I understood that, but the noble Lord will forgive me if I talk first about the top of the cliff. After all, he expressed the view that, on the whole, that is the preferable location for the coastal path. All sensible people in certain parts of the country will agree with him because it is from the cliff top that views over the sea and inland can be experienced. We can all call to mind areas where that may not be possible or safe and where the path should be at the bottom. That is unlikely in areas of erosion because the waterside is unlikely to be much safer than the top of the cliff.
We are asking a body with a real sense of responsibility to create this path, to consult local interests and to take into account the factors articulated in the passage of the Bill on which assurances were given. I hope that the Committee will accept that that is how we expect Natural England to respond.
We do not regard the issue of privacy in this legislation in quite the same way as we regarded it with CROW. In that Act, we were concerned with a great many inland areas where it was anticipated that one could state right of access to the land without necessarily going too close to a dwelling, so privacy could easily be protected. It is more difficult with a coastal path, because dwellings are likely to be closer to where the path is obliged to go along the edge of the land. Natural England will seek to avoid locating the route where there could be an adverse impact on property.
In the same way, where the route might be quite wide when it approaches a campsite or, in particular, a caravan site that has some permanence to it—I know some campsites have permanence but noble Lords have raised the issue of caravan sites—if the path does not circumnavigate the caravan site and it is only practicable for it to go through the site, the path will be narrowly defined. The noble Baroness talked about access, but the coastal path does not create a fresh problem of access to a caravan site or campsite. After all, by definition, these areas are not bounded or encased in huge steel fences and owners and proprietors therefore take responsibility for access. However, if the path goes through a caravan site, it will be at its narrowest definition at that point. By the same token, assurance will be expected to be given that dogs are kept on leads, as well as all the other factors that ensure that walkers meet their obligations.
I am sure that I have not been able to respond in full to a number of other issues, but this has been a fairly long debate. It has not been as long as the debates that we had on the Bill, but it has been pretty extensive. I hope that noble Lords will accept that the order gives effect to an Act that commanded widespread support throughout the House. We all expressed the extent to which we could see benefit arising from the coastal path. It is quite clear that the obligations on Natural England are substantial. It concluded its consultation on the draft scheme last week. It is now looking at all the responses and we expect the final scheme to be submitted to the Secretary of State as soon as its analysis is complete. We will then know the terms under which Natural England envisages giving effect to the proposals.
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 c167GC Session
2009-10Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:26:21 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_620998
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_620998
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_620998