Memorandum submitted by Helena Drysdale
(DMB 01)
SUMMARY
I have a shared interest in a small isolated
property on the south coast of Devon, which has access down the
cliffs to a small private beach. Although I will discuss the effects
of the Bill on this property in particular, its ramifications
extend to all properties of this type. I believe that the Draft
Bill does not strike the right balance between the rights of access
and the rights of owners and occupiers.
Where the Bill deals with vast empty stretches
of farmed coast land in—say—Northumberland, there
is little intrusion into private ownership; however in more heavily
populated areas such as South Devon, the situation is very different,
and deeply unfair to small property owners. If a route must be
imposed, it should go behind properties such as these.
1. The South West Coast Path is already
in place, and should be left as it is. The massive expense of
moving the path closer to the sea is not cost-effective.
2. This property is situated on the edge
of a small coastal valley, some of which is gardened. On a small
property such as this one, the concept of "spreading room"
basically means spreading all over the valley and garden. As such,
it should be the type of land excepted from access rights.
3. Some of the valley is untouched rough
cliff land enjoyed by birds and animals. "Spreading room"
across this kind of landscape would inflict serious environmental
damage.
4. "Spreading room" will also
contribute to cliff erosion, thereby extending the environmental
damage.
5. "Spreading room" will invite
walkers to stop and picnic on the cliff edge, looking straight
into this property, thereby destroying its privacy. The invitation
to stop will also result in an increase in litter.
6. The Draft Marine Bill threatens the concept
of the ownership and enjoyment of private property, a basic human
right.
7. Like many south coast properties, this
one is also a small holiday letting business. Its USP is its private
beach, and its privacy in general. Public access through its cliff-top
gardens to the beach will destroy the USP, and will therefore
damage the business.
8. Loss of privacy involves not only the
physical intrusion into a private space, but also the intrusion
of noise, litter, and dogs.
9. Access by the general public to this
remote, isolated property will invite trespass, and is a threat
to the security of people who often stay there alone.
10. Financial loss from the business will
be compounded by deterioration in the value of the property.
11. The Draft Marine Bill will not offer
compensation, so in effect it proposes the theft of land. This
smacks of fascism, not democracy, and is a proposal that is politically
damaging, and socially divisive.
12. Even if compensation were offered, it
would not mitigate the hugely damaging effects of thousands of
people and dogs trampling through the property.
13. The proposed arrangements for limiting
liability are good, but how effective would those limitations
be in, say, the European Courts?
14. Many of the proposals appear to contradict
each other—for example encouraging climbers to enjoy the
cliff tops, while at the same time stressing that the path will
where possible avoid steep slopes. If it is to avoid steep slopes,
how will it travel as close as possible to the sea, when most
of the South Devon coast is made up of steep valleys?
15. Many of the proposals are also unclear.
What, for example, constitutes a "garden"? Is it a garden
if it has been gardened, even if it is out of view of a house?
Or does the Bill refer only to the immediate curtilage?
Helena Drysdale
April 2008
| 
