House of Commons portcullis
House of Commons
Session 2009 - 10
Publications on the internet
General Committee Debates
Delegated Legislation Committee Debates

Draft Access to the Countryside (Coastal Margin) (England) Order 2010



The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairman: Ann Winterton
Davies, Philip (Shipley) (Con)
Farron, Tim (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Hodgson, Mrs. Sharon (Gateshead, East and Washington, West) (Lab)
Irranca-Davies, Huw (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
Kumar, Dr. Ashok (Middlesbrough, South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Ladyman, Dr. Stephen (South Thanet) (Lab)
Laxton, Mr. Bob (Derby, North) (Lab)
McIntosh, Miss Anne (Vale of York) (Con)
Mactaggart, Fiona (Slough) (Lab)
Moon, Mrs. Madeleine (Bridgend) (Lab)
Ottaway, Richard (Croydon, South) (Con)
Rifkind, Sir Malcolm (Kensington and Chelsea) (Con)
Twigg, Derek (Halton) (Lab)
Watkinson, Angela (Upminster) (Con)
Williams, Mr. Roger (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
Wright, David (Telford) (Lab)
Chris Stanton, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee

First Delegated Legislation Committee

Tuesday 23 February 2010

[Ann Winterton in the Chair]

Draft Access to the Countryside (Coastal Margin) (England) Order 2010

10.30 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Huw Irranca-Davies): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Access to the Countryside (Coastal Margin) (England) Order 2010.
It is a pleasure to serve again under your chairmanship, Lady Winterton. I am grateful to all those on the Committee. I am pleased to see, among them, several hon. Members—I am sure that others will be popping in—who have already given considerable time to discussing the access provisions under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009; I am thinking in particular of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and East Cleveland and the hon. Member for Upminster, who considered part 9 in Committee. I am not forgetting the excellent pre-legislative scrutiny work completed by the hon. Member for Vale of York in the Select Committee on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter), who, although not with us at the moment, did sterling work on the Joint Committee.
The Government remain committed to providing a route around the coast of England for people to enjoy. The draft order is the next important step in ensuring that that becomes a reality in the next 10 years. It has been laid before Parliament under the powers of section 44(3) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. Section 303(5) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 amends the CROW Act to include coastal margin in the definition of access land. It also inserts a provision that enables the Secretary of State to specify certain land as coastal margin and enables amendments to be made to the existing provisions under the CROW Act as they apply to coastal land.
Let me start by saying once again—it is truly worth repeating—that the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 is an historic achievement. It outlines a robust and workable framework for the marine environment and provision for a new right of access to the English coast. The proposals for coastal access provide both a new right of access for the public and several safeguards for landowners, including the categories of land that are excepted from the right of access and the ability to restrict or exclude the right of access for land management or certain other purposes.
I turn now to the details of the draft order and will highlight some of its provisions. Article 3 sets out descriptions of land to which the right of access under section 2(1) of the CROW Act will apply. They include the line of the English coastal route; land within 2 metres either side of the line of the route; land to the seaward of the route; and land to the landward of the route where it is foreshore, cliff, bank, barrier, dune, beach or flat.
Part 1 of the schedule to the order amends the categories of accepted land at schedule 1 of the CROW Act as they apply to the coastal margin, removing some existing categories. That includes land within 20 metres of a dwelling. It amends some categories, for example, to allow the coastal route to go through cultivated land and golf courses, and adds four new categories of excepted land. Important safeguards for landowners and occupiers are retained in the existing categories of excepted land, such as for buildings and their curtilage, and for parks and gardens.
Part 2 of the schedule amends the general restrictions under schedule 2 to the CROW Act, in particular the requirements for the control of dogs. It removes the requirement for dogs to be kept on a short lead between 1 March and 31 July. Another requirement concerns a person on the coastal margin accompanied by a dog—or should that be a dog accompanied by a person? Whichever it is, the dog must be kept under effective control. Restrictions on angling-related activity are relaxed as well.
Part 3 of the schedule amends the process for making exclusions or restrictions of access on coastal margin, for example by removing powers to exclude or restrict access at the discretion of landowners and others and adding a new power to restrict or exclude access on areas of saltmarsh or flats which are unsuitable for public access.
We consulted on the proposals for the order between September and December last year, having beforehand set out our intentions in a paper that we published alongside the draft Marine Bill, as it was at the time. The Government are grateful to all those organisations and individuals who took the time to respond; their comments have been carefully considered. In general, they supported the consultation proposals but, as I said, we have amended the final proposals in some respects as a result of views expressed.
A balanced and proportionate way forward is before us. The flexibility in the coastal access provisions provided for in the 2009 Act and the extensive consultations that Natural England is to undertake before drawing up a report recommending a route will ensure that all interests are taken into account and that any necessary exclusions and restrictions are in place at the outset. I commend the order to the Committee.
10.36 am
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York) (Con): Lady Winterton, I welcome you most warmly to the Chair and I welcome the Minister to his place. I am here to represent my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Benyon), who has followed the issues in Committee but is currently slightly out at sea today—on a boat, investigating some fishing off the east coast. We wish him well.
The Minister gave us a little of the history behind the draft regulations. I note that the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, as it then was, was my first legislative Bill when I sat on the Back Benches, so I am familiar with some of the schemes.
In talking things through with my hon. Friends, I have come to understand that the Minister gave clear undertakings in the early stages of what is now the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. However, those who received and were pleased with such undertakings now feel extremely disappointed. One issue related to the response to the consultation, to which the Minister referred, and in particular to the size of the alternative route strip.
The Minister alluded to the dogs walking the people or the people walking the dogs, and to the length of the strip. Landowners in that category who would be affected by the provisions were led to believe that effectively they would not be obliged to put in a new fence. Since the undertaking in the earlier proceedings has not been met, landowners will be put to big expense, which is quantified globally in the explanatory memorandum.
I shall come on to the costs of the impact of the legislation, but will the Minister share with us why he has gone back on those various undertakings? One relates to the size of the alternative route strip and the additional expenditure to which landowners now believe they will be put. The other concerns the 28-day exclusion that they understand exists in the CROW Act.
A 28-day exclusion may have a variety of reasons behind it, such as land management generally or bio-diversity—for example, birds nesting at various times of the year. My understanding is that an undertaking was given for a similar exclusion to be included in the regulations before the Committee today. Disappointment has been expressed about why that undertaking has not been honoured. I am interested to know the reason.
A further concern raised during the consultation relates to privacy. The order should represent a compromise of interests. I think all members of the Committee welcome greater access to our country heritage. However, with that access go certain rights and responsibilities. Hitherto, landowners have had unbridled privacy, which will now be breached under the order. The compromise that was mooted at the time of the Bill proceedings does not seem to have been honoured in the letter of the order. I hope the Minister will comment on that matter.
A further issue is that there will have to be access to crops. There may be a loss of crops; before, when there was no public access, the crops would have gone right up to the coast. That access will now be lost. I understand that there is no allowance or compensation in that regard. Did the Minister consider that matter in the consultation? What were the responses? Why did the Government discard that?
The start-up cost to the public sector of identifying and implementing the coastal route is estimated to be £53 million over a 10-year period. Since I am relatively new to the issues, it would be helpful if the Minister explained the following. I understand that most of the costs will fall on Natural England, but an estimated £3 million will fall on the Department. From which part of the budget will the figures come? Can one say that it will be roughly £5 million, otherwise, out of Natural England’s budget for that period? It would also be helpful to know how the 10-year running cost equates to a similar cost of setting up the CROW Act.
We are told that no regulatory requirement will be placed on business, charities or the voluntary sector as a result of implementing the coastal access provisions under the 2009 Act. The explanatory memorandum, however, goes on to state that there will be
“some costs to property owners who may be affected by the route, including costs for participating in Natural England’s consultation on the line of the route and some loss of production where the new right of access affects farmed land. The costs are estimated to be £8 million over 20 years.”
I would like to revert to my earlier point on the element of compensation. How will landowners be compensated? I would have thought that the estimate was conservative—“conservative” with a small “c”; the costs may be significantly higher than that over the period.
The Minister will be aware of the issue of flood protection, particularly along the eastern part of Yorkshire right down to East Anglia and Kent, where coastal erosion is a feature. To what extent does the order take account of the impact on, for example, Walton-on-the-Naze, for which I was MEP for 10 years? Walton-on-the-Naze is fast eroding. There are important fossils there, which one would hope to preserve for future generations. The whole of the Yorkshire coast is vulnerable. I wonder what regard there has been to those various aspects under the order.
The proposed new categories of land received a number of responses and I have gone over many of them. It would be helpful to know from the Minister what other responses to the consultation the Department chose not to support in this little order.
10.45 am
Mr. Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD): It is always a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Lady Winterton.
The Minister took the Marine and Coastal Access Bill through its consideration with graciousness and good humour. That was reciprocated by people who tried to fulfil the spirit of the Bill and facilitate its aims and objectives. In making amendments and coming to an agreed position, he gave assurances about the content of the secondary legislation. This Committee is the measure and the test of those commitments. I will raise a number of issues in respect of the order.
We assumed that dogs would have to be kept on short leads during a specific period of the year because of concerns about ground-nesting birds and livestock farming. That has been changed to “effective control”, the definition of which would test a number of lawyers. We want certainty, rather than a term that is not readily understood. For instance, for common land, the term used is that dogs be kept under “close control”. Perhaps the Minister will indicate the difference between “effective control” and “close control”. That issue is of deep concern for some livestock farmers.
That section 2 of the CROW Act will not apply to coastal access is also of deep concern. I understand that it would create a sort of mosaic if different landowners closed a section of coastal access in different months. However, there should be some method for co-operation between landowners along an area of coastal access so that it could be closed for 28 days during the year to facilitate nature conservation and livestock farming.
I have tried to read the provisions on spreading land on the landward side. Perhaps the Minister could explain what is meant by article 3(3)(b)(ii), which describes
“land of any other kind, which is treated by section 15(1) as being accessible to the public apart from the CROW Act”.
When I first read that, my view was that farm land, whether intensively farmed land or grazed land, would be excluded from spreading land on the landward side. Article 5 states:
“The landward boundary of the relevant coastal margin or part is...to coincide with that feature.”
It would be helpful if he spelled out what is meant by that.
Those are the issues I would like to raise with the Minister. If you will bear with me for a second, Lady Winterton, I would like to say how good it is that the order has come forward so quickly. However, we are still waiting for regulations on the common land legislation that was passed many years ago. Many people who farm common land would like to see regulations introduced. While we welcome the speed with which this order has been dealt, we wish the Department could be as speedy in dealing with other regulations.
10.50 am
 
Contents Continue
House of Commons 
home page Parliament home page House of 
Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index

©Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 24 February 2010