Memorandum submitted by The National Trust
(DMB 24)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The National Trust supports the development
of a continuous route on foot around the English coastline. We
are responsible for 1,100 km of coastline across England, Wales
and Northern Ireland.
We welcome the proposal for this route to be
developed through local negotiation and to take account of coastal
change and the specific circumstances pertaining to different
stretches of coast.
We remain concerned that the estimated cost
of putting this route into place is too low and that there is
no ongoing commitment to maintain this right, which will be greater
than maintaining the right of access over mountain, moor, heath
and down.
We believe greater clarity is needed over the
respective roles and responsibilities between Natural England
and the Access Authority.
We feel that the checks and balances for managing
access as set out in the CROW Act will be sufficient, although
their application in coastal environments are likely to be more
extensive given the nature conservation importance of many coastal
areas and the popularity of the coast.
While we support reduced occupiers liability
for owner/occupiers, the relationship between this legislation
and section 3 of Health and Safety at Work Act requires addressing.
We acknowledge that there may be particular
circumstances where compensation should be paid when there is
a proven significant loss of business or asset value as a direct
result of this right of access.
We feel some estuaries could provide significant
additional coastal access. The identification of these estuaries
with their access arrangements should be part of the coastal report
process.
The existing provision for horse riding and
cycling along the coastal route and its associated margin should
be taken into account when preparing the reports on coastal stretches.
1. The National Trust on the coast
The National Trust has welcomed the Government's
proposals for extending and improving access to the English coastline.
We provide free public access to over 800 kilometres
of the English coastline for millions of visitors each year. We
are committed to finding solutions for the sustainable management
of the coast and seas. Our Coastal Policy is set out in Appendix
1.
2. The Government's vision for coastal access,
and the extent to which the draft Bill provides for it
We support the creation of a route around the
English coast which works with coastal change and seeks to improve
the landscape and wildlife quality of the coast. The legislative
proposals in the draft Bill that bring together the creation of
long distance routes through the National Parks and Access to
the Countryside Act 1949 and the use of the Countryside and Rights
of Way Act 2000 to establish the right of access along that route
and its associated coastal margin (spreading room) seems to be
an effective way of achieving the Government's vision.
The proposed coastal access scheme will enable
Natural England to discharge its coastal access duty and provide
a consistent and transparent approach for all parties, whilst
also allowing local circumstance to be taken into account when
determining the exact alignment of the route and the extent of
the coastal margin. We support this flexible and locally negotiated
approach. This clear mechanism for determining the coastal route
and subsequent management needs must have the full support of
all stakeholders.
The use of the checks and balances to protect
conservation assets and the interests of owners and occupiers
provided in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act should enable
a proportionate response to be made and ensure that access rights
can be exercised responsibly without undue interference to conservation
interests or the livelihoods of coastal occupiers.
We support the proposal to bring existing access
land, mapped under the CROW Act provisions, on the coast into
line with the proposals set out in the Marine Bill. This will
remove potential confusion and bring clarity and certainty.
We welcome the proposal that access improvements
will be locally negotiated and delivered. This will ensure that
all concerns will be properly considered and taken into account.
However, if this is to happen within a reasonable timeframe Natural
England and local authorities (as the access authority) need to
be adequately resourced.
3. Whether new legislation is the best or
most cost-effective means of providing increased access to the
coast
We recognise that there is already extensive
access along sections of the English coast, notably in the South
West. Elsewhere relatively short lengths are accessible through
National Trails or promoted recreational routes. The approach
and funding provision to manage these routes is variable and very
reliant on the effective utilisation of rights of way legislation.
On coastlines that are subject to erosion where rights of way
disappear or become unsafe and unusable it can take many years
to re-establish a new right of way.
We feel this legislation and the approach being
proposed in the coastal access scheme will remove some of the
current barriers, particularly where coastal change is a dominant
consideration in maintaining a coastal route. The identification
through the proposed reports for section of coastline should identify
the likelihood of change over time and factor that in when determining
the alignment of the route and its associated spreading room and
when realignment might be required. All interested parties will
be able to see and comment on such proposals. Even along sections
of the SW coast the provision of spreading room associated with
the right of way would be helpful when realignment of the route
becomes necessary as a result of coastal erosion.
In our response to Defra's 2007 consultation
we questioned the estimated implementation cost of £50 million
over a 10 year period. We believe this is far too low and unrealistic.
We understand further work on this is being undertaken by Natural
England. Further clarity is required on the roles and responsibilities
for management and maintenance of the route and margin between
Natural England and the access authority.
We believe the legislation will secure more
and better access to the coast but the question of the cost and
time it will take to deliver these proposals remains unanswered.
4. The case for exceptions to, and deviations
from, a route giving continuous access to the coast itself
The need for exceptions to, and deviations from,
a route giving continuous access would form part of the consideration
under the coastal access scheme and the prepartion of individual
reports for coastal stretches. This negotiated approach, albeit
within a formal country-wide process, should be able to pick up
where exceptions and deviations may be necessary.
5. 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
If similar provisions for closure and restrictions
as set out in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act secures the
appropriate checks and balances between the rights of access and
those of owners and occupiers then the coastal access scheme should
be able to function. Legal mechanisms to establish this relationship,
coupled with sensible practical management on the ground, will
ensure that a right of access can be exercised without undue interference
to owner/occupier rights in the vast majority of situations. The
experiences of applying this approach over mountain, moor, heath
and down would tend to confirm that this will be the case. However,
the frequency of applying these restrictions and exclusions is
likely to be greater on the coast due to levels of use and associated
disturbance of wildlife.
The proposals for managing dogs in coastal environments
to prevent stock worrying and disturbance to wildlife, notably
ground nesting birds and over wintering shoreline birds, may need
to be supplemented by the Dog Control Order provisions in the
Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. However, we gather
there will be a general presumption that dogs should be kept under
close control along the coastal route and that the provisions
for dogs on leads as set out in the CROW Act will not apply.
With respect to compensation, we recognise that
the impact of coastal access on amenity value and business interests
is likely to be greater than over mountain, moor, heath and down.
The alignment of the route could cause substantial loss of asset
or business value. We acknowledge that Natural England will seek
to align the coastal route to avoid such impact. Where this is
not possible and it can be proven subject to an independent valuation
process that there is significant business and asset value loss
then provision for compensation should be made.
6. The proposals for coastal access in estuaries
In our response to Defra's 2007 consultation
on coastal access we recognised the challenges for access around
and across estuaries. We suggested that the Normal Tidal Limit
default should be adopted as the inland boundary as this would
enable a substantial improvement in access along the length of
the English coastline. Our case study in Devon and Cornwall, submitted
as part of our Defra consultation response, is attached as Appendix
2.
The legislation and the approach being proposed
to negotiate and secure coastal access could be applied to those
estuaries that would provide significant access to the undeveloped
estuarine coastline.
The general presumption from Natural England's
access scheme proposals is to provide a convenient means to cross
them rather than explore them. We would suggest that where estuaries
could provide significant improvements to coastal access through
this legislation then they should be considered as part of the
coastal access scheme.
7. What classes of land should be excepted
from access rights
The proposals, set out by Natural England in
its "Coastal Access- Natural England's outline scheme",
of excepted land are sensible as they take into account the most
appropriate location of the route and the way in which associated
spreading room is likely to be used by those exercising their
access right. The coastal reports which will determine the alignment
of the route and the coastal margin should pick up the practical
details for each coastal stretch.
The protection of wildlife, geological and historic
features and interests needs to form part of the creation of the
coastal route and margin. There are vulnerable, internationally
designated coastal habitats such as dune systems and shingle banks
such as those at Orford Ness that are easily damaged irreversibly
by feet. However there is considerable experience in managing
people to and through these habitats and having exclusion zones
around bird nesting sites that the practical issues, we believe,
can be dealt with satisfactorily. We would expect to be fully
consulted by Natural England on how any management regime was
to be put in place.
There are other coastal landscapes that would
fall into similar categories, notably islands connected to the
mainland by tidal causeways, shingle and sand spits which would
not enable continuous coastal access where the route would be
best located on the inland side eg Blakeney Point and Orford Ness.
There are particular disturbance issues associated with walking
on sea walls. Different seasonal access arrangements would be
needed in these circumstances.
8. The proposed arrangements for limiting
liability
We support and promote the principle that visitors
should take primary responsibility for their own safety. Coupled
with this we welcome the extension of the provision set out in
CROW Act of reduced occupiers' liability for those exercising
their access rights along the route and within the coastal margin.
However, safety issues are more varied and pronounced
in coastal environments. For example, liability provisions associated
with coastal defence structures and old quarry and mine workings
around the coast will require particular attention. These are
often very extensive.
We remain concerned about the interplay between
civil, Occupiers Liability Acts, and criminal, Health and Safety
at Work Act, legislation in respect of the duty of care to visitors
exercising this right of access. These two facets of liability
ought to be moving closer together. We would encourage Natural
England to work with the Health and Safety Executive to ensure
that situations do not arise in future, for example where a visitor
falls from height from a cliff edge and HSE and the police might
investigate the landowner for manslaughter and breach of Health
and Safety at Work Act, while at the same time the landowner is
absolved from civil liability.
There is frequent reference in Natural England's
outline scheme document to the powers of Natural England and Access
Authorities to erect safety warning signs. Landowners may also
want to use signs to warn of dangers as a means of ensuring compliance
with their duty of care enshrined in HSW Act Section 3. We would
be concerned about the proliferation of signs and potentially
confusing or conflicting messages. The need for signs at appropriate
locations to alert people to hazards should form part of the coastal
report process. In general we would expect signs to be used sparingly
and to a common design standard.
There is a need to have an information campaign
associated with new arrangements for any coastal access this would
include: A new coastal code, advice on access to water, storm
conditions etc. Many of the risks associated with exercising this
right of access can be dealt with in a practical way and by applying
the risk control matrix developed by the Visitor Safety in the
Countryside Group www.vscg.co.uk.
9. Whether there should be access rights for
other users such as cyclists or horse riders.
In our response to Defra's consultation we felt
that the access rights for other users had not been adequately
considered. While the legislation as currently drafted will not
provide additional rights to horseriders, cyclists or other users
we presume that the application of section 16 under the CROW Act
could be applied to coastal stretches and could form part of the
appraisal and negotiation under the coastal access scheme.
When coastal reports are being prepared by Natural
England, horse riding, cycling and other recreational uses that
currently exist along particular stretches of coast should be
considered. While this may not result in the granting of a right
of access, there would be recognition of other recreational uses
as part of the alignment and management considerations where multiple
use of some sections was agreed with all appropriate interests.
The National Trust
May 2008
| 
