Memorandum submitted by Suffolk County
Council (DMB 70)
COASTAL ACCESS PROVISIONS IN THE DRAFT MARINE
BILL
Thank you for the invitation for interested
parties to submit views for your pre-legislative scrutiny of part
9 of the draft Marine Bill, which I do so in my capacity as Suffolk
County Council's portfolio holder covering access to the countryside.
Suffolk County Council supports the principles
of coastal access and has considerable expertise in managing both
coastal land (including an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
and Heritage Coast) and open access. The county is also at significant
risk of coastal erosion and flooding and thereby vulnerable to
current proposals to abandon coastal defences and for these reasons
I am well placed to help you in your considerations.
In considering the draft bill, I would ask you
to take the following factors into consideration:
1. Sufficient funding should be made available
to implement the legislation, including related works. I note
the LGA does not consider the estimated £50 million is realistic
and I would agree with this.
2. I note it will be the access authority
who will undertake the establishment and ongoing maintenance of
the trail, funded by Natural England. Again sufficient funds must
be made available for the ongoing maintenance, management and
development of the route once it is in place—a concern I
know the LGA shares.
3. Much of the existing coastal access in
Suffolk is on defended land. This land is under threat from the
Environment Agency's proposals to abandon marine defences—proposals
which fail to address the many benefits of access to local communities,
including economic. The Government should recognise these benefits
and ensure that coastal access is joined up with the need to defend
coastlines where local communities are at risk.
4. Coastal access should include estuaries
where there are centres of population who would benefit from the
new provision, even when there is a crossing point downstream
of that centre. Examples in Suffolk include Ipswich and Woodbridge.
5. Coastal access should not preclude or
prejudice the creation of higher public rights (eg a public bridleway)
on the same alignment of the coastal trail or the spreading room.
The creation of these higher public rights might, for example,
be to replace a section of bridleway lost to coastal erosion,
or may indeed be to create a bridleway where none currently exist.
6. The procedures (including legal) for "rollback"
of the coastal trail need to be made much clearer than they are
currently.
7. Suffolk County Council welcomes the lower
occupiers' liability for coastal access.
8. Failure to set a completion date for coastal
access in the Marine Bill will lead to ongoing uncertainty by
stakeholders and could potentially lead to unacceptable "drift".
The bill should therefore include a completion date and I believe
your suggested 10 years is reasonable.
I hope you will be able to include these points
in your deliberations.
Suffolk County Council
May 2008
|
