Access to the English Coast

1
Access to the English Coast

• Summary of Natural Englands Advice responses
  to Defras consultation

2
Access to the English Coast

• The mechanisms available
• PRoW
• CRoW
• Voluntary
• Natural England's conclusions
• Our advice to Government
• An overview of the consultation responses

3
The Vision

• A coastal environment where rights to walk along
  the length
• of the English coast lie within a wildlife and
  landscape
• corridor that offers enjoyment, understanding of
  the
• natural environment and a high quality
  experience and
• is managed in a sustainable way in the context of
  a changing
• coastline.

4
Natural England Evidence Gathering

• To inform our advice, we undertook a detailed
  programme of
• research and investigation into the underlying
  facts
• Collection and analysis of spatial coastal data.
• Investigation into how existing mechanisms may
  deliver improved coastal access.
• Market research to assess current public
  knowledge and use of, and demand for, coastal
  access
• Investigation and local discussion within four
  different study areas
• Assessment of ways to integrate and maximise
  landscape, historic environment and wildlife
  benefits with access provision.
• An investigation into coastal access in selected
  European countries

5
The Opportunity

• The opportunity is to enable people to arrive at
  the coast
• anywhere in England in the confident knowledge
  that
• There will be clear, certain, well-managed access
  around the coast in either direction from that
  point whether they are seeking a one hour
  stroll, or a two day hike
• They will generally also have access to some
  areas of spreading room such as headlands and
  uncultivated land
• They will be able to enjoy a rich and varied
  natural environment as they go.

6
The Mechanisms currently available

• Option 1 - Public Path Agreements/orders
• Option 2 - Order Under CRoW section 3
• Option 3 - Temporary schemes

7
Option 1 - Public Path Agreements/orders

• Could deliver permanent public rights of way
  through one-off action and investment.
• They would also offer the required scalability.
• The flexibility to act only where necessary
  exists.
• Necessary national momentum would be lacking
  because the approach turns on proactive highway
  authority activity.
• Past experience of using orders as a last resort
  shows this takes as much as ten years to achieve
  and.
• Cannot deliver a path that rolls back with
  coastal erosion so the whole exercise (and
  cost) may then have to be repeated further down
  the line.

8
Option 2 - Order Under CROW Section 3

• CRoW could deliver long term access, without this
  being dependent on the landowner opting in.
• It looks on paper to be the least costly of the
  existing mechanisms but these costs would be
  early in the process and hard to control.
• An order could not provide the local flexibility
  to design access against need. The resulting
  access would be the result of the process.
• A CRoW approach would not provide the necessary
  powers to secure effective management of coastal
  access on the ground.
• More land would be mapped (for example one field
  back) than is actually required to deliver
  against the Governments vision.

9
Option 3 - Temporary schemes such as
Environmental Stewardship agreements

• This approach scores well for scalability.
• Potential big role in improving the coastal
  environment and possibly contributing to good
  management of access along the coast.
• They cannot deliver long term access
  improvements.
• Entirely dependent on the willingness of the
  landowner to opt in to access.
• They would also be likely to prove the most
  expensive solution per kilometre of improvement
  over time, because payments would have to
  continue year on year in order to sustain the
  access.

10
Conclusions on the existing mechanisms

• None of the existing approaches is ideal.
• None of the existing mechanisms deal effectively
  with the existing dynamic coastline.
• None of the existing mechanisms will cope well
  with the predicted increase in the rate of
  change.
• The coast is a special place with unique
  challenges both for managing access and nature
  conservation.
• Our advice recognises this.

11
Natural England Advice
Government should legislate to create an approach
that combines the best features of the existing
mechanisms - offering customised powers to make
sense of the unique coastal situation, and to
ensure the necessary flexibility to the
circumstances on each section of coast.
12
What Would This Mean?

• The key outcome of the new legislation would be
  to enable Natural England to align a coastal
  access corridor around the coast that people
  could enjoy with confidence and certainty.
• The corridor might also include the vast majority
  of beaches, over which existing public access
  could be formalised.
• The corridor would include spreading room onto
  some un cultivated headlands and coastal vantage
  points.
• Natural England estimate that, based on the gap
  analysis and experience from the study areas,
  around 50 of the coast will need some sort of
  intervention under the proposed approach to
  improve continuity of access. 

13
How Might It Work?

• The alignment process would be conducted in
  accordance with a statutory methodology approved
  for the purpose by the Secretary of State.
• The route around the coast would be clearly
  indicated by management on the ground such as
  way-marking.
• There would be periodic maintenance and it would
  remain possible to revisit the alignment or
  management of a particular section at need.
• A local alignment approach would make it possible
  to provide detours in the most appropriate way
  around existing coastal developments, and to
  design the access around nature conservation
  sensitivities co existence wherever possible
  will be a core aim.

14
Summary of the Proposals

• 10 year implementation programme estimated at 5m
  pa (currently under review)
• We think with careful alignment, compensation
  should not be an issue.
• CRoW reduced level of occupiers' liability should
  apply.
• Complementary work by Natural England and others
  to enhance coastal landscapes and wildlife
  through scheme agreements etc.
• Joined up Government policies to support these
  objectives.

15
Nature Conservation and Coastal Access
16
Coastal wildlife, landscape, and quality of
enjoyment benefits

• 1. PROTECT nationally or internationally
  important species, habitats and geological and
  historical features and the landscapes in which
  they are set.
• 2. ENCOURAGE a more diverse and wildlife rich
  coastal environment.
• 3. ENHANCE the quality of the visitor
  experience, both physically and by improving
  public understanding and appreciation of the
  special qualities of the coast, including its
  wildlife, geology, history and landscape.

17
In Summary

• We want both improved access to the coast and
  improvements to the coastal environment
• a win win outcome.
• Integration and holistic thinking is the key to
  success.
• We are still developing this part of the project
  and nothing is set in stone.
• Lots of opportunities

18
(No Transcript)
19
The Consultation
20

• The vision
• A coastal environment where rights to walk along
  the length
• of the English coast lie within a wildlife and
  landscape corridor
• that offers enjoyment, understanding of the
  natural
• environment and a high quality experience and is
  managed
• in a sustainable way in the context of a changing
  coastline.
• Outcome 1 It will be possible to walk along and
  enjoy the length of the English coastline
• Outcome 2 The coastline becomes more accessible
• Outcome 3 Coastal wildlife, landscape, and
  quality of enjoyment improve through
  integrated action and policies

21
The overall vision how did respondents react?

• Slightly more than half of the 264 responses to
  this question were in support of the vision.
• The vision was seen to be complementary to many
  organisations purposes and plans
• Those who only expressed cautious agreement
  wished to see either
• the vision expanded to include a wider range of
  uses and other forms of recreation, as well as
  access for disabled users.
• Or considered that there was no demonstrated need
  for more access at all.

22
Responses to outcomes

• Outcome 1 was seen as the most important of the
  three outcomes by many respondents, and
  fundamental to the vision.
• Many LAF and local authorities felt that all the
  outcomes should be considered as complementary
  and of equal importance.
• Outcome 3 was seen as the most difficult to
  achieve in practice.
• Impacts on tranquillity, nature conservation,
  carrying capacity, integration with public
  transport and the creation of circular walks were
  some of the issues identified by respondents as
  being fundamental to the desired outcomes

23
Analysis of the mechanismsOption 1 Use of the
Highways Act 1980

• 76 of respondents agreed that although option 1
  would be strong in some areas, scalability and
  permanence, it would be weak on time taken to
  implement proposals and on resilience to coastal
  change.
• 13 of respondents disagreed with this assessment
  
• 60 of these respondents indicated that they were
  in favour of a review of the Highways Act to make
  it more effective (8 overall).

24
Analysis of the mechanismsOption 2 Section 3 of
the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

• 71 respondents agreed with Natural Englands
  assessment of mapping under Section 3 of the CROW
  Act.
• Many respondents agreed that this option was weak
  in terms of continuous access
• Many respondents agreed it was weak in allowing
  for an element of flexibility at a local level.
• Some respondents added that the Act had its
  limitations and, although it was considered a
  better tool for open spaces, it may not achieve
  continuous access.

25
Analysis of the mechanismsOption 3 Voluntary
measures to create permissive access

• 75 of respondents who answered question 16
  agreed with Natural Englands assessment of this
  option.
• It was considered as weak on achieving a
  permanency of access and that voluntary schemes
  could not guarantee a full length access corridor
  
• It was considered as weak on providing continuous
  access around the coast and on cost
  effectiveness.
• It would be dependent on landowners discretion.
• Some respondents also raised concerns that
  resources could be diverted away from
  agri-environmental schemes in other areas.

26
Analysis of the mechanismsOption 4 New
legislation to create a coastal access corridor

• There were 220 respondents, plus 337 from the
  Ramblers Campaign, who answered question 18 557
  responses
• 85 of respondents agreed that the Government
  should introduce new primary legislation.
• 9 did not agree with option 4 and 5 were
  unsure.
• Many local authorities and local access forums
  considered it was the only sensible way of
  achieving consistency and certainty to enable a
  continuous permanent coastal access corridor.
• Other benefits were seen to be the flexibility of
  such an approach in meeting local circumstances.

27
Analysis of the mechanismsOption 4 New
legislation to create a coastal access corridor

• Those who did not support Natural Englands
  assessment had concerns that
• such legislation would introduce more confusion
  about access rights in the countryside in
  general,
• or that existing access to the coast was already
  available.
• formalising access to beaches was generally
  supported
• a statutory methodology would need to be clearly
  defined and involve widespread consultation for
  everyone affected, including access users and
  landowners.

28
Analysis of the mechanismsOption 4 New
legislation to create a coastal access corridor

• Respondents generally agreed there should be a
  right of appeal against Natural Englands
  application of the statutory methodology
• Some expressed conditional support provided that
  this process would be open to both landowners and
  members of the public.
• respondents were generally supportive of Natural
  Englands role in undertaking nature conservation
  assessments as part of the planning process to
  avoid damage to any features of importance.

29
Analysis of the mechanismsOption 4 New
legislation to create a coastal access corridor

• Respondents agreed that planning and
  implementation should be undertaken through
  access authorities and funded by Natural England.
  
• Respondents supported funding being provided for
  access authorities to undertake this work and the
  need for this to be ring fenced.
• Natural England should have powers to do such
  work itself
• There was strong support that local solutions
  should be designed in consultation with local
  interests, local access forums.

30
Analysis of the mechanismsOption 4 New
legislation to create a coastal access corridor

• There was strong support for legislation to
  enable local conditions to be placed on access if
  necessary. (dogs on leads etc.)
• There were mixed views on the proposed timescale
  for implementation.
• There were strong views on Natural Englands
  assessment of costs with the majority considering
  they were under-estimated.
• Many respondents argued that compensation should
  be given in some circumstances.
• Most respondents agreed that the reduced level of
  occupiers liability introduced for access land
  under CRoW should be adopted.

31
Analysis of the mechanismsOption 4 New
legislation to create a coastal access corridor

• Some respondents noted that the coast is a
  complex environment and suggested that reduced
  liability should be extended to cover some
  man-made features.
• Proposals for complementary work to enhance
  coastal landscapes and wildlife drew mixed
  comments, with concern over the diversion of
  existing funding being a major issue.
• 22 of respondents put forward additional
  comments on option 4. Comments included disabled
  rights, guidance on compensation, references to
  multi users, identified need, coastal access
  improvement plans, to integrated coastal
  management zones.

32
Other issues Higher Rights

• There was considerable support for the need for
  higher rights from respondents with a specific
  horse interest, where it was practical and where
  evidence of local demand existed.
• A few respondents referred to the specific needs
  of disabled groups, carriage drivers, climbers as
  well as those participating in water sports who
  required access to the foreshore and beach.
• Those not supporting the need for higher rights
  considered that these should be looked at as a
  separate issue and not reviewed within the
  context of option 4.

33
Visitor safety

• Respondents comments reinforced issues around
  coastal environments under change, especially
• estuaries,
• mudflats and salt marsh,
• as well as erosion and public safety on cliff
  tops.
• Respondents considered that it would be important
  to build on existing guidance such as the Coast
  and Countryside Codes,
• Avoid a proliferation of signage along the coast,
  as well as encouraging the public to take greater
  personal responsibility, and minimise the impact
  on landowners and the environment.

34
Salt marshes and mudflatsestuaries.

• Natural Englands advice that improving access to
  salt marshes and mudflats should not be a
  priority was viewed as appropriate.
• Concerns about public safety played a prominent
  part in these responses with 20 organisations
  emphasising that salt marshes and mudflats were
  dangerous locations for the public to visit
  unless they had detailed knowledge of local
  conditions.
• Some respondents sought clarification and a
  formal definition for the status of rivers and
  estuaries.

35
What now?

• Hillary Benn announced an intention to legislate
  at the Labour party conference in October.
• With Defra investigating a suitable legislative
  vehicle
• Natural England are currently adding flesh to the
  bones of option 4
• Setting out key principals that will develop into
  the methodology.
• Ground truthing a range of issues relation to
  option 4.
• Meeting stakeholders including those involved in
  Golf courses, camp sites, MOD, ports etc..
• Developing the enhancement and protection
  elements of option 4.