Memorandum submitted by Philip Jacobs
(DMB 71)
I am a director of a caravan holiday company
which has two fairly large 5 star rated sites which have the potential
to be seriously affected with a potential for enormous financial
loss in terms of both value and income.
First I adopt the British Holiday & Home
Parks Association submission of 19 May.
Next I draw attention to the inter action of
the total lack of appeal provision other than for breach of the
methodology by Natural England and the outlawing of compensation.
This means that however wrong or unfair or unreasonable they may
be, Natural England can still proceed so long as they follow the
procedure. You then have to add the fact that despite one of the
annexes to the consultation document revealing that the cost to
some land owners will be very high, particularly in regard to
injurious affectation (loss of value and income as a result) there
will be no compensation whatsoever. There is then, it seems, a
further effect. In our trade we partly let caravans we own but
we also sell caravans to ordinary individuals. Not only will they
be adversely affected if on the line of the trail or the spreading
room, but they will be able to claim compensation from us, although
we would be barred from claiming ourselves.
DEFRA and Natural England have gone beyond taking
legal advice from within DEFRA and gone to outside counsel to
find whether their proposals would be in breach of human rights
convention/legislation. I have been assured by one of the senior
officials dealing with this at DEFRA, that they have been advised
that so long as they only grant rights over land and do not take
the land itself (even though they will have removed all of the
value) they will not fail on the basis of human rights. This advice
is referred to in a footnote to the consultation at page 35. The
official accepted that it would be unfair and cause enormous losses
to some people and businesses. At a time when over the past week
or two I have heard our Prime Minister making speeches about his
commitment to fairness, our government is proposing what is really
a breathtaking theft from individuals and business. What cynicism!
We are still in a state where there is no published
methodology. We still do not know how wide the trail will be (and
unless it is restricted by statute it could be anything from 2
to 50m or 100m or more, and then we will have "spreading
room" on top, whatever that may be in extent. There seems
to be a likely concession for caravan parks that there will be
no spreading room (except on the seaward side) but the effect
of that may well be that everything seaward of the path will be
spreading room, however extensive that may be. I am troubled that
we have a system under which statute is passed before there is
any real knowledge of how much land is affected and where it is.
There is a provision for automatic roll-back
when land falls away so that landowners will have further losses
without even the ability to canvas an alternative route (in my
terms a further theft).
All this is against a background where the consultation
document was prefaced by an introduction from the then minister
which made it clear that he favoured this option (which has the
benefit of making landowners pay so that it is cheap for government).
There were three other alternatives one of which was using the
existing highways legislation, which has for many years been the
law on footpaths, roads and access. This enshrines fair compensation
and remains on the statute book. It already provides provision
for creating footpaths and access. The experience is that determined
objectors can cause delays, but it is not beyond the wit of government
lawyers to provide an amendment which would ensure speedier and
cheaper appeal procedures in relation to access on foot or even
bridleways etc.
I have no problem with seeking improved access
to the coast. But surely any right minded person will understand
that preventing appeals on the line or creation of the access,
and preventing fair compensation when landowners suffer losses,
(and there must be thousands of coastal businesses which will
be diminished and potentially ruined) is totally unconscionable.
What price the Prime Minister's fairness?
Philip Jacobs
June 2008
| 
