Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Rowlands (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 8 June 2009. It occurred during Debate on bill on Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL].


Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

My Lords, I, too, am a member of the Constitution Committee and during all our discussions on this Bill, I have emphasised the tremendous value of coastal access. I happen to live quite near a coastline in south-west Wales, and I have witnessed the enormous benefit, both in health and recreational terms, of coastal access. Like all members of the Constitution Committee, I felt strongly that there should be some kind of planning appeal procedure, though I did not want the old-fashioned kind, which has often led to interminable delays and been extremely expensive. I believe Ministers have come forward with a workable alternative appeal procedure, which I welcome and support. As other members of the committee have testified, we are indebted to the way in which Ministers have responded to the representations we have made. I am more than content that an appeals procedure is in place that is of a character which will not mean that coastal access is somehow continually delayed or prevented, while at the same time protecting the rights of citizens and property owners. On the last point, I share the view of my noble and learned friend Lord Morris. Under his jurisdiction, when he was Secretary of State and I was a Minister in the Welsh Office, I came across cases where it was the view of the Secretary of State and the department that the Secretary of State should have the right to overrule planning inspection findings of one kind or another. I think that power must remain with the Secretary of State. The question is whether we should limit it in the way Amendment 27 proposes, or in the way the Government’s Amendment 28 proposes. Given the fact that I, too, am not certain how one would define "exceptional circumstances", I believe Ministers have responded to the points made by the Constitution Committee, as represented by Amendment 27, and I find Amendment 28 very reasonable. It comes a long way to meet the concerns of most of the members of the Constitution Committee. I, therefore, support Amendment 28 and, sadly, if Amendment 27 is pressed, I shall not be supporting it.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
711 c445-6 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Access Devolved matters Appeals Coastal areas Devolution Byelaws Fisheries Leisure Licensing Environment protection Infrastructure Exemptions Legislative competence Local government Northern Ireland Planning permission Planning Northern Ireland Assembly Offshore structures National Assembly for Wales Nature conservation Scotland Republic of Ireland Wales Scottish Parliament Renewable energy Rights of way Shipping Seas and oceans Territorial waters Planning Inspectorate Marine Management Organisation Infrastructure Planning Commission Marine conservation zones
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