Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160-179)
MR JO
BURGON, MR
TONY BURTON
AND MR
GWYN WILLIAMS
9 JUNE 2008
Q160 Chairman: Did they?
Mr Burton: Yes.
Mr Burgon: I have been working
with them for the last three years on this proposal and looking
at the practical issues of how you put this in place and therefore
the way in which this is going to be developed over time in a
consultative way over stretches of coastline I think is quite
an interesting change from the way in which the CROW Act mapped
and implanted that. It is a more consensual, consultative approach
than we have had hitherto.
Q161 Dan Rogerson: We have talked
about the power that they have got. Natural England seem to be
saying, "Trust us. We are going to get it right and no-one
need worry about it", but there may be some question marks
about whether everybody agrees with that. Do you think they are
likely to be able to do that?
Mr Burgon: I think on the whole
they will be able to, but the evidence from the CLA and the NFU
about the appeal process is something we have not addressed in
our evidence to you. There might be some benefit in firming that
process up because it is about representation to the Secretary
of State. There are appeal mechanisms in place but they are not
as black and white as perhaps they would be through a more formal
process.
Q162 Dan Rogerson: So there will
inevitably be conflicts of interest and it is about how they are
resolved?
Mr Burgon: Yes, and there is the
issue about a fair balance that needs to be struck.
Q163 Chairman: Mr Williams, you are
aching to say something. Say it.
Mr Williams: I think in attempting
to come up with a system that potentially is more flexible it
is inevitably putting Natural England in an apparently more powerful
position. I think there are two checks and balances on that. One
is the outline scheme that I think makes reasonably transparent
what the parameters of that are, and secondly there is the report
process ending up with the Secretary of State deciding whether
they have got it right in the light of representations from key
stakeholders.
Q164 Mr Gray: Can I come back to
the principal point that the Chairman asked about a moment ago?
Presumably you, the National Trust, are very content with the
way in which the South West Coast Path has been developed over
quite a number of years now. No-one has objected to it and it
has gone on well, it is an extremely good path, although not perhaps
used as much as you might like it to be. Given that that is the
case, surely that is a very good exemplar of how the Government
can do it with regard to the rest of England. Why do you want
to change it from the way the Government is proposing here? Surely
you would argue that what you have done in the south west is extremely
good.
Mr Burgon: I think we have got
a combination of that linear route through the National Trail,
but also the spreading room that we have created over time through
our coastal acquisition and our access management over that land,
but we have got issues on the South West Coast Path where it has
been interrupted by coastal erosion and we have not managed to
find an alternative means of providing that onward coastal passage
because the path has disappeared and the rights of way legislation
is not able to deal with that issue. The other side of this is
how along the coastal trail you would be able to create some additional
spreading room, so some of it is about that.
Q165 Mr Gray: Sure, but the general
principle is that over the years, by buying land, very often by
agreement with landowners, by co-operation, a whole variety of
sensible ways, you have managed to create—I do not know
how many hundreds of miles it is that the path is.
Mr Burgon: It is 600 miles.
Q166 Mr Gray: But the Government's
approach in outlining the Bill is completely different. Their
approach is to say, "We will do it by force. We will very
often go places where the landowner does not want us to be. We
will go within 20 yards of buildings, we will drive it through
people's gardens and parks". That is quite a different approach
from the National Trust approach.
Mr Burgon: I do not think they
are saying that really.
Q167 Mr Gray: They are. Paul Johnson
was here last week.
Mr Burgon: I think that is about
finding the accommodation through these coastal access reports.
10% of the South West Coast Path is not on rights of way. We have
got problems with interruption of those rights of way. I think
this is allowing a slightly more flexible approach to deal with
coastal erosion sites in particular so that you can accommodate
that change that will occur quite quickly, in effect, and you
have accounted for that in the way in which you have set out that
spreading room, as their outline access scheme shows, how that
can be mapped and people are certain that when a piece of coastal
erosion occurs that can be the new alignment of the route.
Q168 David Lepper: May I turn to
Mr Williams? Issues about impact on wildlife always arise when
there are considerations about extending access. You have said
in your submission that it is quite difficult to generalise about
potential impact on wildlife in coastal areas. Could we just do
a little comparison perhaps with the CROW access proposals? What
is your view of the impact of those proposals on wildlife in the
countryside and can you make any comparison about whether the
impact might be greater or lesser in terms of coastal wildlife?
Mr Williams: I think we can say
a little. In the uplands in general the impacts have not been
huge, partly because of the species concerned, partly because
of the areas of land involved. The main impacts have been on areas,
especially heathland, particularly where they are close to large
areas of housing, where perhaps we have seen large areas of housing
put in place and they have become essentially areas of extended
public open space, and there are management issues there that
Natural England is seeking to address with NGOs and with local
authorities to establish more green space to essentially spread
that use. There are areas of coast that CROW did apply to, particularly
coastal commons, and some of the main closures indeed are over
those areas. Some are used by species such as terns, some, such
as in Morecambe Bay, have ended up being year-round closures to
prevent disturbance to roosting winter wildfowl and waders as
well as species like breeding redshank during the summer. There
restrictions have been put in place and in general that regime
has been well observed.
Q169 David Lepper: So is it the RSPB's
view that through the kind of what we were told last week was
not consensual but consultative framework that is suggested here
by Natural England and by Defra the same kinds of issues could
be taken into consideration in terms of impact on wildlife? You
have mentioned some precise examples where there are exceptions.
Mr Williams: I think at the coast
some of these issues are already more extreme. We are dealing
with a linear habitat where people are using it often in a linear
way, so people and wildlife are essentially trying to use the
same corridor, and also people tend to spend longer in one spot,
and on species such as tern and things like ringed plovers, ground-nesting
birds, we can already see issues mainly arising from de facto
access. Some of those issues have been dealt with on a voluntary
basis. With terns, for example, we have ended up in several areas
(of which Great Yarmouth would be perhaps the best known) putting
up fencing to exclude people but also, ironically, predators because
the birds have ended up in one place. Their normal behaviour would
be to move somewhere else if predators find them, but those other
areas are no longer available so electric fencing to exclude foxes
and so on has been put in place. There is a question how far these
proposals would allow better access management to occur in some
places through assessment of those conflicts.
Q170 David Lepper: I think your organisation
has said it is concerned that the Bill as it stands does not actually
specify that there should be attempts at enhancing the coastal
environment in the Bill at the moment. You would presumably like
to see some changes to the Bill so that that becomes part of that
process of consultation.
Mr Williams: Yes indeed. At the
moment we see still a gap between the Government's vision and
delivery as set out in the Bill. I would share some of the comments
made earlier about this issue of quality. Particularly on some
cliff areas at the moment you have the access route shoehorned
in, if you like, between the cliff on the one side and the fence
on the other and then intensive agricultural land. Ideally one
would see that being broadened so that one had a bigger strip
of high quality habitat for both wildlife and people to enjoy.
Q171 Chairman: Is that what you mean
by "enhance"?
Mr Williams: In the way that I
think we have put our submission to you, Chairman, yes, and we
would like to see things like the High Level Scheme being targeted
in parallel to try and bring about that outcome, acknowledging
that there is an issue about the juxtaposition between the two
and also huge pressure of resources on the HLS to achieve that.
Mr Burton: We would say there
is a broader resource issue around enhancement as well, that the
£50 million quoted figure is de minimis funding for
the minimal implementation of the Bill and that enhancement, whether
it be through Natural England or the access authorities, will
require a more proactive approach and that needs resources.
Q172 Chairman: If I may pick up on
another point of detail, both of you have talked from an expert
standpoint about what needs to be done to "enhance"
the coastal access, particularly in these sensitive areas as identified
by the RSPB, and you have both identified—or at least the
RSPB did—that the Higher Level Scheme may be a way of helping
to achieve that, and you again reach a consensus by saying, "But
there may be some resource problems even within that confluence
of schemes in achieving it". If it is the case that Natural
England draw the line and say, "That is where we want it
to go", and you guys as the experts say, "We are very
worried because there are certain elements that are perhaps missing
because they cannot be afforded at the moment", how do you
resolve that kind of problem?
Mr Williams: Where we have to,
I think, is that we would like to see the report including in
it a comment about the opportunities for enhancement and also
where habitat work might be necessary to mitigate the potential
impacts of access on the environment.
Q173 Chairman: It is all right having
a report with lots of things saying, quite rightly, "The
following need to be done", but the message I am getting
from you is that you do not get enhancement unless they are done.
You are the experts. You give a recommendation. You say, "This
is what really ought to be done on this bit but if there is not
the resource there ... ", but Natural England are saying,
"Look: here is the line. This is what we want". How
do you put the brakes on until you get a confluence between resource
and the line of route?
Mr Williams: I suspect it will
slow down the rate of implementation quite considerably, and that
comes back to the point about it being a development of—
Q174 Chairman: I agree with you that
is the result, but the question I am asking is, how do you resolve
the difference between well-informed comment and observation such
as your two organisations give and Natural England identifying
a line of route, and if it is really going to work, if it is going
to deliver this enhancement. It may slow it down but what I am
not quite clear about is who has got their foot on the brake.
Mr Burton: I guess we are dealing
with a Secretary of State decision on the basis of advice received.
Ultimately we are not the decision-makers in this.
Q175 Chairman: I appreciate that.
Mr Burton: All we can do is say,
"This is what should happen". It is up to Natural England
for the funding to be available or not.
Q176 Chairman: Natural England though
are tasked to deliver this, and perhaps a question that we have
to ask them if there is a considerable difference of opinion between,
"Yes, we agree the line", and, "We are missing
the resources", is, "How you are going to sort it out?".
I am not getting a clear picture. I do not blame you because you
are not Natural England or the Secretary of State.
Mr Williams: I think potentially,
Chairman, one way you do it is by tasking Natural England with
the objective to deliver quality access as well so the report
has to identify and cost that provision.
Q177 Chairman: So ought there to
be a provision that says, if you like, "Unless what is deemed
by the consensus to be the requirement can be delivered you do
not do it"?
Mr Williams: You do not do it,
yes.
Q178 David Lepper: That has uncovered
quite a bit, Chairman. What your underlying concern is at the
moment, as well, as I understand it, is that there is nothing
in the Bill that requires that kind of assessment of environmental
enhancement in the first place.
Mr Williams: There is one thing
that has been said that requires an element of that to be done
and it is buried in Natural England's outline scheme, where it
talks about the role of appropriate assessment in terms of impacts
on special sites, so in this case sites identified as special
protection areas or areas of special conservation under the EU
Birds and Habitats Directives. When CROW went through I think
there was still some debate as to whether that process was required.
Here the outline scheme makes it clear that Natural England has
accepted that that is the case, and if enhancements, if you like,
are identified in order to mitigate potential impact of access
then that does develop that legal requirement to deliver it. We
see it as being desirable that it goes beyond that.
Q179 David Lepper: We have talked
about the funding that is currently available and there has also
been reference, of course, to the existing voluntary schemes,
both for access and for enhancement of wildlife and countryside
areas. In the RSPB's view are those sorts of voluntary schemes
working well? Leave aside for the moment whether there is sufficient
funding available within them to do this work. Are they working
well?
Mr Williams: I think some of them
are providing valuable access in some areas. In general they are
not well advertised and they are time-limited, and so ultimately
I think you have to ask the question are they good value for money
if they are going to last, say, ten years or so and then stop.
| 
