Richard Benyon (Shadow Minister, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Newbury, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment 44, in clause 296, page 192, line 21, at end insert—

‘(3A) Where a person with a relevant interest in affected land has requested Natural England to provide a map showing the landward boundary of the relevant coastal margin, but the report contains a description of that boundary pursuant to subsection (3)(b) instead of a map, the report must also contain a statement of Natural England’s reasons for declining to comply with the person’s request for a map.’.

The amendment would provide for owners and occupiers of land to make a formal request to Natural England for a map. It would require Natural England, if it declined such a request, to state its reasons for doing so in its report to the Secretary of State. That would discourage vexatious requests and encourage close co-operation between the owner or occupier of land and Natural England to identify the most appropriate method of defining the extent of the coastal margin.

As the Bill stands, unlike the coastal route itself, the spreading room associated with it is not automatically subject to a mapping requirement. Instead, we are to rely primarily on the descriptions in the reports made by Natural England to the Secretary of State. Given that a reduced liability will be associated with spreading room, it is all the more important that there be clarity on legal responsibility, to protect the landowner or occupier of the land and the user. A textual description alone, especially in respect of complicated areas, may result in considerable confusion in the minds of all users: the landowners, occupiers and walkers.

Some progress was made on the issue in another place. An amendment to clause 296 has given owners and occupiers the right to request a map if one has been produced to show the extent of any spreading room on their land. However, that amendment does not adequately deal with the problem, as it remains the case that Natural England is not committed to produce a map in the first place. That is an essential difference with the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

This simple amendment would deal with a problem that is likely to arise, without individuals having to invoke the appeals process. It would be absurd for owners and occupiers to have to invoke the new objection procedure merely to obtain a map to clarify the boundaries of spreading room on their land. If genuine doubts are expressed by owners and occupiers about the clarity of any description of the boundaries of spreading room, Natural England should consult them closely and look favourably on any reasonable request for mapping.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I support the amendment. I cannot see how any progress could be made in any consultation regarding a proposal for a coastal route, particularly in relation to spreading room, unless it was made clear where the spreading room would extend. At many places along the coast, there is no obvious physical boundary to any potential spreading room. If the spreading room were to spread inland as well as in a seaward direction, because of the physical constraint created by a path that would need to be very close to a cliff line or to the coast to achieve the spreading room required, there would often be no clear visual or physical boundary to guide anyone on their access rights.

The amendment is important, because the uncertainty created by the lack of a clear mapping exercise could result in confusion and dispute, which would be left to the landowner to resolve on each and every occasion when a user of that coastal access demonstrated their lack of clarity and certainty about the extent of the spreading room. So I hope that the Minister reflects carefully on the proposal and considers its reasonableness.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)

I think that I can provide reassurance. I take seriously the concerns of the hon. Members for Newbury and for St. Ives. I agree with the comment made by the hon. Member for Newbury about the need to avoid confusion. We need to avoid confusion, but we also need to avoid mapping for mapping’s sake, with all the resource and funding implications, particularly if there are other ways in which that clarity can be given and where absolute mapping can be avoided.

Let me try to explain how that might work. Natural England will be required to describe the route in reports proposed under section 51 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. The boundaries of the coastal margin must be clear in the report, so that those with the relevant interest can make representations and objections and the Secretary of State is sufficiently informed to be able to make a determination on the report. In light of the concerns that were expressed in the other place, and recognising that the clarity of the location of the route and coastal margin is an important issue to both landowners and users alike, we introduced an amendment to require Natural England to include in its coastal access report, under clause 296, a map to show a landward boundary of the relevant coastal land where it was unable to provide a description of the boundary sufficient to identify the relevant coastal margin. Let me just repeat that Natural England must include such a map when it is unable to provide a description of a boundary, which the hon. Member for St. Ives was talking about, that is sufficient to identify the relevant coastal margin.

We talked earlier about descriptions of physical features. We have all been out walking along the coastline and in other areas. We said that traditional stone walls, trenches or ditches are highly unlikely to be easily shiftable or mutable overnight. On one of my favourite walks, I go along the outer limit of a hill fort near a cliff within that sort of spreading room area where there is access. I walk there with my children, and it is enjoyable to go into the hill fort and tell them about its history. We could define its area by the outer limit of the ditches and its raised enclosures, hedgerows and so on. Those  sorts of things are pretty clearly identifiable, but the amendment that we introduced in the other place dealt with circumstances where Natural England could not provide a description of the boundary with sufficient clarity to determine the relevant coastal margin.

We have made it clear that we do not believe that maps will be necessary for clarity about where the coastal margin lies in most situations. We expect that the vast majority of Natural England’s descriptions of the margin will be sufficient to suit all parties, but I acknowledge that it may be necessary for it to provide a map to help to clarify certain situations—for example, where the coastal landscape is complex or difficult to describe in words.

In addition, a map may also be useful where Natural England uses its discretion for the margin on the landward side of the route to extend to a physical feature, as set out in section 55D(2) of the 1949 Act, where the feature is not immediately apparent to the eye. The hill fort that I mentioned is pretty darn clear and has been there for a few thousand years. It would be pretty hard to miss those humps and ditches. However, if an archaeological feature or something else is referred to that cannot be seen by the untrained eye, it makes sense to produce a map. It would not be sensible or appropriate for Natural England to be required to engage in what would be—if it was done on every occasion, let us be frank—an expensive mapping process, when the money could be better spent on matters such as better interpretation facilities of the coast, better signage or work to facilitate good access.

Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

I am surprised to hear the Minister say how expensive it would be to provide the maps, given that it is pretty easy to map nowadays with satellite usage. Google Maps, for example, does quite a good job. What sort of figure does he have in mind to produce a comprehensive map?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)

We do not have a figure, which is one of the amendment’s problems. The funding that we have suggested for the coastal path and the coastal margin over the 10-year period is adequate and has an element of mapping within it. To do that universally would require additional resources. However, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that one of the commercial providers, such as Ordnance Survey, will undertake to do it in detail. The coastal margin beyond the coastal path, which may be a path with a couple of metres either side, will not always be massive. It may be quite narrow and may not be mappable by Ordnance Survey.

Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

The Minister has said on several occasions during the past few minutes that a substantial cost would be unjustifiable. His Department must have made a stab at what the cost will be.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)

I will try to return to that. I do not think that we have an accurate figure, but it is reasonable to say that the cost of mapping, in terms of its resource implications, will be a burden for Natural England that could be put into other important parts of the coastal network, not least the aspects that we have already described, such as interpretation for visitors and tourists, signage, seasonal variations and so on. There will be a resource implication one way or the other.

As I have said—I will go into some more detail—it is perfectly within Natural England’s remit to produce maps where they are needed. It should be for Natural England to decide whether a map is required, because it will be best placed to do that. I would also expect that the question of a map will be raised during any early discussions with a route’s landowner. A conversation should be held between the relevant parties about the best approach to the circumstances surrounding that stretch of coast. I would also expect Natural England to deal sympathetically with landowners’ concerns. Should there be a reasonable expectation to produce a map and Natural England decide that it is not required, I would expect it to explain in writing why it made that decision. I do not believe that that needs to be covered by the Bill, because I firmly believe that the system will work well in practice.

However, recognising the genuine concerns of landowners, I am happy to keep the system under review and ask Natural England to report back within five years. That will provide an incentive if it is needed—I do not think that it is—to Natural England to act reasonably, as I strongly expect it to in any case. If there are problems in practice, we will find a way to deal with them. In light of that, as well as the available flexibility to introduce mapping and the fact that, in most cases, that will be agreed, the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Newbury does not need to be included in the Bill. I am convinced that the amendments that we have already included to assure landowners and members of the Committee will be sufficient.

Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

Can the Minister assure the Committee that, if there is a dispute between the landowner and Natural England about the route or the spreading room and a map is produced at the insistence of the landowner, none of the expense would fall on the landowner?

Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)

The expense of mapping would fall on Natural England, which is the converse of the point that we were just discussing. It is ready to do that, so that is not a problem. The issue is whether Natural England should have to map every single part, because the matters under discussion are coastal margins and aspects of spreading room. Most of that will be done via the process that we have described through genuine consultation with landowners. When features such as a wall or the edge of a hill fort cannot clearly be identified, we would expect Natural England to introduce mapping for the benefit of the landowner. With those strong reassurances, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Richard Benyon (Shadow Minister, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Newbury, Conservative)

The main plank of the Minister’s argument seems to be cost. He might have given us more detail on the costs. I notice that in Natural England’s draft scheme, which I seem to be quoting from the whole time, there are some excellent maps, lifted—if the small print is to be believed—from Ordnance Survey. I suspect that they were a desktop operation. What they try to achieve and to show is clear, and so I suspect that the cost is not massive.

Throughout this part of the Bill, we are being asked to put a lot of faith in Natural England’s ability to come up with the right balance. I am happy to go along with the Minister’s assurances of a four-yearly review, which  the Conservative party would undertake if it were in government. We would be keen to ensure that Natural England was operating in a proportionate way, and showing consideration for the fact that we are setting new parameters for people’s livelihoods and businesses and placing new factors in their lives. In some cases, those represent a considerable imposition on members of the public, and in others little. It is important that we get that balance right.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)

I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that this is important for landowners, but curiously also for those who might use the path.

Richard Benyon (Shadow Minister, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Newbury, Conservative)

Absolutely. That is why I referred to a balance. There are limits to the textual description that one can offer, and in such circumstances a map is required. I am prepared, with the Minister’s assurances, to put faith in Natural England and trust that whenever it feels that maps are required, to show consideration for all sides in the argument, it will make them available. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Richard Benyon (Shadow Minister, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Newbury, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment 49, in clause 296, page 193, line 29, at end insert—

‘55EA Changes in land use

(1) Any person with a relevant interest in land may require Natural England to review a coastal access report; and reasons for review may include—

(a) proposed or actual changes in the use of land;

(b) review of existing directions made under Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the CROW Act for the exclusion or restriction of the right of access;

(c) proposed new directions under Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the CROW Act for the exclusion or restriction of the right of access

(2) Persons with a relevant interest may appeal to the appointed person as set out in Schedule 19 against the refusal of Natural England to—

(a) undertake the review;

(b) undertake the review within timescales specified by regulation;

(c) amend the coastal access report.”.

It is me again, I am afraid, Mr. Pope. With this amendment we seek to examine again the relationship between the proposed coastal path and the planning system. Despite much discussion on this on Report in another place, and a paper from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, it is still unclear to many people how the relationship between the coastal margin and the planning system will work. Will, for example, the coastal path or the coastal margin be a material consideration for planning purposes? Will designation of either serve to restrict or limit development? What guidance will be provided to local planning authorities? We discussed some of those questions this morning, but some of them still need to be answered. The Minister has suggested that the point of designating coastal access under the CROW Act 2000 was that it could be flexible and accommodate changes in land use over time. However, he was less clear about how that would be communicated to local planning authorities.

There is a concern, which was expressed well by Lord Cameron in Committee in another place:

“the key to a healthy rural economy is diversity, flexibility and continuous response to the market place...However, the danger...is that the current, in other words the first, coastal route, could easily be given a sacrosanct status in the minds of the planners, and the proposed development will be forced to accommodate the existing route...What should happen is that the coastal route should be adjusted to the development.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 April 2009; Vol. 709, c. 1397.]

In addition, if the development is permitted, or if the landowner changes the use of his land, there is no right in the Bill and no process set out by which landowners can require Natural England to review the coastal access reports. Although Natural England has the ability to review the reports, it is at its discretion. That may cause problems especially for smaller landowners or businesses that may end up trying to manage changes in their business alongside unchanged access because no review of the coastal access report has been undertaken. Lord Davis accepted that land managers must have flexibility, so that they can change the use of their land as they need to. There therefore needs to be some process in place so that Natural England can be required to review reports when those changes arise.

Our amendment would help to remove uncertainty over future changes in land use by ensuring that the Bill enables landowners to request a review of a report to take account of the changes. It is a sensible and necessary safeguard. If not, owners will have to wait until Natural England chooses to review a report, which is likely to stifle coastal businesses, particularly those where only small changes are required to enable them to continue to grow and thrive. Failure to include such a provision in the Bill will cast doubt on the Government’s stated commitment to ensure that businesses will have the flexibility to adapt and change.

Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

The most important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury was in the final bit of his peroration, which is whether this Government are serious about being on the side of businesses, be they small or large, particularly at a time when businesses up and down the country are struggling, especially tourist and agricultural-related ones. The Minister needs to pause and think whether he wishes to underscore his Government’s oft-repeated remark that they are supportive of businesses.

The whole issue of the Bill is one of fairness and balance. It would be good to see an absence of vindictiveness and fixed positioning. The Bill is not only about access to the coast—to which all parties are signed up—but about ensuring that there is a fair compensatory scheme for those who will suffer and about balancing the rights of the landowner and the farmer with those of people who wish to make use of the facility. As the Bill is currently constructed, the rights are not balanced. That would be greatly improved if the amendment was included in the Bill, as it underscores flexibility.

As the seascape and landscape change over generations, so may the requirements of the landowner to take advantage of the coastal changes. The Minister referred to hill forts. Well, there was not always a hill fort there, but it is now something that needs to be preserved. Likewise, if students of John Fowles’s “The French Lieutenant’s Woman” walked that wonderful bit of the  south-west coastal path between Seaton in my constituency and Uplyme—the famous Undercliff—which is the one of the great walks in the UK, I would submit, they would be aware of the slip at Bindon. The Bindon slip was a great tourist attraction in the 19th century, when an enormous slippage of land created Goat island, which itself became a huge tourist attraction. Physically, the landscape was changing. Without the ability in the Bill to change or re-examine coastal access—if it was fixed in stone—that could not have happened.

There are other uses that landowners may want to change, such as the planting of trees for shelter, some protective work against the elements and walling and fencing to keep livestock in. Such work will not necessarily happen often, but unless it is in the Bill, it will not happen at all, because there will be no inherent flexibility.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)

If a landowner—I have done this on land that I own, which is not on the coastal strip—were to bring forward a proposal, for example, to plant deciduous, woodland trees, which would diminish our carbon footprint and enhance biodiversity, I suspect that Natural England, as our statutory and principal adviser on conservation, would be banging on the door and offering to work with that landowner. The Bill has the flexibility for that.

Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

Natural England might do that, but it might involve an alteration to the spreading room or indeed the access, which is surely the point. We need a clause that can cover any eventuality. Just as the Minister prayed in aid the fact that there was no need to have universal mapping, because the occasions when a dispute would need to be settled in that way would be few and far between, likewise, the provision might be used on very few occasions, but it needs to be in Bill. We are not taking a strong position, but encouraging grown-up flexibility, which should be the keystone in making this a workable piece of legislation.

Ann McKechin (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Scotland Office; Glasgow North, Labour)

I welcome the debate on the amendment, but let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have no intention of being vindictive or having a fixed position—nothing in our debate so far on the Bill has provided evidence of that. We are certainly on the side of promoting business and tourism. One of the major reasons why people have pointed to the benefit of greater coastal access is that it is likely to lead to substantial growth in local economies—particularly in the tourism business. Each year in this country, over 70 million trips are made to the coast, with over £1.4 billion being spent. That helps to support a large number of small businesses, particularly in Devon, Cornwall and other parts of the country with quite vulnerable economies and where the tourism industry is key and vital. The Bill is tourism’s friend, not its enemy.

I recognise the reasoning behind amendment 49, which would allow any person with a relevant interest in land to trigger a review on certain grounds. Natural England is already able to review a report if it thinks that necessary. Provisions in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and in the Bill envisage that Natural England will do that of its own volition. Section 55(2) of the 1949 Act also gives the Secretary of State the discretion to review the report.  He may do that if it is brought to his attention by landlords, businesses or the general economy that issues need change.

Under the CROW Act there is nothing to prevent land from becoming excepted land under schedule 1 by reason of development. I reassure the hon. Member for Newbury again that there is nothing in the nature of the provision to restrict development or change. He also mentioned material considerations. The court rulings on this issue and under planning law have held that virtually anything can be a material consideration in a planning case, so we can use wide discretion in defining that. That would be the guiding factor in any challenge.

Chapter 2 of the CROW Act already contains mechanisms for a landowner to apply for new restrictions and exclusions of access for certain reasons. Those will remain in place for the coastal margin with certain modifications to take account of the coastal situation.

Richard Benyon (Shadow Minister, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Newbury, Conservative)

I hope that before the Minister sits down she will explain what guidance the Government or, through them, Natural England will provide to local planning authorities on how they should view the relationship between this provision and possible future developments.

Ann McKechin (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Scotland Office; Glasgow North, Labour)

I will come to that.

There is also a right of appeal in the CROW Act against a refusal to make a direction, which will be preserved for the coastal margin. That is an important protection. Natural England also has a power to provide an alternative route to the ordinary route during any period in which access to the ordinary route is excluded by reason of a direction for an exclusion or restriction. There is no particular need for an additional review of exclusions and directions.

I recognise the concerns expressed in the other place about the impact of development on the route, where the route could later be interrupted by development. Those concerns may lie behind the amendment. The new right of access to coastal land given under provisions in the CROW Act is a flexible right to allow for the changes in land use. We are holding talks at present with the Department for Communities and Local Government on the nature of the guidance that will be provided to local authorities in terms of the Planning Act.

The consultation, which we discussed in our debate on amendments 42 and 55 and which Natural England will undertake prior to drawing up a coastal access report, will identify likely new developments so that it can take them into account when drawing up the proposals. It is unlikely that Natural England will not be aware of nationally significant developments. Should there be developments after the route has been put in place, Natural England will have a power under section 55 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 to draw up a report proposing a variation of the route, subject to the full consultation and representation process. I hope that I have reassured hon. Members that there already is adequate provision to cater for any developments that may affect the route, including actionby the Secretary of State under the 1949 Act. On that basis I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Richard Benyon (Shadow Minister, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Newbury, Conservative)

That shows why this is a subsidiary piece of the Bill. A body of effort quite rightly went into preparing for the marine Bill, which we all want to see on the statute books as quickly as possible, but this part of the Bill has not been properly thought through. It has been brought to this stage of the parliamentary process without proper consultation with planning authorities and I can guarantee that some planning authorities will interpret it in a completely different way from others. I just do not believe that this can be allowed to drift in this way. I therefore think our amendment is right. It secures a requirement on the Government to develop and clearly state that relationship with the planning system.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

On a point of order, Mr. Pope. Could you clarify whether Government amendments 60 and 61 have been withdrawn?

Greg Pope (Hyndburn, Labour)

We have not reached them yet. They were grouped with an earlier amendment for debate.

Richard Benyon (Shadow Minister, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Newbury, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment 45, in clause 296, page 196, line 23, at end insert—

‘(3) Nothing in this section shall preclude a person with a relevant interest in affected land from making an appeal under section 30 of the CROW Act for an exclusion or restriction of the right of access at a subsequent date after approved proposals have been implemented.’.

Although we welcome the inclusion of amendments made in another place to rectify the fundamental omission from the Bill of an independent appeals process, we remain concerned that there may be cases after the establishment phase, possibly several years later, in which changes to circumstances make adjustments to local land management necessary. For example, walkers’ exercise of their right of access might prove different from what was expected, or, if ownership of the land changes, the new owner might want to manage the land differently. Perhaps the physical features of the coast itself will have altered over time due to erosion, climate change and so on, a factor noted in the guidance.

It would be desirable, of course, for adjustments to exclusions and restrictions to the right of access to be put in place by agreement with Natural England and/or the local access authority. However, where no such agreement can be achieved, it is important that occupiers should be able to appeal against a refusal by Natural  England to alter a restriction or exclusion regime, as occupiers of open country can do currently under sections 24 and 30 of the CROW Act. Our amendment’s intention is simply to confirm that owners and occupiers of land and those on coastal margin will be able to appeal against refusals of their applications for changes in the exclusions and restrictions regime in the same way currently allowed in relation to open country under the CROW Act.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)

We might be able to deal with this relatively quickly. I will give an assurance right at the outset, because I think that the issue comes down to how the CROW Act can be used. This Government have no intention of amending the provisions for appeals in section 30 of CROW, to which I will turn in a moment. Any such amendment would be made under a section 3A order, which would itself be subject to affirmative resolution in Parliament, and I am sure that that would inspire lively debate. It is not the Government’s intention to change the categories of person who might make an application for restrictions and exclusions under section 24 of the CROW Act, and I suspect that the hon. Gentleman, if he were in my place, would have no intention of amending them.

Having said that at the outset, I will go into detail. Clause 296 inserts new sections into the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 to provide for the coastal route. New section 55D(5) requires Natural England to identify and include in a coastal access report all restrictions and exclusions that would be necessary if the coastal access report were approved. Landowners and others may also make representations on the final report, including proposals for additional exclusions and restrictions or changes to those proposed by Natural England.

In addition, as we have discussed, those with an interest in affected land may make objections on certain grounds, including the inclusion or failure to include a proposal for a restriction or exclusion. New section 55F(2) requires Natural England to make directions relating to any exclusions or restrictions in accordance with its proposals set out in an approved coastal access report, or with any variations of those proposals made by the Secretary of State. Taken together, the provisions require all exclusions and restrictions necessary at the time when the coastal access report was drawn up to be included in the report and directions to be given putting in place the exclusions or restrictions proposed in the report.

Subsequent changes to the situation necessitating new or different restrictions or exclusions are catered for in sections 24 and 25 of CROW, under which a person with an interest in any land may make an application for an exclusion or restriction of access for land management purposes. We debated that to some extent in earlier clauses, and I have made clear my intention not to revisit it. The applicant may appeal to the Secretary of State where the relevant authority fails to make a direction in accordance with the application.

Amendment 45 would insert a new subsection to section 55J, to provide that the new provisions inserted into the 1949 Act by clause 296 do not preclude a person with a relevant interest in affected land from appealing against a decision to refuse application from an exclusion or restriction of access after the approved proposals and report have been implemented.

I say to the Committee, as I have said in our earlier discussions on relevant interests, that those with relevant interests, as defined in section 45 of the CROW Act, will have the same rights as they do on CROW land to apply for restrictions and exclusions of access for land management reasons. Natural England must issue a direction for a restriction or an exclusion if it is necessary and access cannot be suitably managed in any other way. If the application is turned down or a direction proposed by Natural England is not in accordance with the terms of that application, there is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State under section 30 of the CROW Act.

I repeat that it is not the Government’s intention to make changes to the categories of people who may make applications for restrictions and exclusions under section 24 of the CROW Act. Once again, I make it clear that the Government do not intend to amend the provisions for appeals in section 30 of the CROW Act. As I have said, any such amendment would be made under a section 3A order, which itself would be subject to the affirmative resolution process in both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, any such amendment would come under a fair degree of scrutiny and we have no intention of making any such amendment. We have already indicated the main measures that we intend an order, under section 3A, to contain. We will consult on these proposals before submitting them to Parliament. I have already clarified what matters we do not consider relevant to bring forward.

We believe that the extensive consultation and representations process before the position of the coastal route is determined, combined with those provisions in the CROW Act for a relevant interest to apply for restrictions or exclusions to access, will indeed create that principled point behind the Bill, which is getting that fair balance in ensuring that all views are appropriately considered.

Having given that clarification and reassurance, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Richard Benyon (Shadow Minister, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Newbury, Conservative)

The Minister’s words are on the record and I am happy that that clarification has been given. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Richard Benyon (Shadow Minister, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Newbury, Conservative)

Before we leave clause 296, may I ask the Minister to give assurances about the physical feature issue of a coastal margin? There is concern about certain areas where there is no definable point at which the spreading room could be deemed to be finished. There are plenty of places where, for example, a large field runs down to the coast. What I do not want to see is landowners rushing before the Bill comes in to place fences in what were formerly open fields to reduce both the visual and physical amenity for walkers and anyone else who enjoys that part of the countryside. Therefore, some explanation needs to be given about what features constitute a limit to where the spreading room finishes.

I suspect that we will come on to this issue when we discuss amendment 66, in respect of park land. However, it is conceivable that there are areas where it would be impossible for the walker to determine right of access,  unless enormous amounts of effort are made on signage and possibly even on creating barriers that none of us want to see. I would welcome any explanation that the Minister could give on that issue.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Marine and Natural Environment), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Ogmore, Labour)

To expand on the debate that we had on this issue earlier, it is certainly conceivable that, for example, where there is no clear physical feature that can be easily identified, Natural England, in consultation with the landowner, could flag up an area in one way or another to identify exactly where the spreading room is. That possibility is there.

I concur with the hon. Gentleman. It had also gone through my mind that a concerned landowner might rush to move that field fence. I am not saying that many would do—I do not think so. But if they were worried about where the spreading was going, that picket and wire fence might suddenly go 10 yd seaward. I do not think that would happen, by and large. Clear physical features can be described; an absence of clear physical features enters the realms of mapping, or using some other flexible approach such as determination by a marker. A variety of approaches can be used to reassure landowners as well as walkers about where they should walk and for Natural England to do a proper localised approach to bring in this fore edge, which I think we would all want to do.

Finally, I would not want to limit the flexibility to use appropriate physical features. It may not be easy to identify them all in advance. However, Natural England may want to consider whether it can give clarification in its scheme, which will set out in more detail the approach it wants to take in implementing this part of its coastal access duty. The scheme will be subject to public consultation once the Bill becomes law. That will be a chance for all Committee Members and others with concerns to have an input into the final scheme, including where the boundary is on the landward side. The final scheme has to be approved by the Secretary of State. I urge Committee Members and those listening to our deliberations who have concerns to input into that consultation so that the final scheme is clear.

Richard Benyon (Shadow Minister, Environment, Food & Rural Affairs; Newbury, Conservative)

I am grateful for that explanation from the Minister.