Memorandum submitted by Lord Teynham (DMB
59)
I act on behalf of Lord Teynham who owns the
Pylewell Estate which enjoys approximately two miles of frontage
to The Solent immediately to the east of Lymington.
Lord Teynham has asked me to respond on his
behalf, as a follow up to my letter of 11 September 2007.
1. The reduction of the corridor width from
10m to 4m will create the same impacts at key pinch points, such
as sluices, and will create a highly visually intrusive and almost
military character to the coastline, where Commons grazing of
the foreshore will require a barbed wire fence on either side
of the 4m corridor.
2. It is unclear who will be responsible
for land management and litter collection along this narrow and
often inaccessible strip of coast. Loss of views and access to
dense scrub growth is already an issue on many sections of coastline
where the local authority has taken on management that it cannot
afford to sustain.
3. There is a high task implied in creating
and maintaining coastal access which is grossly underestimated
by the proposal to establish this access as a 10 years project
only. I am aware from other projects how expensive the physical
creation of access routes can be, and the draft Bill would effectively
preclude funding from Stewardship, Lottery and many other sources.
4. Given the complex issues relating to
privacy, garden use, potential impacts on security, impacts on
wildlife, impacts upon Heritage assets (like the Bathhouse site
at Pylewell) there should be a much broader right of appeal. The
right of appeal should be funded out of the public purse, to avoid
the creation of an inequitable loss of property rights without
compensation.
5. There is a real risk that some of our
most subtle, charming, yet undramatic coastlines would become
littered with access signs, gateways, fences, and excessively
engineered access works as landowners and local access forums
seek to hammer out workable compromises.
6. Land owners may be forced to demolish
many of the manmade but unproductive structures which together
constitute a significant but unprotected part of our cultural
heritage and coastal landscapes, due to the liability issues raised
by the creation of open public access, including war time structures
and old foot bridges, such as at Pylewell.
Julian Darling (Lord Darling, FRICS)
on behalf of Lord Teynham
May 2008
| 
