Clause 290
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]
5:15 pm
Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)
I welcome Committee members’ welcoming this part of the Bill, albeit the hon. Member for Newbury regards it as something of a bolt-on. We regard it as an integral part and parcel of what we propose, because the demand for responsible access to the coast is huge. We are now making more than 70 million trips to the undeveloped coast every year. Recent research shows that walking is the single most popular activity along the coast. The thrust behind this part of the Bill, which is on improving access, is to give people the confidence and the certainty that, when they arrive at the coast there will be clear, well-managed access in either direction and they will be able to enjoy a rich, varied natural environment that many people take for granted.
Under the legislation the Secretary of State and Natural England will be given a new duty to secure two objectives. The first objective is to do with the long-distance route or routes around the whole of the English coast, accessible to the public for journeys on foot. The second objective is that there be a wider margin of recreational land accessible by foot that the public can enjoy in conjunction with the route. Both aims gained broad support during pre-legislative scrutiny.
In the other place, Lord Taylor of Holbeach remarked:
“We fully support the establishment of the coastal route and we also see the value of the second objective in Clause 286,—
which is now clause 290—
“to expand access sufficiently to allow for recreation.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 June 2009; Vol. 711, c. 12.]
Lord Greaves also welcomed the coastal access and quoted the Hobhouse report of 1947:
“The love of open air is nowhere more clearly shown than in the use which is made of the coasts of this country. For countless thousands the seaside is almost synonymous with the annual summer holiday”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 March 2009; Vol. 709, c. 877.]
These proposals have to be sustainable and workable. One of the themes that we will draw out in the discussion is the input from local people and organisations to bring the routes forward. That underpins amendment 41, which refers to two categories of excepted land under schedule 1 to the CROW Act:
“Land within 20 metres of a dwelling.”
and
“Land covered by pens in use for the temporary reception or detention of livestock.”
Proposed new section 3A(4) of the CROW Act, which is set out in clause 297(5), will allow the Secretary of State by order to modify the provisions of part 1 of the CROW Act
“in their application to land which is coastal margin.”
I recognise the concerns and questions about what changes may be made to the categories of excepted land, as they affect land that is coastal. We published a paper on the order and excepted land, which set out the main measures we expect to be contained in the order.
We have said that land within 20 m of a dwelling will not be excepted land for the purposes of coastal margin because that would not be appropriate where access would be limited to a margin of land next to the sea. In many cases on the coast, there is already access closer than 20 m from a dwelling and it does not cause problems. Further protection is provided by paragraph 2 of schedule 1 to the CROW Act, which excepts buildings and curtilage.
We have no intention of changing the category under paragraph 11 of schedule 1 to the CROW Act, which is mentioned in the amendment:
“Land covered by pens in use for the temporary reception or detention of livestock.”
However, we have said that we are minded to remove paragraph 10 to schedule 1:
“Land within 20 metres of a building which is used for housing livestock”.
The hon. Member for Newbury rightly raises concerns over biosecurity. However, there are safeguards in the excepted land category because we believe that
“buildings or the curtilage of such land”
would include farmyards that are associated with farm buildings. There is also a power in the CROW Act to apply for a restriction or exclusion of access for land management reasons, so those powers are already in place. The hon. Gentleman rightly said that I would refer to the Animal Health Act 2002. Should there be an outbreak of animal disease, there are powers under that Act to close land where appropriate.
We think that we can deal with the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman with the provisions of the CROW Act, particularly the exception for buildings and their curtilage, and the powers in the 2002 Act.