 House of Commons |
Session 2008 - 09 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords] |
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords] |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:†
Irranca-Davies,
Huw (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs) Chris
Shaw, Committee Clerk †
attended the Committee Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 14 July 2009(Morning)[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]10.30
am Clause
298 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule 20Establishment
and maintenance of the English coastal route
etc Question
proposed, That the schedule be the Twentieth schedule to the
Bill.
Mr.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con): Good morning,
Mr. Gale. I suspect that this may be the final sitting of
this glee club, and it falls to me to tidy up various points that have
been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon tabled some
amendments that are due to be debated today, but he has fallen prey to
the lurgy; we hope that he has not been in close association with a
Mexican pig farmer. He is unable to be with us today, but I think that
I know the intention behind his amendments, so I want to probe the
Minister on various points in relation to the impact that the coastal
path will have on landowners or people with an interest in
land. I
will start by painting a picture of a particular case that has been put
to me. I have had informal discussions about the issue with some of the
Minister’s officials, but it is important to put on record how
the Government believe Natural England and local authorities should
treat the legislation. My example relates to a privately owned,
semi-permanent caravan park on the coast. The landowner, at his own
expense, has created a footpath along the coast. The footpath goes to
the rear of the caravan park and up a cliff, and it affords walkers a
safe path and enhanced views compared with those from sea level. It is
a better option in every sense—from the public’s point of
view, as well as from that of the landowner’s business. If the
letter of the law were followed by the local authority and Natural
England, they might state that the footpath must be driven across the
front of the caravans in the park. That would impact on the
landowner’s business; there would be potential safety
consequences for some of the caravans’ owners; and there would
be a diminished amenity value. I hope that the Minister will say that,
in such circumstances, it is right and proper that the footpath goes
along the existing route. It is the logical and best route; it has been
enhanced and paid for by the landowner; and it affords a better option
for every conceivable interest in the
proposal. My
hon. Friend the Member for East Devon wanted to press the Minister on
the pecuniary cost to coastal interests affected by the provision. I am
sure that many
members of the Committee have received case studies in relation to the
impact on certain businesses. It would be useful if the Minister were
to explain whether he appreciates the concerns of those with affected
interests. In the south-west, for example, there is a tourism business
dependent on what it considers to be exclusive access to a beach area.
The business claims that the loss of private beach access to a hotel or
holiday home development will result in a minimum depreciation of the
capital value of the business of 16 per cent. That is a reduction of
£500,000 in the value of that
business. Another
south-west business is a hotel that is also dependent on coastal
access. The business contributes £1.5 million per annum to the
local economy and preserves a key landmark in the form of the hotel.
The business believes that the loss of its unique selling
point—privacy—would result in the depreciation in the
capital value of least £3 million. Those figures could be
tested, but half that figure would still be a substantial impact. We
talk about the value of the coastal path in terms of
tourism—people wanting to walk a coastal path—and its
many benefits to local communities and local businesses, which I
entirely accept, but we must also accept that there is already a lot of
activity in coastal Britain today. There are many companies providing
jobs and enormous benefit to those communities, and sometimes those
businesses will be at odds with what is proposed in this part of
the
Bill. Another
business that drew my attention is in Northumberland, where the
landowner owns a large area of coast well known for its bird life. Much
of the area consists of vegetated dunes and is a site of special
scientific interest. The business has always permitted public access to
the beach. Its focus is on holiday cottages. It had planned to expand
by developing wildlife safaris, with hides and other facilities, along
the coast, but those plans have now been put on hold until the coastal
access situation is clear. I hope that the Minister’s remarks
will provide that clarity.
The business
believes that, with a lack of compensation, the changes will have an
impact on nesting birds, safety and management issues. Natural England
notices ask people not to pass due to nesting birds, obviously at a
particular time of year. The sign
states: “Ground-nesting
birds, including terns and ringed plover breed here. Disturbance from
people walking with or without dogs can cause nesting birds to abandon
their nests and expose eggs or young birds to predators. To protect
wildlife on this site there is currently no access beyond here. It is
illegal to disturb schedule 1 breeding
birds.” There
is a potential conflict between what Natural England wants to see in
certain areas of our coast and the coastal access we demand that it
delivers. It would be very helpful if the Minister were to address some
of those concerns in his remarks, particularly regarding the potential
impact on a number of existing rural businesses that provide great
benefit to the economy of local areas.
Andrew
George (St. Ives) (LD): As the hon. Member for Newbury has
said, I suspect we are in our final sitting. It is a great pity that
the hon. Member for East Devon is not here. The hon. Member for Newbury
has done a good job of setting out the basis for what I am sure that
the Minister will acknowledge is a substantial issue. However, I had
hoped that the hon. Member for
East Devon would set out the argument with examples from his
constituency and add to some of the scenarios painted by the hon.
Member for Newbury.
Even after
the coastal path has been identified and agreed, coastal erosion will
inevitably result in a further requirement to decide its route in
coming decades. The implication for landowners—in my
constituency, for example, there is a non-profit distributing trust
that runs a recreational facility, including a golf club—is that
where there will be a substantial amount of coastal erosion over the
next 20 or 30 years, the coastal path will inevitably take up sections
of what is currently well-used land. That may result in significant
compromises to the facilities that the golf club can offer. Clearly
that issue needs to be considered further.
This
debate on compensation is needed fully to understand the consequences
for businesses whose viability will be adversely affected by the
coastal path. Where the issue of compensation is raised, it may help
the process of negotiation. Natural England might be prepared to
compromise a little more reasonably over a reasonable request for a
diversion in an area where a business would be significantly affected
by a coastal path driving its way through an area of quiet
tranquillity, where people could otherwise enjoy a private holiday
experience. The spectre of compensation itself may ensure that Natural
England is prepared to make a reasonable compromise in those
circumstances. If compensation were not available I suspect that
Natural England might not be prepared to do that. I shall certainly be
interested to hear what the Minister has to
say.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (Huw Irranca-Davies): It may be helpful if as well
as responding to the stand part debate, I also respond to the substance
of the amendments, which were not moved but which are pertinent to the
schedule. I appreciate the concerns that the hon. Members for Newbury
and for St. Ives have raised. We have articulated them on several
occasions in Committee. I make it clear once again that I fully expect
that in its determination of the route, Natural England will engage
fully with all landowners, businesses, the national parks authorities,
local authorities and local access forums to make sure that it is the
right route and that local sensitivities are taken into
account. I
am very familiar with the caravan park issues, both from my visits
around the coast of the east of England and from back home, where I
live on the Gower. The Gower was the first designated area of
outstanding natural beauty, and there are also caravan parks right on
the beach and on the cliff heads. How do we reconcile that? The way to
do it is through proper local engagement, taking into account local
concerns. The hon. Member for Newbury described a case where an
existing path goes slightly inland and up on to the headland, where
greater views are afforded of the spectacular coast. It might well be
that in discussion with the landowner, Natural England said,
“That’s a darn fine route. Let’s keep it as
that.” On the other hand, there might be a significant amount of
shore frontage or spreading room at the front. I know of caravan parks
where there is less than a metre between the caravan and the shoreline.
There are others with immense spreading room out to the front. It comes
to down to very good local engagement
and input, and discussions with the landowners to find the most
appropriate route. That is what I expect to see
happening. The
hon. Gentleman talked about restrictions in relation to nesting birds.
Again, the flexibility that is provided in the Bill means that the best
solution can be found. He is right to say, curiously, that it might be
an occasion where a local business will say that it does not want the
area closed, because it wants the public to come along and spend money
in, for example, a cafĂ(c) or a bed and breakfast. That is where
the environmental aspect comes in. We do not want to see nesting
grounds of birds
disturbed. 10.45
am That
is why the Bill’s approach of local determination and
flexibility is right, rather than having the man in Whitehall or even
the Natural England adviser sitting in London making a determination.
That is not the way it should work. It should be about walking the
route and engaging with landowners, conservation groups and shooting
and angling interests that say they must have protection for a nesting
ground during certain months. That is where this approach can really
work. The hon. Member for St. Ives is right to say that if the hon.
Member for East Devon had been here he would have painted lots of
pictures of his local examples. Local examples can include the
exceptions where difficulties have to be worked through, or the
numerous cases where the process already works successfully. They paint
a picture of how it can work and where the difficulties can be
overcome.
I think I
know the local golf club mentioned by the hon. Member for St. Ives. I
am not a golfer but I have visited his constituency on holiday and I am
pretty sure I know the one he referred to. That will undoubtedly be in
one of those areas where these challenges are most acute, where there
is coastal squeeze—not only from a coastal path but from coastal
erosion, increased storminess, floods and rising sea levels. At the
same time there are restrictions causing coastal squeeze on the other
side, such as highways and the location of roads. When dealing with
these issues, there is an ask, as I have said before, for local
authorities to engage their planning powers to ensure that the caravan
park, golf course or anything else has a valuable future when
confronted with the coastal path and other pressures, both seaward and
landward.
Mr.
Benyon: Will the Minister address the concerns of some
coastal businesses about liability? For example, I have heard of a
landholding where, for a variety of geomorphological reasons, there are
quickly shifting dunes. The landholder has been able to restrict access
on the basis of safety concerns. Other coastal areas also pose a risk
of accidents on rocks and cliffs. Will the Minister say a little more
about how liability issues will be raised? I hope he will say that he
understands the concerns of businesses that are important to the local
economy but stand to lose considerable percentages of capital
value.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I will turn to liability, as it is an
important issue. Landowners’ liability for people on their
ground was significantly reduced by CROW legislation following the
articulation of the same
concerns. When the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 introduced a
right of access to open country and registered common land mapped as
access land, provision was made about occupiers’ liability under
the Occupiers’ Liability Acts 1957 and 1984. That has reduced
the liability of occupiers, such as landowners, towards members of the
public who are exercising the right of access on CROW access land. For
example, if someone sustains an injury on CROW land due to a natural
feature of the landscape, reduced liability means that there will be no
scope to sue the occupier. In addition, if someone sustains an injury
climbing over a wall or fence, reduced liability means that there will
be no scope to sue the occupier unless the injury was sustained through
the proper use of the gate or stile—if it was dangerous through
the direct fault of the landowner. I declare an interest here, although
not in respect of coastal access; I have rights of way and stiles on my
property in the upper Swansea valley. They have been well installed,
and were paid for by the Countryside Council for Wales and others. I
thank them for that because they installed proper ones, which are not
like my makeshift ones. I take part in ensuring that the stiles are
adequately maintained.
Mr.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD):
Landowners’ reduced liability on CROW land was welcomed by my
constituents and landowners throughout the country. Does the Minister
agree that there is a difference between the CROW right to roam on
mountain, moor and heath, where people can choose where to go and keep
away from dangerous areas, and the right to roam on coastal access
paths, where the routes are laid down? There is a huge duty on
everybody to ensure that the route is safe to begin
with.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2009 | Prepared 15 July 2009 |