Clause 290
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]
5:15 pm
Richard Benyon (Shadow Minister, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Newbury, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment 41, in clause 290, page 186, line 28, at end insert—
‘(6A) Where excepted land described in paragraphs 3 and 11 of Schedule 1 to the CROW Act (excepted land for purposes of Part 1) becomes land which is not excepted land for the purposes of coastal margin by virtue of an order made under section 3A of the CROW Act, in discharging the coastal access duty in relation to the creation of new rights of way Natural England and the Secretary of State shall use their best endeavours to treat such land as excepted land unless they are satisfied that there are no practicable alternatives.’.
We have reached a milestone in our deliberations. We have completed the really important area of the Bill and we are now dealing with something that has been bolted on. Before the Minister rolls about in laughter, what I am actually saying is that this is a very important part of the Bill, but I would have liked it to have been considered separately. What we have discussed up until now is something that has been long called for by a great many people. Coastal access is equally important, but to perhaps a different group of people.
When I say that I am extremely supportive of increasing access to our coastline, Members on the Government Benches might be waiting for me to say “but”. When I say “but” I believe that the legislation can be tightened and improved, but I would like to put on the record that I have always been a supporter of providing greater access to our countryside. There are a variety of different ways of doing that and this is, perhaps, a noble objective, but there are areas where it can be improved.
The amendment seeks to address an issue that was picked up in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and should be reflected in this legislation; that is, to secure the privacy and protection from members of the public for certain types of building. I will describe why this is extremely important. The new section 3A of the Act states that the CROW Act protection for dwellings and for buildings used for livestock where the public do not have a right of access within 20 m will be moved in relation to the coastal margin.
The justification for that, I am sure, is that a coastal path will, by its nature, in places require closer access to certain buildings—whether they are people’s houses, agricultural buildings, or any other type of building. That really needs some serious thought. Existing rights of way that will become part of the coastal route and already come within 20 m of dwellings or livestock buildings are no argument for saying that this proximity should be visited on any other dwelling or livestock building on the coastal strip.
The amendment provides that where land close to dwellings or livestock buildings has had its excepted protection removed by virtue of a new section 3A order, Natural England and the Secretary of State should none the less be under a statutory duty to treat such land as if it were excepted land. I will put in a caveat there. There may be certain circumstances—very few—where the Secretary of State needs some leeway. An example might be where a promontory or salient of land is squeezed in really narrow terms, in the unlikely event of there being a building there. In other words, in designing and approving the coastal access scheme, Natural England and the Secretary of State should be obliged to avoid creating new rights of way which are positioned in close proximity to human dwellings, or buildings used for farm livestock.
Many residents who live on or very close to the coastline view the coastal access scheme with great concern. Therefore it is reasonable that they should be assured that every effort is being made by the authorities to avoid invading their privacy and the enjoyment of their properties, wherever it is practicable to do so. More importantly, in respect of farm buildings, there is a serious issue of farm biosecurity to be taken into account. As well as the day-to-day management of livestock and agricultural activities, safety for walkers, as well as for livestock, is paramount and must be considered.
We must learn from foot and mouth and other farm diseases. We require a much higher level of biosecurity than we have been happy to accept in the past. I know that the Minister will say that, in the event of a foot and mouth outbreak, farmers and landowners will be allowed to close areas around farm buildings containing livestock. That may be so, but it will probably be too late to do that in many areas. A simple amendment, such as this one, requiring what is already accepted in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to be applied in this Bill will prevent walkers from walking up to a lambing building, for example, looking over the fence, contaminating the animals and carrying disease. There are some important points to be made on biosecurity and, equally, on safety.