Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]


[back to previous text]

Huw Irranca-Davies: I can indeed assure the hon. Gentleman that we have already, in the Bill’s long fruition, engaged systematically and repeatedly with all those organisations and others, and we will continue to do so. I also give the assurance that Natural England will also be involved in that engagement, both nationally and locally, when those proposals for the coastal path are brought forward. It is vital to recognise in respect of amendment 47 that future coastal development that is critical and to which there is no alternative must be factored in significantly, whether it affects ports, marinas or other things. However, a fuzzier wish list of areas for possible future development on an array of alternative sites should also be factored into the discussions on the routing of the coastal path. As the hon. Member for St. Ives has said, there are some things that are imminent and right in front of us and to which there are clearly no alternatives, and there are others that we do not want to see as a necessary impediment to the development of the coastal path. I can give him those assurances.
Mr. Benyon: I am grateful to the Minister for those assurances. I hope that the message will go out to planning authorities that they must not see the coastal path as an inalienable charge on the land that they cannot be flexible about in terms of planning applications. With those assurances, I am sure that the hon. Member for St. Ives will be happy to withdraw the amendment.
Andrew George: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ann McKechin: I beg to move amendment 59, in clause 296, page 192, line 16, at end insert—
‘(2A) The proposals which may be included in the report by virtue of subsection (2)(a) or (b) do not include proposals relating to any part of the English coastal route—
(a) which is established as a result of waters of a river being treated as part of the sea by virtue of section 295 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (river estuaries), and
(b) the line of which passes over land which, for the purposes of section 3A of the CROW Act (power to extend access land to coastal land etc: England), is coastal land by virtue of subsection (11) of that section.’.
This provides that coastal access reports may not propose to draw the landward boundary of coastal margin or the landward or seaward boundary of the alternative route strip to coincide with a physical feature where the coastal route passes over land adjacent to the waters of a non-tidal river.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 60 and 61.
Ann McKechin: These are technical amendments to ensure that the power in the Bill to propose the route beyond the tidal range of a river on an estuary can work effectively. Clause 295 sets out how the coastal access duty applies where the coast is interrupted by a river, allowing Natural England to treat the relevant upstream waters of a river as though they were the sea. It is necessary because the coastal access duty in clause 290 applies to the English coast, which is defined in clause 294 as being the coast of England adjacent to the sea.
Subsection (3) says that where the coast is interrupted by a river, the coastal route may be extended as far upstream as the first public foot crossing. However, in order to allow access to the route, the land that it covers must be accessible to the public as coastal margin, which we intend to define for the rest of the coast through an order under section 3A as land adjacent to the foreshore. In situations where the first public foot crossing of a river is upstream of the tidal range of that river, there will be no foreshore, so the land cannot become coastal margin.
Amendments 60 and 61 remedy that by treating land at the brink of any non-tidal waters as part of the foreshore for the purposes of the definition of coastal land in section 3 of the CROW Act, where waters of a river are treated as part of the sea under clause 295. We feel that in such circumstances, the main issue is continuity of the route. It is important that Natural England has the ability to propose the route beyond the tidal range of the river where it has taken the decision to define the sea as extending up as far as the first public crossing point. We are concerned with the route itself only beyond the tidal range of the river and do not intend that access will be permitted to the margin of land beside the route on that part of the river. To achieve that, the order under section 3A of CROW will create another category of excepted land to remove from the right of access the land beside the route on those stretches of it.
Amendment 59 provides that where waters of a non-tidal river are treated under section 295 as being part of the sea, and the line of the route passes over land that is coastal land by virtue of section 3A(11) of CROW, it is not possible to use the powers in section 55D(2)(a) or (b). Those are the powers enabling Natural England to draw the boundary of the margin or an alternative route strip to coincide with a physical feature. We have taken the view that since the main aim of the amendments is to ensure the continuity of the route, it would not be appropriate to have the power to widen the route strip to coincide with a physical feature in those circumstances.
In essence, the power provides for the land beside a non-tidal river to be designated as coastal margin so the route can pass up the estuary to the first crossing point or to a point between the mouth and the first crossing point. However, it does not enable the route strip to be widened to coincide with a physical feature. In order to be consistent with the aim of continuity of the route, we intend to provide that the land beside the route strip on a non-tidal river is excepted land.
Without the amendments, we believe that Natural England would not be able to fulfil the coastal access duty on estuaries and continuity of the route would not be possible. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
Mr. Benyon: The Minister referred to these as technical amendments, but they are more fundamental than that, because they redefine what is meant by the term “coast”. My future amendments will seek to portray, as have my previous amendments, that different circumstances exist in many of our estuary environments in relation to the meaning of the term “coast”.
On Government amendment 59, if the boundary does not coincide with a physical feature, how will it be defined? Does that mean that there will be no spreading room on the landward side? We need an explanation, because the issue is fundamentally important. What constitutes a physical feature?
On Government amendments 60 and 61, we tabled a number of amendments that were not selected for discussion, but they reflected the concerns of many people and organisations that, by including estuaries in the coastal access provisions, the Government may be going a step too far by extending the duty beyond the Bill’s original purpose, which is to improve access to the English coastline.
Moving inland along estuaries will impose a route that is not necessarily in the interests of those who wish to follow the coastal path, and that will draw more businesses, private dwellings and, more importantly, conservation areas into the scheme. We are forgetting about the vast majority of people who want to walk in coastal areas. Such people do not necessarily want to walk the length and breadth of a coastal region, circumnavigate the whole coastline, or walk along the entire south-west coast. The majority of such people want to access a point on the coast by public transport or by car and walk a section of beautiful coastline before perhaps cutting inland on a right of way to take a circular route, or they may want to wander back along the same route. Those are the people that we should be concerned about, and I sometimes wonder whether our discussions are losing touch with that fact.
Many estuaries have considerable environmental, developmental and geographical constraints. The Coastal Access Forum consists of important organisations, and I will list them for the record: the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions, the British Marine Federation, the British Association of Leisure Parks, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the British Holiday and Home Parks Association, the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, the Country Land and Business Association, the Historic Houses Association, the National Farmers Union, the Tourism Alliance and the Visitor Attractions Forum.
Those organisations recognise that estuaries can present different problems for access provision compared with the coast, and point out that estuaries are often highly developed with commercial or residential property, and may be subject to environmental constraints. Most importantly, the organisations make the valid point that consideration should be given to the presence of existing public rights of way, the practicality of establishing a route and the impact of any associated coastal margin when estuaries are being looked at for coastal access.
10.15 am
Mr. Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD): In order that there be no doubt about the matter, this part of the Bill does not refer to Wales. Presumably that is for illustration purposes only. The Welsh Assembly Government are setting out their own scheme.
Mr. Benyon: I was once again plucking an example from the air. Perhaps, to satisfy the hon. Gentleman, I can use the Southend-on-Sea estuary, which includes Canvey Island, Tilbury and, on the other side, Sheerness and all the developments around the Medway. He was right to pull me up on this, but half of the estuary to which I referred was English coast. The redefinition of estuaries as coast for the purposes of this Bill does not change the simple fact that estuaries are not coast.
Ann McKechin: The hon. Member for Newbury raises legitimate concerns about the complexity as we go further up rivers and estuaries. That is why the Bill gives Natural England flexibility to propose the establishment of routes up the estuaries. We realise that estuaries can be small, medium and large. They are very different. Each has its own unique circumstances. Natural England can decide not to run the long distance route up the estuary and down the other side if the difficulties of taking the route around the estuary outweigh the benefits.
We understand that there are challenges. The ability to include estuaries is bound by a strict set of criteria set out in clause 291. Natural England must have regard to:
“(a) the safety and convenience of those using the English coastal route,
(b) the desirability of that route adhering to the periphery of the coast and providing views of the sea, and
(c) the desirability of ensuring that so far as reasonably practicable interruptions to that route are kept to a minimum.”
Natural England must additionally have regard to the matters set out in clause 295(4):
“(a) the nature of the land which would...become part of the coast...
(b) the topography of the shoreline...
(c) the width of the river upstream to that limit;
(d) the recreational benefit to the public of the coastal access duty being extended...
(e) the extent to which the land bordering those waters would, if it were coastal margin, be excepted land;
(f) whether it is desirable to continue the English coastal route to a particular physical feature
(g) the existence of a ferry ”.
The list is not exclusive. It must be remembered that at all times when discharging the coastal access duty, Natural England must also aim to strike a fair balance between the interests of the public in having rights to access and the interests, including the economic interests, of owners and occupiers. That has to be a fair balance of those interests.
Mr. Walker: Where the route deviates from the coast up an estuary and perhaps beyond the estuary up the river, was I right in thinking that it would not necessarily follow the river bank and that alternative routes may be found?
Ann McKechin: There would be flexibility. We are trying to make sure that we do not end up with a prescriptive path, which will end up with further difficulties for users. We have made it quite clear that we do not think that this will cover all estuaries. It would be an excessive use of powers. We want Natural England to use its discretion, but to use it fairly and reasonably and practically.
The hon. Member for Newbury asked about the phrase “physical feature”. Section 55D(2), which clause 296 would insert in the 1949 Act, enables the coastal margin to be expanded to a physical feature beyond the normal definition of coastal land. A physical feature might be a fence, a group of rocks, cliffs or a landmark. I think that a physical feature is easily defined; I think that it is obvious to the eye what a physical feature is.
With regard to the boundary, we simply mean that the route strip will not be able to be expanded to meet a physical feature. It will just be a route strip of a specifically defined width. There will be no access to a margin of land to the landward side of the route strip; there will just be access to the route strip itself.
Mr. Benyon: I want to get this matter absolutely clear. So, we are talking about a different level of designation here, are we? Any extension of the route that entered the estuary area of a river would not have spreading room. Strictly speaking, it would be a 4 m path with no rights of access to either side of that path.
Ann McKechin: I am waiting for inspiration on that issue, because the hon. Gentleman has raised an important point about clarification and I am keen to ensure that I address it.
Mr. Benyon: May I assist the Minister, while she seeks inspiration, by raising another point? In our debate on clause 295, she quoted the list in the clause about:
“(b) the topography of the shoreline adjacent to those waters;
(c) the width of the river upstream to that limit;”
and so on. However, that list did not include the legitimate rights of businesses nor the rights of property-owners. Perhaps she could give us some assurance that those factors are recognised there too?
Ann McKechin: May I just reiterate for the record that I actually mentioned that taking account of economic interests would be integral to Natural England making a decision on the fair balance when it looks at the economic interests of landowners in terms of clause 291? So I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that economic interests will be taken into account.
I also understand that the estuary, after the tidal limit, will be just a route strip—that is it. It is simply a route strip, which will be a narrow path.
 
Previous Contents Continue
House of Commons 
home page Parliament home page House of 
Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index

©Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 10 July 2009