---

Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

I understand that point, of course. We have to consider the economic development of the nation and how we plan ahead. However, I am seeking within the framework of the Bill not to accept an amendment that would be too restrictive on its purposes, when our recent history indicates why we do not put such development plans on a statutory basis. Those are important documents; I do not underestimate their significance to a port’s development. How on earth could one possibly explain the development of Felixstowe if there had not been real forethought about how that port might develop? Yet that is different from accepting an amendment which would be unnecessarily restrictive within this legislation when I am seeking to argue—and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, presented this argument in his particularly persuasive way—that things can change quite markedly regarding ports. We ought to be careful about introducing restrictions. Amendment A360 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Greenway and Lord Taylor, and the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, would add a new category of excepted land to cover, ""Land used for the purposes of recreational boating facilities (including marinas, boatyards and clubs)"," and, in Amendment A362A in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, ""Land use for, or associated with the use of, sporting facilities"." We believe that such land will generally be covered by the excepted land, buildings and their curtilage provision. However, I accept that the nature of the argument being presented, particularly with regard to marinas and boatyards, is compelling. If it looked as though the buildings and curtilage provision did not make those excepted areas, we would undertake further consultation to see how to tackle that issue. The point is accepted but I hope the noble Lord will feel that he can withdraw—