Memorandum submitted by the Devon Countryside
Access Forum (DMB 49)
The Devon Countryside Access Forum (DCAF), a
local access forum under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act
2000, made substantive comments on the Coastal Access consultation
document in September 2007. It has considered the Draft Marine
Bill and has agreed the following points as its advice to the
House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
Key points for examination by the EFRA Committee are highlighted.
VISION
1. In broad terms the Devon Countryside
Access Forum welcomes the concept of improved coastal access.
The draft Marine Bill provides a statutory framework for delivering
the Vision but clarity and further consultation is required on
a number of specific issues.
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
OF NEW
LEGISLATION
2. Devon is fortunate to benefit from the
South West Coast Path (SWCP) and current arrangements provide
excellent access. The few remaining gaps in the SWCP could be
addressed through the Marine Bill legislation to provide a continuous
path and this would be welcomed. In specifically local terms the
draft Marine Bill is not the most cost-effective way of meeting
local needs with its focus on increased access rather than improved
access.
Improving links to the coast and building a
network of circular routes centred on coastal locations is also
regarded as a high priority, building on and developing work identified
under Rights of Way Improvement Plans. The Marine Bill should
recognise Rights of Way Improvement Plans and their centrality
to fulfilling local desires for improved access.
Furthermore, the financial liability for future
maintenance and roll-back has not been clearly identified. Recent
landslips along the Jurassic Coast in Dorset are a case in point.
Natural England, or delegated local highway authorities, must
receive appropriate financial resources to both deliver and maintain
designated routes.
Delivery of coastal access requires a long-term,
on-going and substantial financial commitment. These costs should
not be passed to highway authorities by default. This should be
clarified in the Bill under Clauses 280 and 281.
EXCEPTIONS AND
DEVIATIONS
3. The DCAF accepts that there will be instances
where it is practical to have exceptions or deviate from a given
route. The draft Marine Bill makes no mention of specific exceptions
for nature conservation purposes but the need to identify environmentally
sensitive sites is paramount, with weight accorded to the environmental
impact of increased access.
The draft Marine Bill should incorporate consideration
of environmental factors. Local solutions, following consultation,
and sensitive route alignment are vital.
BALANCE BETWEEN
RIGHTS OF
ACCESS AND
RIGHTS OF
OWNERS AND
OCCUPIERS AND
COMPENSATION
4. The draft Marine Bill does not strike
the right balance between the rights of access and the rights
of owners and occupiers unless compensation and the right of appeal
against a designated route are addressed. Early deliberations
on the coastal access proposals raised the possibility that environmental
schemes would provide additional income/compensation for land
managers. Money available through such schemes is diminishing
and there is no prospect that these will deliver adequate redress
for loss of agricultural income.
Whilst some land managers could develop profitable
business opportunities, others may be disadvantaged and should
be able to seek compensation. For example, the owner of self-catering
cottages with direct access to a private beach.
There is no case for general compensation but
provision should be made within the Bill (Clause 280/281) for
compensation in certain instances where specific loss of income
can be identified.
PROPOSALS FOR
COASTAL ACCESS
IN ESTUARIES
5. The DCAF agrees that the first crossing
point along an estuary is an acceptable point with the proviso
that any ferry crossing point which is identified as part of a
continuous coastal route must provide a regular and frequent daily
ferry service through a substantial part of the year. It is not
considered that a seasonal service (Easter—end of October),
operating a limited daily service, would be adequate.
The Committee is requested to seek amendment
of the Marine Bill (Clause 272 subsection 7) to ensure that a
continuous path is facilitated by regular ferry provision.
ARRANGEMENTS FOR
LIMITING LIABILITY
6. Limiting liability to natural and man-made
features is welcomed and should be retained within the legislation.
However, the DCAF considers that the Bill does not go far enough
to protect landowners who may face liability under other legislation,
for example Health & Safety and the Animals Act 1971. Deliberate
negligence on behalf of any land manager or occupier is recognised
as indefensible.
The DCAF advises the Committee to consider the
implications of the Animals Act 1971 and Health & Safety legislation,
in relation to liability arising from the Marine Bill, and to
investigate additional safeguards that may be necessary to protect
land managers. (Clause 288)
HIGHER RIGHTS
7. Higher rights are seen by the DCAF as
a goal to achieve wherever possible. In many coastal locations
higher rights may not be either desirable or possible. However,
the draft Marine Bill fails to include higher rights as the optimum
solution, wherever possible, following local consultation and
negotiation.
The DCAF advises the Committee to include a
subsection encouraging delivery of higher rights for cyclists
and horse riders as an objective in Clause 272.
ADDITONAL ISSUES
Spreading room
8. The DCAF has some concerns about the
concept of spreading room.
(a) The draft Marine Bill does not recognise
differences in land use between coastal and estuarine environments.
Spreading room along estuaries, both towards the estuary and landwards,
may have more significant impacts as land and residential uses
are more developed and intensive. Equally, some of the most valued
and sensitive environmental sites in the country are alongside
estuaries.
The DCAF requests that the Committee explore
whether spreading room is appropriate along estuary routes (Clause
272, subsection 3 and proposed amendments to the 1949 Act).
(b) The DCAF is also concerned at difficulties
which may arise in identifying what constitutes a margin of land
under Section 272 (3) especially where this might be adjacent
to sensitive or farmed areas.
The Committee is requested to consider whether
a maximum distance on the landward side would be appropriate in
those places where an obvious boundary cannot be identified.
(c) The draft Marine Bill fails to recognise
grassland as a crop. A 4m wide strip, with associated and undefined
spreading room, is fundamentally different to a narrow footpath.
There are implications for access management and farming operations
associated with hay and silage production.
The DCAF requests that the Committee examines
the implications of the draft Marine Bill for grassland management.
Right of Appeal
9. Under the CROW Act 2000, a right of appeal
was enshrined in the legislation for open access mapping. Members
of the DCAF consider this right of appeal to be a fundamental
right and one that should be retained in the Marine Bill.
A right of appeal against a designated route
should be considered in the Bill.
Consultation
10. The draft Marine Bill in Clause 277
(proposed amendment to the 1949 Act) 55B (4b) is too vague about
which additional bodies might be consulted. For example if is
unclear whether wildlife groups would be consulted and it does
not specify whether a detailed and comprehensive local consultation
involving parish councils and local people is part of the process.
The DCAF advises that the Committee should examine
in detail how route proposals are advertised and the process by
which local people and communities can have some influence.
Devon Countryside Access Forum
May 2008
| 
