Memorandum submitted by The Royal Institution
of Chartered Surveyors (DMB 34)
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
(RICS), the mark of property professionalism worldwide, welcomes
the opportunity to submit evidence to the Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs Select Committee's inquiry into the coastal access
provisions of the draft marine bill.
The RICS is an international organisation containing
some 140,000 members worldwide. Of these, some 6,600 are members
of the RICS Rural Faculty and some 22,000 are members of the Planning
and Development Faculty. Significant numbers of members are likely
to be impacted upon by the proposals for coastal access contained
within the marine bill.
It is the general view of the RICS that rather
than introducing new legislation, the government would be better
able to achieve its objective of making the coastline more accessible
and improving coastal wildlife by stricter enforcement of existing
legislation rather than by introducing new legislation.
Key points for the RICS are that:
— There should be a clear and equitable
methodology for determining a route;
— A "Coastal Stewardship Scheme"
should be introduced to facilitate more environmentally friendly
farming practices in coastal areas;
— The impact on land and property values
should be further investigated;
— The impact on farming business profits
of rolling back intensive farming at the coast should be further
addressed;
— A Coastal Access Code for users of
the rights of way should be introduced;
— Mapping of the routes is essential
to provide clarity for the users of the route;
— Access to beaches should be decided
on a case-by-case basis decided at a local level;
— The impact of increased coastal access
on the infrastructure (particularly transport) in the local area
should be taken into account;
— The funding is inadequate not only
to legally establish the coastal access but also to fund the works
on the ground.
1. The Government's vision for coastal access,
and the extent to which the Draft Bill provides for it
The RICS believes that the coastline should
be made more accessible and that coastal wildlife, landscape and
quality of enjoyment should improve through integrated action
and policies. However, we do not believe that the Government's
emphasis upon improving access "along" the coast is
the best way of achieving this and that instead, further emphasis
should be placed upon improving access "to" the coast.
Where there is a proven need for increased access, an Environmental
Impact Assessment should be undertaken and consideration should
also be given to the impact on farming and rural enterprises.
2. Is new legislation the best or most cost-effective
means of providing increased access to the coast?
The RICS does not believe that new legislation
is the best or most cost-effective means of providing increased
access to the coast. Instead, best value for taxpayers' money
can be achieved by making minor improvements to existing legislation
and by backing this up with additional resources and improving
the skill level of those staff on the ground. Such an action would
serve as an acknowledgement that many of the problems which have
arisen in the past are not necessarily the result of a flaw in
existing legislation but are instead attributable to deficiencies
in skills and resources.
A precedent has already been set for the use
of existing legislation to improve access through the establishment
of the North Downs Way in the 1980s. The key feature to observe
here was that some compensation was paid when the route was created,
most probably for the establishment of a new right of way rather
than a diversion. The RICS does not have specific information
on how this was achieved but this should be available from the
Valuation Office Agency or local highways authorities.
As a further point, the possibility of using
compulsory purchase order principles should be further considered
as in the past, these have enabled side road orders and public
grants over land to be compensated. Nonetheless, if these methods
are adopted then they must ensure that comprehensive mitigation
measures are in place for those who are affected and should acknowledge
the costs of servicing the access whilst simultaneously acknowledging
that these costs are not necessarily offset by vague mention of
the `generic' benefits previously mentioned.
3. What is the case for exceptions to, and
deviations from, a route giving continuous access to the coast
itself?
In certain cases, specific exceptions to, and
deviations from, a route giving continuous access to the coast
itself are required. However, before such deviations and exceptions
can be established, it is essential for the routes to be properly
mapped out so that users are clear over where the paths lie. It
is also important that a clear and equitable methodology is put
in place for addressing the difference in perception which sometimes
arises between the authorities and landowner/occupiers of the
impact of a route variation on a particular piece of land. This
should contain mechanisms for allowing landowners and land managers
to air their grievances in public.
Specific exceptions and deviations may be needed
to prevent tourist and visitor "hotspots" from arising.
Exceptions may also arise for businesses such as golf courses,
parks and particular farming and sporting matters. One possibility
would be to regard these as seasonal diversions.
4. Does the Draft Bill strike the right balance
between the rights of access and the rights of owners and occupiers?
Should there be compensation in any circumstances for the creation
of coastal access rights?
The draft bill does not strike the right balance
between rights of access and the rights of owners and occupiers.
The RICS believes that insufficient attention is paid to the principle
of fair and equitable treatment to landowners and occupiers (in
accordance with the Human Rights Act and European Convention on
Human Rights) and that more research should be undertaken on the
question of compensation. This should include dialogue with the
Valuation Office Agency so that business disturbance levels (including
farming) can be assessed as well as the impact on capital values
of land and property. The RICS believes that further research
needs to be undertaken before any decision is taken on compensation.
Another issue which should be taken into account
is the impact on farming caused by the introduction of a right
to compulsory access. Once more, this will not necessarily be
offset by the `generic' benefits previously mentioned by the government
and may impact upon the capital values of land and property (both
business and residential).
It may be beneficial for the Government to examine
the operation of the Highways Act 1980 as sections 28 and 121
of this provide for loss of land, severance and injurious affection
and the act previously been used by surveyors involved in coastal
path creations and re-routing. The RICS believes that by providing
incentives and by routing paths in accordance with the act above,
the disturbance and potential capital value reduction can be mitigated.
5. The proposals for coastal access in estuaries
Attention will need to be paid to the on- and
off- site measures required for a possible increase in the number
of visitors to estuaries. Therefore, the RICS is pleased that
the draft bill makes provision for ferry links across estuaries
as this will serve to prevent the coastal corridor from having
to be extended further up the estuary towards the nearest bridging
point. Further improvement could be made by making specific reference
to a role for private enterprise in provision of ferry links.
6. What classes of land should be excepted
from access rights?
Certain conservation areas should be exempted
from access rights. This is because increased access may result
in some endangered species being placed under increasing danger.
Consideration will also need to be given to providing areas for
livestock to graze as in many areas these are essential for conserving
the natural habitat.
By adopting a Coastal Stewardship Scheme, the
Government should be able to facilitate more environmentally friendly
farming practices in the coastal areas. It should also be able
to deliver better management and conservation of biodiversity
and provide for improved wildlife and landscape sensitive facilities
in coastal areas. This scheme should be directly funded by Defra
(with the funding ring-fenced) and should include the opportunity
for both revenue and capital items, such as currently operate
in the Countryside Stewardship/ Higher Level Schemes.
One possibility for the Government to consider
is introducing a requirement for strategic and local environmental
impact assessments to be undertaken in advance of the creation
of any new or extension of the rights of access.
7. The proposed arrangements for limiting
liability
The RICS agrees that the reduced level of occupier's
liability should also apply to coastal areas. However, consideration
should also be given to revising the strict liability requirement
that exists under the Animals Act so that there is reduced liability
to proof of fault. Failure to do so may lead to a reduction in
the number of animals grazing near the coast (which could have
unintended and unanticipated effects on biodiversity) and could
also result in increased occupier's liability insurance premiums.
Natural England should also make it clear how
their approach to liability relates to the increased duty of care
and liability recently introduced in other legislation as well
as the law for trespass.
8. Should there be access rights for other
users such as cyclists or horse riders?
The RICS does not believe that there is a need
for rights other than a right of access on foot for open-air recreation
around the coast. Any proposal to introduce such a measure would
be going way beyond the original consultation aim of increasing
access to the English coast.
The RICS would be happy to give oral evidence
on any of the issues raised in its submission.
Susan J Steer FRICS FAAV
Chair, RICS Countryside Policy Panel
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
May 2008
| 
