Examination of Witnesses (Questions 220-239)
MR TOM
FRANKLIN AND
MS KATE
ASHBROOK
11 JUNE 2008
Q220 Chairman: I am just a bit mindful
of the use of SatNav, for example, which occasionally sends people
in the wrong direction. I would hate for somebody to be walking
along the coastal path and the SatNav says, "That way",
and they go straight off the edge of the cliff, but, anyway, we
will move on from that! I would like to ask you about the way
in which the actual path is going to be defined and particularly
the powers that Natural England have, not just to define the route
of travel, but the spreading room that goes with it. Some of our
evidence is very much, if you like, focused on the concern that
Natural England's line is "Trust me, we'll get it all right".
We are talking about being able to have access through some particularly
sensitive landscapes. Do you believe that Natural England can
be trusted to get it right?
Ms Ashbrook: Certainly, yes, providing
there is full consultation, and we have made the point that we
would wish to be consulted as well as the owners and occupiers,
but the great thing about Natural England is that it does have
a broad remit, so it does have responsibility for wildlife and
landscape as well as recreation and, therefore, it will have to
take account of all those issues. It must consult very fully locally,
but we feel that, providing it does that, yes, we will be prepared
to trust it to get it right.
Q221 Chairman: But have they given
you any specific assurances, either verbally or in writing, about
the degree of involvement of your organisation in the consultation
exercise which they propose to have in the process of shaping
the route and the spreading room?
Ms Ashbrook: Not yet. We would
expect that to follow and we have made the point that we would
actually like to see it written into the legislation, but those
are conversations we have yet to have.
Q222 Chairman: Have you had any discussions
yourself with landowner groups who have expressed concern about
the way in which the path and the spreading room is going to be
defined by Natural England and, if you have, do you recognise
those as legitimate points of concern?
Ms Ashbrook: We have not had any
discussions since the draft Bill was published. We have talked
about matters of principle over the years long and hard, but we
have not discussed these actual proposals with landowning organisations.
We recognise that landowners and occupiers will be concerned about
their privacy and we feel that the proposals in fact will protect
that privacy, which we too would respect.
Q223 Chairman: You said a moment
ago that you would like to see the powers that Natural England
are going to exercise to deal with the path and the spreading
room actually written onto the face of the Bill. Have you given
any thought as to how you might express or define those powers
to give clarity to the way that they would actually undertake
the execution of that responsibility?
Ms Ashbrook: Well, we have made
a suggestion, I believe, in our evidence that there is a list
of prescribed organisations in the Countryside and Rights of Way
Act who were consulted during the mapping process and are now
consulted about restrictions and we would like to see that same
list, which includes a wide range of organisations, ourselves,
the British Mountaineering Council and the Country Landowners'
Associations, written into the legislation because it is a precedent,
it is already there, but we have not gone beyond that in detail
because we suspect that the Bill will not be a place to get into
a lot of detail about how the actual negotiations would take place.
Mr Franklin: What we do think
though is that, because each section of the coastline is so different,
it is important that there is flexibility in the powers that Natural
England have, otherwise we are going to end up with the wrong
solutions in the wrong places, and we think the Bill broadly gets
that balance right between the duty to make sure that there is
a fair balance between the different stakeholders and also the
sort of legislative back-up to make sure that there is the coastal
route.
Q224 Chairman: But do you recognise
some of the concerns of both landowners and, say, for example,
farmers that there is not a mechanism, for example, some kind
of appeal mechanism, that, once Natural England have concluded
that consultation process, they make a recommendation and the
only way perhaps that people can ultimately object to something
is possibly through some form of judicial action as opposed to
having some mechanism for having a formal appeal? Bearing in mind
there is a difference between, if you like, the legality of the
situation and going with the grain of everybody saying, "Well,
okay, this is what the law says, so now we'll go along with it",
do you think there ought to be an appeal mechanism?
Ms Ashbrook: We do not feel that
is necessary. After all, an appeal mechanism would still end up
with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State in this
Bill is the arbiter. We feel that this is actually very different
from the Countryside and Rights of Way Act in that there will
be this local discussion. Under the Countryside and Rights of
Way Act, the Countryside Agency had to draw up maps, it had to
follow the methodology it had produced and there was no real choice
in it, so an appeal there was legitimate, but I think here it
is quite different; there will be a lot of talking locally and
eventually the Secretary of State will have to take a decision,
which is in fact what would happen if you had an appeal mechanism
anyway. That would cost a lot of money, it would eat into the
£50 million, which has already been said is not really enough,
and would not be a good use of money, in our view.
Q225 Paddy Tipping: I would just
remind the Committee, I do not need to remind Kate and Tom, that,
for the sake of any confusion, I am Vice President of the Ramblers'
Association and I declare my interest as somebody who walks the
coast regularly. We have talked about the CROW Act and there are
accepted areas of land in the CROW Act, as there are in the draft
Marine Bill. Broadly they are the same, but there are some differences,
are there not?
Ms Ashbrook: Yes, there are.
Q226 Paddy Tipping: And you would
be particularly keen to keep the exceptions to a limit so that
there is a continuous route as far as possible round the coast?
Ms Ashbrook: Absolutely, that
is the difference between this sort of land and the land that
was mapped under the CROW Act.
Q227 Paddy Tipping: So talking more
specifically, and I acknowledge the work of Natural England, Natural
England did not want to except parks and gardens, whereas the
proposals from Defra do except them. What is your view on that?
What is the balance of opinion within the Ramblers' Association?
Ms Ashbrook: We feel that parks
and gardens should not be excepted land. The trail should be able
to go through them where that is the most sensible solution, given
all the circumstances, and that certainly does not mean invading
anybody's privacy, but it is just that, if you had to avoid every
park and garden, it could mean the route had to go inland a long
way, it might have to go closer to somebody else's property and
it just would not be the most sensible solution.
Q228 Paddy Tipping: So, to summarise
your position, and you will do it better than I do, you believe
that the local implementation will lead to the best results and
you are prepared to recognise landowners' and householders' interests,
but the notion of excepting gardens and parks right from the outset
might not be to the best desired effect?
Ms Ashbrook: Yes.
Mr Franklin: A good example, I
think, of implementation would be the Land Reform Act in Scotland
where there are provisions to ensure privacy and there is also
the presumption of access and that has generally worked extremely
well since it was introduced, and we think the same sort of approach
would apply to this too.
Q229 Paddy Tipping: So the key to
the issue is local implementation and finding the best solution
that works on the ground in the landscape?
Mr Franklin: That is why we are
broadly in favour of these proposals, because there is the statutory
back-up, but then it is about going and collaborating at a local
level, and I think that we will be pleased with what comes out
of that at that local level when there is proper negotiation between
all the parties to find that most sensible route through.
Q230 Paddy Tipping: But you would
understand the concern of people like the Country Land and Business
Association who feel that there is an infringement of privacy
and property rights?
Mr Franklin: We do understand
their position and where they are coming from on this and that
is why it is important at that local level, when it comes to implementation,
that everyone is involved in those discussions to talk through
the pinch-points and the difficulties and work a way through them.
Q231 Paddy Tipping: Let me just ask
you about private beaches. Around the country, there are a number,
I do not think there are many, but perhaps you could tell me how
many private beaches there are where people are charged for going
in. Under the draft Bill, the notion of private beaches will disappear,
will it not, and you support that?
Ms Ashbrook: We are not aware
that there are that many actually where there are charges, but
again, if the route can be arranged to go round the back and not
interfere with the actual charging process, obviously that would
be agreeable to all parties, but again we do not see that as being
a particular problem with these proposals.
Q232 Paddy Tipping: So what really
is the point of conflict between you and the Country Land and
Business Association? I read The Times on Monday and it
was interesting, there was a big article in there about the CLA's
views on invasion of privacy and then I read the editorial which
basically said, "Well, the Government's doing the right thing".
What is your view on that?
Ms Ashbrook: Well, we go with
the editorial, not surprisingly, which was just great and what
we believe. I suspect this could be a bit of a knee-jerk reaction
from the Country Landowners. In practice, we suspect the problem
is nothing like as big as they portray, and one has to look at
the opportunities for all sorts of people and the economic opportunities,
the fact that the South West Coast Path puts millions into the
local economy, the fact that people will be able to charge to
provide car parks or tearooms, bed and breakfasts, the fact that
coastal towns will benefit. Last year there was a House of Commons
Committee looking at coastal towns and saying that they are very
degraded and need tourism. All this will help the wider issues.
Mr Franklin: We suspect it will
be similar to what happened with CROW, that beforehand there were
huge amounts of concern about what was going to happen and actually
it has been implemented very, very smoothly with the minimum of
conflict when it has actually been put on the ground, and we think
that the same will happen with this too, that, when it actually
comes to being implemented, there will actually be a lot of goodwill
developed and there are a lot of good things that will come out
as a result of those conversations at that local level.
Q233 Paddy Tipping: Yes, I think
that is right. I did ask Natural England, when they came and gave
evidence, about the number of appeals that there had been under
the CROW Act. The difficulty with the CROW Act was the mapping,
but the actual implementation on the ground was pretty smooth,
I think, and less difficult than I had anticipated. I wonder whether
in your records you have got any figures for the number of appeals
that you were involved in around open country and, if you have,
could you drop us a line on that?
Mr Franklin: We certainly will,
yes.[6]
Mr Gray: Can I declare an interest. I
am a keen coastal walker, but not the Vice President of the Ramblers'
Association.
David Taylor: What about the CLA!
Q234 Mr Gray: Actually it is funny
you should come to mention it, Mr Taylor, because, as it happens,
I am in fact on the Wiltshire Committee of the CLA, so yes, you
are absolutely right there, but I do not own land, I rent somewhere
and that is why. I would like to ask you a couple of technicalities
really. When we passed the CROW Act, parks and gardens were exempt,
as were agricultural buildings, and I think it probably did not
apply to all that many parks and gardens, but we are talking about
some very large country houses, various palaces, Blenheim Palace,
and Badminton in my own constituency were exempt and certainly
various dukes and friends of mine were very grateful for their
exemption. Why is it that the 5,000 people that Natural England
tell us might be affected by parks and gardens if parks and gardens
are not exempt under this Act, why should they be less important
than the dukes and others who are very grateful for the exemption
under CROW?
Ms Ashbrook: Well, we are talking
about a very different type of land here.
Q235 Mr Gray: A very different type
of people too, yes, with gardens and rather big ones.
Ms Ashbrook: Well, I was not talking
about types of people in any way.
Q236 Mr Gray: Yes, but I was, and
that is the important point, that we are talking about small bed
and breakfasts on the coast with a tiny, wee garden as opposed
to my friend, the Duke, who has a hundred thousand acres of garden,
I exaggerate a bit, but you know what I mean. We are talking about
a difference in kind. Why should it be that the 5,000 ordinary
folk around the coast should have their gardens invaded in this
way when the Duke on the uplands is exempt? I want to know why
the Ramblers' Association take that different approach.
Ms Ashbrook: Well, "gardens
invaded" certainly is not the way we would put it. The trail
might go through, or close to, somebody's garden if that is the
best route all round, and that is taking a whole stretch of coast
and looking at the best way round the problem, but I am quite
sure that Natural England, as we have already said, are going
to be very careful about people's privacy and there is an exemption
for buildings and curtilage of buildings, so the route is not
going to go that close to buildings. There are already many footpaths,
public highways and roads that do go very close to people's houses,
in Bromley, for instance, which you mentioned, so it is not that
Natural England are going to invade people's privacy intentionally,
but there might be instances where that is the best route all
round.
Q237 Mr Gray: I will come back to
that, but that was not the question. The question was why you
did not object to parks and gardens being exempt under CROW, but
you are objecting to parks and gardens being exempt under this
Act. Why are the Ramblers' Association taking a different approach
this time than you did under CROW?
Ms Ashbrook: Well, I think we
actually may have objected at the time of CROW, I cannot remember
now, but there we were talking about mountain, moor, heath, down
and registered common land, and parks and gardens are not generally
going to be one of those categories, so they would automatically
have been exempted anyway.
Q238 Mr Gray: No, the parks and gardens
are on parkland, for example. In Badminton, in my constituency,
for example, the parkland there, and that is heathland, would
not have been exempt and it is exempt under the Act, so the Duke
of Beaufort is very grateful to you, he was exempt under CROW.
I want to know why Mr Snoggins, who owns half an acre or quarter
of an acre on the coast, will not be exempt. Why is the Ramblers'
Association taking a different approach to this?
Mr Franklin: What we are talking
about here is a different project. What we are talking about is
creating a route which is as close to the coast as is feasible,
bearing in mind the need to maintain a fair balance, so we are
talking about different types of land and a different sort of
network, if you like, of what land is available, so there has
to be some difference in the way that that is applied. Otherwise,
if we were simply applying CROW, there would not be any coastal
access at all because there is not that parkland, it is moorland,
et cetera, round the coast.
Q239 Mr Gray: There is a difference,
you say, that is all right then, but I have a couple of supplementaries.
I think you are right in saying that local agreement is best,
I think that is right, and I am sure that will be the case and
I am sure that these negotiations locally will work very well
and that is definitely the way we should do it, and I am pleased
about that. Given that is the case, then presumably the people
whose parks and gardens we are talking about here will be quite
happy for the track to go across. We are only talking about those
people who say, "I simply don't want this thing to come anywhere
near my park or garden", or indeed whose property value may
well be affected by it, and there are people who have views or
who have private beaches or other things and the value of their
property will be affected by it, so we are only talking about
a small number of cases of people who say, "I do not want
this to go across my land. It belongs to me at the moment and
I bought it with my money. I am a bed and breakfast owner in Devon
and I don't want this thing across my land". Surely, under
those conditions, it should be reasonable for them to be able
to say, "The Act allows us not to have it go across our land",
if it comes to the crunch.
Mr Franklin: We think that, if
it comes to the crunch and that is the only feasible way for there
to be a sensible route through, then it is important that Natural
England have the powers to make sure that that happens, but, as
you say, this will be in a very small minority of cases because
generally there will be agreement on the route through.
6 Note by witness: From our records we have the total
number of appeals in England under part 6 of the Countryside and
Rights of Way Act 2000 as being 3232 of which the Ramblers' Association
was actively involved in 403. Back
|
