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

I beg to move amendment 50, in clause 297, page 200, line 35, at end insert—

‘(10) In Schedule 1, Part 1, of the CROW Act 2000, after excepted land 13, insert—

“(14) Land used for the purpose of manufacturing, maintenance or storage of recreational vessels and equipment (including marinas, boatyards and yacht clubs).”’.

Charles Walker (Broxbourne, Conservative)

Hear, hear.

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

With that endorsement ringing in my ears and a sense of end-of-term fever, I rise to speak to the amendment, which looks again at the issues relating to legitimate businesses around coastal Britain. We hope to ensure that diversions are made around commercial developments such as marinas, boatyards and yacht clubs, because that is essential. Such sites operate heavy machinery throughout the day, and that could pose a health and safety risk to individuals. Furthermore, operational sites such as marinas may contain high-value equipment that could cause a security risk as a result of unrestricted access.

If recreational boating facilities are not designated as excepted land under schedule 1 to the CROW Act, there must be provision in the Bill to exempt those sites and establish diversions around them. That is an attempt neither to stop the path nor to limit walkers’ enjoyment of the coast—in fact, in many cases, their enjoyment will be enhanced, because they will be away from industrial and work environments and will perhaps enjoy better views. The amendment would ensure that safety and security are not compromised in the name of access. Coastal access designation under the Bill should create a pathway that passes those facilities, but not give powers to go through operational sites.

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

This response may seem like d(c)j vu, but it is not. It is not even nuanced—it is something quite different. We need to return initially to schedule 1 to the CROW Act, which, as I have said, contains a list of categories of “excepted land”, which is not access land for the purposes of section 2(1) of the Act. It means that there is no right of access to such land under the provisions of the Act. I have listened with interest to the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Newbury about the possible location of the coastal access route as it affects marinas and boatyards in particular. I also recognise that the other place discussed the issue to some extent during its consideration of the Bill. We in the Department have had a number of discussions with boating and marina organisations, such as the British Marine Federation and the Royal Yachting Association. I appreciate that they, too, are worried about how the provisions might impact on their activities, so I am glad that we have engaged with them extensively on such matters.

Before turning to the specific points raised by amendment 50, I wish to say that we have issued two papers that are particularly relevant to our discussions, the first of which is about the new section 3A order and the excepted land provisions required under the Bill. It sets out the main measures that we expect the order to follow and, in particular, our intentions for the various categories of excepted land that we intend either to leave unchanged or to amend, as they may apply to coastal land. I reconfirm our commitment to consult further on the final contents of the section 3A order, which will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure for both Houses to debate and agree. The order will not come into force unless it is approved by such a resolution.

The second paper is entitled “Accommodating future development needs”. It sets out specific ways in which we can ensure that coastal access is appropriate and consistent with the needs of landowners, including future changes in land use. I hope that members of the Committee will allow me just a few moments to explain in some  detail how we expect the provisions in the Bill and Natural England’s scheme to affect marinas and boatyards. The excepted land provisions under schedule 1 to the CROW Act set out the categories of land that are excepted for CROW right of access, wherever they occur.

Lord Davies of Oldham said during the debate in Committee in the other place, in respect of marinas, that land such as that

“used for the purposes of recreational boating facilities (including marinas, boatyards and clubs)”

and land used for

“or associated with the use of, sporting facilities”

would

“generally be covered by the excepted land, buildings and their curtilage provision”

so that there was no right of access to it.

He went on to say:

“If it looked as though the buildings and curtilage provision did not make those excepted areas, we would undertake further consultation to see how to tackle that issue.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 March 2009; Vol. 709, c. GC913-914.]

Amendment 50 would extend the excepted land category to land

“used for the purpose of manufacturing...or storage of recreational vessels and equipment (including marinas, boatyards and yacht clubs)”.

Let me be clear that we strongly hold the view that such land would generally be covered by the excepted land, buildings and curtilage provision. There is no fixed definition of curtilage, but when the open access provisions of part I of the CROW Act were introduced, the Department helpfully issued guidelines to help identify what was meant by the excepted land categories, which are also in part I of the Act, with the general caveat that

“guidelines do not provide an authoritative interpretation of the legislation, which is a matter for the courts”.

We provided guidelines on the meaning of curtilage, which state:

“The term ‘curtilage’ is not defined, but it generally means a small area, forming part and parcel with the house or building to which it is attached”.

It is usually an area of land that is used, or that is intended to be used, ancillary to that house or building. The guidelines also state:

“In most cases the extent of curtilage will be clear: typically, an enclosure around a dwelling containing a garden, garage and side passage; a walled enclosure outside a barn, or a collection of buildings grouped around a farm house and farm yard.”

Most people would understand—and understand in a legal sense—what curtilage is. The guidelines were drawn up primarily with open country in mind, and we will review them following the passage of the Bill to ensure that they are appropriate for coastal access provisions.

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

I just missed what the Minister said. To which legislation do the guidelines refer?

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

The guidelines were issued in respect of part I of the CROW Act. When that measure was introduced, the Department produced guidelines to make the meaning clear. We recognised that there was no legislative or authoritative interpretation, and we thought that it would be helpful to issue guidelines on  what we meant and how it could be interpreted. If the Bill is enacted, we will review the guidelines to ensure that they are appropriate to its coastal access provisions.

I recognise the concerns that organisations such as the British Marine Federation and the Royal Yachting Association have expressed, not least about safety and security. For example, it could be necessary to keep the public out of places where boats are stored. We have no intention of seeking to interfere with the normal running of any marina or yacht club or with the management of facilities. Those facilities are meant to encourage visitors. We have to get this right: some marinas want to encourage visitors to take advantage of public facilities such as bars, restaurants and shops.

If the route was on land that did not fall within the excepted land category, which I mentioned, we expect Natural England to take full account of the safety of visitors and the security of the site when it proposes the position of the coastal route. If necessary, Natural England will discuss with the owner or operator the possibility of making a direction to exclude or restrict access when appropriate. For example, it might be necessary to close the marina area at night, and that could be done.

The circumstances of any individual marina or boatyard will be considered as part of a full and open consultation process led by Natural England, which we have discussed in some detail. The discussions will consider the most appropriate place to put the route on land that is not excepted land, where it is necessary to ensure the continuity of the coastal route. In doing so, Natural England and, in due course, the Secretary of State, will be required under the Bill—as we keep repeating—to

“aim to strike a fair balance between the interests of the public...and the interests of any person with a relevant interest in the land”,

as set out in clause 291.

It may be in the interests of the owners for routes to be situated close to a marina or yacht club, as they recognise—some landowners and land operators made this point to us—that it may provide them with the economic opportunities that they want. The interests of those with a relevant concern in affected land have been strengthened by the introduction of schedule 1A to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, as introduced by schedule 19 to the Bill, which we debated earlier in our proceedings. The Secretary of State will make a determination under section 52(1) of the 1949 Act on Natural England’s coastal access report, having regard to any objections that have been made, Natural England’s comments on them, any representations forwarded to the appointed person, and the recommendation of the appointed person.

As we discussed earlier, in respect of any future developments of a marina, boatyard or yacht club, the line of the route and the spreading room are not permanently fixed. The Bill enables Natural England to review them and propose changes to the Secretary of State, which will again be subject to a full consultation and representation process at a later date. The CROW Act is framed in such a way that it does not prevent changes in land use, since land can become excepted from the right of access at any time if some change or development occurs, making it fall into one of the  categories of excepted land. I can confirm that if a proposal for a new development on the coastal margin is made, Natural England will need to consider an alternative route around the marina or boatyard. I can reassure hon. Members that changes in use and future developments will be taken into account.

Finally, for the benefit of the Committee, I reiterate that Natural England’s scheme will set out the approach it will take to implement its coastal access duty. The scheme, I repeat, will be the subject of full public consultation once the Bill becomes law. There will be a further chance for those with a specific interest to make an input into the final scheme, which has to be approved by the Secretary of State.

Charles Walker (Broxbourne, Conservative)

Let us take the example of someone living in a home by the coast. Beneath them, they see the coastal pathway going past the marina 500 yards from their house. All of a sudden, the marina puts in an application for development, and that person discovers that the pathway will be moved up into their garden. Would that be grounds for appeal to the local authority or Natural England against the planning application?

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

That would reopen the consultation. Any person would be able to make representations on that. It would not be the case that an extending marina or boatyard could say to Natural England, “You now need to find the alternative route, and the only one available is straight up over the hill and through that area.” Natural England would have to reopen the procedure for consultation and seek representations again.

Charles Walker (Broxbourne, Conservative)

Could the new properties impacted by the moving of the coastal pathway seek some form of compensation from the marina? The marina will be making a commercial gain by expansion, and there might be a consequential cost, such as a devaluation of property, to those people who suddenly find the coastal road or pathway at the end of their garden.

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

First, I want to make one thing clear. Gardens are listed as excepted land, so the pathway will certainly not go through anyone’s garden. If the pathway goes at the base of the garden, we have not entertained the issue of compensation, for reasons that have been debated ad nauseam in the other place, but we have strengthened the ability to make objections and to appeal to an independent person. If the householder who owned the garden wanted to pursue compensation with the marina, it would be entirely up to them, but it certainly would not fall within Natural England’s remit to take any part in that.

Charles Walker (Broxbourne, Conservative)

I am trying to make the point that the commercial gain to the marina could result in a material loss to the farm or business that finds the coastal pathway moved near their property.

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

I understand the concern. It may or may not lead to a material loss. There is a fair bit of evidence that the passing traffic on a coastal path or a coastal margin along many properties has negligible impact on their value. Indeed, it may enhance their value if people can take advantage of some of the benefits of accommodation, caf(c)s and this, that or the other. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but it is not pertinent to the clause. He raises an  interesting question about whether an altruistic marina might want to engage in discussions with neighbours who are affected by re-routing.

The scheme would be the subject of full consultation once the Bill becomes law. That would provide a further chance for those with interests to make an input into the final scheme. I would expect Natural England to give thought to, and guidance on, the approach that it will take under the scheme when a marina, a boatyard or a yacht club is situated by the coast.

In conclusion, it will be the Secretary of State’s duty to consider carefully the possible location of the coastal access route as it may affect marinas and boatyards, based on the advice and recommendations from Natural England. His determination of the route will be made taking into account the recommendations from the Planning Inspectorate, in accordance with any objections processed under schedule 1A. I can assure the Committee that a decision on the route will be taken only after extensive consultation with landowners and managers. In the light of the various safeguards that I have just outlined, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

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

My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne raised an important issue, which we perhaps have not considered enough in our deliberations. On the small proportion of the route where there will be conflict, we imagine that the conflict will be between a landowner or interest and the needs of the path. Very often it may be a triangulated conflict. If one party sought to amend the route, it could disadvantage another. We perhaps need to discuss that a bit more. It comes down to one of my essential problems with this approach: we are putting enormous faith in one organisation to get this right. I have no reason to believe that it will not get it right, but it is not perfect to assume that a Government agency can take on enormous amounts of responsibility. On the first amendment to this part of the Bill, the word that I used to describe that approach was “woolly”. We are going to leave a lot of ends untied.

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

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. He has probably had representations from marinas and boatyards as well as the federations, which have argued from both perspectives. Many of them want to have access but would like the opportunity to apply for exemptions where necessary, rather than have a blanket approach to exemptions in the Bill that may militate against any economic opportunity.

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

That is absolutely right. Those involved want managed access, which we all hope to achieve. On the basis that the specific guidelines under part I of CROW will be reviewed, interested parties will be offered every opportunity to have their concerns raised with the Minister. We may have to revisit this later. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

I beg to move amendment 66, in clause 297, page 200, line 35, at end add—

‘(10) In Schedule 1 (excepted land for purposes of Part 1— Part II Supplementary Provisions) at end insert—

“(18) The land which is excepted land by virtue of paragraph 4 does not include any land used or defined as a park—

(a) over which the line taken by the English coastal route passes or

(b) which is adjacent to and within a specified distance of the line.”’.

The purpose of the amendment is to draw a distinction between the definition of a park and a garden, which is set out in schedule 1 of CROW as one item:

“Land used as a park or garden.”

I think that we can all agree that putting gardens into coastal access legislation would not be appropriate and that people tramping across someone’s garden because of a coastal path is not something that we would want in the Bill. Nor would we want to revisit, with regards to parks, schedule 1 of the CROW Act, because untrammelled access to a park inland is a potential difficulty, as that schedule reflected. However, coastal access would, by definition, not be across a park but at its margins. In the vast majority of the country, coastal access around the edges of parks that happen to abut the coast is probably not a difficult concept. We might think that this is not a serious issue now because there are many such coastal paths and everyone is happy about them. However, it is a real issue in terms of what is in the CROW Act and what might be in this legislation.

An example that springs to mind is one close to my constituency. Part of the Solent way goes within about 150 yd of it, so with a couple of very long strides it is a constituency issue. It is a 60-mile coastal path, mostly organised by Hampshire country council, going from Emsworth near Chichester on the eastern side to Milford-on-Sea on the western side. It is a 60-mile coastal path, of which only 45 miles are coastal. The remaining 15 miles are not a coastal path because Hampshire country council has not been able to persuade the owners of large estates to the west of the Solent that there should be access around the coast on those estates. Consequently, not only does the coastal path not do what it says on the tin, but when someone arrives from the ferry at Hythe, which fortunately runs all year round, they are treated to an interesting diversion.

I know that it is not possible to print maps on the record, but I have an interesting map here, which I will briefly describe. The person comes up to a roundabout and then has to traverse for more than a mile down the A326, in between a row of pylons and the road, and then turn left and go down another road for about 5 or 6 miles to the B3054, at which point they are more than 5 miles inland. Therefore, at that point a coastal path the Solent way is not, and nowhere on the map can we see any coast whatever.

Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

How many of those 15 miles are currently defined as parkland?

Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

Almost all of them, in one way or another. There are two large estates in particular, along with some farming land. Those estates are the Beaulieu estate and the Pylewell estate, neither of which has agreed a schedule of access to areas that abut the coast.

Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

Is the hon. Gentleman certain that the pieces of land that abut the coast on those estates are parkland?

Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

The land is a combination of estate land, parkland and land that is owned by farmers, but the overall issue is that of—

Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mr. Pope. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we are discussing a tight clause about parkland. The hon. Gentleman has referred to 15 miles of coast which, by his own admission, is not all parkland, so I cannot see why we are debating the clause at all.

Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

For the sake of clarity, I am not claiming that all of the 15-mile diversion is caused by the existence of parkland, but that a substantial proportion of it is. The diversion is 15 miles because it does not go along the coast; it goes inland for a substantial area. That is what I was attempting to demonstrate. The key point is whether, if the Bill became an Act tomorrow, I would be able to say with hand on heart that the Solent way was actually a coastal path, which is what it is intended to be. The legislation would, I think, lead ramblers and many others to believe that it was not classified as such. Because of the Bill’s continued exemption of parkland, following schedule 1 of CROW, I fear that the Solent way would not be classified as a coastal path.

An accommodation may well be agreed upon as a result of consultation and discussion with Natural England, the parkland estates and the farmers concerned. At the very least, I hope that it will be emphasised—both by the Committee and, on a wider basis, on the promulgation of the legislation—that there will be a strong expectation that the negotiations will be based on the assumption that an accommodation will be reached. Indeed, the legislation includes the possibility of issuing a part 3A notice, should that not occur.

David Jones (Shadow Minister, Wales; Clwyd West, Conservative)

I realise that the hon. Gentleman has a local interest in the two estates that he has mentioned, but has he carried out an assessment of the extent of English coastline that comprises parkland?

Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

I do not have to hand exactly what proportion of the English coastline comprises parkland. However, I can furnish the hon. Gentleman with a number of other examples where what should be a coastal path is substantially diverted because of the existence of parkland or estates that have a similar effect to what I have described. For example, the Lee Abbey estate on the Devon coast, the Benacre estate on the Suffolk coast and Grimston Garth on the east Yorkshire coast have differing circumstances that nevertheless cause substantial diversions of a path that would otherwise be unbroken along a stretch of coast.

The Solent way is one of the longest coastal routes in the south of England and also has one of the longest areas of diversion, but the issue also affects other areas along the English coastline. It is therefore not a side issue as far as the legislation is concerned. The issue has considerable potential to lead to incomplete coastal paths. We may decide that an amendment would be appropriate or that other methods can be found to reach the outcome that I think we all want; but if we do not decide on either of those courses, I fear that we will end up with either deadlock in the negotiations or incomplete paths.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I am interested in the case that the hon. Gentleman is making. Would not the problem that he describes—it is clearly a problem, particularly in his area—be better resolved by revisiting the definition of parkland, rather than approaching it in the way that the amendment does?

Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

That is an interesting suggestion and might be an appropriate way forward. One of the purports of the amendment is also to provide space for the path, along with access to it. There is also the issue, which we discussed earlier, of how to ensure that that is defined as the breathing space for the path, how it is marked and what arrangements and negotiations might be appropriate. If the arrangements were not appropriate, the amendment’s aim would clearly be overthrown, inasmuch as access to the parkland exempted under CROW would effectively be restored by an amendment. Maybe an appropriate way forward would be to consider what parkland consists of as far as coastal walks are concerned.

My aim in moving the amendment is to see whether, in one way or another, we can resolve the issue, which I think will arise in future negotiations by English Nature, and ensure that the aim of the coastal path is to be as complete as possible.

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

The point touched on by the hon. Member for St. Ives is crucial. We need to define what is meant by a park. If the word were thrown out to a vox pop, people would probably have in mind something laid out by Capability Brown—no relation to “Inability Brown”, who went into politics.

Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

Or “Culpability Brown”.

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

Indeed.

People would think of a large, open area with mature trees, over which access along one side, on the coastal margin, would not have too huge an impact on the owner. The truth is that in many areas along our coast, it is difficult to distinguish where a park starts and a garden finishes, and vice versa. That distinction was brought out clearly under the CROW Act, which attempted to define it thus:

“A park may include ornamental gardens, water features or other man-made scenic vistas. A garden is usually enclosed land near a building. It typically includes areas of lawn, flower borders and other cultivated plants.”

That is the best stab that anyone has had at defining the two.

When the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs discussed whether parks and gardens should remain excepted land, the Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), said:

“I foresee a great deal of conflict, I foresee a great deal of uncertainty, and I think it would take up a great deal of the time and effort of Natural England if parks and gardens were not excepted.”

He visited a number of contentious areas, and said:

“I saw a number of examples of gardens of different sizes that would make it very difficult to make a judgment call as to where you would have the definition”—

that is, as to whether they were parks or gardens.

Lord Davies of Oldham said in Committee in the other place:

“we have no intention of ploughing arbitrarily through people’s gardens and...that is not the legislation’s intent.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 March 2009; Vol. 709, c. 914.]

That is fine, but the distinction between a park and a garden is not always clear. Gardens may be park-like in their design. I do not want to get into a nuanced debate about it, but what is the difference between a large garden and a small park? I can understand people’s intentions of securing access, but such problems can be resolved. There may be areas where they persist, but I believe that they can be secured through a voluntary approach and reasoned debate.

Mention has been made of the Beaulieu estate. I happen to know that Buckler’s Hard, which would be near the constituency of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, is part of the estate or at least or very close to it. It would surely be in the interests of everyone living in Buckler’s Hard for as many tourists to go there as possible—it is a very picturesque part of England. I imagine that it is in the interests of the estate to allow access to Buckler’s Hard.

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

The hon. Gentleman is speaking a lot of sense about the definitional difficulties with parks and gardens. During the coastal access part of the Bill, we have had much debate on the asks and on the implied trust in Natural England to carry out and balance this fair duty to all persons, taking it forward in a fair, considered and consultative way. However, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is an equal ask of large landowners to engage and get involved in the spirit behind the legislation by opening up some of those parks and gardens—that is not all I have to say: the remaining 30 per cent. is not all parks and gardens—that ramblers and others want access to, and that where there is no good reason not to, landowners should engage through that sort of voluntary approach to see what can be done?

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

I always believe that the voluntary approach is the better one. If that fails, we can have further discussions. However, I also believe that there would be considerable financial implications for smaller parks where access is provided and where the capital value of the property would therefore depreciate. The perception among possible purchasers of properties, therefore, is a realistic factor in terms of those people’s needs. Privacy is a concept that we need to engage with. I am not  standing here to make an impassioned defence against the impact on a vast area of parkland. I think that we are talking about a very small percentage of the 30 per cent., and a very small percentage of that is areas where there will be or is conflict. The Bill as currently drafted, with those exceptions, is the right way to proceed, and I hear what the Minister says about revisiting the issue in time.

Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

The issue is one of definition. I fundamentally believe that there should be as much access to the coast as possible. I believe that a voluntary agreement in some difficult places is better, but for me the bottom line is that people should have access to the coast where possible. However, I also believe in people’s privacy and the rights of private ownership. Too often, we can neglect people’s rights when we come to allowing access to all, because with ownership comes responsibility. I do not see much in the Bill other than the transference of responsibility to the farmer or landowner, with not much financial or other compensation.

The hon. Member for Southampton, Test referred to two places near his constituency that he felt were blocking the extension of the coastal path in his area. He alighted on one rather bad example, which is the Beaulieu estate. I do not know it well, but I have been there. I would have thought that it was one of the most commercially minded estates in the country, what with the motor museum, which is a huge attraction for tourists around the world.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury referred to Buckler’s Hard, which is a picturesque village in the Beaulieu estate. It has a public right of way already, although it is difficult to stop people veering off, and people are charged to look at the village. “Appalling,” one might say. “How dare they charge people to look at the village?” Why do they charge people to look at the village? Because they put the money back into preserving the uniqueness of the village. There are also surrounding issues, but I do not want to stray too much into the esoteric.

Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

To make it clear for the record, I have great admiration for the public work of the Beaulieu estate, with its access to Buckler’s Hard, the village of Beaulieu, the motor museum and the area all around there. However, there are wider issues of access abroad in the estate, which are unrelated to access to, for example, Buckler’s Hard. I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman about how that village may best be managed. It is the question of how the furthest-flung areas of the estate and parkland comprising Beaulieu may be accessed in a controlled, managed and agreed way. That is the central issue, rather than the question of access to the central areas, which is a matter of tourist management, which Beaulieu is adept at and does well.

Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman makes an important clarification. As I recall, there are issues that date way back concerning access to the private beach on the Beaulieu estate, and there is some resentment that it, too, is not open to the public. However, that is private land and I agree that such issues can often be resolved with the landowner, rather than by legislation.

I have said already that you would not allow me to veer off into the esoteric, Mr. Pope, but we need to think carefully about that issue. The CROW Act is interesting, and the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford recognised the difficulty in defining what is a garden and what is a park. Before we rush to legislate, I urge the Committee to consider the uniqueness of what we have in this country: the manicured landscape, the extraordinary buildings and the way they are married and interact. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury mentioned Capability Brown, and one could also mention Humphrey Repton, who was, with his red book, perhaps as great a landscaper as Brown, although a little later—in many ways he was his successor.

There is a misunderstanding about the English landscape: that somehow it has always been there and is natural, including the hill forts. But it is not. It is there because landowners, farmers and the users of this land over generations have planted copses, moved hills and created something wonderful and unique in the world. The hon. Member for Telford, who chairs the all-party group on world heritage sites, would undoubtedly agree with that assertion.

When we talk about access to parks, we must be careful what we say, because often a park is, or is part of, a garden. When does it cease to be a park? There have been times, in war for instance, when the majority of parks in this country were ploughed up and turned over to agriculture. Does it lose its status as parkland if it is ploughed, if animals are grazed on it or if it is used for a different purpose, such as shooting, which is an incredibly important sport in the west country and is worth millions of pounds? Often in the south-west, and in other places around this island, parkland can go down to an estuary or to the sea and is the garden to the house. If, regardless of that, access to the land is allowed as a right, with spreading room, that alters the relationship between the landscape and the building that sits at its heart.

We should, of course, look towards opening up our coastal paths, but we must always bear in mind that there is something as important, and perhaps more so: the unique relationship between the buildings of this country, their parklands, the human beings who like to walk there and occupy them and the future generations who will benefit from them.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

On that last point, the hon. Member for East Devon is absolutely right to highlight the relationship between buildings and the parks and gardens, or curtilage, around them, particularly in the larger country houses, of which we in the United Kingdom as a whole are rightly proud. We have a proud heritage of impressive buildings, and the context in which they are placed, with the parks and gardens that surround them, is important. However, such a context is not in itself undermined by allowing a public right of way across a small portion of it. That is an issue that clearly needs to be resolved.

I am not sure that the amendment, as drafted, is the best way to resolve the issue. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test, by bringing forward the debate, which he was right to do, has articulated a concern that I do not have much experience of. Speaking on behalf  of my own part of the world—west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly—I must say that we do not really have any of the type of large estates that, as the hon. Gentleman said, exist in the Solent area, so I have no experience of the type of scale that he is talking about, in terms of ownership of very substantial areas of land. The scale of those areas of land clearly has an impact upon the ability to create coastal access of the kind that I think we are all keen to establish.

In the example of the Solent way, a right of way would need to be diverted many miles from the coast to satisfy the requirements of the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman sees them, in terms of the definition of what might constitute park land. That is clearly a matter of great concern. Until he had raised this issue, I was not aware that such a diversion might be necessary. Hence my intervention, to say that perhaps we need to look again at the definition of park land.

We may come up with a definition of park land that will satisfy the hon. Member for East Devon and others, in terms of the description of what that land might be, its context and, perhaps in some cases, the historic basis on which it was originally created, possibly centuries ago. However, I would have thought that the concept that we, as legislators, should attempt to preserve is the integrity of that land; that is, the integrity of the countryside itself and the associated buildings. I am not sure that public access necessarily undermines that integrity.

What is perhaps most important is to protect privacy. Certainly, the booklet prepared by Natural England on park land considers the issue within the context of the provision on privacy. I would have thought that it is privacy and potential damage—those two elements—that we are trying to address here.

In coming up with a satisfactory definition of park land for the purposes of the Bill, the two concepts of proportionality and reasonableness should also be applied. If one is talking about the scale of diversion that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test described, we come back to a theme that has underpinned a lot of the debate on this part of the Bill, which is achieving a fair balance. I think that a fair balance can be more effectively achieved if one also throws into the melting pot the concept of what is proportionate. Clearly, a 5-mile diversion away from the coastline is not proportionate. It is important to find a tool that will give a proportionate response and giving that tool to Natural England would clearly help in finding a resolution to this problem. It is also important to find a reasonable solution.

Providing Natural England with the tools to achieve a fair balance, in the context of defining park land and trying to achieve the fundamental objective of providing a continuous coastal footpath, is clearly what we are trying to do. I would hope that we could, on Report, look at the issue again. Perhaps the Government could come forward with an amendment which would achieve that fair balance and satisfy the hon. Member for Southampton, Test.

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

I do not think that we need an amendment, but I would like to begin this part of our deliberations by putting a statement on record to see if any member of the Committee will demur from it. If we proceed with our proposals on the coastal path, the  coastal margin and parks and gardens, which I am committed to, and any future Secretary of State—whether it is the hon. Member for St. Ives, the hon. Member for Newbury, or my hon. Friends the Members for Reading, West and Southampton, Test—finds that no dialogue has happened and that no additional land within what we can generally term parks has been opened up, we will have failed.

Part of our debate here is whether we can proceed in a way that is to do with voluntarism, dialogue and consensus, and can look at those places, where appropriate, where it does not damage habitat or the interface that has been talked about between the fashioning of that particular landscape and environment. There is a tradition of people straying on to such environments. Traditionally, they were either known as trespassers or poachers—myself not included, not that I would admit to it. However, if we return here without having made progress on this issue through constructive dialogue, we will have failed.

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

The Minister sets a very important challenge, which should be listened to by all the interested parties that represent landowning interests and walkers’ interests. Accommodation can be found. The worst thing that we can do is legislate for the lowest common denominator—the cartoon farmer who says get off my land and is completely unapproachable in any form of dialogue. However, the Minister puts a very important challenge down. We can see how that goes and revisit it in the future. I entirely accept his reasonable approach.

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

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I suspect that we have consensus across the Committee. We have to put this to the test and see that it delivers—and see that it delivers, not if it delivers—that it delivers. If it does not, as I will come to in a moment, we might need to revisit that. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test and for Reading West for raising this important issue. I recognise the desire of individual walkers and the Ramblers Association to try to obtain access to the remaining 30 per cent. of the coast that there is still no access to. There are some good reasons why we do not and will not have access to 100 per cent. of the coast. However, there are some parts that people would look at and say that there seems to be no good reason for that, only an unwillingness to enter into a dialogue.

As I have noted in previous discussions, the Secretary of State may, by order, modify the provisions of part 1 of the CROW Act in their application to land which is coastal margin. Concerns and questions about what changes may be made to the categories of accepted land, as they affect land that is coastal margin—

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

Briefly, parks were considered by both the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Joint Committee, which were attended by a number of hon. Members. Both Committees made recommendations: the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee agreed with the Government’s approach, but the Joint Committee felt that the Government should give careful thought to what was included in the parks and gardens exemption and noted that Parliament might want to return to that issue with the introduction of the Bill.

In response to those two Committees, we said that we would give further detailed consideration to the issue. We have done that, and I have heard a wide range of views. Some say that the parkland should not be excepted in any way where it is suitably described as a margin, and others dwell on the continuity of the route. There are also arguments about privacy, as we feared, and the amenity value related to parkland also needs to be taken into account. They are all important points—it is a complex issue. Let me make it clear that we do not want the coastal route to take long and unnecessary inland detours. However, we also understand the concerns of landowners. We have touched on the definitional issues already. I believe that the problem is about a small number of difficult cases, where land is not integral to the privacy and enjoyment of the household, but presents a considerable blockage to any coastal route. I do not want to use a heavy sledgehammer to crack an albeit sometimes tough nut.

Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

Should a voluntary approach be adopted, albeit with the possibility of making a section 3A order, is it the case that a landlord or a park owner may dedicate, outside the Bill, a strip of land for coastal access or a right of way without incurring arrangements under the Bill?

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

My hon. Friend is right. If people were to dedicate a strip of land for the coastal path, or to allow a right of way, it could form an integral part of the coastal path, and I welcome that sort of approach.

What we have talked about is the good will of landowners towards the public, who wish to share the pleasures of a wonderful coastline. I am prepared to give the good will a trial and see if we can find agreed ways for the route to go through without having to legislate for the small number of cases I mentioned. I believe that this Committee has unanimously made clear that it wishes to see that good will be demonstrated by landowners in discussions with Natural England. I propose that we give the system a trial without making any changes to the excepted land categories of parks and gardens. The trial should investigate how great the problems are and how evident the good will is. I will ask Natural England to try to resolve the problems by voluntary means, particularly where it will lead to secure access along the route—perhaps along the lines that my hon. Friend has suggested, for instance, by the dedication of land for public access under the CROW Act provisions.

In the case that the trial approach does not work, the Secretary of State retains the powers to amend the excepted land provisions at a later date by order, subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses—we have talked  about the fact that it will be a pretty lively debate. In our response to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report, we said that Natural England will return to Parliament to report on progress after 10 years. I suggest that Natural England should undertake an earlier interim review and report to Parliament specifically on issues that have arisen as a result of parks being excepted land, and on the success of any voluntary agreements to ensure secure public access along the route through parks. That report should take place within five years of Royal Assent.

I hope that that approach will meet with favour from the Committee, and that my hon. Friend will withdraw his amendment with the assurance that we will have the opportunity to review the matter and revisit the decision, if necessary.

Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test, Labour)

I have listened very carefully to my hon. Friend’s arguments. I welcome the suggestions for a review and that we apply good will on the basis of a clear understanding of what we would like to achieve with the Bill. Therefore, in the spirit of good will, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I will not extend my remarks on the new clause to the clause stand part debate. The purpose of the new clause is to address the issue of dogs and horses. In the debates on the Bill so far, we have not had sufficient opportunity to debate the accessibility of the coastal route by equestrians, dog owners or disabled people—we may wish to return to the issue of disabled people on Report. Although groups, including the National Federation of Bridleway Associations and the British Horse Society, have accepted that full access to the coastal path would be inappropriate—they do not expect that—they remain concerned that the development of the coastal path could in some areas reduce their existing rights of access, such as the non-statutory right of access to the foreshore.

Horse riders and cyclists have access to only 22 per cent. of the current public rights of way network and only 7 per cent. of the network that currently exists around the English coast. Public access to the foreshore—the land between the high and low water marks—with horses both ridden and driven has been enjoyed for centuries and is still enjoyed today. That is an issue for Crown land in England and Wales and the Duchy of Cornwall in Cornwall. Historical research suggests that that is an ancient common law right. English and Scottish law are the same in this respect, and non-discriminatory public access to the coast is now, as I understand it, a statutory right in Scotland.

The Bill proposes a statutory right of access to the coastal margin, which includes the foreshore and the beach, but only on foot. Experience with the recording of public rights of way under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and the designation of access land under CROW suggests that where a statutory right for a limited sector of the public—that is, those on foot—is legally recorded, the ability for the rest of the public to enjoy their unrecorded common law rights is thus compromised. There may be issues regarding access to the foreshore for other types of recreational users, such as those who need to bring buggies down to the coast to go kite surfing. The Minister might be able to clarify that.

Hugo Swire (East Devon, Conservative)

Other parts of the foreshore are owned neither by the Crown nor by the duchy—they are privately owned. I do not know who briefed the hon. Gentleman on that. There are also other places where it would be patently wholly inappropriate to allow dogs to roam freely on the coastal path. I am thinking of the swannery at Abbotsbury in Dorset, where there are nesting cygnets and swans. The last thing in the world one would want for the balance of nature is to have a lot of dogs running amuck among them.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I am not calling for that. As I said in my opening remarks, that is not what is being called for. I am sorry the hon. Gentleman did not catch that.

The matter of unrecorded common law rights being compromised is particularly problematic for horse riders. There was all-party consensus in the other place that something needs to be done for horse riders and the Government seemed to accept that there were non-statutory public access rights to the coastal margin that need to be protected, as in the clause we have just debated.

In Committee in the other place, my noble Friend Lord Greaves proposed a similar amendment to the one before us, which would have clarified the situation by ensuring that those with a horse or a dog are not included in the general access restrictions contained in schedule 2 of the CROW Act. That amendment was withdrawn, but Lord Davies undertook to reconsider the issue. He made it clear that he understood the concerns and that there should be clarity that the existing rights of horse riders are not affected by any new right of access to the coast. He recognised that there is an issue that clearly needs to be resolved. It is worth, therefore, taking another look at the amendment tabled by my noble Friend Lord Greaves in order to probe the Government’s position on the impact of the development of the coastal path and the existing non-statutory rights of access that exist in relation to the foreshore.

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

I am sympathetic to the concerns that the hon. Member for St. Ives raised about horse riders and their existing customary use of the foreshore. It is important to point out that there is no general common law right to ride on the foreshore in England. In certain places there is a customary right to ride or there may be a permissive right to do so, but that will be due to local circumstances and it is not a national right country-wide. It was the subject of debate in the other place and of an amendment tabled by the Baroness Mallalieu to ensure the preservation of existing rights. In response to those concerns, the Government introduced an amendment  to require Natural England to make it clear that existing rights are not affected by the new right of access on foot that the Bill provides for.

The new provision at clause 297(7) requires Natural England to ensure that, in relation to coastal margin land, the public are informed that the legal position is that the right of access conferred by the CROW Act does not affect any other right of access that may exist in relation to that land. It also makes it clear that a separate code of conduct may be drawn up for coastal land.

The hon. Gentleman’s proposal would go further than the existing provision. As the hon. Member for East Devon has pointed out, giving horse riders a right of access to the entire foreshore that forms part of the coastal margin is not always appropriate. A blanket approach would not include areas that require special protection from animals running loose, which would not be helpful.

Any amendments to the provisions in schedules 1 and 2 of the CROW Act for the purposes of coastal access will be introduced through an order made under section 3A, which is provided for in clause 297 of the Bill. We have published a paper containing the main changes that we propose to make, and that paper has been made available to the hon. Members. We will consult on the proposals, which will then be subject to affirmative resolutions in both Houses of Parliament.

Finally, the hon. Member for St. Ives mentioned the important point of access for the disabled. As this is a stand part debate, I can confirm that Natural England  will consider contributing financially to the creation of improved rights where it makes sense, which is likely to include action to facilitate access by people with mobility problems along some suitable sections of the coast. I hope the hon. Gentleman will welcome that and on that basis withdraw his amendment.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful to the Minister for her response and the clarification. Her interpretation of the Bill as it currently stands, as amended in another place, is that it does not affect existing rights. The societies and organisations that I mentioned in my opening remarks will be reassured by that, which is very welcome indeed. To defend myself from the accusation that I am trying to offer unbridled rights to the coast and to the foreshore for all horse riders and dog owners, I made it clear that that is not what was intended in my opening remarks—I am probing the issue. I am not asking for complete access, which would be inappropriate and which the hon. Member for East Devon and the Minister fear.