We suggest some representations you might wish to make. And discuss how the format of the consultation is restrictive.
In the run up to the end of the consultation on the Highcliffe-Calshot stretch, we’ve put together a series of articles about the England Coast Path. Now with precious time to spare, you may want to respond to the consultation. (if you want to refresh your memory on everything we’ve posted so far on the subject (including this article))
Here’s where you can find all the proposal documents including the forms for responses:
First, let’s hunker down on what hoops Natural England have set for us to jump through. There are two types of response you may make, “Objections” and “Representations”, both with different forms to fill out. We have been told that if you do not use the forms for your response, your response may by discretion be ignored (and some have informally been advised that they would be ignored). In some instances you may do both.
Only owners/tenants/occupiers of land directly effected by the route may make “objections”, but these are limited to specific grounds:
“Representations” are not limited in subject matter / grounds, and owners/tenants/occupiers may make these as well (and are invited on the forms to identify themselves). Anyone else may also make representations as individuals or group representatives. In both types, multiple forms would have to be submitted if commenting on non-contiguous portions of the route. Each form must identify a single “land parcel” or several adjoining ones. Again, you may choose to depart from guidance, but run the risk of being ignored.
1 & 2. For our purposes here you’ll need to look through Chapters 3, 4 or 5 of the proposals. These 3 Chapters alone propose 114 discrete sections of the route from Lymington Bridge (East) to Calshot (and that’s excluding possible Alternate Routes, which we have little to worry about as in this instance there’s only two bits along public highway from Inchmery Lane to Lepe Road, and Alternate Routes do not create additional Coastal Margin). 54 of those sections aren’t on current established Rights of Way, 21 of these sections classified as “Other existing walked” 33 sections are new “not an existing walked route”. You can choose any of these for comment, I’d suggest an area you know well, or if you don’t know, go for one of the new ROW as these may be the most problematic.
For your additional research, I suggest looking at the Government’s Magic Map page http://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx. This lets you zoom into the area where your route sections are, you can turn off useful layers (layer menu is on the top left of the map ) under Designations / Sites of Special Scientific Interest (England) / Special Areas of Conservation (England) / Special Protection Areas (England) etc, also with useful Marine designations). This is somewhat necessary as the consultation maps do not provide this information in any useful context or detail (there’s one map in the Overview which does not show the route and how it or Coastal Margin interact with the habitat and other designations).
3. Those listed in Schedule 1 Coastal Access reports, those with sport shooting rights and the following organizations: BASC; British Mountaineering Council; Country Land and Business Association; NFU; Open Spaces Society; Ramblers ; RSPB have to identify themselves (as if they were marked! — do you suppose they get a knock on the door asking how they were recruited to these shady organizations?).
4. “relevant interest” means that you are a legal owner / tenant / occupier of the land in question (i.e. you would also be able to make an “Objection”)
5. Here’s the real meat of the Representation, what ever concerns you about the report in such a way as to show that it “fails to strike a fair balance” between the provision of Coastal Access Duty and personal, statutory, local or National Interests. National interests would include honouring the protections to habitat in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and other agreements and law that specify relevant habitat designations. Either think of your own concerns that fit the bill, look through our other articles for extensive critique, and/or use almost any of the points below which sadly will apply to much of the route.
- The Sensitive Features Appraisal fails to carry out a full Habitats Regulation Assessment to assess impact of this section of the route, route facing mitigation measures may not be presumed to work, and in the context of Coastal Margin which may allow incursion through the Margin from other directions, the proposed mitigation is flimsy.
- Presumption that this route has no significant impact has not been proven in the absence of the full Habitats Regulation Assessment, or the possibly illegal inclusion of the proposed mitigation at the screening stage.
- Because of the poor presentation on the maps provided it is difficult to judge the relationship between the route, potential Coastal Margin, excepted land and exclusions.
- The Ordnance Survey’s practice of showing all potential Coastal Margin as access land will mislead many off this route section onto protected habitats and dangerous salt marshes.
- Dogs should be on leads for all sections adjacent or through protected habitats, grazing or back-up land for livestock.
- Using the least restrictive option principle as a standard for the Sensitive Features Appraisal is wholly inappropriate in the context of a National Park.
- The least restrictive option principle has no basis whatsoever in the Legislation,
- whereas within a National Park, the Sandford principle which favours conservation over recreation where they may not be reconciled is enshrined in the 1949 Act and subsequent Acts.
6 & 7. Self Explanatory, note because you are expected to submit separate forms for each contiguous stretch you criticise, you may have made other representations about the same report. 8. Again, harking back to #4. If you are and owner/tenant/occupier, have you also made out an “objection” form for between 1 and 6 statutorily granted reasons.
9 & 10. Tell them who you are, and send it in. At this late date, you’ll want to use the email. (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Now I think it’s worth noting, if you haven’t already caught on, but the format of this consultation is onerous. Some of the questions on the forms themselves require specialist knowledge, or a visit to a separate document that explains some, but not all of the questions. You are told to submit multiple forms for multiple sections.
By virtue of the fact that the forms are geared around references to sections of the route, there is no way to identify portions of the Coastal Margin you may wish to comment on, the seaward portion of the Margin is never explicitly delineated on the maps, although there is a useless box, often sitting on the map obscuring features that explains the Margin is the whole seaward side but for Excepted Land and Exclusions, and the maps do not depict these either for reference. The maps do not show the boundaries of legally protected designated habitats, so it is not easy to judge whether the section has an impact. There is no direct way to reference any of the supporting documents. There’s much wrong with the Sensitive Features Appraisal itself, the forms don’t really offer you a way to make those comments.
So, if you’ve any spare time between now and Midnight Wednesday 8th of May 2018. Download and fill out the form and email it in. Even if you miss the deadline, keep sending them in with the complaint that an extension to the consultation should have been granted as Natural England have produced a report of much greater size and complexity than any to date, with unhelpful maps to judge the proposals by, and they took more than an extra year to do it : they should be obligated to produce useable maps and allow another four weeks.
Finally, while you’re at it, go to the link to this article on our Facebook page and just leave the reference to the section on which you commented. Thanks for your help!