Memorandum submitted by West Sussex County
Council (DMB 37)
1. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
West Sussex County Council (WSCC) is the access
authority for West Sussex. The county has approximately 110 kilometres
(70 miles) of coastline, much of which the public already has
access to, either using public footpaths, along town promenades
or "de facto" to beaches. There are areas of coast,
notably Chichester and Pagham Harbours which are internationally
important for wildlife.
WSCC agrees that in principle it is desirable
for the population of an island to be able to have access to walk
around its coast. For some, walking the whole route will be a
challenge, but for many more having good quality coastal access,
ideally with circular loops and better access to the shoreline,
near to where they live or want to visit, is likely to more important.
WSCC is extremely concerned that no consideration
has been made for long term maintenance costs, which may be considerable
if large sections of the coastal route require "rolling back"
beyond the initial 10 year implementation phase and will inevitable
fall to access authorities, whose budgets are already stretched.
The impact of access to stretches of coast that
are of high nature conservation value and sensitive to disturbance
must be fully considered at all stages and exclusions and exceptions
may be required to avoid damage to both habitats and certain species.
Good, clear, accurate provision of information
for the public to fully understand where they can walk is essential
from the outset.
Compensation should not be ruled out where a
real financial loss is incurred by landowners/managers—no
business should unduly suffer as a consequence of new access.
Higher rights should be considered where appropriate.
2. THE GOVERNMENT'S
VISION FOR
COASTAL ACCESS,
AND THE
EXTENT TO
WHICH THE
DRAFT BILL
PROVIDES FOR
IT
The Draft Marine Bill and associated papers
(including Draft Marine Bill Policy Paper (April 2008), Coastal
Access: Natural England's Outline Scheme and Coastal Access: proposed
order under Section 3A of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act
2000) do appear to provide a method in which a route around the
English coast could be achieved. However, there are major concerns
over the questions of funding, in particular long term maintenance
which is likely to become the responsibility of the access authority
(WSCC in West Sussex) and has not been adequately addressed in
the proposals.
There does seem to be provision to consider
nature conservation issues when negotiating the exact route and
it is important that our most important sites are not compromised
by inappropriate access, in particular spreading room from the
route to the foreshore may be inappropriate for access in certain
locations.
It is important that the consultation with the
access authority, landowners/ managers, local access forums and
other interested parties is robust and thorough before any information
on the route enters the public domain.
3. WHETHER NEW
LEGISLATION IS
THE BEST
OR MOST
COST-EFFECTIVE
MEANS OF
PROVIDING INCREASED
ACCESS TO
THE COAST
WSCC believes the Draft Marine Bill provides
the best way of achieving increased access to the coast in a reasonable
timescale, over any of the other options considered during the
original consultation.
We support the proposals that coastal access
routes will need to be rolled back in response to sea level rise
and erosion.
We also support the phased approach for implementation
but highlight the need to phase funding to be fair to all.
Based on previous experience we are doubtful
if the vision can be achieved for the quoted figure of £50million
if this is to cover all costs involved (including access authority
and Natural England staff time and all implementations costs.
There are concerns that this will not be "new" money
and WSCC would like to know what current initiatives may suffer
to deliver coastal access.
As previously mentioned the cost of long term
maintenance is a major issue that cannot be highlighted strongly
enough. In today's financial climate it is understood that it
is difficult to commit to long term funding for maintenance but
it cannot be expected that access authorities meet these costs,
especially as there could be significant outlay if long/many sections
of the coastal route have to be rolled back, outside the initial
10 year implementation period.
Information on the new access must be appropriate
and clear from the onset to avoid any misunderstandings as occurred
with CROW Act 2000 access which was incorrectly referred to by
the media as the right to roam leading to confusion by the public
at large. It is likely that the public will believe they have
the right to access to all beaches, cliffs and intertidal areas
and so communications about restrictions, deviations and excepted
areas will be critical.
4. THE CASE
FOR EXCEPTIONS
TO, AND
DEVIATIONS FROM,
A ROUTE
GIVING CONTINUOUS
ACCESS TO
THE COAST
ITSELF
Reducing the impact of access on nature conservation
interests (both habitats and species) should be carefully considered
from the outset, with full impact assessments being carried out
if necessary—deviations and exceptions to a continuous route
that hugs the coast, and to associated spreading room that will
include sensitive intertidal habitats, will be a valuable tool.
In particular studies have shown some species of bird that use
the coast are easily disturbed, particularly by dogs, even on
a lead. Temporary, seasonal closures have proved difficult to
work without a strong warden presence—signage alone is not
sufficient. Access authorities, without additional help, are unlikely
to be able to carry out management responsibilities that will
be expected of them.
Landscape and biodiversity enhancement work
should go hand in hand with access improvements.
Deviations and exceptions may also be needed
to protect peoples livelihood, security and for safety reasons
around marine businesses.
5. 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
The County Council believes that marine-related
businesses and farming landowners/managers should not be adversely
affected, either operationally or financially, by the new access
provisions and compensation should be an option where there is
a demonstrable loss.
The consultation process must be robust and
include all people who may be affected, in particular it must
be sensitive to landowners as their co-operation will be fundamental
to the ease of implementation, and ultimately the success of the
scheme.
6. THE PROPOSALS
FOR COASTAL
ACCESS IN
ESTUARIES
The proposal to take the route to the first
crossing is sensible, although as the land over which the route
passes may not truly be "coastal" it may be more appropriate
for there to be no "spreading room" even on the sea/river
side, particular if there are nature conservation issues. This
should be considered an option when discussing and agreeing proposals.
7. WHAT CLASSES
OF LAND
SHOULD BE
EXCEPTED FROM
ACCESS RIGHTS
There are serious concerns relating to coastal
land with high and sensitive conservation value, such as mudflats,
saltmarsh, high tide roosts and breeding areas.
Marine-related business, marinas and yacht clubs
where access would lead to safety, security or compromise working
practices should be excepted.
Areas outlined in the proposals would be appropriate
to be excluded although the large proportion of the general public
will not be aware of excepted land without appropriate signage
and communication. In some areas even signage is unlikely to be
sufficient to keep people off excepted land and on-site management
solutions should be sought and consideration be given to provision
of wardens on areas of the coast that are likely to attract high
visitor numbers—all of which have significant long term
cost implications, which have not been identified to date.
8. THE PROPOSED
ARRANGEMENTS FOR
LIMITING LIABILITY
We support the proposed approach for limiting
liability.
9. WHETHER THERE
SHOULD BE
ACCESS RIGHTS
FOR OTHER
USERS SUCH
AS CYCLISTS
OR HORSE
RIDERS
Providing routes with higher rights should not
be rejected without considering if they are needed and appropriate.
Research carried out for the preparation of Rights of Way Improvement
Plans would be a useful starting point for accessing if the need
is there. Local discussions should start will the presumption
that higher rights should be asked for if the terrain is appropriate
and the landowner/manager, local people or wildlife will not be
disadvantaged. In particular in West Sussex beaches provide access
for horse riders, where little other off road access exists.
Where possible routes should allow for the less
mobile and in some cases this may provide a route that is also
suitable for, say, cycling or horse riding.
Jane Noble
Senior Access Officer, West Sussex County Council
May 2008
| 
