Memorandum submitted by the Coastal Access
Forum (DMB 64)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Coastal Access Forum (CAF) is a
group that has been drawn together from representatives of groups
of businesses covering sporting, tourism, leisure and landowning
interests—The membership is detailed in Appendix 1.
1.2 Their interests are therefore very broad.
Constituent organisations and individuals within CAF will make
their own representations on any number of issues. However, the
members of CAF are united on their concerns on the following areas
2. CONSULTATION/LEGISLATIVE
PROCESS
2.1 The proposed legislative framework gives
DEFRA and Natural England significant powers that allow considerable
flexibility over the way in which coastal access will be introduced.
As such it is difficult to ascertain how the regime will operate
in practice, especially as the full extent of the scheme will
not be apparent until after the parliamentary process.
3. COMPENSATION
FOR PROVEN
LOSS
3.1 The CAF want assurance that where there
is a proven loss as a direct result of either the legislation
or the application of Natural England's Scheme then compensation
will be paid.
3.2 It would seem likely that in most cases
Natural England intends that the coastal trail will be located
along such a route as to avoid creating a loss, but this will
not be possible in every case. There will inevitably be some situations
where businesses and property owners will suffer a loss.
3.3 The losses could range from a simple
loss of capital value where perhaps the privacy of a property
(eg cottages, private houses, hotels, or properties let out for
functions) has been eroded by the new right of access. There could
be a loss of income as the use of an area becomes sterilised,
or a less intensive form of management has to be adopted. Finally
there could be additional one-off costs for capital alterations
to a business (eg moving tees and greens on a golf course, or
pitches on a caravan site).
4. THE TRAIL
4.1 Whilst the Outline Scheme details the
broad principles of how the trail and spreading room will be established,
there is a lack of detail as to how the interests of businesses
on the coast will be balanced against the perceived public interest.
5. COASTAL MARGIN/SPREADING
ROOM
5.1 The guidance within the Outline Scheme
is vague over the amount of spreading room that will be designated
and this is unhelpful to the landowner or occupier as it is impossible
to judge the impact. In addition spreading room will be, in part,
dependant on the location of the trail.
5.2 It is unclear how the extent of the
inland spreading room will be decided. There appears to be no
assessment, nationally, of the amount of land that this spreading
room will provide and the public benefits associated with it.
5.3 The impact of spreading room is likely
to be far greater than the impact of the route itself, just by
virtue of the area that it will occupy. The boundary of the spreading
room could vary from enclosure to enclosure. When adjacent to
developed land it could result in uncertainty, security concerns,
financial loss, or lack of privacy.
5.4 On areas where people are encouraged
to remain rather than walk facilities and services to prevent
litter dropping, dog fouling will be necessary as well as additional
works to ensure personal safety.
6. MAPPING
6.1 The precise areas of land subject to
the right of access need to be shown accurately on a map. Both
landowners and walkers need to be sure of the land over which
the route passes and the land designated as spreading room (at
least at the time of designation).
6.2 Signage alone will not provide sufficient
advice and will result in the open coast becoming cluttered with
signs, more akin to an urban area, rather than the unspoilt countryside
that people come to visit.
7. AN INDIVIDUAL
RIGHT OF
APPEAL
7.1 The current draft legislation and Outline
Scheme do not set out an appeal mechanism. The whole process from
the drafting of the legislation and preparation of the scheme
through to its implementation on the ground is controlled entirely
by Defra and its agency. For this reason it is a necessity for
there to be a right of appeal by the landowner or occupier aggrieved
as a result of the impact on his business or property.
7.2 As this scheme will impact on so many
different types of businesses in a variety of ways it is imperative
that anyone affected should have an individual full right of appeal
convened by an "independent body" (eg the Planning Inspectorate)
as is provided for by section 6 of the Countryside and Rights
of Way Act 2000.
8. LIABILITY
OF LANDOWNER
8.1 The CAF is pleased that DEFRA has confirmed
that there is no liability in respect of "physical features".
8.2 There is outstanding concern over operational
activities carried out on the land which have been established
over many years. The Government needs to provide comprehensive
guidance as to how they will deal with such activities, if it
does not then these businesses will be affected and will suffer
loss.
8.3 Much of the land through which the trail
passes will be used for keeping animals. The interpretation of
the Animals Act 1971 imposes an unreasonable burden on animal
owners. The draft Marine Bill is an appropriate opportunity to
amend the legislation so as to achieve a fair and proportionate
balance between the competing concerns.
Andrew Shirley MRICS,
Secretary on behalf of Coastal Access Forum
May 2008
APPENDIX 1
COASTAL ACCESS FORUM MEMBERS
Chairman |
Freddie De Lisle |
| Country Land and Business Association (CLA)
| Christopher Price
Andrew Shirley
|
| National Farmers Union (NFU) | Andrea Graham
|
| Historic Houses Association (HHA) | Frances Garnham
|
| British Holiday and Home Parks Association (BH&HPA)
| Joan Clark |
| Tourism Alliance | Kurt Janson
|
| Smiths Gore | Jason Beedell
|
| British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC)
| Judith Howell |
| Association of Leading Visitor Attractions (ALVA)
| Robin Broke |
| British Association of Leisure Parks and Piers & Attractions (BALPPA)
| Colin Dawson |
| Knight Frank | Tom Barrow |
| Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors |
Sue Steer/Damien Cleghorne |
| Duchy of Cornwall | Christopher Matthews
|
| Stratton Holborow | Charles Dixon
|
| |
| 
