Examination of Witnesses (Questions 360-364)
MR DUNCAN
GRAHAM CBE, MR
MIKE JENKINS
AND MR
LESTER WILLMINGTON
11 JUNE 2008
Q360 Chairman: Mr Taylor, you heard
earlier, is a man who cycles and he is one of the category of
people who I was pleased to learn are described as those with
"higher rights" on the coast, in other words, people
on bicycles, horses, to name but two modes of transport. The approach
from Natural England appears to suggest that they recognise that
there will be an interest in these groups in assessing the path
but want to see the matter resolved, if you like, on a case by
case basis, by means of local discussion. Inevitably, if you are
going to have anything other than walkers, there are questions
of the load the path can bear, some of the safety issues, et cetera,
with which you will be abundantly familiar. Are you satisfied
with that as an approach given the interests which no doubt, so-called,
higher-right users have in accessing these coastal margins?
Mr Willmington: Our presumption
in our rights of way improvement plan is that the routes that
we create would be multi-use, so we would apply higher rights.
It is not always practicable to enable all users to use, say,
cycle ways, because cyclists and equestrians might not mix; so
on a case by case basis that is how we approach the creation of
any new routes. I think it would be interesting to see how the
higher rights process can be applied to this, in a fair and equitable
way, to ensure that they actually are considered, at the very
least.
Q361 Paddy Tipping: I think it is
interesting that the proposals are for people on foot at the moment,
but, generally, the move has been towards multi-use. I am not
entirely sure why the Government has taken the approach it has
done. What do you think?
Mr Jenkins: I think it would be
very difficult to accommodate, in some areas of Devon, cyclists
and certainly horse riders. There are areas, for instance, such
as foreshores, which are very desirable for horse riders to have
access to, and there are places where access could easily be provided,
so I think that is a possible area for consideration. Cycling:
Devon is doing a lot for cyclists as a county, but I think it
is going to be physically very difficult to provide sections of
the coast path that are reasonably suitable for cyclists.
Q362 David Lepper: The thought just
came to me, Chairman, an obvious thought from what has just been
said, that establishing higher rights on a local basis at a local
level is likely, among other things, to add to maintenance costs
of particular stretches of path and, therefore, the issues about
defining who is responsible for that maintenance would become
all the more acute.
Mr Willmington: Yes, it would.
I think that local authorities generally would be clear about
their responsibilities in terms of cycle and equestrian access
through the bridleway network. I am sorry if this is not a helpful
illustration, but where there are sensible circular routes of
some distance for equestrian use, it might make sense and actually
the coastal strip might make a sensible link, which could, equally,
provide better access for equestrians, cyclists and walkers—it
is a question of access from and to the routes that are being
established. You will be aware of the national cycle network.
We are establishing the national cycle network, not along the
coastal strip, but it is undoubtedly going to be attractive for
cyclists to get links to those coastal and seaside towns and,
therefore, there might be some sections that would lend themselves
to cycling provision that would make perhaps a safer connection
into those towns. So, on a local case by case basis, there might
be a need to establish higher rights on the coast path.
Q363 Dan Rogerson: I am interested
in what some of the witnesses have said about whether this is
the right approach, and I have a very open mind on this. I am
not saying that I disagree with the Government's approach on this.
There may be areas of the coast where there is not huge demand,
and it maybe some of the places that you have talked to, Mr Graham,
where you need to go via canoe and mule train or whatever to reach
them before you can enjoy it, but there is also, of course, a
demand to create new trails inland as well. Over the border from
my constituency into Devon, the Ruby Trail that Des Shadrick talks
about in that area of North Devon. If this is going to lead to
higher costs for all the authorities involved, whether it be Natural
England, whether it be the local authority, whether it be owners,
and so on, is this going to take up all the resources that authorities
have just because they happen to have coastline and, therefore,
other priorities that they may have identified in the past inland,
whether they be over rivers, or whatever, will have to fall by
the wayside. Is that a danger?
Mr Graham: I think in Cumbria
people are very enthusiastic about this. It is one of the best,
most visionary things that you could have. The lust to get to
the sea is very strong in all of us, but, as you say, it is going
to take---. In Cumbria, for reasons I will not go into—they
are historical—40-odd per cent of the footpaths are not
open to the public in one way or another. There is a ten-year
backlog of sorting that out. If coastal access is worth doing,
it is worth doing well or going in with one's eyes open. It will
be very, very difficult, if these things are intensely used, to
leave it to the local authority to maintain. I think we have to
be fairer than that, and if we are going to do it, it has to be
properly funded or at least have provisions for what might happen.
Open access has not led to floods of people dashing around; it
has led to a much better feeling for those who go there and a
richer experience. Coastal access, in my view, I very much hope
will do a lot for the rural economy and the health agendas as
well. I think it will be attractive. In the wording of the Bill,
it speaks of "local opportunities", but the way it is
spoken about does not quite give the weight to the interests of
horse riders and cyclists which I think there ought to be. I think
there are going to be bits which are important for them and that
they should feel more part of it. It is probably just the wording
of the legislation. It seems slightly dismissive.
Mr Willmington: This is where
I think locally elected members would very much like to be engaged
at an early stage in the process so they can make those decisions
knowingly about what they are committing their authorities to
in the future. That early engagement, I think, would be very important.
You mention the Ruby Trail. It is being supported by the local
member and Devon County Council is putting its own resources into
the development of cycling initiatives which lend themselves also
to walking, which are part of the coast path route as well. I
think if locally elected members are a party to it, then they
are likely to support it on-going rather than something developed
and foisted on them, for want of a better description.
Q364 Dan Rogerson: If this can be
done cheaply, I think everybody would say it is wonderful, and
if it can be done for that amount of money, everyone will have
access to the coast, it will all be sorted out very short term,
it will not cost a lot of money and everyone is winner. If, on
the other hand, as we are starting to get to, it may, in fact,
be far more difficult to deliver, would you say that there are
issues around whether it might be possible that other schemes
will have to go on the back burner because just to deliver something
where there may actually be less demand for a particular stretch--.
It is different for Devon because, obviously, the path is already
established, but in other local authorities where it is not, where
there is clear demand for a trail along a river or a disused railway
line, or whatever, to get investment, they are being told by central
government they have to do this bit on the coastline first, even
though that might not be a very attractive bit of coastline. I
am putting words in your mouth, but tell me if I am wrong.
Mr Willmington: I was going to
try not to answer your question by saying, surely the whole point
of this is to go into this now with our eyes open and do it properly
and make sure that the funding is available to create this route,
if it is so important, and also make sure that there are no additional
burdens on local authorities for the ongoing maintenance of it
so that it is a lasting asset, because, undoubtedly, I do not
think you would find very many people that would disagree that
access to the coast, the coastal strip, would be something that
they would enjoy.
Chairman: Gentlemen, thank you very much
indeed for your comprehensive and helpful responses. We are most
grateful to you, bearing in mind that Mr Bennett-Lloyd was not
able to join us, that you were more than able to cover the broad
spectrum of issues which are raised about local authorities in
this particular Bill. Can I thank you for coming this afternoon
and also for your written evidence. There were one or two other
things you were going to reflect on and write to us and we very
much look forward to hearing from you. Thank you very much for
your contribution.
|
