Clause 296
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]
1:00 pm
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.