Even on the most extensive golf course by the sea, even if it is linear, there could be only two or three holes that would be affected by a narrow path—the narrow definition of the right of way—proceeding along the coastline and along the course. Those circumstances have nothing to do with the other holes, but I recognise that the path being there, affecting those two or three holes, creates an issue. However, that already obtains with so many courses that I do not think that the coastal path raises anything different in law, in terms of anxiety and public concern, from what obtains at present.
The other significant area that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, raised—he was ably supported in this by others who contributed to the debate—was the issue of dogs. I emphasise that it will be important that we have an effective communications strategy for dog owners so that they are aware of their rights and responsibilities. There is no doubt that in certain circumstances, as we all know, dogs can have a serious effect in the countryside; that is why we have a clear definition of the law about where farm animals graze. We accept that there should be a general restriction requiring the keeper of a dog to keep the dog under effective control.
We set out in the order the sort of actions required of any person in effective control of a dog and exercising the right of access to coastal land. The requirements where a person may be considered to be keeping a dog under effective control are that the keeper of a dog keeps the dog on the relevant access land—after all, it is only that land that is available to the owner and therefore to the dog—and keeps the dog on a lead or keeps it in sight, remains aware of its actions and is reasonably confident that the dog will return reliably and promptly on command. In other words, the dog owner is responsible for the dog. In fact, we expect within that framework that people will act responsibly and will know, whenever they are going along the coastal path, that it will be necessary for dogs to be under control.
Natural England will be able to restrict dogs to leads or exclude dogs for land management or nature conservation reasons on coastal land. It may be, after all, that a dog would be a severe disturbance in a nature conservation area, so Natural England may say that in such an area it is not prepared to allow dogs on the coastal path. This is all part of the necessary consultation. Natural England is guided by the major priority of creating a coastal path that goes around England. By the same token, it has to take into account a range of other interests. If it is dealing with an area of the environment where a dog would be a severe disturbance to wildlife or would give rise to any other aspects of disturbance that an animal might create, it will be up to it to impose a prohibition if necessary.
A number of other issues were raised. On the question of dunes, to which the noble Lord referred, and other areas where it might be possible to walk but which will have to be looked at with care because of the topography, again I make the obvious point that Natural England will have regard to that topography. If the path can be established in a permanent form that does no damage to an area and its features, that will be done. If, as the noble Lord seemed to suggest, this was not possible on a long-run perspective or even a perspective over several years—for instance, if the coastal path was defined on somewhat shifting sands and changing topography—we would expect Natural England, for obvious reasons, to take account of that fact and for the path not to pursue that course.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked whether the path would be at the bottom or the top of a cliff. It is not going to be on the top of a cliff that is subject to erosion such that within a matter of a year or two of being defined it becomes inherently dangerous. There are some parts of East Anglia where the erosion is so rapid that the most considerable care would have to be taken.
Access to the Countryside (Coastal Margin) (England) Order 2010
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Davies of Oldham
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 9 February 2010.
It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Access to the Countryside (Coastal Margin) (England) Order 2010.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
717 c165-6GC Session
2009-10Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:49:07 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_620996
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_620996
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_620996