Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DMB 72a)
DEFRA RESPONSE
TO COMMITTEE
REQUEST FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION
Details of the opinion polling undertaken on coastal
access [Q 365]
The Committee asked for information on opinion
polling undertaken to support the Government's proposals to improve
public access to the English coast. We have provided the Committee
with a copy of the research study which was conducted by Ipsos
Mori for Natural England. The Ipsos Mori report includes the following
findings:
— 72% of English people have visited
the coast in the last 12 months;
— over a quarter of English adults
(27%) visit the coast frequently and over half (53%) said that
they would like to visit more frequently;
— 9% of respondents said they
would visit the coast more often if a clear path existed around
the coast; and
— 6% said they would visit more
frequently if more area access were available.
The report concluded that despite not being
visited by everyone, the coast—and access to it—remained
important to all and that improving access was seen by most people
as something that would attract more visitors to the coast.
The above information was gathered by Ipsos
Mori (2006) using a variety of sampling methods which included
group discussions with coastal residents, interviews with potential
coastal visitors and with those working in the local tourism trade
and a series of accompanied interviews with coast users. The core
data came from face to face interviews conducted in the home among
a nationally representative sample of 1,741 English residents.
The following paragraphs are taken from a report
by Asken Ltd, the independent consultant undertaking the cost-benefit
analysis of the four options and which provided the basis for
the figures used in the Impact Assessment:
"Ipsos Mori (2006) found that 9% of respondents
would visit the coast more frequently if a clear path existed
around the coast as assumed under Option 1, [improvements using
rights of way legislation]. Assuming the objective of an intuitively
identifiable coastal access corridor, with in-situ signage where
some doubt may arise, then a similar situation could arise for
Option 4, [the Government's proposal for new legislation to create
a coastal access corridor]. In addition, provision is made in
the costs for Option 4 for upgrading infrastructure and improving
access along sections of coast where access is already available
but not to a good standard. It seems reasonable to make provision
for some uplift in this respect too. However, we have no firm
evidence for assessing what additional uplift would arise and
consequently, we propose a conservative estimate of an extra 1%.
However, the Ipsos Mori work also found that
a significant proportion of people would be less inclined to visit
areas where they were unsure of their rights (Option 4 introduces
another set of access rights together with the potential for variations
and temporary changes to corridor alignment) and which were not
clearly and consistently portrayed (such as through on-the-ground
measures and/or mapping). As a consequence, the uplift in visitor
numbers could be lower, at about 6%, as for Option 2 [making more
area access available].
Given the uncertainty surrounding the change
in visitor numbers likely to arise with Option 4 (note that respondents
were not asked about this option specifically by Ipsos Mori),
it seems appropriate to work with a range of between 6% and 10%
increase, with 8% as a mid-point."
We consider the choice of an 8% midpoint to
be a conservative estimate of the likely impact because our proposed
approach offers the best of both options considered by the Ipsos
Mori survey and we believe it will offer attractions to a wider
range of users. At the mid-point we would expect to see an additional
1.2 million visits to the coast per year which would not have
been made to the countryside at all without the new access provision.
In addition it is estimated that there would be around 3.7 million
visits made to the coast which would have been made to another
part of the countryside, resulting in a total of around 5 million
visits per year attributable to the new access provision.
The England Leisure Visits Report of the 2005
Survey indicated that in 2005 the value of trips made by residents
living in England to the English seaside coast was estimated at
£1.4 billion. A further £4.7 billion was spent on trips
to seaside towns and cities.
Details of any update carried out on the cost-benefit
analysis after the Government decided its preferred policy option
(which differed from Option 4 in the Impact Assessment) [Q 377]
A partial Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA)
was published in June 2007 as part of the public consultation
paper Consultation on Proposals to improve access to the English
coast. Following the consultation period we considered whether
the assessment needed to be revised. We concluded that no change
was required to be made to either the scope of the proposal for
new legislation or to the estimates of costs and benefits of the
proposed option. The proposed option presented in the Impact Assessment,
which was published to accompany the draft Marine Bill on 3 April
2008, remained the same as Option 4 in the partial RIA.
The legislative proposals to improve coastal
access set out in Part 9 of the Bill are a means of achieving
the Government's objectives, as proposed in Option 4 of the consultation,
based on using the existing legislation of the National Parks
and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and the Countryside and
Rights of Way Act 2000.
We have provided the Committee with a copy of
the independent research report undertaken by Asken Ltd on the
costs and benefits of the 4 options set out in the consultation
paper and which provided the basis for the partial RIA and the
Impact Assessment. The report is considered to be robust and comprehensive,
given the inherent uncertainties involved in putting monetary
values on some of the elements.
The Committee may wish to know that Natural
England has undertaken additional work in refining the projected
costs (see answer to Q407). In addition, coastal access authorities
are to produce local access audits by Spring 2009 that will provide
a further basis for checking the robustness of Natural England's
cost estimates. Following Royal Assent, Natural England intends
to pilot the new procedures and this will also ensure that the
resource projections are realistic.
Detailed breakdown of Natural England's £50
million estimate [Q 407]
The main elements of Natural England's projected
expenditure are:
1. Funding for access authority and Natural
England field staff. The assumption on which the estimate
is based is that funding would be required for one full time project
officer to be based in each coastal access authority for three
years on average—with variation of the actual term of employment
according to the actual size and complexity of each authority's
coastline. Provision is also included for administrative costs
and necessary expenses, and for the cost of developing IT/GPS
equipment and a spatial database to facilitate the work of project
officers. The estimate also includes provision for costs of Natural
England field staff based on 1 officer for each of the 7 coastal
regions.
2. Funding for establishment works to
facilitate new access. This cost estimate is based on work
undertaken by independent consultants. Requirements for new infrastructure
(such as steps, bridges, drainage, signs and notices) are based
on surveys of existing access in four study areas selected to
be representative of the English coast. Where appropriate, Natural
England's indicative costs for installation of infrastructure
are based on Agri-environment scheme payments or on payments under
the Access Management Grant Scheme (which funded access authorities
in carrying out work to improve access on CROW land). The estimates
allow for creation of new access on over 2,000 kms of coast at
an estimated cost of £4,945 per km. Natural England does
not envisage widespread use of new fencing or artificial surfacing.
3. Funding for improvements to existing
access. The cost estimates assume that some improvements will
be required where existing access on the coast does not meet a
satisfactory standard. Costs are included in the estimate for
improvements on 780 km of existing access, based on a slightly
lower level than the cost of creating new access above (64%) at
an estimated cost of £3,185 per km.
4. Challenge fund. The proposals
for improving access to the coast are for access on foot. However,
we are interested in improving access for other users such as
horse riders and cyclists where it is appropriate to do so and
in agreement with landowners. Natural England's £50m estimate
therefore includes provision for a fund to contribute to locally—based
initiatives to deliver wider access improvements.
5. Funding for maintenance. Natural
England's estimate of costs of maintenance during the 10 year
implementation period are based on £580 per km per year.
This is based on the average maintenance and management costs
for coastal national trails as estimated by independent consultants
(RPA Ltd.). The estimate takes into account that where the route
is an existing right of way the Highway Authority will remain
legally responsible for maintenance.
6. Other costs. Allowance is made
for research and monitoring, including for assessments of any
impacts on nature conservation interests; and for a communications
programme to inform people of the new right.
7. Contingency fund. Natural England
recognises that there may be costs which cannot be anticipated
at this stage of the project and a 5% contingency fund has been
allowed within the estimate.
A summary table of assumptions used in the calculations
and estimated total expenditure on main costs is at Table 1. Natural
England's estimates are based on it's, and its predecessors',
experience with the development and funding of a number of long
distance and National Trails, combined with specific research
commissioned in relation to the coastal access project (the RPA
report) together with information taken from the Asken report,
commissioned by Defra as part of the partial Regulatory Impact
Assessment of the proposals.
Building on the data gathered to date, Natural
England are now working with all access authorities around the
English coast and undertaking a detailed audit of existing access
provision to inform and refine current estimates. They anticipate
completing this audit programme by the end of the current financial
year at the latest.
Table 1 Key Assumptions and cost estimates
summary
| Item
| Quantity | Cost estimate for 10 years
|
| Length of English coast | 4,500 kms
| |
| Length of new access creation | 2,090 kms
| |
| Length of upgrade to existing access | 780 kms
| |
| Length of satisfactory access | 1,630 kms
| |
| Number of coastal access authorities | 48 kms
| |
| Establishment costs—field staff and support
| | £12.9 million |
| Establishment costs—physical establishment and of new access and upgrades to existing access
| | £14.7 million |
| Maintenance of new access |
| £6.0 million |
| Challenge fund and other costs |
| £14.5 million |
| Contingency | | £2.5 million
|
| | |
Further information on the outside legal advice taken by Defra
that assures the Department its proposals are compatible with
human rights legislation [Q 476]
Before the legislative proposals were drafted, the Department
sought advice from Counsel in relation to their compatibility
with the European Convention on Human Rights, and on the basis
of that advice we were satisfied that the proposals would be compatible
with the Convention.
CLARIFICATION
Finally, I wish to provide some clarification on the legal
position with regard to parks and gardens. Parks and gardens are
included in schedule 1 to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act
2000 (the CROW Act) which sets out categories of land which are
excepted from the right of access. This means that they will continue
to be excepted from the new right of access to coastal margin
unless any change is made to categories of excepted land. Changes
can be made through an order under section 3 of the CROW Act,
or under the new section 3A provided for in the draft Marine Bill.
The draft Marine Bill policy document refers to a paper which
is published on the Defra website (and which we have provided
to the Committee). This paper sets out the main measures that
we intend an order under section 3A to contain, including proposals
on any changes to the existing categories of "excepted land"
which are contained within Schedule 1 to the Countryside and Rights
of Way Act 2000 for the purposes of section 2(1) of the Act. We
have set out our intention in the paper to leave the category
of "Land used as a park or garden" in Schedule 1 unchanged
as it affects land that will become coastal margin.
Following Royal Assent, the details of the draft order will
be subject to a consultation process. The Order will then be subject
to Affirmative resolution by both Houses, as required under clause
278(7) of the draft Bill.
Defra
July 2008
| 
