Mr.
Benyon: I am concerned that the hon. Gentleman’s
amendment would limit the most important quality of the proposal for a
coastal access path— simplicity and clear understanding. There
may be many ways to deal with continuance of the path in the off-season
when a ferry no longer operates. I would hate the Bill to go down the
route of making a complex timed requirement to open up certain other
areas. I have in mind the Cromarty firth, off the Moray firth, where
there is a narrow neck of water with a summer ferry, so people have
good access at that time. If, when it is closed, we create a
requirement to open up what I think is called the
Invergordon—
Ann
McKechin: The Bill does not affect coastal routes in
Scotland.
Mr.
Benyon: I am well aware of that, but that is the area I
have in mind, which is similar to many others. It would open a vast
inland area that includes a busy working port. It is an example in my
head. I know it is in Scotland but it may well apply in England, where
a six-month alternative route would cause great complications. I
understand where the hon. Member for St. Ives is coming from and look
forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Our amendment
relates to the list on page 191 of the Bill. Proposed new section 55C
(4) gives four reasons why a route may be diverted, and they
are
“flooding, the
action of the tide, coastal erosion or encroachment by the
sea...the effect of any other geomorphological
process.” We
seek to add “future coastal developments”. There is
concern that once the coastal path has been designated on undeveloped
land, any future developments will have to take into consideration the
route of that path. There may be times when the route should be allowed
to continue where it is, but there may be other opportunities in which
the chance of development—jobs, securing the legitimate business
interests of landowners or businesses based in that area—would
be threatened because of the path running through the
property. 9.45
am Future
coastal developments, in particular those that need to be on the
land-sea boundary such as marinas and boat yards, should not be opposed
due to the presence of an existing coastal path. Diversions should
automatically be made around such sites once planning permission has
been granted. We shall go on to talk about planning and the
relationship of the coastal path to planning legislation under later
amendments, but I am respectfully suggesting to the Minister that in
most circumstances, the path should be subordinate to legitimate
development of businesses such as the ones I have listed in coastal
areas. Not to include that in the clause would be of potential harm to
many legitimate coastal businesses, which may well support the proposal
but feel threatened
by the fact that future developments will be made very difficult by what
is effectively a new charge on the land around their
property. Huw
Irranca-Davies: Let me first set the backdrop for the two
amendments. Clause 296, to which they refer, inserts new provisions for
coastal access into the National Parks and Access to the Countryside
Act 1949, which sets out the provisions for the designation of
long-distance routes. The clause also inserts new sections after
section 55 of the 1949 Act, including proposed new section 55C, which
provides for Natural England’s report, which we have just
discussed, to identify in addition to the “ordinary
route” an “alternative route”, which
may “operate
as a diversion from the ordinary
route...during ...specified...periods” or
when “access
to the ordinary route...is
excluded” or
restricted—for example, for land management purposes. The
provision also enables the alternative route to operate flexibly, for
example during the nesting seasons of particular species or breeds of
birds, which might vary from year to year, not only from season to
season. Turning
to amendment 54, I understand its intent. I take the point of my hon.
Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland: Wales is not directly
included in the provisions, but as a north Gower mudflat boy I am aware
that estuarine environments are some of the trickiest environments,
both for walking and access and for habitat and species. The amendment
tabled by the hon. Member for St. Ives would mean that an alternative
route could operate as a permanent alternative route—it would be
a stand-by route. That ordinary route could include a ferry with a
period of non-operation—I take the point made by the hon. Member
for Newbury, that at a certain time of year, or on a certain date, the
ferry stops operating. Some ferries might have well scheduled
operations, but others might decide when the season has come to an end
early, “We’ll stop now.” However, what about
advising people that there is now an alternative route, bearing in mind
what I said about the trickiness of estuarine
environments?
Mr.
Walker: Is it not the case in reality that if there is an
alternative route, there is a dual route? It would be almost impossible
to inform and educate people as to when the route shuts and opens. If
there is a ferry route, people can use the ferry; but in reality, if
the map shows that there is a dual route, they will use that, if they
do not fancy getting on a ferry and paying £5.50 or
whatever.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Indeed. As a keen walker myself, as I am
sure other members of the Committee are, when I set out in the winter,
not least if I am going into a more challenging environment, whether
upland moors or around estuaries and so on, or when I suspect that
there may be some disconnection in the route along the way, either
because of seasonal variations or because of flooding aspects and so
on, I tend to ensure that I plan the route. I take that into account
and think, “Well, there may not be a ferry running, but there
may be alternatives”—a bus alternative and so
on. However,
I want to explain to the hon. Member for St. Ives that the flexibility
already in the Bill allows Natural England not only to consult but to
bring forward
the appropriate route up the estuary to the first point of crossing.
Alternatively, should there be the option for a permanent route, it
will identify that permanent route. It will identify, mark and chart
that route, and that will become the permanent route
regardless. Andrew
George: I fully accept the Minister’s point and the
intervention of the hon. Member for Broxbourne. But as I understand it,
regulations that entitle local authorities to designate permissive
footpaths still exist. That is certainly the case in my part of the
world, where the designation of permissive footpaths continues. Those
who seek access to the countryside for recreational and other purposes
often find themselves falling foul of permissive footpath regulations
or being uncertain when those regulations
apply.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman is right: permissive
path regulations are still available. For example, in a particular
estuarine environment, realistically, following consultation and
recognising the difficulties of that environment, Natural England may
recommend going to that first crossing or ferry point and no further,
and that will be as far as it can regularise the route. Then, the local
authority and landowners, in the way that they currently handle their
local access discussions, might well decide to put in place an
alternative route and signpost that—they might even link it to a
bus route or something, in the way that many already do, particularly
where there are popular walking areas throughout the year.
We do not
expect Natural England to stop the route before the first public
crossing point or at an earlier ferry that does not run all year round,
unless there are particular difficulties with taking the route further
upstream to the first public crossing. If Natural England, after proper
consultation with landowners, ramblers and everyone else, sees that
there is a route that it can put round an estuary, I suspect that it
will do that. But if it thinks that the route can go so far and no
further—that is, to the first crossing point—it is not
for us to say that we see an alternative route, which may go way
inland, up and down and in and out. But if Natural England is able to
identify that permanent route, it will do so. Therefore, there is no
need for the amendment. It would apply to alternative routes as much as
to the main route. We consider that we have the balance of the
legislation right, as it applies to estuarine environments. The extra
flexibility that I have described will be of much help. In view of
that, I urge the hon. Member for St. Ives to withdraw his amendment. I
understand the motivation behind it, but I do not think that it is
necessary. On
amendment 47, the hon. Member for Newbury mentioned his worry about
potential harm. Again, I understand his intent, but the current
provision from Natural England’s report will
include “an
alternative route which is to operate as an optional alternative to the
ordinary route, or
part,” where
the ordinary route
may “reasonably
be regarded as unsuitable for
use” in
particular circumstances, including flooding, action of the tide and
coastal erosion. That will ensure that safety and continuity of the
route are maintained.
Amendment 47
would mean that the alternative route may operate as an optional
alternative during periods when the route may reasonably be considered
unsuitable for use because of future coastal developments. There is a
moot issue here: when we talk about future coastal developments, are we
talking about developments within the next one, two, five or possibly
10 years, or perhaps even developments on a wish list 20 years down the
line?
The hon.
Gentleman’s amendment goes too far, but there is provision. I
want to make it clear that coastal access will not be a barrier to
development. The CROW right of access is flexible to allow for changes
in land use. There are a number of different ways in which we can
ensure that coastal access is appropriate and consistent with the needs
of landowners, including any future changes in land use. The line of
the route and the spreading room are not fixed permanently. The 1949
Act, as amended by the Bill, will enable Natural England to review them
and to propose changes to the Secretary of State, subject again to a
full consultation and representation process at a later date. This is
not—nor should it be—a once-and-for-all measure to stymie
future development. The legislation can take account of changes in use
and future developments, including unforeseeable
developments. Should
a route be blocked as a result of development resulting in the land
becoming excepted land, and therefore excepted from the right of
access, Natural England could review the route and draw up a report
proposing a variation. I hope that hon. Members accept that the
existing powers are adequate to ensure that future development is
catered for. In addition, the CROW Act provides for access to be
restricted or excluded by direction in certain circumstances. Anyone
with an interest in land can apply to Natural England for a restriction
or exclusion on a number of grounds, such as land management, which
includes the management of land as part of a
business. If
a land manager were to apply for a restriction or exclusion, Natural
England would first discuss the situation with the landowner to
establish whether less restrictive measures could be effective, such as
advisory notices. However, if the restriction or exclusion is
necessary, Natural England will make a direction restricting or
excluding the CROW right of access. The Bill and the CROW legislation
therefore contain provisions to deal with the sort of eventuality to
which the hon. Member for St. Ives referred. With those clear
assurances, I hope that he will feel comfortable about withdrawing the
amendment.
Andrew
George: I am grateful to the Minister for his response; it
is very important to probe these issues. In response to the question
about stopping intermittent or limited ferry routes, he said that
alternative routes can be explored flexibly in consultation.
Organisations such as the Ramblers Association will be seeking
reassurance, where possible—I accept his point that safe,
accessible routes will not always be identified, especially in
estuarine situations—on the establishment of such
routes. I
have discussed the problem of permissive routes and possible
uncertainty. I have some concerns about whether regulations allowing
local authorities to designate permissive routes are being applied
appropriately, although that is another debating point. Permissive
routes—in other words, intermittently available
routes—already
exist in other settings, irrespective of whether they apply as a
consequence of a resolution to the issue before us. I accept the
Minister’s comments, provided that the consultation allows for
the exploration of a
solution. Huw
Irranca-Davies: It might help to mention another enhanced
capacity in the legislation and underpinning regulation: the ability to
explore, where appropriate, access and egress routes from the coastal
path. Again, that would be done through consultation with Natural
England and engagement with local access forums and local authorities.
At points of disruption along the coastal path, particularly within
estuarine environments—this relates not just to permissive
routes—there might well be scope to have a dialogue with local
landowners and to say, “The route stops here.” I suspect
that, in most cases, access or egress routes will already exist.
However, such constructive dialogue could ensure that a walker can
literally end a route with access to a road or bus stop. Local
authorities could sign post bus transport or other links during the
winter. The legislation provides for such flexibility, and it would be
good to see local authorities engaging in that sort of
approach. 10
am
Andrew
George: Once again, the Minister has reassured me still
further by intervening, and I am grateful to him for that
response. In passing, I will comment on amendment 47, which was tabled
by the hon. Member for Newbury. Although I understand the principle and
sentiment behind it, my concern, which the Minister articulated in his
response, is that it refers to future coastal developments without any
consideration as to whether they are required to be on the coast, such
as port developments, or whether they are simply the kind of
developments that those responsible would find desirable to develop on
the coastline, such as a nice house with a coastal view, in which case
it is not essential that it should obliterate the coastal path. It is
important to put future coastal developments in some kind of hierarchy.
That is essential, because it is impossible to develop port access, for
example, or the other developments that I have described, unless they
are clearly on the coast—it cannot be done any other way. Having
listened to what the Minister said on amendment 54, I am
content.
Mr.
Benyon: I thought that amendment 47 would be an elegant
addition to that proposal, because it sits comfortably with the issues
relating to erosion. I refer again to Natural England’s draft
scheme, which I think gives good indications on how a path would be
moved if that became necessary as a result of geomorphological change
or erosion. I will not press the amendment, if the Minister can assure
me that he will talk to organisations such as the British Marine
Federation and perhaps fishing organisations, which have been
relatively silent on potential problems surrounding the development of
key areas, because the path could enter constrained environments around
small fishing communities that might need to develop in order to
survive.
I have
work-based businesses, in particular, in mind when thinking about that,
so I can address the point made by the hon. Member for St. Ives. We
could argue about the legitimate right of a landowner to apply for
planning permission to build or extend a house. Landowners
have rights that should be not subjugated by local planning authorities
saying, “Well, you cannot do that because the coastal access
path goes there.” I am much more concerned about businesses
being unable to develop as they might need to over the next 10 years in
order for hard-pressed industries, such as the fishing industry, and
legitimate coastal businesses, such as marinas, to survive. If the
Minister can assure me that either he or his officials will be
available to discuss that with organisations such as the BMF, we will
be able to make
progress. |
