 House of Commons |
Session 2008 - 09 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords] |
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords] |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:†
Irranca-Davies,
Huw (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs) Chris
Shaw, Committee Clerk †
attended the Committee Public Bill CommitteeThursday 9 July 2009(Afternoon)[Mr. Greg Pope in the Chair]Marine and Coastal Access Bill [Lords]Clause 296Long-distance
routes 1
pm Mr.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con): I beg to move amendment
44, in clause 296, page 192, line 21, at end
insert— ‘(3A) Where a person
with a relevant interest in affected land has requested Natural England
to provide a map showing the landward boundary of the relevant coastal
margin, but the report contains a description of that boundary pursuant
to subsection (3)(b) instead of a map, the report must also contain a
statement of Natural England’s reasons for declining to comply
with the person’s request for a
map.’. The
amendment would provide for owners and occupiers of land to make a
formal request to Natural England for a map. It would require Natural
England, if it declined such a request, to state its reasons for doing
so in its report to the Secretary of State. That would discourage
vexatious requests and encourage close co-operation between the owner
or occupier of land and Natural England to identify the most
appropriate method of defining the extent of the coastal
margin. As
the Bill stands, unlike the coastal route itself, the spreading room
associated with it is not automatically subject to a mapping
requirement. Instead, we are to rely primarily on the descriptions in
the reports made by Natural England to the Secretary of State. Given
that a reduced liability will be associated with spreading room, it is
all the more important that there be clarity on legal responsibility,
to protect the landowner or occupier of the land and the user. A
textual description alone, especially in respect of complicated areas,
may result in considerable confusion in the minds of all users: the
landowners, occupiers and
walkers. Some
progress was made on the issue in another place. An amendment to clause
296 has given owners and occupiers the right to request a map if one
has been produced to show the extent of any spreading room on their
land. However, that amendment does not adequately deal with the
problem, as it remains the case that Natural England is not committed
to produce a map in the first place. That is an essential difference
with the Countryside and Rights of Way Act
2000. This
simple amendment would deal with a problem that is likely to arise,
without individuals having to invoke the appeals process. It would be
absurd for owners and occupiers to have to invoke the new objection
procedure merely to obtain a map to clarify the boundaries of spreading
room on their land. If genuine doubts are expressed by owners and
occupiers about the clarity of any description of the boundaries of
spreading room, Natural England should consult them closely and look
favourably on any reasonable request for
mapping.
Andrew
George (St. Ives) (LD): I support the amendment. I cannot
see how any progress could be made in any consultation regarding a
proposal for a coastal route, particularly in relation to spreading
room, unless it was made clear where the spreading room would extend.
At many places along the coast, there is no obvious physical boundary
to any potential spreading room. If the spreading room were to spread
inland as well as in a seaward direction, because of the physical
constraint created by a path that would need to be very close to a
cliff line or to the coast to achieve the spreading room required,
there would often be no clear visual or physical boundary to guide
anyone on their access
rights. The
amendment is important, because the uncertainty created by the lack of
a clear mapping exercise could result in confusion and dispute, which
would be left to the landowner to resolve on each and every occasion
when a user of that coastal access demonstrated their lack of clarity
and certainty about the extent of the spreading room. So I hope that
the Minister reflects carefully on the proposal and considers its
reasonableness.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (Huw Irranca-Davies): I think that I can provide
reassurance. I take seriously the concerns of the hon. Members for
Newbury and for St. Ives. I agree with the comment made by the hon.
Member for Newbury about the need to avoid confusion. We need to avoid
confusion, but we also need to avoid mapping for mapping’s sake,
with all the resource and funding implications, particularly if there
are other ways in which that clarity can be given and where absolute
mapping can be avoided.
Let me try to
explain how that might work. Natural England will be required to
describe the route in reports proposed under section 51 of the National
Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. The boundaries of the
coastal margin must be clear in the report, so that those with the
relevant interest can make representations and objections and the
Secretary of State is sufficiently informed to be able to make a
determination on the report. In light of the concerns that were
expressed in the other place, and recognising that the clarity of the
location of the route and coastal margin is an important issue to both
landowners and users alike, we introduced an amendment to require
Natural England to include in its coastal access report, under clause
296, a map to show a landward boundary of the relevant coastal land
where it was unable to provide a description of the boundary sufficient
to identify the relevant coastal margin. Let me just repeat that
Natural England must include such a map when it is unable to provide a
description of a boundary, which the hon. Member for St. Ives was
talking about, that is sufficient to identify the relevant coastal
margin.
We talked
earlier about descriptions of physical features. We have all been out
walking along the coastline and in other areas. We said that
traditional stone walls, trenches or ditches are highly unlikely to be
easily shiftable or mutable overnight. On one of my favourite walks, I
go along the outer limit of a hill fort near a cliff within that sort
of spreading room area where there is access. I walk there with my
children, and it is enjoyable to go into the hill fort and tell them
about its history. We could define its area by the outer limit of the
ditches and its raised enclosures, hedgerows and so on. Those
sorts of things are pretty clearly identifiable, but the amendment that
we introduced in the other place dealt with circumstances where Natural
England could not provide a description of the boundary with sufficient
clarity to determine the relevant coastal
margin. We
have made it clear that we do not believe that maps will be necessary
for clarity about where the coastal margin lies in most situations. We
expect that the vast majority of Natural England’s descriptions
of the margin will be sufficient to suit all parties, but I acknowledge
that it may be necessary for it to provide a map to help to clarify
certain situations—for example, where the coastal landscape is
complex or difficult to describe in
words. In
addition, a map may also be useful where Natural England uses its
discretion for the margin on the landward side of the route to extend
to a physical feature, as set out in section 55D(2) of the 1949 Act,
where the feature is not immediately apparent to the eye. The hill fort
that I mentioned is pretty darn clear and has been there for a few
thousand years. It would be pretty hard to miss those humps and
ditches. However, if an archaeological feature or something else is
referred to that cannot be seen by the untrained eye, it makes sense to
produce a map. It would not be sensible or appropriate for Natural
England to be required to engage in what would be—if it was done
on every occasion, let us be frank—an expensive mapping process,
when the money could be better spent on matters such as better
interpretation facilities of the coast, better signage or work to
facilitate good access.
Mr.
Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con): I am surprised to hear the
Minister say how expensive it would be to provide the maps, given that
it is pretty easy to map nowadays with satellite usage. Google Maps,
for example, does quite a good job. What sort of figure does he have in
mind to produce a comprehensive
map?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: We do not have a figure, which is one of
the amendment’s problems. The funding that we have suggested for
the coastal path and the coastal margin over the 10-year period is
adequate and has an element of mapping within it. To do that
universally would require additional resources. However, it is not
beyond the realms of possibility that one of the commercial providers,
such as Ordnance Survey, will undertake to do it in detail. The coastal
margin beyond the coastal path, which may be a path with a couple of
metres either side, will not always be massive. It may be quite narrow
and may not be mappable by Ordnance
Survey.
Mr.
Swire: The Minister has said on several occasions during
the past few minutes that a substantial cost would be unjustifiable.
His Department must have made a stab at what the cost will
be.
Huw
Irranca-Davies: I will try to return to that. I do not
think that we have an accurate figure, but it is reasonable to say that
the cost of mapping, in terms of its resource implications, will be a
burden for Natural England that could be put into other important parts
of the coastal network, not least the aspects that we have
already described, such as interpretation for visitors and
tourists, signage, seasonal variations and so on. There will
be a resource implication one way or the other.
As I have
said—I will go into some more detail—it is perfectly
within Natural England’s remit to produce maps where they are
needed. It should be for Natural England to decide whether a map is
required, because it will be best placed to do that. I would also
expect that the question of a map will be raised during any early
discussions with a route’s landowner. A conversation should be
held between the relevant parties about the best approach to the
circumstances surrounding that stretch of coast. I would also expect
Natural England to deal sympathetically with landowners’
concerns. Should there be a reasonable expectation to produce a map and
Natural England decide that it is not required, I would expect it to
explain in writing why it made that decision. I do not believe that
that needs to be covered by the Bill, because I firmly believe that the
system will work well in
practice. However,
recognising the genuine concerns of landowners, I am happy to keep the
system under review and ask Natural England to report back within five
years. That will provide an incentive if it is needed—I do not
think that it is—to Natural England to act reasonably, as I
strongly expect it to in any case. If there are problems in practice,
we will find a way to deal with them. In light of that, as well as the
available flexibility to introduce mapping and the fact that, in most
cases, that will be agreed, the amendment proposed by the hon. Member
for Newbury does not need to be included in the Bill. I am convinced
that the amendments that we have already included to assure landowners
and members of the Committee will be
sufficient.
Mr.
Swire: Can the Minister assure the Committee that, if
there is a dispute between the landowner and Natural England about the
route or the spreading room and a map is produced at the insistence of
the landowner, none of the expense would fall on the
landowner?
Huw
Irranca-Davies: The expense of mapping would fall on
Natural England, which is the converse of the point that we were just
discussing. It is ready to do that, so that is not a problem. The issue
is whether Natural England should have to map every single part,
because the matters under discussion are coastal margins and aspects of
spreading room. Most of that will be done via the process that we have
described through genuine consultation with landowners. When features
such as a wall or the edge of a hill fort cannot clearly be identified,
we would expect Natural England to introduce mapping for the benefit of
the landowner. With those strong reassurances, I ask the hon. Gentleman
to withdraw his
amendment. 1.15
pm
Mr.
Benyon: The main plank of the Minister’s argument
seems to be cost. He might have given us more detail on the costs. I
notice that in Natural England’s draft scheme, which I seem to
be quoting from the whole time, there are some excellent maps,
lifted—if the small print is to be believed—from Ordnance
Survey. I suspect that they were a desktop operation. What they try to
achieve and to show is clear, and so I suspect that the cost is not
massive. Throughout
this part of the Bill, we are being asked to put a lot of faith in
Natural England’s ability to come up with the right balance. I
am happy to go along with the Minister’s assurances of a
four-yearly review, which
the Conservative party would undertake if it were in government. We
would be keen to ensure that Natural England was operating in a
proportionate way, and showing consideration for the fact that we are
setting new parameters for people’s livelihoods and businesses
and placing new factors in their lives. In some cases, those represent
a considerable imposition on members of the public, and in others
little. It is important that we get that balance
right.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2009 | Prepared 10 July 2009 |