Memorandum submitted by the Manor of Cadland
(DMB 43)
INTRODUCTION
Maldwin Drummond is a Trustee of the Manor of
Cadland that owns the foreshore down to low water mark, from Calshot
to near Lepe on the North Solent shore. The Estate dedicated the
Lepe and Calshot foreshore to public use, under the care of Hampshire
County Council. The shore between is part of the North Solent
National Nature Reserve, is a nesting area and supports two "Red
Book" plants.
Though not without precedent, it seems surprising
that such an important piece of legislation as the Marine Bill
has been packaged with a section devoted to marine and public
access. The two sit uneasily together.
IMPLEMENTATION
As is well known, 80% of the coast line is already
open to public access, either by right or agreement. The bill
specifically excludes, for obvious reasons, ports and defence
establishments where security and safety are issues. It is to
be welcomed that the Secretary of State for DEFRA will be under
a duty to strike a fair balance between the interests of the public
in acquiring a right of access and the interests of any owner
or occupier of land over which the new right would apply. It is
also welcomed that this should initially be considered by the
Access Forums, with provisions for safeguarding nature conservation.
A substantial part of the 20% of the coast line path left will
have to be re-routed so as not to cause unacceptable damage to
businesses, private owners or, importantly nature conservation
and the historic environment. The local access forums and the
county councils are capable of producing a sensitive route. Where
there is conflict between public access and wildlife conservation,
the latter must take precedence along the lines of the "Sandford
Principle".
Part of the shore is overhung by dangerous and
unstable cliffs. The Estate has been unable to continue "groyning",
which it has done for the past two hundred years, because of objections
from Natural England. It is hoped that these objections will be
removed, but in the meantime, the walking public would be at risk
if the shore was opened. This could be covered by hazards signs,
but at high water part of the shore is impassable and in southeasterly
storms particularly dangerous. In these circumstances, it is very
worrying that Natural England owes no duty of care in preparing
proposals for a long distance route or their failure to exercise
their power to erect signs to warn, exclude or restrict access.
The Secretary of State appears to shelter under the same provision
which is regrettable. This should be considered again.
The grounds surrounding Cadland House are on
the English Heritage Register, Grade II* and are open to the public
under special arrangements. Walking through the National Nature
Reserve would give access to the grounds and would, therefore,
have to be fenced. This would have an adverse impact on the historic
designed landscape, destroying the views and the appearance of
the remote shore line. It would also have a detrimental affect
on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Furthermore, such a
path would also go through an area favoured by shore nesting birds
and damage, if not destroy, colonies of two "Red Book"
plants. The rare colony of sea kale plants that have been tended
by the Estate for 200 years would also be at risk on this shingle
shore; this would no longer exist had there been open public access.
There are some old shellfish nurseries at Stone
Point in which young shellfish were raised, in particular, cross-cut
carpet shell Venerupis decussata. These nurseries are to be brought
back into use and would be at risk from disturbance and pollution
if public access is created. As President of the Shellfish Association,
I know there are considerable worries by shellfish producers about
long established foreshore facilities in regard to pollution,
theft and general disturbance which would seriously affect their
business.
There should be provision for compensation where
properties are affected by the coastal path.
The financial provisions in the Bill for the
creation of such a path are grossly inadequate. It appears no
proper thought has been given to continuing maintenance and, as
emphasized before, legal liability for injury or death to members
of the public using the path or who leave it of their own volition
and suffer hurt.
I plan to add more detailed observations regarding
Marine Coastal Access as part of my response to the main Marine
Bill. I hope the above is of assistance to the Select Committee.
Maldwin Drummond
Manor of Cadland
May 2008
| 
