1.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  1.1  Chichester Harbour Conservancy is both the Statutory Harbour Authority and Joint Advisory Committee (JAC) for the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The Conservancy was formed under an Act of Parliament in 1971 and has since this time managed the 74 km2 of nationally protected landscape and internationally protected site for nature conservation (Special Protection Area, Special Area of Conservation and Ramsar Site). The Harbour is one of the busiest recreational boating harbours on the south coast and has a diverse range of harbour-related businesses, sailing clubs and marinas.

  1.2  Chichester Harbour Conservancy responded to the original Coastal Access Consultation raising our significant concerns over the proposals being put forward. We have used the Draft Marine Bill Policy Paper (April 2008), Coastal Access: Natural England's Outline Scheme and Coastal Access: proposed order under Section 3A of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to inform our response.

  1.3  Our response to the consultation is detailed below, however, in general terms we are concerned that the proposals as they currently stand seem to focus on ease of implementation rather than having appropriate mechanisms to find suitable, locally sensitive and acceptable coastal access solutions. We are also concerned over potential mixed messages being promoted to the general public regarding blanket access rights to certain types of sensitive habitats and the species they support, in particular saltmarsh and mudflats.

  1.4  We also have concerns over the priority of this initiative in terms of constrained Government and Natural England budgets and feel that the long-term maintenance issue of the new coastal trail has not been addressed.

  1.5  We maintain that the interests of nature conservation should be fully and independently assessed and avoidance of damage or disturbance should be the overriding principle, rather than rely on temporary or inadequate mitigation measures, such as signage.

  1.6  We also strongly urge that marine-related businesses and farming landowners should not be adversely affected, either operationally or financially by the new access provisions.

  1.7  We feel that there is a lack of information available on the practicalities of the implementation phase.

2.  THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE DRAFT BILL PROVIDES FOR THE GOVERNMENT'S VISION FOR COASTAL ACCESS

  2.1  We were surprised to learn that the Coastal Access proposals have been included at the last minute within the fabric of the Marine Bill. We understand that it is the intention to implement the proposals via an amendment of Section 3A of the CROW Act 2000 and that a further consultation will be undertaken once the Order has been drawn up.

  2.2  Given that the CROW Act 2000 brought in what is commonly known as "the right to roam" considerable care needs to be taken to ensure that appropriate access to sensitive, and often dangerous, intertidal areas is appropriately classified and communicated to the wider public.

  2.3  We support the concept that coastal access routes will need to be "rolled back" in response to sea level rise and associated erosion. We would, however, argue that there is no need for new legislation to achieve this, and that the existing rights of way legislation could be amended to adequately achieve this. We also have grave concerns over the cost of this approach if the need to "roll back" occurs outside the main 10 year period.

  2.4  We would strongly urge appropriate and detailed local consultation and involvement to establish the most appropriate line of any new coastal access route, prior to the information entering the public domain. This is particularly important as we note that the right to appeal under section 30 of the CROW Act will now no longer apply and owners and occupiers will be required to make presentations at the start of the development process only.

3.  WHETHER NEW LEGISLATION IS THE BEST AND MOST COST-EFFECTIVE MECHANISM

  3.1  We continue to question the need for new legislation for the provision of coastal access and whether this proposal is the most appropriate in terms of priority for limited government funding. We consider that greater, more extensive gains could be made by reviewing the existing rights of way network, and its associated legislation, and enabling targeted, locally sensitive access improvements to be made; coupled with locally available funding for implementation.

  3.2  We also have concerns over the costs associated with the long-term maintenance of the new coastal access trail given the often less than adequate state of existing rights of ways, particularly in coastal locations which are subject to coastal erosion and vulnerable to sea level rise. The drain in funding can only be worsened long-term as it has been stated that there is not a cut-off date for completing the work and it could extend beyond 10 years.

  3.3  The option for voluntary agreements, for example through the agri-environment schemes which could have wider environmental gains as part of the whole farm plan, should not be discounted.

4.  THE CASE FOR EXCEPTIONS TO, AND DEVIATIONS FROM, A ROUTE GIVING CONTINUOUS ACCESS TO THE COAST

  4.1  Reducing the impact of Coastal Access on nature conservation interests (both habitats and species) should be seen as a priority. Enhancements to landscape and biodiversity as part of any access proposals are also fundamental, but the impact of the new access itself needs to be assessed and addressed and any damage avoided, rather than relying on inadequate and unworkable mitigation measures. This includes any potential impact upon species and habitats adjacent to access land and not just upon the land which the access lies.

  4.2  We are concerned that providing new access to areas which lie adjacent to sensitive intertidal areas will have an impact in terms of disturbance of birds by people, and in particular dogs, even on leads; this is particularly true where land on the seaward side of the "trail" will automatically be spreading room as this will include sensitive intertidal habitats. Temporary, seasonal closures or the requirement to keep dogs under close control or on leads is simply not workable and avoidance of disturbance should be the overriding principle. Local consultations and engagement should be a fundamental part of any assessment of the potential impact on important wildlife and habitats.

  4.3  We are also concerned that it will undoubtedly fall to Natural England to make any assessment on potential impacts of new access on nature conservation interests and question the independence of such decisions when it will be Natural England leading on the access provisions.

  4.4  Within Chichester Harbour there are numerous marine-related businesses, marinas and yacht clubs which front the harbour's edge and require access to the water. Access measures which pass between the business and the water should be avoided and the route taken around the land-ward edge of the interest.

  4.5  We understand that private gardens or a building's curtilage will now be treated as "excepted" land; this we support.

  4.6  We are concerned that an expectation will be created in the general public that the right to walk along the coast exists de facto, regardless of what local solutions and alternatives are put in place. This needs to be robustly and clearly communicated as part of the proposals should they go forward. In some locations, business interest, hazards or significant nature conservation interests may mean that any coastal route has to take an inland detour and this should be communicated to the general public at the outset.

  4.7  We note that arable land is now subject to the access proposals. It is also stated that existing grass margins will be used along field edges for access; we are concerned at the potential biodiversity losses associated with this approach.

5.  THE BALANCE BETWEEN RIGHTS OF ACCESS AND RIGHTS OF OWNERS AND OCCUPIERS, AND THE ISSUE OF COMPENSATION

  5.1  If the new access proposals can be demonstrated to have a financial impact on the holding, business or interest then an appropriate level of compensation should be made available, or the provision to divert the route should be possible. We strongly believe that marine-related businesses or farmers should not financially suffer as part of these proposals.

6.  THE PROPOSALS FOR COASTAL ACCESS IN ESTUARIES

  6.1  The proposal to align the access trail as far as the first convenient pedestrian crossing point appears a sensible way forward. However, due consideration needs to be given to issues relating to impacts on nature conservation, marine-related infra-structure and businesses within an estuarine environment.

7.  CLASSES OF LAND WHICH SHOULD BE EXEMPT FROM ACCESS RIGHTS

  7.1  The Conservancy believes that in relation to Chichester Harbour AONB the following areas should be exempt from access rights:

7.1.1  It has been stated that the trail will not normally be aligned on mudflats and saltmarsh and this we would support. However, we are very concerned to learn that these areas will normally be classified as "spreading room" even if some areas are later excluded; this will give mixed messages to the general public and may result in mistaken access to some very sensitive habitats. We have strong concerns over the nature conservation impact of direct access to these sensitive habitats and associated disturbance issues from people and dogs, even on leads or under close control, on adjacent land.

7.1.2  Areas of the coast where currently no access exists and the provision of new access would have significant impacts on nature conservation interests of the land identified for access or land immediately adjacent, particularly relating to disturbance of birds during roosting, feeding and breeding on the Natura 2000 network. Recent studies, including the Suffolk Coasts and Heaths Stour and Orwell Bird Disturbance Study, have shown that walkers with dogs, even on leads, to be the main cause for disturbance to estuarine bird populations.

7.1.3  Marine-related businesses, marinas, yacht clubs where access would cause health and safety issues, compromise working practices and have a financial impact.

7.1.4  We would support private gardens and the curtilage of buildings being identified as "excepted" land, but we are disappointed that the CROW Act 20 metre buffer has been removed meaning that access could be tight to any boundary in all circumstances.

  7.2  We remain concerned that clear and unambiguous information needs to be provided to the general public to ensure that access restrictions are understood, otherwise a carte blanche right to access may be assumed to be correct.

8.  THE PROPOSED ARRANGEMENTS FOR LIMITING LIABILITY

  8.1  We have no direct experience of how "limiting liability" associated with the Open Access proposals within the CROW Act 2000 worked in practice. Should the Coastal Access proposals be taken forward, in whatever form, then a reduction in landowner liability for both natural and non-natural features should be a fundamental part of the scheme.

9.  WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE ACCESS RIGHTS FOR OTHER USERS SUCH AS CYCLISTS AND HORSE RIDERS

  9.1  Where local conditions and situations dictate, access rights for other users should be considered as part of the local consultations. In addition, access improvements for those with limited mobility should also be evaluated. Again, clear and unambiguous information needs to be provided to the general public to differentiate the different access permissions at different locations.

Alison Fowler

Chichester Harbour AONB Manager, Chichester Harbour Conservancy

May 2008