Memorandum submitted by Norfolk County
Council (DMB 32)
Norfolk County Council wishes to submit the
following views in respect of the Coastal Access Provisions within
the Draft Marine Bill:
1. Norfolk County Council agrees that improving
access along the English coast is welcome but requires detailed
planning and sufficient funding to achieve success and in order
to benefit the widest range of potential users.
2. Whilst the Draft Bill provides generally
for `A coastal environment where the rights to walk along the
length of the English coast lie within a wildlife and landscape
corridor that offers enjoyment', the Council is concerned that
a focus on linear access is unlikely to meet the needs of the
majority of users.
3. Norfolk County Council's Rights of Way
Improvement Plan indicates that the majority of pedestrians who
access the countryside find short circular routes which are well
waymarked and easy to use, most attractive. Long distance walking
routes are always likely to attract a minority of footpath users.
4. The Council acknowledges that an established
linear route may lead to the creation of links and circular paths
but this kind of complementary development is not part of the
remit of Natural England nor is it provided for in the Draft Bill.
The Council has concerns that the opportunity for this kind of
`added value' is likely to be missed.
5. The Council does not consider an estimated
cost of £50 million sufficient to achieve the stated objectives
of the Bill. It seems also that no clear provision has been made
for the maintenance, management and development of the route.
The Council feels that this apparent lack of funding constitutes
a major weakness in the proposals.
6. The Council is concerned at the ability
of relevant coastal access authorities to manage and maintain
the path. In the absence of additional funding this extra burden
on existing budgets will not be manageable.
7. The Council does not consider it feasible
or practical that Natural England could take on the responsibility
for on-going maintenance.
8. The Council believes that the issue of
liability does need further consideration. Infrastructure on the
route, for example, may not be the responsibility of the landowner/occupier
ie a bridge installed by Natural England will not become the liability
of the landowner.
9. The Council is concerned about the difficulties
surrounding the issue of roll back. Coastal erosion is a constant
feature around the Norfolk coast and consequently the need to
roll back the route will be a continuing issue. To mitigate this,
original alignment should recognise the risk of erosion and site
the route accordingly to minimise the need for future roll back.
Further, it is unclear whether there is an expectation that the
local access authority will deal with roll back in the longer
term. If this is the case appropriate and sustained funding would
be required.
10. The Council believes that the starting
point of no compensation for Landowners means that a positive
"partnership" approach may prove difficult to achieve.
This will be particularly important when dealing with roll back.
11. The Council would like to emphasise
the need for clarity about implementation and establishment. It
is felt that a 10 year time scale is ambitious and provision ought
to be made for `staged' completion targets. Moreover, clear publicity
will be vital if people are to understand where and when they
can safely and legally enjoy the new coastal access.
12. The Council wishes to draw your attention
to an apparent oversight which is likely to result in the continued
exclusion of the public from the Private Estates of Her Majesty.
In Norfolk, The Sandringham Estate forms part
of the Private Estates of Her Majesty and is not held in Right
of the Crown. The long term effect of this has been to deny the
County Council the right, either under Common Law or the Highways
Act, to assert and protect any public rights which exist over
the Estate.
The CROW Act 2000 remains similarly constrained
in that it applies to land held in "Right of the Crown"
but not to Her Majesty's Private Estates. An amendment to CROW
in respect of coastal access which fails to address this distinction
between "Right of the Crown" and the Private Estates,
seems certain to fail to achieve the assumed intention of establishing
public access in the case of Norfolk, at Sandringham. The Council
believes that an amendment is needed to remedy this anomaly.
(The Committee have also received the same submission
from the Norfolk Local Access Forum)
Norfolk County Council
May 2008
| 
