The Government’s consultation on coastal access launched in June could end up being a proposal about taking rights without compensation and will shift the balance of legal protection from the individual to the state, according to the Country Land and Business Association (CLA).
CLA South West Director John Mortimer said granting greater public access to coastal paths had wide-ranging consequences, but could ultimately be a waste of money.
"The Secretary of State has stated that private land is a public good and that government should assert the right of people to enjoy it – so what’s to stop the Government insisting that we have a ‘natural birthright’ to walk across each other’s back gardens without compensation?" he said. "This is a very dangerous precedent because it shifts the balance from the protection of the individual to the power of the State."
The CLA is also concerned that the proposal has all the hallmarks of a consultation with a foregone conclusion. The Government, said Mr. Mortimer, appeared to be consulting only on the means by which it will deliver a statutory right of access to the coast, not on whether there is any need or demand for it.
"Existing provisions do work – they delivered 200 million day visits to the coast in 2002 – the demand for legislation simply does not exist," he said. "Some 70% of the coastline already has some form of legal right or formally recognised access, and Natural England itself admits that there is no groundswell of concern about the arrangements to access many of England’s beaches. This proposal would be an appalling waste of public money.
"We want people to enjoy their visits to the coast but If there are issues these can surely be resolved at a local level using local solutions to resolve local problems," he added.
"We appear to have a situation where the government clearly knows the outcome it wants to achieve from this ‘consultation’ process and it is prepared to put habitat, environment and private businesses at risk to achieve an outcome to which there is blinding public indifference.
"At the same time it is introducing a presumption that public rights should be asserted over individual rights without compensation. Where does that end? What’s to stop this concept being extended to the building of new roads or airport runways?"
