Memorandum submitted by Lydd Town Council (MC 02)

 

Introduction

 

Lydd Town Council contains within its parish boundary, the settlements of Lydd, Greatstone, Lydd on Sea and Dungeness, it also forms part of Romney Marsh.

It was formerly a Borough Council that was absorbed within Shepway District Council under the Local government act 1972 and in the process became a Town Council. It remains however a limb within the Cinque Ports Confederation.

The population is 5800 and encompasses a semi urban area (Lydd) and a coastal district (Greatstone, Lydd on Sea and Dungeness).

The parish also contains an Airport, a Nuclear Power Station Complex and a Wind farm. The Council consists of 16 elected members and administration of 4 employees most of whom are part time.

 

Content of submission

 

It seems that the purpose of the Marine and Coastal Access bill part 9 is to 'extend recreational access' to the coast areas of the nation by the public.

This is an admirable provision in many ways, but I fear it will be subverted by the operation of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 - section 67(NERCA). This extinguishes rights to use mechanically propelled vehicles on byways that are not designated byways open to all traffic (B.O.AT.s).

 

In the experience of Lydd Town Council this could lead to a restriction in the recreational access to a piece of coast known as Denge Marsh, Romney Marsh, Kent and may do so in a limited number of similar cases elsewhere.

 

Lydd Town Council is appealing against the findings of the surveying authority (Kent County Council) in refusing to designate the two roads in question; Denge Marsh Road and Galloways Road, Byways Open to All Traffic (B.O.A.Ts).

These roads are situated near Dungeness in Kent and lie within a military training area and adjacent to a RSPB reserve. They are the only access routes from within the parish to that section of coast.

They have been in use for at least 300 years and yet now their future lies in doubt because of 'NERCA'.

 

If the appeal by the Council to the DEFRA National Rights of Way Case Work Team, fails then the future of one or both of the roads is in doubt as it is entirely possible that the military and or the RSPB would seek their closure.

A downgrade of these two roads could result in the following possible outcomes:

 

· Constant and persistent trespass activity.

 

· Possible confrontation with members of the public in policing the new downgraded status.

 

· Alternative and unlawful access to this section of coast by anglers and other visitors, with concomitant damage to the environment.

 

· A reduction in the access available to the public in Lydd that hitherto had been enjoyed for many years.

 

· A reduction in trade to local businesses serving the angling and tourist sectors.

 

· Problems for the military and RSPB in maintaining safe access to the coast between training periods as it is much easier to clear the area if the visitors have motor transport and in policing members of the public who try to access the coast using motor vehicles.

 

· A reduction in the ability of disabled visitors to reach this area of coastline as by definition they will be unable to access the routes by walking or wheel chair as the roads are passable only by careful use of a motor vehicle or by a relatively fit and healthy pedestrian.

 

In your consideration of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill, I submit that inserting a subsection or clause within part 9 of the bill overriding Section 67 of NERCA 2006 for longstanding and existing routes that fall in to the category of the two roads I have described, would deal with anomalies created by the over zealous application of NERCA.

 

It is unlikely that this proposal would apply in many cases and would not allow new routes to be opened to motor traffic, which would be in line with the spirit of NERCA.

NERCA was enacted in part to reduce the disturbance caused by the inappropriate use of motor vehicles on 'green lanes' and private roads etc.This an entirely laudable objective, but its inflexible interpretation could lead to a reduction of public access to the coast and not an increase.

The focus on walking, riding and cycling is again admirable, but takes no account of those recreational activities such as angling, that often require carrying a significant amount of equipment or tackle and the needs of the disabled who by virtue of their impairment are unable to walk great distances or use a wheel chair on an unmade road.

 

The clause would only apply to those roads which fall into the same category as those I have described:

 

1. Existing and longstanding rights of way.

 

2. Whose purpose is to provide the only reasonable access to a section of coastline or estuary.

 

Conclusion

 

The insertion of this proposed clause would deal with this anomalous situation and would remove the administrative burden of undertaking an appeal and the concomitant expensive and lengthy appeal process.

 

This proposal would be entirely within the spirit and intention of part 9 of the Coastal and Marine Access Bill because it would ensure adequate public access to the nation's coastline, where it is threatened because an anomaly within another bill.

Its scope would be strictly limited to the circumstances described previously.

 

 

 

June 2009