Memorandum submitted by Michael Sagar-Fenton
(DMB 10)
THE EXISTING
SITUATION
1. I am a writer and smallholder living
in the far west of Cornwall. I recently had the proposals of Natural
England's Coastal Access draft document drawn to my attention.
These are of interest to me for two reasons:
(a) I own a very short section of the coast
through which the existing coast path runs.
(b) I am a native of West Cornwall, very
familiar with its landscape, wild-life and general ecology. I
am not a naturalist or an expert in any branch of the biological
sciences, but someone who loves, appreciates and writes about
the beautiful environment in which I am lucky enough to live.
2. Like many local people and thousands
of seasonal visitors I enjoy walking the existing coast path.
This is a narrow pathway which winds through the peripheral land
between the enclosed fields or human settlements and the sea.
It is an ancient pathway, well maintained and looked after, and
already provides the main objects of the new proposals, ie access
to the coast, glorious sea and coastal views, places to stop and
rest, even to picnic.
3. Surrounding the path, particularly on
the seaward side, is what is known in Cornwall as "croft",
overgrown land not suitable for various reasons for cultivation.
This also extends widely in places on the landward side. The croft
may never have been cultivated or it might include old field systems
of tiny fields known as "quillets", mostly broken in
during the 19th century to grow early crops and flowers, last
cultivated, if at all, during WWII. This is covered with undergrowth,
some shrubs and small trees, all left to their own devices. The
undergrowth thins out towards the littoral zone which may be cliffs
or rocky slopes or beach.
4. The width of the peripheral land is variable
according to the terrain, and may vary from a few metres to a
few hundred metres, especially when crossing one of the many headlands.
5. Apart from the open moorland, Cornwall
is quite intensively farmed with few areas of natural growth.
It is also highly populated in the summer season when very many
people like to explore its wilder areas. The result of this is
that there are very few areas of sanctuary for the native wildlife.
The peripheral land through which the coast path passes is one
of these and possibly the most important.
6. More professional wildlife organisations
can give a full list of the flora and fauna these areas currently
protect, but they include the larger mammals like badgers, foxes,
hedgehogs; small mammals like mice, voles, moles; land- birds
including skylarks, tits, sparrows, kestrels: whole colonies of
sea-birds including fulmars, kittiwakes, and gulls of all sorts;
snakes and lizards such as adders and slow-worms; a wide variety
of butterflies and moths; and a number of threatened flowers and
plants. These areas are particularly beloved of bird-watchers
and often play host to rare bird visitors.
7. The balance between human recreation
and the natural ecology is at present very good. The path is well
established and known by wildlife—the humans keep to their
areas and the wildlife to theirs and they generally co-exist in
harmony. The essence of this is that the path winds respectfully
through a natural environment, in which humans are visitors and
observers but not participants.
THE PROPOSALS
8. I read through Natural England's draft
document with increasing disbelief. It seems exclusively dedicated
to leisure access, amenity use, recreation and other human-based
imperatives without any reference whatever to the existing environment
or the impact of these proposals upon it. I searched in vain for
any reference to terms such as "habitat" or "wildlife".
9. The physical problems of the terrain
are glossed over. Many parts of the coast of England are hilly,
narrow, precipitous and otherwise taxing for all but habitual
walkers. The vision of a 4-metre Trail suitable for all abilities
is simply not practical.
10. The creation of a 4-metre Trail even
where practical would in itself destroy hundreds of acres of natural
undergrowth and environment. Once created it would be open for
use by more than strolling people. It is already being considered
for shared use by horse-riders and cyclists, which would change
its nature completely, especially for those walking with young
children, the elderly, dogs etc. It would certainly be a constant
temptation for trail-bikes, motorcycles and a variety of other
off-road vehicles, which are already a menace on many moorland
pathways.
11. But most concerning of all is the concept
that all the peripheral coast land should be allocated as "Spreading
Land" and that the public should be actively encouraged to
"explore and picnic" in every part of it.
12. There are human-based reasons why this
is not a good idea. Already every year the rescue services are
called to people who fail to realise the dangers of a natural
environment with which they are completely unfamiliar. To encourage
them to "spread" amongst rocks, hidden gullies and cliffs
will give them the impression that these areas are somehow civilised
and safe, even if plastered with warning signs. They are not safe
but naturally hazardous, and many parts of them should be avoided
by all except trained climbers, let alone strolling family groups
with adventurous children. It seems most irresponsible.
13. Natural wildlife and humankind cannot
co-exist on the same land. The stress of intrusion by people,
their children and dogs, however well controlled and well-intentioned,
cannot be borne by wild creatures. If humans exercise their access
to all parts of these areas, most of the wildlife will move out,
cease to breed or simply die. The fringes of the human environment
are all they currently have left. If these too are deliberately
opened up where are they to go? There is nowhere left for them.
14. The thrust of the proposals seems to
concentrate on issues of ownership and public rights. This may
be a live issue in some parts of England, perhaps in need of local
remedies, but certainly in my area the public already enjoy full
access to the coast. I am delighted that in the summer hundreds
of people pass through the small stretch I own. They enjoy the
lovely views, and also the scent of the flowers and the chance
of seeing a hovering kestrel or a basking slow-worm by the side
of the path or hearing a skylark. These are all part of their
experience. The effect of opening up the whole area as amenity
land would sterilise the environment, not enhancing but impoverishing
that experience.
15. Nowhere in these proposals stemming
from an organisation called "Natural England" is there
any awareness that rights should extend to other than human beings.
They of all people should respect the rights of the creatures
who currently enjoy an undisturbed existence and deserve to continue
doing so.
CONCLUSION
If I went on an African safari I would expect
to have access to where the wild creatures are, but I would also
expect to be confined to a certain extent while observing them.
If I insisted on exercising access rights to join the lions and
giraffes at the waterhole I would very soon find myself alone.
This is the principle which seems to be missing
from these proposals. By concentrating on extending human enjoyment
of this unique environment they stand to destroy or vitiate the
very areas they presume to liberate. The concept of unlimited
"spreading land" extending to the waters' edge is misconceived
and should be urgently re-considered. As currently drafted the
proposals are a threat to a precious and irreplaceable natural
resource.
I urge greater consultation and careful listening
to as many wildlife organisations as possible before proceeding
any further with this aspect of the Marine Bill.
Michael Sagar-Fenton
May 2008
| 
