![]() 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:
Irranca-Davies,
Huw (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs) Chris
Stanton, Committee Clerk
attended the Committee First Delegated Legislation CommitteeTuesday 23 February 2010[Ann Winterton in the Chair]Draft Access to the Countryside (Coastal Margin) (England) Order 201010.30
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. MembersI am sure that others will be popping
inwho 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 againit is truly worth
repeatingthat 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. The
starting point of our whole approach is about achieving the fair
balance between the interests of the public in having rights of access
over land and the interests of any person with a relevant interest in
that land. As we said extensively in Committee and during
the other stages of the Bill, wide consultation will be undertaken by
Natural England on the proposed route. The Act provides for a process
by which representations can be made on Natural Englands
coastal access report and objections can be heard by an independent
person appointed by the Secretary of State. Environmental and heritage
interests on the coast will also be taken fully into account. The draft
order introduces necessary amendments to the CROW Act that are
appropriate to circumstances on the coast. It will help deliver our
vision for clear, consistent and, as far as possible, continuous access
along the English
coast. 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 dogor 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 todayon 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-diversityfor 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 Englands 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 Englands 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 conservativeconservative
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
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
©Parliamentary copyright 2010 | Prepared 24 February 2010 |