Clause 296
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]
1:15 pm
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.