Schedule 20
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]
10:30 am

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

Good morning, Mr. Gale. I suspect that this may be the final sitting of this glee club, and it falls to me to tidy up various points that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon tabled some amendments that are due to be debated today, but he has fallen prey to the lurgy; we hope that he has not been in close association with a Mexican pig farmer. He is unable to be with us today, but I think that I know the intention behind his amendments, so I want to probe the Minister on various points in relation to the impact that the coastal path will have on landowners or people with an interest in land.

I will start by painting a picture of a particular case that has been put to me. I have had informal discussions about the issue with some of the Minister’s officials, but it is important to put on record how the Government believe Natural England and local authorities should treat the legislation. My example relates to a privately owned, semi-permanent caravan park on the coast. The landowner, at his own expense, has created a footpath along the coast. The footpath goes to the rear of the caravan park and up a cliff, and it affords walkers a safe path and enhanced views compared with those from sea level. It is a better option in every sense—from the public’s point of view, as well as from that of the landowner’s business. If the letter of the law were followed by the local authority and Natural England, they might state that the footpath must be driven across the front of the caravans in the park. That would impact on the landowner’s business; there would be potential safety consequences for some of the caravans’ owners; and there would be a diminished amenity value. I hope that the Minister will say that, in such circumstances, it is right and proper that the footpath goes along the existing route. It is the logical and best route; it has been enhanced and paid for by the landowner; and it affords a better option for every conceivable interest in the proposal.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Devon wanted to press the Minister on the pecuniary cost to coastal interests affected by the provision. I am sure that many  members of the Committee have received case studies in relation to the impact on certain businesses. It would be useful if the Minister were to explain whether he appreciates the concerns of those with affected interests. In the south-west, for example, there is a tourism business dependent on what it considers to be exclusive access to a beach area. The business claims that the loss of private beach access to a hotel or holiday home development will result in a minimum depreciation of the capital value of the business of 16 per cent. That is a reduction of £500,000 in the value of that business.

Another south-west business is a hotel that is also dependent on coastal access. The business contributes £1.5 million per annum to the local economy and preserves a key landmark in the form of the hotel. The business believes that the loss of its unique selling point—privacy—would result in the depreciation in the capital value of least £3 million. Those figures could be tested, but half that figure would still be a substantial impact. We talk about the value of the coastal path in terms of tourism—people wanting to walk a coastal path—and its many benefits to local communities and local businesses, which I entirely accept, but we must also accept that there is already a lot of activity in coastal Britain today. There are many companies providing jobs and enormous benefit to those communities, and sometimes those businesses will be at odds with what is proposed in this part of the Bill.

Another business that drew my attention is in Northumberland, where the landowner owns a large area of coast well known for its bird life. Much of the area consists of vegetated dunes and is a site of special scientific interest. The business has always permitted public access to the beach. Its focus is on holiday cottages. It had planned to expand by developing wildlife safaris, with hides and other facilities, along the coast, but those plans have now been put on hold until the coastal access situation is clear. I hope that the Minister’s remarks will provide that clarity.

The business believes that, with a lack of compensation, the changes will have an impact on nesting birds, safety and management issues. Natural England notices ask people not to pass due to nesting birds, obviously at a particular time of year. The sign states:

“Ground-nesting birds, including terns and ringed plover breed here. Disturbance from people walking with or without dogs can cause nesting birds to abandon their nests and expose eggs or young birds to predators. To protect wildlife on this site there is currently no access beyond here. It is illegal to disturb schedule 1 breeding birds.”

There is a potential conflict between what Natural England wants to see in certain areas of our coast and the coastal access we demand that it delivers. It would be very helpful if the Minister were to address some of those concerns in his remarks, particularly regarding the potential impact on a number of existing rural businesses that provide great benefit to the economy of local areas.

Andrew George (St Ives, Liberal Democrat)

As the hon. Member for Newbury has said, I suspect we are in our final sitting. It is a great pity that the hon. Member for East Devon is not here. The hon. Member for Newbury has done a good job of setting out the basis for what I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge is a substantial issue. However, I had hoped that the hon. Member for  East Devon would set out the argument with examples from his constituency and add to some of the scenarios painted by the hon. Member for Newbury.

Even after the coastal path has been identified and agreed, coastal erosion will inevitably result in a further requirement to decide its route in coming decades. The implication for landowners—in my constituency, for example, there is a non-profit distributing trust that runs a recreational facility, including a golf club—is that where there will be a substantial amount of coastal erosion over the next 20 or 30 years, the coastal path will inevitably take up sections of what is currently well-used land. That may result in significant compromises to the facilities that the golf club can offer. Clearly that issue needs to be considered further.

This debate on compensation is needed fully to understand the consequences for businesses whose viability will be adversely affected by the coastal path. Where the issue of compensation is raised, it may help the process of negotiation. Natural England might be prepared to compromise a little more reasonably over a reasonable request for a diversion in an area where a business would be significantly affected by a coastal path driving its way through an area of quiet tranquillity, where people could otherwise enjoy a private holiday experience. The spectre of compensation itself may ensure that Natural England is prepared to make a reasonable compromise in those circumstances. If compensation were not available I suspect that Natural England might not be prepared to do that. I shall certainly be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

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

It may be helpful if as well as responding to the stand part debate, I also respond to the substance of the amendments, which were not moved but which are pertinent to the schedule. I appreciate the concerns that the hon. Members for Newbury and for St. Ives have raised. We have articulated them on several occasions in Committee. I make it clear once again that I fully expect that in its determination of the route, Natural England will engage fully with all landowners, businesses, the national parks authorities, local authorities and local access forums to make sure that it is the right route and that local sensitivities are taken into account.

I am very familiar with the caravan park issues, both from my visits around the coast of the east of England and from back home, where I live on the Gower. The Gower was the first designated area of outstanding natural beauty, and there are also caravan parks right on the beach and on the cliff heads. How do we reconcile that? The way to do it is through proper local engagement, taking into account local concerns. The hon. Member for Newbury described a case where an existing path goes slightly inland and up on to the headland, where greater views are afforded of the spectacular coast. It might well be that in discussion with the landowner, Natural England said, “That’s a darn fine route. Let’s keep it as that.” On the other hand, there might be a significant amount of shore frontage or spreading room at the front. I know of caravan parks where there is less than a metre between the caravan and the shoreline. There are others with immense spreading room out to the front. It comes to down to very good local engagement  and input, and discussions with the landowners to find the most appropriate route. That is what I expect to see happening.

The hon. Gentleman talked about restrictions in relation to nesting birds. Again, the flexibility that is provided in the Bill means that the best solution can be found. He is right to say, curiously, that it might be an occasion where a local business will say that it does not want the area closed, because it wants the public to come along and spend money in, for example, a cafĂ(c) or a bed and breakfast. That is where the environmental aspect comes in. We do not want to see nesting grounds of birds disturbed.

That is why the Bill’s approach of local determination and flexibility is right, rather than having the man in Whitehall or even the Natural England adviser sitting in London making a determination. That is not the way it should work. It should be about walking the route and engaging with landowners, conservation groups and shooting and angling interests that say they must have protection for a nesting ground during certain months. That is where this approach can really work. The hon. Member for St. Ives is right to say that if the hon. Member for East Devon had been here he would have painted lots of pictures of his local examples. Local examples can include the exceptions where difficulties have to be worked through, or the numerous cases where the process already works successfully. They paint a picture of how it can work and where the difficulties can be overcome.

I think I know the local golf club mentioned by the hon. Member for St. Ives. I am not a golfer but I have visited his constituency on holiday and I am pretty sure I know the one he referred to. That will undoubtedly be in one of those areas where these challenges are most acute, where there is coastal squeeze—not only from a coastal path but from coastal erosion, increased storminess, floods and rising sea levels. At the same time there are restrictions causing coastal squeeze on the other side, such as highways and the location of roads. When dealing with these issues, there is an ask, as I have said before, for local authorities to engage their planning powers to ensure that the caravan park, golf course or anything else has a valuable future when confronted with the coastal path and other pressures, both seaward and landward.

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

Will the Minister address the concerns of some coastal businesses about liability? For example, I have heard of a landholding where, for a variety of geomorphological reasons, there are quickly shifting dunes. The landholder has been able to restrict access on the basis of safety concerns. Other coastal areas also pose a risk of accidents on rocks and cliffs. Will the Minister say a little more about how liability issues will be raised? I hope he will say that he understands the concerns of businesses that are important to the local economy but stand to lose considerable percentages of capital value.

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

I will turn to liability, as it is an important issue. Landowners’ liability for people on their ground was significantly reduced by CROW legislation following the articulation of the same  concerns. When the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 introduced a right of access to open country and registered common land mapped as access land, provision was made about occupiers’ liability under the Occupiers’ Liability Acts 1957 and 1984. That has reduced the liability of occupiers, such as landowners, towards members of the public who are exercising the right of access on CROW access land. For example, if someone sustains an injury on CROW land due to a natural feature of the landscape, reduced liability means that there will be no scope to sue the occupier. In addition, if someone sustains an injury climbing over a wall or fence, reduced liability means that there will be no scope to sue the occupier unless the injury was sustained through the proper use of the gate or stile—if it was dangerous through the direct fault of the landowner. I declare an interest here, although not in respect of coastal access; I have rights of way and stiles on my property in the upper Swansea valley. They have been well installed, and were paid for by the Countryside Council for Wales and others. I thank them for that because they installed proper ones, which are not like my makeshift ones. I take part in ensuring that the stiles are adequately maintained.

Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire, Liberal Democrat)

Landowners’ reduced liability on CROW land was welcomed by my constituents and landowners throughout the country. Does the Minister agree that there is a difference between the CROW right to roam on mountain, moor and heath, where people can choose where to go and keep away from dangerous areas, and the right to roam on coastal access paths, where the routes are laid down? There is a huge duty on everybody to ensure that the route is safe to begin with.

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

There is indeed. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, which I will come to later. I remark that there are some perilous walks within his constituency on top of some of those high crags along the Fan Hir ridge, which has a 200 ft drop on one side and not much scope for walking away on the other. I shall finish my point and then come directly on to the point that he raises.

The responses to the consultation on improving access to the coasts supported the extension of the reduced liability provisions in the CROW Act to coastal land and, recognising the complexity of the coastal environment, they further supported the extension of reduced liability to include other, non-natural, features. We considered the matter and agreed that reduced liabilities should apply both to natural features and to non-natural features on the land, subject to some safeguards.

Those safeguards are, in essence, to ensure that the occupier has not acted intentionally or recklessly, which I think we all agree is right. If, for example, a landowner or an occupier has installed steps to a beach that was previously private and for their own use, they will not, subject to the safeguards already mentioned, be liable if a user of the right of access is injured using those steps. In the end, it is for users of the new coastal access rights to keep themselves, their children and others in their care safe within what can be a dangerous environment. The reduced liability will  benefit occupiers of coastal land where there is already access and will minimise the burden where new access is created.

I shall now address the issue raised by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire. The rationale for reducing occupiers’ liability further on the coast, as opposed to in open country or on registered common land, is that there may be more hazardous structures, which we do not want a landowner to be liable to maintain as a result of the proposals. The existing provisions under CROW have worked well, but there are more man-made features on the coast and we do not want the proposals to burden landowners. The message to people using the coast is that they must be responsible for their own safety by avoiding dangerous or hazardous-looking features, either man-made or natural.

The hon. Member for Newbury raised the issue of private beaches. Natural England proposed that the vast majority of beaches be included within the coastal access corridor and the responses to the consultation supported that view. Therefore, we propose that beaches be included within the new right of access, as they will lie seaward of the route and the CROW section 3A order will say that all land seaward of the route will be coastal margin. A beach will, therefore, be included in the margin and be access land, unless there is a restriction or exclusion for nature conservation, for example. Decisions on which beaches will be included will be made as part of the detailed alignment of the corridor and be determined locally.

The hon. Member for East Devon is not here to move his amendment himself and we send him our best wishes, but the thrust of the amendments that he tabled is that the English coastal route should, wherever possible, be implemented following close work with landowners. Schedule 20 to the Bill enables Natural England to work closely with owners and occupiers in making sure that the route is accessible to the public on the ground.

First, I would like to make it clear that Natural England will pay for the implementation of the route. That has always been the clear intention and nothing in the schedule is intended to change that position. However, there may be situations in which the landowner wishes work to be done in a particular way because it benefits him or her as the landowner. Natural England may agree to put in a fence to keep walkers from straying on to non-access land, but the landowner may want a particular, more expensive type of fence than that required for the purpose, or a particular wall for his or her own reasons. In that case, Natural England and the landowner might agree to share the costs of the work.

The schedule provides for that flexibility, enabling the work to be carried out in a way that is beneficial to the landowner without undue call on public funds. That is good practice in terms of what currently happens; we are not reinventing the wheel. There can be agreement, for example, when the optimum siting for the route requires an obstruction to be cleared or removed to make the route accessible. Agreement for carrying out any of the establishment works listed in paragraph 2 of the schedule, including drainage and the levelling of land, might be reached by Natural England or the access authority with landowners and occupiers. I reiterate what Lord Taylor of Holbeach said in the other place:

“We have been trying to construct this path, if one may put it that way, on the basis of consensus and the hope that there will be a buy-in locally.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 April 2009; Vol. 709, c. 1476.]

I fully endorse those sentiments.

The powers to ensure that Natural England and access authorities are able to carry out the coastal access duty as required by clause 290 are set out in schedule 20. We consider it more appropriate to set them out in a schedule rather than in a clause. Natural England will develop its proposals for improved access to every stretch of the coast, liaising closely with each of the access authorities concerned as to the likely management and maintenance requirements of the trail along that length. It will also take account of all relevant factors, including topography, surface, rate of coastal change, prevalence of sensitive features, likely levels and types of use, and any special factors that might apply.

It is also important to note my final few comments. Natural England will indicate in its reports to the Secretary of State, under section 51 of the Coast Protection Act 1949, the standards for maintenance and management that it considers should apply to each stretch of coast. Once the report has been approved by the Secretary of State, Natural England will use it as the basis for ongoing funding and prioritisation. There is some clarity there. Natural England will put in place a funding agreement with the relevant access authority for both the establishment measures and an initial maintenance and management programme spanning several years. In some cases, the latter might involve several authorities working collaboratively. Those agreements, and the underpinning assessments of need and priority, will be intended to provide the necessary measure of stability and confidence across financial years. They will be reviewed and renewed periodically, in the light of monitoring and experience.

The amendments would require Natural England or the access authority to meet expenditure incurred by the owner or occupier in carrying out agreed works to implement or maintain the route. The Bill provides powers for meeting such costs and also includes—I keep on saying this—the flexibility to contribute to the costs rather than to meet them in full, if the case determines that that is the right approach. I have described in detail the sort of circumstances in which that might be appropriate. The details of the payments should be a matter for agreement between the contracting authority and the landowner or occupier, taking into account the local circumstances. I therefore consider that the approach set out in schedule 20 provides the flexibility to make reasonable agreements with landowners and occupiers. It also ensures that any necessary works can be carried out when, for whatever reason, such agreements are not possible. The provisions are similar to those in the CROW Act.

In conclusion, the Bill states in paragraphs 5, 6(4) and 8(4) of schedule 20 that Natural England may meet or contribute towards the cost of an agreement under paragraph 2 of the schedule or section 35 of the CROW Act. When an agreement is made between Natural England and the owner or occupier, we would like there to be the flexibility to allow a contribution from the owner or occupier when appropriate. We are not saying that Natural England will never meet all the costs, but  in particular cases, as I have explained, there might be a reason why it should not do so. We want to retain the flexibility that we have provided in the Bill.

I thank the hon. Members for St. Ives and for Newbury for the opportunity to debate the matter at some length. It is important to give reassurance, and to show that we have in the Bill the flexibility to deal with circumstances on the ground in a locally determined way.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for putting those facts on the record; that will give a lot of comfort to many people. However, he has sidestepped one of the points that I raised: the impact that this could have on the capital value or the revenue income of businesses. Is he telling those businesses, “Tough—that’s just the way it is,” or can he give them the comfort of knowing that they could take their case to the relevant authority and have it reflected in the path’s route?

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

I can give the Committee some comfort, but I reiterate that this is a coastal path with spreading room that will be worked out over a period of 10 years. The local determination, which I have stressed repeatedly and which is also stressed by Natural England’s documents, mitigates the need for any compensation. I think that all members of the Committee would agree that we do not want a coastal path that is dogged—we have had this debate in the other place—with endless claims and counter-claims over compensation. We are not going there.

We have already discussed how the coastal path could operate to the economic benefit of many landowners in many respects. However, in exceptional circumstances where a coastal path route is needed, but, despite the best dialogue and consultation, there is no alternative route, and where it could be shown that there would be a material impact to a landowner’s economic disadvantage, Natural England may come to a financial arrangement with landowners under the powers of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. I stress that such circumstances would be exceptional and that the power is not one of compensation in the terms of the Bill. Where there are truly exceptional circumstances, where it is recognised that there is going to be an impact and that there is no other way of routing the coastal path, a provision exists under the 2006 Act for a discussion to be held. I give that element of comfort on a truly exceptional basis.