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.