Memorandum submitted by the Ramblers'
Association (DMB 26)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The RA strongly supports the Government's vision
and believes that the granting of a public right of access to
the coast is long overdue. This would give the English public
the same rights already enjoyed by a majority of our northern
European neighbours, including Scotland.
The RA believes that legislation is required
to secure improved coastal access. The method proposed, extending
well-used and well-tested existing legislation in the form of
the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act (1949) and
the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (2000), is the right one.
Designating a route around the coast of England,
bounded by "spreading room" made up of access land on
either side, will provide an access right of real quality that
will deliver widespread benefits for the public and coastal communities.
It is vitally important that this route is continuous
and provides a high quality walking environment. Exceptions, deviations
and restrictions operating on the route and spreading room should
be kept to an absolute minimum.
It is important that landowners and occupiers
are consulted when setting the coastal route and spreading room
and that a balance between their rights and the access rights
of the public is maintained. Other interested parties, particularly
local user groups, should be encouraged to offer their views and
expertise to Natural England when they are preparing their reports.
The RA does not believe that allowing the public
greater access to the coast will lead to any financial loss to
landowners, occupiers or businesses and, as such, do not support
the use of compulsory compensation.
We have concerns about the treatment of flats,
salt marshes, river estuaries and islands in the legislation,
and by the use of ferries as part of the route. We fear that current
proposals will lead to the creation or perpetuation of gaps in
the route and the exclusion from the scheme of areas suitable
for public access and enjoyment.
The RA does not object to the proposed reduction
in liability and believes that the public should take a measure
of responsibility for its own actions in the countryside.
1. The Ramblers' Association and access to
the coast
1.1 The Ramblers' Association is the leading
voluntary organisation for walkers in Britain. We exist to facilitate
the enjoyment and discovery of Britain's countryside for the benefit
of everyone, and to promote a better knowledge, understanding
and respect for it.
1.2 We welcome the opportunity to submit
our views on the Government's proposals to improve access to the
coast.
1.3 We have long campaigned for improved
access to the countryside, including the coast, through legislation.
The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (the
1949 Act) envisaged improvements to coastal access coming alongside
those to other areas of open countryside and the Countryside and
Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW Act) recognised the special status
of the coast and the desirability of establishing public access
to it.
1.4 An ICM poll commissioned by the Ramblers'
Association found that 94% of those surveyed believed that the
public should have a legal right to walk on the coast. (The survey
is included as part of the Ramblers' Association's response to
the DEFRA consultation in 2007 and included here as Appendix 1).[1]
1.5 The granting of a right of access is
long overdue and would allow the English public to benefit from
the rights already enjoyed by a majority of our northern European
neighbours, including Scotland.
2. The Government's vision and the Draft Bill
2.1 The Ramblers' Association strongly supports
the Government's vision.
2.2 England has one of the most beautiful
coastlines in the world but, contrary to popular belief, no general
legal right to walk along it. This includes beaches and the foreshore.
Existing provision for public access on the coast lacks clarity
and consistency.
2.3 If fully implemented, the Government's
vision would rectify this situation and not only bring benefits
for walkers and the wider public but also for rural economies
and communities as well.
2.4 The combined use of a route and spreading
room will be a very effective way to achieve a high quality and
popular coastal access right that will deliver long-term benefits.
2.5 The Government's vision could never
be achieved via voluntary measures or by improvements to the public
path network alone.
2.6 Using the system of mapping open access
land introduced under the CROW Act would have gone a long way
to meeting this vision. However, doing so would certainly have
cost more than a long distance route and spreading room. A more
detailed breakdown of the advantages and disadvantages associated
with using the CROW Act to define coastal access, plus the use
of voluntary measures, rights of way and a coastal corridor for
the same task, is available in the aforementioned Appendix 1.
2.7 A number of the problems that have arisen
under the existing coastal access regimes are highlighted in the
dossier submitted as Appendix 2.[2]
2.8 The wildlife and landscape components
of any coastal access scheme were part of DEFRA's original vision
but have not been specifically addressed in the draft bill. The
RA hopes to see more detailed consideration of these issues in
Natural England's final scheme.
3. Whether new legislation is the best or
most cost-effective means of providing improved coastal access
3.1 The Ramblers' Association believes that
there is a need for legislation, not only to improve access but
also to ensure consistency in its provision.
3.2 However, the Draft Bill primarily amends
and adds to existing Acts. This approach utilises and extends
proven measures rather than create a separate access regime on,
and specifically for, the coast. It should be noted that both
the CROW Act and the long distance route provisions of the 1949
Act are well used and well tested methods of improving public
access to the countryside.
3.3 Attempts at providing access via voluntary
and permissive measures, such as access agreements under the 1949
Act, grant schemes like the Countryside Stewardship Scheme and,
more recently, through Environmental Stewardship, have been made
for several decades and have brought little improvement.
3.4 Voluntary measures are expensive as
well as ineffective. Ramblers' Association research into the provision
of access under the Countryside Stewardship Scheme uncovered costs
of £233.50 per hectare; access under the CROW Act, by comparison,
cost only £73.70 per hectare. (Figures are taken from the
Ramblers' Association's report comparing the findings of the National
Audit Office report on CROW and Parliamentary Questions on permissive
access under the Countryside Stewardship Scheme. For more details
of these findings please see Appendix 3).[3]
3.5 The cost: benefit analysis underestimates
the benefits of improved access.
3.6 The assumption that between 6 and 9%
of the public would make more trips to the coast if access was
improved is taken from the 2006 Ipsos Mori report for Natural
England. However, this figure represents the number who would
definitely visit more often. The same report found that 53% of
the public would like to visit the coast more frequently and 37%
would like to visit more if there was a continuous coastal path.
3.7 The higher degree of uncertainty attached
to the benefits delivered by the coastal corridor also means that
a benefit: cost ratio of far more than 2.43 may well be achieved.
The estimates used for the increase in likely visitor numbers
brought by improved coastal access are very conservative; as DEFRA
state in their impact assessment, an adjustment of even 1% in
this figure would increase delivered benefits by more than £28
million over 20 years.
3.8 The English population's desire to increase
their enjoyment of our coast, as demonstrated by Ipsos Mori, suggests
that the true number of people who would visit the coast if access
was improved is much higher than the one DEFRA are using to calculate
benefits.
4. The case for exceptions to, and deviations
from, a route giving continuous access
4.1 It is vitally important that the route
is continuous and provides a high quality walking environment.
The public need to be certain that, once attained, a coastal route
can be followed without interruption. Gaps in the network disrupt
walks and severely curtail public enjoyment.
4.2 The Ramblers' Association anticipates
some deviations along the coastal route around ports, Ministry
of Defence sites and areas of unsafe terrain but would expect
it to otherwise be as close to the sea as possible.
4.3 The exact location of the route and
margin must be decided locally, led by Natural England.
5. The balance between access rights and the
rights of owners and occupiers
5.1 The Ramblers' Association believes that
access and land management can co-exist and placing a duty of
fair balance on coastal access will help to achieve this. A similar
clause would have made very little difference to the quantity
of land included as access land under the CROW Act.
5.2 With the inclusion of the consideration
of a safety and fair balance clause in the draft bill, which applies
equally to the Coastal Access Duty and Natural England's Coastal
Access Scheme, it is clear that the Government do not wish to
see the right of access unduly infringe upon the rights of owners
and occupiers.
5.3 The CROW Act included a provision that
no undue burden, whether financial or otherwise, should be placed
on an occupier of access land. This provision now successfully
applies to over 1,101,000 hectares of land to which the public
has a right of access.
5.4 Alongside this consideration of fair
balance the localised setting of the route and spreading room
will automatically have regard to the views of interested persons,
plus owners and occupiers.
5.5 The balance is currently weighted in
favour of the rights of owners and occupiers, with little consideration
being given to the views and rights of access users.
5.6 The only time that user groups and other
bodies not owning or occupying land will be allowed to make comments
is when the final report is produced, and even then these comments
will only be summarised by Natural England and not passed to the
Secretary of State in full.
5.7 User groups with experience of setting
up long distance routes and the use of access have a vital role
to play in defining a new coastal access right.
5.8 One way to address this imbalance is
to employ a similar method to that used for consultations on long
term restrictions on CROW access land where a specified number
of organisations are notified of planned restrictions. These same
organisations could be similarly notified of reports being made
under the 1949 Act and allowed to make comments during the drafting
process. These organisations were set out in Statutory Instrument
2,713 and included both user groups and landowning and farming
representatives, to ensure fair balance.
6. Compensation
6.1 The Ramblers' Association does not feel
that compensation should be compulsory when granting coastal access.
6.2 In general, allowing the public greater
access to the coast will not lead to any financial loss to landowners,
occupiers and businesses.
6.3 As yet, no evidence has been put forward
to show any change in land or property value on open access land
under the CROW Act or the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. (It
should be noted that the Scottish Act gives access to all beaches,
foreshore and coastal land).
6.4 The terrain crossed by the coastal route
and spreading room may in places be very different from other
areas of access land and the potential impact of public access
on farming and other businesses may therefore be different. Nevertheless,
we would expect the scope for land management measures and local
restrictions on access to be examined at the report-writing stage
and to succeed in preventing any losses in nearly all cases.
6.5 The RA would only support compensation
being paid in the case of demonstrable and significant losses,
which are hard to envisage.
7. The proposals for coastal access in estuaries
7.1 The Ramblers' Association believes that
considering river estuaries as forming part of the coast as far
as the first bridge or tunnel which the public may cross by foot
is a good practical approach and will, in a majority of cases,
allow for an onward journey to be made as part of a continuous
route.
7.2 We have reservations about the consideration
of ferries as part of the route where it appears to Natural England
that they provide a more direct or convenient route than the first
bridge or tunnel.
7.3 It is specifically stated within the
Bill that ferries are capable of discharging the Coastal Access
Duty even if they run for certain times, or during certain periods,
only. Considering ferries with only a seasonal operating period,
or ferries that only run on a few days each week as constituting
a link in the coastal route is unacceptable and could only lead
to disruptions to the vitally important onward journey.
7.4 In such cases a clearly signed alternative
route which utilises the first pedestrian crossing point will
be required so that an onward journey can be made when the ferry
is not in operation.
7.5 We are also concerned about the use
of ferries in discharging the coastal access duty in relation
to estuaries but not to islands. If ferries are to be used as
part of the route then they should also be used when defining
islands that are to be included in the Coastal Access Scheme.
The RA sees no difference between accessing an island by a ferry
and accessing it by foot from the mainland via a bridge, tunnel
or causeway.
7.7 A very simple amendment would correct
this:
275 (3)An island is "accessible" if
it is possible to walk to the island, or reach it by ferry, from
the mainland of England ...
8. What land should be excepted land
8.1 The classification and selection of
excepted land needs to be looked at as part of a larger consideration
of the restrictions system; they complement each other on mapped
access land and we see no reason why they should not also do so
on the coast.
8.2 The current excepted land types as listed
in Schedule 1 of the CROW Act have been working well for a number
of years on mountain, moor, heath and down and no significant
alterations need to be made to them on the coast.
8.3 However, the power to extend coastal
land under clause 278 allows the Secretary of State to makes changes
to what is excepted land.
8.4 Removing land within 20 metres of a
dwelling, land within 20 metres of a building which is used for
housing livestock and land habitually used for the training of
racehorses from the list of excluded land on the coast makes sense,
considering the nature of the coast, the need for a continuous
route and that in some locations the coastal margin may not be
large.
8.5 Any land which is part of the English
coastal route or which is not on a public right of way will not
be excepted land. This makes sense considering that the route
will be the only way of making a continuous onward journey across
areas of excepted land in some places.
8.6 The Ramblers' Association agrees with
the proposal to not allow discretionary restrictions (available
to landowners under the CROW Act) on the coast, as to do so would
mean frequent blocks to the onward journey.
8.7 However, restrictions for land management
will still be required and Natural England should look at this
need when drafting their reports. This will mean that any seasonal
alterations or dog restrictions can be in place from day one.
8.8 The Ramblers' Association is concerned
about the proposed new restriction direction enabling Natural
England to exclude or restrict access to an area of salt marsh
or mudflat if it is satisfied that the land is unsuitable for
public access. Access to these areas may well be undesirable in
some locations but where that is the case it will be for a specific
reason, such as safety or nature conservation, and so can be dealt
with via the existing restrictions system.
8.9 Many flats and salt marshes already
allow access without problems or conflicts. Sea walls and defences
are able to accommodate access easily and safely without large
inland detours.
9. Landowners liability
9.1 The Ramblers' Association is surprised
that the draft bill goes one step beyond the reduction in liability
given in section 13 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000
by proposing a reduction for all physical features, not just natural
ones.
9.2 The RA has always supported a reduction
in liability and believes that the public should take a measure
of responsibility for its own actions in the countryside.
9.3 The RA does not object to the application
of this proposal to the coast and a reduction in liability given
that the duty of care still applies and landowners remain liable
for any danger or risk of which they are aware or which they create
themselves.
9.4 Mr. Stephen Crabb's Private Members'
Bill (Animals Act 1971 (Amendment) Bill) clarifying the liability
of the keepers of animals has not been able to progress at present.
This is unfortunate as the RA fully supported this bill. If it
were to become law its measures, alongside those proposed in the
draft bill, would allay many landowners' liability fears.
10. Higher user rights (cyclists, horse riders)
10.1 The Ramblers' Association has always
maintained that provision for other user rights can be incorporated
into access initiatives wherever possible.
10.2 Providing access to the English coastline
for all non-motorised users, where possible, would assist in fulfilling
many of the aims of other Government strategies such as reducing
obesity and promoting the natural environment.
10.3 The RA produced a joint statement advocating
the consideration of higher access rights to the coast as part
of a coalition of user groups and includes it now as Appendix
4.[4]
11. Signs on the coastal route and spreading
land
11.1 The consideration of the need for Natural
England to erect, maintain and then remove their own signs has
been made in clauses 284 and 285. However, Section 14 of the CROW
Act, "Creating an offence of displaying notices deterring
public use on access land" would not apply to the route and
spreading room. It is vital to have one system dealing with inappropriate
signs on all access land. Section 14 of the CROW Act could apply
equally to the coast if the following alteration was made:
CROW SECTION 14
(1) If any person places or maintains—
(a) on or near any access land, or
(b) on or near way leading to any access
land, or
(c) on or near any coastal margin, or
(d) on or near way leading to any coastal
margin
12. Application to Wales
12.1 We understand that consultation on
wider access along side a coastal path is to take place in Wales
shortly and would hope to see and out come of this consultation
included in a full Marine and Coastal Access Bill next session.
The Ramblers' Association
May 2008
1 Not printed. Back
2
Not printed. Back
3
Not printed. Back
4
Not printed. Back
| 
