Examination of Witnesses (Questions 260-279)
MR TOM
FRANKLIN AND
MS KATE
ASHBROOK
11 JUNE 2008
Q260 Mr Gray: I just want to clarify
precisely your positioning on this question of compensation very
briefly. My understanding is that what you said was that you hoped
it would very, very rarely occur because mainly of the good agreements
reached and that sometimes there will be grants for worthwhile
environmental reasons, and that is all to the good, but on those
rare occasions where you may be asking a farmer to give up four
metres, and you do not want it less than four metres, you were
saying you want it four metres wide, of valuable arable land,
you would take the view that it is reasonable that the trail should
go across that land and that the farmer should receive no compensation
at all? Is that a fair summary of your view?
Ms Ashbrook: Well, it may be that,
if loss of value can genuinely be proved, and there is a clear
system for doing that, we are not saying absolutely no to compensation,
but we would expect there to be a really clear regime where that
could be proved, that there was a very clear loss of value.
Q261 Mr Gray: That is a different
stance from the Government's, so you would be in favour of some
kind of compensation scheme where it could be proved?
Ms Ashbrook: We did not say we
are in favour of it.
Q262 Mr Gray: Well, we will raise
that with the Minister.
Mr Franklin: Again, it is the
evidence of it happening in terms of a loss of value to land and,
if we look at CROW and if we look at the Land Reform Act in Scotland,
which I think is probably a closer analogy because that gives
access to foreshores, there has not been a great clamour for compensation
because it has not generally affected land values or the use of
land, so we do not think it will be any different in this case.
Q263 Mr Gray: Well, if there is not
going to be a claim, then there is no reason not to have it written
in the Bill, is there, because, if no one is going to be affected,
you might as well have it in there? That is useful, that the Ramblers'
Association are in fact in favour of compensation.
Ms Ashbrook: No, I did not say
that.
Q264 Mr Gray: Yes, you did.
Ms Ashbrook: No, I did not say
we were in favour.
Q265 Mr Gray: I thought you did.
Ms Ashbrook: No.
Mr Gray: Well, we will check the record.[7]
Q266 Chairman: I just have a quick technical
question to ask you, whether in terms of the delineation of the
route, as people who are probably amongst the most expert in understanding
walkers' needs, the dos and the don'ts, do you think you are going
to be involved by Natural England in any way in defining the route
or simply commenting on it?
Ms Ashbrook: We would hope to
be involved, but at this stage we have not had those discussions.
Q267 Chairman: Are you going to have
them with them?
Ms Ashbrook: Certainly, yes.
Q268 Chairman: And you would like
to be involved?
Ms Ashbrook: Yes, we would like
to be involved. We think everyone with an interest should be involved.
Q269 Chairman: But you have an expertise
and that is rather different from an interest.
Mr Franklin: That is why we think
it is good for us to be involved at an early stage rather than
just commenting on, "Here are the plans for the local route.
What do you think?" If we are involved right at the beginning,
we think that that will help with the whole process of collaboration
so that it is not a confrontational process, but it is actually
about the different interests, parties and expertise sitting down
together to work through the best route and get that balance.
Q270 Mr Williams: Should there be
a way in which Natural England can measure the success of the
project? Should there be more people walking in coastal areas
or the same number of people walking more miles or what would
constitute a success to this project rather than just establishing
it?
Mr Franklin: It is probably in
two stages. The first one is the success of actually introducing
the route in the first place, and that is sort of an output, if
you like, and the second one on the outcomes from that is actually
more people visiting the coast and feeling an affinity with the
coast as well, and then actually looking at the effect it is having
on the local economy as well. It would be quite interesting to
see in ten years' time whether this is something which has had
an effect more generally on the local economy. I think another
test will be whether this is seen as something which almost becomes
part of our national heritage. We think that there is a real opportunity
here for people in ten years' time to see this coastal access
as something which is very British, as something which they feel
a real belonging to, as part of being an island, and that could
be quite an interesting test of success too.
Q271 David Lepper: Just on this question
of the possible involvement of the Ramblers' Association in advising,
as it were, on routes, can you just remind us, you have a fairly
large membership across the country?
Ms Ashbrook: We have 140,000.
I do not know how many are actually in England.
Mr Franklin: The majority.
Q272 Chairman: There is one here,
two, three, we are up to four!
Mr Franklin: It is around about
120,000 in England.
Q273 David Lepper: I suggest, from
what we have heard earlier, that this is the case, that it is
organised in many places in active local groups?
Ms Ashbrook: Absolutely, yes.
Q274 David Lepper: So whether formally,
as an Association, you were consulted, as it were, on routes,
you would see your members, simply because they are members of
the Association, wanting to play a part at the local level?
Ms Ashbrook: Absolutely, and a
number of them are members of the local access fora as well, so
we are getting involved as well.
Mr Franklin: One of the roles
that we would play essentially within the Ramblers is to help
to train those people so that they understood what the legislation
was about and how to get involved and how to work with other partners,
so we would try to play a constructive role in making sure that
the collaboration is happening at that local level.
Q275 Paddy Tipping: I do not want
to labour the compensation point, but, Tom, you told us that there
were no difficulties on compensation with CROW and open countryside.
That is right, is it not?
Mr Franklin: I believe that is
right.
Q276 Paddy Tipping: Perhaps you had better
just state, and we have got your written evidence in front of
us, what you actually say in the written evidence about compensation.
Your view is that there is a presumption against compensation?
Mr Franklin: Our view is a presumption
against compensation, absolutely. We believe that in the vast
majority of cases compensation is not necessary.
Q277 Paddy Tipping: But you also
say, and you said this to James Gray a minute ago, that, if exceptional
cases came up, you would be prepared to countenance that, and
then you said that it is hard to envisage a case. Let me ask you
to try and envisage one now where compensation might be an issue.
Mr Franklin: I suppose there may
be a case where a local landowner can prove very demonstrably
that, as a result of access, his business is severely affected.
There might be a case which is something along those lines, but
again I believe that the evidence from CROW and from the Land
Reform Act is that they would be very, very few and far between.
Q278 Paddy Tipping: Some of the landowning
interests say that the Human Rights Act, the right to enjoy your
own property, works here. I know you have got access to legal
advice, but what is your view about the possible legal action
around the loss of property rights?
Ms Ashbrook: I cannot envisage
that there would be any successful action on that, just as the
Countryside and Rights of Way Act is proof against that. I just
do not see a problem.
Q279 Chairman: Let us move on to
estuaries. There appears to be some difference of opinion about
how this Bill should cover estuaries. Some people suggest that
the pathway should go to the first pedestrian crossing, some people
have suggested that ferries might be used and others have suggested
longer routeways. Where do you stand?
Ms Ashbrook: The legislation talks
about the first crossing. Our concern is that some crossings by
ferries are very transient and might only be at certain times
of the year and at certain hours, and we would like to see the
route going to the first pedestrian crossing of the estuary. Perhaps
there may be a ferry they can use lower down, but, if it is not
a ferry that is regular, full-time and easily accessible, then
there should certainly be a route to the first pedestrian crossing.
7 Note by witness: Having checked the record, as asked
to do so by Mr. Gray, we believe our position is clear towards
the payment of compensation. We do not believe it should be compulsory
but if a proven and measurable case can be presented to Natural
England for its need, it should be looked at on a case by case
basis. Any ambiguity which may have arisen during our oral evidence
may well have been in relation to our support for payments via
agri-environment for habitat improvements and how this may be
used in relation to the coastal route crossing cropped land which
we do not see as a payment of compensation. Back
| 
