Memorandum submitted by Pentewan Sands
Ltd (DMB 35)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
— Pentewan Sands Holiday Park is a
coastal Caravan & Camping site on the South Coast of Cornwall
with privately owned Beach and Foreshore as described in Section
1 below.
— The Company has always welcomed well-intentioned
public access but reserves the ability to manage that access in
the interests of site security and the well-being of holiday makers
as described in Sections 2 and 3.
— More detail is provided on the Company's
management and control of public access in Section 3.
— Section 4 details the Company's objections
to the Draft Bill. On practical grounds, it fundamentally undermines
the Company's ability to manage the Park responsibly which at
best provides a charter for "yob culture". The lack
of any independent appeal or compensation structure is draconian
and open to abuse by Government Agencies.
— Section 5 addresses the specific
issues mentioned in the Inquiry announcement.
1. ABOUT PENTEWAN
SANDS LTD
1.1 Pentewan Sands Ltd is a family business
established in 1945 and now operating two Caravan & Camping
Holiday Parks on the south coast of Cornwall. The original, and
principal, site is Pentewan Sands Holiday Park which is located
on the beach at Pentewan, a mile or so from the fishing port of
Mevagissey. The park has some 464 Touring Pitches and 123 Rose
Award winning Holiday Caravans with associated modern facilities.
Further detail can be gleaned from the Company's website, www.pentewan.co.uk.
The Park is open from 1 April or the Friday before Good Friday
(whichever is earlier) to 31 October every year.
1.2 physically, the Park lies between the
B3273 St Austell—Mevagissey Road (to the West) and the sea
(to the East) and is bounded by cliffs to the South and the village
of Pentewan beyond the now disused former clay docks (also within
the Company's ownership) to the North. A copy of the site plan
used in the Holiday Park brochure is reproduced below which illustrates
effectively the Park's relationship to the coast and access routes.
[N.B. The Beach at the top
of this plan faces East. North is to the L, South to the R]
Crucially, the Company owns not only the "footprint"
of the Holiday Park and disused docks but also the adjoining beach
and foreshore above the Mean Low Water Mark.
2. CURRENT ACCESS
POLICY
2.1 There are no Public Rights of Way within
the main Holiday Park area or Docks. The SW Coast Path runs to
the landward of the park, partly on Company owned land and partly
along what is now a pavement running along the seaward (E) side
of the main road, on land originally dedicated by the Company
for that purpose.
2.2 The Company's policy on public access
is to welcome and facilitate this as far as possible, commensurate
with the security of the Park and the well-being of its staff
and customers. In practice, this means that Public Access through
the main body of the Holiday Park is available on foot at all
times throughout the holiday season (although the works bridge
from the Docks is closed after 23.30hrs every night and persons
entering after dark through the main entrance may be challenged
and, if necessary, denied entry).
2.3 Out of season, access is freely available
to all areas during the Company's working hours but the main body
of the park (although not the docks or beach North of the river)
is closed at other times as both the main entrance and works bridge
are secured when the last employee goes off duty every day. As
a minimum, this means that access is available to the whole area
for at least 5 days per week during the hours of daylight. This
does mean that access to the beach south of the river (except
by paddling across its mouth at low tide) is not readily available
at weekends during the winter. This was a measure taken with some
reluctance by the company—which had hitherto avoided locking
off the Works Bridge—in the winter of 2006 following an
increasing trend of thefts and, in particular, vandalism or malicious
damage to caravans.
2.4 At that time, the Company did consider
whether it could keep the Works Bridge access open during the
day at weekends but felt that this would represent an unfair burden
to hard-working staff—both in terms of the need to operate
a "key rota" system and the likely resultant exposure
to abuse. As an alternative, the Company did offer the Pentewan
Village Trust a key to the works bridge gate if they wished to
operate a key rota but this offer was declined.
2.5 Foot access to the Docks and through
the docks to the beach North of the river mouth is available all
year round, except only that on one day each year—by tradition
on the shortest day—a charge of One Penny is made for entry
to the Dock area. Anyone unable to tender the necessary coin is
supplied with one by the staff member on duty.
2.6 The Pentewan Valley Cycle Trail—part
of the National Cycle Trail Network-arrives at Pentewan across
Company land by agreement (originally a 10-year term now holding
over from year to year) with the Local Authority, Restormel Borough
Council.
2.7 Dogs (other than registered Guide Dogs)
are not allowed anywhere on the park during the Holiday Season.
Out of season, dogs are allowed on the beach but not on the grass
pitches. This last restriction was introduced only in the last
10 years or so, in response to the increasing number of dog owners
failing to clear up after their dogs or worse, depositing plastic
bags of dog mess in hidden corners to be found—often by
strimmer operators—later.
3. REASONS FOR
MANAGING PUBLIC
ACCESS
3.1 The Company's three principal objectives
in managing Public Access relate to physical site security, the
prevention of antisocial behaviour and public liability. Provided
that those interests are properly served, the Company has always
been happy to welcome members of the public onto its land but
its ability to do so is at root underwritten by its ability to
manage that access and, if necessary, to exclude the ill-intentioned
or badly behaved.
3.2 In terms of site security, the Company's
priorities vary according to the time of year. During the winter,
the main concern is vandalism (especially to the caravan fleet
which is, by its very nature, highly vulnerable) and, to a lesser
extent, theft. When the Park is open, these concerns extend to
our customers' property and also in particular to the safety of
their children from predatory behaviour and individuals noted
acting suspiciously are dealt with appropriately.
3.3 The prevention of antisocial behaviour
is of increasing importance, especially during the peak summer
weeks during school and college holidays. At these times, as may
be imagined, the majority of our customers are families on holiday
with their children (and often grandchildren) and it is of immense
importance to them that a good family atmosphere should characterise
the park. As elsewhere in the UK, the greatest challenge to this
is from groups of teenagers and young adults with access to alcohol
and at Pentewan Sands the gathering point for such groups tends
to be on the beach—especially when youngsters come in from
further afield.
The company's strategy in such cases is to remove
alcohol from anyone who is or appears to be under age and, crucially,
to disperse the group, if necessary by escorting individuals back
to their own pitches or off the site altogether if they are non-resident.
3.4 Additional Occupiers' Liability concerns
about public access arise mainly in connection with site works
routinely carried out on the park during the closed season. For
example, extensive trenching has been undertaken for each of the
last 3 winters to extend and or renew services to the Pitches
and this work necessarily entails trenching to be open for significant
periods. If the site were not secured at that time of year outside
working hours, the liability issues would be considerable and
the proposed changes to Occupiers' Liability under Clause 288
of the Marine Bill, which apply only to "Physical Features"
and then only on (but not adjoining) "Coastal Margin"
do nothing to alleviate that position.
4. OBJECTIONS
TO THE
DRAFT MARINE
BILL
4.1 The Company has examined the draft Marine
Bill (Coastal Access Provisions) with great care, in conjunction
with both the accompanying Draft Order under proposed s.3A of
the CROW Act 2000 and Natural England's Draft Scheme. Notwithstanding
the specific references to exemptions that are to be considered
(mechanisms undefined) for Caravan Parks, the provisions in the
Draft Bill have very serious adverse implications for the Company
and its customers.
4.2 In practical terms, the most immediate
and serious consequence is that the Company will no longer be
able to exclude ill-intentioned or antisocially-behaved persons
from its property, even assuming that the Holiday Park itself
is "exempted" from the access provisions, unless such
exemption extends to both the Beach and the Foreshore. Thus, for
example, a group of non-resident youths intent on mischief could
no longer be simply warned and then escorted off the premises
as they would be able to claim a right of recreation on the Beach.
No remedy would be available to the Company until a Criminal act
had taken place to enable the Police (if and when available) to
intervene; the Company's reputation and business would be damaged;
much more importantly, the peaceful enjoyment of ordinary families
on their main holiday of the year would be jeopardised; and "gang
culture" would be the only winner.
4.3 On points of principle, the proposal
that there will be neither any right of independent appeal nor
mechanism for compensation to be paid in respect of losses imposed
by the Bill is contrary to all sense of natural justice or democratic
process. Especially, the avoidance of the principle of compensation
means that no cost-benefit assessment of any element of a recommended
Access Scheme has to be made by the "acquiring authority"
so that the most serious consequences can be visited upon individual
businesses at the stroke of a pen with no semblance of financial
accountability on the part of the Administration. The Company
notes that Table 4 of Annex 4 to the Marine Bill acknowledges
that the costs to coastal property owners both of Injurious Affection
and of additional security and safety measures will be "Minimal
for many, High for a few" which seems likely to be a not
unreasonable assessment. What is, however, wholly unreasonable
is the inherent assumption that, as only a few will be badly affected,
their losses can safely be ignored.
5. ASPECTS RAISED
BY THE
INQUIRY
5.1 The Government's vision for coastal access
and the extent to which the Draft Bill provides for it
The vision as set out in the Draft Bill is of
a monolithic, "one size fits all" solution to a problem
that is inadequately evidenced, especially in relation to beach
and foreshore access. It is particularly noted that, at paragraphs
176-177 of its Advice to Government last year, Natural England
discuss the question of access to beaches and report that:
"Estimating the number of exclusive beaches
is difficult to do with any precision. The situations on the ground
range from the significant number of beaches that are described
as private in promotional material (for example by estate agents,
hotels or tourist facilities), but where there in fact appears
to have always been public use alongside the private use; to the
much smaller number of physically accessible beaches where public
use is actively resisted, or permitted only in return for some
kind of direct or indirect payment. Our best estimate is that
there are less than 20 English beaches in the latter category."
The creation of a whole new legal concept of
"Coastal Margin" Access Land in the very blunt instrument
of the Draft Bill appears to be a wholly disproportionate measure
which will cause far more problems than it seeks to solve.
5.2 Whether new legislation is the best or
most cost-effective means of providing increased access to the
coast
It must be doubted whether new legislation is
as effective in securing increased access to the coast as proper
resourcing of existing Access Authorities would be. But if Government
is convinced that new legislation is required, it should focus
on completion of a coastal footpath which is what experience shows
is the most effective way of providing access, rather than on
the pursuit of coastal margin.
5.3 The case for exceptions to, and deviations
from, a route giving .continuous access to the coast itself
The most, and possibly only, logical test for
exceptions/deviations is whether the public benefit to be derived
from any segment of a selected route, compared to any available
alternative, outweighs the losses that would be caused to other
interests as a consequence. Where the balance of public benefit
is in favour of a particular route, it is reasonable (subject
to compensation) that the public interest should prevail. By the
same token, where it can be shown that the damage to private interests
outweighs the amount of public benefit resulting, then it is clear
that an exemption or deviation is called for.
5.4 Whether the Draft Bill strikes the right
balance between the rights of access and the rights of owners
and occupiers, and whether there should be compensation in any
circumstances for the creation of coastal access rights
Despite the requirement in the Draft Bill for
Natural England to "strike a fair balance" between the
different interests, this aspiration is wholly undermined by,
on the one hand Natural England's primary duty to secure continuous
access along the coast (including spreading room) and on the other
hand by the total absence of either independent appeal or compensation
provisions. It is extraordinary that, when (Table 2 of Annex 4
to the Draft Bill) benefits to users of the new access rights
are assessed at £246 million (range £92 million-£460
million) against costs to property owners of £12 million
(range £10 million-£16 million) the principle of compensation
should be dismissed.
Not only is the duty to pay compensation an
essential safeguard against the abuse of power by public authorities
but it is also the means by which the triumph of public interest
is reconciled to the citizen's entitlement to individual justice
which is surely the cornerstone of any liberal democracy.
5.5 The proposals for coastal access in estuaries
The company makes no observation on these.
5.6 What classes of land should be excepted
from access rights
Land forming part of Caravan or Camping sites
and any land including beach or foreshore held and managed in
connection with such sites.
5.7 The proposed arrangements for limiting
liability
The proposed amendments to the Occupiers' Liability
Act are welcome but to be effective need to be extended (albeit
subject to the same riders against recklessness or malice) to
cover not only physical features but also works or operations
being carried out on the affected land including adjoining land.
This latter measure is necessary to prevent the bizarre situation
arising that a landowner would have a greater liability to a walker
who has trespassed (accidentally or otherwise) off the Coastal
Margin than to one who has not.
5.8 Whether there should be access rights
for other users such as cyclists or horse riders
No. Whilst it can be argued that there may not
always be a fundamental incompatibility between foot, bicycle
and horse traffic, this depends hugely on both ground conditions
and intensity of use. Neither of these factors can be taken into
account by the broad brush of legislation so that areas which
became magnets (eg sandy beaches for horses or particular stretches
of coastal footpath for mountain bikes) for cycling or horse riding
would suffer badly.
6. FURTHER
INFORMATION AND
EVIDENCE
6.1 The Company will be pleased to provide
any further information, supporting details or documentary evidence
that the Committee might seek and would welcome the opportunity
of elucidating further in oral evidence.
Pentewan Sands Ltd
May 2008
| 
