Supplementary memorandum submitted by
Norfolk County Council (DMB 32a)
Norfolk County Council wishes to submit the
following views in respect of the Coastal access Provisions within
the draft Marine Bill. These views are additional to and compliment
our earlier response of the 19 May 2008.
GENERAL AND
OVERVIEW
1. There is an inherent tension in the Bill,
in that the proposal is fundamentally for a linear route, yet
established in the context of Open Access legislation. Open access
legislation is primarily established on a "take-it-as-you-find
it" basis, which is frequently inappropriate for the provision
of a continuous linear route in an exposed and dynamic environment.
2. Public access to coastal areas is highly
complex. The legal framework proposed attempts to be straightforward,
but rapidly gets bogged down in detail. The likelihood is that
much detail will still only emerge on delivery. There have been
many years of negotiating coastal access by local authorities
and there remain many sound reasons why access provision remains
incomplete.
3. Coastal Communities and Parish Councils
seem to be omitted from the consultation processes. There are
likely to be concerns from many whose economies depend on beach
access, local circular walking routes, which have been lost through
erosion. For some areas, securing access to the coast/beach might
make better use of limited resources.
4. There are overall issues of providing
a quality facility and meeting the needs of users and local communities,
which might get lost in a process of creating a route, for its
own sake.
5. By way of example, these are the accessibility
statistics for Norfolk:
Over 120 miles of coastline, there is approximately:
— 20 miles permissive/de facto
access; and
— 30 miles with no walkable line.
6. There is a real need to see a statutory
duty for Natural England to work with Highway Authorities.
7. Provisions for roll back, and the need
for spreading room, will impact on environmental designations.
Environmental constraints—Natura 2000 sites, disturbance
wildlife reserves—will need to be properly factored into
the process. Impact assessments/appropriate assessments at a strategic
and local level will demand significant resources with roles and
responsibilities for leading on this aspect of the work needing
to be clearly defined. Equally, safety factors (eg tidal marshes,
eroding cliffs) will require the necessary risk assessments needed
to finalise route alignment and requires significant resources
to deliver sound decisions on the ground.
LINES OF
ENQUIRY
1. This Authority's experiences of coastal
paths
— Dynamic and exposed land. Structures
are vulnerable to the elements and erosion. There are a wide range
of public safety issues, as well as nature conservation, geological/historical
interests.
— Overall, management will be
highly complex. Natural England underestimates this aspect of
the proposal.
— High demand for access to beaches
etc.
— Need for Integrated Coastal
Zone Management. Coastal Access is simply a single issue, that
sits alongside SMP/Defence/Economic development/ social and community
development. Coastal access should be considered in the context
of ICZM.
2. Bill proposals for routes and spreading
room
Views on the negotiation process:
— Specific areas of concern around
locations such as Holkham beach and dunes which are sensitive
wildlife habitats.
Common land is already Open Access land under
CROW Act.- Which element of the legislation will take precedent?
eg dogs, restrictions regarding control? The nature of linear
access infrastructure and spreading room, as against the rights
already exercisable under the "common land" elements
of the Act?
— Time frame is too short to establish
the full route as suggested by Natural England.
The fact that it is primarily being set up as
a linear route introduces infrastructure issues that don't apply
to other access land, such as steps, bridges, signposting and
subsequent responsibility and liability. Also that the linear
access may overlay existing PROW and may further introduce uncertainties
or tensions on eroding coastlines, for instance where the PROW
may disappear off the cliff in parts, but the linear Access Land
continues.
3. Clause in the Bill to balance rights of
the public versus owner/occupier
— Dogs—close control verses
short leads is a contentious matter for Norfolk due to ground-nesting
birds, disturbance etc. especially at Holme Dune Reserve. Great
Yarmouth tern colonies may also face greater threats.
— Traditional saltmarsh grazing,
particularly a feature in the Wash and in other coastal areas,
is important to the economy and for biodiversity. It is part of
the cultural land and seascape. These animals are free to roam
and as the grazing season progresses become more feral and difficult
to predict, particularly adults with their calves. Animals gathering
at high tide refuges, likely to be on or adjacent to the route
of the coastal path will potentially generate conflict and management
problems. The recent death of a walker on the Wash highlights
this serious issue.
— The "overlay" of PROW
and Access Land is not adequately taken account of in the Bill,
especially with regard to closure orders (temporary or permanent,
diversions, etc). Similarly, the application of maintenance standards
for higher rights on PROW affected by Coastal Access.
— There may be an additional impact
on existing byelaws that apply to coastal areas. Will new forms
of model bylaws be required?
— Overall, there is insufficient
reference to the impact of access land on the management of PROW
and there is a clear need within the Act to see a statutory duty
for Natural England to work with Highway Authorities.
4. Liabilities
There may be matters of liability to address,
for instance in areas such as:
— structures (including buildings
as well as steps, bridges etc);
— salt marshes and tides;
— roads, road crossings—responsibilities
for safe passage/crossing points? and
Yet the Bill cites that Natural England will
take no liability for its choice of route and spreading room!
5. Compensation
— Many Natura 2000 sites in Norfolk,
— Habitat Regulations and Appropriate
Assessment—cumulative impacts through the Growth agenda
(including Regional Growth including domestic travel etc and including
disturbance). At what point does an increased level of disturbance
require compensatory arrangements under the Habitats Directive?
6. Estuaries
— First convenient crossing point
is vague. This may interfere with port or marina activities. This
may also align with busy main roads or rail crossings (Blyth,
Orwell, Great Ouse).
— Similarly, Ferry crossings may
not be the "first convenient point" if they only operate
seasonally and may require rapid renegotiation of new routes if
the Ferry operation faces closure (As nearly happened at King's
Lynn.
— With five rivers entering into
the Wash an early assessment indicates: a possible need for a
series of new bridging points. Currently the River Steeping requires
a ten mile round trip inland to reach the nearest existing public
crossing point; a similar distance inland for a crossing point
over the River Witham; for the River Welland a six mile round
trip; for the River Nene an eight mile excursion and for the Great
Ouse either a ferry linking Kings Lynn to West Lynn or a ten mile
walk inland. Repeat this pattern across all the country's major
estuaries and these practical considerations bring into question
the viability of realising the route as currently envisaged in
the Bill.
7. Higher Rights
— Powers to create rights for
cyclists and horse riders may introduce conflicts with existing
users/rights holders.
— The exercising of wildfowling
rights may be affected by extended access. Low-key "liggers"
(plank crossings) or crossings of narrow and deep tidal creeks
are often put in place by wildfowlers to enable access to the
marshes, but these structures in no way provide safe facilities
for the wider public and are certainly not permanent.
8. Amendments and Insertions
— Refer to the Council's earlier
submission regarding the Sandringham Estate and land held as the
Private Estates of Her Majesty (not in Right of Crown). The intention
of the Act needs to be clarified with regard to this aspect of
coastal access (also affecting Osbourne House on the Isle of Wight?)
and a suitable insertion provided to amend the CROW Act to bind
both the Crown and the Private Estates.
— The Act could usefully incorporate
provision for environmental enhancement which could potentially
play a key role in adaptation processes, supporting "Making
Space for Water", and enabling communities and wildlife to
adapt to new environmental scenarios. This could be achieved within
an ICZM context, currently absent from the Bill as a whole, which
is a major oversight.
9. Excepted Land
— gardens (eg Villages of Trimingham,
Overstrand, Happisburgh);
— routes through caravan parks
and security;
— buildings dropping off cliff
edge;
— coastguard, lifeboat slipways;
Will the extent of "excepted land"
severely limit the vision of the Bill—or will the efforts
to circumvent these problems outweigh the benefits?
10. Maintenance
Irrespective of what the Act may set out, it
will generate maintenance liabilities and responsibilities, such
as:
— Liability of maintenance of
the linear route. For example, much of the route will necessitate
regular vegetation cutting throughout the year.
— When is the route "out
of repair" and which organisation determines this?—On
PROW's this is the Highway Authority.
— A need to cross-refer with liabilities
for Highway Authority and their duty to maintain PROW?
— National Trail standards—will
these introduce a differential of standards along the way as a
whole?
ADDITIONAL KEY
ISSUES
1. National Trail
The new access will not constitute a public
right of way, recorded under the Wildlife and Countryside Act
and protected under the Highways Act. In this regard, sections
of coastal National Trails, following inland "detours"
from the coast may wish to pursue a variation order to align to
the new coastal access. However, since the variation order is
designed to apply to PROW's, then there may remain issues of further
negotiations with landowners, compensation, Public Path Orders
etc to address. eg Norfolk Coast Path at Thornham to Brancaster;
Sheringham to Cromer.
2. The National Trail between Burnham Overy and
Holkham follows a line on the beach. The dune systems are sensitive
to disturbance and a careful management regime is in place to
minimise conflicts. Might this change if "rights" take
precedent over responsibilities? Is there really the need to introduce
more formal regulation for these areas?
3. Finances
A single officer, employed by the Local Authority
will inevitably receive support from the associated services.
These equate to hidden costs that are borne by the LA (similarly
with AONB's, National Trails). NE funding—currently proposing
a "flatline" grant for the next 3 years for the National
Trail and the AONB is worrying—particularly as currently
there is provision for project funding for the AONB. Lessons learned
from the National Trail, where the original concept was for the
Countryside Commission to fund, but this has gradually been pared
away, with the LA picking up the cost. Is this scheme going to
go the same way?
Overall it is considered that likely costs are
significantly underestimated. Further, duties to maintain are
vague with no clear provision to cover longer term responsibilities.
5. Spreading Room
There are potential conflicts of visitor access
and disturbance issues at Nature Reserves at Holme, Snettisham,
Titchwell, and Cley.
Applying spreading room to soft and eroding
cliffs is highly contentious and introduces many safety issues.
6. Perceptions from Coastal Communities
Whilst many communities would welcome the potential
increased rights of access, others would see it as disproportionate,
when them, key priorities are actually about maintaining access
to the local beach to sustain income from visitors. Beach accesses
lost from erosion is systematically paring away at the economic
vitality of communities such as Happisburgh, Trimingham and others
along the East Anglian coastline.
7. Land tenure
There will be negotiating difficulties, when,
for example, a linear route is under one ownership and spreading
room in another. Erosion moves the land and trigger points to
new owners. How, over time, will this type of arrangement be managed?
Land ownership and management may also be less
than straightforward, for example at Scolt Head or in other cases
where there are District Common Rights Holders. Many sections
of Norfolk's coastline already include gardens and domestic curtilages.
8. Coastal Defence Structures
There is a need to define what constitutes a
"structure". Are these maintained or natural—eg
at Salthouse to Cley, where the shingle ridge is being left to
roll back and form a natural profile and be over topped by the
sea on occasion, with the actual line of defence being the rising
land behind. Changes to the Shoreline Management Plans towards
a more naturally functioning coastline, with no duties to provide
defence structures, may impose challenges on the Environment Agency
or the coastal defence authorities to manage risks with regard
to public access as well as coastal defence and flooding.
Norfolk County Council
July 2008
|
