Memorandum submitted by Peter Tunstall-Behrens
(DMB 14)
1. THE GOVERNMENTS
VISION FOR
COASTAL ACCESS
AND THE
EXTENT TO
WHICH THE
DRAFT BILL
PROVIDES FOR
IT
It appears to be the Government's (Natural England's)
vision rather than the people's vision as it is at odds with the
spirit of walking, aiming for "convenient" direct routes
if possible with an obsession for consistent views of the sea
rather than unpredictable variety.
Walkers enjoy using maps as it gives a sense
of discovery and adventure, but the Bill will not map the new
access land relying instead on unwanted nanny-style signs which
serve only to remind the walker that he is one-in-a-million as
well as turning the environment into a theme park/amenity land
which is not what the walker has come to see!
The vision does not really care about the natural
world if it encourages foot traffic off the coast and other pathways
which only interferes with it just as increased signage and fencing
does the opposite of "enhancing" the landscape.
The government are doing a very good job at
forcing their vision into a reality and have made it almost impossible
to fail in delivering their vision regardless of the interests
of minorities
2. WHETHER NEW
LEGISLATION IS
THE BEST
OR MOST
COST-EFFECTIVE
MEANS OF
PROVIDING INCREASED
ACCESS TO
THE COAST
Legislation may be required to effectively,
quickly and economically provide for a continuous linear route
as close to the sea as is practical and reasonable, with linear
links to access points inland and "spur" paths to the
beach where this does not interfere with existing business or
privacy. This new linear route and "spur" paths must
and could easily be mapped as it is in Cornwall and most of the
country. (After all, the reports to be sent to the Secretary of
State for approval will include a map). A management and maintenance
programme with adequate long term funding must also be put in
place.
The path naturally diverts as erosion takes
place, but where this causes conflict, legislation should be made
to fast track the alignment of a new route to the satisfaction
of all parties. Natural England has made this process into a drama.
3. THE CASE
FOR EXCEPTIONS
TO, AND
DEVIATIONS FROM,
A ROUTE
GIVING CONTINUOUS
ACCESS TO
THE COAST
ITSELF
While it would be unacceptable if long stretches
of coastline and beach/foreshore were inaccessible to the general
public (except for reasons of nature conservation), there are
some very rare examples of small beaches and rocky shores being
within the curtilage/garden of a private house, hotel or residential/other
business.
The privacy of such places commands a legitimate
premium (they are also a national asset in an increasingly busy
and crowded country) and exceptions should be made and mapped
as such. This could be easily achieved in consultation with the
local authority and land/business owner by aligning the "trail"
behind them and managed on the ground using minimal signs and
fencing if necessary. It is admitted in the consultation paper
that the impact on a very few people will be very high, so these
people should be protected. It seems inconsistent to automatically
exclude large container businesses and ports for obvious reasons,
but not protect the interests of small ones which also have serious
security and safety issues. For example, when a wedding takes
place on currently private land (which in future would be included
as "spreading room"), it is reasonable to exclude a
person who is not invited. This would be difficult if when asking
that person: "bride or groom?" the answer was "just
passing through".
Maps could be reviewed just as all maps have
to be updated regularly.
4. WHETHER THE
DRAFT BILL
STRIKES THE
RIGHT BALANCE
BETWEEN THE
RIGHTS OF
ACCESS AND
THE RIGHTS
OF OWNERS
AND OCCUPIERS,
AND WHETHER
THERE SHOULD
BE COMPENSATION
IN ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES FOR
THE CREATION
OF COASTAL
ACCESS RIGHTS
In theory it should do. However, much depends
on exactly how fairly the proposed "reports" are put
together. Provided these are properly and fairly discussed locally
and that any representations made by the landowner are indeed
included by Natural England when sent to The Secretary of State
(there is reason to be suspicious), then the right balance should
be possible. There must be an appeals process available to eg
The Land's Tribunal or some other body following the Secretary
of State's decision.
Compensation must be paid where there is a measurable
loss of value or threat to business as assessed by a professional
independent agent. There are exceptional cases where enormous
loss of value has been identified were privacy to be lost as a
result of general access.
According to a written estimate by two top estate
agents the potential loss of value to property and business here
has been estimated at up to 20% (equivalent to around £500,000)
were the privacy of a garden and curtilage to be lost, which could
happen as the Bill is drafted.
What will happen to deposits paid in advance
by a client for a holiday assuming the garden and small beach
enjoys privacy as described in the brochure, only to discover
that by then the law has changed and there is in fact no privacy
at all? Who will refund the money?
5. THE CASE
FOR COASTAL
ACCESS IN
ESTUARIES
These should be treated as coastline providing
continuous linear access aligned not to interfere with conservation,
property values or business interests and compensation should
be payable where there is a measurable loss.
6. WHAT CLASSES
OF LAND
SHOULD BE
EXCEPTED FROM
THE ACCESS
RIGHTS
Land where to give access would have a negative
effect on privacy, business success, security, safety and also
nature conservation. As drafted, there are numerous examples where
areas of fragile headland turf will become very popular as part
of "spreading room" because they offer superior views
of the sea. These will, without doubt, be irreversibly eroded
by open air recreation. They must be excluded and mapped as such
or they will be destroyed. Surrounding them with signs and fencing
would be visually very unsatisfactory and an ongoing expense.
7. THE PROPOSED
ARRANGEMENTS FOR
LIMITING LIABILITY
NE is not taking on any additional liability
in spite of increasing the dangers to the public. Who will be
responsible for preventing the danger of disused coastal mine
shafts and adits? Many lethal shafts are still being discovered
accidentally by dogs and occasionally livestock. Currently such
hazards are made relatively safe by being on inaccessible private
land. Extending access into uncharted land hitherto "off
limits" will dramatically increase the likelihood of fatal
accidents. There is no doubt about this. Liability is frankly
of academic interest when a person has fallen into a mine shaft
or been buried alive in a disused adit.
Liability for escaped livestock on the coastal
margin is unclear.
8. WHETHER THERE
SHOULD BE
ACCESS FOR
OTHER USERS
SUCH AS
CYCLISTS OR
HORSE RIDERS
Cycles and horses dramatically erode footpaths
and the landscape. Most of the coastal margin is unfit and dangerous
for cycles and horses and there is strong feeling among walkers
not to introduce higher rights for valid safety and suitability
reasons. They are categorised as vehicles and footpaths and even
the 4 m trail would be quite unsuitable for them. Widening and
resurfacing the paths to suit higher rights would be impractical
and expensive and also ruin the coastal path and destroy the very
thing people want to visit! The tranquillity of a footpath is
destroyed by high speed cyclists who often charge along in large
groups. There are places for cycles and horses but the coast is
not one of them, just as it would be unsuitable to allow walkers,
cyclists and horses to use a motorway.
9. PROBLEMS WITH
THE BILL/NATURAL
ENGLAND'S
OUTLINE SCHEME
NE's outline scheme is too vague and leaves
questions unanswered. The issue of compensation is not even mentioned.
It "does not include a detailed explanation of the alignment
process" (1.2.1). Asking for "cooperation face-to-face"
is a nice idea but the reality is often difficult (2.2.5). There
will now be an assumption about land on either side of the trail
being access land, so without a map there will be confusion. Exceptions
and a descriptive approach is a ridiculous contradiction (2.2.8).
If the "reports" include a map, then it should be possible
to add the result to the definitive map (2.3.4). Why should NE
not be required to identify excepted land (2.3.5)? NE handing
their reports to the Secretary of State for approval is suspicious
given NE's alliance to the government and their already directing
the Bill (3.1.5). Will NE now have to be consulted in planning
applications, filming etc? It says "Access rights will not
interfere in any significant way with operational needs of businesses"
(5.2.1). What is "significant"? Who decides? Again,
the scheme "will aim to ensure that coastal businesses suffer
no significant loss of income from the introduction of coastal
access rights" (5.3.1). "Significant" needs definition.
"Curtilage" needs defining (5.4.1). How will it be measured?
Curtilage could include a beach.
SUMMARY
I submit the above as a coastal landowner of
several decades and manager of a self catering holiday business.
Demand for so much increased access is unproven
and rather than the majority of people in this country, this whole
"vision" appears to be motivated by Natural England
itself, chaired by Martin Doughty (author of Trespass Trail,
Celebrating the 75th anniversary of the 1932 mass Trespass on
Kinder Scout and still officially allied to the Labour Party
as a labour member of New Mills town council)!
99% of visitors to this area did not wish for
more access to the coast. (Original results of this survey made
in 2006-07 available on request). The natural world does not want
any more human interference.
Where it does not already exist around England,
a linear route as close to the shore as is practical and reasonable
should be allowed with spur paths to the shore where it does not
interfere with existing business or privacy. This would cause
minimum impact and expense. This would provide a secure and continuous
route in perpetuity and fulfil the manifesto promise. "Spreading
room" is an unnecessary step too far, riddled with potential
mapping, management, maintenance, conservation and political problems.
It should simply be ruled out.
The "vision" and outline scheme/Bill
as drafted is a fine example of sledge hammers to crack nuts!
Peter Tunstall-Behrens
May 2008
| 
