View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament

69 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 26 OCTOBER 2009 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 70
[Lords]
[Lords]
have recourse to the objections procedure set out in
schedule 19, should Natural England not undertake a
review or amend its report accordingly.
6.15 pm
I understand the concerns of the House that the
coastal access provisions should not prevent future
changes in land use. For this reason, I have been talking
to stakeholders, explaining how the provisions will work
and providing reassurance that the Bill will be implemented
in a way that does not sterilise land by preventing any
future changes. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern,
but I want to make it clear that we are not in the
business of allowing a coastal path to mean no future
development, which would go against the whole ethos
of the Bill.
Bill Wiggin: Will the Minister elaborate a little more
on what he means by “sterilise”? Does he mean, for
example, that the land would not be eligible for single
farm payments?
Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman tempts me
down a path on single farm payments that I am wary of
treading on. It is more to do with how proposals for
future land use are developed. In my own constituency,
for example, an area has been designated for light
industrial use for 20 years, yet there is no light industrial
use on it. If we were to incorporate that sort of approach
into the coastal margin, we could well end up with a
coastal path or coastal margin without any integrity or
coherence—a coastal path with big red lines all the way
along it. There might be further proposals for every
couple of miles along the path. We need to ask how one
defines a proposal. Is something defined as a proposal
because it features in a local development plan or a
unitary development plan some years down the line? Is
it a proposal if some supermarket or retailer has said
that it might be interested somewhere down the line? I
shall explain in more detail later why that simply would
not work.
I understand the concerns, which is why I used the
term sterilised land, about the idea that if a coastal path
were put in place, it would mean that no development
could happen. We do not want that. On the contrary, I
believe that the Bill’s provisions are extremely flexible in
that respect. Let me explain why I believe the necessary
safeguards are in place.
At the outset, before drawing up a report on a particular
stretch of coast, Natural England will take appropriate
account of any relevant local plans, such as local
development plans and planned major developments,
as part of its consultation with landowners, local authorities
and others, including the Marine Management
Organisation. As we are all aware, the MMO will be
consulted on any plans that could affect the marine
environment as a result of the Bill. It is likely to have a
pretty good knowledge of what is coming down the
track, including some of the much further afield national
infrastructure developments. I encourage all those affected
to engage in constructive discussions with Natural England
at this early stage on the best position for the route.
As part of the local consultations on the route and
spreading room, Natural England will discuss the need
for any exclusions or restrictions on access. Any necessary
exclusions or restrictions will be included in Natural
England’s report and put in place before the right of
access to that particular stretch of coast comes into
effect. If circumstances change at a later date, those
with an interest in the land can apply for restrictions or
exclusions under sections 24 and 25 of the CROW Act
—for example, for land management purposes. The
flexibility is built in there.
Once the route is implemented, under the provisions
in the CROW Act, land can become excepted from the
right of access at any time if some change or development
occurs so that it falls into one of the excepted land
categories in schedule 1 to the CROW Act. These
include, for example, land covered by buildings or the
curtilage of such land; land used for the purposes of
railways or tramways; and land that does not fall within
some other excepted land categories and is covered by
works used for the purposes of a statutory undertaking.
Paragraph 9 of that schedule makes specific provision
for development in establishing a category of excepted
land as follows:
“Land as respects which development which will result in the
land becoming land falling within any of paragraphs 2 to 8 is in
the course of being carried out.”
Paragraphs 2 to 8 include the categories that I have
already mentioned. I apologise for being so detailed on
the matter, but it is important.
In addition, it is worth reminding hon. Members that
the line of the route is not fixed permanently. Powers in
section 55 of the National Parks and Access to the
Countryside Act 1949 enable Natural England to review
the route and associated margin and to propose changes
to the Secretary of State at a later date—subject, once
again, to full consultation, representation and the objections
process. In those ways, the legislation is designed to take
account of changes in use and future developments.
I consider it neither appropriate nor practical that a
person with a relevant interest in land should be able to
require Natural England to carry out a review of a
report on the basis of a proposed development, or to
have recourse to the objections procedure in schedule 19
to the Bill, if Natural England does not agree to amend
the report on the basis of such a proposal. At the proposal
stage, it may be several years before a determination on
any eventual planning application is reached—we are
all familiar with that in our constituencies—or the
change of use is implemented or development begun,
and the final agreed development may be significantly
different from the original proposal in size and shape.
Such an approach, which could preclude access for
some time, would not be considered fair to the local
community or other users, and would not help us to
deliver on our aspirations for a coastal path.
As I have explained, if a change of use or development
occurs so that land falls within one of the categories of
excepted land in schedule 1 to the CROW Act, it
becomes excepted from the right of access. If land over
which the coastal route passes becomes excepted land, I
would expect Natural England to review its report and
propose a revised route so that continuity is maintained.
Indeed, it would be difficult to see how Natural England
would be fulfilling its coastal access duty were continuity
of the path not maintained.
I recognise the concerns of landowners and occupiers
about any possible impacts of the right of access on
future change of land use or development. Planning