View PDF - United Kingdom Parliament

71 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 26 OCTOBER 2009 Marine and Coastal Access Bill 72
[Lords]
[Lords]
[Huw Irranca-Davies]
policy guidance recognises the importance of protecting
and enhancing the character and landscape of undeveloped
coastline and supports the provision of public access to
the coast as a basic principle. However, where a coastal
location is necessary for development—for example, to
provide essential energy infrastructure—and access is
not compatible with the development, it will be in no
one’s interests for the coastal route to be given undue
weight in the decision. The flexible way in which the
legislation will work will help to ensure that that is not
the case.
Turning to the second reason cited in the amendment
for requiring Natural England to undertake a review of
a report, those with a relevant interest in land may
already make an application to the relevant authority
for exclusions or restrictions of access under sections 24
and 25 of the CROW Act. They must also be consulted
when the relevant authority is considering revoking or
varying a direction made on application under sections 24
or 25. When the relevant authority does not act in
accordance with such an application or a representation,
there is already a right of appeal to the Secretary of
State under section 30 of the Act. In many cases, the
sort of developments involved will have been discussed
with Natural England when the proposals for the route
were drawn up. If the process and scheme of operation
works as has been explained, the issue will be picked up,
and a contact will be available. In other cases, the
normal routes to contact Natural England—via website,
post and phone—will be available. The local authority
might also provide a good way of making contact, as it
will often have worked on proposals for development.
Given those clarifications, I hope the hon. Gentleman
will consider whether he needs to press the amendment.
Amendment 40, tabled by my hon. Friends the Members
for Southampton, Test, for Sheffield, Hillsborough and
for High Peak (Tom Levitt), would require the Secretary
of State to lay a report before Parliament within
two years of the commencement of part 9 of the Act,
with particular regard to the progress made on four
issues—the voluntary inclusion of parkland, the inclusion
of the Isle of Wight in an order under clause 295, the
addition of further islands reachable by ferry under the
same clause and the use of seasonal ferries as part of
the coastal path under clause 296. The amendment
would require the Secretary of State to append proposals
to remedy shortcomings in the establishment of coastal
routes that are apparent to him.
Let me discuss the four issues, and explain why I do
not consider the amendment to be necessary. First, as I
made clear in Committee, I recognise that the issue of
parks and gardens is important for many people—it
was raised during pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill and
again during the Bill’s passage in the other place. I have
listened to the different arguments put forward. On the
one hand, an individual’s property rights and privacy
should be protected—there has never been any withdrawal
from that point of principle—and we want to make sure
that the balance is right in that regard. On the other
hand, the exception for parks and gardens could result
in significant detours, not least where there are extensive
parklands on the coast.
We have said that we do not intend to change the
category of excepted land in schedule 1 to the CROW
Act, which covers parks or gardens, under which there
would be no right of access to such land. There was
cross-party support in Committee for our approach, in
which, as I made clear, Natural England will seek to
reach voluntary agreements with landowners to enable
a route to be created through a park, where necessary,
to provide continuity of access and to avoid a significant
inland diversion. Hon. Members have related their
experiences of being diverted miles inland to a route
that certainly could not be defined as a coastal walk.
I have asked Natural England to try to secure access
along the route by voluntary means, and in particular
through the dedication of land for public access under
the CROW Act provisions. The system that I have set
out should be given a trial, which should investigate
how great the problems are and how evident the good
will of landowners and occupiers of parks is. Subsequent
to our debate in Committee, individual landowners or
representative bodies whom I have met have been clear
that they are expected to deliver on that undertaking
in a voluntary way. I recently met the coastal access
forum, which includes representatives from a number of
organisations such as the CLA and the Historic Houses
Association, and they assured me, and have subsequently
written, that they will work constructively with Natural
England in such cases where parks abut the coast.
However, it will be important that Parliament monitors
the effectiveness of the voluntary approach proposed.
Natural England has therefore been tasked to keep the
matter under review.
We have already said that Natural England will report
to Parliament on progress of the implementation of the
route after 10 years. In addition, as I promised in
Committee, I have asked it to undertake an earlier
interim review and to 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 public access along the route
through parks. Although it is not a requirement in the
Bill, we have asked that that report should take place
within five years of Royal Assent. I also made it clear in
Committee that the Secretary of State could amend the
exception for parks and gardens if satisfactory progress
is not made and significant issues remain. That would
be subject to the affirmative procedure; it would not
require primary legislation, but it would need to be
approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
Let me make it clear that my proposals do not
represent a pendulum, or an axe, swinging over landowners.
Let me also say, however, that in Committee and in the
changes that we have made to the Bill we have made
clear our intention to open access—where we can—to
some of the coastal gems that could be described as the
jam in the doughnut. I believe that there is a willingness
to do that, but I also believe that we must all work
collectively, in the House and outside, to ensure that it
is done.
6.30 pm
We have already made a commitment, in Committee,
to take steps to include the Isle of Wight in an order
which will be subject to consultation: the legislation will
not be rammed down people’s throats. Natural England
will consider other islands that cannot be reached on
foot—again, after local discussion and consultation. I
believe it is appropriate for islands that cannot be
reached on foot to be considered individually, because
all our islands are singularly different from each other.