Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the National Farmers' Union (DMB 63a)
1. The NFU gave oral evidence to the EFRA
Committee on Monday 9th June, during which the Committee requested
the submission of additional evidence on the uptake of agri-environment
schemes featuring access. This is set out below together with
some additional points we would like to make to the Committee.
AGRI-ENVIRONMENT
SCHEMES
2. The provision of access has been a popular
option within the Countryside Stewardship Scheme (CSS), however
these agreements will gradually come to an end over the next few
years as this scheme is phased out and replaced by the newer Environmental
Stewardship. The NFU's understanding is that CSS agreements providing
good quality access and sensible linkages with other existing
access may still be considered for future access-only Higher Level
Scheme (HLS) agreements under Environmental Stewardship. As such
Natural England has agreed that there should be some ear-marking
of budget in the Natural England Regions specifically to facilitate
for some of this access to be retained under HLS.
3. However, we also understand that agreements
specifically on the coast would probably not be funded in the
future, or existing agreements renewed. This is because Natural
England cannot pay for something that is a legal requirement.
Therefore, if coastal access is to be provided by a statutory
route, as proposed in the Draft Marine Bill, then Natural England
may need to negotiate out of some existing agreements where all
that they provide is a linear route along, for example, a cliff.
4. Where higher rights are provided, which
are not provided by the proposed new coastal route, these could
also continue. Our understanding is therefore that the main way
that Natural England will use agri-environment funded access will
be to assist by providing links to and from existing inland rights
of way, car parks, villages, to provide links to the actual coast
route itself, and often to provide circular walks.
5. Access options have been reasonably popular
within HLS. Since HLS started three years ago Natural England
has entered into a total of 2,349[17]
agreements of which 578 (excluding Educational Access) contain
access options (c 25%). Of these 30 agreements were actually on
or adjacent to the coast. These 30 agreements provide 31 km of
linear access and 35 hectares of open access.
COMMENTS ON
THE MINISTER'S
EVIDENCE
6. We have four comments to make on the
oral evidence given by Defra Minister Jonathan Shaw MP on June
18, 2008, and one comment on the memorandum submitted by Defra
(DMB72).
(a) We share the doubts that have been expressed
by several witnesses and members of the Committee about the cost
of implementing the coastal access scheme as proposed. We therefore
welcome the Minister's promise to furnish the Committee with some
detailed costings so that Natural England's advice on this issue
can be examined more closely.
(b) We welcome the Minister's view that it
is appropriate for the draft Bill to continue to treat parks and
gardens as excepted land, as they are under the CROW Act. Natural
England have several mechanisms available to them to negotiate
agreements to take the trail through such land where they believe
it is desirable to do so.
(c) We welcome the Minister's acceptance
that mapping of the spreading room would be possible in particular
cases where there would otherwise be uncertainty. We believe there
would be merit in amending the Bill to ensure this can happen.
For example Natural England could be obliged to state in their
reports to the Secretary of State that to the best of their knowledge
the owners and occupiers of the land forming the spreading room
(where they can be reasonably identified) have a clear understanding
of what the description means on the ground. This would allow
the owners and occupiers to make representations to the effect
that they do not agree that the description removes all uncertainty
and formally request that a local map be prepared as part of the
scheme. Of course this would be in addition to their right to
argue that the trail/spreading room proposals are flawed in other
ways, for example taking in too much land, not in the optimum
place, too close to agricultural operations, etc.
(d) We welcome the Minister's support for
clarifying the law on the responsibilities of keepers of animals
to ensure that the risk of their animals causing damage to members
of the public are kept to the minimum. We regret that the private
member's bill on this subject introduced by Stephen Crabb MP,
which enjoyed wide support and on which Defra had worked hard,
was not able to make progress. We are pleased that the Minister
has undertaken to consider arranging for these provisions to be
incorporated within the Marine Bill.
(e) The NFU has expressed its concern regarding
the proposed changes to the CROW Act restrictions and exclusions
regime (paras 27 and 28 of our main evidence and in oral evidence).
Defra's memorandum DMB72 confirms (in answer to Q5) that once
the existing CROW Act restrictions or exclusions have been considered
on their merits when the coastal trail is being established, the
existing section 30 appeal mechanism for applications by land
managers for new restrictions or exclusions under s 24 will replaced
by a "lighter procedure that will give people the opportunity
to make representations". Para 19 of Defra's paper describing
the proposed order under new section 3A of the CROW Act states
that "where the situation giving rise to an exclusion or
restriction existed at the time that the proposal was made, then
the government intends that there will be no right to apply to
Natural England for an exclusion or restriction". This would
be a wholly unjustified diminishment of the rights of owners and
occupiers. In future before having the opportunity to set out
the merits of their case for new restrictions or exclusions they
would have to show that the situation giving rise to their application
did not exist at the time of the establishment of the coastal
access scheme. We understand why the authorities do not want to
give persons a "second right of appeal" on the same
issues if their representations failed at the time of establishment,
but how can this proposal deliver fairness? Who makes the judgment
on whether circumstances have changed, presumably Natural England?
How could the procedure give due weight to changes in ownership
or use of the land, or changes in agricultural markets? The NFU
objects strongly to the proposed changes to the appeal mechanism
for land management, and hopes that the Committee will recommend
that the present appeal procedure is not replaced with a "lighter"
one so that applications can continue to be determined equitably
on their merits rather than on a new pitch with new rules that
might suit the convenience of Natural England and Defra but would
be achieved at the farmer's expense.
WIDTH OF
THE COASTAL
TRAIL
7. We invite the Committee to consider Natural
England's proposal that "the width of the trail, disregarding
any spreading room associated with it, will typically be four
metres—allowing two people to walk comfortably abreast"
(para 4.3.8 of the draft outline scheme). In our submission four
metres is far wider than can be justified. The standard width
of a motorway lane is 3.65 metres, that of the hard shoulder is
3.3 metres, many rural roads are less than four metres wide—and
the corridor outside the meeting rooms on the first floor of Portcullis
House is well under four metres! We expressed our concern in para
20 of our main written evidence that there could be circumstances
in which arable land was brought within the coastal margin. Even
in the case of the more extensive use of land for grazing by livestock
farmers the loss of an acre of such land for every 100 metres
of trail is worrying. We believe four metres is excessive and
should be reduced.
National Farmers' Union
June 2008
17 Data on HLS agreements kindly provided by Natural
England, June 2008. Back
|
