Memorandum submitted by the Open Spaces
Society (DMB 38)
SUMMARY
1. The Open Spaces Society supports the
government's proposals for coastal access as set out in the draft
Marine Bill and accompanying outline scheme from Natural England.
2. We consider that legislation is necessary
to deliver the government's vision.
3. Exceptions to, and deviations from, the
coast should be kept to a minimum.
4. There should be a requirement for Natural
England to consult user groups in the preparation of its report
on coastal access.
5. We do not see a case for compensating
landowners on whose land coastal access rights are created.
6. There should be a presumption in favour
of rights for riders, cyclists and others, wherever possible.
INTRODUCTION
1. The Open Spaces Society (formally the
Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society) is Britain's
oldest national conservation body. Founded in 1865, it campaigns
to create and conserve common land, village greens and other open
spaces, and public rights of way, in town and country, throughout
England and Wales. It has about 2,600 members including individuals,
organisations and local authorities.
2. In July 1936 the society's then secretary,
Lawrence Chubb, wrote an article in the society's Journal advocating
public access to the coast. So the concept is not new.
The government's vision for coastal access and
the extent to which the draft Bill provides for it
3. We fully support the government's vision
for coastal access. We warmly welcome the draft Bill which, by
ingenious methods, will deliver that vision. The proposed measures
should in time provide a continuous, broad route, with spreading
room, around the whole coast of England.
4. At present, there are many gaps, large
and small, which prevent the public from walking around much of
the English coast, yet it is one of the most beautiful and dramatic
coastlines of any country in the world.
Whether the new legislation is the best or most
cost-effective means of providing increased access to the coast
5. We consider the new legislation to be
the best and most cost-effective means of providing increased
access to the coast. We particularly welcome the use of existing
legislation to provide the trail with adjoining spreading room,
combining legislation for long-distance paths in the National
Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, with access rights
under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (the CROW Act).
This will be simpler and less costly than the mapping exercise
undertaken following the CROW Act to determine the land on which
there was a public right of access. It will be cost effective
and will deliver the new access.
6. We submit that voluntary measures would
not provide the permanent continuous route and spreading room
that are needed. Voluntary measures are uncertain and often expensive,
depending on the mood of the particular landowner at the time
and the available funding. Legislation will provide permanence
and certainty, while allowing for closures and restrictions to
meet the needs of landowners and other interests.
The case for exceptions to, and deviations from,
a route giving continuous access to the coast itself
7. There is a case for exceptions to, and
deviations from, the route, but these should be few and far between.
Military live-firing sites or developed areas may provide such
exceptions, but the route should be as close to the coast as possible,
and open for as much of the time as possible.
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
8. We consider that the draft Bill does
not strike the right balance and we are concerned that too much
weight is given to the rights of owners and occupiers against
those of the public. User groups and others are only entitled
to comment when the final report is produced, which is far too
late. They should be involved in the preparation of the report.
There is a precedent for this, using the prescribed list of organisations
who are consulted about long-term restrictions on access land
under the CROW Act (and who were consulted during the mapping
exercise too).
9. We do not consider that there should
be compensation for the creation of the new rights. There is no
evidence that land has been devalued as a result of the CROW access
rights. However, exceptional circumstances may arise which we
have not envisaged.
The proposals for coastal access in estuaries
10. It is proposed that river estuaries
should be treated as part of the coast as far as the first bridge
or tunnel which the public may cross on foot. It is not clear
exactly what is defined as a river, but we urge that any definition
is generous and inclusive.
11. We are concerned by the reliance on
ferries, which may run infrequently and/or only at certain times
of year. Where the ferry cannot be relied upon to provide a frequent,
regular, service, the crossing point should be the first pedestrian
crossing point.
12. An island should also be accessible
if it is possible to reach it by ferry.
What classes of land should be excepted from access
rights
13. The list of exceptions in schedule 1
of the CROW Act has proved suitable for access land under that
Act, and we see no reason to increase the number of classes of
exceptions for coastal access. There is in any case the option
of restrictions on access where necessary.
14. We are pleased that discretionary restrictions
will not be allowed, since they would prevent the creation of
continuous access and people would be uncertain as to what restrictions
were in place.
15. Restrictions for land management, including
restrictions on dogs, should be incorporated in Natural England's
report on access, so that they may be consulted on and included
as appropriate from the start.
16. We are concerned that it is proposed
to enable Natural England to restrict or exclude access to an
area of salt marsh or mudflat for specific reasons. We think such
restrictions or exclusions should be exceptional and not the norm.
The proposed arrangements for limiting liability
17. We note that the draft Bill proposes,
in addition to the reduction in liability in section 13 of the
CROW Act, a reduction for all physical features, not just natural
ones. However, the duty of care on landowners still applies and
therefore we have no objection to this greater reduction of liability
on the coast.
Whether there should be access rights for other
users such as cyclists or horse riders
18. There should be a presumption in favour
of access rights for other users wherever possible.
OTHER ISSUES
19. We note that there is no provision in
the draft Bill to make it an offence to create or display notices
deterring public use of the trail or the spreading room, yet this
provision exists on public rights of way and on CROW access land.
We consider that such a provision should apply to coastal access
too.
Kate Ashbrook
General Secretary, The Open Spaces Society
May 2008
| 
