Memorandum submitted by Lord Montagu and
Ralph Montagu (DMB 31)
The Beaulieu Estate is owned by Lord Montagu
of Beaulieu and his son Ralph Montagu. The estate is located in
the New Forest National Park in Hampshire.
The Beaulieu Estate's southern boundary is a
part of the Western Solent. This covers over 3 miles of foreshore.
Of this, part is open to the public through the sale of permits.
Most of the remaining area is a National Nature Reserve and is
designated SSSI, NNR, SPA, Ramsar; here public access is limited
to ornithologists.
The ownership of the estate includes the bed
of the Beaulieu River. As such, we are the responsible authority
for the management of the river as a navigable waterway.
PUBLIC ACCESS
ON THE
BEAULIEU ESTATE
As the operator of visitor destinations which
attract over 500,000 people to the estate each year, we are used
to the concept of providing charged and free public access, together
the appropriate levels of services. We understand the importance
of managing patterns of public demand and activity so that the
bulk of pressure is concentrated in areas designed to cope with
that demand whilst other areas, particularly those which are important
wildlife reserves, have more restricted access.
Another way in which people gain access to the
Beaulieu Estate foreshore is by attending courses run by the Countryside
Education Trust. This is an environmental education charity based
on the Estate and uses the lands of the estate.
At present, a significant part of the Beaulieu
Estate foreshore is NNR; even the owners are not permitted access
to this because of the designations imposed on the land by Natural
England. This bill presents the prospect of an overnight change
in which the rights of access are restored to the owner whilst
his right to the quiet enjoyment of the land is simultaneously
removed!
THE GOVERNMENT'S
VISION FOR
COASTAL ACCESS
The idea of a right-of-way around England sounds
appealing, even though a relatively small number of people wish
to take advantage of a continuous walking route around the country's
shoreline. However, the idea as presented in the headlines is
impossible to fully realise because of the physical obstacles
of built-up areas, and the existence of ports and military land
uses which need to remain out-of-bounds. In that respect, the
whole coastal access scheme is founded on a false premise.
The proposals put forward by Defra and Natural
England do not contain a proper assessment of need, nor do they
take proper account of the evidence available to them. The provisions
of the draft Marine Bill are driven instead by the government's
desire to score popularity points. Because they are unable to
create a continuous coastal access route, the government is proposing
complex and bureaucratic procedures for making an incomplete walking
route which will be used by few additional people.
Even accepting the desire to increase access
to the coast of England, the provisions in the draft Marine Bill
are dependent on the detail of the methodology, which is insufficiently
clear to produce a coherent scheme and is too vague in areas where
the property rights and wildlife interests need to be safeguarded.
The legislation will not be a cost-effective
means of providing increased access to the coast because the very
limited funding will be spread too thinly. It would be preferable
to target the creation of new access routes to areas where the
demand for access has been proven, and where funding is available.
THE RIGHT
BALANCE?
It is impossible to say where the Draft Bill
strikes the right balance between the rights of access and the
rights of owners and occupiers, because the approach set out in
the bill is either too vague, or leaves too much of the decision
making process at the discretion of local access forums.
CONFLICTS
The proponents of Coastal Access have failed
to understand the potential conflicts between people with different
access requirements.
An example of this exists on the part of Beaulieu
foreshore where access for walkers is not permitted but bird watchers
can look onto the foreshore from specially constructed hides.
If walkers are to be able to use the foreshore as a walking route,
this will disturb the bird life and nesting grounds which others
come to observe from a distance. This system of access has been
operated in partnership with Natural England since a management
agreement between the estate and NE's predecessors was signed
in the 1970s.
The extension of access rights to cyclists and
horse riders would cause further conflict between different users
and should not be provided for in the bill.
EXCEPTED LAND
Natural England should be required to identify
excepted land before they issue the report for each stretch of
coastline. Whilst this may still be subject to change, the report
will give a much clearer picture of the intended route for people
wishing to take part in the consultation.
Where exceptions require an inland walking route
to be identified, we recognise that the legislation should give
Local Access Forums and the local officers of Natural England
the flexibility to arrive at workable solutions, however we believe
that this must be within a framework where there are more clearly
defined safeguards in the following respects (see headings below).
Residential property
We think it is quite wrong that the some of
excepted land categories in schedule 1 of the CROW will not be
excepted within the coastal access legislation, notably land within
20 metres of a dwelling. There are many homes close to beaches
where the foreshore and the land immediately above the high water
mark forms part of the private space around the house. This may
be different to the curtilage as defined by a perimeter fence
as it is almost impossible to run a garden fence down the side
of a beach (even if in private hands) and along the edge of the
fluctuating line of the sea. The creation of access rights will
represent a considerable intrusion into these spaces. It is not
enough to refer to the vague concept of achieving a `fair balance'
between public and private needs. We believe it is essential that
there is a requirement to re-route the coastal walking route around
residential property whose private space includes beach frontage
or foreshore. If the legislation does not provide a system for
re-routing, compensation should be paid.
Businesses
Natural England has stated that coastal businesses
will suffer no significant loss of income from the introduction
of coastal access rights. These words of reassurance are somewhat
undermined by another statement in which it admits that it is
still considering what approach should be taken in circumstances
where an entry charge is currently levied for access of the types
that would be newly provided under the legislation.
We would wish the type of situation which exists
at Beaulieu to be taken into account. Here, public access to the
beach is provided for by the sale of permits. The income from
these permits helps to fund the work of the estate connected with
the public use of the beach: upkeep of the footpath to the beach,
litter picking, and maintaining the bank on which people walk.
Since there is no public funding for this work, we believe that
we should retain the right to charge for access so as to safeguard
the funding for the work we do. If the legislation does not provide
a system for re-routing, compensation should be paid.
Nature Conservation
Natural England has stated that they will assess
the potential effects of the coastal access rights on nature conservation
along each stretch of coast. Where they find that there is potential
for significant conflict, they say they will identify measures
to reconcile the two. This is too vague. In situations where there
is conflict, we believe that NE should be obliged to give priority
to wildlife conservation, usually by creating an alternative walking
route.
Woodlands and wetlands
Where access rights extend into woodland or
wetlands where shooting takes place for sport, we believe it will
be essential for there to be provision for alternative routes
to be used when shooting is taking place, or it is necessary for
shoot management. The same arrangements should apply to forestry
operations which may be hampered by public access.
In some of the above-mentioned situations, the
land needed for the creation of alternative inland routes may
be held by the same owner as the coastline. In such situations,
Landowners should be able to propose the route of these diversions.
Where possible this should make use of existing footpaths.
OTHER ISSUES
Estuaries
The ownership of the Beaulieu Estate includes
the Beaulieu River. A walking route between the two sides of the
river mouth largely exists already but its route owes little to
the prescriptions in the draft Marine Bill. For good practical
reasons, most of the route is inland of the river's edge but the
estate voluntarily created a path which gives walkers the opportunity
to get close to the river's edge where this is possible. Elsewhere,
there are many residences with gardens running down to the river's
edge, and a number of businesses on riverside frontage. Moreover,
much of the land not in residential or commercial use is designated
SSSI, NNR, SPA, Ramsar, etc. The pockets of land which fall outside
the above mentioned categories are isolated and difficult to reach.
In conclusion, we believe it is inappropriate
for an estuary-based walking route to be determined using definitions
which were drawn up primarily with coastal access in mind. Rivers
are different things with very different factors to be considered.
Linking two sides of a river mouth should be outside the scope
of the legislation and, where a solution exists, should be arrived
at by voluntary agreement.
Spreading Room
We feel that Natural England attaches too much
importance to the concept of spreading room within the framework
of the legislation. We propose that this should be provided by
local agreement.
Salt marshes and Mudflats
Providing access to salt marshes and mudflats
should not be contained within the legislation as access to such
areas, if there is not already a right of access, is usually inappropriate.
Appeals
Where it is not possible for land owners to
agree upon a walking route with Natural England, we believe there
should be an independent Appeals Tribuneral to adjudicate. This
will be especially important where residential or business interests
are affected by access proposals, and where claims for compensation
due to loss of value may be made.
Lord Montagu and Ralph Montagu
May 2008
| 
