Memorandum submitted by the Countryside
Access Forum for West Sussex (DMB 55)
I am writing on behalf of the Countryside Access
Forum for West Sussex (CAFWS), an independent statutory advisory
body set up to give access advice to a number of bodies, including
all levels of government, in response to relevant consultations.
The Forum is keen to contribute to this process to ensure that
proposed changes meet the needs of local people and that the chance
is taken to improve opportunities for both countryside and coastal
access for present and future users. As a result, some new routes
may be necessary and existing paths upgraded.
Before commenting on the consultation, CAFWS
would like to emphasise the importance of considering the needs
of the three main users of public rights of way (PROWs):
— Walkers—the need is to access
the countryside, especially using circular routes of various lengths;
internal paths need to link up with the wider network of PROWs
and other means of accessing the countryside. Areas for dog walking
must be accommodated.
— Cyclists—using cycle tracks
and bridleways—an improved network will contribute to sustainable
access to work and school.
— Horse riders—riding is becoming
a more and more important recreational activity around the urban
fringe and contributes to the local economy.
In addition, attention must be given to recreational
access for all types of mobility impaired user groups, and Government
initiatives highlighting the benefits of walking for health.
CAFWS welcomes the opportunity to comment on
this document to protect and improve opportunities for people
to access and enjoy the countryside and coastal areas on foot,
by cycle and on horseback. Defra is required, in accordance with
section 94(5) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, to
have regard to relevant advice from this Forum in carrying out
its functions.
Appendix 1 details comments from the Coastal
Plain Sub Forum. I would mention that although this is not a Forum-wide
response due to the timing of the consultation, this response
has been approved by the Chairman.
In closing, may I emphasise that the Forum is
keen to continue to contribute to the Marine Bill process to ensure
the needs of all users are met and I hope these comments are helpful.
Fiona MacLeod
Secretary
Countryside Access Forum for West Sussex
May 2008
APPENDIX 1
DETAILS COMMENTS FROM THE COASTAL PLAIN SUB
FORUM
1. The Government's vision and the extent
to which the Draft Bill provides for it
CAFWS agrees that the prospect of a continuous
path around the coast of England is attractive and many people
would welcome improved access to the shoreline. However, there
are major concerns over the questions of funding and long term
management and maintenance. We note that the concept of the proposals
has now changed with the principal focus being the establishment
of a route, rather than access to coastal land, other than spreading
room.
2. Whether new legislation is the best or
most effective means of providing increased access to the coast
The Bill provides the best way of achieving
this in a reasonable timescale, although there are alternative
approaches which were highlighted during the original consultation.
We are doubtful whether it is achievable for the £50 million
if this is to cover all costs incurred by Natural England (NE)
(including staff time) and by access authorities. It is unclear
that it will be possible, in these turbulent times, to give guarantees
as to long term funding. Experience suggests that this will not
be "new" money and we would like to know which current
initiatives will be sacrificed.
3. The case for exceptions to and deviations
from a route giving continuous access to the coast itself
CAFWS is very aware that there are many coastal
areas which are inherently unsuitable for public access—on
safety grounds or because it is a valuable and sensitive conservation
site. Rather like the "right to roam" publicity, people
will expect to have a blanket right of access to all beaches,
cliffs and intertidal areas and so the communications about any
restrictions will be critical. In some areas there is a real danger
that this new right of access could cause real damage to conservation
interests. The scheme has worked through these issues carefully,
but exceptional exclusions, temporary restrictions and short term
deviations can only work well with committed management structures—normally
the responsibility of access authorities. We are concerned that
they must be properly funded to carry out these responsibilities.
4. Does the Draft Bill strike the right balance
There are many owners of dwellings and businesses
who will feel threatened by the prospect of the public having
close access to their property. The consultation procedures must
be thorough and the NE must be sympathetic to the rights and sensitivities
of landowners. As the publication of the report will be a cut-off
point, landowners will need time to assess the impact on present
and future uses of their land. Often the route and the spreading
room can be made to work better through the active cooperation
of owners and so NE must be able to be flexible in the application
of the scheme. There will be inevitable occasions when a farmer
or other business has to reduce his activity because of the new
route—eg when it passes along the edge of an intensively
cropped field—and when a financial loss is demonstrated,
compensation should be paid. Often it will be necessary to provide
infrastructure, such as fences and gates, to ensure a successful
partnership—all costs should be met by NE and clarification
is needed concerning their future maintenance.
5. Proposals for coastal access in estuaries
The proposals to take the route to the first
crossing are sensible, but where there is a lengthy distance inland
to the crossing, a path without spreading room will be necessary
as the land between the path and the river is unlikely to be truly
coastal land.
6. What classes of land should be excepted
from access rights
There are serious concerns relating to coastal
land with high nature conservation value, such as saltmarsh and
high tide roosts. Our comments under 3 above apply here. The average
visitor will not readily recognise the different categories of
land—open access, excluded, excepted—and restraint
will only be possible through robust and effective management
by signs, barriers or wardening. The responsibility for this will
inevitably fall on the access authority and will often be at significant
costs: there is a strong need to identify new and ongoing funding
for these new services. The initial set-up costs during the 10
year establishment period will only represent a portion of the
total cost of these proposals.
7. Proposed limited liability
We believe that this is the right approach.
Inherently dangerous land—eg old mine workings—will
need to be excluded to protect the public.
8. Whether there should be access rights for
other users such as cyclists or horse riders
CAFWS feels strongly that this issue must be
addressed to avoid a great missed opportunity. For example, under
the CROW Act, access authorities are asked to produce Rights of
Way Improvement Plans and then implement them. It may often be
the case that a priority may be the creation of a coastal cycle
way and there could be an obvious advantage of addressing both
projects as one. Establishment of multi-use paths along the coast
will meet other government priorities, such as sustainable transport
and tourism. Similarly, the government and Highway Authorities
are working with the charity Sustrans to establish a National
Cycling Network. Thus we recommend that the paragraphs under 6.11
of the Scheme should be widened, requiring NE, when researching
the new route to have regard to local Rights of Way Improvement
Plans (ROWIPs) and, wherever possible to incorporate a "higher
status" where that can be achieved. In the design process,
regard also must be given to equestrian needs as beaches are often
of great value for the exercise of horses—especially in
winter.
Countryside Access Forum for West Sussex
May 2008
| 
