Huw
Irranca-Davies: I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree
with me that this is important for landowners, but curiously also for
those who might use the
path.
Mr.
Benyon: Absolutely. That is why I referred to a balance.
There are limits to the textual description that one can offer, and in
such circumstances a map is required. I am prepared, with the
Minister’s assurances, to put faith in Natural England and trust
that whenever it feels that maps are required, to show consideration
for all sides in the argument, it will make them available. I beg to
ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Mr.
Benyon: I beg to move amendment 49, in
clause 296, page 193, line 29, at
end insert— ‘55EA
Changes in land use (1)
Any person with a relevant interest in land may require Natural England
to review a coastal access report; and reasons for review may
include— (a) proposed or
actual changes in the use of
land; (b) review of existing
directions made under Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the CROW Act for the
exclusion or restriction of the right of
access; (c) proposed new
directions under Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the CROW Act for the exclusion
or restriction of the right of
access (2) Persons with a
relevant interest may appeal to the appointed person as set out in
Schedule 19 against the refusal of Natural England
to— (a) undertake the
review; (b) undertake the
review within timescales specified by
regulation; (c) amend the
coastal access
report.”. It
is me again, I am afraid, Mr. Pope. With this amendment we
seek to examine again the relationship between the proposed coastal
path and the planning system. Despite much discussion on this on Report
in another place, and a paper from the Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs, it is still unclear to many people how the
relationship between the coastal margin and the planning system will
work. Will, for example, the coastal path or the coastal margin be a
material consideration for planning purposes? Will designation of
either serve to restrict or limit development? What guidance will be
provided to local planning authorities? We discussed some of those
questions this morning, but some of them still need to be answered. The
Minister has suggested that the point of designating coastal access
under the CROW Act 2000 was that it could be flexible and accommodate
changes in land use over time. However, he was less clear about how
that would be communicated to local planning authorities.
There is a
concern, which was expressed well by Lord Cameron in Committee in
another
place: “the
key to a healthy rural economy is diversity, flexibility and continuous
response to the market place...However, the danger...is that
the current, in other words the first, coastal route, could easily be
given a sacrosanct status in the minds of the planners, and the
proposed development will be forced to accommodate the existing
route...What should happen is that the coastal route should be
adjusted to the development.”—[Official Report, House
of Lords, 21 April 2009; Vol. 709, c.
1397.] In
addition, if the development is permitted, or if the landowner changes
the use of his land, there is no right in the Bill and no process set
out by which landowners can require Natural England to review the
coastal access reports. Although Natural England has the ability to
review the reports, it is at its discretion. That may cause problems
especially for smaller landowners or businesses that may end up trying
to manage changes in their business alongside unchanged access because
no review of the coastal access report has been undertaken. Lord Davis
accepted that land managers must have flexibility, so that they can
change the use of their land as they need to. There therefore needs to
be some process in place so that Natural England can be required to
review reports when those changes
arise. Our
amendment would help to remove uncertainty over future changes in land
use by ensuring that the Bill enables landowners to request a review of
a report to take account of the changes. It is a sensible and necessary
safeguard. If not, owners will have to wait until Natural England
chooses to review a report, which is likely to stifle coastal
businesses, particularly those where only small changes are required to
enable them to continue to grow and thrive. Failure to include such a
provision in the Bill will cast doubt on the Government’s stated
commitment to ensure that businesses will have the flexibility to adapt
and
change. Mr.
Swire: The most important point made by my hon.
Friend the Member for Newbury was in the final bit of his peroration,
which is whether this Government are serious about being on the side of
businesses, be they small or large, particularly at a time when
businesses up and down the country are struggling, especially tourist
and agricultural-related ones. The Minister needs to pause and think
whether he wishes to underscore his Government’s oft-repeated
remark that they are supportive of
businesses. The
whole issue of the Bill is one of fairness and balance. It would be
good to see an absence of vindictiveness and fixed positioning. The
Bill is not only about access to the coast—to which all parties
are signed up—but about ensuring that there is a fair
compensatory scheme for those who will suffer and about balancing the
rights of the landowner and the farmer with those of people who wish to
make use of the facility. As the Bill is currently constructed, the
rights are not balanced. That would be greatly improved if the
amendment was included in the Bill, as it underscores
flexibility. As
the seascape and landscape change over generations, so may the
requirements of the landowner to take advantage of the coastal changes.
The Minister referred to hill forts. Well, there was not always a hill
fort there, but it is now something that needs to be preserved.
Likewise, if students of John Fowles’s “The French
Lieutenant’s Woman” walked that wonderful bit of the
south-west coastal path between Seaton in my constituency and
Uplyme—the famous Undercliff—which is the one of the
great walks in the UK, I would submit, they would be aware of the slip
at Bindon. The Bindon slip was a great tourist attraction in the 19th
century, when an enormous slippage of land created Goat island, which
itself became a huge tourist attraction. Physically, the landscape was
changing. Without the ability in the Bill to change or re-examine
coastal access—if it was fixed in stone—that could not
have
happened. There
are other uses that landowners may want to change, such as the planting
of trees for shelter, some protective work against the elements and
walling and fencing to keep livestock in. Such work will not
necessarily happen often, but unless it is in the Bill, it will not
happen at all, because there will be no inherent flexibility.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: If a landowner—I have done this on
land that I own, which is not on the coastal strip—were to bring
forward a proposal, for example, to plant deciduous, woodland trees,
which would diminish our carbon footprint and enhance biodiversity, I
suspect that Natural England, as our statutory and principal adviser on
conservation, would be banging on the door and offering to work with
that landowner. The Bill has the flexibility for
that.
Mr.
Swire: Natural England might do that, but it might involve
an alteration to the spreading room or indeed the access, which is
surely the point. We need a clause that can cover any eventuality. Just
as the Minister prayed in aid the fact that there was no need to have
universal mapping, because the occasions when a dispute would need to
be settled in that way would be few and far between, likewise, the
provision might be used on very few occasions, but it needs to be in
Bill. We are not taking a strong position, but encouraging grown-up
flexibility, which should be the keystone in making this a workable
piece of legislation.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Ann
McKechin): I welcome the debate on the amendment, but let
me reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have no intention of
being vindictive or having a fixed position—nothing in our
debate so far on the Bill has provided evidence of that. We are
certainly on the side of promoting business and tourism. One of the
major reasons why people have pointed to the benefit of greater coastal
access is that it is likely to lead to substantial growth in local
economies—particularly in the tourism business. Each year in
this country, over 70 million trips are made to the coast,
with over £1.4 billion being spent. That helps to
support a large number of small businesses, particularly in Devon,
Cornwall and other parts of the country with quite vulnerable economies
and where the tourism industry is key and vital. The Bill is
tourism’s friend, not its enemy.
I recognise
the reasoning behind amendment 49, which would allow any person with a
relevant interest in land to trigger a review on certain grounds.
Natural England is already able to review a report if it thinks that
necessary. Provisions in the National Parks and Access to the
Countryside Act 1949 and in the Bill envisage that Natural England will
do that of its own volition. Section 55(2) of the 1949 Act also gives
the Secretary of State the discretion to review the report.
He may do that if it is brought to his attention by landlords,
businesses or the general economy that issues need
change. Under
the CROW Act there is nothing to prevent land from becoming excepted
land under schedule 1 by reason of development. I reassure the hon.
Member for Newbury again that there is nothing in the nature of the
provision to restrict development or change. He also mentioned material
considerations. The court rulings on this issue and under planning law
have held that virtually anything can be a material consideration in a
planning case, so we can use wide discretion in defining that. That
would be the guiding factor in any challenge.
Chapter 2 of
the CROW Act already contains mechanisms for a landowner to apply for
new restrictions and exclusions of access for certain reasons. Those
will remain in place for the coastal margin with certain modifications
to take account of the coastal situation.
Mr.
Benyon: I hope that before the Minister sits down she will
explain what guidance the Government or, through them, Natural England
will provide to local planning authorities on how they should view the
relationship between this provision and possible future
developments.
Ann
McKechin: I will come to that.
There is also
a right of appeal in the CROW Act against a refusal to make a
direction, which will be preserved for the coastal margin. That is an
important protection. Natural England also has a power to provide an
alternative route to the ordinary route during any period in which
access to the ordinary route is excluded by reason of a direction for
an exclusion or restriction. There is no particular need for an
additional review of exclusions and directions.
I recognise
the concerns expressed in the other place about the impact of
development on the route, where the route could later be interrupted by
development. Those concerns may lie behind the amendment. The new right
of access to coastal land given under provisions in the CROW Act is a
flexible right to allow for the changes in land use. We are holding
talks at present with the Department for Communities and Local
Government on the nature of the guidance that will be provided to local
authorities in terms of the Planning
Act. 1.30
pm The
consultation, which we discussed in our debate on amendments 42 and 55
and which Natural England will undertake prior to drawing up a coastal
access report, will identify likely new developments so that it can
take them into account when drawing up the proposals. It is unlikely
that Natural England will not be aware of nationally significant
developments. Should there be developments after the route has been put
in place, Natural England will have a power under section 55 of the
National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 to draw up a
report proposing a variation of the route, subject to the full
consultation and representation process. I hope that I have reassured
hon. Members that there already is adequate provision to cater
for any developments that may affect the route, including
action by the Secretary of State under the 1949 Act. On that
basis I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his
amendment.
Mr.
Benyon: That shows why this is a subsidiary piece of the
Bill. A body of effort quite rightly went into preparing for the marine
Bill, which we all want to see on the statute books as quickly as
possible, but this part of the Bill has not been properly thought
through. It has been brought to this stage of the parliamentary process
without proper consultation with planning authorities and I can
guarantee that some planning authorities will interpret it in a
completely different way from others. I just do not believe that this
can be allowed to drift in this way. I therefore think our amendment is
right. It secures a requirement on the Government to develop and
clearly state that relationship with the planning
system. Question
put, That the amendment be made.
The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
8.
Division
No.
7] Question
accordingly negatived.
Andrew
George: On a point of order, Mr. Pope. Could
you clarify whether Government amendments 60 and 61 have been
withdrawn?
The
Chairman: We have not reached them yet. They were grouped
with an earlier amendment for
debate.
Mr.
Benyon: I beg to move amendment 45, in clause 296,
page 196, line 23, at end
insert— ‘(3) Nothing in this
section shall preclude a person with a relevant interest in affected
land from making an appeal under section 30 of the CROW Act for an
exclusion or restriction of the right of access at a subsequent date
after approved proposals have been
implemented.’. Although
we welcome the inclusion of amendments made in another place to rectify
the fundamental omission from the Bill of an independent appeals
process, we remain concerned that there may be cases after the
establishment phase, possibly several years later, in which changes to
circumstances make adjustments to local land management necessary. For
example, walkers’ exercise of their right of access might prove
different from what was expected, or, if ownership of the land changes,
the new owner might want to manage the land differently. Perhaps the
physical features of the coast itself will have altered over time due
to erosion, climate change and so on, a factor noted in the
guidance. It
would be desirable, of course, for adjustments to exclusions and
restrictions to the right of access to be put in place by agreement
with Natural England and/or the local access authority. However, where
no such agreement can be achieved, it is important that occupiers
should be able to appeal against a refusal by Natural
England to alter a restriction or exclusion regime, as occupiers of open
country can do currently under sections 24 and 30 of the CROW
Act. Our amendment’s intention is simply to confirm that owners
and occupiers of land and those on coastal margin will be able to
appeal against refusals of their applications for changes in the
exclusions and restrictions regime in the same way currently allowed in
relation to open country under the CROW
Act. | 
