that seems to make it possible to flood, but impossible to maintain existing sea defences.

However, public sentiment was much calmer and more resigned than at the earlier Cuckmere meeting.

As one member of the audience told Mr Elliott: 'It looks as though you've made your minds up and you're going to do it whatever we think or say.'