Memorandum submitted by the Historic Houses
Association (DMB 66)
OVERVIEW
— The Historic Houses Association's
(HHA) locus in this debate is its representation of 1,200 member
houses, parks, gardens and estates in England, of which nearly
500 of these houses are open to the public.
— HHA houses offer substantial opportunities
for access, learning and enjoyment and over 13 million visitors
are welcomed each year to the HHA's English member properties.
The Association agrees that access to Britain's coast is a highly
valued public asset. However, we do not believe that provisions
within the draft Bill will achieve the Government's vision of
improving access to the coast and making it accessible for all.
Access to the coast can be improved in ways which better target
what people actually need and want and address the barriers which
are currently preventing them accessing the coast.
— Solutions must not threaten the livelihood
of coastal businesses or the rights and responsibilities of land
managers and private dwellers on whom the long-term future of
this environment depends. Very little account is taken of the
costs to owners and businesses—loss in capital value; loss
of security and privacy; loss of income to businesses, especially
those that are able to offer exclusive access; and the extra costs
incurred in managing land affected by new rights.
— The HHA is pleased that both DEFRA
and Natural England have taken on board some of our concerns,
particularly on exemptions and issues around liability.
— In summary, the HHA believes that
solutions to improve access to the coast:
— should be linked to identified needs;
— should specifically address the concerns
identified, whether signage, new routes, or transport to the coast;
— should be addressed locally and linked
to existing mechanisms;
— should be equitable to land managers,
ensuring that they are not disadvantaged, whether by way of liability,
loss, or interference with land management or land use;
— should take full account of safety,
of environmental needs, and of coastal defence;
— should provide sufficient central
funding to authorities for improvement as well as ongoing maintenance;
and
— should be subject to an appeal system.
COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
1. The Government's vision for coastal access,
and the extent to which the Draft Bill provides for it
1.1 The HHA believes that the case for need
has not been adequately proved. 78% of the coast is already accessible,
or, it will be impossible to provide it (due to development or
military training) and in addition, there is access to 95% of
the foreshore. In addition Natural England remains unclear and
uncertain about the extent of estuaries and the extent of saltmarsh,
mudflat and other highly sensitive areas to which access will
not be sought on account of the environmental and safety factors.
1.2 The proposals do not sufficiently address
the reasons identified by Ipsos Mori, undertaken on behalf of
Natural England, which people gave for their failure to access
the coast. This research confirmed that difficulties accessing
the coast related largely to transport and not actual problems
accessing specific beaches or coastal areas. Comments focused
on the lack of maintenance, signage and information and concerns
about accessibility for people with disabilities and those with
young children.
1.3 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.
2. Whether new legislation is the best or
most cost-effective means of providing increased access to the
coast
2.1 The HHA does not believe that a "one
solution fits all" approach is the right one. It is essential
that local circumstances and concerns form the basis for determining
the provision and prioritisation of any improvements to access,
and that prioritisation is determined locally by access authorities.
The HHA is concerned that local authorities' powers and responsibilities
will be undermined.
2.2 The focus instead should be on identifying
issues and improving access locally and on recognising and responding
to people's needs on a local and specific level. The HHA is concerned
that local authorities' powers and responsibilities will be undermined
and local stakeholders disenfranchised.
2.3 The HHA is of the view that new legislation
is unnecessary. Increased access to the coast can be delivered
using existing mechanisms such as use of the Highways Act 1980
which provides access through Public Path Creation Orders, alongside
other mechanisms, such as through the National Parks and Access
to the Countryside Act 1949, as well as voluntary schemes, such
as Higher Level Stewardship, which we have seen work very well
at a number of HHA member properties, such as Holker Hall in Cumbria.
Here permissive access links together two sections of the Cumbrian
way.
2.4 We believe that a better use for central
government funding would be to assist local authorities to deliver
access improvements—whether these be new routes, or maintenance,
signing and access to existing routes or improved transport links
- and this should be ring-fenced in local authorities' budgets.
3. The case for exceptions to, and deviations
from, a route giving continuous access to the coast itself
3.1 The HHA welcomes the statement within
the Outline that the provisions relating to privacy in CROW will
be excepted from the coastal access rights, specifically that
land covered by buildings or the curtilage of such land; land
within 20 metres of a dwelling and parks and gardens. In addition,
we welcome the statement that consideration will be given to how
"proposals may affect the privacy of people in the immediate
vicinity of houses, hotels or other residences, and aim to strike
a fair balance between these concerns and the interests of the
public in having rights of access". There needs to be a proper
impact assessment in order to ascertain how people's privacy and
security are likely to be compromised. It could be that, in some
cases particularly in a rural and more remote setting, 20 metres
does not sufficiently address issues of security.
3.2 The HHA wishes to see a flexible approach
to find solutions which will provide access but recognise the
potential impacts upon householders and local businesses. In some
cases this may mean that it would be appropriate to place a coastal
path to the rear of a house where a property's curtilage reaches
to the foreshore. Flexible solutions, such as those in the routeing
of the South West Coast path, have worked successfully.
3.3 Natural England explicitly states that
it is expected that all beaches will be included, with potentially
disastrous implications for those businesses dependent on exclusive
access. The impact on these private householders and on these
businesses dependent on exclusive access will be enormous. An
HHA Member, Trebah Gardens, near Falmouth, which provides access
to visitors to a secluded beach on the Helford River, will be
severely compromised.
3.4 Whilst the HHA welcomes the assurance
that "where businesses wish to charge visitors for goods
or services, the coastal access rights will not prevent it"
and the explicit reference to "entry to attractions such
as theme parks, historic buildings or gardens", the practicalities
of managing this could present some real difficulties for attractions.
In addition, this does not address those businesses which depend
on exclusive access.
4. Whether the Draft Bill strikes the right
balance between the rights of access and the rights of owners
and occupiers, and whether there should be compensation in any
circumstances for the creation of coastal access rights
Compensation
4.1 Where there is a proven loss as a direct
result of either the legislation or the application of Natural
England's Scheme then there must be an ability to directly re-coup
those losses as part of the scheme. In determining this, there
should be explicit recogition of the needs, interests and expectations
of local businesses, communities, land managers and private householders.
There needs to be a proper impact assessment on the effects of
the new access rights on the owners and occupiers of land through
which any new rights would pass.
4.2 The losses could range from a loss of
capital value where perhaps the privacy or security 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. There
could be additional one-off costs for capital alterations to a
business. It is important to recognise that the situation cannot
be compared with businesses that occupy land subject to CROW.
The use of land is more intensive on the coast, for agriculture
or for leisure and tourism and there is a far greater diversity
of businesses all of which involve a variety of management considerations.
Appeal
4.3 The current draft legislation and Outline
Scheme do not set out an appeal mechanism. Representations concerning
the scheme will be considered by Natural England and by the Secretary
of State, but this consideration relates solely to the defining
of the trail and the spreading room. There needs to be an independent
right of appeal for the landowner or occupier with concerns about
the impact on their business or property. The Government's determination
not to compensate for financial loss makes it all the more important
for this right to be enshrined in law.
Maintenance
4.4 The HHA is concernced that the costs
of implementing a new legal right (in terms of the provision of
stiles, information, gates and signage) have been understimated
and that wardening has not been taken account of. An HHA Member,
Lulworth Estate in Dorset, with visitor numbers of 500,000 per
annum, spends some £100,000 each year on wardening costs,
and has undertaken this work because the local authority, despite
there being a national trail, lacks the funds to do so. There
also needs to be consideration given to the long term (10 years
+) maintenance costs.
Spreading Room
4.5 The guidance within the Outline Scheme
is vague over the amount of spreading room that will be designated
and 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. The impact of spreading
room could be greater than the impact of the route itself and
will raise additional concerns of financial loss, privacy and
security.
4.6 The precise areas of land subject to
the right of access need to be mapped accurately. Both landowners
and walkers need to be sure of the land over which the route passes
and the land designated as spreading room.
5. The proposals for coastal access in estuaries
5.1 The HHA is concerned about extending
the rights of access along estuaries. This brings the right of
coastal access inland—sometimes 10 or more kilometres—before
a permanent pedestrian crossing is found. The Government recognises
that estuaries are often both environmentally very valuable and
also very vulnerable. Many are designated Natura 2000 sites and
in many cases the disturbance by people using a route close to
the estuary will be very difficult to mitigate.
5.2 There is a particular concern that where
owners of foreshore or river frontage in estuarine cases bear
the costs of maintenancing coastal defences and management of
the foreshore, there is a real risk to this work as in many cases
their ability to undertake this essential work is linked to their
business operation. For example, on the Beaulieu Estate in Hampshire
their own foreshore defence work is dependent on Beaulieu's ability
to sell permits for access on an exclusive basis. The assurance
in the Outline that businesses will be able to charge visitors
for goods and services including "permits" does not
address this issue of exclusivity.
6. What classes of land should be excepted
from access rights
6.1 The HHA believes that the basis for
excepted land, and restrictions and closure regimes should be
the same as those set out under the Countryside and Rights of
Way Act 2000 (CROW) but there will need to be additional measures
due to the diversity of different business interests along the
coast. For example, there needs to be greater flexibility for
closures or temporary diversions to allow for land management
practices such as ploughing, spraying and lambing, as well as
holding private events.
7. The proposed arrangements for limiting
liability
7.1 The HHA's supports the provisions to
remove liability in respect of "physical features".
This is welcome and should be accompanied with clear information
as to where the route passes and to where the spreading room extends.
8. Whether there should be access rights for
other users such as cyclists or horse riders
8.1 The HHA is not in favour of the imposition
of higher rights (cyclists, horse riders and motor vehicles).
These need additional facilities, in terms of gates, surfacing
etc which would be difficult to deliver and maintain in a coastal
situation. The extra width of trail would greatly impact on the
landscape and the increased land take which would harm business
further.
Historic Houses Association
May 2008
| 
