Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Ramblers' Association (DMB 26a)
COASTAL ACCESS:
ORAL EVIDENCE
Thank you for your letter of 19 June addressed
to our Chief Executive Mr Tom Franklin seeking further information
following our oral evidence session. Mr Franklin has asked me
to respond on his behalf.
During our answer to question 233 we agreed
to provide details of appeals which took place in relation to
the mapping of CROW open access land. 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.
As indicated in your letter we would like to
take this opportunity to expand and clarify a few points which
emerged during our oral evidence session.
At several times during the session Natural
England's figures relating to the amount of coastal land which
has some form of access right over it was referred to. From reading
the transcript we believe a misinterpretation of these figures
may have emerged.
We do not believe it can be taken from Natural
England's advice that 70% of the coast provides good and usable
public access at present and that both the 30% and 70% figures
need to be used in the context in which Natural England first
set them page 27 of their advice to Government in 2007.
"We estimate that nationally, 70% of
this coastal zone has access for walkers by right or other recognised
provision, of which about one fifth is provided by tarmacked roads
(with or without a footway) or promenades. This 70% is highly
fragmented, with around 1,000 points around the coast where on
foot access is interrupted. In practice we estimate that the average
length of continuous access before encountering a section of no
known access is 2.5 miles, enough for only an hour's walk.
This is partly because existing rights and
provisions for access within the 70% figure often fail to `join
up' in a way that gives continuous access around the coast. For
example, two contiguous sections of coastline may each contain
public rights of way—but these paths may not connect up
with each other to enable people to carry on walking around the
coast.
During ground-truthing fieldwork in Yorkshire
and Norfolk (December 2006) several examples were found where
supposedly `secure access' was not in fact present, due to: Route
erosion—no longer passable, Route closure by Highway Authority
due to erosion, Route informally closed by landowner, Route ploughed
out and not reinstated."
We believe it may be help for the committee
to reconsider Natural England's advice in relation to these figures
and what they represent when it is considering our evidence and
drafting its report.
During our oral evidence session Mr James Gray
asked that we check the record in relation to his indication that
"the Ramblers' Association are in fact in favour of compensation".[8]
Having checked the record as asked we believe
the Ramblers' Association position towards the payment of compensation
is very clear.
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
schemes for habitat improvements and how this may be used in relation
to the coastal route crossing cropped land. We do not see this
a payment of compensation.
Once again, the Ramblers' Association would
like to thank the committee for the opportunity to give oral evidence
and for this chance to provide further information as requested.
Justin Cooke, Head of
Freedom to Roam Campaigns
Ramblers' Association
June 2008
8 Question 265 uncorrected transcript of oral evidence
to be published as HC 656-iii. Back
| 
