COASTAL ACCESS….Defra Consultation 09
I have pleasure in submitting the comments of the Lake District Local Access Forum. These
have been prepared after consultation with all members of the Forum. Whilst the majority of
members were supportive of the proposals as echoed by the number of ‘Yes’ answers, some
of the narrative in the consultation document raised concerns. This has been added as
comments where appropriate.
I am indebted to the members of the Forum for the time and effort that they have put in
ensuring a balanced response.
Using the Numbers in the Consultation Document, our comments are as follows:1.
Yes
2.
It was felt salt marshes and estuaries should be added for clarity.
3.
Yes in most circumstances. However one member was seriously concerned by the
implementation of para 2.3.c.(iii). If a route has to be taken inland for any reason,
it surely should not be the case that all land on the seaward side should be defined
as coastal margin.
4.
Yes, but minimum width should allow for prams /wheelchairs.
5.
Yes, but this should not be seen as support for relaxation of other procedures.
Some land owning members felt this could set a dangerous precedent for other
CROW Act ‘open access land’.
6.
Yes
7.
YES but there will be many locations where strong enforceable “control” (dogs on
leads or even banned) will be necessary e.g. lambing, conservation, bird migration,
public health. It was felt Natural England should have the powers to introduce local
restrictions during the relevant time of year. This may not be just in early summer – see
also answer to question 31
8.
Yes
9.
Yes
10.
Yes
11.
Yes but should it say “appropriate” and “unsuitable” – both words being defined.
12.
Yes, but subject to clear definitions of “coastal land”.
13.
No in the initial stage, but should be possible for Natural England to delegate to
relevant authorities, if appropriate, after the first phase and agreed locally
14.
Yes
15.
Yes
16.
Yes
17.
Yes
18.
Yes although the question of compensation arises where routes are proposed to
cross valuable productive farm land i.e. early potato growing areas. This may be
further complicated by the farm subsidy system.
19.
Yes subject to agreement being reached on any reasonable measures needed to
overcome safety issues. Whilst it is felt most golf courses will be able to
accommodate an access route without too much difficulty, no course should be
put in the position and expense of having to alter the layout of its course.
20.
Yes subject to agreement being reached on any reasonable measures needed to
overcome safety issues.
21.
Yes subject to agreement being reached on any reasonable measures needed to
overcome safety issues
22.
Yes.
23.
Yes but where the Coast Path has to use the tarmac of a Public Highway
(frequently a narrow lane subject to 60mph) then the Highway Authority shall be
authorised to impose a 20mph Speed Limit or other traffic calming measures
where appropriate.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
Yes noting that Graveyards/Cemeteries can be interesting places to pass through,
so the decision should be pertinent to each location with fencing sometimes
required.
Yes agreed as a general principle but should be subject to local circumstances
with fencing being one solution.
No examples were suggested by members of the Forum.
Members felt the definitions were not clear enough to comment on. Whilst it is
understood that access should not be granted if there are security or health and
safety issues, marinas are often attractive places for members of the public to
visit. There is only a narrow dividing line between quays and marinas and it was
felt this provision should not prevent access in some circumstances, subject to
local negotiation.
It should not include land enclosed as part of a marinas security fencing i.e.
mooring jetties etc as well as the buildings therein or adjacent
Yes provided the owners are absolved from liability i.e. commercial fishing
quays
Yes - seawalls and flood embankments.
Members had no comment on the definitions
Yes but see comments on question 7. Many areas of coast are important natural
habitats as well as resting grounds during periods of bird migration. There will be
many locations where strong enforceable “control” (dogs on leads or even
banned) will be necessary. Natural England should have the powers to introduce
local restrictions during the relevant time of year.
Yes It would be beneficial for dog owners and enforcement personnel if the law
and definitions of “control” were the same for Open Access and Coastal Lands
Members had no comment on the definitions.
Yes
No comments
Yes
The Forum also wishes to make the following additional comments
A.
B.
HIGHER RIGHTS(Horses and Cyclists).....as part of Stage One of the
implementation process, it was felt that opportunities for the implementation of
improved access facilities for horses and cyclists should be taken. It is
recognised that to enable the facilities to be achieved at the same time as the
Coast Path it may well be necessary to amend current legislation as suggested by
the Cyclist Touring Club and supported by the British Horse Society.
It is also felt that the complex issues concerning access to the foreshore should
not be ignored especially given that some of them involve the local economy.
Charles Flanagan
Chair of Lake District Local Access Forum
November 2009