Memorandum submitted by Bolitho Estates
(DMB 15)
In summary, my submission is that:
1. The Bill is unnecessary, expensive, divisive
and bad for wildlife. A bureaucratic and centralised solution
has been produced to a problem that in many areas—particularly
the south-west—does not exist. Local solutions should be
produced in respect of local needs. Most of the very limited resources
provided to enact this Bill will be used bureaucratically to provide
facilities that in many cases will not be high on local authorities
access lists. The money would be better spent on improving current
access and adding to it where necessary.
2. The case for additional access is unproven
and it is essential that the needs of wildlife are taken into
consideration.
3. Improvements needed should be enacted
under ROWIPs using voluntary agreements and current legislation,
amended if necessary.
4. The Bill is unbalanced, with the case
for compensation for proven loss of value being unanswerable.
5. There is insufficient protection for
the land, wildlife and land managers in the liability provisions
of the Bill.
Edward Bolitho OBE
DRAFT MARINE
BILL—INQUIRY
INTO COASTAL
ACCESS PROVISIONS
Submission by Bolitho Estates
6. As background to the submission, I am
land manager responsible for land in West Cornwall, including
some coastline. I am also an enthusiastic walker and have been
since its inception a member of the Cornwall Local Access Forum
(LAF). In Cornwall the South-West Coast Path, established through
the current legal system, principally through voluntary agreements,
gives everyone access to almost the entire coastline. Therefore,
it is possible to see the benefits and pitfalls of the proposed
new access provisions in the light of what has been achieved down
here.
THE GOVERNMENT'S
VISION FOR
COASTAL ACCESS
7. A coastal footpath is clearly a very
considerable public amenity. However, even Natural England admits
that there is currently good access to the great majority of the
coast already.[1]
70% of the coast is already accessible; 100% will never be achievable
due to development and military use. In many areas there is also
de facto "spreading room" in place and in many
areas de jure "spreading room" through previous
CROW Act provisions. Cornwall has excellent coastal access already,
but not total access. There is in the LAF, however, almost no
demand seen—either from the committee, or from county council
officers, or from views received from the general public—for
increased coastal access. Natural England has shown no demand
for this additional access, nor has there been evidence of public
demand for it.
8. In addition, these proposals concentrate
almost exclusively on the rights/needs of people. Some of our
most important flora and fauna are to be found on the coastline.
Increased access—whatever safeguards are put in place—will
degrade habitat and affect the flora and fauna found on it. It
is feared that, for political reasons, the RSPB and other organisations
will be insufficiently robust in making this point. The coastline
is for all its inhabitants, not only people, and therefore, some
areas without access for people are required.
THE NEED
FOR NEW
LEGISLATION
9. The current rights of way network has
grown up in a very haphazard way. It is by no means perfect and
needs improvement. Local Authorities, assisted by LAFs, are addressing
this issue through Rights Of Way Improvement Plans (ROWIP). Unfortunately,
this coastal access bill is a diversion that will make it less
likely that these ROWIP will be implemented, due to lack of local
authority funds, time and manpower.
10. I submit that there is no need for new
coastal access legislation and that new legislation will be expensive,
time-consuming and unnecessary. Current legislation, if properly
used can achieve nearly all of that which is being sought by the
current government. It is accepted that the problem of coastal
erosion and the need to move paths accordingly is not covered
by existing legislation. However, this could be overcome by an
amendment, rather than the need for new legislation. Natural England
has singularly failed to justify its requirement for new legislation.
It looks suspiciously like a new quango seeking to justify itself
with a large project.
11. Instead of this new legislation, local
authorities should be strongly encouraged to improve coastal access,
where necessary within its priorities, through voluntary agreements
and use of existing legislation where necessary. Specific problems
should be dealt with on a case by case basis, rather than on sweeping,
general new legislation.
12. It is clear to all that the government
is short of money and is likely to be short for years to come.
This bill shows all the signs of having been driven by lack of
money—no mapping, no compensation, only £50 million
provision over 10 years. Recent CROW legislation on mountain,
heath and moorland has been plagued by shortage of money;[2]
the same will undoubtedly be the case if this proposed bill comes
into law. In considerable part this is due to the costs of the
proposals and their administration by Natural England.
13. The government and Natural England make
much of addressing local needs. Certainly in the case of Cornwall,
there are currently insufficient funds available to keep the present
rights of way network in reasonable condition, let alone the new
access provided by CROW. Rather than spending this additional
£50 million on only coastal access, the funds should be made
available to meet the needs and priorities of the differing authorities.
A draconian edict from government is not the answer and is certainly
not the cost-effective answer.
THE ROUTE
14. Although there is great ambiguity over
what will actually happen, it appears that the government, and
even Natural England, have sensibly realised that deviations from
the coast will be necessary, whether to avoid gardens and built-up
areas, areas where access would cause businesses to lose money
or dangerous areas. However, this needs to be stated unambiguously
in order to allow more people to support more of the bill. Shortage
of money, pragmatism and the need to take on board local views
should mean the need for flexibility over the route is paramount,
in contrast to the dogmatic view of Natural England.
BALANCE
15. The Bill is unbalanced, giving too much
dominance to rights of access. Examples of this are below.
16. Coastal land is now amongst the most
valuable in the country. Imposition of a route over such land
where none presently exists will reduce privacy in the area and
increase management requirements. Therefore, the value of that
land will clearly be reduced. Logically, compensation must be
paid in the same way that land managers are compensated for wayleaves
and other loss of rights on their land. There seems to me to be
no logical argument against this view. Certainly, having listened
to the Chairman of Natural England, he is unable to provide one,
simply resorting to "we will have to disagree on that".
The case for compensation seems unanswerable and, if agreed, would
allow for much greater agreement between all parties. Without
such agreement, the Bill will be far more difficult to enact by
the local authorities on the ground who will be responsible for
it. Without such agreement, their already tricky job will become
far harder.
17. It is often suggested that no compensation
was paid as a result of the CROW access proposals, problems have
not arisen as a result and that therefore no compensation needs
to be paid for coastal access. This is a deeply flawed argument
for a number of reasons:
(a) In most cases, very few people are using
the CROW access land, partly through general lack of demand and
partly because in many cases the land is generally inaccessible
due to vegetation cover (gorse, brambles, bracken etc).
(b) In all cases, by its very definition
the land is of poor quality with little current or future value.
(c) Despite both the previous comments, in
some areas CROW provisions have caused considerable additional
management problems,[3]
which land managers have had to absorb.
18. The situation with coastal access is
almost the reverse: there can be little doubt that the path will
be more used than CROW access land, but at the same time it is
far more valuable than mountain and moorland.
19. There is no appeal mechanism for objections
or disputes over the alignment of the coastal route and margin;
land managers should have such a right.
20. The decision—purely on cost grounds—to
avoid mapping as a basis for identifying the route and "spreading
room" will lead to confusion amongst both walkers and land
managers, which in turn will lead to greater management problems
and also increase the potential for disputes.
21. As previously mentioned, the rights
of occupiers in the form of flora and fauna also need to be considered.
This means the need for privacy and the absence of people in at
least some areas of rich wildlife habitat.
ESTUARIES
22. The problem of estuaries has not really
been addressed in the Bill or Natural England guidance. Estuaries
are areas rich in wildlife, often wooded, often steep-sided (and
therefore difficult to access) and in many cases contain dangerous
mud flats. They are also frequently areas of extremely high land
values. A coastal path round estuaries will be very expensive
and time-consuming to create and will be very habitat-destructive.
It is essential that the pragmatic approach taken by the SW Coastal
Path over such access be adopted.
LIABILITY
23. Whilst the Bill does provide some reduced
liability, for an imposed new right, this is insufficient. There
is no opportunity for land managers to place seasonal restrictions
on access for reasons of conservation or animal husbandry (unlike
with CROW). There are insufficient reductions in Occupier's Liability
given the complex and dangerous coastline features, both natural
and man made.
SUMMARY
24. In summary, my submission is that this
Bill is unnecessary, expensive, divisive and bad for wildlife.
A bureaucratic and centralised solution has been produced to a
problem that in many areas—particularly the south-west—does
not exist. Local solutions should be produced in respect of local
needs. Most of the very limited resources provided to enact this
Bill will be used bureaucratically to provide facilities that
in many cases will not be high on local authorities access lists.
The money would be better spent on improving current access and
adding to it where necessary.
Bolitho Estates
May 2008
1 For example, para 177 of NE's Improving Coastal Access
states there to be less than 20 English beaches where public use
is actively resisted or permitted only in return for some kind
of direct or indirect payment. Back
2
Such as the minimal amounts available from the Access Grant Scheme. Back
3
In Cornwall, particularly on Bodmin Moor. Back
| 
