Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Greaves (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 21 April 2009. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL].


Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

I appear to have lost my notes, which perhaps will speed things up a little. These amendments are about what happens when erosion occurs along the coast. In moving Amendment A326, I shall speak also to Amendments A328A, A329, A330 and A358DA in this group. Amendment A326 would clarify the circumstances under which the report into the proposals for a particular piece of coast would find it necessary to identify coast which was going to retreat and to identify alternative retreat lines in the likelihood of coastal erosion. At the moment, the Bill states that this should happen where the coast "may" be liable to retreat. I suggest that we should leave out the word "may" and insert the words, "is likely within the next ten years". The draft scheme put forward by Natural England suggests that 20 years could be the appropriate length of time. This is a probing amendment to determine what the Bill means and what sort of timescale would be thought to be appropriate. Clearly, at some stage a report for a particular part of the coast could be amended by means of a review. If a coast was likely to erode back to the line of the route within, say, 50 years, it would not have to be dealt with immediately. What timescale are the Government thinking of for it to be dealt with in the report? Amendment A328A is a consequential amendment. Amendment A329 has been tabled to probe the meaning of the words, ""geomorphological processes in relation to which the Agency has functions"." New Section 55B(6), to be inserted in the 1949 Act, will state: ""Natural England must consult the Environment Agency before exercising its powers"," in respect of sub-paragraph (a), which makes provision in respect of rollback when there is erosion. It says: ""Natural England must consult the Environment Agency … in respect of an area which is or may be … subject to significant coastal erosion or encroachment by the sea"," which is sensible and understandable, ""or … subject to significant physical change due to other geomorphological processes in relation to which the Agency has functions"." I do not understand what that means. Geomorphological processes by and large are the processes of weathering, erosion and deposition. I do not know what other processes there are that might be covered by the suggestion that the Environment Agency has functions in relation to them. I am, however, glad to see that the word "geomorphological" is being used in this context. Amendment A330 would insert, ""subject to significant physical change as a result of actions by the Agency or other public body"." At the moment rollback, as I understand it, refers to natural processes of natural erosion and other geomorphological processes. There might be circumstances in which there must be rollback because of actions by the Environment Agency or any other public body. An obvious example is part of the east coast of England being flooded as part of protecting the land against rising sea levels—land that has been reclaimed in the past and which is now being sent back to the sea—which might result in having to put the line of the route in a different place if the flooding was not planned or making provision for the line of the route to change if the coast is flooded later. Finally, Amendment A358DA in a sense goes back to the question of what happens to rollback when the line of the route is along a public right of way and not on newly created access land. We discussed this in our debate on higher rights such as horse-riding and the fact that if they are along a right of way, the rollback provisions will not protect the right of way but will create new access land: or will they? What exactly will happen if the line of the coastal route is along an existing right of way—a footpath or a bridleway—and rollback provisions are thought to be necessary? Will those rollback provisions be put in regardless but relate to access land as opposed to a right of way? How will that work? This is a complicated matter, and I am not sure that it has been completely thought through. If it has been completely thought through, it has not been explained to me in a way that I yet understand properly. I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
709 c1416-8 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Compensation Devolved matters Appeals Armed forces Decommissioning Costs Coastal areas Common land Delegated legislation Coastal erosion Land Licensing Dogs Liability Environment protection Ferries Energy Legislative competence Farms Inland waterways Land use Environment Agency Isles of Scilly Floods Isle of Wight Estuaries Local government Navigation Livestock Planning Ports Public consultation National Assembly for Wales Public footpaths Nature conservation Parish and town councils National parks Ministry of Defence Scotland Wales Rights of way Repairs and maintenance Shipping Seas and oceans Wildlife Rural areas Firing ranges Islands Natural England Lundy Island
Legislation
Marine and Coastal Access Bill (HL) 2008-09
National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk