Coastal access plans examined

The Committee remains dissatisfied about the uncertainty that surrounds the process of pre-legislative scrutiny as exemplified by this case. The Committee was surprised at the vague and uncommunicative way that the Government deals with the House in preparing for such scrutiny.

When the Government is preparing draft bills in the future it should inform the Liaison Committee which should recommend, in consultation with the relevant departmental select committee, how pre-legislative scrutiny should be conducted.

The Bill places too much emphasis on trusting Natural England to 'get it right' in terms of determining the alignment of the route and extent of spreading room. Landowners and occupiers, in particular, are entitled to more concrete safeguards especially as the Government intends to strike a 'fair balance' between public and private interests. The lack of a formal appeal process is a fundamental weakness of the Bill.

Other conclusions and recommendations of the Report include:

• The Committee is still to be convinced that £5 million a year for 10 years is enough to create access land all around England.
• The Government should also clarify responsibility for long-term maintenance before the Bill is introduced.
• The more detail Natural England can provide early on about how it intends to implement the policy in common coastal scenarios will reduce concerns.
• Natural England should produce a detailed draft of its scheme before Parliament starts to consider the Bill.
• Natural England should have a statutory duty written into the Bill to conduct a review of the lessons it has learned from early implementation of the proposals.

Found this story interesting?
Spread the news by clicking below to add it to your bookmarking service:

• Del.icio.us
• Digg this
• Reddit!