Brisk debate on coastal access
May 6th 2009, Westminster. The debate amongst members of the APPG Coastal and Marine on the coastal access provisions of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill became heated in its final minutes as the wider issue of priorities for coastal management came to the fore. Malcolm Kerby of Coastal Concern Action Group, Happisburgh claimed that Coastal Access was a waste of money.
Highlighting the plight of his community, which is campaining for coastal defences to prevent the loss of many houses in the village, he claimed the Bill was an injustice. "The last people to be contacted are the communities themselves...This Bill should not go through." His views were echoed by members of other community groups present. However, other members of the group countered that the cost of coastal access (projected to be £50 million over 10 years) represented good value for money at less just £1 per person.
Earlier the meeting had heard from Natural England, the National Trust and a Bristol University academic on various aspects of the Bill, including some of the potential legal pitfalls. Click here for a Briefing paper based on the meeting.
Members of the group raised a number of concerns:
Peter Bottomley MP was concerned regarding the maintenance responsibilities for the proposed coastal path. Bruce Cutts of Natural England responded with details of the role of Highway Authorities as 'Access Authorities'.
John Whittingdale MP raised concerns for public safety. His Essex constituency includes the Blackwater Estuary which comprises large areas of mudflat, and where wildfowling is a widespread activity. Areas of saltmarsh and mudflat would be excepted from access land was the Natural England response.
Graham Stuart MP wanted to know "who is angry" about the Bill. In response Natural England assured members that existing users would not be affected. An NFU representative repeated calls for an independent arbiter of appeals.
Read the CoastNet Briefing paper here