Client Name by ert554898

VIEWS: 25 PAGES: 305

									 Department for Environment, Food and
             Rural Affairs


 Appraisal of Options to Improve Access
           to the English Coast




               Final Report
                       by

               Asken Ltd
               in association with

 CJC Consulting Ltd, Ecological Solutions,
Jan Brooke Environmental Consultant Ltd
  and Peter Scott Planning Services Ltd
                May 2007
Front Cover Photograph: Sun setting over St. Michael’s Mount and Mount’s Bay, Cornwall – taken from
Cudden Point, which is on the South West Coast Path, is mapped as Access Land and is owned by the
National Trust
In accordance with an environmentally
responsible approach, this report
is printed on recycled paper produced
from 100% post-consumer waste.
                                                           i



Executive Summary

Defra is considering a number of options for improving public access to the English
coast, consistent with Government manifesto commitments. The vision and three
complementary policy outcomes being sought are:
     •    Vision: a coastal environment where rights to walk along the length of the
          English coast lie within a wildlife and landscape corridor that offers
          enjoyment, understanding of the natural environment and a high quality
          experience, and is managed sustainably in the context of a changing
          coastline.
     •    Outcome 1: secure access along the length of the English coastline,
          accepting that this may be subject to some exceptions, whilst considering
          erosion, growth and re-alignment;
     •    Outcome 2: a more accessible coastline, by creating physical routes to
          access the coast and by encouraging more people to enjoy the coast;
     •    Outcome 3: improvements for coastal wildlife and the landscape, as well as
          encouraging people to enjoy and understand this environment;
Improvements are to be judged against eight key criteria:
•    extent of access                                            •    quality of access
•    permanence of access arrangements                           •    clarity and certainty of access
                                                                      arrangements
•    cost effectiveness
                                                                 •    monitoring and enforcement
•    ensuring everyone should have good
     opportunities to enjoy the natural                          •    coastal wildlife, landscape and
     environment                                                      quality of enjoyment benefits
Four options have been identified for delivering the desired improvements and
assessed against a do nothing or ‘Business as Usual’ option:

Do nothing. This means that creations of coastal access improvements continue at the current rate.

Option 1. - Use of existing highways legislation to create a public right of way: This would generate a national
coastal trail. Alignment would be dictated by local conditions but would stay as close to the line of the coast as
possible.

Option 2. - Use of CRoW Section 3. By using the powers available under CRoW S3, the definition of “open
country” used in CRoW Part I would be amended to include “Coastal Land” (which could cover a variety of land
types, including foreshore). Coastal land which became Access Land would then be subject to the CROW Access
Land regime, providing the public with a right of access on foot.

Option 3. - Voluntary approach to create permissive access: Encouragement would be given to landowners to
provide access on a voluntary basis. A variety of mechanisms are already available (e.g. dedication under CRoW
s16) but it is assumed that the majority of the access gains would be acquired through an agri-environment scheme.
However, not all coastal landowners will be persuaded to provide access, or to apply to participate in an agri-
environment scheme at all or, if they did, necessarily be offered an agreement

Option 4. – Unmapped coastal access corridor: New legislation would be introduced that would create a right of
public access on foot along a coastal corridor that would stretch around the entire English coast. The corridor would
be defined in words, not maps, and alignment would vary on both landward and seaward sides between boundaries
defined in relation to local circumstances so as to allow onward progress with minimum effects on land management,
public health and safety, and natural and cultural heritage features.
                                           ii



An alternative to Option 2 was also considered (which would, in effect, be the
creation of Access Land but without mapping) but this came to be seen as not an
option to be further developed because:
   -   it would not allow for continuous access around the coast; and
   -   it would need new legislation and, that being the case, there is greater merit
       in making a more fundamental change than a small adjustment to existing
       laws.
The coastline of England is dynamic and it is not always easy to identify precisely
where it might lie. In this report, the following definitions have been used:
   -   the sea – the area of water up to mean low water mark (MLWM);
   -   the foreshore – the area between MLWM and mean high water mark
       (MHWM) – sometimes called the inter-tidal zone;
   -   the land – any other area, inland from the foreshore, including land above
       MHWM that is integral with the foreshore (such as dune systems or beaches),
       that is not covered by sea, although, only the land adjacent to the foreshore is
       of interest in this study.
Estuaries create an obstacle to onward passage around the open coast, as some
penetrate a long way inland, but some are bridged or able to be crossed by all year
round ferries. Consequently, the most practical route available for onward passage
is assumed to be followed.
The nature of the effects of public access is common to each option, albeit with some
variation resulting from whether the improved access is linear or area-wide, and
dependent on expected level of use. Effects on different sectors/groups have been
considered under five different headings.

Effects on Users (Section 3)

Benefits
The primary beneficiaries will be those people who make use of the improved
access, whether prompted to make an additional visit or choosing to go to the coast
rather than elsewhere (displacement). A variety of benefits can be experienced,
such as enjoyment and health. Techniques are available for assessing the value of
such benefits. A review of recent research has concluded that the benefit derived
varies between local residents and visitors, and the following unit values per visit
have been used for all options:
   -   £2.35 for local residents
   -   £6.25 for non-local visitors.
The impact on visitor behaviour varies with the option, and changes have been
modelled based on recent research amongst members of the public.
There may also be incidental benefits to, for example, sea anglers or canoeists (who
can benefit from improved land access to enjoy their sea-based activity), but benefits
to these groups have not been included. Also, implementing changes to improve
access for walkers creates an opportunity to consider whether improvements can be
                                           iii



made for the benefit of cyclists and horse riders. Opportunities will also be afforded
to make access feasible for people with disabilities.

Costs
The only potentially significant cost to users is the greater controls that may be
introduced to better manage in previously unmanaged access. Some users may
choose to incur costs by challenging decisions associated with new access provision.
There is also a small risk of injury or drowning. Recent statistics show that:
   -   a drowning occurs once out of every 7.5m visits
   -   a rescue occurs once out of every 230,000 visits.
In addition, there is a greater risk of landslip in some coastal areas than in others.
However, these risks are regarded as small.

Effects on Owners of Property Along the Coast (Section 4)

Benefits
A number of potential benefits might accrue to owners of properties along the coast,
for example local residents can themselves benefit from the public access
opportunities created. In monetary terms, the main benefit will be the income for
those property owners who receive payments, as compensation either for property
rights given up or income foregone as a result of participation in agri-environment
schemes (note that no compensation would be made where access is created
through Option 2 or Option 4). However, this income is offset by additional costs.

Costs
The costs of improved access will vary depending on the type of property affected:
   -   farmers: are expected to experience a small loss of production from
       agricultural land to which the public have access, and an increase in
       management effort;
   -   foresters: costs are expected to be minimal;
   -   businesses reliant on exclusive use: costs will vary with individual
       circumstances and are expected to arise from a perceived need to improve
       security (e.g. through fencing) and health and safety (e.g. change of operating
       procedures). Those businesses that use exclusive use as their unique selling
       point may be affected significantly, but are thought to be few in number;
   -   residents: people living in houses adjacent to land carrying new public
       access may feel that the value of their property has been diminished.
There may also be a perception of reduced security where public access is created,
although this may be offset to a degree by benefits arising from greater public
presence. Occupiers of land and premises may also have concerns over their
liability to members of the public. These effects are unquantifiable, however.
                                              iv



Effects on the Environment (Section 5)

Benefits
Improved access can carry with it improved visitor management, which could have
important benefits to vulnerable habitats where access is currently unmanaged.
Also, increased access will enable an increase in awareness and appreciation of the
value of coastal environments, and of broader issues such as climate change, which
can build support for and facilitate coastal protection and management measures.
Better interpretation is envisaged under each option as part of the management
measures to promote awareness of the value of the coast. Having a public presence
also can afford some protection against damage.

Costs
It is important to recognise that none of the options envisage unfettered public
access – each option will set limits to public behaviour and provision has been made
(see Costs to Public Sector Bodies – Section 7) for mitigation measures that will
benefit the environment (and often land managers, too). The potential adverse
effects are assessed with mitigation measures in place. Moderate or high adverse
effects could arise in the form of:
   -   erosion scars;
   -   visual impact of heavily engineered paths;
   -   disturbance of breeding, passage and wintering birds;
   -   trampling of eggs of ground nesting birds.
Fear of disturbance of grazing stock, which prevents grazing where this is needed to
prevent scrub encroachment, is also a risk, but the risk is considered to be low
overall as most areas where this could be a concern are semi-natural habitats (e.g.
cliff top grazings) where there is already public access.

Effects on Local Economy and Society (Section 6)

Benefits
The major benefit to the coastal economy, which should also lead to societal
improvements, is the increased spending in coastal areas that will occur where
additional visitors are attracted to the area. Analysis of results from studies done in
coastal areas and long distance paths suggest that spending is typically in the range
of:
   -   £6 - £9 per non-resident day visitor per day;
   -   £35 - £45 per tourist visit per day.
This increased spending can be converted into increased full-time equivalent (FTE)
jobs using relevant multipliers. In addition, increased local spending by public sector
bodies and by those receiving agri-environment scheme payments (Option 3 only)
will boost the coastal economy even further.
                                            v


Costs
The benefits derived from increasing visitor numbers can cause difficulties for some
local residents, in the form of increased traffic, parking problems and loss of
tranquillity.

Effects on Public Sector Bodies (Section 7)

Benefits
There may be savings to some bodies where payments currently made for
permissive access no longer have to be made where it becomes statutory access
through implementation of the proposed option. There may also be benefits from the
introduction of visitor management regimes.

Costs
A number of public sector bodies would be affected by the proposals, although the
range of bodies and scale of cost implications vary between options. Those most
affected are:
   -   Central government: as a source funds for agri-environment schemes and
       access management grants;
   -   Local Highway Authorities (LHAs)/National Park Authorities (NPAs):
       include compensating landowners as required by law where rights are
       created, providing and maintaining access infrastructure including the surface
       of highways such as footpaths and managing access at a local level;
   -   Natural England: would incur costs through, for example, mapping Access
       Land, funding infrastructure improvements, assessing potential ecological
       /geological/landscape impacts of improved access and promoting good
       practice;
   -   Environment Agency: integrating flood and coastal risk management with
       public access provision (although the Agency already has a duty to consider
       public access);
   -   Bodies involved in conflict resolution: in dealing with legal challenges to
       the implementation of the access improvements.

Appraisal of the Options (Section 8 to 11)
In appraising the options, it is important to recognise that many of the benefits and
costs are not easily monetised and so remain unquantified. However, it is essential
that all effects are considered, not just the quantifiable effects.
The quantified effects have been assessed over a 20-year period, as this is the time
it is believed will be necessary for visitor behaviour to adjust to the improvements,
even though some of the costs tend to be incurred at the start of this period. Costs
are generally expressed as the total cost over 20 years at 2006 values (unless
otherwise stated). In order to allow differences in timing to be reflected, values have
been adjusted to Net Present Value (NPV) using a 3.5% discount rate. The results of
the quantifiable elements of the appraisal are summarised in Table 1 (in NPV terms),
and unquantifiable effects of the different options are summarised in Table 2.
                                                       vi



Double counting has been avoided, so any effects will register on one table or the
other, but not both.

Table 1:          Summary of Total Benefits Cost Analysis for 20-year Period

Detail                       Option 1 – Use      Option 2 – Use          Option 3 –          Option 4 –
                              of Highways          of CRoW               Voluntary           Unmapped
                             Legislation to        Section 3            Approach to        Coastal Access
                             Create a PRoW                                Create              Corridor
                                                                        Permissive
                                                                          Access
Benefits (£m @ NPV)
Users                       171 (85 - 256)       107 (53 – 160)       34 (17 – 51)         152 (57 – 284)

Landowners                  9 (1 – 19)           1 (<1 – 1)           9 (8 – 11)           1 (<1 – 1)

Sub-Total                   179 (87 – 275)       107 (53 – 161)       43 (25 – 62)         152 (57 – 285)

Costs (£m @ NPV)
Users                       6 (4 – 9)            4 (3 – 5)            1 (1 – 2)            5 (3 – 9)

Landowners                  5 (2 – 7)            9 (5 – 18)           6 (4 – 8)            8 (6 – 11)

Society                     <1 (<1 – 1)          <1 (<1 – 1)          <1                   <1 (<1 – 1)

Public sector               55 (17 – 117)        31 (21- 52)          16 (14 – 18)         49 (22 – 85)

Sub-Total                   66 (24 – 134)        44 (29 – 76)         22 (18 – 28)         63 (31 – 106)

Benefit:Cost Ratio*         2.73 (3.68 – 2.05)   2.44 (1.87 – 2.11)   1.95 (1.37 – 2.22)   2.43 (1.82 – 2.69)
Figures in brackets show the lower and upper bounds of the range of estimates
* Note: the changes in B:C ratios do not necessarily follow the same pattern as the change to
lower and upper limits of estimates because not all relationships are linear.

Option 2a (Creating Access Land without Mapping) was estimated to produce (at
mid-point values, based on NPV over the full 20 years):
     -      a benefit of £102.3m;
     -      a cost of £34.9m;
     -      a benefit cost ratio of 2.93.
Although this is a comparatively high B:C ratio, key qualitative drawbacks not
reflected in the monetary analysis are:
     -      uncertainty concerning the area of land that becomes Access Land;
     -      variation in standards of paths along the coast;
     -      inability to complete the onward journey;
     -      a small number of coastal properties and businesses which would be
            significantly affected by loss of exclusivity.
The four options have also been appraised against the eight key criteria (see Table
3).
                                                                                                  vii




Table 2:            Unquantified Benefits and Costs of Different Options

                         Option 1: Use of Highways                      Option 2: Use of CRoW Section 3             Option 3: Voluntary Approach             Option 4: Unmapped Coastal
                         Legislation to Create a PRoW                                                               to Create Permissive Access              Access Corridor
Unquantified Benefits
Users – health and       Increased health and well-being arising        Increased health and well-being arising     Increase health and well-being arising   Increased health and well-being arising
well-being               from 5.5m visits (High)                        from 3.7m visits (Moderate)                 from 1.1m visits (Low)                   from 3.7m to 6.1m visits (High)

Users – education        Educational benefits (Low)                     Educational benefits (Low)                  Educational benefits (Low)               Educational benefits (Low)

Users – security of      Greater security against loss of access        Access rights secured over 250,000 ha       Security of rights acquired over         Access rights secured over around
rights                   rights through land use change along           to 280,000 ha of foreshore (Low)            between 850 ha and 1,100 ha of land      4,000 km to 4,870 km of coastal corridor
                         1,720 km to 2,500 km of coastal land                                                       dedicated under s16 (Low)                (High)
                         (High)

Users – future           Protection of rights against erosion through   Access rights are secure against                                                     Access rights are secure against erosion
proofing against         use of rolling path agreements along 410       coastal erosion along approximately                                                  along the full length of coast – 4,000 km
erosion                  km to 560 km of PRoW (Low)                     150,000 ha of coast (Moderate)                                                       to 4,870 km (High)

Users – access for       Provision of more opportunities for those      Some provision for people with                                                       Some provision for people with
people with              with disabilities, included at the upper end   disabilities where additional appropriate                                            disabilities where additional appropriate
disabilities             of the range of costs, affecting up to 66%     infrastructure is provided (Low)                                                     infrastructure is provided (High)
                         of created route (High for those people
                         affected)

Users – other                                                                                                       More positive attitudes amongst
                                                                                                                    between 804 and 1,377 farmers
                                                                                                                    (Low)

Property Owners -        Generic benefits described in Section 4        Generic benefits described in Section 4     Generic benefits described in Section    Generic benefits described in Section 4
management               over between 1,720 km and 2,500 km of          over 150,000 ha of access land (Low)        4 along between 570 km and 720 km        over 1,720 km to 2,500 km of coast
                         coastal land (Low)                                                                         of linear routes and over between        (Low)
                                                                                                                    4,250 ha and 5,500 ha of permissive
                                                                                                                    access land (Low)

Property Owners –                                                       Reduced duty of care to members of                                                   Reduced duty of care to members of the
duty of care                                                            the public on their land on the                                                      public on their land on the proportion of
                                                                        proportion of 400,000 ha to 438,000 ha                                               1,720 km to 2,500 km of coast which
                                                                        of land which previously experienced de                                              previously experienced de facto public
                                                                        facto public access (Moderate)                                                       access (Low)

Public Sector – health   £805 for every person who changes from a       £805 for every person who changes           £805 for every person who changes        £805 for every person who changes
                                                                                                 viii




                        Option 1: Use of Highways                     Option 2: Use of CRoW Section 3               Option 3: Voluntary Approach               Option 4: Unmapped Coastal
                        Legislation to Create a PRoW                                                                to Create Permissive Access                Access Corridor
costs                   sedentary to an active lifestyle (Moderate)   from a sedentary to an active lifestyle       from a sedentary to an active lifestyle    from a sedentary to an active lifestyle
                                                                      (Moderate)                                    (Low)                                      (Moderate)

Public sector –         Reduced payments for permissive access        Reduced payments for permissive area-                                                    Reduced payments for permissive
permissive payments     (Low)                                         wide access (Low)                                                                        access (Low)



Public sector – land    Reduced management costs over de facto        Reduced management costs over de              Reduced management costs over de           Reduced management costs over de
management costs        access (Low)                                  facto access (Low)                            facto access (Low)                         facto access (Low)

Environment             Greater control and education of visitors     Potential for greater control of visitors     Area included within between 710 and       Greater control and education of visitors
                        along those sections of coast with new        over the proportion of between 400,000        1,255 agri-environment scheme              along those sections of the 1,720 km to
                        PRoW (between 1,720 km and 2,500 km)          ha to 438,000 ha of access land where         agreements subject to                      2,500 km of coast with a new access
                        where control is currently minimal/non-       control is currently minimal/non-existent     environmentally friendly management        corridor where control is currently
                        existent (Moderate)                           (Low)                                         (High)                                     minimal/non-existent (Moderate)

Society/Coastal         1,369 (1,177 to 1,560) FTEs as a result of    913 (785 to 1,040) FTEs as a result of        274 (235 to 312) FTEs as a result of       1260 (785 to 1,733) FTEs as a result of
Economy -               increased visitor spend (High)                increased visitor spend (Moderate)            increased visitor spend (Low)              increased visitor spend (High)
employment


Society/Coastal         Business generated by public sector spend     Business generated by public sector           Business generated by public sector        Business generated by public sector
Economy – business      of £70.2m (£20.4m - £150.5m) (High)           spend of £37.3m (£25.2m - £61.6m)             spend and through spending by              spend of £68.1m (£29.9m to £117.3m)
generated from public                                                 (Moderate)                                    recipients of agri-environment scheme      (High)
sector spend                                                                                                        payments of £22.8m (£20.1m -
                                                                                                                    £26.5m) virtually all of it likely to be
                                                                                                                    spent locally (Moderate)

Unquantified Costs

Users – process of      Inputs of time at 550 Public Inquiries etc.   Inputs to mapping process (Moderate)                                                     Costs of involvement in rebutting
creation                spread over 10 years (Moderate for a                                                                                                   challenges to the definition of the access
                        few)                                                                                                                                   corridor (Moderate for those affected)

Users – loss of                                                       Greater controls over and management                                                     Greater controls on previously
freedom over                                                          of previously uncontrolled areas,                                                        uncontrolled areas, potentially affecting
currently unmanaged                                                   potentially up to 438,000 ha (Moderate)                                                  around 2,300 km (Moderate)
areas
                                                                      Restrictions to access land where                                                        Restrictions to access corridors where
                                                                      restrictions previously did not arise (e.g.                                              restrictions previously did not arise (e.g.
                                                                      in the case of de facto or permissive                                                    in the case of de facto or permissive
                                                                      access – potentially up to 438,000 ha)                                                   access – potentially around 2,300 km)
                                                                                                 ix




                           Option 1: Use of Highways                   Option 2: Use of CRoW Section 3             Option 3: Voluntary Approach             Option 4: Unmapped Coastal
                           Legislation to Create a PRoW                                                            to Create Permissive Access              Access Corridor
                                                                       (Low)                                                                                (Low)

Users – greater                                                                                                    Confusion over variations in access      Uncertainty from lack of legally-definitive
uncertainty/complexity                                                                                             arrangements along the whole of the      maps along the whole of the 4,000 km to
                                                                                                                   4,870 km of coastal frontage (High)      4,870 km of coastal frontage (Moderate)

                                                                                                                                                            Confusion that may arise from having
                                                                                                                                                            another set of access rights (Low)

Users – risk of conflict                                               Risk of conflict with owners of exclusive                                            Risk of conflict with owners of exclusive
                                                                       coastal properties (Low)                                                             coastal property (Low)

Property Owners –          Injurious affection (Minimal for many,      Injurious affection (Minimal for many,      (Note: it is expected that landowners    Injurious affection (Minimal for many,
injurious affection        High for a few)                             High for a few)                             will not give grant public access        High for a few)
                                                                                                                   where level of injurious affection is
                                                                       Loss of unique selling point for some       unacceptable)
                                                                       businesses reliant on exclusive access
                                                                       to foreshore (Minimal for many, High
                                                                       for a few)

Property Owners –          (Note: costs incurred by landowners in      Effort expended by landowners (other        (Note: costs incurred by landowners      Efforts expended by landowners (other
creation of access         path creation is included as a quantified   than farmers/estate owners) in              in application for schemes is included   than farmers/estate owners) in
                           cost)                                       examining and responding to Access          as a quantified cost)                    negotiating over corridor alignments
                                                                       Land mapping (Moderate)                                                              (Moderate)

Property Owners –          Costs of safety and security measures at    Costs of safety and security measures                                                Costs of safety and security measures at
costs of safety and        coastal properties along 170 km of coast    at coastal properties (Minimal for                                                   coastal properties (Minimal for many,
security measures          (Minimal for many, High for a few)          many, High for a few)                                                                High for a few)

Property Owners –          Applications for temporary footpath         Effort expended by landowners (other                                                 Effort expended by landowners in
on-going costs of          diversions (Low)                            than farmers/estate owners) in seeking                                               seeking re-alignments (Moderate)
management                                                             restrictions (Moderate for some)
                                                                                                                                                            Dealing with trespass resulting from
                                                                       Applications for restrictions by farmers                                             uncertainty (Low)
                                                                       (Low)

Property Owners –          (Note: costs of increased duty of care to   Duty of care owed to people coming          Duty of care (as modified by CRoW        Duty of care owed to people coming
Duty of Care               people coming onto PRoWs are expected       onto CRoW Access Land where none            s13) owed to the public on the           onto the access corridor where none did
                           to be provided for in compensation paid)    did before and for which no                 proportion of up to 1,100 ha of land     before and where no compensation has
                                                                       compensation has been paid (Low)            dedicated under s16 where no people      been paid (Low)
                                                                                                                   previously accessed it and for which
                                                                                                                   no compensation has been paid
                                                                                                                   (Low)
                                                                                                 x




                        Option 1: Use of Highways                     Option 2: Use of CRoW Section 3            Option 3: Voluntary Approach            Option 4: Unmapped Coastal
                        Legislation to Create a PRoW                                                             to Create Permissive Access             Access Corridor
Property Owners –       Costs to developers of coastal land           Costs of conflict between owners of                                                Costs of conflict between owners of
Other                   through which new PRoWs pass (Low)            previously exclusive coastal properties                                            previously exclusive coastal properties
                                                                      and access users (Low)                                                             and access users (Low)

Public Sector –         Costs to VOA (Minimal)                        Costs if any judicial review is required                                           Costs if any judicial review is required
creation and review                                                   (cost High but likelihood Low)                                                     (cost High but likelihood Low)

                                                                      Review of maps covering up to 438,000
                                                                      ha after 10 years (Moderate)

Public sector –         Increased costs to MCA of organising          Increased costs to MCA of organising       Increased costs to MCA of organising    Increased cost to MCA of organising
organising rescues      around 57 additional rescues (Low)            around 36 additional rescues (Low)         around 11 additional rescues (Low)      around 38 - 62 additional rescues (Low)

Public Sector -         Liability to public associated with                                                                                              Liability to public associated with
Liability               infrastructure along 1,720 km to 2,500 km                                                                                        infrastructure along access corridor
                        of PRoW (Low)                                                                                                                    (Low)

Environment -           Landscape: Erosion scars on up to 1,720       Landscape: Erosion scars (Low -            Landscape: Erosion scars on up to       Landscape: Erosion scars (Low -
landscape               km or up to 2,500 km of new PRoW (Low-        Moderate)                                  920 km or up to 1,170 km of new         Moderate)
                        Moderate) and artificial paths on 66% of                                                 permissive access (Low)
                        this for the upper end of the range of
                        estimates (Moderate)

Environment -           Geology: Erosion scars on up to 1,720 km      Geology: Erosion scars (Low)               Geology: Erosion scars on up to 920     Geology: Erosion scars (Low)
geology                 or up to 2,500 km of new PRoW (Low)                                                      km or up to 1,170 km of new
                                                                                                                 permissive access (Low)

Environment –           Biodiversity: Potential disturbance impacts   Biodiversity: potential disturbance        Biodiversity: potential disturbance     Biodiversity: potential disturbance
biodiversity            on birds on about 10,000 ha of SSSI land      impacts on birds on up to 10,000 ha of     impacts on birds on up to 8,000 ha of   impacts on birds on up to 10,000 ha of
                        (Moderate-High but depends on                 SSSI land (Moderate-High but               SSSI land and trampling of vegetation   SSSI land (Moderate-High but depends
                        circumstances and mitigation measures);       depends on circumstances and               (Moderate)                              on circumstances and mitigation
                        trampling of birds nests etc. alongside       mitigation measures); trampling of birds                                           measures); trampling of birds nests and
                        1,720 km to 2,500 km of new PRoW (Low-        nests and trampling of vegetation on up                                            trampling of vegetation on up to 10,000
                        Moderate)                                     to 10,000 ha of SSSI land (Moderate)                                               ha of SSSI land (Moderate)

Environment – culture   Cultural heritage impacts over up to 4,000    Cultural heritage impacts over up to       Cultural heritage impacts over up to    Cultural heritage impacts over up to
                        ha of SMs (Low)                               4,000 ha of SMs (Low)                      4,000 ha of SMs (Minimal)               4,000 ha of SMs (Low)

Society/Coastal         Disruption to coastal residents – increased   Disruption to coastal residents –          Disruption to coastal residents –       Disruption to coastal residents –
Economy - disruption    traffic, parking problems (Moderate)          increased traffic, parking problems        increased traffic, parking problems     increased traffic, parking problems
                                                                      (Low).                                     (Minimal)                               (Moderate)
                                                                                     xi




                   Option 1: Use of Highways                Option 2: Use of CRoW Section 3           Option 3: Voluntary Approach     Option 4: Unmapped Coastal
                   Legislation to Create a PRoW                                                       to Create Permissive Access      Access Corridor


Society/Coastal    Loss of peace and tranquillity in some   Loss of peace and tranquillity in some    Loss of peace and tranquillity   Loss of peace and tranquillity in some
Economy – peace    areas (Moderate)                         areas (Low)                               (Minimal)                        areas (Moderate)
and tranquillity

Society/Coastal                                             Some losses to businesses which are                                        Some losses to businesses which are
Economy - other                                             dependent on exclusive use of coastal                                      dependent on exclusive use of coastal
                                                            land (Minimal for many, High for a few)                                    land where alignment cannot be
                                                                                                                                       adjusted to fully mitigate problems
                                                                                                                                       (Minimal)
                                                            xii



Table 3:            Option Appraisal Against Key Criteria

Criterion               Option 1– Use of          Option 2– Use of        Option 3 –                 Option 4 –
                        Highways                  CRoW Section 3          Voluntary                  Unmapped
                        Legislation to                                    Approach to                Coastal Access
                        Create a PRoW                                     Create Permissive          Corridor
                                                                          Access

1. Extent               √√ - access available     √√ - access within      √ - access is limited in   √√√ - access within
                        all round coast but       mapped blocks only      extent                     corridor around entire
                        limited to linear route                                                      coast
                        with no spreading
                        room

2. Quality              √√√ - access along        √√√ - access is         √√ - access may be         √√√ - access is across
                        clear linear route,       across area as a        subject to certain         the whole of the
                        well understood and       whole, including        conditions                 corridor and other
                        unlikely to be            foreshore, but within                              areas such as
                        restricted                national regime of                                 headlands
                                                  restrictions

3. Permanency           √√√ - access rights       √√√ - access in         √ - permission can be      √√√ - access in
                        are in perpetuity,        perpetuity              withdrawn                  perpetuity
                        provided eroding
                        coasts have rolling
                        path agreements

4.1 Clarity/Certainty   √√ - implementation       √√√ -                   √ - implementation         √√ - implementation
– implementation        takes place over 10       implementation          takes place over 20        takes place over 10
                        years                     takes place over Yrs    years                      yrs
                                                  3–4

4.2 Clarity/Certainty   √√√ - PRoWs are           √√√ - access areas      √ - terms of               √√ - access is not
– end position          fixed and are marked      shown on 1:25,000       availability of access     shown on maps and
                        on OS maps, and           scale OS maps           varies with every          new tier of rights
                        rights better                                     agreement, except          added but the corridor
                        understood                                        s16 dedications            will be clearly marked
                                                                                                     on-the-ground, and be
                                                                                                     consistent around the
                                                                                                     coast

5. Cost                 See Table 1 for summary of monetised benefits and costs in NPV terms
effectiveness

6. Monitor and          √√√ - can use             √√√ - can use           √√√ - can use existing     √√ - will need new
Enforce                 existing systems          existing systems        systems                    systems but these can
                                                                                                     be based on existing
                                                                                                     ones

7.1 Spread of           √√√ - given the need      √√ - may be a           √ - may be a               √√√ - will be a
opportunities *         to comply with DDA        requirement to          requirement to             requirement to comply
                                                  comply with DDA         comply with DDA but        with DDA where
                                                                          provision would be         infrastructure is
                                                                          piecemeal and based        installed
                                                                          on what is reasonable
                                                                          for landowners

7.2 Spread of           √√ - can be targeted      √√ - area access        √ - can be targeted at     √√√ - can be targeted
opportunities **        to areas of most          offers more diverse     areas of most benefit      at areas of most
                        benefit but linear        uses but land types     and can be area            benefit and area
                        access only               not always suitable     access but provision       access offers more
                                                                          piecemeal and              diverse uses
                                                                          dependent on
                                                                          landowner
                                                                          participation

8.1 Environmental       √√ - specific routing     √√ - spatial and        √ - variable               √√ - spatial and
gain – improved         of delimited linear       temporal regulation     depending on               temporal limitation to
access                  access but regulated
                                                     xiii




Criterion           Option 1– Use of      Option 2– Use of         Option 3 –           Option 4 –
                    Highways              CRoW Section 3           Voluntary            Unmapped
                    Legislation to                                 Approach to          Coastal Access
                    Create a PRoW                                  Create Permissive    Corridor
                                                                   Access
management          use is difficult      possible                 mechanism used       access will be possible

8.2 Environmental   √ - some              √√ - gains arise         √√√ - access         √√√ - gains arise
Enhancement -       improvements from     where AMGS               provision could be   where extra resources
Habitat             path management       enhances land            part of wider land   enhance land
management                                management plus          enhancement scheme   management, and
/restoration                              regime of restrictions                        sensitive areas can be
                                          available                                     aligned out of corridor

8.3 Environmental   √√√ - linear routes   √√√ - potential to       √√ - variable        √√√ - potential to guide
gain – awareness    facilitate use of     guide people to          depending on         people to interesting
raising             awareness signs       interesting areas        mechanism used       areas and provide
                                          and provide                                   information
                                          information
Key: √ = Criterion satisfied to small degree; √√ = Criterion satisfied to moderate degree √√√ =
Criterion satisfied to large degree
* Disability discrimination legislation requires service providers (e.g. local authorities) to make
provision for disabled people. Private landowners/occupiers may be required to make
reasonable provision for disabled people if the Courts find that a landowner/occupier is a service
provider within the meaning of disability discrimination legislation.
** potential to target early action in areas more likely to be used by a diverse range of users and
area based schemes offer more opportunities for a diverse range of uses.

When comparing options, it is important to consider both the quantified and the
unquantified effects. Key features of the options are:
    -    Option 1 can be regarded as a relatively high cost-high benefit option.
         However, Option 1 not only has a high absolute cost, but also there is a large
         difference between the upper and lower limits of estimates for Option 1. This
         suggests a high level of uncertainty and so a high level of risks. At the lowest
         level of estimates, this option offers the best quantified benefit cost ratio;
    -    Option 2 has a lower benefit cost ratio than Option 1 which seems to be
         optimised around the mid-point (i.e. if lower or upper estimates prove more
         accurate, the ratio declines). Also, whilst the public sector costs are moderate,
         they are subject to wide variation, reflecting the uncertainties about costs of
         mapping;
    -    Option 3 is low cost-low benefit, with a consequent lower level of risk.
         However, it has the lowest ratio of benefits to costs;
    -    Option 4 provides a benefit cost ratio between Option 2 and 3 at the mid-point
         level but is more akin to Option 1 in terms of costs devoted to creation of
         continuous access to a high standard. There is significant variation about the
         mid-point, largely reflecting uncertainty about the uplift in access use likely to
         arise under this option. At the upper level of estimates, this option offers the
         best quantified benefit cost ratio.
It is important to recognise that Option 4 contains new legislative proposals and so past
experience is less appropriate as a source of guidance on future benefits and costs
                                         xiv




than for other options, meaning the monetary estimates carry a higher level of
uncertainty.
Some sensitivity analyses have been undertaken where uncertainty exists over key
variables, such as payments of compensation (under Option 1), costs of mapping
(under Option 2), level of agri-environment scheme payments (under Option 3).
Sensitivities in Option 4 are addressed through the wide lower and upper limits used.
The results of these sensitivity analyses are reported in Section 14.
                                            xv




Contents

Executive Summary                                                             i
Abbreviations                                                             xxiii
Acknowledgements                                                          xxvi


1.   Introduction                                                            1
     1.1        Contract                                                     1
     1.2        Appraisal Method                                             1
     1.2.1      Introduction                                                 1
     1.2.2      Principles of cost-benefit analysis                          1
     1.2.3      Tasks                                                        2
     1.2.4      Application to different options                             3
     1.2.5      Do Nothing (Business As Usual)                               4
     1.2.6      Criteria against which improvements will be judged           4
     1.3        Limitations to Outputs                                       6


2.   Background                                                              8
     2.1        Introduction                                                 8
     2.2        Definitions                                                  8
     2.2.1      Coastal land                                                 8
     2.2.2      Length of the Coast                                         10
     2.2.3      Public access                                               11
     2.2.4      Natural England Access Strip Dataset                        12
     2.3        Proposals                                                   13
     2.3.1      Government commitment to improving public access to the
                countryside                                                 13
     2.3.2      Improvements to coastal access                              13
     2.4        Coastal Features of Significance for Access                 14


3.   Effects on Users                                                      15
     3.1        Introduction                                                15
     3.2        Types of Users                                              15
     3.2.1      People on Foot                                              15
     3.2.2      Sea Anglers                                                 16
     3.2.3      Horse Riders and Cyclists                                   16
                                       xvi




     3.2.4   Water-based Users                                           16
     3.3     Ethnicity and social class of beneficiaries                 17
     3.4     Types of Demand                                             17
     3.4.1   Trends in demand for use of the coast                       17
     3.4.2   Additional and displaced use of the coast                   18
     3.5     Benefits to Users                                           19
     3.5.1   Valuation of recreation and health benefits                 19
     3.5.2   Values derived                                              20
     3.6     Aggregate benefits                                          21
     3.6.1   Numbers of users                                            21
     3.6.2   Activities                                                  21
     3.6.3   Aggregate benefit calculation                               21
     3.7     Costs                                                       22
     3.7.1   Costs to Users                                              22
     3.7.2   Health and Safety Considerations                            22
     3.8     Conclusions                                                 22


4.   Effects on Owners of Properties Located Along the
     Coast                                                               23
     4.1     Introduction                                                23
     4.2     Potential Benefits of Improved Public Access to Property
             Owners                                                      23
     4.3     Potential Costs to Different Categories of Property Owner   24
     4.3.1   Effects on Farm Holdings                                    24
     4.3.2   Forestry                                                    25
     4.3.3   Businesses Reliant on Exclusive Coastal Access              25
     4.3.4   Residential Properties                                      25
     4.3.5   Other Properties Located on the Coast                       26
     4.3.6   Occupiers’ Liability                                        26
     4.3.7   Effects Under Different Options                             26
     4.4     Costs of Access Infrastructure                              27
     4.5     Conclusions                                                 27


5.   Effects on the Environment                                          28
     5.1     Introduction                                                28
     5.2     Statutory Designations and Access                           28
     5.2.1   Types of Designations                                       28
     5.2.2   Application of Environmental Legislation                    29
     5.3     Environmental Components Potentially Affected               31
                                        xvii




     5.3.1    Landscapes                                                   31
     5.3.2    Geology and geomorphology                                    32
     5.3.3    Biodiversity                                                 32
     5.3.4    Archaeology/Cultural Heritage                                35
     5.4      Types of Beneficial Effects                                  36
     5.5      Types of Adverse Effects                                     37
     5.6      Conclusions                                                  42


6.   Effects on the Local Economy and Society                              43
     6.1      Introduction and Definitions                                 43
     6.2      Benefits to the Coastal Economy                              43
     6.2.1    Local economies                                              43
     6.2.2    Estimation of benefits from visitor spending                 43
     6.2.3    Effect of additional spending on access infrastructure and
              services                                                     44
     6.2.4    Deprivation                                                  44
     6.2.5    Social Health and Well-being                                 45
     6.3      Adverse Effects                                              46
     6.4      Conclusions                                                  47


7.   Effects on Public Sector Bodies                                       48
     7.1      Introduction                                                 48
     7.2      Nature of the Effects                                        48
     7.2.1    Defra                                                        48
     7.2.2    Ministry of Defence                                          48
     7.2.3    Local Authorities                                            50
     7.2.4    National Park Authorities                                    53
     7.2.5    Forestry Commission and Forest Enterprise                    54
     7.2.6    Natural England                                              54
     7.2.7    English Heritage                                             56
     7.2.8    Flood and Coastal Defence Operating Authorities              56
     7.2.9    Maritime and Coastguard Agency                               59
     7.2.10   Port and Harbour Authorities                                 59
     7.2.11   Public Bodies Involved in Conflict Resolution                59
     7.3      Conclusions                                                  60
                                      xviii




8.   Option 1 – Use of Highways Legislation to Create a
     Public Right of Way                                   61
     8.1     Introduction                                  61
     8.2     Option Description                            61
     8.2.1   Legal framework                               61
     8.2.2   Key assumptions                               62
     8.3     Scale of Effect                               63
     8.3.1   Access along the coast                        63
     8.3.2   Access to the coast                           65
     8.4     Effects Relative to Baseline                  66
     8.4.1   Benefits                                      66
     8.4.2   Costs                                         69
     8.5     Other Issues                                  87
     8.5.1   Implementation                                87
     8.5.2   Competition Assessment                        87
     8.6     Summary                                       88


9.   Option 2 – Use of CRoW Section 3                      91
     9.1     Introduction                                  91
     9.2     Option Description                            91
     9.2.1   Legal framework                               91
     9.2.2   Key assumptions                               92
     9.3     Scale of Effects                              93
     9.3.1   Foreshore                                     93
     9.3.2   Coastal Land                                  93
     9.3.3   Total Area Affected                           94
     9.4     Effects Relative to Baseline                  94
     9.4.1   Benefits                                      94
     9.4.2   Costs                                         97
     9.5     Other Issues                                 116
     9.5.1   Implementation                               116
     9.5.2   Competition Assessment                       116
     9.6     Summary                                      117


10. Option 3 – Voluntary Approach to Create
    Permissive Access                                     120
     10.1    Introduction                                 120
     10.2    Option Description                           120
                                     xix




   10.2.1   Legal Framework                             120
   10.2.2   Relationship between payments and uptake    121
   10.2.3   Key Assumptions                             122
   10.3     Scale of Effects                            123
   10.4     Effects Relative to Baseline                125
   10.4.1   Benefits                                    125
   10.4.2   Costs                                       129
   10.5     Other Issues                                136
   10.5.1   Implementation                              136
   10.5.2   Competition Assessment                      136
   10.6     Summary                                     137


11. Option 4 – Coastal Access Corridor                  140
   11.1     Introduction                                140
   11.2     Option Description                          140
   11.3     Legal framework                             141
   11.4     Key Assumptions                             141
   11.5     Scale of Effects                            142
   11.5.1   Length of Corridor                          143
   11.5.2   Area of Corridor                            144
   11.5.3   Access to the Coast                         145
   11.6     Effects Relative to Baseline                145
   11.6.1   Benefits                                    145
   11.6.2   Costs                                       148
   11.7     Other Issues                                155
   11.7.1   Implementation                              155
   11.7.2   Competition Assessment                      155
   11.8     Summary                                     156


12. Implications for Horse Riders, Cyclists and Other
    User Groups                                         159
   12.1     Introduction                                159
   12.2     Opportunities for Improved Access           159
   12.2.1   Existing opportunities                      159
   12.2.2   Inter-option comparison                     160
   12.3     Threats to Existing Access                  161
   12.3.1   Horse Riders                                161
   12.3.2   Cyclists                                    162
   12.4     Other Users Groups                          162
                                    xx




   12.4.1   Wildfowling                       162
   12.4.2   Other Types of User               164


13. Small Firms Impact Test                   165
   13.1     Introduction                      165
   13.2     Methodology                       165
   13.3     Findings                          166
   13.3.1   Farmers                           166
   13.3.2   Other Landowners                  168
   13.3.3   Tourism-Related Businesses        172
   13.4     Conclusions                       174


14. Inter-Option Comparison                   175
   14.1     Introduction                      175
   14.2     Comparative Analysis              175
   14.2.1   Cost Benefit Analysis             175
   14.2.2   Comparison Against Key Criteria   177
                                                xxi




List of Figures, Boxes and Tables
Table 1      Summary of Benefits Cost Analysis                                                          vi
Table 2      Unquantified Benefits and Costs of Different Options                                       vii
Table 3      Option Appraisal Against Key Criteria                                                      xii
Box 1.1:     Options Appraised in the study                                                              3
Box 1.2:     Criteria to be Used for Option Appraisal                                                    5
Table 5.1:    Statutory designated areas in England and area that occurs within a 200 m coastal
             access strip                                                                               29
Table 5.2:   SSSI, access provision and UKBAP broad habitat type areas (ha) within the 200 m
             coastal strip in England                                                                   34
Table 5.3:   Summary of potential beneficial effects on environment receptors in the coastal zone       37
Table 5.4:   Summary of potential impacts of adverse effects on environment receptors in the coastal
             zone                                                                                       38
Table 6.1:   Deprivation index ranking for different access categories                                  45
Box 6.1:     Benefits of PRoW                                                                           46
Box 6.2:     Benefits of Public Access                                                                  46
Box 6.3:     Villagers’ Concerns about Creating New Public Access                                       47
Table 7.1:   Summary of Relevant Duties and Powers of Local Authorities                                 51
Table 7.2:   Past and Proposed Creations of Public Access Along the Coast                               52
Table 7.3:   Methods Used by LHAs to Create New Coastal Access (n=6)                                    53
Table 8.1:   Estimation of Types of Arrangement Needed                                                  64
Table 8.2:   User Benefits as at Year 20                                                                67
Table 8.3:   Coastal economy employment and income effects of Option1                                   68
Table 8.4:   Loss of Gross Margin Output for Typical Agricultural Land by the Coast                     73
Figure 8.1:  Average Compensation Paid by Land Use Type                                                 76
Table 8.5:   Requirement for Infrastructure by Study Area                                               80
Table 8.6:   Extrapolation of Costs to England as a Whole                                               80
Table 8.7:   Costs to Environment Agency                                                                82
Table 8.8:   Additional Costs to Public Sector Bodies                                                   83
Table 8.9:   Summary of potential residual impacts of Option 1                                          84
Table 8.10: Competition Assessment Filter                                                               88
Table 8.11: Summary of Quantified Benefits and Costs (Yrs 1 – 20)                                       89
Table 8.12: Summary of Unuantified Benefits and Costs                                                   89
Table 9.1:   User Benefits as at Year 20                                                                95
Table 9.2: Economic impacts of Option 2                                                                 96
Table 9.3:   Details of Costs to Farmers of Mapping                                                     99
Table 9.4:   Estimate of Recurring Costs to Farmers on Productive Coastal Grassland                    104
Table 9.5:   Costs to Environment Agency                                                               108
                                                                th
Table 9.6:   Restrictions Affecting Access Land by Type (to 28 April 2006)                             109
Table 9.7:   Estimated costs to public bodies of dealing with restrictions                             111
Table 9.8:   Additional Costs to Public Sector Bodies                                                  112
Table 9.9:   Summary of potential residual impacts of Option 2                                         113
Table 9.10: Competition Assessment Filter                                                              116
Table 9.11: Summary of Quantified Benefits and Costs (Yrs 1 – 20)                                      117
Table 9.12: Summary of Unquantified Benefits and Costs                                                 118
Table 10.1: User Benefits as at Year 20                                                                126
Table 10.2: Economic impacts of Option 3                                                               127
Box 10.1:    Wider Socio-economic Effects of Tir Gofal                                                 128
Table 10.3: Estimated Recurring Costs to Farmers (in Year 20, at 2006 values)                          131
Table 10.4: Additional Costs to Public Sector Bodies                                                   133
Table 10.5   Summary of potential residual impacts of Option 3                                         134
Table 10.6: Competition Assessment Filter                                                              137
Table 10.7: Summary of Quantified Benefits and Costs (Yrs 1 – 20)                                      138
Table 10.8: Summary of Unquantified Benefits and Costs                                                 138
Box 11.1:    Summary of NE Proposals                                                                   140
Table 11.1: User Benefits as at Year 20                                                                146
Table 11.2: Economic impacts of Option 4                                                               147
Table 11.3: Calculation of Loss of Standard Gross Margin for Arable                                    150
Table 11.4: Staff Costs to Create Access Corridor                                                      151
Table 11.5: Additional Costs to Public Sector Bodies                                                   154
Table 11.6: Competition Assessment Filter                                                              156
Table 11.7: Summary of Quantified Benefits and Costs (Yrs 1 – 20)                                      156
Table 11.8: Summary of Unquantified Benefits and Costs                                                 157
Table 12.1: Opportunities for Horse Riders and Cyclists Under Different Options                        160
Table 13.1: Forms of Access Already Existing on Sample Farms                                           167
Table 13.2: Responses to Question on Impacts of New Access                                             170
Table 14.1: Summary of Benefits Cost Analysis @ NPV                                                    175
                                                      xxii



    Table 14.2: Option Appraisal Against Key Criteria                                                           177
    Figure A2.1: Total domestic tourism nights at the seaside (1995-2005)                                       192
    Table A2.1: Domestic tourism (overnight) trips to the seaside for holiday, pleasure/leisure, and visiting
                  friends and relatives mainly as a holiday (2005)                                              193
    Table A2.2: Seaside/coast and seaside town/city leisure day visits activities (ELVS 2006)                   194
    Table A2.3: Numbers of day trips to the coast by main activity (GBLDVS, 2004, ELVS 2006)                    194
    Table A2.4: Destinations of day visits to the seaside/coast (ELVS 2006)                                     195
    Table A2.5: Numbers of visits to the seaside coast in England (ELVS 2006)                                   196
    Table A2.6: Value of recreational enjoyment from visits to coastal sites                                    197
    Table A2.7: Marginal Willingness to Pay for an additional mile of access (£, 2006 values)                   199
    Table A2.8: Consumer surplus values for different forest activities (from Christie et al., 2006)            200
    Table A2.9: Coastal access areas (ha)                                                                       203
    Table A2.10: Potential increase in available access (%)                                                     204
    Table A3.1: Expenditures of users of National Trails (£ per person per day)                                 207
    Table A3.2: Breakdown of expenditure by type of coastal visitor                                             208
    Table A3.3: Employment and income coefficients (Pennine Way)                                                209
    Table A3.4: Total local employment and income impacts of visitor expenditure                                210
    Table A4.1: Drownings by Activity for 2002                                                                  212
    Figure A4.1: The Risk Triangle                                                                              214
    Table A4.2: RNLI Rescues in 2005 by Activity                                                                215
    Figure A5.1: Sales of Agricultural Land Relative to Earnings From It                                        218
    Box A5.1:     Categorisation of Farms by Dominant Type of Cropping/Stocking                                 219
    Table A5.1: Relevant Dominant Farm Types Around the English Coast                                           221
    Table A5.2: Key Concerns of Farmers with Respect to Public Access                                           222
    Table A5.3: Woodland Owners’ Experiences of Problems with Public Access                                     224
    Table A6.1: Summary of increased access implications for coastal defence                                    233
    Table A7.1: Species of Particular Conservation Concern                                                      239
    Table A8.1: Semi-Quantitative Assessment of Current Impacts on Coastal Priority Habitats                    242
    Table A9.1: User Benefits as at Year 20                                                                     254
    Table A9.2: Economic impacts of the Option 2a                                                               254
    Table A9.3: Additional Costs to Public Sector Bodies                                                        258
    Table A9.4: Competition Assessment Filter                                                                   259
    Table A9.5: Summary of Benefits and Costs (Yrs 1 – 20)                                                      260
    Table A10.1: Key to Heritage Coasts                                                                         270
    Figure A10.1: Location of Heritage Coasts                                                                   271
    Table A11.1: Estimated uptake of access provisions at different levels of payment                           274
    Table A11.2: Bids for Grant by NFTS Applicants                                                              276

Appendices
    Appendix 1                                                                          References
    Appendix 2                                                     Assessment of Benefits to Users
    Appendix 3                                         Assessment of Benefits to Local Economies
    Appendix 4                                           Consideration of Health and Safety Issues
    Appendix 5                                          Assessment of Costs to Owners of Property
    Appendix 6                                                                Flood Defence Issues
    Appendix 7                                          Species of Particular Conservation Concern
    Appendix 8                     Access Impacts on Species of Particular Conservation Concern
    Appendix 9                      Option 2a – Creation of Coastal Access Land without Mapping
    Appendix 10                                                         Description of Designations
    Appendix 11                 Discussion of the Relationship Between Payments and Provision of
                                                                          Permissive Access
                                       xxiii




 Abbreviations
AA               Appropriate assessment
AMGS             Access Management Grant Scheme
AONB             Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
BASC             British Association for Shooting and Conservation
BHS              British Horse Society
BMF              British Marine Federation
BPA              British Ports Association
CA               Countryside Agency
CBA              Cost-benefit analysis
CCC              Camping and Caravan Club
CCW              Countryside Council for Wales
CLA              Country Land and Business Association
COMAH            Control of Major Accident Hazards
CRoW             Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000
CSM              Common Standards Monitoring
CSS              Countryside Stewardship Scheme
CTC              Cyclists’ Touring Club
CV               Contingent valuation
DA               Disadvantaged area
DCLG             Department for Communities and Local Government
DDA              Disability Discrimination Acts (1995 and 2005)
Defra            Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
DTi              Department of Trade and Industry
EA               Environment Agency
ECJ              European Court of Justice
EGU              English Golf Union
EH               English Heritage
EIA              Environmental Impact Assessment
ELVS             England Leisure Visits Survey
EN               English Nature
ESA              Environmentally Sensitive Area
EU               European Union
FAR              Fatal accident rate
                              xxiv




FBS        Farm Business Survey
FC         Forestry Commission
FEP        Farm Environment Plan
FSB        Federation of Small Businesses
fte/FTE    Full time equivalents
GBLDVS     Great Britain Leisure Day Visits Survey
GIS        Geographical information system
HA 1980    Highways Act 1980
HER        Historic Environment Record
HLS        Higher Level Stewardship
HSE        Health and Safety Executive
IDB        Internal Drainage Board
IMBA       International Mountain Bicycling Association
IMD        Index of Multiple Deprivation
IMO        International Maritime Organisation
IPROW      Institute of Public Rights of Way Management Ltd
ISPS       International Ship and Port facility Security
JNCC       Joint Nature Conservation Committee
LAF        Local Access Forum
LFA        Less Favoured Area
LHA        Local Highway Authority
LT         Lands Tribunal
MCA        Maritime and Coastguard Agency
MHWM       Mean High Water Mark
MLWM       Mean Low Water Mark
MOD        Ministry of Defence
MPV        Mechanically propelled vehicle
NAO        National Audit Office
NCC        National Caravan Council
NE         Natural England
NERC Act   Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006
NFTS       National Forest Tendering Scheme
NFU        National Farmers’ Union
NNR        National Nature Reserve
                                   xxv




NPA          National Park Authority
NPACA 1949   National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949
NPV          Net present value
NT           National Trust
NTL          Normal Tidal Limit
OACC         Open Access Contact Centre
ODPM         Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
ONS          Office for National Statistics
OS           Ordnance Survey
PI           Public Inquiry
PINS         Planning Inspectorate
PRoW         Public Right of Way
PSA          Public Service Agreement
PSL          Produce Studies Ltd
QC           Queen’s Counsel
RA           Relevant Authority
RAC          Reading Agricultural Consultants
RIA          Regulatory Impact Assessment
RNLI         Royal National Lifeboat Institute
RoSPA        Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents
RoWIP        Rights of Way Improvement Plan
RPA Ltd      Risk & Policy Analysts Ltd
rpa          Rolling Path Agreement
RPI          Retail prices index
RR           Relative risk
RSPB         Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
SA           Sustainability Appraisal
SAC          Special Area of Conservation
SBS          Small Business Service
SDA          Severely Disadvantaged Area
SE           Standard Error
SEA          Strategic Environmental Assessment
SGM          Standard gross margin
SM           Scheduled Monument
                                           xxvi




    SOA               Super Output Area
    SOLAS             Safety of Life at Sea
    SoS               Secretary of State
    SP                Single Payment
    SPA               Special Protection Area
    SSSI              Site of Special Scientific Interest
    SWCP              South West Coast Path
    SWT               South West Tourism
    TRO               Traffic Regulation Order
    TYHA              The Yacht Harbours Association
    UK BAP            United Kingdom Biodiversity Action Plan
    UKTS              UK Tourism Survey
    VOA               Valuation Office Agency
    VPF               Value of a preventable fatality
    WCC               Warwickshire County Council
    WFD               Water Framework Directive
    WTP               Willingness to pay



Acknowledgements
The consultants are grateful to the support received from staff of government
departments and agencies, local government officers, representatives of special
interest groups and voluntary bodies, and managers of private businesses for their help
with our research. Special thanks are due to Julian Groom (Defra) for his efforts in
analysing GIS datasets and Jane Yates (Natural England) for help with the English
Leisure Visits Survey on behalf of the consultancy team.
                                     Final Report - May 2007
                                                1



1.          Introduction


1.1         Contract
In February 2006, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)
appointed a consortium of consultants led by Asken Ltd to undertake research into
options for improving access to the English coast. The focus of the research is on
the benefits and costs associated with the different options. The research will
support Defra in producing a partial Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA), which will
accompany a Consultation Paper expected to be published in mid 2007.
The research consortium comprises:
      -   Asken Ltd
      -   CJC Consulting Ltd
      -   Ecological Solutions
      -   Peter Scott Planning Services Ltd
      -   Jan Brooke Environmental Consultant Ltd.
Responsibilities for the research were divided between team members in line with
their particular competences, although there were considerable overlaps in some
areas.


1.2         Appraisal Method

1.2.1       Introduction
RIAs fall under the jurisdiction of the Cabinet Office. The process is intended to
ensure that the Government only brings in new regulations when this is the best
option, and that the regulations are going to achieve the desired policy outcome. In
this case, the desired policy outcome is ‘improving public access to the coast’, in
order to fulfil a Labour Party commitment made in its 2005 Rural Manifesto. The
Cabinet Office provides guidance on how to do a partial RIA 1. This guidance has
been followed in the appraisal of benefits and costs.

1.2.2       Principles of cost-benefit analysis
Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is a well-established method used to assist decision-
making. It is widely used in many different circumstances as it:
      -   simplifies the complexity of choice;

1
    see: http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulation/ria/ria_guidance/index.asp




                                        Asken Ltd
                                     Final Report - May 2007
                                                2


      -   assists in the understanding of what choice involves;
      -   enables this understanding to be shared by stakeholders (according to
          Penning-Rowsell et al, 2006 2, in the context of Project Appraisal).
In essence, CBA involves comparing the monetary value of costs with the monetary
value of benefits associated with the implementation of a particular policy option.
This produces a ratio that can be compared with other policy options which have
been appraised in the same way. However, this apparent simplicity masks much
complexity.
Major factors that contribute to the underlying complexity are:
      -   time: there are two elements to this:
              o   the value of money changes over time (a benefit realised now is worth
                  more than a benefit realised 20 years in the future). To overcome this
                  difficulty, comparisons between options are expressed at Net Present
                  Value (NPV);
              o   over what period should benefits and costs be assessed (often
                  referred to as the planning horizon)? In this case, the planning
                  horizon will be 20 years as this is the period over which different
                  options can be implemented and both benefits and costs stabilised;
      -   quantification: it is often difficult to assess costs and benefits in monetary
          terms (for example, what is an enjoyable day of walking along the coast
          worth?). Techniques have been developed to aid such quantification, and are
          discussed further in Christie et al. (2006). However, there is a need to
          expend effort in quantification commensurate with the importance of the end
          result, and so the degree of quantification will vary;
      -   marginal change: only benefits and costs that arise directly as a result of the
          implementation of the policy option should be considered. To do this, the
          ‘without policy’ option (usually referred to as either the ‘Business As Usual’ or
          the ‘Do Nothing’ option) and the ‘with policy’ option need to be compared;
      -   distribution: effects, whether beneficial or detrimental, are unlikely to be felt
          uniformly across or between sectors of society - some will gain, some will
          lose. Consequently, these distributive effects need to be taken into account.
CBA in central government is explained at length in ‘the Green Book’ (HM Treasury,
2003).

1.2.3       Tasks
The appraisal of options has involved a number of key tasks:
      -   wide-ranging literature search and review (references used are given in
          Appendix 1);


2
    References are given in full in Appendix 1.




                                        Asken Ltd
                                           Final Report - May 2007
                                                      3


    -      survey of local highway authorities (LHAs) which have a substantial length of
           coastline (reported in Section 7);
    -      survey of small businesses likely to be affected by improvements to public
           access to the English coast (reported in Section 13);
    -      direct contacts and discussions with representatives of special interest groups
           and public sector bodies;
    -      collating data from various sources (in parallel with this research, Natural
           England [NE] compiled physical data of relevance, and Risk & Policy Analysts
           Ltd [RPA Ltd] undertook a study of potential public sector costs);
    -      analysis of processed data as dictated by the different options;
    -      production of draft and final reports.
The monetary analysis was performed using a simple economic model constructed
using Microsoft Excel.

1.2.4       Application to different options
A baseline position and four options have been appraised, as described in Box 1.1.


Box 1.1:       Options Appraised in the study

    Do nothing – see discussion below

    Option 1. - Use of existing highways legislation to create a public right of way

    Option 2. - Use of CRoW Section 3

    Option 3. - Voluntary approach to create permissive access

    Option 4. - Unmapped coastal access corridor


The different options appraised are described in more detail in Sections 8 to 11
respectively. Each option was appraised individually, as each will deliver different
forms of access improvement and give rise to different benefits and costs. In
quantifying the effects, it has been necessary to make assumptions about how
improvements would be implemented under the different options.               These
assumptions have been described and, where the effects are thought to be
significant, have been discussed and agreed with Defra.
An alternative to Option 2 was also considered (Option 2a - which would, in effect, be
the creation of access land but without statutory mapping) but this came to be seen
as not an option to be further developed because:
    -      it would not allow for continuous public access around the coast; and
    -      it would need new legislation and there is greater merit in making a more
           fundamental change than a small adjustment to existing laws.
The appraisal of this option is included in Appendix 9, and summary details listed in
Section 14 for completeness.




                                                Asken Ltd
                                Final Report - May 2007
                                           4


1.2.5    Do Nothing (Business As Usual)
A ‘do nothing’ baseline has been developed against which the costs and benefits of
other options have been measured. This is intended to represent ‘business as usual’
– i.e. what will happen if the current policy is not changed. However, different
aspects of the baseline are relevant to the different options. For example, under
Option 1, the key components of the baseline are the lengths of the coast that
already have access along public rights of way (PRoWs) and the rate at which local
highway authorities would create new coastal PRoWs even if no new government
policy is introduced; whereas, in Option 2, the key component of the baseline is the
length of coast that already has secure area-wide access. The key elements of the
do nothing option are noted below.
The limited number of responses to our survey of LHAs suggest that, over the next
10 years, each large coastal authority will create around 1 km/year of new coastal
access. The responding authorities cover some 40% of the coast, which suggests
that around 25 km of new access would be created each year. So, assuming no
further changes, over the next 10 years and 20 years, 250 km and 500 km
respectively of PRoWs will be created. These figures are of significance for Options
1 and 3 respectively.
Defining a ‘do nothing’ baseline for Options 2 is more difficult as there is no relevant
historical trend on which to base future predictions. The mechanism that could be
used for creating area-wide access is dedication under CRoW s16. However, this is
relatively new legislation and has not yet been used to any great extent. In practice,
any landowner wanting to provide coastal land for public access has probably
already allowed access and may see little to be gained from dedication. So, the
effect of Option 2 in such areas is to secure rights in perpetuity.
Option 4 contains proposals for a new form of public access right using a power not
currently available. A high quality route is envisaged and here, the baseline of
significance is that length of coast that is already at such a standard (e.g. National
Trails).
It should be noted that the working assumption used throughout the appraisal is that
each option is applied in isolation. So, even if coastal land is designated as CRoW
Access Land and has no PRoW across it, then under Option 1 a new PRoW would
be created.

1.2.6    Criteria against which improvements will be judged
As well as the comparisons using CBA, Defra has provided a series of criteria
against which the different options will be judged. These are reproduced in Box 1.2
below.




                                   Asken Ltd
                                    Final Report - May 2007
                                               5




Box 1.2:     Criteria to be Used for Option Appraisal

There are 8 criteria to be used to assess the different options for coastal access: extent of
access; quality of access; permanency; clarity and certainty; costs; monitoring and
enforcement; everyone should have good opportunities to enjoy the natural
environment; and coastal wildlife, landscape and quality of enjoyment benefits.
i) Extent of Access
     • What is the total area to which new access would be granted?
     • What would be its geographical distribution?
     • Within coastal areas would there be specific areas or types of site permanently
       excluded from greater access?
     • Does the new access fill a specific need in existing access provision, i.e. will it provide
       access opportunities where there is currently a lack of access or where people would
       benefit from more access or which is relevant to specific use or interest groups?
ii) Quality of Access
     • What restrictions as to periods when land would not be open to public access would be
       considered reasonable? Would these vary from case to case, or between different
       types of coastal land and their ownership? If so, how?
     • Would there be restrictions on numbers of people using a given area, for example,
       through the use of daily or other permits?
     • What would be the impact of restrictions on the anticipated benefits of the proposals?
     • Would codes of conduct or byelaws be applied to those using coastal land? If so, what
       would these cover, and what sanctions would be available in the event of any breach?
     • How wide ranging would the access be - e.g. would it include horse riders, cyclists,
       etc?
iii) Permanency of Access Arrangements
     • Would the improvements in access to coastal land be permanent?
     • Would arrangements be subject to periodic review or be capable of being revoked?
     • What would happen when the ownership of the land or the policy of the owner
       changed?
iv) Clarity and Certainty of Access Arrangements
     • What arrangements would be made to ensure people readily understood what coastal
       land was subject to access, for example by a nationally consistent approach, including
       the provision of clear maps?
     • How would information relating to access to coastal land be publicised?
     • Would it be made available nationally, regionally and locally? If so, how and in what
       form?
v) Cost Effectiveness
     • What are the economic, social and environmental costs of the proposals?
     • What are the economic, social and environmental benefits of proposals, including
       benefits to local areas of proposals
     • What are the potential risks associated with the different options?
vi) Monitoring and enforcement




                                       Asken Ltd
                                    Final Report - May 2007
                                               6


      • How would the policy be evaluated?
      • Who should be responsible for monitoring and evaluating the policy?
vii) Ensuring everyone should have good opportunities to enjoy the natural environment
      • What are the distributional impacts of the policy?
viii) Coastal wildlife, landscape, and quality of enjoyment benefits
    •    What opportunities do the different access options provide or allow for managing
         access, managing the land and interpreting the interests
So as to:
1. PROTECT nationally or internationally important species, habitats and geological and
historical features and the landscapes in which they are set?
2. ENCOURAGE a more diverse and wildlife rich coastal environment?
3. ENHANCE the quality of the visitor experience, both physically and by improving public
understanding and appreciation of the special qualities of the coast, including its wildlife,
geology, history and landscape.

These criteria are used in the final section (Section 14) to assess and compare the
different options.

1.3         Limitations to Outputs
One of the key limitations to the outputs from the appraisal is the quality of data
available. As noted in Section 2, there are many uncertainties surrounding:
    -    the area of coastal land and length of coastline which vary depending on the
         methods and assumptions used to measure them;
    -    the proportion of the coast that is already accessible to the public and the
         relative attractiveness to visitors of the areas to which access is to be
         improved;
    -    unit costs associated with access creation (by whatever means but in
         particular with Option 4 due to lack of precedents);
    -    the assessments of changes in visitor behaviour (particularly the differences
         between options and in relation to Option 3, where the multiplicity of access
         arrangements and relative lack of research into potential public uptake
         produce a high level of uncertainty in the benefit estimates);
    -    the extent to which use of existing access opportunities could be increased
         through a promotional campaign.
In addition, care is needed when using explanations in the text to calculate values
used in the benefit cost comparison because:
    -    the spreadsheet does not contain roundings, whereas text descriptions do;
    -    figures noted in the text use current – 2006 - monetary values (unless stated
         otherwise);
    -    there are differences in the timing of events and so the total cost over the 20-
         year period cannot always be calculated by taking the multiple of the annual
         figure and 20 years. We account for this by spreading benefits and costs
         streams over a 20-year period and then adjusting them to Net Present Value



                                        Asken Ltd
                              Final Report - May 2007
                                         7


       (the figures provided in summary tables of Sections 8 to 11 inclusive and
       against the Cost Effectiveness criterion are in NPV terms)
This appraisal of options does not constitute a Strategic Environmental Assessment,
as may be required under The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes
Regulations 2004 (Statutory Instrument 2004 No.1633). Also, this study does not
seek to provide a strategic Appropriate Assessment, as may be required under The
Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (Statutory Instrument 1994
No. 2716). Further discussion on the legal requirements of access creation in
relation to nature conservation legislation is given in Section 5.2.




                                 Asken Ltd
                                 Final Report - May 2007
                                            8



2.        Background


2.1       Introduction
In this section, we describe the background context within which the policy of
improving public access to the English coast is being developed and describe some
important definitions and assumptions.


2.2       Definitions
The desired outcome of the policies to be appraised is to improve public access to
and along the coast. It is therefore important to consider what is meant by these
terms.

2.2.1     Coastal land
One of the difficulties of developing policy in relation to coastal access is defining
what is meant by ‘the coast’. An examination of a map of the coast will soon reveal
the complexity of the interface between land and sea.
Legal definitions have been provided in past legislation. Section 59 of the National
Parks and Access to the Countryside Act (NPACA) 1949 provides a definition of
‘open country’ as consisting “wholly or predominantly of mountain, moor, heath,
down, cliff or foreshore (including any bank, barrier, dune, beach, flat or other land
adjacent to the foreshore)”. Section 3(3) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act
2000 (CRoW) provides a definition of ‘coastal land’ as being:
“(a) the foreshore, and
(b) land adjacent to the foreshore (including in particular any cliff, bank, barrier,
dune, beach or flat which is adjacent to the foreshore).”
However, the legislation also includes a power to alter the definition of ‘open country’
(and hence extend the right of access) to include “coastal land of any description”.
In physical terms, coastal land may be regarded as the interface between land and
sea. This comprises three components:
     -   the sea – the area of water up to mean low water mark (MLWM);
     -   the foreshore – the area between MLWM and mean high water mark
         (MHWM) – sometimes called the inter-tidal zone;
     -   the land – any other area, inland from the foreshore, including land above
         MHWM that is integral with the foreshore (such as dune systems or beaches),
         that is not covered by sea, although only the land adjacent to the foreshore is
         of interest in this study.




                                    Asken Ltd
                                          Final Report - May 2007
                                                     9


MLWM and MHWM are objective definitions. In some places, there will be some
land that might be regarded as lying between land and foreshore (e.g. sand dunes).
In other places, there may be no foreshore (e.g. where cliffs drop straight into the
sea), in which case MHWM and MLWM are coincident. Nevertheless, the three
components noted above have been used to define the coastal land for the purposes
of this study.
A further consideration for Options 2 and 4, and (as far as permissive area-wide
access is concerned) Option 3 is – how far inland does ‘coastal land’ penetrate.
There is clearly a potential for this to be a significant distance (e.g. where there are
coastal marshes). The methodology used to provide an estimate of the area of land
that may become accessible under Option 2 has been set out in a report by RPA Ltd
(2006). In addition, we need to have a means of determining what proportion of the
coast already has access of some form and for us to cross reference this to a
number of other variables (e.g. the area that is designated for nature conservation
purposes). To achieve this, and for consistency with NE work, we have used a
dataset of the coastal strip of generally 200 m in width (measured inland from the
MHWM) that has been sub-divided by existing type of access (see Section 2.3.4
below). An exception to this general 200 m width is areas of extensive saltmarsh,
where the flood bank was analysed for any formal access provision over it (because
this may be far more than 200 m above MHWM).
Estuaries also need to be considered. There are some differences between the open
coast and estuaries that are significant for the analysis, such as:
    -    there is a question about how far inland one should measure an estuary.
         Ordnance Survey (OS) maps record the Normal Tidal Limit 3 (NTL), but it is
         often possible to cross downstream of the NTL. For examples, some
         estuaries are crossed by ferries, although these may not operate all year,
         whilst others have bridges that in some cases can, and in other cases cannot,
         be used by people on foot. This means that there is no common rule that can
         be easily applied to how far inland ‘coastal access’ penetrates at estuaries;
    -    current/future flood defence management strategies in estuaries may differ
         significantly from those on the open coast. Managed re-alignment is more
         likely to arise in estuaries than the open coast (Environment Agency, pers
         comm.);
    -    as a result of sheltered water conditions, land uses - and hence effects of
         public access - may differ from those on the open coast. Specifically,
         industrial land-uses, which depend on water transport and/or use large
         volumes of water (e.g. refineries, power stations), are found in many
         estuaries. Such industries are often based around ports and associated
         sectors which depend on shipping. Most of the UK’s major ports and many of
         their smaller counterparts are located in protected estuarine waters (e.g.
         Southampton, Grimsby and Immingham, London, Teesport, Mersey Docks).
         Relatively few bigger ports are located on the open coast, Dover being a


3
  The Normal Tidal Limit is the point at which the level of a river or stream ceases to be affected by the tidal
flow. NTL is annotated on OS maps. The correct determination of this point is important as various agencies
are responsible for coastal protection work up to the Normal Tidal Limit – source OS website
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/freefun/geofacts/geo0666.html.




                                              Asken Ltd
                                Final Report - May 2007
                                          10


        notable exception. The relative shelter of estuaries also means that many
        marinas and recreational boating facilities are located in estuaries;
   -    all coastal waters have been allocated to river basin districts for the purpose
        of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and, in the process, a distinction is
        made between estuaries and open coast.
In order to avoid complications, the same definition is used as that used by NE,
namely that the coast includes open coast plus estuaries upstream as far as the first
road crossing. Consequently, although sections and areas of open coast and estuary
are generally treated the same in the analysis, differences are noted where they are
believed to be significant.

2.2.2    Length of the Coast
A key input into this CBA is the length of the English coast. There is no single
definitive estimate of the length of coastline; estimates of its length increase as the
scale at which it is measured increases. Using OS data, the length of the English
coast, calculated at ‘Extent of the Realm’ (contiguous to MLWM except where
extended by Parliament) at a scale of 1:10,000, is 4,080 km (rounded to the nearest
10 km). However, this figure does not accurately represent the distance a pedestrian
would have to go to walk around the coast. This is more accurately reflected by the
MHWM. The total length of the MHWM is 10,140 km (calculated using OS data at
1:10,000 to the nearest 10 km). The key difference between the two measures is
that MHWM extends significantly further up estuaries than MLWM.
This study has included the mapping of a coastal access buffer strip (see Section
2.2.34 below). We believe that this provides a more appropriate measurement of the
possible length of coast for this study because it takes into account most permanent
road crossings (all year round ferries or bridges) downstream of the MHWM.
The buffer strip is made up of a series of parcels of land (each generally 200 m in
width) within which the access status is uniform. This means that the buffer strip
produces a measure of different access statuses as areas of land (measured in
hectares). In order to be useable to assess benefits and costs measured in linear
terms (e.g. costs of access infrastructure per km), it is necessary to convert ha to km.
So, it is assumed that all single blocks of land are rectangular and of a consistent
width of 200 m; thus the conversion can be effected by taking the area of the access
buffer strip and dividing it by 200 m. The above analysis produces an indicative
length of 4,870 km. (By way of comparison, NE also undertook an analysis of the
‘Coastal Corridor’, taken to be an area measured 2 km inland from MHWM. Using
the same approach, the length of the coastal corridor is estimated as 4,874 km).
The 4,870 km is a slight over-estimate, as it assumes each polygon is 200 m in
width, whereas a number of polygons are wider. However, it is believed that the
difference is not significant. Another source of possible error is that the lowest road
crossing is not necessarily the lowest pedestrian crossing. For example, it is
possible for pedestrians to cross the River Lune in Lancaster on the railway bridge
that lies downstream of a footbridge which in turn is downstream of the first road
crossing. Again, this error is thought to be insignificant overall. Consequently, the
figure of 4,870 km is used in the analysis.




                                   Asken Ltd
                                    Final Report - May 2007
                                              11


Others have produced different assessments, for example, Doody (2000) reports the
Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) as measuring the English coast at
5,496 km using 1:50,000 scale and including the mainland, all but the smallest
islands, estuaries and other sizeable embayments (up to highest astronomical tides
and NTL – the latter taken from OS 1:25,000 scale maps).

2.2.3      Public access
There is no legal definition of the term ‘public access’. So, in the context of this
report, ‘public access’ is taken to mean access on foot for informal recreation and/or
utilitarian purposes, with provision for them to be accompanied by dogs (with
limitations in certain circumstances), although in the case of PRoWs (Option 1) the
right is to ‘pass and re-pass’.
It includes access for people reliant on personal mobility vehicles (described in legal
terms as ‘invalid carriages’), which is expressly provided for in CRoW. On PRoWs,
invalid carriages are excluded from the definition of mechanically-propelled vehicle
for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act 1988 s34 (as a result of Section 20(2) of the
Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970).
The options would result in different provision for public access and the qualifications
to the above definition are provided in the introduction of each option (Sections 8 to
11). However, it is important to recognise (as owners and occupiers of affected land
are required to do when considering their duty of care to the public, or for considering
arrangements for the security of their premises) that recreational users do not always
have a good understanding of what they legally can and cannot do (e.g. people may
think that a ‘right to roam’ extends over all land, or do not recognise that they must
keep to a prescribed linear route when using a PRoW, except where there is a
statutory right to area-wide access), or may be ignorant of risks which may appear
obvious to others. This means that, in some situations, landowners and occupiers
have to consider the effect of public access on their land even when such users
would be trespassing; therefore, reasonable costs of managing public access have
been incorporated into the analysis.
Another feature of public access is the extent to which it is available to all, rather than
any particular sector(s) of society; consequently, comments on this are provided in
relation to each option.
A feature of the foreshore of relevance is that, because the sea has to be kept open
to enable the exercise of rights of navigation, fences cannot be erected on the
foreshore without the consent of the Secretary of State (SoS) for Trade and
Industry 4. Therefore, it is not normally practical to totally exclude the public from
private beaches by fencing, and it is common for public access to the foreshore to be
a reality (i.e. de facto access) rather than a legal right (i.e. de jure access).
Consequently, many areas of foreshore already experience public access and the
effects of the policy proposals may be small in such areas.




4
    Under s34 of the Coast Protection Act 1949.




                                       Asken Ltd
                                  Final Report - May 2007
                                            12


Policies designed to improve or create access for pedestrians may also provide or
diminish opportunities for other forms of access, such as for horse riders and cyclists.
This aspect is discussed further in Section 12.
Activities involving vessels (e.g. sailing, yachting, sail-boarding/windsurfing,
canoeing) might be affected. There is already a common law right to navigate on
tidal waters (for example, see Caffyn, 2004). Nonetheless, improvements in
unrestricted access to the foreshore could improve opportunities for launching.
However, the proposals do not include any provision for improved launch facilities
and some of the options may not necessarily provide a right to take vessels onto the
land (for example, it is unlikely that a canoe would be viewed as a ‘usual
accompaniment’ to users of a PRoW). Consequently, potential benefits and costs to
users of vessels on the sea are not included in the study.
Possible opportunities for drivers of mechanically propelled vehicles (MPVs) have not
been considered.

2.2.4    Natural England Access Strip Dataset
A key source of information about the current state of public access along the coast
used in this study is a dataset produced by NE. The dataset comprises an analysis
of access status within a 200 m buffer strip around the coast, measured inland from
the MHWM, although this width is increased in some circumstances (e.g. where there
are extensive areas of saltmarsh or sand). Within this buffer strip, the current status
of public access in each area is categorised as one of the following (mutually
exclusive) categories:
   -    legal access rights;
   -    other known recognised access;
   -    no known access rights.
The dataset provides the most useful basis for the analysis undertaken in this study
but is important to note some of its deficiencies:
   -    it does not include islands (e.g. Hayling Island, Lundy Island, Holy Island)
        other than the Isle of Wight;
   -    it does not necessarily follow the lowest river crossing points available to
        walkers (e.g. the strip includes Poole Harbour, although a walker can cross
        the mouth of the Harbour by all year round ferry);
   -    although the dataset may record the existence of a PRoW, there is no
        guarantee that the PRoW is continuous or parallel to the coast;
   -    a hierarchy has been applied in the classification, so that a section of coast
        which is both CRoW Access Land and crossed by a PRoW is classed as
        ’PRoW’;
   -    In the access buffer strip dataset, some of the individual blocks of land
        (polygons) have not been classified as per the above; for example, ’Marinas’
        (R4) have been classed as ’Access – secure’, some ’Roads/Promenades’
        (P1) are in ’Access – secure’ and others in ’Access – not secure’, and



                                    Asken Ltd
                                    Final Report - May 2007
                                              13


          ’Country Parks’ (CP) appear in both ’Access – not secure’ and ’No access’.
          However, no attempt has been to correct these inconsistencies, which are
          minor in scale.
In addition, the dataset does not record:
      -   CRoW Access Land over which access is restricted permanently or for a long
          period;
      -   where de facto access is available (for example, use of the foreshore may
          enable a walker to by-pass otherwise restricted areas at all but high tides);
      -   permissive access over land that has been entered into the access options of
          agri-environment schemes.
Nevertheless, over the whole length of the English coast, these deficiencies are not
thought to be significant.


2.3        Proposals

2.3.1      Government commitment to improving public access to the
           countryside
The Labour Party manifesto, published prior to the 1997 General Election, stated:
“Our policies include greater freedom for people to explore our open countryside.
We will not, however, permit any abuse of a right to greater access” (Labour Party,
1997). As noted above, ‘open country’ (by the definition of the NPACA 1949)
includes cliff and foreshore.
The 1997 commitment led to the passage into law of the CRoW Act in England and
Wales and contributed to the enactment of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003.
The Rural White Paper 5 (Our Countryside: The Future - A Fair Deal for Rural
England) stated that “The Countryside and Rights of Way Bill provides for the
statutory opening of coastal land if appropriate in the future. We shall review this in
the light of experience with other types of land open for statutory access, and consult
fully on any proposals.”
The Labour Party’s Rural Manifesto for the 2005 Election stated: “Improving access
to coastal areas will be an early priority …” (Labour Party, 2005).

2.3.2      Improvements to coastal access
In relation to the proposed improvements in access to the coast, the
overarching vision sought is for:
          “coastal environment where rights to walk along the length of the English
          coast lie within a wildlife and landscape corridor that offers enjoyment,



5
    See http://www.defra.gov.uk/rural/ruralwp/whitepaper/chapter11.htm




                                       Asken Ltd
                                    Final Report - May 2007
                                              14


          understanding of the natural environment and a high quality experience; and
          is managed sustainably in the context of a changing coastline” (Defra);
together with three complementary policy outcomes:
      •   Outcome 1: secure access along the length of the English coastline,
          accepting that this may be subject to some exceptions, whilst considering
          erosion, growth and re-alignment;
      •   Outcome 2: a more accessible coastline, by creating physical routes to
          access the coast and by encouraging more people to enjoy the coast;
      •   Outcome 3: improvements for coastal wildlife and the landscape, as well as
          encouraging people to enjoy and understand this environment.
(Source: Defra website 6)
A key element in providing better access along the coast is better access to the
coast, and so improvements in access to the coast will be needed where current
provision is inadequate.


2.4         Coastal Features of Significance for Access
It is tempting to draw comparisons between improving access to the coast and other
access improvements, particularly Part I of CRoW. Whilst there are similarities, the
coast presents some unique challenges:
      -   the tidal movements of water,. These have implications for:
              o   the safety of walkers along foreshores and cliffs;
              o   coastal processes of erosion and accretion and the nature of the
                  physical structures (defences, breakwaters, etc.) constructed to
                  counteract their undesirable aspects;
      -   the greater importance of providing for the ‘onward passage’ (for anyone
          wanting to follow the coast) means that obstacles have greater effect. The
          coast presents many such obstacles, some of which are not found elsewhere:
              o   ports, harbours, marinas (see also Section 2.2.1);
              o   nuclear power stations;
              o   estuaries, some without convenient crossings.
      -   the coast is the UK’s international territorial border and it is relevant to
          consider whether providing public access to ports (for example) would
          jeopardise customs operations, international trade and national security
          considerations.
These challenges will need to be taken into account when considering how to make
improvements. The effects of improving access on properties along the coast are
discussed further in Section 4.


6
    See: http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/issues/accesscoast.htm




                                        Asken Ltd
                                  Final Report - May 2007
                                            15



3.        Effects on Users


3.1       Introduction
This section considers the effects on potential users of the improved access to the
coast. It does not consider the effects deriving from those whose businesses depend
on coastal visitors, as these are discussed under Section 6.
A fuller description of the manner by which effects have been estimated is given in
Appendix 2.


3.2       Types of Users
It is useful to have a typology of coastal access users but no standard typology
exists. The following types of user will potentially benefit from increased access to
the coast.

3.2.1     People on Foot
This is the main type of user likely to be affected by the proposals. Activities will
include walking and many other activities that derive from access to the beach and
coast. Under some options there will be scope for developing longer walking routes
that will be of interest to long distance walkers.
The main data source on current use of the coast is the 2005 England Leisure Visits
Survey (ELVS, 2006) and its predecessor the GB Leisure Day Visit Survey
(GBLDVS, 2004). These datasets are activity based and give numbers of visits to the
seaside/coast where the main activity is ‘walk, hill-walk, ramble’, ‘swimming’, ‘visit
beach, sunbathe, paddle in sea’. There were 72m leisure visits to the coast in 2005
of which 33% had ‘walk, hill-walk, ramble’, and 25% ‘swimming’ or ‘visit beach,
sunbathe, paddle in sea’ as the main activity.
There will be other forms of activity undertaken along the coast, especially rock
climbing, that could be affected by the proposals. However, we have no data on
level of usage of cliffs by climbers or data on the economic benefits they derive, nor
for other types of minority activities. Consequently, no values have been attributed to
specific sub-groups, although they are included in the overall estimates for people on
foot.
Within these broad categories of activity, it is likely that a proportion of visitors will
have limited mobility. Limitations to mobility can commonly arise through:
     -   a disability;
     -   being elderly, infirm or suffering from a chronic health condition;
     -   recuperating from an illness or surgery;




                                     Asken Ltd
                                Final Report - May 2007
                                          16


   -    being accompanied by young children, pushing a pram, and so on.
However, we have no information that enables us to assess whether limited mobility
users would enjoy a higher benefit per visit than those without any such constraint.
Therefore, no attempt has been made to isolate this group as users. However, the
Disability Discrimination Acts 1995 and 2005 ensure that disabled people are not
discriminated against as far as reasonably possible, thus the infrastructure costs
have taken this into account, where relevant.

3.2.2    Sea Anglers
The public has a right to fish in the sea but does not necessarily have a right to be on
the land from which to fish. Therefore, sea anglers would benefit if new access
allowed them additional or alternative opportunities. ELVS does not list angling as an
activity. Drew Associates (2004) using an Omnibus survey found that 1.1m
households in England contained at least one member who had been sea angling in
the past year, and 54% of sea anglers fished from the land. The number of days
fishing from land was 6.7m per year.
The National Federation of Sea Anglers was approached for evidence on situations
where current access to the coast is restricting angling opportunities but no such
evidence was forthcoming. This may be an indication that there are few situations
where restrictions on coastal access are limiting the activity of sea anglers. The Drew
Associates (2004) study of recreational sea angling indicated that the main problem
faced by land-based anglers was a lack of catch due to depletion of fish stocks. Lack
of access to sites was not reported as an issue. It is concluded that benefits to
anglers from new access may well exist but that these will be relatively small and
could not in any case be estimated. Therefore, we have not attempted to include
them in our analysis.

3.2.3    Horse Riders and Cyclists
Horse riders and mountain bikers may enjoy increased opportunities for access to
the coast, if provisions are made alongside those developed for pedestrians under
the different options. Cycling is an activity recorded in ELVS - 2% of seaside/coastal
visits (1.44m per year) have cycling as a main activity, although this would also
include road cycling. Horse riding is not a specified activity in ELVS and there are no
reliable data on the current use of coastal paths and beaches for riding.
Effects of proposed improvements are discussed further in Section 12, but the
options appraisals (Sections 8 to 11) do not include any effect on horse riders and
cyclists.

3.2.4    Water-based Users
There is a general right of navigation on tidal waters around Britain. One of the
constraints on the exercise of this right is the ability to launch vessels. The proposals
for improving access to the coast will not affect the existing right or make any
provision for improved launch facilities. However, some water-based activities (such
as canoeing) require no special launch facilities and so participants in these activities




                                    Asken Ltd
                                Final Report - May 2007
                                          17


may benefit. Nonetheless, benefits to water-based users have not been included in
the analysis. Swimmers have been included within the ‘people on foot’ user group.


3.3     Ethnicity and social class of beneficiaries
There is no published information in the ELVS on the ethnicity of visitors to the
seaside/coast. ELVS indicates that, for all leisure trips, the mix is 88% white and
12% non-white. This is slightly more diverse than the UK non-white proportion of 8%
(2001 Census). However, without the appropriate cross tabulations we can draw no
conclusions about the ethnic mix of seaside visitors.
IPSOS/MORI (2006) in a study on coastal access conclude that people who are
black or of Asian origin are less likely to visit the coast. 75% of ethnic white people
stated that they had engaged in activity around the coast in the last year as
compared with 34% for black people and 44% for Asians. This was from a nationally
representative sample and therefore reliable. Other studies of visits to the
countryside also show that black and ethnic minority groups are under-represented.
We conclude, therefore, that ethnic minorities are significantly under-represented as
regards use of the coast. There will be a corresponding under-representation in the
benefits from new access.
IPSOS/MORI (2006) also concluded that people from ‘lower socio-economic groups’
were less likely to visit the coast. Only 60% of people in social class DE went to the
coast in the last year as compared with 79% for AB and 73-75% for C1 and C2. The
dominant factor in explaining these differences was income, since one of the main
reasons why people did not visit the coast was the cost of the trip as compared with
alternatives and especially cheaper foreign holidays. Hence, it is likely that members
of social class AB will benefit most from new access provision and those in class DE
least. Nonetheless, the data on actual visits do not record latent demand and
provision of new opportunities to visit the coast closer to people’s homes may allow
some of this latent demand to be realised.
As part of its Diversity Review, the Countryside Agency (2005c) investigated what
can be done to support the participation in outdoor recreation of disabled people,
black and minority ethnic groups, people who live in inner city areas and young
people. NE is taking this work forward through the development of an Action Plan
which aims to ensure that opportunities are maximised for more people from
currently under–represented groups to benefit from outdoor recreation and this may
serve to boost the frequency of coastal visits by this under-represented group.


3.4     Types of Demand

3.4.1   Trends in demand for use of the coast
Demand for access to the coast is analysed in detail in Appendix 2. There were
around 32m nights spent at the coast in 2005 by domestic (English) tourists, but the
trend over the last decade has been for a reduction of 2.24m per year. There were
72m day visits to the seaside/coasts in 2005 and 174m to seaside town/city. The
ELVS survey data and its predecessor show an increasing trend in the number of




                                   Asken Ltd
                                   Final Report - May 2007
                                             18


day visits to the coast of 8.0m per year (almost 5% per year between 1994 and
2005).
Seaside towns have experienced considerable in-migration over the last 30 years
(Beatty and Fothergill, 2003). Residents (living within 5 miles of the coast) account
for 38% of day trips to the seaside/coast. Although coastal recreation/enjoyment may
well be a primary reason for moving/retiring to the coast, we assume that new access
provision will have a very minor impact on the rate of migration and can be ignored.
The Country Land and Business Association (CLA, 2006) surveyed a random sample
of 1,011 UK adults aged 18+ and found that 18% 7 of those interviewed felt that there
was not enough public access to the coast. 74% thought there was enough. This is a
small survey but one that indicates a demand for additional access. Similarly
IPSOS/MORI (2006) in an Omnibus survey of 1,741 English residents found that
between 6% and 9% 8 of the public said that they would go to the English coast more
frequently if more access was available or if existing access was better mapped and
signposted. Further, research has suggested that climate change/global warming
and increasing fuel costs will lead to more UK residents choosing to take holidays at
the British coast rather than (say) the Mediterranean (McGuire, 2006).
Whilst the trend information is not totally conclusive, there is evidence for an
increasing number of visits to the coast and a demand from the public for improved
access. This could be achieved by better information about existing legal access
and/or increased provision of legal access.
Analysis of the current status of public access in the most attractive sections of the
English coast (i.e. National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Heritage
Coasts) suggests that a substantial proportion (56% by area within the 200 m buffer
strip) of the most attractive coastline already has public access that is secure
(although this does not apply to the foreshore) and a further amount (12% by area)
that is accessible through permissive or other insecure arrangements (which may
include foreshore). Along Heritage Coasts (many of which are in National Parks or
AONBs), 62% of the area has secure public access and a further 9% has non-secure
access. Of the areas in National Parks and AONBs that do not appear to have any
form of public access (accounting for 32% by area within the 200 m buffer strip), a
major proportion of it lies in estuaries, although there remain some inaccessible
sections of ‘open coast’.

3.4.2      Additional and displaced use of the coast
Use of the coast as a response to improved access can consist of either additional
visits or visits displaced from elsewhere. This distinction is important when
considering benefits to business because displaced activity will provide no net
injection of expenditure to the coastal economy and only depicts a transfer of activity
from one area to another. Additional use does have the potential to inject new
expenditure and provide local benefits.




7
    The 95% confidence interval is ±2.4% so the % could range from around 15% to 21%.
8
    The 95% confidence interval is ±1.5% so the % could vary from about 7% to 11%.



                                      Asken Ltd
                                Final Report - May 2007
                                          19


When considering users, all visits contingent on new access provide a benefit since
they would not otherwise be made. However, this is best considered as an
incremental benefit over and above the benefits derived from existing coastal access.
This is important when considering how these incremental benefits should be valued.
One benefit not quantified is the provision of better signage for existing legal or
permissive access (although the cost of providing better signage is included). In the
IPSOS/MORI research, 7-8% of respondents stated that they would increase the
frequency of visits to the coast if there were clearer indication on maps about where
you can go, or if there were better signs on the ground.


3.5      Benefits to Users

3.5.1    Valuation of recreation and health benefits
A number of economic studies have been made to determine the benefits to the
public from access to the countryside and coast. Visitors normally have use without
charge either because of legal rights, permissive use or situations where there would
be high costs of collecting admission charges. The value of public access depends
upon the value to visitors i.e. in economic terms, the consumer surplus over and
above the price of access.
This value can be estimated using a number of different valuation techniques that
depend on the stated preferences of visitors (contingent valuation, choice modelling)
or their revealed preferences (e.g. travel cost method) (see Pearce et al., 2006, for a
review of methods). The most common method for recreational studies is contingent
valuation in which the willingness to pay (WTP) of users is determined through
surveys.
We have found no contingent valuation studies that determine the benefit to the
public from an extension of coastal access. We have therefore reviewed studies that
indicate the benefits derived from access to the beach or through engaging in a
range of activities (e.g. walking, cycling) and transferred benefit values from these to
the coastal situation. These studies are reviewed in detail in Appendix 2 and
summarised below.
We also assessed the benefits to health that might result from additional physical
activity related to new access (see Appendix 2). The main beneficiaries of improved
access will be people with sedentary lifestyles, who become active because of such
additional provision. ‘Active’ are defined by the Department of Health (2004) as those
that have a total of at least 30 minutes a day of at least moderate intensity physical
activity on five or more days of the week. This reduces the risk of premature death
from a range of diseases. Were 100 people to change their behaviour in this way,
the social benefit is estimated at around £80,500 (CJC Consulting, 2005b).
There may therefore be health benefits to residents in areas where current coastal
access provides limited opportunities for physical activity but it is not possible to
quantify the number of people who would become active as a result of improved
access provision.




                                   Asken Ltd
                                 Final Report - May 2007
                                           20


There may also be educational and learning benefits where the improved access
leads to an increase in the numbers of people taking part in educational access, or
the quality of their experience increases. However, we have found no evidence to
suggest that the number and quality of educational visits are currently limited by lack
of availability of access. Consequently, the additional benefits from improved access
to the coast are expected to be small.

3.5.2    Values derived
In principle, the number of trips to the seaside is determined by the point at which the
marginal WTP for additional trips is equated with their travel cost (including
accommodation, time and other costs). Increasing the supply of coastal access will
shift the WTP (demand) curve such that the aggregate net benefit (WTP less cost) is
increased both by displaced visits and additional visits. There is evidence that
additional trips would take place with improved access provision (IPSOS/MORI 2006,
CLA 2006). There may be a reduction in the travel costs associated with displaced
trips to newly accessible areas but we assume that these are sufficiently small that
they can be ignored. It would require a detailed geo-spatial analysis to quantify any
savings in travel costs.
The benefit from increased access consists of the increased WTP (net of travel cost)
for displaced trips plus the additional WTP (net of travel cost) for additional trips. The
literature on the public’s WTP for coastal visits is reviewed in Appendix 2. Although
several studies have been undertaken most are in the ‘grey literature’ and detailed
evidence on the methodologies used are lacking. None relate to the WTP for
additional coastal access. Although intuitively, one might consider that additional
visits may carry a higher WTP value than a displaced visit, there is no prime facia
case for this and no evidence in the literature that would allow the two to be
distinguished. We therefore use the same benefit (WTP) for both displaced and
additional trips.
The literature review (Appendix 2) concludes that benefits (WTP) to users of
beaches are around £12.50 per day for non-residents and £4.50 for local residents.
For other activities the literature is not entirely consistent. Christie et al. (2006) use
the travel cost method to determine the benefits to those engaged in a range of
activities in forests. The consumer surplus was similar for cycling, horse riding and
walking at around £14.00 per visit. However, other valuations of more local walking
and dog walking have produced much lower values of no more than £2 per person.
A further issue with benefit assessment is that ideally we would measure the benefit
from improved access over and above existing access. We would expect a lower
value for this marginal additional than for the existing access. Taking these factors
into account we distinguish between local use (residents) and those who travel (non-
residents) but use the same value for all activities, and for displaced and additional
visits. We use a value of £2.35 per day for residents and £6.25 for non-residents. In
order to cover the uncertainty inherent in these estimates, we have varied the values
by +/-50% to give upper and lower estimates but have not sought to adjust the values
to reflect their transfer from one study to another.




                                    Asken Ltd
                                 Final Report - May 2007
                                           21


3.6      Aggregate benefits
Aggregate benefits are derived by multiplying the number of visits triggered by new
access provision by the value of the visit. There was no information on the
differences in benefit per visit according to the various policy options for access
provision. In the absence of other information we use the same benefit values per
person for all options but vary the number of users. However, there will be
differences between options that cannot effectively be reflected in the quantified
valuation and so comments are included where such qualitative differences exist.
We examined the value of assessing benefits at a regional level to take account of
differences in the regional distribution of new access although, having done this, it
was apparent that this was not necessary as the differences in approach were
marginal.

3.6.1    Numbers of users
Baseline numbers of visitors to the coast were obtained from the VisitBritain (2006)
and ELVS (2006) surveys. Estimates of the number of additional visits were based
on IPSOS/MORI (2006). This was limited in scope but is the only survey that directly
asks the public about their trip generation as a consequence of different types of
improved access provision to the English coast. One factor that these findings may
not have reflected is the attractiveness of the areas to which access is improved.
One concern here is that the habitat type with the lowest level of existing access is
mudflats, which may not be particularly attractive to visitors.
Estimates of the number of displaced visits (those that are ‘transferred’ from the
existing accessible coast) were more difficult to make because no surveys have been
undertaken to indicate how the public would behave with more access provided. The
maximum potential for displacement is expected to arise where access is available at
all times for the onward journey around the entire coast (i.e. as per Option 1 and
Option 4). We use proportionately lower levels under the other options as indicated in
the IPSOS/MORI data for additional access. We allow for no displacement of beach
activity because it is assumed that virtually all attractive beaches are already
accessible to the public (whether de jure or de facto).

3.6.2    Activities
The activities for which benefit values were applied were use of the beach (swimming
etc.) and walking. Information on the % breakdown of day visits by activity was
obtained from ELVS (2006) (see Section 3.2). The same split was applied to
domestic tourists in the absence of any direct information for these overnight visitors.

3.6.3    Aggregate benefit calculation
The aggregate public benefit from use of new access was calculated by multiplying
the benefit value per activity by the number of additional and displaced residents 9and
non-residents engaging in each activity. Full details are given for the various options
in Appendix 2 and under each separate option appraisal section (Sections 8.4.1,
9.4.1, 10.4.1 and 11.4.1).


9
  Users are categorised into either residents (living within 5 miles of the coast) or non-
residents (see Section A2.7).




                                    Asken Ltd
                                  Final Report - May 2007
                                            22


3.7       Costs
3.7.1     Costs to Users
In some locations, new access opportunities will deny existing users their benefits
from exclusive use. Not only does such exclusive use have a value in consumption,
but it is likely to act as a positional good which enhances the status of the users and
owners. This value could potentially be measured through stated or revealed
preference studies, including hedonic price 10 models. However, we are not aware
that any such studies have been undertaken on exclusive coastal use. Researchers
(e.g. Clark et al. 1994; Curry and Ravenscroft, 2001) suggests that consumers are
increasingly attracted to more exclusive recreation goods, including golf courses,
leisure clubs and other private facilities. They are willing to pay for relatively exclusive
use, not only to give enjoyment, but also to enhance status or to identify with desired
social groups.
Some costs to users are expected if they choose to become involved in legal
processes and disputes concerning access creations. Potential disbenefits to other
user groups are discussed in Section 12.
3.7.2     Health and Safety Considerations
The question of risks to public health and safety is considered in Appendix 4. The
results of this consideration is that:
     -   the coast does pose risks that are unique to coastal areas such as those
         created by tidal movements and wave action, the latter including landslips;
     -   the risk of drowning is small and 1 drowning occurs for every 5 million to 10
         million visits to the coast;
     -   the current value of a preventable fatality (VPF), as used by the Department
         for Transport (2004), is £1.31m;
     -   there will also be costs of additional rescues (1 for every 230,000 coastal
         visits), costing between £500 and £5,800 depending on circumstances.
The scale at which incidents might occur will differ with the four options, and so is
noted in relation to each option.

3.8       Conclusions
There is rather limited information on the value to the public of an increase in the
supply of new coastal access. Benefit transfers were used to provide indicative
figures but these are subject to uncertainly. Estimates of the additional numbers of
visits that new access would generate were based on recent survey data. Estimating
the scale of displaced visits was more difficult because of a lack of information.




10
  A hedonic price model is one that analyses the variation in the price of a good (such as
housing) in order to impute values for its characteristics (such as exclusive use of a beach).




                                      Asken Ltd
                                 Final Report - May 2007
                                           23



4.        Effects on Owners of Properties
          Located Along the Coast


4.1       Introduction
The improved access will be across land that is owned by an individual or
organisation and, in most cases, is used to generate benefits for the owner. This
section considers the effects on the owners and managers of land, property and
land-based businesses. In terms of area and length of coast affected, agriculture is
the most common category of use encountered on land adjacent to the foreshore and
some coastal habitats (e.g. coastal flats, saltmarsh). However, farming is an
extensive form of land use and other categories may be affected more significantly in
terms of costs per unit area or length of coastline (e.g. residential properties, ports or
campsites). Other coastal locations, such as beaches, mudflats, shingle and
maritime cliffs, may support commercial activities (e.g. tourism-related ventures,
shooting) rather than agriculture.
There are occasional overlaps between land-based businesses and tourism-related
businesses. For example, a farmer could diversify by opening a bed and breakfast
enterprise to exploit coastal tourism. This section focuses on the land-based element
(e.g. farming), whilst Section 5.1 focuses on tourism-related businesses (e.g. bed
and breakfast enterprises). These general assessments have been informed by
comments from individual businesses contacted as part of the Small Firms Impact
Test (see Section 13). Section 7 discusses effects on public sector bodies and
related land/access management costs.


4.2       Potential Benefits of Improved Public Access to
          Property Owners
There are potential benefits to be gained from having improved public access on
land. It is suggested by various research (e.g. Countryside Agency 2005a), that the
principal ones are:
     -   owners and occupiers of houses by the coast can themselves benefit from the
         public access opportunities created;
     -   the deterrent effect that the presence of responsible members of the public
         has on more anti-social elements of society (e.g. to deter drug-takers or
         under-age drinkers) and to deter and report undesirable events (e.g. fly
         tippers, outbreaks of fire);
     -   as a potential market for services (e.g. farmhouse bed and breakfast, tea
         shops);
     -   as an opportunity to raise people’s awareness of land management activities
         (e.g. promoting “buy local foods” campaigns)



                                    Asken Ltd
                                 Final Report - May 2007
                                           24


   -    greater appreciation of nature will help conserve wildlife and its habitats,
        coastal geology and natural processes and landscapes - protecting the
        natural environment for residents, workers and visitors alike;
   -    protection against unwelcome developments (e.g. people who enjoy the
        landscape as it is now may help to resist inappropriate development).
These potential benefits are hard to quantify, and tend to be overshadowed in the
minds of property owners by the potential costs.
Those operating commercial properties that can exploit the improved access will
stand to gain from increased trade. This was apparent in discussions held with small
businesses (see Section 13) and is evident in studies of benefits to local economies
from improved access (as discussed in Section 6.2.1).


4.3      Potential Costs to Different Categories of Property
         Owner
There will be occasions where owners and occupiers of property located along the
coast will face costs as a result of improved access to the coast. These costs will
vary significantly from location to location, depending on circumstances and
perception of those affected. Appendix 5 provides a detailed discussion of the
potential costs, both one-off and recurring, to owners and occupiers of property and a
summary of the potential effects is given below.

4.3.1    Effects on Farm Holdings
A significant proportion of the land affected by the proposals for improving access will
be used for agricultural purposes. Farm holdings may be affected in two key
respects:
   -    loss of capital value: Providing a right of public access across or to land
        which previously did not have such rights represents a diminution of the
        owner’s property rights and this may be reflected in the property’s value. In
        practice, though, this is very difficult to substantiate and, whilst potentially
        significant for a small number of cases, it is likely to be minimal for most;
   -    reduction in annual profits: increasing the number of people crossing land
        used for agriculture can lead to costs to the farmer through:
           o   trampling of crops, including grass;
           o   injury to stock (e.g. worrying of sheep by visitors’ dogs)
           o   disruption to farming activities.
The extent of the effect will vary with a range of different factors, including type of
farming practice, intensity of farming, volume of visitors and types of activity
undertaken.




                                    Asken Ltd
                                    Final Report - May 2007
                                              25


4.3.2     Forestry
Analysis of data on land use suggests that relatively little forestry is found on land
adjacent to the coast and it is believed that much of coastal forestry is already
accessible to the public. In addition, the effects of public access to forests (especially
well-grown forests) are reported to be small.

4.3.3     Businesses Reliant on Exclusive Coastal Access
A wide variety of businesses are located on the coast and many benefit from being
located by the coast. A proportion of these businesses will be reliant on having
exclusive use of the land they occupy, and the introduction of public access to such
land may have serious consequences for the businesses that currently occupy it.
Leading examples of this type of business are:
     -   accommodation providers;
     -   marinas and ports;
     -   golf courses.
The chief concerns of managers of such businesses are security 11 and public health
and safety. In the case of accommodation providers, loss of exclusive coastal
access may prevent them charging a premium for such exclusivity and remove their
business’ unique selling point and so their advantage over competitors. However, it
is difficult to quantify these effects. Public access is already a reality for many
businesses located on the coast. Nonetheless, whilst the majority of businesses may
experience little adverse effects, and may enjoy some benefits, some may be
significantly affected.

4.3.4     Residential Properties
The potential effects on residential properties are similar to those for businesses
except that it is personal amenity rather than commercial competitiveness that may
be affected by the introduction of public access. Any adverse effect, therefore, is
likely to be apparent in the value of the residence and recent press reports claim that
the effect on the value of exclusive properties can be substantial. Techniques (such
as hedonic pricing) can be used to determine the value placed by purchasers of
houses on different factors. However, no studies have been found which provide
insight into the value placed on absence of public access over or across adjoining
land.
There are examples of compensation being paid to owners of residential properties
affected by PRoW creations on their land (as opposed to land adjacent to their
property). These show that the value attributed to loss of capital value ranges from
zero to 10% of a property’s original value.


11
  The security issue for some ports is one that relates to their ability to trade with the USA – if
the port cannot meet US security requirements, it cannot be used by vessels that visit
American ports. This is significant for maybe 25-30 UK ports. There may be knock-on effects
for smaller ports that provide short-sea links with major ports (NE, pers. comm.).




                                        Asken Ltd
                                Final Report - May 2007
                                          26


Creating public access rights on land adjacent to a residential property is less likely
to affect property value and affected owners are unlikely to qualify for compensation
for injurious affection under the Land Compensation Act 1973.

4.3.5    Other Properties Located on the Coast
There will be other types of property along the coast granting of public access to
which is likely to be undesirable or unacceptable on various grounds. These include:
   -    industrial complexes (to which access may be excluded for health and safety
        reasons);
   -    power generating stations (for operational and security reasons, especially in
        the case of nuclear power stations);
   -    major ports and harbours (in order to protect the integrity of immigration and
        to meet international security requirements to safeguard trade);
   -    military ranges (where unexploded ordnance and/or live firing may make
        public access unacceptably dangerous).
The way these obstacles are overcome will vary with the different options.

4.3.6    Occupiers’ Liability
Occupiers of coastal property, as with other property, will owe a duty of care to
anyone coming onto their land.       The duty owed varies depending on the
circumstances:
   -    the duty owed to a visitor who is on the land by right, permission or lawful
        authority is set out in the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984;
   -    the duty owed to people other than visitors lawfully on the land is set out in
        the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.
On CRoW Access Land on which public access has not been restricted, the duty of
care owed under the 1984 Act is modified by CRoW s13.
Where public access is created where it previously did not exist, the duty of care
owed by the occupier of that land may change, and the extent and direction of
change will depend on the access improvement option pursued. In the event of any
injury being suffered by someone using the access, the extent of the duty and how
fully it is met will be assessed in all the circumstances of the case.

4.3.7    Effects Under Different Options
A different assessment of costs is given for each of the four policy options, and these
are provided in each of the four relevant sections (see Sections 8.4.2, 9.4.2, 10.4.2
and 11.4.2).




                                   Asken Ltd
                                 Final Report - May 2007
                                           27


4.4      Costs of Access Infrastructure
In cases where access is created by imposition or by agreement, it is assumed that a
public sector body will either take on responsibility for, or pay for, the erection and
maintenance of access infrastructure (e.g. fences, gates, stiles, signs, waymarks),
maintenance of the surface (of PRoWs) and route promotion (where undertaken)
(see Section 7.2.3).


4.5      Conclusions
A number of different categories of land/property owners and managers will be
affected by improvements in access to the English coast. There are a number of
potential benefits for landowners although it may be that these are perceived by
many landowners to be outweighed by the costs. The extent of the costs will depend
on the type of property affected:
   -   costs on agricultural land may include lost production and increased
       management effort, although the effects on mature forestry will be small;
   -   a perceived need for owners of some properties to invest in improved security
       measures and/or modify their working practices to avoid unacceptable risks to
       public health and safety;
   -   a small number of businesses may find their competitive advantage
       diminished by a loss of their current right to deny public access;
   -   owners of some residential properties with exclusive access to beaches and
       coastal views may suffer a reduction in their amenity and this may be
       translated into a reduced capital value, although the value of this reduction is
       difficult to quantify.
The extent to which these effects are felt will vary with the different options.




                                    Asken Ltd
                               Final Report - May 2007
                                         28



5.      Effects on the Environment


5.1     Introduction
Much of the coast of England is widely considered to be of particularly high
environmental value. Coastal landscapes, especially those with near-natural and
dramatic scenery, such as sea cliffs and foreshores, are of immense aesthetic value.
The coastal zone is also rich in cultural, archaeological, geological and biological
interest. The coast is consequently highly cherished and much visited (see Section 3,
Appendix 2 and Appendix 10). But, this appreciation has resulted in significant
environmental impacts (e.g. from tourism related developments and associated
infrastructure, disturbance, erosion and pollution). These impacts could be
exacerbated by improved coastal access, especially to previously inaccessible or
little visited areas. Yet, at the same time, increased access may stimulate further
appreciation of the environment, which may in turn build support for and facilitate
more effective protection and management of the coastal environment.
This section of the report reviews the environmental importance of the coast,
identifies environmental components that may be affected by changes in access
provision, and attempts to assess the potential overall beneficial and detrimental
effects of increased access on landscapes, geology, biodiversity and
archaeological/cultural heritage. However, as the effects on the environment and
long-term impacts on populations of species of public access have been relatively
rarely quantified, our assessment of overall effects is mostly qualitative in nature.


5.2     Statutory Designations and Access

5.2.1   Types of Designations
An assessment of the potential effects of access provision needs to take into account
the variations in environmental values of the coast. Some areas have been
developed and include urban and industrial areas and tourist developments of low
environmental value. Increased access to such areas would be unlikely to lead to any
significant environmental effects. Many other coastal areas are of particularly high
value and have accordingly been given some degree of protection through statutory
designation. A description of the various statutory designations is given in Appendix
10. Access impacts could therefore be particularly significant at such sites.
Accordingly some designations include legal requirements or policies that aim to
avoid or manage access related effects. The most relevant statutory environmental
designations are therefore summarised below, and their implications with respect to
the provision of access are outlined. Table 5.1 provides an estimate of the extent of
the area of land within selected designations within the 200 m coastal access buffer
strip analysed in this report (see Section 2.2.24 above for derivation).




                                  Asken Ltd
                                      Final Report - May 2007
                                                29


Table 5.1:      Statutory designated areas in England and area that occurs within a 200 m coastal
                access strip

                               Total area in England    Area within coastal strip   Approximate length in
                                                 (ha)                       (ha)        coastal strip (km)

 Site of Special Scientific               1,077,000                      35,472                     1,774
 Interest (SSSI)

 Areas of Outstanding                     2,039,000                      33,828                     1,691
 Natural Beauty

 National Parks                           1,050,400                        4,108                      205

 Scheduled Monuments                         41,000                        1,057                       53
 (SMs)
N/A = Not applicable
Sources: Area of SSSIs in England taken from Natural England website
(www.naturalengland.org.uk). Area of AONBs and SMs in England taken from Defra
website 12. Areas and lengths within 200 m coastal strip derived from NE database (and
lengths need to be seen as estimates only).

An alternative measure, using a crude 2 km buffer based on the England boundary
(although the seaward boundary is not strictly based either on MHWM or MLWM and
often lies between the two) produced a list of 512 SSSIs lying between the foreshore
boundary and 2 km inland. The area of land designated within these 512 sites is
97,300 ha. It has not been established how much of this area already experiences
public access, whether de jure or de facto.
In addition to the area of land within SSSIs inland from the MHWM, NE estimates
that there are 193,700 ha of SSSI land on the foreshore (between MHWM and
MLWM) spread across 383 13 sites. This is a significant proportion (77%) of the area
of foreshore around the English coast. Public access is already expected to be
available over a high percentage of this land, albeit on a de facto basis.

5.2.2        Application of Environmental Legislation
Proposals for increasing public access, from strategic programmes to specific plans,
may require assessments of potential environmental impacts under EU and national
regulations.
To date the creation of PRoWs have not generally been subject to Environmental
Impact Assessments (EIAs) under UK legislation, which implements Council
Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended. This is despite the fact that they are considered
to be highways under English law. Footpaths are not listed in the Directive as either
“Schedule 1” projects (for which an EIA is required in every case) or “Schedule 2
projects”, for which an EIA is required only if the particular project in question is
judged likely to give rise to significant environmental effects.


12
     See: http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/docs/national/section5/environment.htm
13
  The SSSI dataset provided by NE indicates that there are 383 coastal SSSIs in England
(made up from 4844 units). Presumably many of these would already have PRoWs alongside,
which could be established with minimal effort.




                                           Asken Ltd
                                     Final Report - May 2007
                                               30


Strategic plans or programmes for increasing access may, however, require a
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in accordance with The Environmental
Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 (Statutory Instrument 2004
No.1633). This implements EU Directive 2001/42/EC “on the assessment of the
effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment” (known as the SEA
Directive). The SEA Directive aims to integrate environmental considerations into
strategic decision-making, and involves the prediction, evaluation and mitigation of
environmental impacts of proposed plans and programmes.
Under Article 2(a), the plans and programmes subject to the Directive are those
which are:
      •   subject to preparation and/or adoption by an authority at national, regional or
          local level or which are prepared by an authority for adoption, through a
          legislative procedure by Parliament or Government, and
      •   required by legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions.
Article 3(2) makes SEA mandatory for plans and programmes:
      •   which are prepared for agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy, industry,
          transport, waste management, water management, telecommunications,
          tourism, town and country planning or land use and which set the framework
          for future development consent for projects listed in Annexes I and II to the
          EIA Directive (85/337/EEC); or
      •   b) which, in view of the likely effect on sites, have been determined to require
          an assessment pursuant to Article 6 or 7 of the Habitats Directive
          (92/43/EEC).
Thus, although as noted above, PRoWs and similar access provisions are not
subject to EIA requirements, a strategic access plan or programme may require an
SEA if it is likely to require an Appropriate Assessment because of potential impacts
on SACs or SPAs. Guidance on SEA requirements has been produced by the ODPM
(South West Ecological Services et al, 2004) and CCW, English Nature, the
Environment Agency (EA) and RSPB 14.
Similarly, access plans and programmes may require a Sustainability Appraisal (SA)
as required by Section 39(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
These aim to ensure that the plan contributes to sustainable development by
integrating social, environmental and economic considerations into plan preparation
and incorporating the requirements of the SEA Directive. Further information on SA
requirements may be found at www.communities.gov.uk.
As noted in Appendix 10, specific projects that potentially impact on an SAC or SPA
will require an Appropriate Assessment in accordance with the EU Habitats Directive,
as implemented in the UK under the Habitats Regulations. However, it is also
possible that any proposed strategic plan or programme for access provision will
require a strategic Appropriate Assessment following the amendment of the UK’s
Habitat Regulations.


14
     Available from http://www.rspb.org.uk/policy/planningpolicy



                                        Asken Ltd
                                Final Report - May 2007
                                          31


In October 2005, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that the UK had failed to
correctly transpose the provisions of Articles 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive
into national law. Inter alia, the UK had failed to ensure that land use plans are
subject to Appropriate Assessment where they might have a significant effect on a
Natura 2000 site. The rationale for the ruling was that although projects within land
use plans and (e.g. Regional Spatial Strategies) require further authorisations (e.g.
specific planning permission) before implementation, such plans have a great deal of
influence on subsequent planning decisions etc..
As a result of this ruling Defra have inserted a new Part IVA into the Habitats
Regulations under Schedule 1 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c)
(Amendment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2006. This transposes into English
law the requirement to carry out an Appropriate Assessment for land use plans. The
Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has also produced (in
August 2006) draft guidance on carrying out Appropriate Assessments for Regional
Spatial Strategies and Local Development Documents.
Although directed at the impacts of spatial development plans, it is possible that the
ECJ ruling could be relevant to other strategic plans that have a strong influence on
subsequent projects that affect Natura 2000 sites. In fact it is understood that the EA
has agreed that Appropriate Assessments will be required for Shoreline Management
Plans and Catchment Flood Management Plans. It is therefore possible that any
PRoW programme or other strategic access plan that is developed may require a
strategic Appropriate Assessment to meet the requirements under the new Habitats
Regulations.
The exact scope and procedure for the preparation of such assessments is currently
being debated. However, some proposals have been developed by Scott Wilson et al
(2006). NE has also recently produced draft guidance on the assessment of Regional
Spatial Strategies under the provisions of the Habitats Regulations.     Whatever
contents and scope are agreed for such assessments, a key element will need to be
the consideration of cumulative impacts. These would be particularly relevant to
consideration of access impacts in coastal areas because many coastal sites are
subject to combined pressures from recreation, housing and tourism developments,
industrial uses and pollution, coastal erosion and changes in agricultural
management. The cumulative and potential synergistic impacts of increased access
may therefore be of particular significance.
It is understood that no authorities have undertaken a SEA of their Rights of Way
Improvement Plans (RoWIPs).

5.3     Environmental Components Potentially Affected
The appraisal of effects of access provision focuses on four main components of the
environment as described below.

5.3.1   Landscapes
Landscape receptors include a wide range of coastal landforms, which are highly
valued for their aesthetic qualities and related values (e.g. cultural links). Coastal
landscapes include many natural and near natural landforms, such as cliffs, beaches,




                                   Asken Ltd
                                Final Report - May 2007
                                          32


saltmarshes and sand dunes, and these are highly valued, especially where they are
visually dominant and in remote areas (i.e. ‘wild places’). However, there are also
close links between aspects of cultural heritage and landscape, and therefore less
natural coastal landforms incorporating ‘traditional’ small fishing villages and seaside
towns are also of importance.

5.3.2    Geology and geomorphology
England’s coastline is one of our most scientifically and educationally valuable
geological and geomorphological assets. Eroding cliff and foreshore provide
unparalleled exposure of England’s geological past from the rugged Devonian cliffs
of Cornwall to the soft Pleistocene clays of the East Anglian Coast. This geological
diversity, together with the geomorphological processes that have and continue to
form the coastline – leaving raised beaches, forming sea stacks and arches –
underpins the changing character and nature of the coastline.
Much of England’s coastal geology and geomorphology is notified as SSSI reflecting
its national importance while the coast’s global value has been recognised by the
UNESCO inscription of the Dorset and East Devon Coast (know as the ‘Jurassic
Coast’) as England’s only natural World Heritage Site on the basis of the contribution
this stretch of coastline has and continues to make to our understanding of Earth
history.
The accessibility of the coast, and the continual exposure of rocks, fossils and
minerals has resulted in the high level of scientific, educational and recreational value
and interest placed on our coastal geology and geomorphology. The Jurassic Coast
World Heritage Site provides a very immediate insight into our geological past with
abundant fossils such as ammonites, contrasting rocks such as clays, sandstones
and chalk from differing ancient environments and modern landforms such as
Lulworth Cove reflecting the process of coastal erosion going on around us today.
Similar opportunities are presented around the coast and improving the ability to
access this resource will provide opportunities to directly experience both past
environments and the dynamic nature of our modern environment.

5.3.3    Biodiversity
Although a large proportion of the coast of England is modified by human action (e.g.
embankments) or is entirely artificial, a substantial amount consists of natural or
semi-natural habitat. A substantial proportion of the coast is protected for its
biological (and geological) value. This confirms the biological importance of the
English coastline and clearly indicates that there is likely to be considerable overlap
between coastal access provisions and areas of high biodiversity value.
However, the additional impact of new access on biodiversity will partly depend on
the extent to which important areas for biodiversity, especially SSSIs and other
protected areas, are already affected by access. Analysis of access within the 200m
coastal access buffer strip revealed that two thirds of the SSSI land that is within the
200 m strip already has some form of legally-secure access, and only 28% (9,780
ha) has no public access of any type (see Section 2.2.4 for details of access
categories). Access is, however, likely to vary according to habitat type. Therefore
further analysis has been carried out of access provisions within the 200 m buffer



                                    Asken Ltd
                                   Final Report - May 2007
                                             33


strip for UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) Broad Habitat types that have been
mapped (Table 5.2).
Although there are known to be some overlaps between the mapped areas of Broad
Habitat types, this should not significantly affect the estimated available access within
each individual habitat type. The results indicate that access provision does vary
considerably according to habitat type. A particularly high proportion of cliff, coastal
floodplain and grazing marsh and lagoons already have access provision, both within
and outside SSSIs. In contrast, only 34% of mudflats within SSSIs have access.
However, this figure and especially that for mudflats outside SSSIs should be treated
with caution because the area of mudflat within SSSIs and elsewhere is almost
certainly underestimated. It may also misrepresent the area that could be impacted
by access, as at low tide mudflats extend over very large areas. On the other hand,
subjective inspection of the NE access maps (see Section 2.2.4) supports the
indication from Table 5.2 that large areas of mudflat are lacking some access. This
applies particularly to mudflats within large or complex estuarine creek systems.
Table 5.2 does not include data on saltmarshes, which according to Doody (2000)
comprise over 28,000 ha of coastal habitat within England. Such habitats are
commonly associated with estuaries and other sheltered coasts, often forming inter-
tidal zones between open mudflats and terrestrial habitats above the high-water
mark. It is therefore likely that current access provisions to them will be in similar
proportions to mudflats.
It has not been possible within this study to assess current access provisions within
SPAs and SACs, nor to quantify the areas of Broad Habitat type within them.
However, it is likely that SPAs will have higher proportions of estuarine, reedbed and
coastal floodplain and grazing marsh habitat than SSSIs overall, because these
habitats are of greatest importance to coastal bird populations. Indeed, Brown and
Grice (2005) note that 38 SPAs in England include estuarine or other inter-tidal
habitats. Access levels will therefore probably be relatively low alongside estuarine
SPAs.
SACs are more likely to have a higher proportion of high quality semi-natural habitats
of broad nature conservation value than SSSIs as a whole. They may therefore
include a high proportion of sand dunes, shingle, fens, cliffs and lagoons. Existing
access provisions may therefore be greater on SACs than SPAs.
Several coastal habitats are of particularly high nature conservation value, and have
accordingly been identified in the UKBAP as Priority Habitats. These include the
following habitats that are exclusively coastal in England and occur within the coastal
zone as defined in this study:
   -   Maritime cliff and slope;
   -   Coastal sand dunes;




                                     Asken Ltd
                                                                                             Final Report – May 2007
                                                                                                       34



Table 5.2:          SSSI, access provision and UKBAP broad habitat type areas (ha) within the 200 m coastal strip in England

  SSSI / Access Status                       Coastal                Coastal Sand              Coastal        Fens      Maritime Cliff   Mudflats   Reedbeds   Saline Lagoons
                                        Floodplain &                        Dune       Vegetation and                    and Slope
                                       Grazing Marsh                                          Shingle

  Within SSSIs

  Legal access                                      2,241                        881             383         1,020             7,646        242       4,522             184

  Other access                                        102                        412              31          280                423         11         410               9

  No access                                           883                        922             198          815              1,044        468       4,026              59

  Total in SSSI                                     3,226                      2,215             612         2,115             9,112        721       8,958             252

  % in SSSI                                          44%                        71%              79%          99%               68%         84%        99%              79%

  % with access in                                   73%                        58%              68%          61%               89%         35%        55%              77%
  SSSIs

  Outside SSSIs

  Legal access                                      2,394                        503             137           11              3,482         78          72              45

  Other access                                          88                       104              12            3                312          7           3               4

  No access                                         1,620                        281              13            5                406         49          55              17

  Total outside SSSI                                4,102                        888             161           20              4,200        134         131              66

  % outside SSSI                                     56%                        29%              21%           1%               32%         16%         1%              21%

  % with access outside                              61%                        68%              92%          73%               90%         64%        58%              74%
  SSSIs



Source: Natural England (see 2.2.3 for details of analysis and access types).




c:\documents and settings\a161828\desktop\final report kt 31-05-07 final final.doc


                                                                                             Asken Ltd
                                Final Report – May 2007
                                          35


   -    Coastal vegetated shingle;
   -    Saltmarsh;
   -    Mudflats;
   -    Saline lagoons.
Other priority habitats that also occur within the coastal zone, but which are more
often found inland include:
   -    Coastal and floodplain grazing marsh;
   -    Lowland calcareous grassland;
   -    Lowland heathland;
   -    Fens;
   -    Reedbeds;
   -    Mesotrophic lakes;
   -    Eutrophic standing water bodies.
A diverse range of species is associated with these Priority Habitats and other
coastal habitats. Those that are mainly coastal species and listed as UKBAP Priority
Species or specially protected under EU Directives (Birds Directive and Habitats
Directive) are considered to be of particular conservation concern and are listed in
Appendix 7. The assessment in this study of access effects therefore focuses on
these species. However, it is likely that impacts on these species provide good
indicators of impacts on other species in similar taxonomical groups.
The list of coastal species of conservation concern highlights the well-known
importance of coastal habitats, and particularly inter-tidal mudflats and estuaries for
birds (Brown & Grice 2005). Many of these species winter in the UK in internationally
important numbers, including at least 6% of the wildfowl wintering in northwest
Europe and 15% of the waders using their East Atlantic flyway (Davidson et al.
1991). The UK, therefore, has a special responsibility for the conservation.
Consequently, most estuaries are protected for such species as SPAs and Ramsar
sites (Stroud et al. 1990). Many of these estuaries occur in England and include
several of the most important sites for wintering wading birds in the UK, including
Morecambe Bay and the Wash.

5.3.4    Archaeology/Cultural Heritage
The English coast has a rich and longstanding heritage from prehistoric times.
Accordingly, the coastal zone holds a large number of features of historic interest,
such as ancient standing stones, numerous small coastal villages, castles, Martello
towers (from the Napoleonic Wars) and many more recent features of naval and
maritime interest.
All local authorities (at a county level, and in some cases unitaries and districts too)
hold Historic Environment Records (HERs) which have information on statutory and
non-statutory sites and monuments, primarily for planning purposes. English Heritage




                                     Asken Ltd
                               Final Report – May 2007
                                         36


(EH) recognises that in some cases these might not be as detailed as is desirable in
order to engage with initiatives such as Shoreline Management Plans, so it has
funded a series of Rapid Coastal Zone Assessments in order to enhance the HERs.
These have initially been targeted at the areas suffering the greatest levels of
erosion. In addition to the HER data EH's National Monuments Record also carries
information on non-statutory sites.
Analysis of the coastal buffer strip 200 m inland from mean high water mark shows
that it contains 1,057 ha of land designated as Scheduled Monuments (SMs).
Around 58% of this area is already accessible to the public.
Scheduling a site as a SM does not bring with it an automatic right of public access,
but it is one of EH’s statutory purposes to enhance public understanding and
enjoyment of the historic environment, so access is facilitated wherever possible.
However, there is also the risk of damage, typically through erosion. Vandalism is
also a risk but many artifacts lie underground and vandalism may be expected to
decline where public presence acts as a deterrent.
EH has started a process of assessing all SMs (note that SMs represent
approximately 4% of the total number of `known’ surviving archaeological sites).
Some initial results are:
   -   in the East Midlands region, damaging erosion by visitors is the principal
       cause for concern at 1.6% of SMs and a further 2.0% where it is a concern;
   -   in the Yorkshire and Humberside region, extensive visitor erosion is a
       principal threat at 1.5% of SMs which are at high risk, and a lesser threat at
       0.7% of SMs that are at high risk;
   -   in the West Midlands region, extensive visitor erosion is a threat at only 2
       sites, although less extensive visitor erosion is a threat at a further 20 sites.
It is not possible to deduce from this whether SMs located along the coast are more
vulnerable to visitor-induced erosion than inland sites. However, it seems likely that
a small percentage of SMs in areas not previously accessible to the public may be at
greater risk of damage as a result of introducing access. However, EH has powers
to limited public access where it believes this would pose an unacceptable threat to
preservation of the site (see Section 7.2.7). EH can only limit public access to SMs
where they fall into EH ownership or guardianship.


5.4     Types of Beneficial Effects
There are a number of potential beneficial effects of increasing access to coastal
areas. These are summarised below in Table 5.3 and discussed further in Sections
8 to 11, in relation to the appraisal of specific access options. The reported effects
are largely qualitative in nature and cannot be easily quantified.




                                   Asken Ltd
                                             Final Report – May 2007
                                                       37


Table 5.3:         Summary of potential beneficial effects on environment receptors in the coastal
                   zone


Receptor               Benefit                                                                         Ranking

 General                Increased access will enable an increase in awareness and appreciation          Low/Moderate
 benefits to all        of the value of coastal environments, which can build support for and
 receptors              facilitate coastal conservation and management measures. However,
                        access to the coast for educational visits is probably not seriously limited
                        and therefore additional benefits may be limited.

                        Previously inaccessible areas may benefit from the presence of people           Low/Moderate
                        who, or whose presence, may dissuade vandals, egg-thieves, etc. from
                        illegal activities. People may also report damage to fences or sites, etc.,
                        which may prevent further damage occurring.

                        Development of well designed access policies with mitigation measures           Dependent on
                        for detrimental impacts may reduce existing impacts in areas subject to         mechanism
                        significant unauthorised or unregulated access.

 Landscape              Restoration of some grassland to provide access under some options              Dependent on
                        (e.g. as part of an agri-environment package)                                   mechanism

 Geological             Managed access and raised awareness may help to prevent erosion of              Dependent on
 features               sensitive geological features, as well as damage/theft of sensitive fossil      mechanism
                        and mineral sites.

 Biodiversity           Maintenance of populations of some plant species that benefit from              Low
                        trampling (especially in absence of livestock)

                        Vegetation and soil disturbance and creation of bare ground may benefit         Low
                        some species, in particular invertebrates (e.g. some wasps and bees)
                        and reptiles.

                        Restoration of some grassland to provide access under some options              Low/Moderate
                        (e.g. as part of an agri-environment package). But the nature
                        conservation value of restored grassland is often limited by the long-term
                        impacts of fertilizer use.

                        Improved protection (e.g. from bird egg collectors or illegal persecution)      Low
                        through presence of people and increased access for monitoring of
                        habitats and species (e.g. British Trust for Ornithology’s Breeding Birds
                        Survey)

 Archaeology /          Identification of unknown archaeological remains / features.                    Low
 cultural features      Managed access may help to prevent erosion, damage or theft of cultural         Dependent on
                        features or artefacts.                                                          mechanism



5.5          Types of Adverse Effects
A number of detrimental impacts on components of the coastal environment have
been observed from past studies (e.g. Taylor et al. 2006; Taylor et al. 2005;
Woodfield & Langstone 2004). These include disturbance impacts on seals and
birds from the presence of people and accompanying dogs, trampling of vulnerable
species (plants, invertebrates and eggs/nests of ground-breeding birds), erosion of
delicate vegetation and geological features, contamination (e.g. from litter and illegal
dumping), increases in fires (from arson and accidents) and deliberate vandalism of,
for example, geological features, historical monuments and visitor facilities (Taylor et
al. 2006; Taylor et al. 2005; Woodfield & Langstone 2004).
The provision of access may also lead to detrimental changes in behaviour by
coastal land owners, such as the replacement of livestock grazed grasslands by




                                                  Asken Ltd
                                        Final Report – May 2007
                                                  38


cereal crops, to avoid potential livestock-people conflicts or with the prime purpose of
avoiding the classification of their land as Access Land. Similarly, it may dissuade
farmers from entering habitat restoration schemes due to requirements to allow open
access. Such management changes can have significant impacts on landscape and
ecological value.
Evidence of such past access-related effects has been used, together with a
comparison of current and potential access provision under the proposed options, to
predict the potential effects of increasing access. These predicted potential effects
are summarised in Table 5.4 for each main type of environmental receptor, and
described below with respect to each type of effect. Possible mitigation measures
(e.g. seasonal restrictions to sensitive sites) are then identified. The final ranking of
residual effects takes into account the potential for mitigation. Mitigation measures
are discussed further, in relation to the appraisal of specific improvement options.
Biodiversity impacts are considered to be potentially particularly significant,
especially with respect to breeding and wintering birds (from disturbance and
trampling). These impacts are therefore analysed in relation to each individual
coastal Priority Habitat and Priority Species of conservation concern in Appendix 8,
together with a summary of the evidence of impacts from access on flora and fauna.


Table 5.4:   Summary of potential impacts of adverse effects on environment receptors in the
             coastal zone


Receptor        Potential impacts                       Ranking     Potential mitigation          Ranking of
                                                        of                                        residual
                                                        potential                                 impacts
                                                        impacts

 Landscape       Increase numbers of people in           Low         Screening of paths and        Low
                 the landscape, and cars in car                      car parks
                 parks, etc. leading to loss of ‘wild
                 country’ values.

                 Intrusion of visitor facilities in      Moderate    Appropriate location and      Low
                 landscape (e.g. car parks, toilets,                 design. Avoidance in
                 caravan sites, visitor centres)                     areas of exceptional
                                                                     scenic value

                 Erosion scars (e.g. on chalk            Moderate    Reseeding & drainage          Moderate
                 downland), but access already                       etc, but ineffective if
                 available to many sensitive sites.                  visitor numbers are high

                 Construction of gravel / rock           Moderate    Use of appropriate            Moderate
                 paths on popular sites, reducing                    materials
                 natural qualities of landscape

                 Increased litter (and deliberate        Moderate    Provision of adequate         Low
                 illegal dumping), with resultant                    disposal facilities for
                 reductions in landscape quality                     litter. Notices, fines and
                                                                     wardens. Rapid
                                                                     removal of tipped waste.

                 Use of fencing to delimit paths,        Moderate    Careful placement and         Low
                 with resultant introduction of                      incorporation with stone
                 man-made feature into natural                       walls or hedges where
                 landscape                                           appropriate




                                             Asken Ltd
                                        Final Report – May 2007
                                                  39


Receptor        Potential impacts                       Ranking     Potential mitigation           Ranking of
                                                        of                                         residual
                                                        potential                                  impacts
                                                        impacts

                 Replacement of permanent                Moderate    Design of access               Low
                 grassland and associated                            options to avoid
                 livestock by cultivated crops to                    perverse effects. Access
                 avoid need to provide access,                       management
                 resulting in change in landscape                    awareness. Provision of
                 character                                           adequate
                                                                     accommodation works.

 Geological      Erosion / damage of sensitive           Low         Path placement,                Low
 features        features                                            fencing, and information
                                                                     and interpretation of
                                                                     values

                 Access infrastructure directly on       Low-        Design of access               Low
                 sensitive features or reducing          moderate    options to avoid direct
                 natural erosion                                     impact and long term
                                                                     adverse affects

                 Collection of fossils and minerals      Low         Fencing, information           Low
                 – but access available to most                      and interpretation of
                 well known sites                                    values, collecting codes
                                                                     wardens.

                 Deliberate vandalism of sensitive       Low         Fencing. Presence of           Low
                 features                                            people and wardens.

 Biodiversity    Disturbance of breeding, passage        High        Fencing and screening,         Birds -
                 and wintering birds, and breeding                   path placement, notices,       moderate
                 and resting seals. Some key sites                   wardens and seasonal           (but
                 are already subject to potentially                  restrictions.                  adequate
                 high levels of disturbance and are                                                 mitigation
                 wardened accordingly, however,                                                     could
                 additional access could                                                            require
                 significantly increase disturbance                                                 substantiall
                 at other sites, especially within                                                  y more
                 estuaries.                                                                         funding),
                                                                                                    Seals –
                                                                                                    low.

                 Increases in predator numbers           Moderate    Frequent litter collection,    Low
                 due to discarded food and                           scavenger-proof litter
                 increased vulnerability of eggs                     bins, notices and
                 and young to predators as a                         predator control. Visitor
                 result of disturbance                               management and
                                                                     control measures.

                 Trampling of eggs of ground             Moderate    Information and                Low
                 nesting birds                                       interpretation, wardens.

                 Trampling and erosion of                Low         Fencing, path                  Low
                 sensitive vegetation. It is unlikely                placement, notices, and
                 that increased access will                          seasonal restrictions
                 significantly increase the number
                 of sites with high visitor numbers

                 Eutrophication of sensitive             Low         Notices, fines, provision      Low
                 vegetation from dog faeces and                      of facilities for disposal
                 urine                                               of faeces. Path location
                                                                     alongside sacrificial
                                                                     areas.

                 Wild fires (increasing frequency)       Low         Fire breaks in high risk       Low
                 in high risk habitats (e.g. coastal                 areas and sensitive
                 heaths and pine forests)                            habitats. Notices and
                                                                     temporary closures
                                                                     during high risk periods.




                                             Asken Ltd
                                        Final Report – May 2007
                                                  40


Receptor         Potential impacts                     Ranking      Potential mitigation          Ranking of
                                                       of                                         residual
                                                       potential                                  impacts
                                                       impacts

                  Habitat fragmentation through         Low          Appropriate path design       Low
                  creation of new paths – mainly                     (e.g. vegetated) where
                  impacting invertebrates                            necessary

                  Replacement of permanent              Uncertain    Design of access options      Low
                  grassland and associated                           to avoid perverse effects.
                  livestock by cultivated crops to                   Access management
                  avoid need to provide access                       awareness. Provision of
                                                                     adequate
                                                                     accommodation works.

                  Natural succession to semi-           Moderate     Fencing, path placement,      Low-
                  natural habitats due to removal of                 notices. Access               Moderate
                  livestock by farmers/                              management. Adequate
                  conservationists (to avoid                         incentives for grazing.
                  livestock-visitor conflicts) or
                  displacement of livestock

                  Collection of birds’ eggs and         Low          Presence of people and        Low
                  young, and plants – but access                     wardens.
                  already available to much of
                  coast

 Archaeology /    Erosion / damage of sensitive         Low          Path placement,               Low
 cultural         features. Many features already                    fencing, information and
 features         have access.                                       interpretation of special
                                                                     values

                  Deliberate vandalism of sensitive     Low          Fencing, wardens.             Low
                  features

 Environmental    Increased CO2 and nitrogen            Low          Provision/promotion of        Low
 receptors        emissions from cars, etc.                          adequate public
 outside the      travelling to coastal areas                        transport, walking and
 coastal zone                                                        cycling routes. Car park
                                                                     pricing to dissuade car
                                                                     use.

                  Increases in visitor related          Low          Provision/promotion of        Low
                  infrastructures (e.g. roads)                       adequate public
                                                                     transport, walking and
                                                                     cycling routes. Car park
                                                                     pricing to dissuade car
                                                                     use.


As indicated in Table 5.2, many of the potentially detrimental effects of access
provision can be mitigated without the need for access closures (such as provided for
under CROW Part 1), through careful alignment of footpaths, notices and other
awareness raising initiatives. This is supported by appraisals of open access on
1,100 SSSIs in England (NE, pers comm. 2006). This found that for the majority of
sites, access could be effectively managed by the positioning of entry points, routing
of paths and providing information to steer people away from sensitive features. As a
result, 98% of the area of SSSIs qualifying for access is open without the need for
exclusions (although only 75% is open to people with dogs). However, it should be
borne in mind that such mitigation measures might be less effective on the coast as,
due to the more confined, linear nature of coastal habitats, it will be less easy to
guide people away from sensitive species.




                                             Asken Ltd
                                  Final Report – May 2007
                                            41


Recent ENSIS 15 data on coastal SSSI condition also suggest that significant impacts
from current access levels may be relatively infrequent. As of the 31st March 2006
only 0.77% of unit area (in 21 SSSIs) that occur in SSSIs with some foreshore (i.e.
land between MHWM and MLWM) were considered to be in Unfavourable
Conservation Status as a result of “Public access / disturbance”. However, this may
underestimate biodiversity impacts because SSSI condition assessments tend to
focus on habitat quality criteria, and bird populations are not assessed. Disturbance
impacts on bird populations may therefore be overlooked. In fact, data from the
British Trust for Ornithology monitoring indicate that significant declines in bird
numbers have occurred on many coastal sites (Maclean and Austin 2006). Although
the causes for these declines are not currently known, it is likely that recreational
disturbance is a contributing factor in some cases.
There is also good evidence (as reviewed in Appendix 8) that many coastal areas
are already subject to high levels of disturbance which has resulted in these areas
becoming unsuitable for ground nesting birds. Thus some remaining areas without
access are now providing important refuges for such species. Potential impacts on
these areas from new access arrangements could be mitigated to some extent but it
is unclear how effective such measures would be.
As noted above, it also appears that a large proportion of the areas that could gain
new access are likely to occur alongside estuaries. As described above many
estuaries are of particular ecological importance and there could therefore be
significant conflicts between conservation needs and access provision in such areas.
Such potential conflicts may, however, be reduced by two factors. Firstly, the use of
new access opportunities alongside estuaries may be relatively low, compared to
new access alongside open coasts, simply because such areas may be less popular.
Secondly, estuarine sites are normally of greatest conservation importance in the
winter (though to some extent also during spring and autumn migration periods), and
recreational use of footpaths and foreshore is lowest during this period.
Nevertheless, even low numbers of people could have potentially significant impacts
on wintering birds, especially during prolonged cold weather when birds need to
maximise their feeding time and minimise unnecessary activities to save energy
(Davidson & Rothwell 1993). Careful consideration of mitigation measures may
therefore be necessary. For example, paths may need to be kept away from
particularly sensitive areas (e.g. roost sites or favoured feeding areas), screened or
closed during particularly sensitive periods.




15
     ENSIS is NE's database on SSSIs




                                       Asken Ltd
                               Final Report – May 2007
                                         42




5.6     Conclusions
This review of potential impacts of new access on the environment indicates that:
   -   the coastal zone is of particularly high environmental importance, especially
       with respect to landscape, biodiversity, geology, geomorphology and cultural
       values;
   -   as a result of its high environmental values, a large proportion of the coast of
       England is protected through local, regional, national and international
       designations;
   -   the provision of access is compatible with environmental protection
       designations and is often encouraged and supported. However, some access
       programmes and plans will require detailed consideration where they may
       lead to significant impacts on Natura 2000 sites protected under EU
       environmental legislation;
   -   potential environmental benefits from increasing access to the coast, are
       difficult to predict and quantify, but they may include improved access
       management (under some options) and reductions in vandalism and other
       illegal activities. There may also be some indirect benefits resulting from a
       greater appreciation and support for coastal conservation;
   -   there are likely to be a variety of potentially significant detrimental impacts,
       including trampling and erosion of vegetation at some sensitive sites,
       increased fire risks, increased litter and, of particular importance, disturbance
       of nesting, feeding and roosting birds.
Most of the potentially significant detrimental impacts can be mitigated, at least to
some extent, e.g. by wardening, signage, fencing, sensitive path construction and
routeing and seasonal restrictions on use etc. However, the potential for mitigation
measures will vary according to access options (and these are further discussed
below in Sections 8 to 11). Mitigation measures will need to be implemented
comprehensively and effectively to avoid significant biodiversity impacts, and this is
likely to require a significant increase in resources.




                                   Asken Ltd
                                  Final Report – May 2007
                                            43



6.        Effects on the Local Economy and
          Society


6.1       Introduction and Definitions
This section considers the wider effects of improving public access to the English
coast, beyond those enjoyed by the individual. Effects are likely to be felt in two
areas:
     -   impacts on the coastal economy - by which we mean impacts on businesses
         located within five miles of the coast;
     -   effects on society - which cover the implications for local residents in coastal
         communities, where these are not represented by effects on users and local
         economies.


6.2       Benefits to the Coastal Economy

6.2.1     Local economies
Experience in coastal areas that already have extensive public access to the coast
(e.g. the South West, with its South West Coast Path) is that substantial economic
benefits can accrue through spending by visitors. This, in turn, creates employment
opportunities. The effects of improved access to the coast are discussed in more
detail in Appendix 3 and summarised here. The study has not considered any
effects of extending the tourist season as it is concerned solely with the additional
benefits from additional access. It is not necessarily the case that improved access
provision will extend the tourist season.

6.2.2     Estimation of benefits from visitor spending
Impacts on the coastal economy were estimated by first deriving the mean
expenditures of day and overnight visitors, and then converting these into impacts on
local employment and income.
Expenditure estimates were made from national day visit and tourism data (ELVS
2006; VisitBritain 2006 respectively) and other data from surveys of long distance
path users. The mean daily expenditures of visitors were estimated to fall within the
following ranges:
     -   Non-resident day visitors: £6 - 9 per person per day;
     -   Tourists (overnight visitors): £35 - 45 per person per night/day.
The expenditures were converted into impacts on local employment and business
incomes using coefficients based on a review of other studies on long distance paths
and a Defra sponsored study of impacts of sea anglers on the coastal economy




                                     Asken Ltd
                                   Final Report – May 2007
                                             44


(Drew Associates 2004). The estimates take into account the first round impacts of
spending on local businesses but not the knock-on multiplier effects. These are
expected to be quite small given the open nature of the local economy on the coast.
Finally, the impacts were aggregated by multiplying by the number of additional
person days/nights generated by new access. The expenditures of residents were
excluded on the basis that their spending would have taken place locally anyway (or
be spent in one area rather than another). Expenditure associated with displaced
visits was also excluded because that merely displaces spending from one part of the
economy to another. Therefore, there is no assumed net impact of displaced visits
on the coastal economy.

6.2.3    Effect of additional spending on access infrastructure and services
Improvements to public access to the coast will involve substantial investment in
infrastructure, with concomitant spending on planning, legal services, and so on.
However, it is not possible to allocate this spending between coastal economies and
elsewhere. Further, there is an element of displacement – if a government agency
finances the cost of improving access, the money is not available for spending on
other public services and so there will be an opportunity cost elsewhere.
Consequently, this is noted as a volume of spend rather than an impact on job
opportunities.

6.2.4    Deprivation
Increasing business incomes and employment is most valuable in economically
disadvantaged areas. If the coast were characterised as deprived, there would be
additional spin-off benefits from access provision because of the beneficial impact of
visitor and infrastructural spending associated with the new access.
In order to assess the deprivation characteristics of coastal communities we analysed
their deprivation status using the Government’s 2004 Index of Deprivation (ODPM,
2004). The new Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004 (IMD 2004) is a Super Output
Area (SOA) level measure of multiple deprivation and is made up of seven SOA level
Domain Indices 16. Income and employment have the highest weights in the seven
domains that comprise deprivation. Each of the 32,482 SOAs in England has been
assigned a score and rank for the IMD. The IMD rank was derived for all lower SOAs
that intersected with each 200 m coastal buffer parcel of land. Mean indices were
derived for each parcel.
IMD ranks for deprivation for different access categories are given in Table 6.1. All
SOAs are ranked between 1 (most deprived) to 32,482 (least deprived). The SOA
ranked 17th most deprived in Table 6.1 is a section of the coastline in the North East,
whereas the 32,385th is in the South East.
The mean IMD rank for each access category and the range in IMD rank show that
both existing and new access areas are virtually identical as regards deprivation
characteristics. The data show that, taken over all coastal areas, the level of

16
   The domains are: Income deprivation, Employment deprivation, Health deprivation and
disability, Education, Skills and training deprivation, Barriers to housing and services, Living
environment deprivation and Crime.




                                      Asken Ltd
                                     Final Report – May 2007
                                               45


deprivation is broadly the same on the coast as it is in England as a whole, but there
is a wide range across coastal communities. With 32,482 SOAs the coastal
communities span almost the entire range from most deprived to least deprived
communities. Extremely deprived coastal communities were those typically located
in the North East and North West (e.g. Middlesborough, Liverpool, Sunderland)
whereas the least deprived were in the South East and South West (e.g. Hamble,
Stubbington and Worthing). Any additional spending in areas with above average
deprivation will be particularly beneficial in a distributional sense.
Table 6.1:     Deprivation index ranking for different access categories

Access category          Deprivation index rank (mean)      Deprivation index rank (range)

Access - Secure          15609                              55-32385

Access - Not Secure      14824                              17-32385

No Access                15407                              17-31555


A report by the Parliamentary Communities and Local Government Committee
(2007) looked at the challenges faced by coastal towns and stated in its executive
summary that “The Government needs to adopt a national approach to promote and
support seaside tourism. The economies of coastal towns cannot, however, rely on
tourism alone to be economically successful; and there is a role for economic
diversification strategies to provide opportunities for local people to work in a range of
industries”.
We conclude that the coast is not different in its deprivation/affluence characteristics
from the rest of England. There is no particular economic benefit from injections of
spending associated with new access provision, as seen from a national perspective,
because the coast is not, in total, any more deprived than England as a whole.

6.2.5        Social Health and Well-being
A number of wider social benefits are claimed for improved access (though not
necessarily applied specifically to the coast). Box 6.1 shows the benefits claimed for
PRoWs on the IPROW Good Practice Website 17.
Many of the above benefits will be realised irrespective of the option used to provide
the improved access. Local involvement in access creation may produce a greater
sense of ownership of the resource, meaning it receives greater use than if simply
created by a central act (e.g. statutory provision of right of access).
Similarly, the Paths for All Partnership attribute the development of wider local path
networks with a number of wider social benefits, as summarised in Box 6.2.




17
     See: www.prowgpg.org.uk




                                         Asken Ltd
                                              Final Report – May 2007
                                                        46


6.3          Adverse Effects
For the benefits identified in relation to each option to be realised, there will have to
be a greater number of coastal visits. The majority of visits to the countryside and
coast are made by private transport (GBLDVS, 2004). This may give rise to
concerns about the impacts on local communities of additional traffic, and the effects
on the character of their local areas. These fears were apparent in a survey of
villagers in Somerset, where the feasibility of creating public access along a section
of currently inaccessible coast is being assessed – see Box 6.3.

Box 6.1:          Benefits of PRoW

Quality of life

     -     personal development and challenge - often satisfied by outdoor recreation;

     -     cultural - the natural environment as a source of inspiration for artistic and cultural creativity;

     -     social cohesion - outdoor recreation as a social activity with friends and family;

     -     fun and adventure - the outdoors provides a place to play (for both young and old) -a major factor in quality
           of life and maintaining good health;

Better citizenship

     -     opportunities to support and contribute to nature conservation activities;

     -     education - understanding the environment around us as part of formal and informal education leading to
           better citizenship and respect for the natural environment;

     -     developing life skills.

Leisure spend

     -     support for rural services through visitor spend;

     -     the leisure industry, from hoteliers to the manufacturers of outdoor leisure gear are dependent on outdoor
           recreation.
Source:
http://www.iprow.co.uk/index.cfm?do=gpg&itemID=6&CFID=2174271&CFTOKEN=88361205.



Box 6.2:          Benefits of Public Access

Benefits of Local Path Networks:

    Recreation: fun for all ages and abilities

    Tourism: by providing more places to explore and more reasons to stay

    Environment: a ‘green’ way to link town and country

    Land Management: a focus for partnership working and responsible use

    Community: paths are local and building paths builds local communities

    Economy: path users are more productive workers

    Transport: utilitarian value of paths and sustainable form of travel

    Health: exercise promotes physical and mental health and well-being
Source: http://www.pathsforall.org.uk/downloads/1-
1_The_Benefits_of_Local_Path_Networks.pdf




                                                   Asken Ltd
                                                Final Report – May 2007
                                                          47




Box 6.3:         Villagers’ Concerns about Creating New Public Access

Case Study – Kingston Seymour, Somerset

North Somerset Council has aspirations to create a PRoW along a section of coast that currently has no legal right of
public access. A survey was done amongst local residents in 2004 to find out their views. Twice as many people
were in favour of new access as were against it (46% versus 22%, with 30% having no strong opinion, 2% ‘don’t
know’), but more disadvantages were identified than advantages. The disadvantages identified by respondents
were:

     -     Increase in traffic (39 responses)

     -     Damage to crops/livestock (18)

     -     Loss of tranquillity (12)

     -     Problems arising from lack of suitable parking (10)


There may be a loss of income from businesses adversely affected by public access,
but this has been discussed above (see Section 4) and below (see Section 13).


6.4          Conclusions
There are positive benefits to businesses from additional visitor spending that will
develop once new coastal access is provided. The increases in employment and
business income will not be large in the context of the total size of the coastal
economy but will make a contribution. Impacts will be most beneficial in areas that
are relatively deprived and where access encourages additional visits. The coast
simply reflects the diversity of deprivation and affluence in the whole country.




                                                   Asken Ltd
                                 Final Report – May 2007
                                           48



7.        Effects on Public Sector Bodies


7.1       Introduction
Improving public access to the English coast will have repercussions for a number of
public sector bodies, both those charged with tasks locally (such as local authorities)
and national bodies (e.g. government departments and agencies). This section
considers the effects on these public sector bodies.
It should be noted that RIAs do not include the costs of making legislation, but do
cover the costs of implementing new legislation (e.g. making a path creation order).
So, this study considers the latter but not the former.


7.2       Nature of the Effects
The effects on public sector bodies will vary with the particular option favoured. The
discussion below looks at the nature of the effects that might arise, and the effects
are quantified in the sections that deal with each specific option.
The scale of costs has been investigated in depth by RPA Ltd (2006) and most of the
costs to public sector bodies used in this study have been drawn from its work.
However, RPA Ltd have not included costs for all public sector bodies (e.g. no costs
have been included to cover the extra effort needed to introduce public access where
MOD sites or flood defences are involved) and there are some differences in
application (e.g. RPA Ltd’s costs for Options 1 and 3 were for the four case study
areas only, and so the estimates needed to be aggregated to the national level for
this study).

7.2.1     Defra
Defra is likely to incur relevant costs in different ways:
     -   payments made to landowners, farmers and foresters, via agri-environment,
         woodland and other grant schemes, and costs of processing/administering
         such schemes;
     -   payments made to local authorities and NPAs to help them to exercise their
         duties and their powers to create, manage and promote PRoWs or fund
         access land management schemes.

7.2.2     Ministry of Defence
The Ministry of Defence (MOD) is responsible for 250,000 ha of land in the UK, of
which 180,000 ha is rural land used primarily for military training. The predominant
military use of sites along the coast is as live firing ranges, because this enables the
danger area template to extend over sea rather than land. However, the firing takes
place from land to sea, across the interface between the two. Consequently, there



                                     Asken Ltd
                                Final Report – May 2007
                                          49


will need to be careful consideration locally over any proposals to introduce public
access to such ranges.
MOD has some 140 sites on the UK coast (Defence Estates pers. comm.).
Examination of 1:50,000 scale OS maps show 30 sites marked as ‘Danger Areas’
which cross the land-sea interface along the English coast; these areas are covered
by military byelaws that allow the MOD to control public access, amongst other
things. However, MOD report that there are around 100 MOD sites that are wholly or
in part within a 1 mile buffer from the coast. Analysis by the NE of the 200 m access
buffer strip overlaid by MOD data on the extent of their estate shows that around 128
km of the coastal strip is MOD land. However, 48% of this already has legally-secure
access and a further 7% has non-secure access, leaving 45% with no apparent
access. It seems from this that there are likely to be a maximum of 30 sites that
could be affected, and a minimum of 14 (i.e. 45% of 30).
Public access and military use are not necessarily mutually exclusive. As elsewhere
on the MOD estate, there may be scope to allow access at times when military
training is not taking place and/or to restrict access to safe, linear routes and areas.
MOD experience over recent years (both with CRoW and other access
developments) suggests that coastal access provision will result in MOD officers’
time and resources being used on:
    - formulation or revision of policy and guidance;
    - drawing up of any agreements;
    - audit of sites in relation to any new legislation;
    - legal advice on implications;
    - review and sometimes revision of Standing Orders, Military Byelaws, Risk
      Assessments, etc.;
    - overseeing/advice on implementation;
    - revising signs and providing additional information for visitors.
Formulating a route either on MOD land or neighbouring land to facilitate an onward
journey around a secure site will incur additional costs. Experience on the overall
MOD estate suggests implementation costs of £3,000 to £5,000 for each route –
although this figure will vary with geography, topography, surfacing, etc. In practice,
the costs to MOD are likely to be similar whether linear or area-wide access is
provided. Defence Estates (Defence Estates, pers comm.) has estimated the one-off
costs per site as being incurred on:
   -   22 (range 14 to 30) sites to be appraised costing £3,000 to £5,000 per site;
   -   5 to 10 sites with major opportunities for developing public access (at a cost
       of £15,000 - £20,000 per site).
Military personnel and equipment are often used to rescue people from mountains
and the sea. However, the MOD regard such rescues as training for their primary
purpose – that of rescuing military personnel. Consequently, it is assumed that any




                                    Asken Ltd
                                 Final Report – May 2007
                                           50


increase in this form of training activity would be beneficial, and would be matched by
a reduction in non-emergency training.

7.2.3      Local Authorities

7.2.3.1 Nature of Duties and Powers
The term ‘local authority’ is something of an umbrella term, as (according to the Local
Government Association website 18) it covers county, metropolitan, unitary and district
councils. It also includes national park authorities; they are discussed separately in
Section 7.2.4.
From the perspective of public access, it is the higher (county) and single tier (unitary
and metropolitan) authorities that are of most relevance, although it is recognised
that district and parish councils also have powers they can exercise with respect to
PRoWs and CRoW Access Land (very limited in the case of the latter – i.e. a power
to appoint wardens, a power is thought not to have been exercised to date). They
are also seen to have a potentially important role in developing the coastal access
corridor (Option 4).
In their geographical areas of jurisdiction, these higher and single tier authorities are
usually designated with a number of duties and powers under different capacities.
The key ones are summarised in Table 7.1. For simplicity, it is assumed that the
term ‘local authority’, as used in this study, covers all the different capacities under
which the authorities exercise their duties and powers.
Many local authorities own land along the coast for a wide range of different reasons
including public access, coastal defence, nature conservation and restoration of
habitat and development ambition and, as landowners, are able to allow, expressly
permit or dedicate land for public access. NE attempted to survey what proportion of
the coast is owned by local authorities but responses were insufficient to provide a
meaningful estimate. Local authority ownership is often not translated into long-term
security for public access or access at all. The Local Government Association has
stressed the point that local authority ownership can be short term with a view to
selling for development. Consequently, comments are made where it is anticipated
that local authority ownership may have an influence, but no specific provision has
been made in the analysis.
Importantly, also, many authorities provide and manage coastal access opportunities,
such as country parks, National Trails, other promoted paths and cycleways and
esplanades.




18
     See: http://www.lga.gov.uk/content.asp?lsection=0&id=SXC17D-A77FEDA7




                                    Asken Ltd
                                        Final Report – May 2007
                                                  51




Table 7.1:        Summary of Relevant Duties and Powers of Local Authorities


Capacity                              Relevant Duties                          Relevant Powers

Local Highway Authority (LHA)         Secure PRoWs for public access (a        Promote PRoWs
                                      range of duties)
                                                                               Enter into agreements with land-
                                      Prepare a Rights of Way                  owners to create PRoWs
                                      Improvement Plan
                                                                               Make orders to create (by
                                      Undertake Appropriate Assessments        agreement or enforcement) PRoWs
                                      where its plans affect SACs/SPAs
                                                                               Implement the PRoWs improvement
                                                                               plan

Surveying Authority                   Maintain and keep under review the
                                      definitive map and statement of
                                      PRoWs

Access Authority (AA)/Appointing      Set-up and administer a Local            Assist in managing CROW Access
Authority (which are the National     Access Forum for its area and have       Land (e.g. s35 agreements, erect
Park Authorities in National Parks    regard to its advice (Appointing         signs, appoint wardens, make
and Local Highway Authorities         Authority)                               byelaws) (Access Authority)
elsewhere)

Traffic Authority/National Park                                                Make Traffic Regulation Orders
Authority                                                                      (TROs)

‘28G authority’ (refers to Section    Ensure that its exercises its function
28G of the Wildlife and Countryside   so as not to damage features for
Act 1981, as amended) and NERC        which an SSSI has been notified and
Act 2006 s40                          “must, in exercising its functions,
                                      have regard, so far as is consistent
                                      with the proper exercise of those
                                      functions, to the purpose of
                                      conserving biodiversity.”

Public sector body                    Ensure that its services and
                                      functions comply with the
                                      requirements of the Disability
                                      Discrimination Acts 1995 and 2005

Local authority                       Improve the economy, efficiency and
                                      effectiveness of its activities


In England, there are 43 local authorities (excluding National Park Authorities) with a
coastline or estuary downstream of the lowest road crossing, and these split into:
     -    17 county;
     -    23 unitary;
     -    3 metropolitan.

7.2.3.2 Survey of Local Highway Authorities
As part of the research for this study, a survey was carried out amongst the 17
county coastal authorities in England with a substantial length of coastline. The
survey was designed to obtain information about:
     -    the current level of coastal access;
     -    the likely change expected over the next 10 years with current policies;




                                             Asken Ltd
                                            Final Report – May 2007
                                                      52


     -    costs and benefits associated with improved coastal access.
Responses were received from 10 of the 17 authorities contacted, although few
respondents were able to answer all the questions posed. Nevertheless, this has
provided some basis to the assumptions made regarding the ‘Do nothing’ baseline
and added to the sources from which cost estimates for access creation have been
compiled (see below).
Of particular significance are the data relating to previous access creation and future
proposals. The analysis of responses is given in Table 7.2 below; however, it should
be noted that these results are from very few authorities and so must be used with
caution.

Table 7.2:      Past and Proposed Creations of Public Access Along the Coast


Length of access created in last 10 years

Type of route                    Footpath              Access for All     Bridleway

Length (km)                      33.2                  3                  24

Average per authority (km)       5.5                   0.5                4

Overall average per authority per year (km) (n=6)                         1/year


Future intentions under ‘do nothing’ over next 10 years

New PRoWs to be created (km)                                              28.5

Average per authority (n=6) (km)                                          4.75 (<0.5/year)


Future intentions if additional funding was made available

Proportion of external funding                         50%                75%

Total additional length (km)                           33                 50

Average per authority (n=6) (km)                       5.5 (0.9/year)     10     (1.7/year)
Source: Survey of LHAs, 2006

Four respondents said that new coastal access will feature in their authority’s RoWIP;
one said it would not feature and three said it was too early to say.
It is also of interest to see the mechanisms used to create new access opportunities
over the last 10 years. This is shown in Table 7.3. Relying on the landowner to
provide public access rights (whether linear or area-wide) by express dedication is
not currently used as a mechanism. Some form of agreement (either to create rights,
or to acquire permission) is the most commonly used method. Creation by s26 order
is sometimes used (the responses above represent 2 cases). One respondent, who
had experience of HA1980 s26 orders noted that his authority has paid £120,000 in
compensation so far, and this may be seen as a deterrent to further creations using
orders.




                                               Asken Ltd
                                        Final Report – May 2007
                                                  53




Table 7.3:     Methods Used by LHAs to Create New Coastal Access (n=6)


Method                                Access along the coast (km)   Access to the coast (km)

Express dedication by the landowner                 0                             0

Highways Act 1980 s25                             15.5                           2+

Highways Act 1980 s26                              8.4                            0

Permissive Linear access                          26.6                            0

Permissive Area-wide                                1                             0

CRoW s16 dedications                                0                             0

Other                                              0.3                            0
Source: Survey of LHAs, 2006
Note: CRoW s16 dedication is a relatively new instrument and so not yet widely used

7.2.3.3 Potential benefits
Benefits of the options to local authorities are typically in the form of avoidance of
costs. For example, and depending on the option pursued, these might be:
    -    termination of access agreements with landowners (e.g. where access to the
         land covered by the agreement comes under a general right of access
         created through legislation);
    -    reduction in the costs of creating PRoWs (over land which becomes
         accessible under a general right of access created through legislation).
Local authorities may also receive income directly from central government to defray
costs. For example, the Access Management Grant Scheme (AMGS) provides funds
to AAs to assist with the management of CRoW Access Land; similarly, LHAs may
seek support from central government (perhaps via a government agency) for
financial help in creating a PRoW. However, each of these cases represents a
transfer of public funds from central government to local government (while
representing new expenditures by central government, as mentioned above).

7.2.3.4 Potential costs
There are costs that a local authority will incur in meeting its duties and exercising its
powers, depending on the option followed. These vary significantly between options
and so are explained in more detail in Section 8 to 11.

7.2.4        National Park Authorities
National park authorities (NPAs), and the Broads Authority, have many
responsibilities similar to local authorities, in that the latter may delegate
responsibility for PRoWs over that section of the land within their area to the NPA.
They are also AAs for CRoW Access Land. Most costs to NPAs are included in the
local authority costs.




                                           Asken Ltd
                                Final Report – May 2007
                                          54


In addition, NPAs are ‘relevant authorities’ for the purposes of CRoW Part I, and so
administer the exclusions and restrictions regime over Access Land in their areas. In
England, the regime is administered via the Open Access Contact Centre (OACC),
and this system is used by NPAs (along with the Forestry Commission and NE).
Hence, the NPA costs incurred as a relevant authority (RA) are largely covered by
the estimates given below for NE.

7.2.5    Forestry Commission and Forest Enterprise
The Forestry Commission (FC) could be affected by improved access to the coast in
two ways:
   -    under CRoW, the FC is the RA for dedicated woodland that lies outside
        national parks. It will, therefore, have responsibilities over additional land
        under some options;
   -    through Forestry Enterprise England, it is responsible for managing 257,400
        ha in England (FC, 2005), although relatively little of this abuts the coast.
As a general policy, FC encourages and promotes public access to as much of its
land as possible. For example, it has dedicated (or is dedicating) nearly all its
freehold land for public access under s16 of CRoW (approximately 140,000 ha). It
has also developed trails and linear access through its forests where feasible.
The amount of woodland along the coast, as identified in the NE dataset, is small.
Only 1,500 ha of land within the coastal buffer strip was recorded as woodland
without any form of public access.
The marginal cost of the proposals for improving public access to the coast will,
therefore, be small. However, there may be additional administrative costs where
legal processes need to be followed to secure closures or diversions during certain
hazardous activities (e.g. thinning and felling).

7.2.6    Natural England
Natural England came into existence in October 2006 and incorporates the former
English Nature, the landscape, access and recreation elements of the former
Countryside Agency and the environmental land management functions of the former
Rural Development Service. Under the policy options to improve access to the
coast, it will incur costs in two areas:
   -    public access and nature conservation;
   -    public access and landscape conservation.
These are discussed separately below.

7.2.6.1 Public Access and Nature Conservation
NE will be affected in two key ways with respect to access and nature conservation:
   -    providing the scientific evidence of public access-wildlife interactions that can
        be used to inform managers of coastal sites of nature conservation
        importance;




                                    Asken Ltd
                                    Final Report – May 2007
                                              55


      -   ensuring the potential effects of improved public access on nature
          conservation are properly assessed and necessary action taken to render any
          adverse effects acceptable. This will include inputs to Appropriate
          Assessments, where needed.
As a coastal site owner and manager, it will also incur additional costs where access
opportunities are extended over its lands (e.g. path work, information and wardening
costs) but these costs are accounted for within the assessment of infrastructure,
management and maintenance costs.
NE (pers. comm.) has provided estimates of costs associated with CRoW
implementation, which serves as a basis for estimating future costs associated with
improving access to the coast via some options.
The research programme underpinning decisions about managing sites of nature
conservation importance is expected to cost around £300,000 to £500,000 spread
over 4 years post-implementation, and is expected to be the same for each option.
This research is expected to be directly as a result of proposed new access
provisions but would be generic in that it would not be site-specific. The information
it produces would be used to inform decisions about how public access to the coast
can be improved with minimal adverse impact on nature conservation and geological
interests.
There is a framework of laws and regulations that place duties on all publicly funded
bodies to ensure that changes do not affect nature conservation in an unacceptable
way. This framework is discussed in Section 5.2. As a consequence, assessments
will need to be made of the possible effects arising from changes to public access
arrangements. By way of example, the introduction of CRoW Part I (which affected
around 534,000 ha of land notified as SSSI – i.e. about 55% of all CRoW Access
Land) prompted impact assessments 19 of 1,100 sites. Management measures taken
as a result meant that the use of access restrictions was limited to only 44 of these
1,100 sites.
The staff effort expended as a result of CRoW implementation was estimated by NE
as 20 person years; at a typical cost of £35,000/person/year, this equates to a cost of
£700,000. However, that process involved some set-up costs that would not be
repeated and a similar exercise undertaken now would probably see the time
investment reduced. This view is supported by the example of assessments
undertaken on FC land prior to dedication, which were effected quickly, partly
because many had public access already so little change was expected. The same
situation is likely to be encountered on many coastal sites, where de facto public
access already exists, and so assessments should be equally straightforward.

7.2.6.2 Public Access and Landscape Conservation
NE will be affected in several respects by the proposals to improve access to the
coast:
      -   as advisor to government on such matters;


19
     It is understood that these were not Appropriate Assessments




                                       Asken Ltd
                                Final Report – May 2007
                                          56


   -    through its general duty to promote access to and enjoyment of the English
        countryside;
   -    through its specific duties in relation to CRoW;
   -    any new duties imposed or powers provided under Option 4.
The first of these is part of the process of making laws and so lies outside the remit of
this study. The second is expected to arise in all options (on the assumption that
promotion is an essential concomitant to any national initiative to improve public
access), although the nature of the promotional campaign may vary in scale between
options. The third is specific to Option 2 (see Section 9) and the last specific to
Option 4 (see Section 11).
In considering the costs of promotion, it is important to recognise that substantial
effort has been expended over recent years (after the coming into law of CRoW) in
promoting responsible access, such as:
   -    updating the Country Code to produce the Countryside Code;
   -    producing more specific guidance (e.g. Out in the Country; Managing Public
        Access);
   -    setting up a website to promote open access
        (http://www.openaccess.gov.uk/.).
Extending this on-going promotional campaign to include access to the coast is
unlikely to be a pro-rata increase based on length or area alone.

7.2.7    English Heritage
EH manages 400 historic properties nationally, which under CRoW are regarded as
excepted land (although restrictions on public access are introduced under the
provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979). Because
these are already publicly accessible, EH expect similar provision to the CROW Act
in opening up coastal access. In addition, EH will have responsibilities over SMs not
under its management or ownership.
Any potential concerns over the impact of public access would need to be identified
on a case by case basis. Potential effects (positive and negative) of improving public
access to the coast are considered in Section 5.3.4. Access status is now being
recorded on EH condition assessments. However, it is expected that costs to EH are
likely to be unquantifiable, but small, and are most likely to relate to site management
activities (e.g. signing).

7.2.8    Flood and Coastal Defence Operating Authorities
The EA has a general responsibility for defence against flooding from rivers and the
sea and has direct responsibility for flood defences along ‘main river’ and coasts.
The EA’s powers are permissive; it is not required to provide any particular standard
of defence, and can decide to withdraw maintenance. Indeed, it is current Defra
policy for the EA to withdraw maintenance from uneconomic flood defences.




                                    Asken Ltd
                                Final Report – May 2007
                                          57


Coastal erosion and flood defence on non-main rivers are matters for local authorities
although the EA will increasingly have a strategic role under recent Defra proposals.
In some low-lying areas of the country, Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs) operate
pumped drainage schemes and may have a local role but responsibility for the main
tidal defences rests with the EA.
In order to perform its coastal defence functions, the EA and local authorities own
and/or maintain flood and coastal defence assets along vulnerable sections of coast.
Ownership of the land on which the assets are constructed remain with the original
landowner.
With respect to the public, the EA is committed to improving opportunities for access
and recreation (Environment Agency 2006). However, the EA’s Flood Risk
Management function does not have any specific power to maintain or improve
access. More information about this and other research into flood and coastal
defence issues is provided in Appendix 6.

7.2.8.1 Implications at Strategic Level
One of the key strategic level issues with regard to public access and flood defences
is the sometimes marked differences between the accessibility of coastal and outer
estuarine defences and defences in inner estuarine areas. Specifically, the EA
advises that most of its coastal and outer estuarine defences are already accessible
to the public and, as such, have already been the subject of public safety risk
assessments (thus any associated safety improvements have already been made).
With regard to inner estuarine defences, existing EA risk assessments do not,
generally, assume high levels of use and, indeed, the defences (typically earth
embankments) may not currently be suitable to accommodate increased levels of
public access.
Other strategic level issues are a function of the dynamic nature of the coastal zone.
Changing flood and erosion risk management policies mean that future years may
increasingly see either the implementation of managed re-alignment schemes
(whether for flood defence and/or nature conservation reasons) or, as indicated
above, the withdrawal of maintenance from uneconomic defences. Away from flood
risk areas, some stretches of cliff are defended against erosion (i.e. in access terms
are effectively stable) and there are various types of ‘natural’ coastline:
undefended/eroding cliffs, dunes, saltmarshes and shingle features (although the
latter, along with some beaches, may actually be ‘managed’).
Overall, of the 4,870 km of coastline, it is assumed that approximately:
   -   2,970 km are defended by structures, of which 1,200 km are expected to be
       subjected to future managed re-alignment or withdrawal of maintenance;
   -   900 km are cliffs with a defended base;
   -   1,000 km have natural defences, about half of which are eroding.
Further details about the derivation of these figures are contained in Appendix 6.




                                   Asken Ltd
                                  Final Report – May 2007
                                            58


7.2.8.2 Implications at Operational Level
Allowing public access into areas not currently accessible has implications for the EA
at operational level, too. These are:
  -       primarily for inner estuarine defences and also for certain managed re-
          alignment sites, risk assessments may have to be reviewed. In many cases,
          a need for remedial works (e.g. levelling and the provision of a surface
          suitable for walking; future maintenance thereof) is anticipated;
  -       where withdrawal of maintenance or managed re-alignment is proposed, the
          EA expects that increased access will in turn require them to spend more time
          resolving local community and user-group issues;
  -       there may be some increased costs associated with applying for
          restrictions/diversions when undertaking some operations (e.g. mowing of
          flood banks) and/or providing stiles or signs, ensuring safe working practices
          etc..
It is, however, acknowledged that allowing members of the public onto the coast
could potentially provide benefits to the EA, in the form of:
      -   more continuous surveillance of the integrity of defence assets, such as
          landslips or breaches (providing people know how to report incidents);
      -   deterring vandals.

7.2.8.3 Cost Implications
As indicated above, discussions with the EA suggest that public access has already
been factored into most of its assets and operations on the open coast and in outer
estuarine areas and the anticipated additional costs of increased access, therefore,
will generally be negligible. However, particularly in inner estuarine areas where
access status changes, the EA expects to incur:
      -   one-off costs for reviewing risk assessments;
      -   one-off costs for additional community/local liaison where it proposes to
          change its management strategy or regime;
      -   costs of erecting specialist signage (e.g. about health and safety risks);
      -   increased capital costs to provide appropriate infrastructure for public access
          as an integral part of new defences, where this is not funded by other public
          sector bodies;
      -   the maintenance of any additional infrastructure not funded by other public
          sector bodies.
More details of lengths affected are given in Table A6.1. In the unlikely event that
certain structures have to be adapted to allow access along them and/or if crest width
needs to be increased, EA advises that significant additional extra costs could be
incurred. Where costs of using a specific structure are expected to exceed the
benefits, then it is likely that public access to that would not occur (although the
means of avoiding giving such access will vary between options).




                                      Asken Ltd
                                Final Report – May 2007
                                          59


In all other cases (e.g. with regard to access along stable coastlines; to the
introduction of rolling path agreements) it is assumed that parties other than the EA
will incur the associated costs. It has been assumed similarly that other bodies
involved in flood defence (e.g. IDBs) will not incur costs (for the reasons stated
above).

7.2.9    Maritime and Coastguard Agency
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) is responsible throughout the UK for
implementing the Government’s maritime safety policy. This includes co-ordinating
search and rescue at sea, as distinct from actually carrying out rescues. As
discussed above (see Section 3.7.2) it is expected that there will be a small increase
in the number of rescues that will need to be co-ordinated by the MCA. However, the
effect of this on MCA is expected to be small. No other effects on the MCA are
expected.

7.2.10   Port and Harbour Authorities
Ports and harbours around the English coast are administered by port, harbour or
conservancy authorities, many of which operate under their own Acts of Parliament.
Such authorities have the power to make and enforce rules that allow them to
manage and regulate the harbour’s or port’s operations. The powers are specific to
each authority and reflect the level and nature of activity within the port or harbour
within their jurisdiction. These powers also include ability to make byelaws (Defra,
2004). It has also been suggested (BPA, pers. comm.) that PRoWs cannot be
created where they prevent the use of that land for statutory harbour purposes,
quoting case law to justify the claim. This could require them to be closed to public
access for national security, to meet US trade standards and prevention of illegal
immigration, for example.
Impacts on owners of property along the coast are discussed in Appendix 5.

7.2.11   Public Bodies Involved in Conflict Resolution
Various public bodies are involved in conflict resolution.
The Planning Inspectorate (PINS) provides inspectors to hear appeals against
mapping decisions under CRoW Part I and appeals where applications for
restrictions of access have been rejected in full or in part by a relevant authority.
PINS may be required to perform a similar role if the option of improving coastal
access is implemented through section 3 of CRoW. PINS also acts as arbiter in most
PRoWs orders that need to be determined by a body other than the local highway
authority. Its costs provide a basis for costs of dispute resolution under Option 4.
As noted in Section 4.2, there may be occasions when claims are submitted for
compensation for loss of capital value as a result of rights of access being created
across land. Where payments are made to acquire rights of access over land, then
this would normally be dealt with by the local authority’s legal services section.
However, there may be occasions where values would be assessed by the Valuation
Office Agency (VOA), which would incur costs as a result.




                                    Asken Ltd
                                Final Report – May 2007
                                          60


The Lands Tribunal (LT) is a court of law and is the ultimate arbiter of cases involving
disputes concerning land and where agreement cannot be reached over
compensation payable. Its costs are usually awarded to the losing party in the
dispute. The fees it charges are fixed in legislation 20. Costs are calculated using the
fees applicable for the hearing of a reference or an appeal against a determination,
or on an application for a certificate of value. This is based on 2% of amount
awarded or determined by the LT, subject to a minimum of £100 and a maximum of
£5,000.


7.3      Conclusions
A variety of public sector bodies will be affected by the proposals for improving
access to the coast. However, the scale of the effect will vary with options, as will the
bodies feeling this effect. The direct effects are largely ones of increased costs.




20
   The Lands Tribunal (Fees) Rules 1996. SI 1996:1021. See:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1996/Uksi_19961021_en_2.htm




                                    Asken Ltd
                                Final Report – May 2007
                                          61



8.        Option 1 – Use of Highways
          Legislation to Create a Public Right of
          Way


8.1       Introduction
This section provides a description of Option 1 – “Use of Highways Legislation” and
its expected effects.


8.2       Option Description
Defra’s tender document describes this option as being: “Improvements to the Rights
of Way (RoW) network using RoW legislation. Building on existing Rights of Way,
this option might see the creation of a national coastal trail.”

8.2.1     Legal framework
Powers exist within the Highways Act 1980 (HA 1980) for LHAs to create public
footpaths and bridleways either through a “public path creation agreement” (s25) or a
“public path creation order” (s26). The former is an agreement voluntarily entered
into by the LHA and landowner, usually with a cash payment and/or provision of
accommodation works, and conditions can be attached (for example involving the
LHA accepting liability for maintenance and any duty of care to the public arising from
the path’s creation). A s26 order can be made when the LHA can show that it is in
the public interest to create a PRoW and other options (e.g. an agreement) have
been explored but have failed; it has to pay compensation to the landowner for
losses arising as a result of the imposition of a creation order. Again, conditions can
be attached to the order.
In law, public footpaths and bridleways are highways.        It should be noted that
highways, once created cannot be ‘lost’ except by:
     -   physical erosion of the land across which the highway passes;
     -   through legal measures (extinguishment and diversion orders).
The former is an important consideration for coastal access. An alternative to
extinguishment is diversion, and there will be opportunities to divert PRoWs where
threatened by erosion. This process can be cumbersome and so some authorities
have entered into rolling path agreements (rpas) with landowners (see discussion on
page 77 below).




                                   Asken Ltd
                                 Final Report – May 2007
                                           62


PRoWs can be closed temporarily using temporary diversion orders 21 for certain
activities (e.g. where land management imposes a risk to public health and safety).
Closure to allow tree felling is a classic example.

8.2.2     Key assumptions
A number of key assumptions have been made when appraising this option:
     -   under ‘do nothing’, PRoWs would continue to be created at a rate of 25 km
         per year;
     -   some form of encouragement would be given to LHAs to increase the rate of
         coastal PRoW creations;
     -   routes currently used by the public to walk along the coast and that are not
         recorded on the definitive map are not unrecorded PRoWs and that existing
         PRoWs recorded on the definitive map have not been lost through erosion;
     -   the PRoWs to be created would be footpaths;
     -   PRoWs would be created on coastal land and not on the foreshore;
     -   PRoWs would be created along the whole length of the coast wherever there
         are no existing PRoWs, even though these may cross areas of Access Land,
         National Trust (NT) open land, etc. Likewise, even where permissive linear
         access exists, a PRoW would be sought, when the permissive arrangement
         expires;
     -   the statutory duties of LHAs mean that they will:
            o   have to ensure that all their services and functions comply with
                Disability Discrimination Acts 1995 and 2005 and, as a result, that
                they will provide for disabled users wherever reasonably possible 22;
            o   undertake assessments or appraisals to ensure that their efforts to
                create PRoWs comply with the requirements to protect the
                environment;
     -   payments to landowners as part of agreements or orders to create PRoWs
         will be at ‘open-market’ rates (a range of values are used to represent the
         upper and lower limit of expectations, as discussed further in Section 14);
     -   routing of the PRoW created under this option will be designed to minimise
         effects on house owners and to circumvent locations where through passage
         would be unacceptable (e.g. commercial ports, nuclear power stations,
         intensive livestock units). This means that compensation arrangements


21
   Until recently, these had to be done by temporary TROs but CROW Act (Sch 6, para 16)
introduced a power for occupiers of land to make temporary diversions of footpaths and
bridleways for certain types of dangerous activities.
22
   Provision is subject to a test of reasonableness. At the time of writing, no case law has
arisen that help define reasonableness in this context.




                                     Asken Ltd
                                  Final Report – May 2007
                                            63


         should generally fall within normal parameters but that the length of creations
         will be greater than the length of the coast;
     -   rolling path agreements would be used where coastal erosion is expected to
         occur (see further discussion - page 77 below). These would be needed on
         lengths of coastline that are already accessible, as well as on newly created
         sections;
     -   promotion of access to the coast would be dealt with by a national body,
         which would ensure a reasonable level of consistency both in terms of route
         signing/waymarking and promotion (along similar lines to that employed for
         National Trails).
LHAs are already under an obligation to maintain existing PRoWs for the ‘ordinary
traffic of the neighbourhood’ and so no additional costs need to be included, but there
may be some extra costs for improved maintenance of existing PRoWs to bring them
to a standard at which they can be promoted for use as a coastal trail, varied to
reflect the range of expectations. However, these costs have not been included.

8.3       Scale of Effect
8.3.1     Access along the coast
Data from a variety of sources suggest that the scale of effects can be assessed as
follows.

8.3.1.1 Length of New PRoW Needed
    - the length of the English coast is 4,870 km (using lowest road crossings to
        cross estuaries, where available – see Section 2.2.2 for an explanation);
     -   analysis of a 200 m buffer strip around the coast (a dataset produced by NE)
         reveals that around 3,160 km of the coast already has secure linear access in
         the form of either a PRoW, a cycleway or a road/promenade. This means that
         1,710 km (4,870 km minus 3,160 km) of new PRoW would be needed if
         existing and new PRoWs were capable of being linked up to form a
         continuous route;
     -   in contrast, using data from the Study Areas, 51% of the route identified in
         RPA Ltd’s desk exercise was PRoW (340 km out of an assessed length of
         664 km), meaning new rights would have to be created over 49%, i.e. 2,390
         km (4,870 x 49%, rounded to nearest 10 km);
     -   it will be impossible for the newly created PRoW to follow the coast precisely
         throughout its entire length, as obstacles such as industrial complexes, ports
         etc. will need to be circumnavigated. In its analysis of the case study areas,
         RPA Ltd (2006) plotted a potential coastal route (as a desk exercise) which
         makes maximum reasonable use of existing PRoWs, roads and tracks. This
         putative route measures 664 km in contrast to a coastline length of 577 23 km.


23
  The length of coast of the four case study areas, as estimated by NE at MLWM is 483.4
km, out of a total of 4,080 km. However, this length needs to be adjusted to the total length



                                     Asken Ltd
                                      Final Report – May 2007
                                                64


          The inference from this is that, in order to bridge gaps and circumnavigate
          obstacles, the actual length that is needed is some 15% longer than the
          coastline itself;
     -    the two different analyses give us a lower and upper estimate for the length of
          new PRoW needed to create a continuous trail around the coast of 1,970 km
          (1,710 km + 15%) and 2,750 km (2,390 + 15%);
     -     allowing for the 250 km of PRoW that would be created anyway (under the
          ‘do nothing’ option), the improvements in access arising from this option
          would, therefore, involve between about 1,720 km and 2,500 km of new
          coastal PRoWs (with a mid-range value of 2,110 km).
If CRoW Access Land and NT open land not currently crossed by PRoWs is omitted
from the requirement to create new PRoWs, the length of new PRoW would reduce
by about 120 km to be between 1,600 km and 2,380 km (mid-point 2,000 km).
However, in order to maintain consistency of the option appraisal, the figures have
not been adjusted for this.

8.3.1.2 Sections of New PRoW Needed
    - RPA Ltd (2006) has used the Study Areas to generate estimates of the
        numbers and types of arrangements likely to be needed to create PRoWs,
        and the length of coast to which each would apply. Converting these to
        percentages means that they can be used to generate estimates for England
        as a whole. The calculations are set out in Table 8.1.

Table 8.1:       Estimation of Types of Arrangement Needed


                      Total length   Access   England         Typical length of   No. of creation
                      of access in   in       total length    section created     sections needed
                      NE’s study     study    of coast        in study areas      for England as a
                      areas (km)     areas    needing         (km)                whole
                                     (%)      PRoW (km)

Existing access to        52.4        15.7    270.0 – 392.5           1               270 – 393
privately-owned
land that has no
PRoW

Existing access to        136.4       40.7       700.0 –             2.67             262 – 381
publicly-owned land                              1,017.5
that has no PRoW

Eroding path –            25.3        7.6     130.7 – 190.0          0.74             177 – 257
(private)

Eroding path –             7.5        2.2      37.8 – 55.0           1.5               25 – 37
(public)

No apparent access        113.2       33.8    581.4 – 845.0          0.87             668 – 971

                          334.8       100     1,720 – 2,500          1.2             1,402 – 2,039




that uses MLWM adjusted for road crossings (i.e. 4,870 km). The 483.4 is thus adjusted up to
577 km.




                                         Asken Ltd
                                Final Report – May 2007
                                          65


   -    the estimated 1,402 – 2,039 creations will be split between orders and
        agreements along the coast;
   -    it is assumed that the 287 - 418 creations on public land would be by
        agreement;
   -    of the remaining 1,115 to 1,621 sections to be created over privately-owned
        land, evidence from our LHA survey suggests that around:
           o   446 - 648 (40%) would be achieved via orders;
           o   669 – 973 (60%) would be achieved via agreements.
It is possible that if there were a clear government policy that such routes were going
to be created, it might lead to a higher proportion of agreements relative to orders as
owners may be less likely to oppose proposals if it was clear that an order would
inevitably be made otherwise.

8.3.2    Access to the coast
Creating a coastal footpath will allow those intent on walking along the coast to make
onward progress. However, many people prefer to make circular walks and so will
be looking to gain access to the coast and then return inland after a distance. There
will be occasions when new PRoWs will need to be created for access to and from
the coast. There will be cost implications of this.
In order to quantify the scale of requirement, a desk-based study of maps (1:50,000
scale) was undertaken within the four Study Areas. The scope for public access was
examined and a need for a new access route assumed whenever the length of coast
without access exceeded 4 km. In the four Study Areas, 13 such routes would be
required. The Study Areas were selected to be representative of the English coast,
and so data from these areas should form a reasonable basis for aggregation. Given
that they represent 11.8% of the coastline (as advised by NE), then 110 such routes
would be needed across the whole country. Local circumstances would dictate how
these new routes would be aligned, but it is taken as a working assumption that the
average length would be 1 km, giving an additional requirement for about 110 km.
Based on indications from the four Study Areas, the typical length of each agreement
or order is likely to be between 0.75 km and 1 km. Taking the mid-point between the
two extremes (0.875 km), it is estimated that around 125 sections of PRoW will be
needed. Using the same split as for PRoWs along the coast, this implies that:
   -    25 would be creation agreements with public bodies;
   -    40 would be creation orders with private bodies/individuals;
   -    60 would be creation agreements with private bodies/individuals.




                                   Asken Ltd
                                   Final Report – May 2007
                                             66


8.4       Effects Relative to Baseline

8.4.1     Benefits

8.4.1.1 Economic
Benefits to Users
If Option 1 was adopted, a net 9% of adults indicated that they would make more
frequent visits to the coast (IPSOS/MORI, 2006). Unfortunately, the survey did not
quantify the number of additional visits. On the conservative assumption of one per
adult 24 that indicated an increase in visits, this translates into an additional use of
1.33m visits per year (see Section A2.9). We assume that use of new access will not
take place immediately but will gradually increase from Year 3 over a 20-year period
to the levels indicated above. This reflects the delay in creating the supporting
infrastructure and transmitting information to the public. We assume a straight line
increase in use over the 18 years (from Year 3 to Year 20 inclusive).
In the absence of other information we assume a 5% displacement 25 of walking visits
under Option 1. This gives a displacement of 4.21m visits per year 26.
Table 8.2 gives the number of visits for each activity at Year 20 together with the
estimated benefits. The total benefit by Year 20 is £29.09m per year. Clearly, the
calculation is highly dependent on the assumptions used (which are discussed in
detail in Appendix 2). The impact of alternative assumptions for visits and the value
per visit can be easily derived from the table. The greatest uncertainty is associated
with the extent of displaced activity.
LHAs are required to comply with DDA 1995 and 2005 and, where reasonably
possible, infrastructure for path creation should be constructed to a standard high
enough for use by those with disabilities. From December 2006, certain bodies were
required under DDA 1995 (as amended by DDA 2005) to publish an Equality
Scheme which sets out how the body will fulfil its general duty to promote disability
equality. As a consequence, LHAs may choose to promote coastal access for
disabled by developing coastal PRoWs.




24
   As regards children, there are no specific benefit values in the literature so benefits to them
may appear to have been omitted. However, when parents (with children) express their WTP,
it may well be that they include the benefits to their children in their individual response but
there is no direct evidence of this in the WTP studies consulted. There is thus some ambiguity
in the extent to which the benefit estimates include benefits to children.
25
  It was not possible to find any evidence on the extent of displaced visits and this is an
estimate from the consultant team taking into account the location and type of new provision.
26
   Displaced visits provide benefits to users, otherwise they would not make them. However,
in the calculation of effects on the national coastal economy, it is only the additional visits to
the coast that have an impact (see section 6.2.2 above).




                                       Asken Ltd
                                     Final Report – May 2007
                                               67




Table 8.2:     User Benefits as at Year 20


Displaced and additional                         Unit Value* (£/visit)
visits                   Visits per year (m)                             Benefit (£m per year)

Residents                          1.42                  2.35                    3.34

Tourists and other day visits      4.12                  6.25                    25.75

Total                              5.54                                          29.09
* Note: the same benefit value is attributed to both additional and displaced trips because the
information available on the benefits from trips does not distinguish between them (see Appendix 2,
section A2.8.5).


Benefits to Landowners and Owners of Coastal Property
Landowners will receive benefits in the form of payments from LHAs negotiated
through:
    -    path creation agreements;
    -    path creation orders;
    -    any additional sums paid for rpas.
Based on the unit costs identified in Appendix 4, this will amount to about £10.6m
(with a range of £1.7m to £22.3m), including costs of creating access to the coast.
These benefits to landowners will be a cost to LHAs (see page 75 below).
There is no way for a LHA to force a landowner to enter into a rpa and so it is
reasonable to assume that additional payments may have to be made where a rpa is
required. Using estimates from RPA Ltd 2006 (for the proportion of coastline in the
study areas that needs rpas), this is estimated to apply to between 410 and 560 km.
This estimated range spans the estimate derived from data provided by the EA of
500 km that may need rpas (see Table A6.1, row 6). As discussed below (see page
77), a figure of £2,000 per km is assumed to be the going rate. Total receipts to
landowners would be £0.8m. It is assumed that rpas would be created over publicly
owned land without payment of compensation.
It is assumed that these costs will be expected to cover compensation for loss of
exclusive use/reduced amenity value and a one-off payment to compensate for the
management implications of public access. It is also assumed that the LHA will pay
for the landowners’ legal costs.
Owners of property will also gain from the generic benefits described under Section 4
(see Section 4.2).

Benefits to Public Sector Bodies
Savings would be made in the form of ceasing of payments to landowners that are no
longer required to provide permissive access along the coast. There may also be
savings in the form of reduced management time where existing de facto




                                          Asken Ltd
                                            Final Report – May 2007
                                                      68


 arrangements are replaced by more regulated arrangements. However, it has not
 been possible to quantify these benefits.

 Benefits to Coastal Economies
 Table 8.3 gives the detailed calculation for Option 1. Total additional employment is
 in the range 1,177 to 1,560 FTEs with £3.7m to £4.9m annual income generated.
 These effects would build up gradually over a 20-year period. They refer only to
 additional (net) impacts from non-resident visits to the coast since displaced coastal
 visits and any additional visits by coastal residents are not expected to affect the total
 amount spent locally. There would also be benefits arising from a proportion of the
 increased spending by public sector bodies (see Table 8.8 below).


 Table 8.3:       Coastal economy employment and income effects of Option1



                                        Employment    Employment           Income           Income
                       Increase in       associated  associated with   associated with associated with
                       total visitor      with new     new access      new access (£m new access (£m
                       days (m/yr)     access (FTEs) (FTEs) (upper     per year) (lower per year) (upper
                                       (lower bound)     bound)            bound)           bound)


Domestic tourists
                           0.43             960           1234              3.01              3.87
(overnight visitors)

Day visitors (non-
                           0.56             217            326              0.67              1.00
resident)

Total                      0.99            1177           1560               3.68             4.87

 8.4.1.2 Environment
 The main benefits of this option arise from the greater control of visitors and the
 ability this affords to provide information to them. This enables some adverse effects
 (discussed in 8.4.2.2 below) to be mitigated. It is likely that the increase in access
 would be modest, as many nature conservation sites (e.g. 72% of SSSIs) and coastal
 habitats are already crossed by PRoWs, or are subject to permissive or de facto
 access to the foreshore, and so on (see Section 5.3.3).
 Analysis of maps of the access buffer strip (produced by NE) indicates that most
 additional access would probably occur alongside estuaries. Thus several important
 SPAs for waterbirds could potentially be affected substantially. Some areas of
 coastal habitat, especially sea cliffs and coastal marsh, are inaccessible by vehicle.
 This suggests that usage may be limited due to the distances involved in walking to
 remote areas or around estuaries, especially where there are limited crossing points
 of water courses (for example, in the case of the rias 27 in the southwest, and
 extensive estuary systems of North Kent, Essex and Suffolk).
 The principal advantage of providing access via PRoWs is that they are defined and
 relatively narrow linear routes. Users can therefore be channelled away from

 27
   A ria is a long narrow inlet of the coast, being a former valley that was submerged by the
 sea.




                                                  Asken Ltd
                               Final Report – May 2007
                                         69


sensitive sites and/or led through sensitive sites in a managed way. Thus, damage
may be potentially less than with current situations where people are often able to
wander within a larger area. Thus, for example, PRoWs that could potentially lead to
disturbance of wintering waterbirds at an SPA could be routed to ensure that people
are not visible from the most sensitive areas. This could be done by using the natural
topography or other features such as routing paths behind embankments or
hedgerows. Routes can also be designed to avoid vegetation that might be
particularly sensitive to trampling.
New footpaths and associated mitigation infrastructure (e.g. clear waymarking,
surfaces that reduce erosion) would be designed and maintained to a high standard
under this option, and these could help avoid impacts from trampling, erosion and
pollution. Signs (with information about sensitive nature conservation issues and
interpretative information) are likely to be more effective on narrow and defined
routes.

8.4.1.3 Social
PRoWs are relatively secure from changes of land use and built development. A
developer can apply for changes to the line of a PRoW to enable development (Town
& Country Planning Act 1990 s257). However, the local planning authority has
powers to grant planning approval with conditions to ensure access is protected and
could require compensatory work by the developer (under the Town & Country
Planning Act 1990 s106) – so-called ‘planning gain’ - or refuse a request to divert.
Of all access arrangements, PRoWs are perhaps the best understood (Curry, 2006).
The network covers all of the country and is available to all free of charge and at all
times. Extending the network by having a PRoW around the coast would be an
attractive and simple message to promote to the population in general, and for it to
be understood. Likewise with land management, responsibilities of different parties
are probably the best understood, leading to less conflict than some other
arrangements might create.
As users would be confined to a linear route on land, the risk of them being exposed
to dangers from tidal movements and landslides (where this is a threat to public
health and safety, see Appendix 4 for further discussion on this issue) would be less
than if given a right to walk anywhere within an area that included foreshore. This is
more of a reduced cost than a direct benefit.
The use of rpas will mean that secured rights will be protected against loss through
erosion, at least for the period of the agreement’s existence.

8.4.2   Costs

8.4.2.1 Economic
Costs to Users
The process of path creation (whether by order or by agreement) does not directly
involve users. Nonetheless, user groups may wish to become involved in the
process by assisting with route selection or providing evidence to public inquiries
(see below). However, such involvement is entirely voluntary and has not been
quantified.



                                   Asken Ltd
                                Final Report – May 2007
                                          70


In rare instances, there may be additional loss of life through drownings, with an
imputed cost of £9.2m at the mid-point level of increased visit numbers (range £6.9m
to £13.8m).

Costs to Owners and Managers of Private Property Along the Coast

One-Off Costs to Landowners
One-off costs to landowners arising from PRoW creation will include:
   -   investment of time to negotiate an agreement/order and to ensure that the
       optimum alignment is used;
   -   loss of exclusive use and amenity of land over which the PRoW runs.
Additional one-off costs which may arise from PRoW creation include:
   -   challenging a creation order through the public inquiry system;
   -   settling any dispute over the amount of compensation to be paid.
A proportion of the agreements will be with public sector bodies. For these bodies,
costs will be incurred but not compensated for out of public funds.
For private land, it is to be expected that a creation order will take more of a
landowner’s time to negotiate than an agreement. In the absence of any specific
data on this matter, it is assumed that the input of a landowner’s time would be of the
order of 15 hours (range 7.5 to 22.5) to negotiate an agreement; and 30 hours (range
22.5 to 37.5) to deal with an order. (Note: it is assumed that legal fees would be met
directly by the LHA). Assuming that the inputs of time are over and above a land
manager’s existing workload, the cost needs to be assessed at overtime rates. The
overtime rate for a standard worker is £8.61/hour (Nix 2006, p130).
As discussed in Appendix 5, loss of exclusive use of land for rights of way created
across land would form part of the compensation package, as would any provision for
an rpa. In either an agreement or order, a private sector landowner is expected to
negotiate a payment (s25) or compensation (s26). If an agreement over the sum to
be paid cannot be reached, the case will be referred to the LT.
A landowner may object to orders made by the LHA. It is important to distinguish
between a Public Inquiry (PI) being held – which would challenge the order made by
the LHA to create a PRoW – and a claim to the LT to settle a disagreement over the
level of compensation to be paid. Two separate legal processes are involved and
cost estimates are needed for both eventualities being pursued.
A landowner would be entitled to object to a path creation order made by the LHA
and so precipitate a public airing of the proposed order. Although some cases may
be dealt with by a public hearing or exchange of written representations, cases
involving orders are most likely to be heard in a PI. It is not incumbent on a
landowner to adduce evidence at the PI but it is likely that he would. For simplicity, it
is assumed that costs incurred would be similar to those incurred in an appeal
against CRoW mapping – typical cost of £4,750 (range of £3,000 to £6,500) (see
Section 9.4.2.2). The objections are only expected to be forthcoming in the case of
path creation orders.



                                    Asken Ltd
                                  Final Report – May 2007
                                            71


In resolving disputes over the size of compensation payments, generally speaking, it
is advisable to avoid referring a case to the LT, as costs can become
disproportionate to levels of payments made and the landowner could end up paying
most of the compensation in legal fees. A better alternative is to seek arbitration,
although the LT is the ultimate arbitrator in the event of a failure to reach agreement
(RAC, 2006). It is assumed that agreement can be reached in 90% of orders,
meaning that 10% of cases may be referred to the LT. Each case is likely to be
similar to a PI/mapping appeal (see Section 9) for those involved but, unlike with
PINS’ costs and mapping appeals, the LT’s costs are awarded against the loser of
the case. For the purpose of this study, it is assumed that 50% of cases brought by
landowners fail, meaning that they would pay the LT’s costs for half the cases (and
the LHA would pay for the other half).
As noted earlier (in Section 4 and Appendix 5), there may be costs arising from
injurious affection of property adjacent to land crossed by a newly created PRoW.
However, this is assessed as being significant for few properties, and unquantifiable.
One off costs to landowners total (with lower and upper estimates in brackets) are:
      Item                                                £000 at 2006 values
      Negotiate agreements                                       106 (43 – 188)
      Negotiate orders                                           141 (86 – 209)
      PI costs                                            2,599 (1,337 – 4,215)
      LT Disputes - Time                                        260 (133 – 422)
      LT Disputes - LT Costs                                        68 (56 – 81)
      Costs TO the coast                                        233 (149 – 317)
      Total                                               3,408(1,805 – 5,433)

Recurring Costs to Farmers
One of the key assumptions is that PRoWs would be created on ‘land’ (i.e. not
foreshore). This is because of the need for any created route to be safe and not too
highly exposed to tidal action (including erosion). This means in some locations it is
likely to run along cliff tops and banks, and where the land may be in agricultural use.
It is assumed that where linear access is provided in the form of a PRoW, it would
affect a 2 m strip 28 (i.e. a kilometre run of footpath will affect 0.2 ha). However, the
land that the footpath crosses will not necessarily be lost to agricultural production:



28
   Schedule 12A of the HA 1980 (as amended) sets out maximum and minimum widths for
public rights of way by type, and provides that a field edge footpath should be between 1.5 m
and 1.8 m (in the absence of any other specified width). However, some production could be
lost on the field side, due to machinery having to allow clearance from fences and/or field
edges. Also, cross-compliance requires farmers to provide a 2 m buffer strip around fields in
some circumstances (See Defra website:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/capreform/singlepay/crosscomply/gaec.htm).




                                      Asken Ltd
                                 Final Report – May 2007
                                           72


     -   Some grazing could remain along lightly used sections of PRoW where these
         cross grassland;
     -   Arable farmers are now required to leave a 2 m strip around the edge of fields
         (measured from the centre of any wall or hedgerow) under cross-compliance
         rules. The 2006 Handbook states that this 2 m strip can be used to carry a
         PRoW without loss of Single Payment (SP) eligibility 29;
     -   In order to qualify for SP, a proportion of land has to be set-aside (currently
         8%); this set-aside could comprise a strip of land along fields adjacent to the
         coast, although requiring set-aside for this purpose would reduce overall
         management flexibility.
Consideration also needs to be given to the effect on a farmer’s entitlement to SP
subsidy, especially if the strip used for the footpath is fenced off from the rest of the
field. Defra advise that where use of a PRoW is such that grazing of the land it
crosses becomes unavailable, then it would be excluded from the area on which the
SP can be drawn, whereas if it remains available for grazing, then it could be
included.    Consequently, given the points made concerning the scope to
accommodate a PRoW within a field boundary, the assumption is that SP would
generally not be lost.
In view of the above, it seems that the best case scenario is of no loss at all, and the
worst case scenario that of up to 100% loss on a proportion of the path width (and
more likely to be on arable land than grassland). In order to reflect this uncertainty, it
has been assumed that losses will vary between 0% and 50% of gross margin
output.
Data presented in Appendix 5 can be used to provide an estimate of losses, by type
of cropping or stocking, as seen in Table 8.4, for the crops and stock typically found
around the coast of England.




29
   Cross Compliance Handbook para 98. See:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/capreform/pubs/pdf/XCHandbook2006.pdf




                                    Asken Ltd
                                          Final Report – May 2007
                                                    73



Table 8.4:     Loss of Gross Margin Output for Typical Agricultural Land by the Coast

                                                                           £

Composite Gross margin £/ha+                                              463

Loss (£/km/yr of PRoW) with SP able to be claimed                          0
    -    lower (no effect)
                                                                          11.6
    -     middle (simple average of lower and upper)
                                                                          23.2
    -     upper (50% loss)

Potential Additional Loss (£/km of PRoW) if SP not able to be claimed++    32
+ These are derived from Nix (2006)
++ The value of SP/ha will differ between farms but the differences will reduce as historic
payments decline and flat-rate payments increase as a proportion of the total payment. The
amount assumed to be due (£160/ha on average, or £32/100 m x 2 m strip) has been
reduced in line with expected deductions such as modulation.

In addition to the loss of production from the area of land crossed by the footpath,
additional costs may be incurred as a result of:
    -    problems in moving stock, such as severance of fields from grazing marsh or
         if a route is shared by, say, dairy cattle and walkers (necessitating more
         management effort in moving stock);
    -    changes in use of dairy bulls (which cannot be kept in fields crossed by
         PRoWs), perhaps requiring either fencing or modifications to grazing patterns;
    -    interference with pest control;
    -    gates left open leading to:
              o    stock getting out and running the risk of causing road traffic accidents
                   (for which the ‘keeper’ of the animals is strictly liable);
              o    mixing of stock, which have to be separated;
              o    reduction in biosecurity (i.e. increased risk of disease spread);
              o    young female animals becoming prematurely pregnant, leading to
                   stock losses;
    -    worrying of sheep by dogs.
A further consideration that might affect some landowners is the need to apply to the
LHA for a temporary closure or diversion of a PRoW to allow land management
activities to be undertaken. One common example of this is where a path crosses
through a forest where trees are to be felled. Forest Enterprise (pers comm.)
suggest that this can cost between £300 and £750 per closure (including the cost of
the advertising that the law requires), although in some circumstances formal
closures can be avoided using banksmen to warn when people approach (even so,
there will be a cost associated with staff time). In contrast, research for Defra
suggests that costs of Temporary TROs can be up to £1,000. However, the costs
associated with this should reduce when CRoW Schedule 6 is implemented (which
will introduce s135A and 135B into the HA 1980), as this will allow occupiers of land




                                              Asken Ltd
                                Final Report – May 2007
                                          74


to temporarily divert footpaths (and bridleways) to allow certain dangerous activities
to be undertaken.
The costs associated with this management effort are difficult to estimate, as they will
vary (with circumstances such as level of public use and intensity of farming), and no
direct measurement of such costs have been found. An indication of the expected
time involved can be obtained from assessments made in agri-environment schemes
(although such schemes aim to compensate farmers for some costs which would not
be incurred where a statutory right, rather than permissive access, is provided).
In the absence of more specific data, it seems reasonable to suppose that similar
inputs will be needed per km of PRoW as needed per ha of Access Land (see
Section 9.4.2.2). Most of this time would be done by the land manager him/herself,
rather than a paid employee. This gives a cost range of around £51.7/km/yr to
£86.1/km/yr (6 hrs to 10 hrs @ £8.61/hr).
Costs accrue over the implementation period (of 10 years) to an annual figure of
£145,000 at 2006 values (2,110 km @ £80.5/km).
It is assumed that fencing, where necessary for PRoW creation, would be paid for
and maintained by the LHA, not the landowner.
Recurring costs to foresters are assessed as being minimal under this option.

Recurring Costs to Other Businesses
Given that:
   -   the estimated length of PRoW to be created assumes that the alignment has
       been chosen to minimise impacts on intensively used land; and
   -   that compensation rates have been assessed based on a wide range of
       situations (covering agricultural and non-agricultural land); and
   -   LHAs would meet costs of route marking, provision of infrastructure (gates,
       bridges, etc.) and their maintenance;
then essential recurring costs to other businesses are assumed to be minimal.
However, as discussed in Appendix 5, some business managers may feel it
necessary to incur costs as a result of their property being adjacent to a PRoW.
These costs would include:
   -   introducing new working practices to satisfy health and safety concerns (e.g.
       staffing levels when operating machinery close to publicly accessible areas);
   -   re-designing layout of their structures (e.g. golf hole alignments, location of
       buildings within a site);
   -   increased security measures (e.g. video surveillance at entrances to sites).
Whilst these changes could incur significant costs (both one-off and recurring), these
are expected to be necessary in only a few cases. Any assessment of total cost
implications would be highly speculative and so no attempt has been made to
quantify the cost implications (they are listed in the summary table as unquantifiable).




                                      Asken Ltd
                                     Final Report – May 2007
                                               75


Occupiers’ Liability
Occupiers of land will have a duty of care to anyone coming on to their land. Where
a new PRoW is created across their land, the measures they adopt to meet their duty
of care would need to be re-considered. For employers and the self-employed, there
would probably be a need to review their risk assessments. For example, it is
unlawful to keep a dairy bull in a field crossed by a PRoW, and so grazing
management may need to be modified to accommodate the new PRoW. Any costs
arising from changes to management practices are expected to feature in
negotiations with the LHA and form part of any agreement reached and
compensation paid.

Costs to Public Sector Bodies
Under this option, the bulk of the costs to the public sector is carried by local
authorities in their capacity of local highway authority.

One-off Costs to Local Authorities
Costs will be:
    -   negotiations with landowners over creation of PRoWs, including payment of
        compensation and landowners’ legal fees;
    -   installation of infrastructure and its subsequent maintenance;
    -   promotion and monitoring of the route’s use.

Compensation to Landowners
Where PRoWs are created by agreement (HA 1980 s25) or by order (HA 1980 s26),
the owner of the land crossed by the new PRoW is entitled to expect some form of
payment (in cash or in kind) and compensation, respectively. This subject was
explored in some depth by Reading Agricultural Consultants and Mike Furness
(2002). However, they found no relationship between length of route created and
amount of money paid.
The authors point out that “in 9 out of 10 cases of PRoW creation, no compensation
has been paid whatsoever”. Where compensation was paid, the rate varies
significantly depending on the nature of the land use. This is shown in Figure 8.1.
Where more intensively developed land is involved (e.g. hotel complexes and
caravan parks) payments may be approaching £40/m, but these will usually be for
short lengths only. However, caution is needed when examining these figures as
sample sizes are very low in most cases.
RPA Ltd, drawing from the RAC report (RAC et al. 2002) and consultations with
National Trails officers, recognise the wide variation in payments and, given the need
for a figure to work with, suggest an average of £14.10 per linear metre (within a
range of £10.00 to £19.20). However, this seems to be at odds with the RAC’s claim
that many agreements are settled with no compensation paid. There are several
points that need to be considered:




                                        Asken Ltd
                                                                           Final Report – May 2007
                                                                                     76


Figure 8.1:                           Average Compensation Paid by Land Use Type


                                      Average Compensation rate by Land Use Type


                      40.00




                      35.00




                      30.00




                      25.00
   s er e e
  £ /lin a mtr




                                                                                                                   Minimum
                      20.00                                                                                        Average
                                                                                                                   Maximum


                      15.00




                      10.00




                        5.00




                        0.00
                                                                                                 w
                                                                                                 g
                                                                          re
                                                          e




                                                                                                               l
                                                                                              nd




                                                                                              do
                                                                                               in
                                ity




                                                                                                             ia
                                                  nd e

                                                        bl




                                                                        iry
                                          r




                                                                        tu
                                        oo




                                                                                            az
                                                      by


                                                      ra




                                                                                                           nt
                                                                                            la




                                                                                           ea
                             til




                                                                      as
                                                                       a
                           /U




                                       M




                                                                                                         de
                                                     A




                                                                                         od
                                                    In




                                                                     D




                                                                                          gr


                                                                                         M
                                                                     P
                        lic




                                                                                                       si
                                                                                        o

                                                                                       nd
                                                                  nd




                                                                                      de
                                                                                      W




                                                                                                      e
                      ub




                                                la




                                                                                                     R
                                                                                     la
                                                                la




                                                                                    si
                                               p
                     P




                                                                                   w
                                              U




                                                               p




                                                                                  er
                                                                                Lo
                                                              U




                                                                                iv
                                                                               R




                                                               Land Use Type




                 -         the RAC analysis may contain agreements involving public bodies who are
                           willing to reach agreement without compensation (as we have assumed
                           above);
                 -         the profit derived from agricultural activity has reduced for many sectors
                           (especially after de-coupling of subsidies) so losses may be lower than in the
                           past;
                 -         route options may be limited along the coast (given the wish to remain within
                           the coastal zone);
                 -         as more sections of the coastal trail are established, the value of the
                           remaining gaps grows, and landowners may seek progressively higher levels
                           of compensation;
                 -         this study recognises that a small number of businesses will be significantly
                           affected but has included these as unquantified effects. Any compensation
                           sought by operators of such businesses is unlikely to be related to length of
                           route created and so inclusion of what are likely to be very high values (RPA
                           suggest costs as high as £50,000 per linear km) would bias the results
                           upwards;




                                                                                  Asken Ltd
                                   Final Report – May 2007
                                             77


    -   at some point, the compensation sought will exceed the LHA’s willingness to
        pay and alternative routes will be sought (provision is made in the estimated
        length to be created for such diversions).
Bearing these factors in mind, the figure of £14.10 per linear metre seems
reasonable as an upper limit. Whilst £0 may be the modal value (i.e. the most
common value) at the outset, it is inevitable that the mean average will be greater
than £0, so a figure of £1/m is taken as a lower estimate, with the mid-point taken as
the simple average of the two extremes - £7.55/linear metre. In Section 14, we
explore the implications of using the RPA Ltd figures.
Based on these unit costs, compensation to be paid to landowners will amount to
about £10.6m (with a range of £1.7m to £22.3m), including payments for access to
the coast. These costs to LHAs represent benefits to landowners (see page 67
above).

Compensation for Rolling Path Agreements
If the land which carries a PRoW is lost through erosion, a PRoW agreement or order
does not provide for the legal line of the route to be rolled back inland. In effect, the
route is broken and a creation or diversion order is needed to restore the route. This
can be time consuming and costly. An alternative approach is to enter into a rpa.
Discussions with individuals in North Yorkshire (Cleveland Way National Trails
Officer, pers comm.) and Dorset (NT, Head Warden for West Dorset, pers comm.) –
both eroding coasts with National Trails - suggests that the mechanism operates
along simple lines:
    -   the relevant authority assumes responsibility for any fencing, and for it to be
        erected at an agreed distance from the line of cliffs, with the path running
        between fence and cliff;
    -   as the coast erodes, the authority is responsible for moving back the fence to
        maintain the agreed width for the path;
    -   the agreement is designed to cover a period of time (c. 20 to 25 years) by
        agreeing a fixed point inland (marked by a post or similar), the distance being
        equivalent to expected erosion over the period of the agreement. When the
        fixed point is reached, the agreement is re-negotiated.
These arrangements appear to have worked well, but with three cautionary notes:
    -   agreements do not provide for continuation after the death or departure of the
        current landowner;
    -   erosion does not occur gradually and uniformly – it tends to happen in a
        series of infrequent events each involving a large loss of land;
    -   path width can be ‘squeezed’ during this process, so it is important to agree a
        suitable footpath width which is to be maintained.
Experience is that often the farmers affected accept that erosion takes place and a
path exists, so the agreement only confirms the accepted position. However, a small
percentage (according to the people contacted) recognise that entry into a rpa is
voluntary and may seek to exploit this. In the North York Moors NPA, this has



                                      Asken Ltd
                                   Final Report – May 2007
                                             78


resulted in the use of a creation order (under HA 1980, s26) to re-establish a broken
link, but the line is 30 m inland so as to guard against future erosion. This has
resulted in walkers having to use a double fence corridor, which splits a field into two
parts – not a situation that merits replication is it can be avoided.
Levels of payment under such agreements have been relatively small and/or can be
incorporated into the package of payments made to landowners at small marginal
cost. In the four cases discussed, two were done with no payment; in one case, a
one-off payment of £2,000/km was made; and, in the fourth, the affected tenant
received a one-off payment equivalent to 5 years’ rent for the area of land lost in
creating the footpath. In the last case, a path was created, and as some payment
would have been made anyway, the cost of the rolling element is arguably nil.
From this admittedly small number of examples, it seems that most rpas can be
agreed at no cost, with a small percentage (between 5% and 25%) requiring some
payment. The figure of £2,000 per km is the only basis for assessing the cost
implications of such cases. Note that we assume costs of initial fencing and other
infrastructure, and for periodically moving it back, are paid by the LHA.
In order to provide long term security for a coastal footpath over a 20 year time span,
it is assumed that rpas are required over eroding coastlines around the whole English
coast, not just where new rights are created.

Legal Costs
RAC et al. (2002) found that a key determinant of cost of path creation was whether
the landowner employed an agent or not (which they calculate has having cost
£7.75/linear metre of PRoW). However, RPA Ltd (2006) have drawn together
various assessments of legal fees and found typical costs to be:
    -   £4,800 per path creation order;
    -   £3,180 per path creation agreement;
    -   £4,800 per path creation agreement with a rpa.
The above values have been applied to the total number of agreements estimated as
being needed (including public sector agreements, as legal costs will also be
incurred).
Another influence on costs is whether the creation agreement or order requires the
case being referred to the LTl. As discussed earlier, it is estimated that around 10%
of cases may go to LT, of which 50% are found in favour of the appellant, meaning
that the LHA would have to pay the costs for half the cases. Total legal costs to be
met by LHAs are estimated at £8.0m (range £6.5m to £9.3m).

Costs of Negotiating Agreements and Orders
RPA Ltd (2006) has drawn on various sources to make estimates of staff and
administrative costs to impose orders or negotiate agreements. Their estimates are
that each costs between £3,000 and £5,000, irrespective of whether these are orders
or agreements, or whether rpas are needed. These figures (and a mid-point value of




                                       Asken Ltd
                               Final Report – May 2007
                                         79


£4,000) have been used to estimate LHA staff and administrative costs in creating
new PRoWs. Staff and administrative costs total £7.9m (range £4.8m to £11.5m).

Cost of Public Inquiries
It is important to distinguish between a PI being held – which would challenge the
order made by the LHA to create a PRoW – and a claim to the LT to settle a
disagreement over the level of compensation to be paid. Two separate legal
processes are involved and cost estimates are needed for both eventualities being
pursued.
Again using RPA Ltd’s report as a source of guidance, it is estimated that all orders
will result in a PI being held, and none in the case of agreements (whether with or
without rpas). An indicative typical cost of a PI is £5,000 (based on 3 separate
sources), with a range of between £2,000 to £30,000. These assumptions produce
an estimated cost of £2.7m (range £0.9m to £19.5m).

Appropriate assessments
The LHA survey (see Section 7.2.3) revealed that no LHAs had undertaken any
formal assessment of environmental effects of proposed PRoW creations. However,
there may be pressure in future for LHA’s to carry out an Appropriate Assessments
for any new PRoWs affecting Natura 2000 sites. Appropriate Assessments can be
expensive. If PRoWs are to be created around estuaries then there would be many
new access issues affecting SPAs in particular. For the purpose of this study costs
of Appropriate Assessments are included as part of the costs incurred by NE (see
page 81 below).

Liability to the public
Given that the LHA is seeking to negotiate an agreement to the creation of a PRoW,
and it is assumed that they would meet the costs of necessary infrastructure, it is
also assumed that the landowner would expect the LHA to accept liability for its
maintenance. As a consequence, they may become liable to compensate injured
parties where the injury is judged to have arisen through neglect by the LHA.

Costs of infrastructure
The ground works needed to implement the development of a coastal trail will vary
with local topography and the extent to which it is considered reasonable to make
provision for disabled people. Another key factor is the number of bridges needed,
as these are very costly to erect. These factors have been taken into account in the
course of an exercise undertaken by RPA Ltd (2006) to assess the physical needs
and their costs in the four case study areas. There is merit in reproducing Table 2.12
from their report (see Table 8.5).




                                  Asken Ltd
                                            Final Report – May 2007
                                                      80


Table 8.5:      Requirement for Infrastructure by Study Area


Item                                        County       Devon and      S. Cumbria and          Suffolk
                                            Durham       Somerset       Morecambe Bay

Distance between furniture items (km)          2.2           1.7                 1.8                   3.0

Furniture items to be replaced (No.)            2             1                   2                     0

Distances between signposts                    2.7           3.8                 2.9                   1.4

Footbridges needed (No.)                        2             0                   1                     0

Footbridge span (m)                            11             0                  10                     0

Proportion of PRoW with fence on               30%           14%                 19%                   19%
seaward side

Proportion which could be accessible           42%           40%                 80%                   78%
excluding that already surfaced


Using these measures and ratios, RPA Ltd has produced estimates of costs for the
four study areas which, on the presumption that they are representative, we can use
to extrapolate to the English coast as a whole. The cost calculations are provided in
Table 8.6 below. It should be noted that the large range from lower to upper limits
is attributable to uncertainty over the proportion of the created route that would need
to be made suitable use for people with disabilities, in order to comply with disability
discrimination legislation.

Table 8.6:      Extrapolation of Costs to England as a Whole

                  Summary of costs for four study areas*
Item                                                       Proportion of coast        Aggregation for
                                                           without PRoW (%)           country as a whole
                                                           (335/2110)                 (£’000 at 2006
                  Total*           Total (£/km) (based                                values)
                  (£’000)          on 335km)

Low Level         168.4            500                     15.8%                      860 (1,720 km)

Upper Level       4,493.9          13,400                  15.8%                      33,500 (2,500 km)

Mid-point                          7,000                                              14,770 (2,110 km)
*Source: RPA Ltd (2006)

Infrastructure costs would include mitigation measures to minimise adverse effects
on, for example, nature conservation or commercial interests. These might include
signs (e.g. to ensure dogs are kept on leads and people do not wander onto areas
where roosting birds are present), screening (e.g. creation of hedges or fencing at
sensitive areas) and additional wardening at particularly sensitive sites. Also, if the
potential benefits of additional awareness are to be realised then additional signs and
interpretative information will be needed.
The undertaking of the works described above involve investment in assets that need
to be maintained in the future (unlike acquisition of access rights, which exist in
perpetuity). The need for maintenance is, to some extent, inversely proportional to
the quality of the assets acquired (for example, a well-laid surface made from durable




                                               Asken Ltd
                                Final Report – May 2007
                                          81


materials may last 20 years before further work is needed, whereas a short-term fix is
likely to need repeated work over the same period). The unit costs employed by
RPA Ltd suggest work would be to a high quality, thus reducing the need for further
maintenance inputs in the short term. However, in cash flow terms, the investment
would need to appear at the start of the costing period. Even so, it is likely that some
maintenance and management effort would need to be expended on items such as:
    -   litter clearing;
    -   replacing vandalised signs;
    -   dealing with blocked drains;
    -   compliance checks, monitoring and enforcement.
In order to cover this element of additional costs, a provision of £580/km/yr has been
included in the analysis (based on RPA Ltd’s assessments).

Costs to Natural England
Costs would be incurred in undertaking assessments of proposals to create PRoWs
where these would affect (directly or indirectly) a Natura 2000 site. Based on
estimates of a ‘coastal zone’ that extends from MLWM to MHWM and then a further
200 m inland of MHWM (except in areas of salt marshes where 200 m was taken
from the first line of sea defence) and on previous work undertaken for CRoW Part 1,
it is estimated that to undertake assessments for nature conservation of these
designated sites would take 8 person years of effort at a total cost of £280,000. This
figure is for assessment only.
NE expect to carry out basic research and monitoring to characterise the impacts of
public access on the natural environment (e.g. to address consequential issues such
as bird disturbance and ways to mitigate this, access patterns and visitor
management). These research and monitoring costs are estimated at between
£300,000 and £500,000. (This is not ongoing or existing research, but new work
instigated specifically as a consequence of introducing a right of access to the coast).
It is reasonable to suppose that costs would be incurred to develop a coastal access
code. Costs are assumed to range from £500,000 to £1.33m as a one-off cost,
although they would be spread over the 10-year implementation period assumed for
this option.

Costs to Ministry of Defence
As noted in Section 7.2.2, the MOD expect to incur costs in appraising the
implications of public access onto or adjacent to its coastal sites. The costs have
been estimated as around £219,000, spread over the first ten years of
implementation.

Costs to Environment Agency
As noted in Section 7.2.8, the EA will experience additional costs where it has to
revise risk assessments, engage in greater level of community liaison where it plans




                                      Asken Ltd
                                     Final Report – May 2007
                                               82


to change its maintenance strategy (e.g. where it proposes managed re-alignment or
withdrawal of maintenance) and additional infrastructure and inspection costs.
It has been estimated that extra costs (additional infrastructure costs, works the EA
expect the risk assessments to identify as being required to ensure safe access
along estuarine flood embankments, community liaison) would be incurred over 520
km of coastline, 340 km of which would be at the higher level of costs. Assessed
costs at current prices are listed Table 8.7 below.

Table 8.7:     Costs to Environment Agency

Cost Item              Length (km)      Unit cost (£/km)   Total cost for   Total over 20 yrs
                                                           item (£)         (£000 at 2006)

Risk assessments       340              600                204,000          204

Community Liaison      180              1,000              180,000          180

Extra signage etc.     180              1,000              180,000          180


Total capital costs for this are £0.6m (over the 20-year period) at 2006 prices.

Costs to Arbitrators

PINS
When PRoW cases are heard by PINS, they would meet all the costs unless the
objections are deemed to be vexatious or frivolous. PINS assess their costs as
averaging £3,325 per PRoW case (range of £3,150 and £3,500), giving a total of
£1.8m (range £1.4m to £2.3m).

Lands Tribunal
It is assumed that the LT recovers its costs from appellants. As noted earlier, its
costs have been estimated as £2,500 per case heard. Total costs are £137,000
(range £111,000 to £162,000).

Valuation Office
In a small number of cases, the VOA may be called upon to provide a valuation to
assist with the resolution of disputes over levels of compensation to be paid.
However, any assessment of numbers of cases involved would be highly speculative.
Consequently, this cost has not been quantified.

Summary
The public sector will carry a number of costs under this option. These are identified
for each different body or type of body, in Table 8.8.




                                        Asken Ltd
                                               Final Report – May 2007
                                                         83




Table 8.8:         Additional Costs to Public Sector Bodies


Body/Type of Body           Additional cost factors                        Cost estimate Years 1 – 20
                                                                           (£’000 at £2006 value)

LHA                         Compensation to landowners – orders and        9,096 (982 – 20,136)
                            agreements

LHA                         Compensation to landowners – additional        871 (714 – 976)
                            costs of rpas

LHA                         Legal costs for path creation orders,          7,969 (6,505 – 9,289)
                            agreements and rpas

LHA                         LT costs for failed cases                      68 (56 – 81)

LHA                         Staff and Admin costs                          7,891 (4,829 – 11,528)

LHA                         Public Inquiries                               2,735 (891 – 19,454)

LHAs                        Infrastructure, including mitigation           14,770 (860 – 33,513)

LHA                         Maintenance                                    18,970 (1,104 - 43,042)

NE                          Research                                       400 (300 – 500)

NE/LHA                      Environmental and Appropriate Assessments      280

NE                          Development of coastal access code             750 (500 – 1,330)

Environment Agency          Risk assessments, community liaison, signage   564

MOD                         Site inspections                               88 (42 – 150)

MOD                         Site development                               131 (75 – 200)

PINS                        Hearing PIs                                    1,819 (1,404 – 2,270)

Lands Tribunal              Hearing Appeals                                137 (111 – 162)
          30
Various                     Access to coast                                3,666 (1,203 – 6,989)

Total                                                                      70,206 (20,420 – 150,464)


8.4.2.2 Environment
Generic effects of public access are discussed in Section 5 and the extent to which
they might be realised under Option 1 is considered here.
The powers of closure of PRoWs for environmental protection are more restricted
than some other forms of access. This could significantly increase the risk of
environmental impacts during particularly sensitive periods. These would vary
according to site, habitat and associated species, but could include:
      -        wintering periods (October – March), especially during periods of harsh
               weather, for waterbirds on estuaries and other coastal wetlands, and spring
               (March – May) and autumn (August – October) for passage at some sites;


30
  This covers the cost of providing access to the coast and would be borne by a range of
public sector bodies (e.g. LHAs, PINS)




                                                  Asken Ltd
                                        Final Report – May 2007
                                                  84


     -     breeding seasons for ground nesting birds on beaches (i.e. May - July);
     -     pupping season (September – November) for grey seals;
     -     periods of extremely wet weather, when public usage could lead to significant
           erosion;
     -     prolonged periods of extremely dry and hot weather, when fire risk may be
           especially high.
Disturbance to wintering waterbirds during extended periods of particularly cold
weather could be of particular concern on poorly-aligned PRoWs if they could not be
temporarily closed (see Appendix 8). England’s inter-tidal estuaries are of particular
importance during cold periods in north-west Europe because they normally remain
ice-free. Thus, they occasionally act as cold weather refuges (Ridgill & Fox 1990),
during which they may hold even higher numbers of birds (Brown & Grice 2005).
Other regulations concerning the use of PRoWs also tend to be less defined than
with other access provisions. For example, dogs are required to be kept ‘under close
control’ on PRoWs, but this is not defined, whereas dog control is more clearly
prescribed in some other situations. Also, whilst PRoWs can be aligned to avoid
sensitive areas, the sensitive areas may change over time, whilst the PRoW remains
fixed. Although TROs can be introduced (either by the LHA or NPA) to regulate use
by any form of user, including pedestrians, TROs are administratively burdensome
and restricted in their scope. Similarly, SSSI Diversion Orders can be used where
PRoWs cross SSSIs but again, there is a significant administrative cost.
Consequently, the risks of damage to the environment are perhaps greater than for
other forms of access creation.
A summary of potential residual impacts is provided in Table 8.9 below.


Table 8.9:        Summary of potential residual impacts of Option 1


Receptor / Potential impacts           Potential Mitigation        Residual             Notes
  (see Table 5.4 for details)              Measures                impacts

 Landscape

 Increase numbers of people in        Screening of paths and car   Low        Sensitive routing of path
 the landscape, and cars in car       parks                                   possible
 parks, etc.

 Intrusion of visitor facilities in   Appropriate location and     Low        All options equal
 landscape                            design. Avoidance in areas
                                      of exception scenic value

 Erosion scars                        Reseeding & drainage etc,    Low-       Well designed & maintained
                                      but ineffective if visitor   Moderate   paths, but closure difficult
                                      numbers are high

 Construction of gravel / rock        Use of appropriate           Moderate
 paths on popular sites, reducing     materials
 natural qualities of landscape




                                             Asken Ltd
                                         Final Report – May 2007
                                                   85


Receptor / Potential impacts           Potential Mitigation             Residual             Notes
  (see Table 5.4 for details)              Measures                     impacts

Increased litter (and deliberate      Provision of adequate             Low        Linear access facilitates
illegal dumping), with resultant      disposal facilities for litter.              provision of facilities
reductions in landscape quality       Notices, fines and wardens.
                                      Rapid removal of tipped
                                      waste.

Use of fencing to delimit paths,      Careful placement and             Low
with resultant introduction of        incorporation with stone
man-made feature into natural         walls or hedges where
landscape                             appropriate

Replacement of permanent              NA                                None       No increased risk from
grassland and associated                                                           PRoWs
livestock by cultivated crops to
avoid need to provide access

Geological features

Erosion / damage of sensitive         Path placement, fencing,          Low        Linear access facilitates
features                              and information and                          sensitive routing
                                      interpretation of values

Access infrastructure directly on     Design of access options to       Low        Linear access facilitates
sensitive features or reducing        avoid direct impact and long                 sensitive routing
natural erosion                       term adverse effects

Collection of fossils and minerals    Fencing, information,             Low        Linear access facilitates
– but access available to most        collecting codes and                         fencing and effective signs
well known sites                      interpretation of values,
                                      wardens.

Deliberate vandalism of sensitive     Fencing. Presence of              Low        Linear access facilitates
features                              people and wardens.                          fencing

Biodiversity

Disturbance of breeding, passage      Fencing and screening,            Moderate   Linear access facilitates
and wintering birds, and breeding     path placement, notices,          -High      good routing and screening,
and resting seals.                    and wardens.                                 but seasonal restrictions
                                                                                   difficult

Increases in predator numbers         Frequent litter collection,       Low        Linear access facilitates
due to discarded food and             scavenger-proof litter bins,                 provision of facilities
increased vulnerability of eggs       notices and predator
and young to predators as a           control.
result of disturbance

Trampling of eggs of ground           Information and                   Low -      Linear access reduces risk,
nesting birds                         interpretation, wardens.          Moderate   but seasonal restrictions
                                                                                   difficult

Trampling and erosion of              Fencing, path placement           Low        Good path construction and
sensitive vegetation.                 and notices                                  maintenance should avoid
                                                                                   most impacts

Eutrophication of sensitive           Notices, fines, provision of      Low        Higher impacts along paths
vegetation from dog faeces and        facilities for disposal of                   but restricted area
urine                                 faeces. Path location
                                      alongside sacrificial areas.

Wild fires (increasing frequency)     Fire breaks in high risk          Low        Temporary closures difficult
in high risk habitats (e.g. coastal   areas and sensitive
heaths and pine forests)              habitats. Notices and
                                      temporary closures during
                                      high risk periods.




                                              Asken Ltd
                                        Final Report – May 2007
                                                  86


Receptor / Potential impacts           Potential Mitigation          Residual             Notes
  (see Table 5.4 for details)              Measures                  impacts

 Habitat fragmentation through        Appropriate path design        Low        Constructed paths may
 creation of new paths                (e.g. vegetated) where                    cause some problems
                                      necessary

 Replacement of permanent             NA                             None       No increased risk from
 grassland and associated                                                       PRoWs
 livestock by cultivated crops to
 avoid need to provide access

 Natural succession in semi-          Fencing, path placement,       Low        Linear PRoW facilities
 natural habitats due to removal of   notices. Access                           fencing etc
 livestock by farmers (to avoid       management. Adequate
 livestock-visitor conflicts) or      incentives for grazing.
 displacement of livestock

 Collection of eggs and plants        Presence of people and         Low        Linear access may restrict
                                      wardens.                                  impacts slightly

 Archaeology / cultural features

 Erosion / damage of sensitive        Path placement, fencing,       Low        Linear PRoW facilities
 features                             information and                           sensitive routing and use of
                                      interpretation of special                 notices etc
                                      values

 Deliberate vandalism of sensitive    Fencing, wardens and           Low        Linear PRoW facilities
 features                             careful routing                           fencing

 Impacts outside coastal zone

 Increased CO2 and nitrogen           Provision/promotion of         Low        Depends on overall increase
 emissions from cars, etc.            adequate public transport,                in visitor numbers
 travelling to coastal areas          walking and cycling routes.
                                      Car park pricing to dissuade
                                      car use.

 Increases in visitor related         Provision/promotion of         Low        Depends on overall increase
 infrastructures (e.g. roads)         adequate public transport,                in visitor numbers
                                      walking and cycling routes.
                                      Car park pricing to dissuade
                                      car use.

8.4.2.3 Social
As indicated in Section 6, the local community may suffer costs from some of the
adverse effects that may arise from increased visitor numbers:
    -     loss of peace and tranquillity and change in the character of some areas;
    -     increased traffic and pressure on parking.
There may, on rare occasions, be additional costs to developers in modifying PRoWs
to enable development and this may represent a slowing of change that would
improve economic efficiency (on the assumption that development is driven by desire
to achieve gains in some way), but planning guidance (PPG20) requires that public
access to the coast should be a basic principle and this is impossible to quantify. It is
also unlikely that development would be planned directly on the coast.
The public rights secured may be vulnerable to loss through erosion when any rpa
has ceased (because a party to the agreement has terminated it) or the erosion has
extended into areas not covered by the agreement. Similarly, where changes to the




                                             Asken Ltd
                                Final Report – May 2007
                                          87


legal line become necessary, the legal process for changing alignment is
administratively costly.
The current lack of security over the rights of public access to the foreshore would
remain under this option, as the new access rights would be restricted to the land.
There are expected to be a small increase in the number of incidents in which visitors
to the coast need to be rescued. Most rescues in England are performed by the
RNLI, which is dependent on charitable donations to meet its costs. Other
emergency services or voluntary groups may be involved in rescues from cliffs,
mudflats and so on. This is therefore treated as a cost to society, assessed as
£0.7m in total over the 20-year period.


8.5      Other Issues

8.5.1    Implementation
Implementation would be largely through LHAs. Procedures for establishing PRoWs
are well established and would be used for the creation of a coastal PRoW.
However, LHAs do not have a legal duty to develop PRoWs. As substantial funds
are needed to create PRoWs, LHAs would require additional funding if the target of a
continuous trail around the coast is to be realised (this was evident in the survey of
LHAs and research by RPA Ltd (2006)). Consequently, creation of a complete
coastal trail may be protracted. It is assumed that PRoW creation would take place
over 10 years, with realisation of benefits lagging a little way behind (predicted full
usage not arising until Year 20).
Similarly, promotion of PRoWs is discretionary for LHAs. The net result is that
promotion is not done consistently (see Asken Ltd et al, 2005). Therefore, promotion
of the new access opportunities might be best achieved through some form of
national body – a “National Coastal Trail” office or a partnership organisation of some
kind. This sort of approach is applied with National Trails – e.g. the use of the
National Trails logo, National Trail standards, promotion through the National Trails
website.
There may also be scope for the development of model contracts for:
   -    creation of rights by agreement under s25;
   -    creation of rights by order under s26;
   -    rolling path agreements.
Assuming rpas are in place where needed, the requirement for further creation
agreements or orders should be minimal.

8.5.2    Competition Assessment
The Competition Assessment Filter has been applied to this option (see Table 8.10
below).




                                   Asken Ltd
                                             Final Report – May 2007
                                                       88


Table 8.10:     Competition Assessment Filter


Question                                                                                     Answer
                                                                                             yes or no

Q1: In the market(s) affected by the new regulation, does any firm have more than            No
10% market share?

Q2: In the market(s) affected by the new regulation, does any firm have more than            No
20% market share?

Q3: In the market(s) affected by the new regulation, do the largest three firms together     No
have at least 50% market share?

Q4: Would the costs of the regulation affect some firms substantially more than              No
others?

Q5: Is the regulation likely to affect the market structure, changing the number or size     No
of firms?

Q6: Would the regulation lead to higher set-up costs for new or potential firms that         No
existing firms do not have to meet?

Q7: Would the regulation lead to higher ongoing costs for new or potential firms that        No
existing firms do not have to meet?

Q8: Is the market characterised by rapid technological change?                               No

Q9: Would the regulation restrict the ability of firms to choose the price, quality, range   Yes
or location of their products?


The answers assume that the alignment of the created route would avoid causing
significant adverse effects on businesses. If this were not possible, the answer to
Question 4 would be “Yes”, and compensation would be made as a result. “Yes” is
given in response to Q9, as new businesses would not be able to develop a product
on the basis that it provides exclusive access to coastal frontage.

8.6         Summary
The benefits and costs, both quantified and unquantified, identified for this option are
summarised in Table 8.11 and Table 8.12 respectively below, broken down by type
of receptor. In order to allow comparison at current prices, monetary data have been
adjusted to NPV based on a 3.5% discount rate. Figures in brackets are lower and
upper estimates.




                                                  Asken Ltd
                                              Final Report – May 2007
                                                        89




Table 8.11:     Summary of Quantified Benefits and Costs (Yrs 1 – 20)

                                                   Benefits                                        Costs
                                 £m (at 2006)             £m (NPV)                 £m (at 2006)         £m (NPV)

Users                            276 (138 – 414)          171 (85 – 256)           9 (7 – 14)           6 (4 – 9)

Property Owners                  11 (2 – 22)              9 (1 – 19)               6 (3 – 10)           5 (2 – 7)

Society                          0                        0                        1 (<1 – 1)           <1 (<1 – 1)

Public Sector                    0                        0                        70 (20 – 150)        55 (17 – 117)

Total                            287 (140 – 436)          179 (87 – 275)           86 (30 – 175)        (66 (24 – 134)



Table 8.12:     Summary of Unuantified Benefits and Costs


Beneficiary and Type of Benefit                Unquantified Benefits

Users – health and well-being                  Increased health and well-being arising from 5.5m visits (High)

Users – education                              Educational benefits (Low)

Users – security of rights                     Greater security against loss of access rights through land use change
                                               along 1,720 km to 2,500 km of coastal land (High)

Users – future proofing against erosion        Protection of rights against erosion through use of rolling path
                                               agreements along 410 km to 560 km of PRoW (Low)

Users – access for people with disabilities    Provision of more opportunities for those with disabilities, included at
                                               the upper end of the range of costs, affecting up to 66% of created
                                               route (High for those people affected)

Property Owners - management                   Generic benefits described in Section 4 over between 1,720 km and
                                               2,500 km of coastal land (Low)

Public Sector – health costs                   £805 for every person who changes from a sedentary to an active
                                               lifestyle (Moderate)

Public sector – permissive payments            Reduced payments for permissive access (Low)

Public sector – land management costs          Reduced management costs over de facto access (Low)

Environment                                    Greater control and education of visitors along those sections of coast
                                               with new PRoW (between 1,720 km and 2,500 km) where control is
                                               currently minimal/non-existent (Moderate)

Society/Coastal Economy - employment           1,369 (1,177 to 1,560) FTEs as a result of increased visitor spend
                                               (High)

Society/Coastal Economy – business             Business generated by public sector spend of £70.2m (£20.4m -
generated from public sector spend             £150.5m) (High)


Bearer and Type of Costs                       Unquantified Costs

Users – process of creation                    Inputs of time at 550 Public Inquiries etc. spread over 10 years
                                               (Moderate for a few)

Property Owners – injurious affection          Injurious affection (Minimal for many, High for a few)

Property Owners – creation of access           (Note: costs incurred by landowners in path creation is included as a




                                                 Asken Ltd
                                        Final Report – May 2007
                                                  90


                                         quantified cost)

Property Owners – costs of safety and    Costs of safety and security measures at coastal properties along 170
security measures                        km of coast (Minimal for many, High for a few)

Property Owners – on-going costs of      Applications for temporary footpath diversions (Low)
management

Property Owners – Duty of Care           (Note: costs of increased duty of care to people coming onto PRoWs
                                         are expected to be provided for in compensation paid)

Property Owners – Other                  Costs to developers of coastal land through which new PRoWs pass
                                         (Low)

Public Sector – creation and review      Costs to VOA (Minimal)

Public sector – organising rescues       Increased costs to MCA of organising around 57 additional rescues
                                         (Low)

Public Sector - Liability                Liability to public associated with infrastructure along 1,720 km to
                                         2,500 km of PRoW (Low)

Environment - landscape                  Landscape: Erosion scars on up to 1,720 km or up to 2,500 km of new
                                         PRoW (Low- Moderate) and artificial paths on 66% of this for the
                                         upper end of the range of estimates (Moderate)

Environment - geology                    Geology: Erosion scars on up to 1,720 km or up to 2,500 km of new
                                         PRoW (Low)

Environment – biodiversity               Biodiversity: Potential disturbance impacts on birds on about 10,000
                                         ha of SSSI land (Moderate-High but depends on circumstances and
                                         mitigation measures); trampling of birds nests etc. alongside 1,720 km
                                         to 2,500 km of new PRoW (Low-Moderate)

Environment – culture                    Cultural heritage impacts over up to 4,000 ha of SMs (Low)

Society/Coastal Economy - disruption     Disruption to coastal residents – increased traffic, parking problems
                                         (Moderate)

Society/Coastal Economy – peace and      Loss of peace and tranquillity in some areas (Moderate)
tranquillity


The benefits and costs of the four different options are compared in Section 14.




                                           Asken Ltd
                                  Final Report – May 2007
                                            91



9.        Option 2 – Use of CRoW Section 3


9.1       Introduction
This section provides a description of Option 2 – “Use of CRoW Section 3”. A variant
on this option was originally put forward by Defra - “Use of a Descriptive Approach”.
In effect, it involved an approach similar to Option 2 but without the need to go
through the mapping process.
Option 2a was also appraised but this came to be seen as not an option to be further
developed. The partial appraisal of this option is included in Appendix 9.
This section deals solely with Option 2.


9.2       Option Description
Defra’s tender document describe this option as being: “Mapping under Section 3 of
the Act. Under this option coastal land, broadly as defined in Section 3(3) (although
this definition could be refined), would be mapped as access land”.

9.2.1     Legal framework
Section 3 of CRoW states that: “(1) The Secretary of State (as respects England) …
may by order amend the definition of “open country” in section 1(2) so as to include a
reference to coastal land or to coastal land of any description”. Section 3(3) defines
“coastal land” as “(a) the foreshore, and (b) land adjacent to the foreshore (including
in particular any cliff, bank, barrier, dune, beach or flat which is adjacent to the
foreshore).”
In practice, using this option means that coastal land would form another category of
Access Land under CRoW and so would:
     -   give rights for public access on foot for informal recreation (s2);
     -   be subject to a mapping process (s4 to s11 and associated regulations);
     -   give occupiers the benefit from a reduced duty of care (s13);
     -   be subject to a similar regime of restrictions and exclusions (s22 to s30);
     -   be entitled to support from AAs in providing a means of access (s34 to s39);
     -   have sections of coastal land taken out of the regime because they meet the
         criteria of excepted land (Schedule 1)
     -   be subject to the same general restrictions to the extent of the right (Schedule
         2).




                                     Asken Ltd
                                   Final Report – May 2007
                                             92


Many of the implications of designation as Access Land are described in “Out in the
Country” (Countryside Agency 2002) and “Managing Public Access” (Countryside
Agency 2005a).

9.2.2      Key assumptions
In making the appraisal of this option, it has been assumed that:
      -   there will be no changes on coastal land which is already mapped as Access
          Land, by reason of the fact that it is wholly or predominantly mountain, moor,
          heath or down, or is registered common land;
      -   under the ‘do nothing’ scenario, no further Access Land will be created;
      -   LHAs will not seek to create PRoWs over land that has been mapped as
          Access Land, although in their role as AA (together with NPAs) they would
          endeavour to promote access over it using powers available to them under
          CRoW;
      -   land would not be ploughed simply to ensure it became ‘excepted land’; in the
          converse, land would not be converted from arable to permanent pasture so
          that it would ultimately become Access Land;
      -   AAs (i.e. local highway authorities and national park authorities) and relevant
          authorities (i.e. NE, the FC and NPAs) will fulfil the same role on ‘coastal land’
          as on other types of Access Land, with additional costs for (for example) the
          OACC administering coastal land restrictions and exclusions, and for a
          promotion campaign for coastal land;
      -   the restrictions regime would remain unchanged and would be used on
          coastal Access Land in a similar frequency as on other types of Access Land;
      -   directions for restrictions would not be given unless they were considered to
          be necessary (this meets the current criteria contained within guidance
          available 31). However, changes could be made to the current relevant
          authority guidance to consider types of restrictions that might apply
          specifically to coastal land. This point is discussed further below;
      -   the foreshore will become Access Land but, whilst there will be no effects on
          land management, there may be restrictions to the foreshore on certain
          grounds (e.g. nature conservation). (Note: restrictions on the grounds of
          public health and safety relate to things done on the land or adjacent land,
          and cannot be used to deny access due to dangers arising from tidal
          movements).
Assumptions about the cost of mapping have a major effect on the total costs for this
option. Consequently, the sensitivity of the benefit cost ratio to changes in the
assumptions over mapping costs is explored in Section 14.




31
     See: http://www.openaccess.gov.uk/wps/portal/ra/guidance




                                      Asken Ltd
                                    Final Report – May 2007
                                              93


9.3         Scale of Effects
There is difficulty in assessing the area of land that would come under the definition
of ‘coastal land’. This land has not been mapped and is not readily identifiable from
OS maps. It is also vital, in terms of assessing effects, to differentiate between and
foreshore and coastal land.

9.3.1       Foreshore
OS maps delineate MLWM and MHWM and the area thus defined equates to
‘foreshore’; hence it is possible to provide a relatively accurate measure of its area.
Data supplied by OS to the Office for National Statistics 32 (ONS) indicate that the
foreshore of England covers approximately 250,000 ha. In contrast, data provided by
NE report that the area of land between MHWM and “Extent of the Realm” is 288,410
ha 33. This provides an upper and lower estimate for use in the analysis.
Much of this area is likely to be accessible to the public already, whether as of right
or (more typically) by tolerance or express permission of the landowner, although this
proportion is not known. By way of example, 55% is reported to be owned by the
Crown 34, and a further substantial proportion by the NT; both landowners generally
permit public access to the foreshore. Local authorities are also known to own some
foreshores, although we have not been able to quantify this accurately. It is likely
that as much as 95% is already accessible on a permissive basis. Therefore, new
access to the foreshore will be limited to as little as 12,500 ha – 14,420 ha, although
the benefits of statutorily secure public access will extend over the whole area.

9.3.2       Coastal Land
It has proved difficult to obtain a figure for the area of land and foreshore likely to fit
the description of ‘coastal land’ used in CRoW. However, some indication can be
obtained from Doody (2000). He records 192,500 ha of tidal flat, saltmarsh, sand
dune and vegetated shingle habitats around the English coast; these are expected to
account for the bulk of the area of coastal land.
NE has calculated that the area of coastal land (based on data for coastal habitats
but excluding foreshore) is 143,390 ha. However, the legal definition includes “land
adjacent to the foreshore” and is not restricted to the types of land or feature listed.
Therefore, it could cover other types of land besides the “cliff, bank, barrier, dune,
beach or flat which is adjacent to the foreshore” (see Section 2.2.1 for the legal
definition).




32
     See: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/geography/sam.asp
33
   The Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act 1878 and the Territorial Waters Order in Council
1964 confirm that the extent of the realm of Great Britain as used by Ordnance Survey is
properly shown to the limit of mean low water (mean low water springs in Scotland) for the
time being (except where extended by Parliament).
34
     See: http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/15_our_portfolio/39_marine.htm




                                       Asken Ltd
                                 Final Report – May 2007
                                           94


Another important factor in deciding the area of land that may be mapped as Access
Land is how the inward limit is defined on cliff tops. The tops of cliffs are likely to be
mapped as part of the cliff, meaning that the inland boundary would have to be linked
to an obvious feature on land at the top of the cliff (see CRoW s4(5)(b)) – which may
incorporate parts of or entire fields. Any of the land that is mapped in this way and
which has been ‘disturbed’ in the previous 12 months (e.g. ploughed/arable land)
would become ‘excepted land’ and the rights of access would not apply to it.
Consequently, some intensively farmed cliff-top land will probably be affected. It is
virtually impossible to estimate this accurately, and so the area of coastal land other
than foreshore has been rounded up to a value of 150,000 ha, of which 6,600 ha is
assumed to be used for relatively intensive use (as opposed to, say, rough grazing).
Of this, it is estimated from the 200m coastal buffer strip dataset that CRoW Access
Land and NT open land occupies 11% of the area. In order to make some provision
for land that may be accessible through these and other secure mechanisms, a
range of 11% to 15% has been employed in the study’s calculations, with a mid-point
of 13%. Public access to many other areas is available through landowner
permission, including much land in local authority ownership (although it has not
been possible to determine the area involved). However, it is prudent to assume that
more use may be made of existing access areas due to greater promotion.

9.3.3    Total Area Affected
Overall, therefore, it is estimated that around 250,000 ha to 288,000 ha of foreshore
will become accessible as of right but that virtually all of this is already accessible
and effects here will be minimal. Other affected land will extend to around 150,000
ha, of which about 13% (range of 11% to 15%) is thought to be already securely
accessible to the public (either as CRoW Access Land or NT open land or other
mechanisms that provide for legally secure access rights), meaning that effects will
be felt over some 133,500 ha to 127,500 ha, of which between 5,610 ha and 5,870
ha will be intensively managed (6,600 ha x 11% and 15% respectively).


9.4      Effects Relative to Baseline

9.4.1    Benefits

9.4.1.1 Economic
Benefits to Users
The IPSPOS/MORI survey (2006) results suggest that around 6% of people would
visit the coast more frequently if this option was adopted. The survey indicates that
this increase is dependent on the provision/availability of good mapped information to
the public so that they can be clear about which land is legally accessible. On this
basis, and making an adjustment for displaced access (relative to Option 1) gives
visits and benefits as shown in Table 9.1. The annual benefit, when the full level of
predicted usage is reached in Year 20, is £19.42m.
Although this option would identify the available access within 3 years it will still take
a considerable time period for a change in behaviour to occur, especially for non-




                                    Asken Ltd
                                     Final Report – May 2007
                                               95


residents. Accordingly, we increase benefits linearly to this figure from Year 4 to
Year 20.
CRoW automatically provides a right of access for people using mobility vehicles,
although it does not directly ensure the accessibility of land to such vehicles.
However, it enables AAs to enter into negotiations to provide a ‘means of access’,
and obligations under DDA 1995 and 2005 would ensure that reasonable steps were
taken to provide for people with disabilities. Defra’s informal view is that a private
landowner is unlikely to be regarded as a service provider under DDA 1995 just
because the CRoW Act applies to their land. However, where he/she chooses
voluntarily to provide infrastructure, this could be seen as service provision and
he/she would be required to ensure reasonable adjustments have been for disabled
people.


Table 9.1:     User Benefits as at Year 20


Displaced and additional                       Unit Benefit
visits                           Visits (m)      (£/visit)     Benefit (£m)

Residents                           0.95           2.35            2.23

Tourists and other day visits       2.75           6.25           17.19

Total                               3.70                          19.42

Benefits to Owners and Managers of Properties Along the Coast
Various benefits have been identified in Section 4.2 that landowners would enjoy
over Access Land. These would generally be recurring benefits, but are expected to
be low and unquantifiable.
As noted for Option 1 (see Section 8.3.2), it has been estimated that providing
access to the coast would require the creation of around 110 km of PRoW, needing
125 landowner agreements. An additional benefit will be the income of those
landowners who receive payments or compensation where PRoWs are created to
gain access to what would otherwise be virtually inaccessible Access Land along the
coast, although this income would be paid to offset by costs incurred in creating the
access (see Section 8.4.2.1 above – one-off and recurring costs to farmers). The
costs are estimated to total £0.7m (mid-point value).
Landowners will owe a duty of care to people coming on to their land. Where this is
by permission, the duty of care would be that set out in the Occupiers’ Liability Act
1957. Where people coming onto land are trespassing, the Occupiers’ Liability Act
1984 applies. However, where land is designated as CRoW Access Land, the duty
of care is modified by CRoW s13. For example, s13(2) specifies that an occupier
owes no duty of care to risks arising from “natural features of the landscape” when
such land is open for public access.
Owners of property will also gain from the generic benefits described under Section 4
(see Section 4.2).




                                           Asken Ltd
                                       Final Report – May 2007
                                                 96


Benefits to the Coastal Economy
The impacts of this option (as with others) depend entirely on the additional visitor
days they generate, and the amounts these visitors spend. Table 9.2 summarises
the impacts derived from the visitor data in Appendix 2.


Table 9.2: Economic impacts of Option 2


Increase in total visitor   Employment associated    Income associated with new
days (m/yr)                 with new access (FTEs)   access (£m per year)
                            range                    (range)

0.66                        785 to 1,040             2.46 to 3.25


Enhanced access would encourage additional trips to the coast and the increases in
expenditures will provide greater employment opportunities and increase incomes for
local businesses. The impacts are estimated at 780 to 1,040 FTE jobs and £2.46m-
£3.25m per year in additional income for local businesses (see Appendix 3).
Local economies would also benefit from a proportion of the increased spending by
public sector bodies (see Table 9.7 below).

Benefits to Public Sector Bodies
LHAs will make savings in sections of coast where they currently are, or are planning
to, purchase permissive public access but would no longer need to because of the
creation of rights under CRoW. It is assumed that they would still incur costs in
promotion and providing on-the-ground infrastructure, and that grant aid would be
available via a grant scheme (i.e. the Access Management Grant Scheme or similar).
It is arguable that LHAs would reduce their efforts at creating coastal PRoWs;
however, given that invoking CRoW s3 would not provide a continuous passage
along the coast, it is likely that pressure would actually grow for more PRoWs to be
created. Even so, unless more funding becomes available, it is unlikely that the rate
of creation would change, so no effects need to be accommodated.

9.4.1.2 Environmental
As noted above, this option would potentially affect access to a large area of
saltmarsh, coastal grazing marsh, sand dunes and cliffs.
In addition to the general beneficial environmental effects of public access (identified
under Section 5), areas of coastal land are expected to benefit in the following ways:
       -   sensitive coastal land that is currently used by the public in an unmanaged
           way will come under the CRoW Access Land management regime and so
           benefit from better management and increased protection;
       -   CRoW provides options for controlling access to particularly sensitive sites
           and during critical periods that are currently not available. Thus access can
           be prevented where or when other mitigation measures, such as placement of
           entry points, footpaths or signs etc. are considered to be insufficient. For
           example, this option could be used to ensure some sensitive habitats are



                                           Asken Ltd
                                Final Report – May 2007
                                          97


        subject to long-term or permanent restrictions or to temporarily prevent
        access to coastal nesting sites during the breeding season.

9.4.1.3 Social
In addition to the general beneficial social effects of public access (identified under
Section 65.1), access users in areas of coastal land are expected to benefit in the
following ways:
   -    access will be certain as Access Land will be shown on the conclusive maps.
        It will be adjusted to account for the changing coastline when the maps are
        revised;
   -    the concept of CRoW Access Land is becoming established and so there
        would be benefits in extending access under the same regime.
Designation of land as CRoW Access Land does not prevent development (as stated
in CRoW Schedule 1, para 15(2)), although a planning authority should take the
CROW designation into account as part of their considerations.

9.4.2    Costs

9.4.2.1 Economic
Costs to Users
There may be some costs to users in the form of:
   -    restrictions to access areas where restrictions previously did not arise (e.g. in
        the case of de facto or permissive access);
   -    increased management of such lands, with associated parking charges, etc.;
   -    involvement (which is entirely voluntary) in the mapping process (commenting
        on draft maps, contributing to appeals into mapping disputes).
In rare instances, additional loss of life will arise, for example through accidental
drownings (valued at £5.8m mid-point, range £4.4m to £8.7m).

Costs to Owners and Managers of Properties Along the Coast

One-off Costs – Farmers and Foresters
For the purpose of this study, it is assumed that there will be a one-off loss of capital
value as a result of the loss of rights of exclusive access to agricultural land.
However, the loss is expected to be generally small in most cases, and
unquantifiable.
There would also be one-off costs associated with the initial mapping exercise.
These would be in the form of:
   -    checking of draft maps for accuracy;
   -    submitting comments on draft maps;
   -    appealing against mapping on the provisional maps;




                                    Asken Ltd
                                    Final Report – May 2007
                                              98


   -   appealing against some decisions; and
   -   applying for restrictions.
The only information made available to show how much effort is required to deal with
CRoW Access Land mapping and restrictions has been provided by National
Farmers’ Union (NFU) and CLA (pers comm.). The information provided has been
drawn from CLA members and professionals involved in helping farming clients with
Access Land mapping. Firstly, it is noted that mapping of registered common land
produced few problems (as it was already mapped as part of the registration
process). There is a parallel here with foreshore, the limits of which are shown on
OS maps. The MHWM and MLWM can be expected to change gradually over time
but, nevertheless, it is assumed that no costs will be incurred with respect to
foreshore mapping.
Experience with CRoW access mapping was that internet access was critical and
people generally took:
   -   1 to 3 hrs if internet access available;
   -   4 to 6 hrs if internet access not available.
Much of this time involved many farmers searching large areas of land but this
should not be necessary with coastal mapping, as it is comparatively easy to locate
the coastline and follow it across land within one management unit. Consequently, it
is assumed that this initial search would take between 1 and 3 hours per landowner.
In the initial CRoW mapping, where the landowner/farmer believed an error had been
made on the draft or provisional maps, he/she was able to make a comment. Again,
CLA/NFU have provided indicative time requirements of:
   -   2 to 5 hrs for simple cases;
   -   5 to 20 hrs for complex cases (but 2 to 10 hours when a professional was
       engaged).
The landowner’s/farmer’s time would reduce where professional agents were
engaged but obviously a direct cost would be incurred in the form of professional
fees. Costs of professional advice ranged from £250 (where the agent was already
familiar with the site) to £2,000 (where the site was not known by the agent). The
mapping process was new to everyone at that time but there is now greater
experience (although not necessarily amongst coastal farmers); however, the coastal
situation is in some ways more complex and is thought likely to give rise to similar
commitments of time and expense.
Most landowners who chose to challenge the provisional maps employed
professional advisors, although CLA/NFU research suggested that each landowner
would typically invest about 3 days of time working with his advisors. Professional
time inputs are estimated by CLA/NFU respondents as being between 15 and 25
hours per case, at a cost of around £100 - £150/hour. An overall range of between
£3,000 and £6,500 has been suggested by CLA/NFU.
CLA/NFU estimate that where a complex case required a PI, costs to the landowner
could rise to between £100,000 and £150,000 if QCs are retained. This is likely to be



                                       Asken Ltd
                                  Final Report – May 2007
                                            99


at the extreme upper end and affecting a very small number of cases. In most cases,
appeals were dealt with through written representations to keep costs down.
Table 9.3 below uses the data above to estimate landowner/farmer costs associated
with the mapping exercise.

Table 9.3:   Details of Costs to Farmers of Mapping

1. Initial Checking of Draft Maps
Number of farms along the coast         =        12,500
Other checking and getting nil response =        (say) 12,500
Total landowners checking maps          = 25,000
Cost/check = 1 to 3 hrs x £8.61/hr      = £8.61 - £25.83
        Lower level     £8.61 x 25,000 = £215,250
        Upper level     £25.83 x 25,000 = £645,750
2. Comments on Draft Maps
It is assumed that the 12,500 who check and are found not to have land mapped as
coastal will take no further action. Of the other 12,500, we assume that 20% (i.e.
2,500) will wish to submit an observation. 80% of these are assumed to be simple
and 20% complex with half of the latter done with expert support.
Simple responses
        Lower level     2,000 observations x 2hrs x £8.61 = £34,440
        Upper level     2,000 observations x 5hrs x £8.61 = £86,100
Complex responses – no expert support
        Lower level     250 observations x 5hrs x £8.61 = £10,760
        Upper level     250 observations x 20hrs x £8.61 = £43,050
Complex responses – with expert support
Farmer/landowner
        Lower level     250 observations x 2 hrs x £8.61 = £4,300
        Upper level     250 observations x 10 hrs x £8.61 = £21,500
Plus expert inputs
        Lower level     250 observations x £250 = £62,500
        Upper level     250 observations x £2,000 = £500,000
3. Appeals on Provisional Maps
We know that the Countryside Agency’s mapping of 600,000 ha of CROW Access




                                      Asken Ltd
                                    Final Report – May 2007
                                              100


Land (excluding registered common land) produced 3,173 appeals – one appeal for
every 180 ha. Assuming a similar rate of appeals, then the mapping of 150,000 ha of
coastal land (excluding foreshore) would be expected to yield around 800 appeals.
However, RPA Ltd view this as being at the bottom end of the range of likely appeals
and, using their assumptions, as many as 2,000 appeals may be made (with a mid-
point of 1,400). The cost is likely to vary significantly depending on whether the
applicant takes expert advice. The average cost to property owners of making
appeals is assessed as £4,750 (range of £3,000 and £6,500).
Costs would be greater where QCs and a range of expert witnesses are called, but
these are expected to be very few in number. Likewise, there would be additional
costs if a decision of PINS was not accepted and a case taken to judicial review but
we would expect such cases to be very few in number (there have only been a very
small number of judicial reviews under the implementation of the CRoW mapping and
restrictions regime).

Total one-off costs (at 2006 values) are £7.0m (within a range of £3.1m to £16.0m),
including costs associated with access to the coast.

One-off Costs – Residential Property
Residential properties and their immediate curtilage in areas considered to be coastal
land would be mapped, but would be excepted land under Schedule 1 of CRoW. As
a result, there would be no right of public access. However, as noted earlier (see
Section 4 and Appendix 5), properties could suffer from injurious affection if public
access was created over adjacent land.
The earlier discussion on this point (see Section 8.4.2) showed that the effect on
properties varies with circumstances but, where claims for injurious affection arise,
losses equate to around 5% to 10% of the original value of affected properties.
Given an average house value in England and Wales for Oct-Dec 2006 of
£191,293 35 (although coastal properties are likely to carry a value above the
average), this equates to a range of £9,560 to £19,130 per affected property. It has
not been possible to assess accurately the number of properties that might be
affected. In addition to the loss are any legal costs that may be incurred in trying to
claim compensation. However, given the likelihood that no claims would succeed,
costs should be minimal.

One-off Costs - Others
The desire to examine the maps is not restricted to farmers and foresters. Others
with an interest in coastal land may also want to study the maps and make
observations. These would include:
      -   owners of built properties adjacent to the coast;
      -   those with a legal interest in coastal property and land;



35
     Source: http://www.proviser.com/property_prices/ - visited on 29-01-07




                                        Asken Ltd
                                 Final Report – May 2007
                                           101


   -   Local Access Forums (LAFs);
   -   bodies including:
           o   those representing an interest in land, farming and commercial
               property (e.g. NFU, CLA);
           o   environmental bodies (e.g. Wildfowl and Wetland Trust, Royal Society
               for the Protection of Birds);
   -   individuals with a personal interest.
It has not been possible to quantify the number of coastal properties that may be
affected, and so it is not possible to estimate numbers of individuals in the first two
categories. A LAF member and any individual responding on behalf of a special
interest group, or on his/her own behalf, does so voluntarily and the costs (and
subsequent benefits) can be set aside for this study.
It is expected that attempts to have public access restricted would be made by
owners of coastal land who believe that allowing public access would threaten the
commercial viability of their businesses. However, it is not clear, at present, whether
they would have the grounds for doing so. Firstly, CRoW itself is not particularly
specific - it says (at s24(1)) restrictions would be granted where ".. necessary for the
purpose of the management of the land by the applicant". Secondly, the Statutory
Instrument covering restrictions (SI 2003:2713) sets out the procedures rather than
the grounds for granting restrictions.
Interpretation of the statutory Relevant Authority guidance is the basis on which a
decision would be taken by the Relevant Authority. This says "Land management in
this context is intended to be interpreted widely, and includes agriculture, sporting
and commercial activities" (Para 1.1.3 on the page dealing with restrictions for Land
Management and Public Safety). But, the guidance offered does not cater for the
situation of public access to a private beach or the foreshore (this is not surprising, as
the guidance was developed in the context of mountain, moor, heath, down and
registered common land).
Nonetheless, if this option is adopted, there would undoubtedly be attempts to argue
that:
   -   some portion of the land/shore/foreshore was part of the curtilage of a
       building (e.g. a holiday chalet) and so should be excepted land (under CRoW
       Sch 1);
   -   restrictions are needed for land management purposes using existing criteria
       (under CRoW s24);
   -   the relevant authority guidance should be amended to cater for the coastal
       situation, including private beaches which are vital for the viability of
       “commercial activities".
However, at this stage, it is assumed that access to foreshore could not be
permanently closed on land management grounds. As a result, no cost has been
imputed to cover these costs. Potential loss of profits to such businesses is
discussed below under “Costs to Local Economy”.




                                    Asken Ltd
                                       Final Report – May 2007
                                                 102


Total one-off costs to landowners are estimated (with lower and upper limits in
brackets) at:
       Item                                                      Cost (£000 at 2006 prices)
       Initial inspection                                                   431 (215 – 646)
       Further observations - simple                                            60 (34 – 86)
       Further observations - complex no support                                27 (11 – 43)
       Further observations - complex expert support                             13 (4 – 22)
       Expert input - submit observations                                    281 (63 – 500)
       Appeals - landowner                                                 232 (161 – 415)
       Appeals - experts                                             5,700 (2,500 – 13,929)
       Costs for access TO coast                                            233 (149 – 317)
       Total                                                          6,977 (3,138 - 15,957)


Recurring costs - Farmers
Schedule 1 of CRoW sets out the categories of land that are excluded from access
rights. It provides that arable land and regularly ploughed grassland are excluded,
and we have assumed that land use would not change (either into, or out of, grass),
as a result of the extension of the Access Land definition. The recurring effects will
be solely on permanent grassland and habitats (such as saltmarsh) that support
grazing.
We have examined various data sources in an effort to identify recurring costs to
farmers. These sources, and the data they contain, are reviewed below.
The Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) scheme provided an access option to
participants in any of the 22 English ESAs. In return for complying with a number of
management prescriptions on land entered into this option, participants were
compensated by an annual payment of £178/ha for ‘visitor management such as litter
clearance’ (calculated from 25 hours of site management time @ £7.10/hr) 36.
Interestingly, no distinction is made between type of land entered, possibly on the
assumption that land use has no effect on time needed for access management.
This is probably excessive for most extensive grassland and coastal habitats,
however. In contrast, a figure of 6 hrs/ha/yr is assumed to be sufficient under the Tir
Gofal scheme (at the same payment rate per hour as ESAs, this equates to
£42.60/ha).
Payments quoted above may serve as surrogates of farmers’ costs on relatively
productive land. In contrast, Entec (1999) estimated direct costs to farmers as a
result of providing area-wide access to mountain, moor, heath, down and registered
common land, which is likely to be more representative of grazing enterprises on
coastal flats, saltmarsh and dunes. They differentiated between ‘high pressure’ and


36
     See: http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/docs/national/annexes/annexx/access.htm




                                          Asken Ltd
                               Final Report – May 2007
                                         103


‘low pressure’ sites and estimated costs (adjusted from 1998 to 2006 prices by
inflating by 21.8%) as follows:
   -   low impact/low visitor pressure sites - £0.35/ha;
   -   high impact/low visitor pressure sites - £0.74/ha;
   -   low impact/high visitor pressure sites - £3.65/ha;
   -   high impact/high visitor pressure sites - £5.94/ha.
Note: high versus low impact represented situations where game shooting was
present or not present, respectively. These high impact values are not thought to be
applicable to coastal areas of extensively managed land (even those used for
wildfowling – see Section 12.4.1), although the low impact values are. It is assumed
that only 10% of newly accessible extensively managed areas would become high
visitor pressure sites.
For the more intensively managed land, the figures used for Option 1 (see Table 8.4)
show a very wide range of costs and it is difficult to draw out a value around which
estimates cluster. In the absence of any substantive data, it is proposed to assume a
loss of gross margin would arise from relatively intensively farmed land as if 2
footpaths per ha (each 2 m x 100 m) were to develop and that losses range from 0%
to 50% of yield (as per assumption used for Option 1). This provides an estimate of
gross margin loss of between 0% and 2% per hectare (this would cover both loss of
grass production and reductions in grazing efficiency) plus between 6 and 10 hours
per ha/year for management time, including applying for restrictions/exclusions
where needed. Note that, of the intensively farmed land assumed to lie within the
mapped area, 60% is arable and so would be ‘excluded land’ and consequently
would experience no loss of gross margin or extra management effort.
An assumption is made below that AAs, funded through an AMGS-like grant scheme,
would assist with management of high pressure sites. The effect of this assumption
is that recurring costs to farmers over more intensively farmed land would be as
shown in Table 9.4.
There would be an effect, also, arising from the creation of PRoWs (of about 110 km)
to gain access to the coast. The same unit costs are used in this option as were
used for Option 1.
Total recurring quantifiable costs to farmers are estimated (at 2006 values) to be
£4.0m, with lower and upper estimates of £2.9m and £5.1m respectively).




                                   Asken Ltd
                                         Final Report – May 2007
                                                   104




Table 9.4:      Estimate of Recurring Costs to Farmers on Productive Coastal Grassland


Loss of Gross          Gross       Proportion    Average Loss on Grassland (£/ha)
Margin                 Margin      of Grass
                       (£/ha)      area (%)
                                                 Lower (0%)       Mid (1%)          Upper (2%)

Dairy                  1,434       22            0                3.15              6.31

LFA Livestock          236         8             0                0.19              0.38

Lowland Livestock      428         55            0                2.35              4.71

Livestock element      430         15            0                0.65              1.29
of ‘Mixed’

Loss of SGM                                      0                6.34              12.69


Additional Management time                       Lower            Mid               Upper

Extra time expended     Hours/ha                 6                8                 10

Value                   @ £8.61/hr (Nix, 2006)   51.7             68.9              86.1

Total Loss £/ha                                  51.7             75.2              98.8
Note: Arable land and temporary grassland would be classed as ‘excepted land’ and should
not experience any effects of public access, as rights would not extend over such areas.


Occupiers’ Liability
On CRoW Access Land where previously no public access was allowed and
trespassing was not known to have occurred, then the occupier of that land would
have to consider whether he was meeting his duty of care to the people now coming
onto his land. However, this duty would be modified by CRoW s13. As a result, it is
unlikely to be significant in most cases. On land where public access is already
permitted, or the occupier tolerates de facto access, a duty of care already exists.

Costs to the Coastal Economy
There may be costs to businesses that rely on exclusive access to land that would
become Access Land. One hotel in Devon with largely exclusive access to its island
beach has rooms priced at £160-240 per person per night. Although one cannot
identify how much to attribute to the exclusive location, as opposed to the other
services offered, a comparison with typical hotel prices in the same class suggest
that this is unlikely to exceed perhaps £30 per head per day. This does not include
the benefits that the experience provides and in that sense differs from the contingent
valuation estimates of seaside benefits. However, loss of exclusive use of the beach
may remove the unique selling point of the business and place it in more direct
competition with other hotels/establishments in the area. Consequently, we conclude
that there may be some businesses that will face substantial adverse effects,
although these effects and the number of such businesses are impossible to quantify.




                                             Asken Ltd
                                Final Report – May 2007
                                          105


Although designation of land as Access Land is not intended to restrict development,
there is a belief that it may influence decisions to grant planning permission (CLA
pers comm.). Were this to occur, this would serve to reduce the increase in
economic efficiency.

Costs to Public Sector Bodies
The public sector will carry a number of costs under this option. The National Audit
Office (NAO 2006) recently assessed the costs to the public sector to date for the
implementation of CRoW as being £69m (£74/ha), with mapping as one of the
biggest costs. Whilst lessons can be learnt from the earlier exercise, it is likely that
some costs would differ, and so they are reviewed below.

Mapping
RPA Ltd (2006), drawing on data quoted in Countryside Agency Board paper (CA,
2004) put total mapping costs at £25.4m for mapping all Access Land (adjusted to
2006 values). However, costs for the 336,000 ha of registered common land were
minimal (RPA Ltd suggest a figure of £1.15/ha) and so they believe a more accurate
representation of unit costs is gained by spreading the total cost over other land
types (i.e. 600,000 ha). This gives a cost of £44.05/ha (at 2006 prices). RPA Ltd
suggests that due to the complexity of the coast, mapping costs could be as much as
double this figure (i.e. £88.10/ha). However, uncertainty over the costs led them to
add that costs could also be lower.
Other NE staff consulted also believe that costs could be lower for a similar exercise
involving the coast (NE, pers comm.) due to better understanding of the process and
some of the preparatory work done for the initial mapping work will be of value, but
this is likely to be possible only in certain elements for the task (e.g. preparation of
maps). Lessons learnt from the mapping process undertaken during 2001 to 2005
have been identified by the Countryside Agency et al (2006) and suggest a more
efficient process could be devised, although some of the recommendations that lead
to savings may be offset by others that lead to cost increases. Better data (such as
high resolution aerial mapping) and a delivery timetable with greater flexibility would
also yield some savings (NE, pers comm.). Also, whilst foreshore should be
comparatively easy to map (parallels here with mapping registered common land),
the coast is in some respects more complex and ownerships are potentially more
fragmented, and so may give rise to a high level of comments. Any savings resulting
from lessons learnt are, to some extent, dependent on retaining the staff with those
skills.
Therefore, a range of estimates has been used; the lower limit assumes a 30%
reduction in previous costs and the mid point being no savings made (i.e. a cost of
£44.05/ha). The higher limit is set at double this sum, in line with RPA Ltd’s upper
estimate, although this does seem excessive. Consequently, the sensitivity to a
reduction in the estimated cost is explored in Section 14.
Total costs for mapping range from £4.9m to £13.5m, with a mid-point value of
£6.9m.
The mapping of Access Land under CRoW Part I involved both the Countryside
Agency and PINS in the appeals process. RPA Ltd (2006) has provided an estimate




                                   Asken Ltd
                               Final Report – May 2007
                                         106


of costs having to be met by NE and PINS under this option, using previous
experience of CRoW as a base (spread over 2-3 years). PINS’ costs are assessed
as being £4.0m (range of £2.6m to £7.5m).
There would be additional costs if a decision of PINS was not accepted and a case
taken to judicial review but we would expect such cases to be very few in number.
CRoW requires NE to review the maps no more than 10 years after their first issue,
and every 10 years or fewer thereafter. In a period of 20 years, there will be at least
one review, therefore.

Site Assessments
There are various grounds on which an application for a direction to restrict access to
Access Land can be made by a competent authority, as specified in CRoW. These
are:
   -   Natural England (on nature conservation grounds);
   -   English Heritage (on cultural heritage preservation grounds);
   -   Ministry of Defence (on grounds of defence);
   -   Home Secretary (on grounds of national security);
   -   Relevant authorities (RAs - Natural England, NPAs and FC) (on various
       grounds).
As part of the initial introduction of CRoW, EN made an assessment of 1,100
sensitive sites on mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land and
made requests for restrictions on 44 of them. Nonetheless, it has incurred costs in
making assessments of all 1,100. NE (pers. comm.) believe that there are some 895
designated sites that may be affected by the proposed change, and that around 8
person years of effort would be required to assess all SSSIs (costing £280,000).
This process would include devising management solutions where needed (including
some closures). It should be noted that this effort can be expected, not only to
minimise damage arising from public access, but to realise benefits in terms of better
management and greater public exposure to and appreciation of these sites. In
addition, and as with other options, a sum of £0.3m to £0.5m is included to cover
research and monitoring work.
EH (pers comm.) considers the implications for cultural heritage will be small, as
evidenced by the absence of any restrictions on the grounds of heritage preservation
over mountain, moor, heath and down and registered common land.
Costs of applying for restrictions, where deemed necessary, are discussed below.

Management of Access Land
The intention behind CRoW is that its introduction should not place unreasonable
burdens on land managers. With this intention in mind, it seems reasonable to
assume that where investment is needed to manage Access Land users, whether for
nature conservation or other reasons, the AA would provide the required resources.
To date, it has been supported by central government through the Access



                                   Asken Ltd
                                 Final Report – May 2007
                                           107


Management Grant Scheme (AMGS). Payments made through AMGS (or similar)
tend to be fewer in number and larger in size, meaning that transactional costs are
proportionately lower, than payments being made direct to land managers.
Therefore, it is considered reasonable to assume that transfers occur at close to
100% efficiency (note that research shows this is not always possible - see, for
example, Falconer et al, 2001).
A recent review of the AMGS (Countryside Agency, 2006c) has provided some
information about the costs to manage Access Land. A total of £4m has been paid
over two years (2004/5 – 2005/6) to AAs by the Agency, matched by about £1.33m
by the authorities themselves. The spending has been spread over some 960,000
ha of Access Land. The fund is intended to help meet set-up costs (e.g. site
planning, installation of means of access, promotion) but some has been used to
meet recurring costs, such as wardens.
Estimated expenditure using 2005/06 AMGS data as a base, cost of work undertaken
were:
   -   £0.45/ha on recurring costs;
   -   £2.29/ha on one-off costs;
The average costs calculated above cover a wide range of sites and different
circumstances. Costs to AAs of managing coastal Access Land (excluding
foreshore) are assumed to be similar to other types of Access Land. Costs of
managing existing CRoW Access Land and NT open land along the coast have been
excluded (as these management costs are presumed to have been met already).
In the first three years, it is assumed that 25% of these costs will be met by AAs and
75% by central government, via some form of grant; thereafter, all recurring costs will
be met by AAs.
RPA Ltd, in contrast, have provided different per hectare values (drawing from
Countryside Agency data):
   -   £1.00/ha in year 3 (the legislation is introduced in year 1);
   -   £2.10/ha in year 4;
   -   £1.50/ha in year 5;
   -   £1.00/ha in each of years 6-20.
RPA Ltd assumes this cost would be incurred on 360,000 ha of land mapped as
Access Land (£6.7m at a unit area cost of £18.60/ha). To make the comparison
compatible with other estimates, it is assumed that the recurring cost is £1.00/ha/yr
and the set-up cost is £1.60/ha (i.e. the costs over and above the £1.00 ha assumed
to be for on-going management - £1.10 in yr 4 and £0.50 in year 5). It is not stated
by RPA Ltd whether this money would be sourced partly from central government
and partly from local government, so it is assumed that the split is initially 25:75 (local
vs central government), and all from local funds after Year 5.
Total costs for management, shared by AAs and central government, over the 20-
year period (at 2006 values) are estimated to be £1.9m (range £1.3m to £2.5m).




                                    Asken Ltd
                                        Final Report – May 2007
                                                  108


Environment Agency
EA is expected to incur costs, as discussed in Section 7.2.8 and Appendix 6. Costs
are expected to differ from those for Option 1 in that:
     -    AMGS is unlikely to cover costs associated with changes to flood defences on
          Access Land. In discussions with EA, it has been estimated that this would
          involve:
                o    Capital costs of £3,500/km (one-off costs) for establishing a footpath
                     of sufficient standard in terms of width and surfacing. Many of EA’s
                     rural walls in isolated areas have top widths of 1 m or less, and are
                     uneven, thus the marked increase in costs;
                o    £580/km/yr for maintenance of infrastructure;
     -    costs for community liaison and extra signage are expected to be lower
          (£500/km, as opposed to £1,000/km);
     -    implementation will be quicker, meaning that the full costs of maintaining the
          infrastructure for all 520 km of affected defences occur earlier.
Costs to EA are set out in Table 9.5 and total £1.6m for capital costs and £5.1m for
maintenance (over the full 20 years) at 2006 prices.

Table 9.5:      Costs to Environment Agency

Cost Item                 Length (km)      Unit cost (£/km)   Total cost for   Total over 20 yrs
                                                              item (£)         (£000 at 2006)

Risk assessments          340              600                204,000          204

Capital costs             340              3,500              1,119,000        1,190

Community Liaison         180              500                90,000           90

Extra signage etc.        180              500                90,000           90

Maintenance (per year)    520              580                301,600          5,127*
* The costs of maintenance build up over the first 3 years


MOD
MOD costs are also expected to be the same as those for Option 1 at 2006 prices
(i.e. £219,000 as the mid point) (see Section 8.4.2.1). In NPV terms, the costs will be
slightly higher overall because of the shorter period of implementation, meaning that
costs are incurred earlier.

Operation of the Access Restrictions Regime
Briefly, restrictions can be introduced over Access Land:
     -    at the discretion of someone with a legal interest in the land (the scope varies
          depending on the nature of the interest) within prescribed limits;
     -    on application by someone with a legal interest in the land (again the scope
          varies depending on the nature of the interest);




                                           Asken Ltd
                                           Final Report – May 2007
                                                     109


        -   by direction of the RA (NE, NPA or FC);
        -   by direction of a SoS (for defence and national security).
The RA can also make a direction on grounds of public health and safety and
exceptional fire risk without an application being made by anyone with an interest in
the land. The costs of considering these directions by the RAs are dealt with below.
A breakdown of the types of restriction in force as at the end of April 2006 is given in
Table 9.6.


Table 9.6:        Restrictions Affecting Access Land by Type (to 28th April 2006)


Type of Restriction                                                     Forestry         Rest of
                                                                       Commission        England
                                                                         Estate

No. of Directions for:

        -   land management                                                 2                81

        -   public safety                                                  418               49

        -   land management and public safety                               2                5

        -   fire prevention                                                 0               132

        -   nature conservation                                             0                82

        -   heritage preservation*                                          0                0

        -   defence or national security                                    0                19

Total                                                                      422              368

No. of parcels restricted under s23(1) – dogs on grouse moors               0               471

Area (ha) restricted under s23(1) – dogs on grouse moors                    0             224,996

No. of parcels restricted under s23(2) – dogs in lambing enclosures         0                7

No. of parcels from which dogs excluded under s22 (28-day allowance)        0               289

% of Access Land normally available for public access                     99.2%            98.8%

% of Access Land normally available for people walking with dogs          74.2%            74.3%
Source: Countryside Agency
* EH will use powers under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 to restrict public
access where necessary but can only do so on sites in its ownership or guardianship. On other sites on
CRoW Access Land, they follow the ‘least restrictive option’ principle so as to avoid restrictions
wherever possible (EH, pers comm.)

Note that conditions over the two years prior to April 2006 (i.e. since the system was
set up) did not include any periods of extreme fire risk, so the above figures could be
higher if a dry period was encountered (as was experienced in Spring 2003).
The vast majority of restrictions (by area) are for dog bans on grouse moors. These
are discretionary restrictions and need no detailed consideration, just administrative
processing. Discretionary restrictions under this heading are unlikely to be relevant




                                                Asken Ltd
                                 Final Report – May 2007
                                           110


to coastal land as grouse moors will already have been mapped as Access Land,
and are not normally found near the coast.
Applications for restrictions in dedicated woodland are largely made on grounds of
safety and concern the felling of trees. As felling is accepted as a hazardous activity,
the need for consideration is minimal.
Other restrictions can be more time-consuming to determine.             Discussions with
Countryside Agency (pers. comm.) suggest that:
   -   the initial consideration of applications for restrictions took approximately 4
       person years of effort (8 regions x 0.5 person years each);
   -   subsequent requirements for 2.4 person years to review existing applications
       and deal with new ones (0.3 person years per region).
Requests for restrictions in woodlands tend to be connected with forestry operations.
Communications with FC (pers comm.) suggest that around 80% of applications are
straightforward and can be dealt with in around 45 minutes per application. The
remaining 20% can be more time-consuming to resolve, involving between 2 and 4
hrs each.
The RAs have established a central unit to administer the restrictions regime – the
OACC. Notification of discretionary restrictions and applications for directions are
administered by OACC. OACC needs to digitally record new areas of land over
which restrictions are sought; once logged on to the system, individual periods of
restrictions can be dealt with fairly simply. The function of dealing with notifications
of discretionary restrictions is delegated to OACC. In contrast, applications for other
restrictions (such as on the advice of NE or EH) have to be given more consideration.
LAFs have to be consulted by RAs on applications for long-term restrictions in their
area. Long-term directions also have to be reviewed no longer than 5 years after
their introduction.
It was reported that 7 staff were used initially, but that this has now been reduced to
the minimum allowed under the contract of 5. Even at this staffing level, it reported
that there is surplus capacity given the current workload. Staff cost £48,000
each/year.
The contract with the contractor requires NE to pay for system changes (one-off
costs) and additional staff (i.e. recurring costs) to cope with upturns in case load. It is
likely that dealing with additional areas would have an initial high one-off cost,
followed by a low marginal extra recurring cost.
NE (pers comm.) believes that some adjustments would be needed to the operating
system, with an indicative one-off cost of £100,000 plus 2 person years of effort. This
means the cost of modifying the restrictions system will be a one-off cost of
£200,000. In contrast, RPA Ltd has estimated the one-off set-up cost to the OACC
as being £1m (based on 10% of the initial OACC set-up costs of around £10m), and
so this figure is used as an upper estimate.
RPA Ltd reports that current staff costs are £1.9m with running costs of £0.5m. If the
OACC has unused capacity, it is possible that the overhead costs will change very




                                    Asken Ltd
                                        Final Report – May 2007
                                                  111


little (e.g. rental charges), whereas changes in staff costs will depend on the
additional volume of restrictions to be dealt with.
Restrictions may be sought on access over the foreshore, such as a ban on dogs.
For a landowner, these would have to be justified on health and safety grounds
(s25(1)(b)), as s23 restrictions are unlikely to be available (no grouse rearing and no
lambing enclosures are likely to be found). However, the RA can seek restrictions
without an application from the landowner where they believe this necessary on
grounds such as nature conservation and/or public health and safety. As stated
above, it is assumed that the same restrictions regime will be applied and employed
in the same way as with other Access Land. RPA Ltd assesses the cost as being
between £0.8/ha/yr and £1.60/ha/yr (mid-point of £1.2). However, given that 95% of
the foreshore is already thought to be accessible, it seems likely that few restrictions
would be sought over foreshore. The running costs, therefore, may be as little as
£120,000 (150,000ha x £0.8) or up to double this.
On the basis of the above, it is estimated that costs to the various bodies involved in
restrictions is as set out in Table 9.7.


Table 9.7:     Estimated costs to public bodies of dealing with restrictions


Total cost over 20 yrs (£’000 at 2006 values)    Lower            Mid-Point    Upper

OACC Set up                                      200              600          1,000

OACC total annual costs over 20 years            2,300            3,750        5,200


Gaining access to the coast
As noted earlier, there will be a need to create access to the coast, as well as along
it. It was estimated in Section 8.3.2 that about 110 km and 125 agreements would be
needed. It is assumed, for simplicity, that there would be a similar requirement under
this option to gain access to what would otherwise be ‘inaccessible islands’.
Although it would be up to NE to initiate the order to create the way (see CRoW s58),
many of the costs would be borne by the LHA. These costs are assumed to be
similar to those for Option 1.

Costs of Promotion
As with other options, it is assumed that the improved coastal access would be
promoted and publicised. RPA Ltd (2006) has used the costs of developing and
promoting the Countryside Code as a surrogate for the likely cost of creating a
‘Coastal Access Code’, and proposed a figure of £1.33m.
In addition, NE (pers comm.) has provided some indications of costs. In broad terms,
assuming:
    -    a similar number of roadshow type events around the country are held;
    -    adverts are published in local papers, with supporting publicity materials;




                                           Asken Ltd
                                       Final Report – May 2007
                                                 112


      -   some limited modifications to the website; and
      -   public awareness monitoring,
the cost would be around £500,000 over, say 3 years or so, with the bulk of the cost
and work upfront. However, NE believes that a one-off campaign is not sufficient and
that there is need to produce localised information, and this of course adds to the
cost.
Using the range of estimates provides lower (£500,000), intermediary (£750,000 –
this is the upper bound of estimates given by NE, pers. comm.) and upper (£1.33m)
level estimates. Further, RPA Ltd (2006) has included an additional cost for provision
of information to farmers, landowners and the general public in relation to the
mapping exercise required under this option, at a cost of £3m (range £2.4m to £3.6).

Summary
These are identified for each different body or type of body, in Table 9.8.


Table 9.8:     Additional Costs to Public Sector Bodies


Body/Type of Body          Additional cost factors                      Cost estimate Years 1 – 20 (£’000
                                                                        at £2006 prices)

NE                         Mapping of Access Land                       6,917 (4,914 – 13,546)

NE                         Research                                     400 (300 – 500)

NE                         Environmental and Appropriate                280
                           Assessments

NE                         Costs of appeals                             5,040 (2,333 – 12,000)

NE                         Provision of information for landowners      3,000 (2,400 – 3,600)

NE                         Costs of coastal access code                 750 (500 – 1,330)

NE                         Modifications to OACC system                 600 (200 – 1,000)

NE/Relevant Authorities    Operation of restrictions regime over        3,750 (2,300 – 5,200)
                           additional Access Land

PINS                       Costs of appeals                             3,990 (2,625 – 7,500)

Ministry of Defence        Assessment of 14-30 sites to determine if    219 (117 - 350)
                           restrictions are needed and local
                           management arrangements

Central govt (managed by   Support to AAs in managing access (via       396 (365 – 430)
NE)                        AMGS or similar), including mitigation

AAs                        Costs of local management, including         1,541 (982 – 2,146)
                           mitigation

Environment Agency         Costs of reviewing risk assessments and      294
                           community liaison

Environment Agency         Infrastructure costs, including mitigation   1,280

Environment Agency         Maintenance of infrastructure                5,127




                                            Asken Ltd
                                               Final Report – May 2007
                                                         113



Body/Type of Body                 Additional cost factors                        Cost estimate Years 1 – 20 (£’000
                                                                                 at £2006 prices)

          37
Various                           Costs of creating access (PRoWs) to the        3,666 (1,203 – 6,989)
                                  coast

Total                                                                            37,250 (25,221 – 61,573)

9.4.2.2 Environmental
The principal environmental costs of providing access by extending CRoW Act rights
would be that habitats on or alongside the foreshore would be subject to access in a
less confined way than under Option 1. Thus, impacts could extend over wide areas
of those habitats that fall within defined coastal land. These would probably include
areas of saltmarsh and sand dune, shingle beach and other foreshore habitats. Paths
within these habitats could not be easily guided (other than through signs and entry
points etc.) and would tend to develop along the easiest walking or most attractive
route. This could result in local impacts on, for example, sensitive areas of vegetation
or wintering birds (e.g. if people walk along rather than behind floodbanks). However,
seasonal impacts could be avoided by temporary closures, thereby avoiding some
potential effects of this option.
Table 9.9 provides a summary of the likely residual impacts of this option on
environmental receptors.


Table 9.9:       Summary of potential residual impacts of Option 2


Receptor / Potential impacts (see              Potential Mitigation               Residual          Notes
Table 5.4 for details)                         Measures                           Impacts

Landscape

Increase numbers of people in the              Screening of car parks             Low
landscape, and cars in car parks, etc.

Intrusion of visitor facilities in landscape   Appropriate location and           Low               All options equal
                                               design. Avoidance in areas of
                                               exception scenic value

Erosion scars                                  Reseeding & drainage etc, but      Moderate
                                               ineffective if visitor numbers
                                               are high

Construction of gravel / rock paths on         Use of appropriate materials       Low               Few new paths
popular sites, reducing natural qualities
of landscape

Increased litter (and deliberate illegal       Provision of adequate disposal     Low
dumping), with resultant reductions in         facilities for litter. Notices,
landscape quality                              fines and wardens. Rapid
                                               removal of tipped waste.




37
  This covers the cost of providing access to the coast and would be borne by a range of
public sector bodies (e.g. LHAs, PINS)




                                                  Asken Ltd
                                            Final Report – May 2007
                                                      114



Receptor / Potential impacts (see           Potential Mitigation                 Residual     Notes
Table 5.4 for details)                      Measures                             Impacts

Use of fencing to delimit paths, with       Careful placement and                Low          New fencing needs
resultant introduction of man-made          incorporation with stone walls                    likely to be low
feature into natural landscape              or hedges where appropriate

Replacement of permanent grassland          Design of access options to          Low          Landowner
and associated livestock by cultivated      avoid perverse effects. Access                    response uncertain
crops to avoid need to provide access       management awareness.
                                            Provision of adequate
                                            compensation.

Geological features

Erosion / damage of sensitive features      Fencing, and information and         Moderate     May be difficult to
                                            interpretation of values                          control

Access infrastructure directly on           Design of access options to          Low          Few new paths
sensitive features or reducing natural      avoid direct impact and long
erosion                                     term adverse effects

Collection of fossils and minerals – but    Fencing, information,                Low
access available to most well known         collecting codes and
sites                                       interpretation of values,
                                            wardens.

Deliberate vandalism of sensitive           Fencing. Presence of people          Low
features                                    and wardens.

Biodiversity

Disturbance of breeding, passage and        Fencing and screening,               Moderate -   Seasonal restrictions
wintering birds, and breeding and           notices, wardens and                 High         may reduce impacts
resting seals.                              seasonal restrictions.                            at key sites

Increases in predator numbers due to        Frequent litter collection,          Low
discarded food and increased                scavenger-proof litter bins,
vulnerability of eggs and young to          notices and predator control.
predators as a result of disturbance

Trampling of eggs of ground nesting         Information and interpretation,      Moderate     Seasonal restrictions
birds                                       wardens.                                          may reduce impacts
                                                                                              at key sites

Trampling and erosion of sensitive          Fencing, notices, and                Moderate
vegetation.                                 seasonal restrictions

Eutrophication of sensitive vegetation      Notices, fines, provision of         Low
from dog faeces and urine                   facilities for disposal of faeces.
                                            Path location alongside
                                            sacrificial areas.

Wild fires (increasing frequency) in high   Fire breaks in high risk areas       Low          Temporary closures
risk habitats (e.g. coastal heaths and      and sensitive habitats. Notices                   during high risk
pine forests)                               and temporary closures during                     periods possible
                                            high risk periods.

Habitat fragmentation through creation      Appropriate path design (e.g.        Low
of new paths                                vegetated) where necessary

Risk of replacement of permanent            Change may breach EIA                Low          Landowner
grassland by improved grassland or          regulations covering natural                      response uncertain
cultivated crops to avoid need to provide   and semi-natural habitats.
access                                      Design of access options to
                                            avoid perverse effects. Access
                                            management awareness




                                                Asken Ltd
                                          Final Report – May 2007
                                                    115



Receptor / Potential impacts (see         Potential Mitigation               Residual       Notes
Table 5.4 for details)                    Measures                           Impacts

Natural succession in semi-natural        Fencing and notices. Access        Low-Moderate   Potentially
habitats due to removal of livestock by   management. Adequate                              significant problem
farmers (to avoid livestock-visitor       incentives for grazing.                           on some
conflicts) or displacement of livestock                                                     heaths/grasslands
                                                                                            where access does
                                                                                            not currently exist

Collection of eggs and plants             Presence of people and             Low
                                          wardens.

Archaeology / cultural features

Erosion / damage of sensitive features    Fencing, information and           Low
                                          interpretation of special values

Deliberate vandalism of sensitive         Fencing, wardens.                  Low
features

Impacts outside coastal zone

Increased CO2 and nitrogen emissions      Provision/promotion of             Low            Depends on overall
from cars, etc. travelling to coastal     adequate public transport,                        increase in visitor
areas                                     walking and cycling routes.                       numbers
                                          Car park pricing to dissuade
                                          car use.

Increases in visitor related              Provision/promotion of             Low            Depends on overall
infrastructures (e.g. roads)              adequate public transport,                        increase in visitor
                                          walking and cycling routes.                       numbers
                                          Car park pricing to dissuade
                                          car use.

9.4.2.3 Social
There may be uncertainty over where access rights exist, and what land is excepted,
particularly where there are businesses such as campsites and caravan sites.
There may be divisiveness between owners of private beaches and the public, where
the exclusive rights of the former have been given up for the benefit of the latter,
without compensation being paid.
The use of CRoW Part I will provide a general right for disabled people to use the
Access Land thus created. Whenever steps are taken to improve access (e.g.
through CRoW s35 agreements), AAs will be required to make provision for disabled
people wherever reasonable to do so.
Higher rights users are given no new rights under this option, although a mechanism
is in place for relaxing general restrictions (under CRoW Sch 2). Use of such a
mechanism is at the discretion of the landowner, and it is likely to be exercised in
only a small number of cases (see Section 12 for further discussion on this point).
As in Option 1, there will be a slightly increased cost to society of additional rescues
of people in difficulty in the sea or in coastal habitats, valued at £0.5m over the 20
years at 2006 values range £72,000 to £839,000).




                                              Asken Ltd
                                  Final Report – May 2007
                                            116


9.5        Other Issues

9.5.1      Implementation
Creation of the improvements in law, under this option, can only be effected by the
SoS making an Order and subsequent regulations under CRoW s3. However, before
the rights could commence, a mapping exercise would need to be undertaken by NE.
Once the conclusive maps are produced, the rights would come into existence,
subject to any confirmatory Order that might be required.
The administrative infrastructure developed for CRoW could be expanded to cover
coastal land, but additional guidance may be needed (or existing guidance modified)
to accommodate the new situations encountered.
AAs would have an important role in delivering the improved access ‘on-the-ground’.
However, the exercise of their powers is discretionary and financial support (e.g.
AMGS) would be needed to ensure benefits are realised.
There would be a need to keep the maps under review (CRoW requires a review of
open country conclusive maps at least every 10 years), and the effect of coastal
erosion may mean that revisions are more likely to be needed with respect to coastal
Access Land, than for other Access Land types.

9.5.2      Competition Assessment
The Competition Assessment Filter has been applied to this option (see Table 9.10
below).

Table 9.10:   Competition Assessment Filter


Question                                                        Answer
                                                                yes or no

Q1: In the market(s) affected by the new regulation, does any No
    firm have more than 10% market share?
Q2: In the market(s) affected by the new regulation, does any No
    firm have more than 20% market share?
Q3: In the market(s) affected by the new regulation, do the No
    largest three firms together have at least 50% market
    share?
Q4: Would the costs of the regulation affect some firms Yes
    substantially more than others?
Q5: Is the regulation likely to affect the market structure, No
    changing the number or size of firms?
Q6: Would the regulation lead to higher set-up costs for new No
    or potential firms that existing firms do not have to meet?
Q7: Would the regulation lead to higher ongoing costs for new No




                                      Asken Ltd
                                        Final Report – May 2007
                                                  117



Question                                                                    Answer
                                                                            yes or no

        or potential firms that existing firms do not have to meet?
Q8: Is the market characterised by rapid technological No
    change?
Q9: Would the regulation restrict the ability of firms to choose Yes
    the price, quality, range or location of their products?

The answer to Question 4 is “Yes” because some firms that depend on exclusive use
of (say) a private beach for competitive advantage would be more significantly
affected than those that do not have such reliance. Similarly, “Yes” is entered
against Question 9, as such businesses would not be able to price their product on
the basis that it provides accommodation that is secluded and private.

9.6         Summary
The benefits and costs, both quantified and unquantified, identified for this option are
summarised in Table 9.11 and Table 9.12 respectively below, broken down by type
of receptor. Data are provided at current (2006) values and, in order to allow
comparison with other options, monetary data have been adjusted to NPV based on
a 3.5% discount rate.


Table 9.11:     Summary of Quantified Benefits and Costs (Yrs 1 – 20)

                                       Benefits                              Costs
                      £m (at 2006)          £m (NPV)         £m (at 2006)        £m (NPV)
Users                 175 (87 – 262)        107 (53 – 160)   6 (4 – 9)           4 (3 – 5)
Property Owners       1 (<1 – 1)            1 (<1 – 1)       11 (6 – 21)         9 (5 – 18)
Society               0                     0                <1 (<1 – 1)         <1 (<1 – 1)
Public Sector         0                     0                37 (25 – 61)        31 (21 – 52)
bodies
Total                 176 (87 – 263)        107 (53 – 161)   54 (35 – 92)        44 (29 – 76)




                                            Asken Ltd
                                              Final Report – May 2007
                                                        118



Table 9.12:      Summary of Unquantified Benefits and Costs


Beneficiary and Type of Benefit                Unquantified Benefits

Users – health and well-being                  Increased health and well-being arising from 3.7m visits (Moderate)

Users – education                              Educational benefits (Low)

Users – security of rights                     Access rights secured over 250,000 ha to 280,000 ha of foreshore
                                               (Low)

Users – future proofing against erosion        Access rights are secure against coastal erosion along approximately
                                               150,000 ha of coast (Moderate)

Users – access for people with disabilities    Some provision for people with disabilities where additional
                                               appropriate infrastructure is provided (Low)

Property Owners - management                   Generic benefits described in Section 4 over 150,000 ha of access
                                               land (Low)

Property Owners – duty of care                 Reduced duty of care to members of the public on their land on the
                                               proportion of 400,000 ha to 438,000 ha of land which previously
                                               experienced de facto public access (Moderate)

Public Sector – health costs                   £805 for every person who changes from a sedentary to an active
                                               lifestyle (Moderate)

Public sector – permissive payments            Reduced payments for permissive area-wide access (Low)

Public sector – land management costs          Reduced management costs over de facto access (Low)

Environment                                    Potential for greater control of visitors over the proportion of between
                                               400,000 ha to 438,000 ha of access land where control is currently
                                               minimal/non-existent (Low)

Society/Coastal Economy - employment           913 (785 to 1,040) FTEs as a result of increased visitor spend
                                               (Moderate)

Society/Coastal Economy – business             Business generated by public sector spend of £37.3m (£25.2m -
generated from public sector spend             £61.6m) (Moderate)


Bearer and Type of Costs                       Unquantified Costs

Users – process of creation                    Inputs to mapping process (Moderate)

Users – loss of freedom over currently         Greater controls over and management of previously uncontrolled
unmanaged areas                                areas, potentially up to 438,000 ha (Moderate)

                                               Restrictions to access land where restrictions previously did not arise
                                               (e.g. in the case of de facto or permissive access – potentially up to
                                               438,000 ha) (Low)

Users – risk of conflict                       Risk of conflict with owners of exclusive coastal properties (Low)

Property Owners – injurious affection          Injurious affection (Minimal for many, High for a few)

                                               Loss of unique selling point for some businesses reliant on exclusive
                                               access to foreshore (Minimal for many, High for a few)

Property Owners – creation of access           Effort expended by landowners (other than farmers/estate owners) in
                                               examining and responding to Access Land mapping (Moderate)

Property Owners – costs of safety and          Costs of safety and security measures at coastal properties (Minimal
security measures                              for many, High for a few)

Property Owners – on-going costs of            Effort expended by landowners (other than farmers/estate owners) in




                                                 Asken Ltd
                                       Final Report – May 2007
                                                 119


management                              seeking restrictions (Moderate for some)

                                        Applications for restrictions by farmers (Low)

Property Owners – Duty of Care          Duty of care owed to people coming onto CRoW Access Land where
                                        none did before and for which no compensation has been paid (Low)

Property Owners – Other                 Costs of conflict between owners of previously exclusive coastal
                                        properties and access users (Low)

Public Sector – creation and review     Costs if any judicial review is required (cost High but likelihood Low)

                                        Review of maps covering up to 438,000 ha after 10 years (Moderate)

Public sector – organising rescues      Increased costs to MCA of organising around 36 additional rescues
                                        (Low)

Environment - landscape                 Landscape: Erosion scars (Low - Moderate)

Environment - geology                   Geology: Erosion scars (Low)

Environment – biodiversity              Biodiversity: potential disturbance impacts on birds on up to 10,000 ha
                                        of SSSI land (Moderate-High but depends on circumstances and
                                        mitigation measures); trampling of birds nests and trampling of
                                        vegetation on up to 10,000 ha of SSSI land (Moderate)

Environment – culture                   Cultural heritage impacts over up to 4,000 ha of SMs (Low)

Society/Coastal Economy - disruption    Disruption to coastal residents – increased traffic, parking problems
                                        (Low).

Society/Coastal Economy – peace and     Loss of peace and tranquillity in some areas (Low)
tranquillity

Society/Coastal Economy - other         Some losses to businesses which are dependent on exclusive use of
                                        coastal land (Minimal for many, High for a few)


The benefits and costs of the four different options are compared in Section 14.




                                          Asken Ltd
                                   Final Report – May 2007
                                             120



10. Option 3 – Voluntary Approach to
    Create Permissive Access


10.1 Introduction
This section provides a description of Option 3 – “Use of Voluntary Approach” and its
expected effects.


10.2 Option Description
Defra’s tender document describes this option as being: “Voluntary/permissive
agreements with landowners, for example with Crown Estates and NT, or through
agreements with local authorities or dedications under CRoW Section 16; or
agreements under agri-environment schemes”.

10.2.1   Legal Framework
The key point about this option is that it implies a requirement for landowners’
permission as a pre-requisite for public access to become available. Where public
money is invested, there will need to be a means of securing the benefits purchased,
i.e. some legally-binding agreement will needed. A variety of means exist:
- Agri-environment schemes (e.g. Higher Level Stewardship - HLS): options are
  available for linear or area access, for walkers, disabled people, cyclists, horse
  riders and educational use (with payment rates varying accordingly). Agreements
  last for 10 years (but with a break clause at 5 years). Acceptance of an
  application (by Defra/NE) is discretionary and is gauged against public benefits
  delivered by the application, with targeting via Joint Countryside Character Area
  plans. The legacy of earlier schemes (CSS and ESA) will also continue for a
  number of years:
- Dedication as CRoW Access Land: Section 16 of CRoW enables landowners
  and owners of long-term leases to dedicate land for public access. The Access to
  the Countryside (Dedication of Land) (England) Regulations 2003 provide a
  mechanism for doing so 38. Any land so dedicated becomes Access Land (see
  Option 2, above), either in perpetuity, in the case of dedication by the owner, and
  until expiry of the lease (which has to be a minimum of 90 years), in the case of
  long-term leaseholds. As with other Access Land (see Option 2 above), the AA is
  able to appoint wardens, make byelaws, etc. to help manage Access Land should
  these be deemed necessary;


38
  Section 15(8) of the Commons Act 2006 enables a landowner to apply to register land as a
town or village green. However, in principle, this would be for the benefit of local inhabitants
only. Therefore, this mechanism is unlikely to be used for creating a right of access to coastal
land for the general public.




                                      Asken Ltd
                                   Final Report – May 2007
                                             121


- Access Agreements: Two options are available:
       o     Local planning authorities may make access agreements over certain
             types of land (which includes cliff and foreshore) under Section 64 of the
             NPACA 1949, although the power is used rarely (most of the access
             agreements were made by the Peak District National Park Authority and
             Lancashire County Council). The agreements need to be confirmed by the
             SoS. Adequate notice must be given to the landowner and compensation
             must be paid by the authority. In most cases, access has been secured
             through an agreement, following negotiations. Further, much of the land
             that could have been included in these agreements is now CRoW Access
             Land and agreements are being terminated when the opportunity arises.
             However, coastal land may still be eligible for inclusion in this type of
             agreement;
       o     Landowners can enter into management agreements with local planning
             authorities under Section 39 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981,
             which provides for “promoting its enjoyment by the public”;
- Permissive access: It is possible for a landowner to provide his or her permission
  for the public to make use of a route or area of land. For the former, it is advisable
  to formalise the granting of this permission with the LHA (such as over
  responsibility for maintenance) and to deposit a declaration (under the HA 1980
  Section 31(6)) so that the route does not become a PRoW. It is also possible to
  stipulate conditions for permission being granted, such as “no dogs” or “no access
  during bird nesting season”. However, by definition, the use is not as of right and
  so the landowner’s permission can be withdrawn unless a legal agreement is in
  place to protect against this.
The relationship between uptake (i.e. willingness to accept compensation) and
payment offered is crucial to the benefit cost analysis, and this is explored further
below.

10.2.2      Relationship between payments and uptake
There is undoubtedly a relationship between the scale of payments offered and the
rate at which public access is offered voluntarily in return. This is discussed in more
detail in Appendix 11. It is concluded from this discussion that:
   -       permissive access to land owned by some institutions (like local authorities,
           water undertakers, NT, FC) will be provided for free. It is assumed that this
           land has already been made available for public access, wherever possible;
   -       whilst landowners may enter into agreements with LHAs to create permissive
           routes, their preferred mechanism will be agri-environment schemes, as these
           offer a standard structure and rates of payment. Around 2,500 access
           agreements have been entered into voluntarily by farmers so far (as at May
           2006 – Defra, pers comm.) and some may have offered public access in
           order to enhance the chance of their application being accepted;
   -       the availability of access tiers in a series of agri-environment schemes over a
           number of years means that access agreements have been entered into by
           landowners who are willing to accept compensation for only income




                                      Asken Ltd
                                 Final Report – May 2007
                                           122


         foregone/costs incurred (i.e. with a relatively willingness to accept low
         compensation);
    -    it follows from the last point, and the conclusion reached by researchers, that
         many landowners place a high value on retaining management control of their
         land and that further substantial improvements in coastal access will only be
         made by offering significantly higher payment rates or other forms of incentive
         than current rates;
    -    it is likely that permission for access to some coastal land could not be
         purchased at rates that would represent value for money (indeed, at some
         point it will become cheaper to buy the land).
Given these difficulties, and the absence of any better source, the PSL data
presented on Table A9.1 form the basis for the analysis.

10.2.3    Key Assumptions
Defra’s description for this option implies:
-   an initial targeting of those landowners who are more likely to be pre-disposed
    towards providing access, such as NT and the Crown Estate;
-   some people’s willingness to accept compensation will exceed the Exchequer’s
    willingness to pay (note also that State aid rules governing payments to farmers
    mean that payments made through agri-environment schemes are limited to
    costs incurred plus income foregone plus a small element of incentive – our
    assumptions exceed the level implied by these rules).
In making the appraisal of this option, it has been assumed that:
-   as with Option 1 (see Section 8.3), some 25 km of coastal PRoW would be
    created each year irrespective of any policy changes (i.e. 500 km over a 20-year
    implementation period);
-   permissive access that is likely to be provided for no payment has already been
    provided and so future gains will only arise where incentives are available;
-   permissive arrangements would only be entered into where access does not
    already exist, i.e. no agreements are deemed necessary where land:
            o   is already mapped or dedicated as Access Land;
            o   is foreshore on which de facto access is already accepted;
            o   has area-wide access with a local authority, NT, FC etc.;
            o   is crossed by PRoWs, roads, promenades or cycle routes;
            o   is already subject to a permissive access agreement (e.g. via Walkers
                Welcome, HLS, ESA, CSS, or similar);
-   there would be a preference amongst landowners for permissive linear access,
    but a proportion (the same proportion as with a sample of existing agri-
    environment schemes) would accept area-wide access rather than linear access;




                                    Asken Ltd
                                Final Report – May 2007
                                          123


-   access options on offer within agri-environment schemes would cover coastal
    land, but not foreshore (although payments are available to support
    environmentally friendly management regimes over some types of inter-tidal land,
    it is assumed that no payments would be made for provision of public access to
    foreshore land entered into a scheme);
-   agreements will last for 10 years, but are then renewed (note: there is no
    guarantee that agreements will be renewed but this is a working assumption used
    in this study);
-   that because improving coastal access becomes a priority, adequate funds are
    made available for the agri-environment scheme and that applications would be
    accepted (entry to the current HLS is very competitive at present and acceptance
    cannot be guaranteed).


10.3 Scale of Effects
Analysis of a 200 m corridor by type of land use and its access status (legal access
rights, other known recognised access and no known access rights) allows an
estimate to be made of the length of coast along which improved access could be
achieved through voluntary agreement. The breakdown by access status shows that
an estimated 3,510 km has access of some kind whereas 1,360 km currently has no
access. Of this, 840 km is along land that is in extensive uses (e.g. agriculture,
forestry, undeveloped land or semi-natural/natural habitat); the balance (520 km) is
developed in some way (e.g. ports, power stations). As noted in Option 1 (see
Section 8.3.1), the actual length will be greater than this as obstacles need to be
avoided. If the same multiplier is used as with Option 1, the estimate needs to be
increased by 15% to 1,560 km.
By way of comparison, an analysis of the four case study areas by RPA Ltd indicates
that a coastal route of 664 km is needed. Of this, 340 km already has access along
PRoWs and a further 156 km is accessible through permissive and other
arrangements. This means that permission is needed along 168 km, or 25.3% of the
length. If this same percentage applies to the English coast as a whole (4,870 km),
then landowners would be required to voluntarily grant access to 1,230 km of coast.
In order to provide for variations from the most direct line, RPA Ltd estimate that the
actual length needed is 179 km (i.e. an uplift of 6.5%), giving a revised total length of
permissive access needed as 1,310 km.
It seems appropriate, therefore, to work with a range of estimates between 1,310 km
and 1,560 km. As with other options, this needs to be adjusted for access that will be
needed to the coast (see Section 8.3.2), adding a further 110 km to the length
needed (which is assumed would also be created through voluntary agreements),
and the length generated through ‘do nothing’ (in this case 500 km). The final range,
therefore, is between 920 km and 1,170 km.
The following steps are needed to produce an estimate of costs:
    1.   Assume a linear relationship between uptake at £35/ha and at £40/ha.




                                    Asken Ltd
                                  Final Report – May 2007
                                            124


     2.   Extrapolating from this figure, a payment of £66.67/ha would be needed to
          attract 81% uptake (in theory, “over £40/ha” has no upper limit; also, the
          relationship is expected to be exponential, with only small increases in uptake
          for large increase in payments offered at the upper end).
     3.   Adjusting this for RPI between 1994 and forecast for 2006 (£66.67+37.6%)
          increases the value at current prices to £91.66/ha (Note that farm incomes
          have dropped over this period and have not increased in line with RPI).
          Interestingly, this is very similar to the rates offered under HLS for
          cycling/horse riding (£90/100 m for linear access and £90/ha for upgrading
          open access land from pedestrian use only).
     4.   Taking the relationship used in HLS between payments per linear metre and
          per ha, then the equivalent linear rate is £100.60/100 m (£45/100 m divided
          by £41/ha; i.e. a multiplier of 1.10).
     5.   At this rate, some 80% of land currently unavailable for access would be
          offered voluntarily for permissive 10-year agreements.
     6.   If the ratio of linear to area access is assumed to be the same as for past agri-
          environment schemes, but without double-counting (i.e. there is linear or area
          access but not both), then 77% of agreements will be linear and 23% area-
          wide. (Note – this is a slightly dubious conversion. There is an infinite variety
          of polygons that could be offered for area-wide access. However, it is not
          feasible to attempt a more detailed analysis).
     7.   Assuming that between 920 km and 1,170 km of rural coastline (including
          some routes to the coast) currently has no access other than de facto, this
          means that access to:
          -   740 km to 940 km will be achieved through voluntary permissive
              agreements, and 180 km to 230 km will remain inaccessible;
          -   570 km to 720 km (77%) would be made available via linear
              agreements 39. RPA Ltd estimate that each agreement covers 0.94 km,
              whereas analysis of a sample of existing agri-environment scheme
              agreements produces an average of 1.715 km 40.         Using these two
              values as outer limits of a range, then between 332 and 766 agreements
              will be needed;
          -   170 km to 220 km (23%) would be made available via area agreements
              or dedications. Assuming an average width of (say) 250 m, then the area
              covered by area-wide access agreements is 4,250 ha to 5,500 ha (170 -



39
   It is recognised that some applicants for agri-environment schemes have used a mix of
both linear and area wide arrangements (see Appendix 11 for further discussion on this
point). However, for simplicity, we have assumed that only one type of access would feature
in each agreement.
40
  This differ from the figures derived from the survey of LHAs but data from the survey are
very variable and come from very few sources, so preference is given to the RPA Ltd figures.




                                      Asken Ltd
                                   Final Report – May 2007
                                             125


               220 km x 0.25 km x 100). At the average area per existing agri-
               environment agreement (9 ha), this equates to 472 to 611 agreements;
         -     along the whole coast, about 40% of adjacent farmland is in arable (the
               proportion of land that is cereal, general cropping and half of the mixed
               cropping). However, it is likely that land entered into area agreements
               and dedicated would be mainly non-arable land, so it is assumed that
               only 20% of dedicated land;
         -     At this stage, there is no obvious basis for determining what proportion of
               these area-wide voluntary arrangements would be through s16
               dedications. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that (say) 80%
               of these would be through HLS-type agreements (378 - 489) and 20%
               through dedication (94 - 122).
The key assumption is that through offering high incentives, 80% of the currently
inaccessible length of the coast will become accessible through agreements entered
into voluntarily by landowners.         For those that arise through agri-environment
schemes, the agreement will only be made if the landowner is prepared to offer a
wide range of environmental enhancements such as under HLS. The cost-
effectiveness of this option is likely to be sensitive to the level of payments offered.


10.4 Effects Relative to Baseline

10.4.1       Benefits

10.4.1.1          Economic
Benefits to Users
This option was not one directly offered to respondents in the IPSOS/MORI (2006)
survey. Given that access would be piecemeal, with unbridged gaps and variations
in condition of use, and only partially shown on OS maps the increase in visits
contingent on this would be small. We assume that it would be around 20% of the
Option 1 level of use (see Section 8.4.1.1). The benefits (£5.81m per year when
uptake fully achieved) are calculated on this basis in Table 10.1. Again, it would be
Year 20 before the full benefit would be achieved, starting in Year 3.
The benefits to users are constrained by the inability to control where and when
permissive access is secured. This means that:
   -     gaps may remain in the onward progress;
   -     there may be stretches of accessible coast to which access cannot easily be
         gained (because permissive access to the coast has not been forthcoming).




                                      Asken Ltd
                                     Final Report – May 2007
                                               126




Table 10.1:    User Benefits as at Year 20


Displaced and additional                      Unit Benefit (£/visit)
visits                           Visits (m)                            Benefit (£m)

Residents                           0.29              2.35                 0.68

Tourist and other day visits        0.82              6.25                 5.13

Total                               1.11                                   5.81


Nevertheless, owners of the land crossed by the permissive access are more likely to
have a positive attitude towards visitors than if they had been forced to relinquish
some of their property rights.
Current agri-environment schemes offer options for participants to make provision for
disabled access and for the creation of a permissive bridleway. However, for the
purposes of this report, it is assumed that only the basic level of infrastructure
provision (i.e. for pedestrians only) is constructed.
Defra’s informal view is that a landowner who dedicates land for public access would
not be regarded as a service provider for the purposes of DDA 1995. However,
where he/she chooses voluntarily to provide infrastructure, this could be seen as
service provision and he/she would be required to ensure reasonable adjustments
have been for disabled people.

Benefits to Owners and Managers of Properties Along the Coast
The major monetary benefit to landowners will be the receipt of agri-environment
scheme payments. These will comprise one-off capital payments and annual
payments over the 10 years of the agreement and any subsequent renewals.
However, it needs to remembered that these benefits are offset by costs associated
with adopting agri-environment scheme management prescriptions and capital costs
of infrastructure.

One-off receipts
In order to participate in a scheme like HLS, an applicant has to prepare a
management plan (in the case of HLS, it is called the Farm Environment Plan (FEP)).
A grant is available to meet the cost of preparing the FEP, and it is assumed the
same approach would be used. The assumption is that these would be from
holdings of a range of sizes. If the average farm size in England is around 55 ha, the
typical payment would be £1,035. However, it is unlikely that a landowner would be
accepted into an agri-environment scheme solely for provision of public access. For
example, the HLS has five key objectives, of which access is but one. Consequently,
it seems appropriate to spread the cost of the management plan between these
different objectives and so attribute only 20% to voluntarily providing public access.
The total receipts over the 20-year period (at 2006 values) are estimated at £188,000
(range £146,000 to £258,000).




                                           Asken Ltd
                                      Final Report – May 2007
                                                127


In addition, capital payments would be received to support the provision of access
infrastructure. These receipts would cover costs similar in nature (per km or per ha)
to those incurred by LHAs for provision of infrastructure. Data provided by Defra
show that £2.49m was paid to 1,358 participants in agri-environment schemes.
Assuming some capital payments are made for every scheme with access, then the
average payment is £1,835 per agreement. Total estimated receipts from grants are
£1.7m (range £1.3m to £2.3m).
A scheme is being piloted by NE to explore what encouragement landowners need to
dedicate land. Fisher German (2005) explores the issue in some depth and RPA Ltd
draw from the discussions that a one-off payment per dedication of £4,000 is
required, giving a total cost of £427,000 (range £376,000 to £478,000).
Those who provide access to the coast would also receive one-off payments (in the
form of compensation) of £0.7m (mid-point value at 2006 prices).

Recurring Receipts
Payments would be made at the level, and for the lengths and areas, described
above. Agri-environment scheme agreements typically run for 10 years, but it is
assumed they are then renewed, for a further 10 years (although in practice, renewal
cannot be guaranteed). Over the 20 years, at 2006 values, total payments for linear
and area-wide access entered into agreements are estimated to be £11.4m (range
£10.1m to £12.8m).

Benefits to the Coastal Economy
The impacts of other options depend entirely on the additional visitor days they
generate and the amount these visitors spend locally. Table 10.2 summarises the
impacts derived from the visitor data in Appendix 2.


Table 10.2:   Economic impacts of Option 3


Increase in total        Employment associated with new     Income associated with new
visitor days (m/yr)      access (FTEs) range                access (£m per year) (range)

0.20                     235 to 312                         0.79 to 0.98


Enhanced access would encourage additional trips to the coast and the increased
expenditure will increase employment opportunities and increase incomes for local
businesses. The impacts are estimated at 235 - 312 FTE jobs and £0.79m - £0.98m
per year in additional income for local businesses (see Appendix 3).
Spending of payments to landowners and farmers would provide a boost to local
economies, as would a proportion of the increased spending expected by public
sector bodies (see Table 10.4 below).

Benefits to Public Sector Bodies
There are not thought to be any benefits to public sector bodies. As part of the ‘Do
nothing’ option, LHAs will face costs in creating 500 km of PRoWs.




                                         Asken Ltd
                                             Final Report – May 2007
                                                       128


10.4.1.2      Environment
Recent agri-environment schemes have operated on a points scoring system and in
order to accrue sufficient points to secure acceptance (the scheme is competitive), it
will be necessary for applicants to offer public benefits from the range of primary
objectives. The HLS’s primary objectives are to:
     -    Conserve wildlife (biodiversity);
     -    Maintain and enhance landscape quality and character;
     -    Protect the historic environment and natural resources;
     -    Promote public access and understanding of the countryside;
     -    Natural resource protection.
Consequently, substantial environmental benefits will be secured through the
participation of land managers in agri-environment schemes (between 710 and 1,255
- dedications having been excluded). However, with the exception of a proportion of
the costs of the management plan, the cost of securing these environmental benefits
has not been included in the assessments.
An important benefit of this option would be that new access under CRoW
dedications and agri-environment agreements would not be allowed where there
would be significant unavoidable environmental impacts. For example, an agri-
environment access agreement would probably not allow unfettered access, for
example, to an estuarine area of high value for wintering birds. Thus, provided that
access applications are properly appraised, then significant environmental impacts
should be avoided under this option.

10.4.1.3       Social
Where access is provided voluntarily, there is good reason to believe that walkers
are more likely to be welcomed than resented (as might be the case where access is
generated compulsorily).
There is strong evidence from appraisals of agri-environment schemes (e.g. Agra
CEAS 2005) that payments made to farmers participating in such schemes increase
local employment (see extract in Box 10.1).


Box 10.1:       Wider Socio-economic Effects of Tir Gofal

The market impact of Tir Gofal on the wider rural economy was estimated using an Input-Output model and this
showed that the £4.2 million additional expenditure resulting from Tir Gofal in 2003 resulted in a spend of £6.3 million
after consideration of indirect effects and the equivalent of 112 full-time jobs. Of this spend, 73% went to Welsh
industries (half of this impact is concentrated in the agricultural, forestry and fishing and construction sectors), 23% to
Welsh households and the remaining 4% to taxes and imports.
Source: Agra CEAS, 2005




                                                 Asken Ltd
                                 Final Report – May 2007
                                           129


10.4.2     Costs

10.4.2.1        Economic
Costs to Users
There would be no economic costs to users, although there may be some intangible
costs associated with uncertainty over the access provision under this option. This is
because the permissive access may vary in nature and over time, and there is no
guarantee of consistency and continuity along the coast.
There will also be costs associated with a minor increase in accidental drownings,
estimated as £1.8m over the full 20 years and at 2006 values (range £1.4m to
£2.8m).
Although disabled people would not be legally prevented from using any permissive
route, the likelihood is that relatively few routes would be created specifically to cater
for those with disabilities under this option. This is assumed to be the case because
the test of reasonableness in public service provision will be based on the
circumstances of the applicant (i.e. the landowners) rather than the local authority
(which has a higher level of responsibility).

Costs to Owners and Managers of Properties Along the Coast

One-off costs
The grant available for the management plan can serve as a reasonable estimate of
the cost to the farmer (as most farmers will employ an expert to advise on its
preparation or to prepare it on his/her behalf). As noted in the benefits section
above, the total grant for management plans attributable to public access provision
has been estimated at 20% of the value for a 55 ha farm – i.e. £207 (£1,035 per FEP
x 20%) per agreement. This will affect around 983 farmers (range of 710 to 1,255).
Those dedicating land for access will not be required to prepare a management plan.
However, anyone proposing to dedicate land for public access is advised to take
legal advice, and the process will incur costs. It is assumed, however, that these
legal costs would be paid by NE (see page 131 below).
Those landowners providing public access, whether through agri-environment
agreements or via dedications, will be expected to provide some infrastructure to
allow the public to make use of the access offered. RPA Ltd has used the four case
study areas to assess the costs of the necessary infrastructure (signs, gates,
surfacing etc.). These costs apply to the 179 km of new route needed. For the four
study areas, construction costs are assessed as being between £143,300 and
£2.78m (giving a range of £800/km to £15,500/km – with the range mainly reflecting
uncertainty over the proportion of that length that would be made suitable for use by
the disabled).
Where the access is provided by landowners via permissive arrangements in return
for payments through an agri-environment scheme, it is assumed that these costs
would be met from capital payments made through the scheme. No public sector
contribution has been assumed for land dedicated under CROW s16. Total




                                    Asken Ltd
                                    Final Report – May 2007
                                              130


infrastructure costs to be met by farmers (at 2006 values over the 20-year period) are
estimated at £0.9m (range £0.6m to £1.4m).

Recurring costs
Those who enter into agreements will incur costs associated with the adjustment of
their management to accommodate public access along the coast.
A range of possible costs could arise, most of which have already been considered in
the context of other options:
                                 Linear                          Area-wide
Arable                           Loss of production from Conversion to grass and
                                 strip (see Section 8.4.2) yield reduction (see below)
Grass                            Loss of production from Yield      reduction    (see
                                 strip (see Section 8.4.2) Section 9.4.2)

In previous sections, estimates have been made of costs on farmers of public access
for three of the four types noted above. In order to achieve consistency for
comparison between options, the same unit costs of losses are used for this option.
In the case of linear routes, the costs are as per Option 1 (see Section 8.4.2.1) and
those for area-wide access costs are as per Option 2 (see Section 9.4.2.1).
The ‘missing’ statistic is that of conversion from arable to grass, and an estimate of
the cost is needed in order to appraise this option. Payments under HLS for
reversion to grass from arable are around £210 to £280/ha/yr (Refs HJ3 and HJ441)
depending on HLS option followed, and provide a useful surrogate. These figures
are expected to contain an element of incentivisation (capped by State aid rules and
typically around 20%), meaning that the cost to the farmer is £168 - £224/ha/yr.
Costs associated with providing public access to grassland would be in addition to
these.
There would also be additional costs associated with increased management time
and effort, as shown in Table 10.3. In the case of permitted access, it is assumed
that the landowner will be responsible for maintaining the access infrastructure
(whereas the LHA will maintain that on PRoWs).

Occupiers’ Liability
On land where previously no public access was allowed and trespassing was not
known to have occurred, then the occupier of that land would have to consider
whether he was meeting his duty of care to the people now coming onto his land as a
result of his granting permission for them to do so. However, these implications are
provided for within the compensation package and so the costs are compensated for
in the scheme payments. Where land is dedicated for public access under CRoW
s16, he would not receive compensation. The occupier would still need to ensure he
was meeting his duty of care to people coming onto the land, although this would be

41
     See: http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/pdfs/es/hls-payment-booklet.pdf




                                       Asken Ltd
                                         Final Report – May 2007
                                                   131


modified by CRoW s13, whilst the land was open for public access, so this may incur
a small unquantified cost.


Table 10.3:     Estimated Recurring Costs to Farmers (in Year 20, at 2006 values)


Item                                          No. of Units   Cost £/unit)   Total Cost (£’000)

Losses from conversion from arable to grass        961 ha        196.0              188,400

Loss of production – linear                       644 km           11.6              7,500

Management time – linear                          644 km           68.9             44,400

Loss of production – area                         4,807 ha         6.3              30,500

Management time – area                            4,807 ha         68.9             331,100

Infrastructure maintenance                        £888,140     @ 8.3%++             73,600

Total                                                                               675,500
*Based on information in Appendix 5, arable includes cereals, general cropping and half of
mixed; grass includes dairy, LFA livestock, lowland livestock and half of mixed.
+ Once arable is converted to grass, costs associated with grassland then apply
++ The rate is the same rate applied to maintaining the infrastructure for PRoWs
Costs to Local Economy
There are not expected to be any costs to the local economy.

Costs to Public Sector Bodies
Costs to public sector bodies would arise from a number of different sources.

Government Agency
It is expected that a government agency (for example NE) would meet costs of:
     -    evaluating and enrolling applicants in the scheme devised to provide the
          access opportunities assumed above;
     -    adding details to the Country Walks website;
     -    inspections and compliance checks;
     -    one-off and annual payments made to participants.
By way of a guide, Defra has supplied data on the costs of processing and
administering an HLS application as being:
     -    £3,300 set up costs (allowing for efficiency improvements once the scheme is
          up and running);
     -    £450 per year for subsequent administration.
Estimates provided by Defra to RPA Ltd for the costs of running CSS and ESA
agreements led them to assume:




                                              Asken Ltd
                                Final Report – May 2007
                                          132


   -   £1,000 set up cost per agreement;
   -   £540 per year on-going costs.
The assumptions made above and range of unit cost estimates are used to provide
an assessment of costs to the government agency charged with the task of
managing the scheme. However, these costs apply to the whole of the scheme,
including management measures not directly related to public access. It is proposed,
therefore, to attribute 20% of these costs to the public access element, given that, as
with the current HLS, public access and enjoyment is one of five main objectives.
Total costs are, therefore, estimated at £1.1m (range £0.6m to £1.9m).
Payments made to participants are discussed above (in Section 10.4.1.1).

Natural England
NE would also incur costs in:
   -   assessing the nature conservation, landscape and access implications of
       each application;
   -   research and monitoring;
   -   dealing with dedications;
   -   promotion of good practice.
NE has indicated that it would cost around 2 to 5 person days of effort to assess
each application. Assuming an average of 250 person days per year, and a cost of
£35,000 per person, this provides a mid-point estimate of £447,000 for all agri-
environment schemes drawn up over the 20-year period (at current values). This
covers the cost of the whole application, and so the figure is reduced to 20% of this
to reflect the access element only, bringing the final figure to about £89,000.
As with other options, a cost of £0.3m to £0.5m has been included to cover research
and monitoring work.
Drawing on RPA Ltd (2006), costs for dealing with dedications are put at £3,000 per
dedication. As with creating PRoW, it is assumed that the landowner’s legal costs
would be met by a public sector body.
It is assumed that there would also be a programme of developing a coastal access
code. The costs are assumed to be the same as for other options. Likewise, there is
likely to be a need to promote the access opportunities, such as via the Country
Walks website. These costs are assumed to occur over the first 10 years of the
period.
Ministry of Defence
It is assumed that MOD have offered all the access which they can under permissive
arrangements, and so no further access would be forthcoming under this option (and
so no costs).

Environment Agency




                                   Asken Ltd
                                       Final Report – May 2007
                                                 133


It is assumed that whenever new defences are constructed (such as when defences
are re-aligned), then the opportunity will be taken to introduce public access on a
permissive basis. As with other options, EA would incur some additional costs as a
result. These are assumed to be the same as under Option 2 (see Section 9.4.2.1)
although, because of the longer period of implementation, recurring costs total £3.2m
over 20 years at 2006 prices.

Other Authorities
LHAs and other bodies would incur costs in improving access to the coast. These
are taken to be similar to those under other options, except that implementation
would take place over a 20-year period so recurring costs are lower over the full
period.
Costs to public sector bodies are summarised in Table 10.4.
Table 10.4:    Additional Costs to Public Sector Bodies


Body/Type of Body          Additional cost factors                     Cost estimate Years 1 – 20 (£’000
                                                                       at £2006 value)

Government Agency          Administrative set-up costs                 392 (141 – 822)

Government Agency          Payments for portion of FEP                 189 (146 – 258)

Government Agency          Capital payments                            1,672 (1,297 – 2,285)

Government Agency          Incentives for dedications                  427 (376 – 478)

Government Agency          Annual administration                       699 (493 – 1,042)

Government Agency          Annual payments                             11,426 (10,059 – 12,793)

NE                         Administrative and legal costs for          417 (367 – 466)
                           dedications

NE                         Review of applications                      89 (40 – 174)

NE                         Research                                    400 (300 – 500)

NE                         Costs to develop coastal access code        750 (500 – 1,330)

NE                         Public promotional campaign                 1,600

Environment Agency         Risk assessments and community liaison      294

Environment Agency         Infrastructure costs including mitigation   1,280

Environment Agency         Maintenance                                 3,167

Ministry of Defence        Site appraisals etc                         Nil

Total                                                                  22,802 (20,060 – 26,489)

10.4.2.2       Environment
The disbenefits of this option would depend on the levels of uptake and the
proportions of mechanisms used to provide access. In general the disbenefits would
be similar to Option 2 (see Section 9.4.2.2) due to the difficulties in guiding routes
and the wider scale impacts. However, as noted above significant impacts could be
avoided by careful appraisal of new access proposals. As indicated in Table 10.5




                                           Asken Ltd
                                            Final Report – May 2007
                                                      134


most residual impacts would therefore be low, and no high residual impacts would be
expected.


Table 10.5        Summary of potential residual impacts of Option 3


Receptor / Potential impacts            Potential Mitigation Measures               Residual   Notes
(see Table 5.4 for details)                                                         Impacts

Landscape

Increase numbers of people in the       Screening of car parks                      Low
landscape, and cars in car parks,
etc.

Intrusion of visitor facilities in      Appropriate location and design.            Low        All options equal
landscape                               Avoidance in areas of exception
                                        scenic value

Erosion scars                           Reseeding & drainage etc, but               Moderate
                                        ineffective if visitor numbers are high

Construction of gravel / rock paths     Use of appropriate materials                Low        Few new paths
on popular sites, reducing natural
qualities of landscape

Increased litter (and deliberate        Provision of adequate disposal              Low
illegal dumping), with resultant        facilities for litter. Notices, fines and
reductions in landscape quality         wardens. Rapid removal of tipped
                                        waste.

Use of fencing to delimit paths, with   Careful placement and incorporation         Low        New fencing
resultant introduction of man-made      with stone walls or hedges where                       needs likely to
feature into natural landscape          appropriate                                            be low

Replacement of permanent                Design of access options to avoid           Low        Landowner
grassland and associated livestock      perverse effects. Access management                    response
by cultivated crops to avoid need to    awareness. Provision of adequate                       uncertain
provide access                          compensation.

Geological features

Erosion / damage of sensitive           Fencing, and information and                Low        Access would
features                                interpretation of values                               not be granted
                                                                                               to sensitive sites

Access infrastructure directly on       Design of access options to avoid           Low
sensitive features or reducing          direct impact and long term adverse
natural erosion                         effects

Collection of fossils and minerals –    Fencing, information, collecting codes      Low
but access available to most well       and interpretation of values, wardens.
known sites

Deliberate vandalism of sensitive       Fencing. Presence of people and             Low
features                                wardens.

Biodiversity

Disturbance of breeding, passage        Fencing and screening, notices,             Moderate   Access would be
and wintering birds, and breeding       wardens and seasonal restrictions.                     prohibited to
and resting seals.                                                                             sensitive sites /
                                                                                               during sensitive
                                                                                               periods




                                                 Asken Ltd
                                            Final Report – May 2007
                                                      135



Receptor / Potential impacts             Potential Mitigation Measures                 Residual   Notes
(see Table 5.4 for details)                                                            Impacts

Increases in predator numbers due        Frequent litter collection, scavenger-        Low
to discarded food and increased          proof litter bins, notices and predator
vulnerability of eggs and young to       control.
predators as a result of disturbance

Trampling of eggs of ground nesting      Information and interpretation,               Low        Access would be
birds                                    wardens.                                                 prohibited to
                                                                                                  sensitive sites /
                                                                                                  during sensitive
                                                                                                  periods

Trampling and erosion of sensitive       Fencing, notices, and seasonal                Moderate
vegetation.                              restrictions

Eutrophication of sensitive              Notices, fines, provision of facilities for   Low
vegetation from dog faeces and           disposal of faeces. Path location
urine                                    alongside sacrificial areas.

Wild fires (increasing frequency) in     Fire breaks in high risk areas and            Low        Temporary
high risk habitats (e.g. coastal         sensitive habitats. Notices and                          closures during
heaths and pine forests)                 temporary closures during high risk                      high risk periods
                                         periods.                                                 possible

Habitat fragmentation through            Path repair measures (reseeding, etc.)        Low
creation of new paths

Natural succession in semi-natural       Fencing and notices. Access                   Low        Access would
habitats due to removal of livestock     management. Adequate incentives for                      not be granted
by farmers (to avoid livestock-visitor   grazing.                                                 where this would
conflicts) or displacement of                                                                     threaten
livestock                                                                                         sensitive
                                                                                                  habitats

Collection of eggs and plants            Presence of people and wardens.               Low

Archaeology / cultural features

Erosion / damage of sensitive            Fencing, information and interpretation       Low
features                                 of special values

Deliberate vandalism of sensitive        Fencing, wardens.                             Low
features

Impacts outside coastal zone

Increased CO2 and nitrogen               Provision/promotion of adequate               Low        Depends on
emissions from cars, etc. travelling     public transport, walking and cycling                    overall increase
to coastal areas                         routes. Car park pricing to dissuade                     in visitor
                                         car use.                                                 numbers

Increases in visitor related             Provision/promotion of adequate               Low        Depends on
infrastructures (e.g. roads)             public transport, walking and cycling                    overall increase
                                         routes. Car park pricing to dissuade                     in visitor
                                         car use.                                                 numbers

10.4.2.3       Social
There is expected to be some disruption to local residents in areas where new
access is created although this should be lower than in other options due to lower
expected uplift in use and greater involvement by local landowners. Compared to
Option 1, there is likely to be less provision for disabled people.
There will be costs associated with any additional rescues required of £0.3m.




                                                 Asken Ltd
                                 Final Report – May 2007
                                           136


10.5 Other Issues

10.5.1    Implementation
Mechanisms already exist that enable landowners to provide permissive access
(notably the HLS), or to dedicate land and ways as Access Land (CRoW s16) or
PRoWs (HA 1980), respectively. Consequently, existing measures can be used to
implement this option. However, as an HLS-like scheme is seen as the principal
mechanism used to generate the proposed access improvements, there may need to
be changes in:
   -     capacity to administer the increased level of applications;
   -     the options on offer (to ensure they apply appropriately to coastal land and
         foreshore);
   -     revision of the payment rates on offer (although the rates assumed for this
         option may not be acceptable under the EU’s state aid rules);
   -     the funding for the scheme.
The Country Walks website could be expanded to promote the additional access
provided.

10.5.2    Competition Assessment
The Competition Assessment Filter has been applied to this option (see Table 10.6
below).
The main commercial beneficiaries of this option are farmers, as they will benefit
from the agri-environment scheme payments (which at the level assumed are well
above the costs incurred) which are relatively secure and give some protection
against the vagaries of short term fluctuations that exist with agricultural
commodities. The benefits that these businesses enjoy will have no significant
adverse effect on the competitiveness of non-participating farms. As a result, all
questions are answered in the negative.




                                     Asken Ltd
                                             Final Report – May 2007
                                                       137




Table 10.6:      Competition Assessment Filter


Question                                                                                      Answer
                                                                                              yes or no

Q1:      In the market(s) affected by the new regulation, does any firm have more             No
than 10% market share?

Q2:      In the market(s) affected by the new regulation, does any firm have more             No
than 20% market share?

Q3:       In the market(s) affected by the new regulation, do the largest three firms         No
together have at least 50% market share?

Q4: Would the costs of the regulation affect some firms substantially more than               No
others?

Q5:         Is the regulation likely to affect the market structure, changing the number or   No
size of firms?

Q6:         Would the regulation lead to higher set-up costs for new or potential firms       No
that existing firms do not have to meet?

Q7:         Would the regulation lead to higher ongoing costs for new or potential firms      No
that existing firms do not have to meet?

Q8: Is the market characterised by rapid technological change?                                No

Q9:       Would the regulation restrict the ability of firms to choose the price, quality,    No
range or location of their products?


The mechanisms envisaged for this option are voluntary and so any business
entering into an arrangement would be expected to assess the impacts on its
competitiveness and not participate if the costs would be excessive.


10.6 Summary
The benefits and costs, both quantified and unquantified, identified for this option are
summarised in Table 10.7 and Table 10.8 respectively below, broken down by type
of receptor. In order to allow comparison at current prices, monetary data have been
adjusted to NPV using a 3.5% discount rate.




                                                  Asken Ltd
                                             Final Report – May 2007
                                                       138




Table 10.7:     Summary of Quantified Benefits and Costs (Yrs 1 – 20)


                             Benefits                                   Costs

                             £m (at 2006)         £m (NPV)              £m (at 2006)                 £m (NPV)

Users                        55 (28 – 83)         34 (17 – 51)          2 (1 – 3)                    1 (1 – 2)

Property Owners              14 (12 – 17)         9 (8 – 11)            9 (6 – 12)                   6 (4 – 8)

Society                      0                    0                     <1                           <1

Public Sector                0                    0                     23 (20 – 26)                 16 (14 – 18)

Total                        69 (40 – 100)        43 (25 – 62)          34 (27 – 41)                 22 (18 – 28)



Table 10.8:     Summary of Unquantified Benefits and Costs


Beneficiary and Types of Benefit              Unquantified Benefits

Users – health and well-being                 Increase health and well-being arising from 1.1m visits (Low)

Users – education                             Educational benefits (Low)

Users – security of rights                    Security of rights acquired over between 850 ha and 1,100 ha of land
                                              dedicated under s16 (Low)

Users – other                                 More positive attitudes amongst between 804 and 1,377 farmers
                                              (Low)

Property Owners - management                  Generic benefits described in Section 4 along between 570 km and
                                              720 km of linear routes and over between 4,250 ha and 5,500 ha of
                                              permissive access land (Low)

Public Sector – health costs                  £805 for every person who changes from a sedentary to an active
                                              lifestyle (Low)

Public sector – land management costs         Reduced management costs over de facto access (Low)

Environment                                   Area included within between 710 and 1,255 agri-environment scheme
                                              agreements subject to environmentally friendly management (High)

Society/Coastal Economy - employment          274 (235 to 312) FTEs as a result of increased visitor spend (Low)

Society/Coastal Economy – business            Business generated by public sector spend and through spending by
generated from public sector spend            recipients of agri-environment scheme payments of £22.8m (£20.1m -
                                              £26.5m), virtually all of it likely to be spent locally (Moderate)


Bearer and Types of Costs                     Unquantified Costs

Users – greater uncertainty/complexity        Confusion over variations in access arrangements along the whole of
                                              the 4,870 km of coastal frontage (High)

Property Owners – injurious affection         (Note: it is expected that landowners will not give grant public access
                                              where level of injurious affection is unacceptable)

Property Owners – creation of access          (Note: costs incurred by landowners in application for schemes is
                                              included as a quantified cost)

Property Owners – Duty of Care                Duty of care (as modified by CRoW s13) owed to the public on the




                                                Asken Ltd
                                       Final Report – May 2007
                                                 139


                                        proportion of up to 1,100 ha of land dedicated under s16 where no
                                        people previously accessed it and for which no compensation has
                                        been paid (Low)

Public sector – organising rescues      Increased costs to MCA of organising around 11 additional rescues
                                        (Low)

Environment - landscape                 Landscape: Erosion scars on up to 920 km or up to 1,170 km of new
                                        permissive access (Low)

Environment - geology                   Geology: Erosion scars on up to 920 km or up to 1,170 km of new
                                        permissive access (Low)

Environment – biodiversity              Biodiversity: potential disturbance impacts on birds on up to 8,000 ha
                                        of SSSI land and trampling of vegetation (Moderate)

Environment – culture                   Cultural heritage impacts over up to 4,000 ha of SMs (Minimal)

Society/Coastal Economy - disruption    Disruption to coastal residents – increased traffic, parking problems
                                        (Minimal)

Society/Coastal Economy – peace and     Loss of peace and tranquillity (Minimal)
tranquillity




The benefits and costs of the four different options are compared in Section 14.




                                          Asken Ltd
                                       Final Report – May 2007
                                                 140



11. Option 4 – Coastal Access Corridor


11.1 Introduction
This section provides a description of Option 4 – “Use of a Descriptive Approach” and
its expected effects. The label applied to this option has been changed to “Coastal
Access Corridor” approach.


11.2 Option Description
This option has been designed by NE and detailed proposals are still being
developed. A right of public access for open air recreation on foot would be created
along a coastal corridor that would stretch around the entire English coast. The
corridor would be defined in words, generally not on maps, and alignment of
landward and seaward boundaries of the corridor would be determined in relation to
local circumstances so as to allow onward progress with minimum effects on land
management, public health and safety and natural and cultural heritage features.
NE’s proposals have been set out in a paper for its Board and Box 11.1 reproduces
the summary of its proposals.


Box 11.1:     Summary of NE Proposals

Summary of our [NE’s] proposals:
1. The Government should legislate to create a new approach tailored to the circumstances of the coast;
2. Legislation should create statutory powers for Natural England to align a coastal access corridor
around the whole of the undeveloped English coast, to create access where it does not exist and
improve it where it needs improving, and to repeat this process later on any stretch of coast where we
considered it necessary. We would not intervene on stretches of coast where good quality access
already exists.
3. The access corridor would include new areas of spreading room along the coast, and could also
formalise existing beach access.
4. Natural England's powers would include undertaking any necessary establishment work on the
ground, such as installing gates and bridges.
5. All Natural England's powers would be exercised under a statutory methodology, approved by the
Secretary of State. There would be a right of appeal against our failure to act in accordance with that
statutory methodology.
6. Natural England would undertake nature conservation assessments as part of the planning process,
to avoid significant damage to any features of importance.
7. Natural England would undertake much of the planning and implementation through access
authorities, where they were willing to take it on. We would do it ourselves where the access authority
was unwilling to act. We would fund the necessary work irrespective of who undertook it.
8. Local solutions would be designed in consultation with local interests, including local access forums
and land managers.
9. This would require an implementation programme which we believe would cost between £2m and




                                           Asken Ltd
                                      Final Report – May 2007
                                                141


£5m per year over a period of 10 years. Work is continuing to refine the cost estimates.
10. There should be a working presumption against paying compensation for public access along the
undeveloped coast, but we are undertaking further work on this issue.
11. The reduced level of occupiers' liability introduced for CRoW Act access land should also apply to
coastal access.
12. There is a need for complementary work, by Natural England and others, to enhance coastal
landscapes and wildlife.
Source: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/about/board/feb07/210207_coastal_access_NEB_P07_03.pdf


11.3 Legal framework
What is envisaged is that new legislation is passed that would say, in effect, that the
public has a right of access on foot to coastal land within a coastal corridor. The
coastal corridor would be determined by a landward boundary and a seaward
boundary. NE would be required to develop a statutory methodology that would
explain how the corridor boundaries are to be aligned. The methodology would be
expected to enable certain features to be ‘aligned in’ and some to be ‘aligned out’.
For example (for illustrative purposes only):
Features generally aligned in or through              Features generally aligned out
- A corridor of varying width, on land                - Mudflats
- Beaches and sand dunes                              - Saltmarshes
- Headlands                                           - Areas of high nature conservation
                                                        value sensitive to disturbance
- Areas with existing access rights (e.g.
  CRoW access land)                       - Areas of high commercial importance
- Flood banks                                         - Curtilages of property
However, NE would be under no requirement to produce maps for all of the coastal
access corridor. It is expected that, in most cases, the extent of coastal corridor will
be intuitive to users, assisted by on-the-ground signage and obvious features. This
would be developed through the statutory methodology. It is expected that some
disputes will arise in some areas where the corridor is less intuitively obvious. A
mechanism will be developed for resolving these disputes.
Involvement of local people (should they wish to be involved), such as via the district,
parish or town councils, the Local Access Forum, landowners and/or other local
interest groups, will help ensure the optimum alignment is adopted and with minimum
level of conflict.


11.4 Key Assumptions
Key assumptions used are that:
    -    the right being created would be a new right. Where the access corridor is
         crossed by PRoWs, the rights enjoyed along PRoWs would not be affected.
         Similarly, where the access corridor coincides with CRoW access land, the
         new right would exist alongside the existing CRoW right of access. For



                                          Asken Ltd
                               Final Report – May 2007
                                         142


       example, a landowner would have the right to exclude or restrict use of the
       CRoW right of access but users would still be able to access the coastal
       access corridor – this is akin to the right to use a PRoW across CRoW
       Access Land to which access is restricted;
   -   as with Option 2 (see Section 9.2.2), no new Access Land would be created
       under the ‘Do nothing’ option but an average of 25 km of new PRoW would
       be created each year;
   -   there would be no requirement on NE to produce maps, but there would be a
       series of cases taken through a dispute resolution process to test the
       application of the statutory methodology;
   -   after an initial period to develop the statutory methodology, identification of
       the access corridor and implementation of the new right would be rolled out
       over a period of 10 years;
   -   where a promoted PRoW (either a National Trail or a regionally promoted
       route) lies within, and follows the general line of, the coastal access corridor,
       no new infrastructure would be needed, whereas other PRoWs in the coastal
       access corridor would be upgraded where considered inadequate;
   -   within the corridor, there would be a mechanism for dealing with
       circumstances where temporary re-alignment of the access corridor is
       needed. It is assumed that this would be through some form of temporary
       ‘aligning out’ of areas involved, and a mechanism for this would be provided
       in the statutory methodology;
   -   loss of land through erosion would result in the coastal access corridor being
       re-aligned away from the sea. The corridor would be re-established within the
       same parameters (e.g. width) and using the same method as the previous
       alignment;
   -   unit costs to farmers and landowners would be similar to those discussed in
       Section 9 (for area-wide access). No compensation would be payable to
       affected landowners;
   -   existence of such a right would not affect the application of planning
       legislation, other than where planning legislation may be used to protect the
       right of access – e.g. by not permitting the erection of walls or fencing, where
       these are not permitted development and where these would enclose land
       that falls within access rights.


11.5 Scale of Effects
The effects need to be considered in both linear and area terms. This is because:
   -   at the core of the option is the creation of an access corridor along the full
       length of the English coast, that will allow onward progress;
   -   the corridor will vary in width which will encompass areas of land that meet
       the criteria to be set out in the statutory methodology.




                                   Asken Ltd
                                 Final Report – May 2007
                                           143


Each of these is discussed in turn.

11.5.1    Length of Corridor
Estimating the length of the corridor is complicated by two important factors:
   -     the ‘core’ of the corridor will be aligned in a way that would allow walkers to
         by-pass headlands if they so wish, thus reducing the total length of the
         corridor to be created relative to the length of the coastline;
   -     the coastal access corridor, as defined by the statutory methodology, will not
         always encompass PRoWs that have been assumed (under Options 1 and 3)
         as already providing public access. This is because the main criterion for
         classifying a section of coast as having existing secure public access along a
         PRoW is that the PRoW lies within the 200 m buffer strip. A PRoW that is,
         say, 150 m inland, would not lie within the unmapped coastal access corridor,
         whereas one that is, say, 5m inland probably would.
The length of the corridor is therefore assessed as follows:
   -     the length assumed for the whole of the coast is 4,870 km;
   -     the length initially estimated by NE (pers. comm.) for the coast, allowing for
         some shortening due to headlands being by-passed is 4,000 km;
   -     it seems reasonable, therefore, to take these as upper and lower limits to the
         total length (and giving a mid-point of 4,435 km) with some provision for the
         first of the two modifying factors;
RPA Ltd’s analysis of access within the four case study areas shows that:
   -     51% had secure access along PRoWs, cycletracks and roads;
   -     an unknown proportion of this will be within the unmapped coastal access
         corridor (including some sections of National Trails). In the absence of any
         indications of what this proportion might be, other than a rapid map-based
         assessment, it is estimated that about 90% would fall within the corridor,
         leaving about 10% outside it and for which new infrastructure will be needed;
   -     deviations to avoid features that are to be aligned out (e.g. curtilages of
         buildings) or contoured around (e.g. deep gullies) should be at the level as for
         the voluntary approach (6.5%) rather than for PRoW (15%) as existing tracks
         and paths that are not PRoWs could be exploited by the unmapped coastal
         access corridor;
   -     this provides an estimate of the length of the new coastal access corridor that
         will need to be developed (e.g. installation of appropriate infrastructure) for
         public access, rounded to the nearest 10 km in each case, as:
                4,435 km (range 4,000 km to 4,870 km) x 49% = 2,173 km
                plus 4,435 km x 51% x 10% = 226 km
                plus 2,399 km (2,173 + 226) x 6.5% increase = 2,555 km




                                      Asken Ltd
                                    Final Report – May 2007
                                              144


   -     2,560 km is the mid-point value in a range between 2,300 km – 2,810 km
   -     under the ‘Do Nothing’ option, around 250 km of new PRoW would be created
         along the coast by LHAs and, assuming this is done to an appropriate
         standard, this length needs to be deducted from the above, giving revised
         estimates of 2,310 km (range 2,050 km to 2,560 km).
It should be noted that the 10% value used to adjust for the second of the two
important factors mentioned above is less robust than other estimates made.

11.5.2    Area of Corridor
The coastal access corridor is clearly intended to embrace areas of land. This area
will comprise a number of components that need to be identified separately. These
are where the corridor is aligned so as to include:
   -     sections of foreshore that the statutory methodology states should be
         included (such as most beaches);
   -     land that is extensively managed land, for example many headlands used for
         rough grazing, steep maritime cliff with scrubby vegetation with little or no
         agricultural use;
   -     land that is farmed relatively intensively.
It is expected that the methodology will require beaches that are sensitive for reasons
of commercial value, privacy or nature conservation reasons, will be ‘aligned out’,
and that other beaches that are ‘aligned in’ will, in virtually all cases, already have
public access.
It is difficult to estimate the area of land that will be included within the unmapped
coastal access corridor, as much will depend on local circumstances and what is
agreed locally. The maximum area of extensively managed land can be assumed to
be similar in extent as was estimated for the same land type under Option 2, namely
143,400 ha (excluding foreshore). However, there are many areas where the
notional boundary of the corridor will exclude areas that would be mapped as Access
Land (such as some grazing marshes, saltmarshes and mudflats). NE data provided
to RPA Ltd (2006) give a breakdown of the area of non-foreshore land that could be
Access Land under Option 2:
         Mudlfats                                      2,050 ha
         Coastal and floodplain grazing marsh          89,620 ha
         Coastal sand dunes                            8,800 ha
         Coastal vegetated shingle                     2,460 ha
         Maritime cliff and slope                      19,340 ha
         Saline lagoons                                760 ha
         Saltmarshes                                   20,360 ha
There is no certainty at this stage what proportion of each of these habitats would be
aligned in or aligned out by the statutory methodology; so, it is assumed that the area
compared to Option 2 could be reduced by as much as half, giving a lower value of




                                       Asken Ltd
                                 Final Report – May 2007
                                           145


71,700 ha. If the total area (i.e. 143,400 ha) is potentially included, a mid-point of
107,550 ha can be estimated.
As noted for Option 2 (see Section 9.3.2), a range of 11% to 15% may be accessible
through other mechanisms (e.g. CRoW Access Land, NT open land), with a mid-
point of 13%. Public access to many other areas is available through landowner
permission (including much land in local authority ownership) and, as it is assumed
that more use may be made of existing access areas due to greater promotion, there
will be an effect on access and land management.
Finally, NE has provided an initial estimate of the more intensively farmed area that
might be affected based on an average corridor width of 20 m (although this would
vary considerably) and adjusting for the proportion of the coast that already has
some form of legally-secure access. Their estimation produces a value of 5,000 ha
(range of 4,500 ha to 5,500 ha).

11.5.3     Access to the Coast
It is assumed that the requirements for access to the coast would be the same as for
Options 1 and 2.


11.6 Effects Relative to Baseline

11.6.1     Benefits

11.4.1.1        Economic
Benefits to Users
IPSOS/MORI (2006) found that 9% of respondents would visit the coast more
frequently if a clear path existed around the coast (as assumed under Option 1, see
Section 8.4.1.1). Assuming the objective of an intuitively identifiable coastal access
corridor, with in-situ signage where some doubt may arise, then a similar situation
could arise. In addition, provision is made in the costs for upgrading infrastructure
and improving access along sections of coast were there access is available but not
to a good standard. It seems reasonable to make provision for some uplift in this
respect too. However, we have no firm basis for assessing what additional uplift
would arise; consequently, we propose a conservative estimate of an extra 1%
However, the IPSOS/MORI work also found that a significant proportion of people
would be less inclined to visit areas where they were unsure of their rights (and this
option introduces another set of access rights together with the potential for
variations and temporary changes to corridor alignment) and which were not clearly
and consistently portrayed (such as through on-the-ground measures and/or
mapping). As a consequence, the uplift in visitor numbers could be lower (at c6%, as
for Option 2, see Section 9.4.1.1).
Given the uncertainty surrounding the change in visitor numbers likely to arise with
this option (note that respondents were not asked about this option specifically), it
seems appropriate to work with a range of between 6% and 10% increase, with 8%
mid-point. The consequent benefits are summarised in Table 11.1.




                                    Asken Ltd
                                        Final Report – May 2007
                                                  146


Table 11.1:    User Benefits as at Year 20


Displaced and additional Visits per year (m) Unit Value* (£/visit @       Benefit (£m per year
visits                                       2006 values)                 2006 value)

Residents                       1.26 (0.95 - 1.55)   2.35 (1.18 – 4.70)      2.97 (1.11 - 5.46)

Tourists and other day visits   3.66 (2.75 - 4.58)   6.25 (3.18 – 12.5)      22.90 (8.59 - 42.92)

Total                           4.92 (3.70 – 6.13)                           25.87 (9.70 - 48.38)
* Note: the same benefit value is attributed to both additional and displaced trips because the
information available on the benefits from trips does not distinguish between them (see
Appendix 2, section A2.8.5).

There are two qualitative (i.e. unquantifiable) influences that might modify these
values:
    -    NE proposals include enhancements to the access infrastructure along
         sections of coast where access already exists, which should improve the
         users’ enjoyment on these sections, too;
    -    users would not be limited to a narrow linear route but would be able to range
         over anywhere within the coastal access corridor and this could also boost
         the quality of their experience.
It is assumed that the new legislation would automatically provide a right of access
for people using mobility vehicles, although it does not directly ensure the
accessibility of land to such vehicles. It is also assumed that, as with Option 2,
private landowners are unlikely to be regarded as service providers under DDA 1995
just because the coastal access corridor crosses their land. However, where they
choose voluntarily to provide infrastructure, this could be seen as service provision
and they would be required to ensure reasonable adjustments have been for
disabled people.
AAs are required to comply with DDA 1995 and 2005 and, where reasonably
possible, infrastructure to facilitate public access should be constructed to a standard
high enough for use by those with disabilities. From December 2006, certain bodies
were required under DDA 1995 (as amended by DDA 2005) to publish an Equality
Scheme which sets out how the body will fulfil its general duty to promote disability
equality. As a consequence, AAs may choose to promote coastal access for
disabled by developing the coastal access corridor.

Benefits to Owners and Managers of Properties Along the Coast
These benefits would be limited to the non-financial benefits listed in Section 4.2,
plus payments associated with creation of access to the coast (110 km and 125
agreements and orders).

Benefits to the Coastal Economy
The impacts of other options depend entirely on the additional visitor days they
generate. Table 11.2 summarises the impacts derived from the visitor data in
Appendix 2.




                                            Asken Ltd
                                       Final Report – May 2007
                                                 147


Table 11.2:     Economic impacts of Option 4


Increase in total          Employment associated with new    Income associated with new
visitor days (m/yr)        access (FTEs)                     access (£m per year)

0.88 (0.66 – 1.10)         1,244 (785 to 1,733)              3.89 (2.46 – 5.41)


Enhanced access would encourage additional trips to the coast and the increased
expenditure will increase provide employment opportunities and increase incomes for
local businesses. The impacts are estimated, at the lower level of uplift (6%), at 785
and £2.46m per year in additional income for local businesses (see Appendix 3). At
the upper end of the level of uplift (10%) the figures are 1,733 FTE jobs and £5.41m
per year respectively.
There would also be benefits from a proportion of the increased spending by public
sector bodies (see Table 11.5 below).

Benefits to Public Sector Bodies
Benefits would be:
     -    savings in costs of promoting access along sections of coast where access is
          upgraded to higher standard and promoted nationally;
     -    savings in other payments for permissive agreements.
It has not been possible to quantify these benefits.

11.4.1.2        Environment
Under this option, the coastal access corridor would be aligned to exclude many of
the remaining valuable and sensitive habitats to which access is currently unavailable
(e.g. saltmarshes and mudflats). In addition, the benefits of access would also be
similar to Option 2, namely:
     -    sensitive coastal land that is currently used by the public in an unmanaged
          way will come under a management regime and so could potentially benefit
          from better management and increased protection;
     -    the statutory method would also provide for alignment to exclude particularly
          sensitive sites and during critical periods.

11.4.1.3       Social
Social benefits will be fundamentally the same as for Option 1.
The opportunities for disabled people, horse riders and cyclists afforded by this
option are the same as for Option 1, although the width of the coastal access corridor
means that additional works to provide for such users can be more easily
accommodated.




                                           Asken Ltd
                                 Final Report – May 2007
                                           148


11.6.2     Costs

11.4.2.1        Economic
Costs to Users
It is envisaged that there would be local consultations over the alignment of the
boundaries of the coastal access corridor. This is likely to attract involvement of
representatives of user groups. However, their involvement would be entirely
voluntary and impossible to quantify.
Further, because no maps are to be produced under this option, users – especially
user groups - may be involved in cases where the process of applying the statutory
methodology are challenged by a landowner or other interested party. Although such
challenges would be taken up voluntarily, it is reasonable to include their costs as
they will be part of the process of securing rights of access.
There will also be costs associated with a small increase in accidental drownings
(mid-point value of £8.2m over the full 20 year period at 2006 values, range £4.6m to
£15.2m).

Costs to Owners and Managers of Properties Along the Coast
Owners of properties along the coast would suffer costs as a result of access being
provided to:
   -     all land and foreshore included within the unmapped coastal access corridor;
   -     110 km of linear access (PRoW) created to gain access to the coast.

One-off Costs of Negotiations and Disputes
It is to be expected that landowners would become involved in discussions over the
corridor alignment and that disputes will occasionally arise over what land meets the
legal definition (and so the extent of where public rights of access would exist). It is
assumed that a dispute resolution mechanism would be established (or an existing
mechanism used) to resolve any such disputes. Therefore, similar unit costs (as
used in Option 2) are assumed to apply, along with the same propensity to use
expert advice. However, there is uncertainty whether the number of disputes which
might arise will be higher or lower than for Option 2 because:
   -     without a clear definition of Access Land boundaries, there is an absence of a
         prompt to landowners to check the alignment of the corridor;
   -     new mechanisms have been put in place (e.g. establishment of Local Access
         Forums) that may provide means for avoiding disputes arising;
   -     in contrast, without a clearly defined mapped area, users may be uncertain
         where they can and cannot walk and so prompt owners of land (some of
         which will be found to fit the legal definition of coastal land and some of which
         will not) to seek clarification.
In Scotland, where a general right of access was provided by the Land Reform
(Scotland) Act 2003, which did not require any mapping, few disputes have arisen to
date.




                                     Asken Ltd
                                  Final Report – May 2007
                                            149


It is unlikely that there will be many challenges concerning the foreshore.
Consequently, for the purposes of this study and to cover the inherent uncertainty, a
range of assumptions has been applied, giving a range of 50% reduction relative to
the rate at which challenges are predicted to arise under Option 2 (“low” scenario),
50% increase (“high” scenario) and no change (“Mid” scenario). Costs will also be
incurred in negotiating access to the coast. This gives overall costs, at 2006 values,
of £1.3m, with lower and upper limits of £0.5m to £3.5m.

Loss of Capital Value
Residential properties and their curtilages are expected to be excluded from the
coastal access corridor description. As a result, there would be no right of public
access. However, as noted for other options, properties could suffer from injurious
affection, if public access was created over adjacent land.
The earlier discussion on this point (see Section 8.4.2) showed that the effect on
properties varies with circumstances but it has not been possible to assess
accurately the number of properties that might be affected or the effect on each
property’s value. In addition to the loss are any legal costs that may be incurred in
trying to claim compensation. However, given the likelihood that no claims would
succeed, costs should be minimal.
It has not been possible to quantify the number of non-residential coastal properties
that may be affected so, again, any loss of capital value to such properties cannot be
quantified. Potential loss of profits to such businesses is discussed below under
“Costs to Local Economy”.

Recurring costs
It is assumed that the costs of introducing access to extensively managed land within
the coastal access corridor will be the same per hectare as per Option 2, although
the area affected will vary between. Intensively farmed land within the corridor will
comprise a mix of grass and arable land. Based on dominant farm type within the 2
km coastal buffer strip, the ratio of grass to arable is about 40% to 60% respectively.
However, the corridor is likely to be kept to a minimum width (say 5 m 42) where it
passes through cropped areas, whereas a wider swathe may be sought over
grassland. Therefore, the ratio of arable to grass in intensively farmed areas of the
coastal access corridor needs to be adjusted and taken to be 30% to 70% in the
analysis. It is assumed that losses on intensively managed grassland would be the
same per unit area as for Option 2 (see Table 9.4). Assuming that the whole of the
corridor ceases to be used for agriculture, losses on arable are as shown in Table
11.3, below (based on a corridor width of 5 m).




42
   The exact width has not been fixed at 5 m, but a working assumption made by the
consultants is that where the corridor has to cross arable land, a minimum width would be
used. Discussion with National Trails officers indicate that they regard 5 m as the minimum
width for a National Trail. In less intensively managed areas, a greater width may be sought.




                                     Asken Ltd
                                         Final Report – May 2007
                                                   150


It is uncertain whether agricultural land within the coastal access corridor would be
eligible for Single Payment Scheme. The figures assume that it would remain eligible
for such payments.


Table 11.3:    Calculation of Loss of Standard Gross Margin for Arable


Dominant farm type                        % of coastal     % of arable    SGM        Estimated
                                            area (2 km                   (£/ha)    contribution to
                                         strip) occupied                          loss of GM (£/ha)

Cereals                                        32              53         281           148.9

General Cropping                               23              38         405           153.9

Mixed (assume half grass, half arable)         5               9          452           40.7

Total                                          60             100                       343.5
See Appendix 5 for background to these calculations

The overall effect of these assumptions is that, over the 20 years covered by the
study, the total loss to landowners at 2006 mid-point values would be:
     -    extensively managed land - £851,000 (range £832,000 to £871,000);
     -    intensively managed grassland - £240,000 (0 to £492,000);
     -    arable land – £7.0m (£6.3m to £7.7m);
     -    management of intensively managed and arable land - £2.8m (£2.0m to
          £3.5m).
The management costs are assumed to cover occasional requirements for
discussions with NE or AAs over the need for re-alignment, either temporarily (such
as to fell trees or construct drains) or permanently (in response to erosion and
coastal re-alignment).
There would also be costs associated with providing access to the coast (of around
£120,000) but there would be compensation payments that go along with PRoW
creations.

Occupiers’ Liability
Within the coastal access corridor where previously no public access was allowed
and trespassing was not known to have occurred, then the occupier of that land
would have to consider whether he was meeting his duty of care to the people now
coming onto his land. However, it is assumed that this duty would be set by the new
legislation to mirror the slight relaxation in duty of care afforded to CRoW Access
Land by CRoW s13. As a result, it is unlikely to be significant in most cases.

Costs to Coastal Economy
It is anticipated that the statutory methodology would ensure that areas currently
without public access on which businesses are dependent for exclusive use would be




                                             Asken Ltd
                                   Final Report – May 2007
                                             151


aligned out of the corridor. Assuming this intention is achieved, there should be
minimal adverse effects on coastal economies.

Costs to Public Sector Bodies

Creation of the Access Corridor Using Statutory Methodology
It is anticipated that the bulk of the cost of creation would be the involvement of
county council and unitary authority staff, all funded by NE, and supported by NE
regional staff. NE has estimated that FTE requirement and cost would be as set out
in Table 11.4. In addition to the costs of staff employed in the field, NE is expected
to incur central costs of £1.72m over the 10-year period needed for implementation.
In addition to staff costs, £300,000 has been included to cover IT and Geographical
Positioning System (GPS) equipment. It is not intended that this would be used to
produce legally-definitive maps but would be used by field staff to assist in the
application of the statutory methodology.
These estimates include costs of environmental assessments that would be needed
when applying the statutory methodology and determining corridor alignment.


Table 11.4:   Staff Costs to Create Access Corridor


Local         Cost       Admin       Cost        NE Staff   Cost       On-costs   Equipment
Authority     (£000 at   Staff       (£000 at    (No.)      (£000 at   (£000 at   (£000 at
Staff         2006)      (No.)       2006)                  2006)      2006)      2006)
(No.)

138           4,830      205         3,075       74         2,590      3,075      480


Costs of Disputes
There is a high degree of uncertainty surrounding the likely volume of disputes that
might arise, and the costs of dealing with these disputes (given that the mechanism
for their resolution is not yet determined). In the absence of such guidance, reliance
is placed on indications derived from existing mechanisms – resolving PRoW
disputes and mapping appeals under CRoW. RPA Ltd (2006) has identified some of
the relevant components in relation to an earlier set of proposals for an unmapped
approach (Option 2a – see Appendix 9). This suggested that:
      -   800 to 3,000 disputes;
      -   £1,500 to £2,800 costs to NE per dispute.
The approach now envisaged for the coastal access corridor approach is predicated
on local involvement which should reduce the propensity for disputes to arise. It
seems more appropriate to propose that an indication of the likely level of disputes
can be gained from the mapping of CRoW Access Land. Given that maps are not
expected to be produced, there would be local involvement in the alignment process
and the investment in on-the-ground signage, it is reasonable to assume a lower rate
of challenges. It has been assumed that the rate of disputes under Option 4 would
be 75% of those experienced under CRoW mapping (with a range of 50% to 100% to




                                       Asken Ltd
                               Final Report – May 2007
                                         152


allow for uncertainty). As with CRoW mapping, only a proportion of these would
progress to public inquiries (the majority of challenges to CRoW mapping were
resolved without the need for public hearings or inquiries) and it has been assumed
that around 20% would escalate into a PI.
Costs to PINS for each PI held are estimated to be about £3,325 (range £3,150 to
£3,500), although it is assumed that only a minority of disputes would be resolved in
this way.
Overall costs for dispute resolution are put at £2.6m (£0.9m to £7.5m).

Infrastructure and Management Costs
It is anticipated that where a new access corridor is created, infrastructure will be
needed – such as gates, signage, fencing and so on. The aim will be to bring the
standard of the infrastructure within the corridor to that similar to a National Trail.
RPA Ltd (2006) has estimated that the typical cost of the infrastructure will be
between £500 and £13,400/km (mid-point of £7,000/km see Section 8.4.2 for further
explanation of the origins of these figures). A key point to repeat here is that the
lower figure provides for minimal amount of surfacing, whereas the higher figure
would deliver a much higher proportion of the corridor for use by limited mobility
users.
An important component of NE’s proposals is that the whole of the coastal access
corridor would be developed to a similar high standard (roughly equivalent to that of a
National Trail). Where secure legal access exists, there will already be some
infrastructure in place. Its quality might vary from the high standard achieved in
some sections that are already promoted (e.g. National Trails and regionally-
promoted routes), to PRoWs that may not reach the standard required to warrant a
‘pass’ in the BVPI 178 methodology. The length of coastal route not expected to
need entirely new infrastructure is about 2,410 km (4,435 km x 6.5% - 2,310 km). Of
the 2,410 km, approximately 1,630 km are estimated to be National Trails (e.g.
SWCP) or regional routes (e.g. Solent Way, Suffolk Coast and Heaths Path). This
leaves about 780 km (range of 580 km to 1,000 km) of coast with existing access that
will need to be maintained and managed to a greater width and higher standard. As
with the newly developed corridor, enhancement of the existing access will take
place over 10 years.
Total costs for new and upgraded infrastructure are estimated be £16.2m (£1.0m to
£34.3m).
RPA Ltd also estimates that annual maintenance and management for new and
enhanced access for a PRoW would be £580/km/yr, and it is assumed that costs for
the coastal access corridors would be the same.

Research and Monitoring
As with other options, it is assumed that NE would incur costs of between £0.3m and
£0.5m in research and monitoring associated with improved coastal access, incurred
at the early stages of the implementation programme.




                                      Asken Ltd
                                     Final Report – May 2007
                                               153


Promotion and Information Provision
NE have estimated that a cost of £1.6m would be incurred during the 10-year
implementation period for promoting the new access rights to the public, with a
recurring cost of £20,000 per annum thereafter. This was identified in the
IPSOS/MORI (2006) work as being an important pre-requisite to people using the
improved access.
We anticipate that a coastal access code would also be needed, at a cost equivalent
to those estimated for other options, i.e. between £500,000 and £1.33m.

Corridor Re-alignments
It will be necessary to agree re-alignments from time to time. The need for re-
alignments is likely to arise in several ways:
    -   where it is proved that the statutory methodology had been applied
        incorrectly;
    -   when erosion has led to loss of some of the existing corridor;
    -   where temporary re-alignment is for reasons set out in legislation (such as for
        health and safety, land management, environmental or other reasons).
There will be an administrative and possibly legal costs associated with this and
provision is included each year after the implementation period (Year 11 onwards)
for:
    -   NE Field staff at a cost of £200,000;
    -   £48,000 for legal costs;
    -   publicity and promotion of changes, at a cost of £20,000;
    -   equipment costs £10,000.
All the above prices are per year after implementation, at 2006 values.

Ministry of Defence and Environment Agency
Costs are expected to be the same as under Option 1.



District, Parish and Town Councils
It is envisaged that there would be local consultations over the alignment of the
boundaries of the unmapped coastal access corridor. This is likely to involve
discussions with officers and members of town and parish councils (note that costs
for county and unitary authorities have been included in Creation of the Access
Corridor Using Statutory Methodology). There are estimated to be approximately
100 district councils (excluding unitary and metropolitan authorities) with a coastal
frontage. Based on the OS boundary-line parish data, there are 715 civil parishes
and 72 unparished districts in England that lie along the MHWM as far inland as the
first permanent pedestrian crossing. Some of these parishes have only a short




                                        Asken Ltd
                                          Final Report – May 2007
                                                    154


stretch of MWHM within their boundaries and their degree of involvement and
engagement may vary. As such, the costs to such councils are difficult to quantify.

Other Agencies
As with other options, effects on MCA and EH are assumed to be minimal.

Summary
Costs to public sector bodies are summarised in Table 11.5.

Table 11.5:       Additional Costs to Public Sector Bodies


Body/Type of Body             Additional cost factors                     Cost estimate Years 1 – 20 (£’000
                                                                          at £2006 value)

Not yet determined            Dispute resolution                          2,946 (1,298 – 7,884)

NE                            Promotion                                   1,800

NE                            Develop Coastal Code                        750 (500 – 1,330)

NE                            Creation of Access Corridor                 15,525

NE                            Research                                    400 (300 – 500)

NE                            New infrastructure                          16,170 (1,025 – 34,304)

NE                            Re-alignments                               1,880

NE                            Maintenance of new infrastructure           18,088 (1,147 – 38,373)

NE                            Maintenance of infrastructure on existing   6,107 (4,541 – 7,830)
                              access section

MoD                           Site assessments                            79 (38 – 135)

MoD                           Site implementation work                    118 (68 – 180)

Environment Agency            Risk assessments and community liaison      564
                 43
Various bodies                Costs of access TO the coast                3,666 (1,203 – 6,989)

Total                                                                     68,094 (29,888 – 117,294)

11.4.2.2       Environment
It was established in Section 5 (see Table 5.2) that the habitat types within coastal
SSSIs most commonly not accessible to the public are mudflats. It is expected that
the statutory methodology would ensure that these features are aligned out of the
coastal access corridor, thus avoiding disturbance to these habitats. In contrast, it is
expected that some beaches would be aligned in but that the vast majority of these
already have public access so little further adverse impacts are anticipated.
In other areas, it could be more difficult to avoid or regulate access to sensitive land
(e.g. important archaeological features, breeding bird colonies or vegetation that is


43
  This covers the cost of providing access to the coast and would be borne by a range of
public sector bodies (e.g. LHAs, PINS)




                                              Asken Ltd
                               Final Report – May 2007
                                         155


sensitive to trampling). This is because some sensitive vegetation communities or
other features are not easily distinguished from other apparently similar habitats.
Thus in the absence of mapping, there would be a greater risk that people would
unknowingly wander into sensitive areas, which could lead to environmental damage.
Although these potential additional impacts cannot be quantified with the information
currently available to this study, it is considered unlikely that they would be
substantial. It is therefore predicted that the overall range of residual impacts would
be similar or less than predicted for Option 2 for each environmental receptor (see
Table 9.8).

11.4.2.3        Social
In the absence of a requirement on NE to produce maps of all of the coastal access
corridor, there may be uncertainty over where access rights exist, and what land is
aligned in/out, particularly where there are businesses such as campsites and
caravan sites. Consequently, there is a risk of conflict between owners of private
beaches and the public, where the exclusive rights of the former have been protected
but this is not understood by the public. Again, the risk is greater as trespass onto
unaffected properties is more likely in the absence of definitive maps. Risks are
expected to be reduced by clear signage on the ground and linking boundaries to
obvious features.
Although providing a right of access to land that meets the description of coastal land
is not intended to restrict development, it may influence decisions to grant planning
permission. Were this to occur, it would serve to reduce the increase in economic
efficiency.
As in other options, there will be a slightly increased cost to society of additional
rescues of people in difficulty in the sea (estimated at £0.6m over the 20-year period,
at current prices).


11.7 Other Issues

11.7.1   Implementation
NE anticipate that 1 – 2 years would be needed after the new legislation was passed
to develop and gain approval for the statutory methodology. There would also be a
need to develop various supporting mechanisms (e.g. for dispute resolution).
Thereafter, a 10-year programme is anticipated, with upgrades to existing access
following a similar pattern.
Given the dynamic nature of the coast, occasional re-alignments will be needed, and
these will arises from time-to-time during the 20-year period covered by this
appraisal.
11.7.2   Competition Assessment
The Competition Assessment Filter has been applied to this option (see Table 11.6
below).




                                   Asken Ltd
                                   Final Report – May 2007
                                             156


Table 11.6:   Competition Assessment Filter


Question                                                                        Answer
                                                                                yes or no


Q1: In the market(s) affected by the new regulation, does any firm have         No
    more than 10% market share?
Q2: In the market(s) affected by the new regulation, does any firm have No
    more than 20% market share?
Q3: In the market(s) affected by the new regulation, do the largest three No
    firms together have at least 50% market share?
Q4: Would the costs of the regulation affect some firms substantially more Yes
    than others?
Q5: Is the regulation likely to affect the market structure, changing the No
    number or size of firms?
Q6: Would the regulation lead to higher set-up costs for new or potential No
    firms that existing firms do not have to meet?
Q7: Would the regulation lead to higher ongoing costs for new or potential No
    firms that existing firms do not have to meet?
Q8: Is the market characterised by rapid technological change?                  No
Q9: Would the regulation restrict the ability of firms to choose the price, Yes
    quality, range or location of their products?

The answer to Question 4 is “Yes” because some farms with a coastal frontage
would be affected more than those that do not have coastal frontage (or have coastal
land that is farmed extensively). In some cases, the effect could be substantial,
although this is difficult to predict because of the wide variation in the circumstances
of different farming businesses. It is anticipated that serious effects on other
businesses would be avoided by ‘aligning out’ sensitive areas. “Yes” is entered
against Question 9, as new businesses within the access corridor would not be able
to develop a product on the basis that it provides exclusive access.


11.8 Summary
The benefits and costs, both quantified and unquantified, identified for this option are
summarised in Table 11.7 and Table 11.8 respectively below, broken down by type
of receptor. In order to allow comparison at current prices, monetary data have been
adjusted to NPV based on a 3.5% discount rate.

Table 11.7:   Summary of Quantified Benefits and Costs (Yrs 1 – 20)

                    Benefits                               Costs
                    £m (at 2006)        (£m NPV)          £m (at 2006)   (£m NPV)




                                       Asken Ltd
                                              Final Report – May 2007
                                                        157


                         Benefits                                         Costs
Users                   246 (92 – 460)            152 (57 – 284)          8 (5 – 15)                5 (3 – 9)

Property Owners         1 (<1 – 1)                1 (<1 – 1)              12 (10 - 16)              8 (6 - 11)

Society                 0                         0                       1 (<1 – 1)                <1 (<1 – 1)

Public Sector           0                         0                       68 (30 – 117)             49 (22 – 85)

Total                   247 (92 – 461)            152 (57 – 285)          89 (45 – 149)             63 (31 – 106)


Table 11.8:     Summary of Unquantified Benefits and Costs


Beneficiary and Type of Benefit                Unquantified Benefit

Users – health and well-being                  Increased health and well-being arising from 3.7m to 6.1m visits (High)

Users – education                              Educational benefits (Low)

Users – security of rights                     Access rights secured over around 4,000 km to 4,870 km of coastal
                                               corridor (High)

Users – future proofing against erosion        Access rights are secure against erosion along the full length of coast
                                               – 4,000 km to 4,870 km (High)

Users – access for people with disabilities    Some provision for people with disabilities where additional
                                               appropriate infrastructure is provided (High)

Property Owners - management                   Generic benefits described in Section 4 over 1,720 km to 2,500 km of
                                               coast (Low)

Property Owners – duty of care                 Reduced duty of care to members of the public on their land on the
                                               proportion of 1,720 km to 2,500 km of coast which previously
                                               experienced de facto public access (Low)

Public Sector – health costs                   £805 for every person who changes from a sedentary to an active
                                               lifestyle (Moderate)

Public sector – permissive payments            Reduced payments for permissive access (Low)

Public sector – land management costs          Reduced management costs over de facto access (Low)

Environment                                    Greater control and education of visitors along those sections of the
                                               1,720 km to 2,500 km of coast with a new access corridor where
                                               control is currently minimal/non-existent (Moderate)

Society/Coastal Economy - employment           1260 (785 to 1,733) FTEs as a result of increased visitor spend (High)

Society/Coastal Economy – business             Business generated by public sector spend of £68.1m (£29.9m to
generated from public sector spend             £117.3m) (High)


Bearer and Type of Costs                       Unquantified Costs

Users – process of creation                    Costs of involvement in rebutting challenges to the definition of the
                                               access corridor (Moderate for those affected)

Users – loss of freedom over currently         Greater controls on previously uncontrolled areas, potentially affecting
unmanaged areas                                around 2,300 km (Moderate)

                                               Restrictions to access corridors where restrictions previously did not
                                               arise (e.g. in the case of de facto or permissive access – potentially
                                               around 2,300 km) (Low)

Users – greater uncertainty/complexity         Uncertainty from lack of legally-definitive maps along the whole of the
                                               4,000 km to 4,870 km of coastal frontage (Moderate)




                                                 Asken Ltd
                                        Final Report – May 2007
                                                  158


                                         Confusion that may arise from having another set of access rights
                                         (Low)

Users – risk of conflict                 Risk of conflict with owners of exclusive coastal property (Low)

Property Owners – injurious affection    Injurious affection (Minimal for many, High for a few)

Property Owners – creation of access     Efforts expended by landowners (other than farmers/estate owners) in
                                         negotiating over corridor alignments (Moderate)

Property Owners – costs of safety and    Costs of safety and security measures at coastal properties (Minimal
security measures                        for many, High for a few)

Property Owners – on-going costs of      Effort expended by landowners in seeking re-alignments (Moderate)
management
                                         Dealing with trespass resulting from uncertainty (Low)

Property Owners – Duty of Care           Duty of care owed to people coming onto the access corridor where
                                         none did before and where no compensation has been paid (Low)

Property Owners – Other                  Costs of conflict between owners of previously exclusive coastal
                                         properties and access users (Low)

Public Sector – creation and review      Costs if any judicial review is required (cost High but likelihood Low)

Public sector – organising rescues       Increased cost to MCA of organising around 38 - 62 additional rescues
                                         (Low)

Public Sector - Liability                Liability to public associated with infrastructure along access corridor
                                         (Low)

Environment - landscape                  Landscape: Erosion scars (Low - Moderate)

Environment - geology                    Geology: Erosion scars (Low)

Environment – biodiversity               Biodiversity: potential disturbance impacts on birds on up to 10,000 ha
                                         of SSSI land (Moderate-High but depends on circumstances and
                                         mitigation measures); trampling of birds nests and trampling of
                                         vegetation on up to 10,000 ha of SSSI land (Moderate)

Environment – culture                    Cultural heritage impacts over up to 4,000 ha of SMs (Low)

Society/Coastal Economy - disruption     Disruption to coastal residents – increased traffic, parking problems
                                         (Moderate)

Society/Coastal Economy – peace and      Loss of peace and tranquillity in some areas (Moderate)
tranquillity

Society/Coastal Economy - other          Some losses to businesses which are dependent on exclusive use of
                                         coastal land where alignment cannot be adjusted to fully mitigate
                                         problems (Minimal)


The benefits and costs of the four different options are compared in Section 14.




                                           Asken Ltd
                                     Final Report – May 2007
                                               159



12. Implications for Horse Riders, Cyclists
    and Other User Groups


12.1 Introduction
The main policy objective for improving access to the coast is to deliver an
improvement for people on foot. However, the Project Specification calls for
consideration to be given to the effects of different options on opportunities for
cyclists and horse riders and other users. This section examines the different options
in terms of the potential they offer for horse riders and cyclists and other user groups.


12.2 Opportunities for Improved Access

12.2.1 Existing opportunities
The opportunities for horse riders and cyclists to carry out their activity in the English
countryside on PRoWs and Access Land are:
      -   bridleways (horse riders and bicyclists, and the latter must give way to the
          former and to pedestrians);
      -   restricted byways and byways open to all traffic (horse riders and cyclists);
      -   urban and metropolitan commons and rural commons covered by deeds of
          declaration (horse riders only);
      -   some commons through a special Act of Parliament (e.g. Dartmoor Commons
          Act 1985) (horse riders only);
      -   anywhere with the landowners’ permission (horse riders and cyclists);
      -   cycle tracks (cyclists only).
Neither horse riders nor cyclists are allowed to use public footpaths, which make up
around 78% of the PRoW network. A further complication for these user groups is
that bridleways are generally poorly connected (see, for example, Moxon 2006) and
can often only be linked by using sections of trafficked roads. Similarly, commons
with public rights for horse riding are limited to a small total area (83,000 ha 44)
relative to the total area of Access Land (935,000 ha). Consequently, many horse
riders and cyclists are keen to see improvements in the bridleway network and more
safe areas in which to ride/cycle.




44
     Source: Natural England statistics




                                          Asken Ltd
                                           Final Report – May 2007
                                                     160


12.2.2 Inter-option comparison
The different options are compared in relation to the opportunities they provide for
horse riders and cyclists, in Table 12.1.


Table 12.1:     Opportunities for Horse Riders and Cyclists Under Different Options


Option                       Horse Riders                                    Cyclists

1. Use of existing           Option exists to create bridleways rather       Option exists to create bridleways rather
highways legislation to      than footpaths.                                 than footpaths.
create a PRoW
                             The need to comply with DDA 1995 and            The need to comply with DDA 1995 and
                             2005 may facilitate use by horse riders as      2005 may facilitate use by cyclists as routes
                             routes being developed for wheelchair           being developed for wheelchair access are
                             access are easy to make into multi-use          easy to make into multi-use routes
                             routes.
                                                                             Opportunities for local highway authority
                             Legal opinion obtained by the British           to create cycle tracks (under Cycle Tracks
                             Horse Society (BHS) suggests that it may        Act 1984).
                             not be an offence for horse riders to use
                             cycle tracks (created under Cycle Tracks
                             Act 1984).

2. Use of CRoW s3            The SoS has power (under CRoW                   The SoS has power (under CRoW
                             Schedule 2, para 3) to amend the list of        Schedule 2, para 3) to amend the list of
                             general restrictions and so to extend           general restrictions and so to extend
                             rights to include horse riding.                 rights to include riding a pedal cycle.

                             Option exists for landowners to relax           Option exists for landowners to relax
                             general restrictions, so that right of access   general restrictions, so that right of access
                             extends to horse riders over a particular       extends to cyclists over a particular area
                             area of land or linear route.                   of land or linear route.

3. Voluntary agreements      Landowners could be encouraged to give          Landowners could be encouraged to give
for permissive access        permission for horse riding, either along       permission for cycling, either along an
                             an existing PRoW that is a footpath, or         existing PRoW that is a footpath, or along
                             along a new right of way                        a new right of way

4. Coastal access corridor   The proposed new legislation is expected        The proposed new legislation is expected
                             to be for access on foot only. However,         to be for access on foot only. However,
                             the provision of a corridor of a width          the provision of a corridor of a width
                             sufficient to allow horse riders and            sufficient to allow cyclist and walkers to be
                             walkers to be kept separate may facilitate      kept separate may facilitate granting of
                             granting of permission for horse riding or      permission for cycling or creation of
                             creation of bridleways.                         bridleways.


The above comparison suggests that the approaches using CRoW s3 offer least
opportunity to horse riders and cyclists, unless the SoS exercises powers to bring in
regulations to amend the general restrictions listed in Schedule 2 of CRoW. It may
also be possible to amend Schedule 2 so that rights are introduced that allow horse
riding and/or cycling on the foreshore and beaches.
Of the other options, the key difference lies in who decides whether to enable use by
horse riders and cyclists. Use of highways legislation places the decision to start the
process with the local highway authority (although the landowner has to agree,
otherwise an order is required, which is a longer and more expensive process);
whereas Options 3 and 4 place it with the landowner. In the former case, as noted
earlier, permission could be time limited and is capable of being withdrawn.




                                                Asken Ltd
                                    Final Report – May 2007
                                              161


It is expected that creating a bridleway would cost more than the same route being
created as a footpath. By way of comparison, under the HLS Scheme, a participant
receives £45/100 m/yr for a permissive footpath and £90/100 m/yr for a permissive
bridleway (Code references HN3 and HN4 respectively) 45. Also, experience with the
creation of public bridleways and footpaths reveals a wide variety of rates being paid
to landowners. Fisher German have reviewed a number of creation orders, made
under Highways Act 1980 s26, and have found rates of “up to £10.83/m for
bridleways and £4.66/m run for footpaths”. Capital costs of the access infrastructure
(e.g. gates) and on-going maintenance (especially surface repairs) are both likely to
be higher for bridleways than for footpaths.
Analysis of a number of agri-environment scheme agreements through which
permissive access has been provided shows that relatively few landowners provide
area-wide access for horse riders and cyclists (see Section 10 for further discussion
on this point).
It seems reasonable to conclude that the use of existing highways legislation to
create bridleways, where feasible, offers the best opportunities for horse riders and
cyclists, without recourse to a change of legislation.


12.3 Threats to Existing Access

12.3.1 Horse Riders
Horse riders have a legal right to ride or lead a horse on bridleways, restricted
byways and byways open to all traffic. None of the proposals will adversely affect
these rights. However, there may be effects elsewhere.
Although CRoW does not give a right to the public to ride or lead horses on Access
Land where horse riding across land has been customarily tolerated or permitted in
the past, the designation of this land as Access Land does not prevent this
customary activity from continuing. There is a statutory right to ride horses on some
commons (so-called ‘urban commons’) and these rights are unaffected by CRoW (as
provided for under CRoW s15).
Horse riding is a well-established customary activity on some beaches. Wide
expanses of smooth sandy beaches are favoured as these allow riders to gallop in
relative safety. The British Horse Society website 46 lists beaches on which it is
possible to ride (even if not as of right). There may also be informal use of beaches
for horse riding.
At some beaches, horse riding is discouraged when there are large numbers of
beach users (e.g. Kerrier area), use for horse riding is restricted to set times and/or
areas (e.g. Goring, West Sussex; Sefton, Merseyside) and at others there are
proposals to ban horse riding during the summer (e.g. Perran and Holywell beaches,
Cornwall).

45
     See http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/pdfs/es/hls-payment-booklet.pdf
46
     See http://www.bhs.org.uk/_Attachments/Resources/142_S4.pdf




                                       Asken Ltd
                                  Final Report – May 2007
                                            162


It seems, therefore, that there is a risk that improving pedestrian access to the coast,
and to beaches in particular, may lead to further restrictions on existing customary
horse riding activity. In practice, the risk is greatest where other beach users
assemble in large numbers. The proposals will lead to more areas of land becoming
available to the public as of right, thus allowing greater promotion of these locations
and resulting in some displacement from existing popular beaches. Balanced
against this will be any overall uplift in visits to the beach that take place as a result of
any promotional campaign.
Overall, it is concluded that options that affect beaches (i.e. Options 2 and 4) could
adversely affect horse riding activity at a small number of beaches, resulting in
restrictions to current usage. However, the opportunity could be taken to extend
access rights for horses to foreshores and beaches, thereby making a wider range of
such areas available for horse riding.

12.3.2 Cyclists
Cyclists have a legal right to ride on bridleways (provided they give way to horse
riders and pedestrians), restricted byways and byways open to all traffic. The
proposals will not affect these rights. The use of PRoWs by cyclists is not affected by
the proposals, as this is governed by law. However, there may be effects elsewhere.
Although CRoW does not give a right to the public to ride pedal cycles on Access
Land, where cycling across land has been customarily tolerated or permitted in the
past, the designation of this land as Access Land does not prevent this customary
activity from continuing.
Visits to the websites of the International Mountain Bicycling Association (IMBA) and
the Cyclists’ Touring Club (CTC) do not make any reference to cycling on beaches,
which are seldom suitable for this activity in any case. There is, perhaps, a small risk
of increased visitor numbers to beaches leading to pressures on pedestrian and
vehicular access to/along the coast, which in turn could adversely affect opportunities
for cycling and riding on coastal access networks.
Overall, therefore, it is concluded that the proposals will not pose any threat to
cycling. Any new access legislation could take the opportunity to enhance access for
cyclists by providing a right to cycle on paths and tracks on access land at the coast,
where such access would be undertaken responsibly (as with Scottish legislation).


12.4 Other Users Groups

12.4.1 Wildfowling
Wildfowling has been identified as being potentially affected by the proposals – as it
is a shooting sport that takes place on estuaries and coastal marshes. The main
quarries are wild geese and ducks, which are mostly migrants, travelling from the
Arctic circle, Scandinavia and the Low Countries in the autumn and returning to their
breeding grounds in the spring. The season for shooting the different quarry species
varies, but all are during the winter months.




                                     Asken Ltd
                                Final Report – May 2007
                                          163


Generally geese fly in at daybreak to their feeding grounds (e.g. potato fields or
winter cereals) and return to roost on the wetlands at dusk. Duck, many of which are
seed and grass eaters, usually come in at dusk to feed and spend the night on the
pools, returning to the wetlands at dawn.
The season for shooting means that it often takes place in wet, muddy and cold
conditions at dawn or dusk. These are conditions and times when level of use by
walkers is likely to be low. Nevertheless, there is a clear health and safety concern, if
public access to coastal marshes and estuaries is to be improved, which may impact
on the operation of wildfowling activities.
The British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) indicates that there
are about 150 wildfowling clubs around the English coast. Membership ranges from
50 up to 450 per club, although wildfowling is also undertaken by lone shooters or
small groups of individuals.
Most clubs lease shooting rights from the owner of the marsh/foreshore. About 60%
(by length) is leased from the Crown Estate and the typical cost of a shooting lease is
around £85/km/year. Rates paid to private landowners vary considerably but tend to
be higher. Some clubs buy land to shoot over, and this was reported to trade at
around £6,250/ha. One club was reported to have recently paid £20,000/ha, but this
is exceptional.
Because wildfowling is undertaken by people alone or in small groups, it is not
‘organised’ like game shooting in the uplands and so, during the open season,
shooting may take place on most days. Some people will go out in the early morning
before work, or in the evening – especially in the early season before the day length
becomes too short.
Interaction with public access raises two issues:
   -   disturbance – part of the skill of wildfowling is stalking the birds; getting close
       enough for a clear shot. Birds are easily spooked and movements by other
       people may disturb birds before a shot is possible.
   -   risk of injury – shooting is done from the stalking position and, as birds take
       flight, the shooter arcs round and fires (usually when the birds are at or near a
       vertical position overhead). BASC report the risks as two-fold:
           o   the arc continues and the shot ends up being taken behind the
               shooter, where access users are more likely to be;
           o   falling birds – wildfowl are heavy animals, although the risk of them
               falling on a bystander is negligible.
Public access and wildfowling already co-exist at some locations and, where
wetlands are so large that wildfowlers can get well away from other people – with the
latter typically on the sea walls, the impacts are small. At others, for example, where
wetlands are being ‘squeezed’, it is not so easy to separate the two sets of users and
the impacts may be greater.
Although the risk of public presence may affect shooting, BASC says that value of
shooting is unlikely to be affected, as other factors tend to dominate, such as quality
of shooting/environment, ease of access and cost of membership.



                                    Asken Ltd
                                Final Report – May 2007
                                          164


Overall, therefore, it is assumed that costs to wildfowlers will be minimal.

12.4.2 Other Types of User
Many other activities are undertaken on coastal land, particularly beaches and
foreshore. These include some activities that cannot easily be practiced elsewhere,
such as sand yachting, along with others that exploit the large expanses of relatively
level and safe ground available. Importantly, also, access across the foreshore and
beaches enables the exercise of watersports, ranging from paddling and swimming
to canoeing, surfing and wind-based watersports.
As with cyclists and horse riders, proposals for improving access will generally not
prevent the landowner from allowing or tolerating other uses. Likewise, it is currently
an offence to drive a mechanically-propelled vehicles without lawful authority or
excuse on land other than a road and the proposals will not affect the applicability of
the relevant law (Road Traffic Act 1988, s34, as amended).
Increases in public access to beaches and similar land may lead to restrictions on
wind- and motor-sports on beaches, for safety reasons and to prevent other
nuisances (e.g. noise and fuel pollution from motor-sports). However, the restrictions
regime applicable over (for example) Access Land allows public access to be
managed for major events.




                                    Asken Ltd
                                  Final Report – May 2007
                                            165



13. Small Firms Impact Test


13.1        Introduction
The Cabinet Office guidance describes the Small Firms Impact Test 47. This section
explains how small firms were consulted during the course of the research for this
study. The approach was discussed with Defra, the Small Business Service (SBS) of
the Department of Trade and Industry (DTi) and the Federation of Small Businesses
(FSB) at the start of the research programme. An approach to ensure small
businesses were consulted was agreed; this is described below.


13.2        Methodology
Initial scoping of the possible options indicated that there are likely be effects on
small businesses. These effects are expected to arise amongst three sectors:
     -   farm businesses with coastal land;
     -   landowners and users with other land-dependent businesses along the coast,
         which currently have little or no access;
     -   operators of tourism-related businesses.
It was agreed with Defra, SBS and FSB that a small sample of operators of small
businesses in each of these sectors would be interviewed by telephone. It was
recognised that there would be a need to obtain contact details and that this would
best be done via national representative bodies.
The NFU provided contacts of coastal farmers from around England (using their
regional office network to identify farmers willing to participate in the research). A
sample of 11 interviewees was selected in order to give a good geographical spread
and different types of farming activity. These were contacted by telephone and
interviews completed immediately (if convenient), or at a pre-arranged future time.
The CLA attempted to follow a similar approach for landowners with land-dependent
businesses, but found that members were reluctant to give out their contact details.
The questionnaire was circulated electronically by the CLA to a selection of members
and a small number of responses were received. It appears that these selected
themselves on the basis of the perceived severity of the effect. Therefore, in an
effort to obtain wider representation, a number of businesses with coastal interest
were identified from the Yell Directory and called by telephone. Respondents were
selected on the basis that they:



47
   See
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulation/ria/ria_guidance/small_firms_impact_test.asp




                                     Asken Ltd
                                  Final Report – May 2007
                                            166


   -     were willing to participate;
   -     own land along the coast that is part of their business undertaking;
   -     had opinions about the effects of improved public access on their businesses;
   -     currently own land along the coast that has little or no public access (although
         in practice, most had experience of public access to their land).
Difficulties were encountered in finding a means by which contact could be made
with tourism-related businesses. Various approaches were used, largely without
success, although data for certain sectors was forthcoming (e.g. marinas, via the
British Marine Federation [BMF]). Consequently, use was made of business
directories (i.e. Yell.com) to select a number of such businesses at random from
within the four study areas. These were contacted by telephone and interviews
completed immediately (if convenient) or at a pre-arranged future time.


13.3         Findings

13.3.1       Farmers
Eleven farmers with coastal land were surveyed between April 24th and May 17th
2006 from around the country as follows:
   -     Cornwall: 1.
   -     Cumbria 1
   -     Devon: 1
   -     Dorset: 1
   -     Lincolnshire: 2
   -     North Yorkshire: 4
   -     Suffolk: 1
Four farmers are owner-occupiers, five are tenants, one is a Director of a family
business and one is a leaseholder. The type of farming carried out is: mixed
livestock and arable: 7; arable: 1, intensive vegetables: 1; livestock: 2. Sizes of
farms are: 40-80 ha: 2; 80-200 ha: 2; 200-300 ha: 3; 300-400 ha: 2; more than 400
ha: 1; not stated: 1. All of the farmers surveyed already have access on their farms.
Details given are listed in Table 13.1.




                                        Asken Ltd
                                      Final Report – May 2007
                                                167




Table 13.1:     Forms of Access Already Existing on Sample Farms

 Coastal path                                             6

 Footpaths                                                8

 RUPP                                                     1

 Bridleway                                                1

 Common land                                              1

 Other area wide access                                   0

 Permissive access                                        6

 Other de facto access                                    2

 Roman road along marshes (status unknown)                1

 NT open land                                             1

(Totals more than 11 as some have several types of access provision)
When asked how well used current access rights are, 10 replied that they are well
used and one replied that they are not well used.
They were asked how access affects their farming. Six respondents said that there
is not generally a problem. In two cases, coastal walks are fenced off from the
farmers’ land, which means that farming activities and visitors are kept separate.
Where there are problems, dogs and people on motorbikes (illegal ‘off-roading’ by
locals) were cited. There is also a concern by farmers with areas of wildlife interest,
that increasing numbers of people would affect the wildlife.
One respondent, who farms close to a popular tourist site with a reported 350,000
visitors per year, said, “Farmers want people to enjoy the countryside, but people
also need to show respect. Once there is access, people will walk all over the area,
so it is best to fence off the areas/footpaths so that people keep to where they should
be. People with dogs are difficult to control. There should be lots of litter bins near to
car parks as dogs poo within 100 metres and people will throw bags in the hedgerow
if there is nowhere to put them.”
Other general problems caused by people visiting the area were given as increased
traffic and litter. Toilets and increased car parking were said to be required to
provide for increased numbers of visitors. In several cases, the respondents again
said that consideration should be given to wildlife and areas of wildlife interest.
When asked about commercial opportunities, six respondents did not see any
opportunities, and those that do recognise opportunities, already provide holiday
accommodation (B&B, camping, holiday cottages, etc.). In addition, one farmer has
provided toilets and a self-service vending machine for refreshments in the village,
and one is seeking planning permission to build a farm shop on his land next to a
main road to sell local produce.
Eight respondents considered that local businesses could benefit from visitors to the
coast, and the remainder did not voice an opinion. None of the respondents thought
that any local businesses would be adversely affected.



                                             Asken Ltd
                                  Final Report – May 2007
                                            168


Other comments from the respondents included:
“People are now better equipped for walking, although not all of them have decent
maps and so they get lost. These are the ones who will go wandering around.”
“The council wanted to close a local footpath, but the farmer prevented it which
shows that all interests can be accommodated. Make sure that planning authorities
are switched on to help local businesses profit from improved opportunities.”
“The first two bank holidays in the year are the ones where people seem to want to
go everywhere and let off steam after the winter. They then calm down a bit.”
“All of our business is pre-booked and we almost never have people coming off the
footpath asking for accommodation. The people who stay with us are attracted by
the fact that the farm is near the coast, and that it gives them the option of walking on
the coast. However, most of them will only walk for a day, and will go off to other
attractions for other days.”

13.3.2       Other Landowners
Between May 31st and June 8th 2006, 9 interviews were carried out with respondents
who own or manage land that has a coastline but only part of which has public
access. The predominant business carried out by each of the respondents is:
   -     Golf course: 2
   -     Rural estate: 2
   -     Farming: 2
   -     Private holiday and conference accommodation: 2
   -     Marine harbour: 1
The businesses are situated in:
   -     Cornwall: 1
   -     Cumbria: 1
   -     Devon: 3
   -     East Riding of Yorkshire: 1.
   -     Lincolnshire: 1
   -     Northumberland: 2
The area of their land holdings ranges from 2,000 ha and 6,000 ha for the rural
estates down to less than 14 ha for the holiday accommodation business and marine
harbour business.
All of the businesses currently have some form of access on, or through, part of their
land:
   -     Footpath along the coast: 6




                                     Asken Ltd
                                  Final Report – May 2007
                                            169


   -   Footpath to the coast: 2
   -   Bridleway along coast: 1
   -   Bridleway to coast: 2
   -   CRoW Part I Access Land very close to coast: 1
   -   Permissive access: 2 (both are free permit schemes for clients and locals)
   -   De facto access: 4.
However, parts of their coastlines do not have public access and the landowners
restrict access because (note: some respondents cited more than one reason):
   -   Flying golf balls are a danger to passers-by: 2
   -   MOD is clearing munitions from the land: 1
   -   Protected nature conservation area: 1
   -   Salt marshes: 1
   -   Danger through coastal accretion: 1
   -   Commercial reasons, as their businesses attract clients who value and pay a
       premium for privacy on the beach: 2
   -   Movie and TV filming: 1
   -   Site of archaeological interest: 1
   -   Used for boat moorings: 1.
When asked what they believed the impact of a linear access route would be,
respondents had some concerns, but as most have some form of linear access, they
felt that overall the impacts would be less than for proposed area access. Their
answers to this question are given in Table 13.2.
When asked what facilities would be required if there were more people attracted to
the coast in their area, respondents replied:
   -   None, already enough: 5
   -   None: 1
   -   Toilets: 1
   -   Access to drinking water: 1
   -   Car parks: 1




                                     Asken Ltd
                                               Final Report – May 2007
                                                         170




Table 13.2:     Responses to Question on Impacts of New Access


Reason                                                                        Linear      Area-wide

Accidents could ensue with passers by being hit by golf balls                 1           1

Wildlife conservation would be affected by people/dogs                        2           4

Land management, where their sheep would be affected                          1

Salt marshes would require the footpath to go inland anyway                   1

Reduced/loss of income from cottage lettings                                  1           2

Loss of filming income                                                        1

Danger to people being trapped or killed on eroding cliffs                    1           1

People will get lost on the marshes and trapped in riverlets and gullies      0           1

Increased stress and worry for people who are losing their homes to erosion   1

Private enjoyment of land is affected                                         1

No effect                                                                     5

Personal costs of keeping the beaches clean would escalate                                1

Would affect wildfowlers who lease land                                                   1

Risk to geological / archaeological features                                              2

Danger to public from moored boats                                                        1

A lot of cars are stuck in the sands when people try to drive across                      1

(Note: Some respondents gave more than one response).
     -      Any further facilities would affect the wildlife (e.g. jet ski launches): 1
     -      Needs promotion as a wildlife coast: 1
     -      No response: 1.
(Some respondents gave more than one response.)
When asked if an increase in numbers of coastal users would cause problems in the
area, each respondent voiced a different concern (which probably reflects the
diversity of circumstances encountered on the coast). They said:
     -      “there would be an increase in risk of accidents with flying golf balls and
            friction between walkers and golfers causing delays on the course.”
     -      “Ilfracombe’s infrastructure is under pressure already and would need
            increased spending to cope with larger numbers of visitors (although the local
            topography prevents road improvements). Ilfracombe’s beach lifeguards are
            partly funded from car parking charges at the private beach.”
     -      “leave things exactly as they are, as this works well and strikes a sustainable
            balance between public and private areas, tourism and conservation.”




                                                  Asken Ltd
                                 Final Report – May 2007
                                           171


   -   “do not think so. It is a vast coastline. However, there are no big towns near
       the coast in that area.”
   -   “over the years, they have achieved a balance between the optimum public
       access with optimum conservation of the environment. There is a place for
       everyone, but it is at that balance now.”
   -   “there are already many problems, due to general disrespect of people who
       visit the coast (e.g. fly-tipping, joy riding, petty theft), although this is
       perpetrated by locals not visitors. However, a small increase in visitors would
       not make much difference. An income from visitors would encourage them to
       protect and manage it to protect it for the pleasure of paying visitors.”
   -   “there are already lots of visitors.”
   -   “used to have 1000 people cycling from Hull to the coast. Lots of things were
       stopped as the safety situation got worse. Used to be much more busy.”
   -   “the area is sensitive and more visitors would probably spoil it for everyone as
       it is seen as a sanctuary for natural beauty and relative peace and isolation
       (according to a personal survey) and would result also in more litter, dog
       mess, car parking and general disturbance to the natural world, including the
       regeneration of choughs.”
When asked “Do you see commercial opportunities arising from improvements to
coastal access (however created) for your business?”, respondents were not
optimistic. Typical responses were:
   -   “probably would have more people in the paying car park who would go to the
       (currently) private beach on non-open days. This increase in income would be
       soaked up by increased costs, but there would also be loss of other income.”
   -   “we already have a very high occupancy rate so no more availability.”
   -   “we already have fishing lakes. However, people do not want to go walking
       anymore, they want to go shopping and go to car boot sales. We have
       applied for permission to have a quad/motor cycle track.”
   -   “I do not think so. I have never heard anyone say that they did not choose
       Cornwall for a holiday because they could not access the coast. Therefore,
       'improving coastal access' would make no difference to the number of people
       choosing Cornwall for their holiday. Indeed, I believe that if too many people
       come, it would be counter productive and discourage existing visitors from
       coming.”
When asked if they see commercial opportunities for local businesses in general
arising out of increased access to the coast, respondents answered:
   -   “we already have many visitors (to the estate) and we provide employment
       and custom to many of the businesses in the area, so an increase in access
       is unlikely to affect existing local businesses.”
   -   “probably not, as there is already a lot of access.”




                                    Asken Ltd
                                  Final Report – May 2007
                                            172


   -     “there would be opportunities for more accommodation. Seals pupping further
         down the coast have attracted lots of visitors in the winter, but the
         infrastructure cannot cope at the moment because the RAF own the land, but
         they do not own the car parking land, etc., so there are lots of bodies with no
         co-ordination. If this was co-ordinated, it would have big advantages.”
   -     “coastal access is already adequate. In fact, it would be detrimental as private
         beaches would not be able to raise funds for reinvestment.”
When asked if they would like to make a concluding comment, responses were:
   -     “a sensitive and flexible approach to this issue is required.”
   -     “where people can be managed, access works very well. Where they cannot
         be managed, it does not work well. People like to know where they can go
         and what they are allowed to do.”
   -     “we employ a water bailiff and part-time warden, who make certain that at
         access points people maintain quiet enjoyment of the beaches. For example,
         we do not allow ad hoc BBQs, but do allow them by arrangement. We feel
         that we already give a large amount of access to the public. If anyone would
         like to go down to see it, they would be welcome. We feel that permissive
         access is the best way forward as it tailors access as opposed to a blunt
         instrument that does not take account of local needs and communities.
         Permissive access would take more time, but the end result would be more
         suitable. Compromises can be reached. It would take longer and would not
         be cheap, but one can only do this once and it is not easy to reverse
         decisions.”
   -     “once you open up this lovely area too much, you will lose the mystic quality
         that people go there for now. I talk to many people who come to the area and
         none of them think that it is necessary to have more access to the beach as
         there is lots of beach and coast space close by for them to go to. The locals
         also feel that there is enough access and more is not needed. Our land was
         mapped under CRoW at the last minute and we spent £6,000 challenging it.
         Part of the land is SSSI and the mappers used this as a determining factor to
         designate it as CRoW Access Land.”
   -     “I am concerned that the coastline is not safe for people who do not know the
         area. Has anyone considered that much of the coastline is steep and
         dangerous? Who would be liable if the person/persons using privately owned
         areas or (more particularly) businesses were injured?”
   -     any change in the law giving general access to all of the coastline will have a
         very serious negative effect on our business, not to mention the huge loss in
         capital value of houses and land.

13.3.3      Tourism-Related Businesses
The survey was conducted in May 2006 and involved 19 small businesses situated
on or near the coast. Businesses were chosen from within NE’s four study areas (i.e.
Suffolk, Cumbria/Lancashire, County Durham and Somerset coastlines), as there




                                     Asken Ltd
                                Final Report – May 2007
                                          173


was an expectation that there was a greater chance the business operators in these
areas would have heard of the Government’s proposals.
The Yell Directory covering the Suffolk coast contained the most suitable businesses,
and County Durham the fewest, so the numbers of respondents from each area
reflect these differences. Respondents by location are from:
   -   Suffolk: 8 (42%)
   -   Cumbria/Lancashire: 4 (21%)
   -   County Durham: 2 (11%)
   -   Somerset: 5 (26%).
The businesses contacted provide:
   -   Holiday accommodation (not caravan sites): 7 (37%)
   -   Caravan sites: 2 (11%)
   -   Tourist attractions: 5 (26%)
   -   Marina: 1 (5%)
   -   Café/Restaurants: 3 (16%)
   -   Public house: 1 (5%).
The current level of business generated by walkers was said to be generally not high.
Although 2 (11%) estimated that more than 50% of their customers are walkers, 8
(42%) said that less than 5% are walkers, and 4 (21%) said that none of their
customers are walkers.
When asked if they thought that there could be commercial opportunities for their
businesses if there was improved/more access to the coast, 12 (57%) said that they
thought there would be, 3 (14%) said possibly, and 6 (29%) said no. Generally, the
‘no’ respondents were those who felt that there was already maximum opportunity for
people to access the coast, or that their business had reached optimum capacity
and, as a result, they would be unable to exploit additional opportunities. Of the 8
who made an estimate of potential increase in business, 4 estimated that business
could increase by 50%-100%, with the remainder estimating less than a 50%
increase.
Respondents overwhelmingly believed that an increase in visitors to the coast would
increase opportunities for other local businesses, with only 1 (5%) person saying
there would be no benefit as there are no local businesses. Other businesses cited
as potential beneficiaries were: hotels/ other accommodation, shops, marina,
museum and restaurants/cafes. However, respondents believed that a variety of
facilities would be required for the expected improved access to realise benefits.
These were stated as:
   -   Car parking and traffic related improvements: 5 (25%)
   -   Toilets: 4 (20%)




                                      Asken Ltd
                                Final Report – May 2007
                                          174


   -   Improved local transport: 3 (15%)
   -   Better paths and signage: 2 (10%)
   -   An indoor swimming pool: 1 (5%)
   -   Re-open the fairground: 1 (5%)
   -   More restaurants: 1 (5%).
When asked if they thought an increase in visitor numbers to the area’s coast would
create any problems, only 2 (10%) said that they thought there would be problems.
One said there would be adverse effects on the wildlife and one said there was
nowhere to park, although they did concede that a park-and-ride service would
alleviate this problem.


13.4       Conclusions
Firstly, it is important to recognise that the small business operators contacted during
the research represent a very small proportion of those likely to be affected by the
proposals. However, they are thought to be representative of the types of effects that
might arise and attitudes that currently prevail.
Most of the land owned or managed by those contacted is already accessible to the
public to a greater or lesser extent. The respondents therefore speak with some
knowledge of the issues. In many cases, this access is already well used and
services have developed to cater for the market opportunity this presents.
The concerns that respondents have about improved (which most interpreted as
‘increased’) public access mirror those discussed more generically (see Section 4
and Appendix 5).
Perceptions about the commercial benefits of an ‘increase’ in public access to the
coast were divided. One school of thought (most evident amongst the ‘other
landowners’) is that businesses that rely on coastal visitors are already at capacity
and more use of the coast would diminish the experience of existing visitors. The
other view is that more visitors would result in more opportunities (most evident
amongst the ‘tourism-related businesses’). The two views are not mutually exclusive
but appear to point to unevenness in the distribution of benefits.
However, there is general consensus that infrastructure would be needed, such as
car parking, toilets etc., if increases in visitor numbers and subsequent economic
benefits, are to be realised.




                                   Asken Ltd
                                         Final Report – May 2007
                                                   175



14. Inter-Option Comparison

14.1 Introduction
This section pulls together the findings and results of the analyses of the earlier
sections and uses this information to appraise each option against Defra’s key
criteria.

14.2 Comparative Analysis

14.2.1      Cost Benefit Analysis
Table 14.1 provides ‘headline’ data from the economic analysis (i.e. those benefits
and costs that can be quantified in monetary terms) for each of the four options. For
unquantified benefits, the summary tables at the end of each of Sections 8 to 11
inclusive should be consulted. In each case, mid-point, low and high scenarios are
reported. All figures (rounded up or down to the nearest £million) are for a 20-year
period but with values adjusted to NPV using a 3.5% discount rate.

Table 14.1:     Summary of Benefits Cost Analysis @ NPV

Detail                     Option 1 – Use       Option 2 – Use          Option 3 –          Option 4 –
                            of Highways           of CRoW               Voluntary           Unmapped
                           Legislation to         Section 3            Approach to        Coastal Access
                           Create a PRoW                                 Create              Corridor
                                                                       Permissive
                                                                         Access
Benefits (£m @ NPV)
Users                      171 (85 - 256)       107 (53 – 160)       34 (17 – 51)         152 (57 – 284)

Landowners                 9 (1 – 19)           1 (<1 – 1)           9 (8 – 11)           1 (<1 – 1)

Sub-Total                  179 (87 – 275)       107 (53 – 161)       43 (25 – 62)         152 (57 – 285)

Costs (£m @ NPV)
Users                      6 (4 – 9)            4 (3 – 5)            1 (1 – 2)            5 (3 – 9)

Landowners                 5 (2 – 7)            9 (5 – 18)           6 (4 – 8)            8 (6 – 11)

Society                    <1 (<1 – 1)          <1 (<1 – 1)          <1                   <1 (<1 – 1)

Public sector              55 (17 – 117)        31 (21- 52)          16 (14 – 18)         49 (22 – 85)

Sub-Total                  66 (24 – 134)        44 (29 – 76)         22 (18 – 28)         63 (31 – 106)

Benefit:Cost Ratio*        2.73 (3.68 – 2.05)   2.44 (1.87 – 2.11)   1.95 (1.37 – 2.22)   2.43 (1.82 – 2.69)
Figures in brackets show the lower and upper bounds of the range of estimates
* Note: the changes in B:C ratios do not necessarily follow the same pattern as the change to
lower and upper limits of estimates because not all relationships are linear.

In comparing the quantitative assessment of the options, it is pertinent to note:




                                            Asken Ltd
                                Final Report – May 2007
                                          176


   -   Option 1 can be regarded as a relatively high cost-high benefit option.
       However, Option 1 not only has a high absolute cost, but also there is a large
       difference between the upper and lower limits of estimates for Option 1. This
       suggests a high level of uncertainty and so a high level of risks. At the lowest
       level of estimates, this option offers the best quantified benefit cost ratio;
   -   Option 2 has a lower benefit cost ratio than Option 1 which seems to be
       optimised around the mid-point (i.e. if lower or upper estimates prove more
       accurate, the ratio declines). Also, whilst the public sector costs are
       moderate, they are subject to wide variation, reflecting the uncertainties about
       costs of mapping;
   -   Option 3 is low cost-low benefit, with a consequent lower level of risk.
       However, it has the lowest ratio of benefits to costs;
   -   Option 4 provides a benefit cost ratio between Option 2 and 3 at the mid-
       point level but is more akin to Option 1 in terms of costs devoted to creation of
       continuous access to a high standard. There is significant variation about the
       mid-point, largely reflecting uncertainty about the uplift in access use likely to
       arise under this option. At the upper level of estimates, this option offers the
       best quantified benefit cost ratio.
Some differences have developed between RPA Ltd’s estimates of costs and those
identified by Asken Ltd. The most significant differences are:
   -   under Option 1, the level of compensation assumed to be paid by LHAs to
       property owners by RPA Ltd is significantly higher than that assumed to be
       paid by Asken Ltd (mid-point values of £14,100/km and £7,550/km
       respectively). If the RPA Ltd mid-point value is used, the benefits to
       landowners increase to £15.8m (NPV) and costs to public sector bodies
       increases to £62.0m (NPV). The NPV benefit cost ratio changes to 2.56;
   -   under Option 2, it has been assumed that there would be little difference in
       costs of mapping of coastal land from those incurred during the
       implementation of CRoW Part I (with an average cost per ha of £44.05,
       excluding registered common land). However, if savings of (say) 30% were
       to be achieved (reducing the average cost to £30.84/ha), as some consultees
       have suggested, then the mid-point public sector cost (in NPV terms) would
       reduce by £2m and the benefit cost ration would improve to 2.55;
   -   for reasons discussed in Appendix 11, the assumed payment rates for
       providing access through an HLS-like agri-environment scheme are
       significantly higher than current rates on offer. If the current rates were used
       and uptake by landowners was unaffected, the effect on mid-point values for
       Option 3 would be to reduce benefits to landowners and costs to public sector
       bodies by £4.0m (NPV), although the benefit cost ratio increases to 2.16;
   -   a key variable under Option 4, and one for which there is great uncertainty, is
       the change in visitor numbers that might arise. A 1% shift changes benefits
       by £28m over the full 20-year period (in NPV terms).
Option 2a (Creating Access Land Without Mapping) was estimated to produce (at
mid-point values, based on NPV over the full 20 years):



                                   Asken Ltd
                                              Final Report – May 2007
                                                        177


     -       a benefit of £102.3m;
     -       a cost of £34.9m;
     -       a benefit cost ratio of 2.93.
Although this is a comparatively high B:C ratio, key qualitative drawbacks not
reflected in the quantitative analysis are:
     -       uncertainty amongst users concerning the area of land that becomes Access
             Land;
     -       variation in standards of paths along the coast;
     -       inability to complete the onward journey;
     -       a small number of coastal properties and businesses which would be
             significantly affected by loss of exclusivity.

14.2.2        Comparison Against Key Criteria
The table below (Table 14.2) provides an assessment of the different options against
Defra’s criteria listed (see Box 2.1). No attempt has been made to weight the
different criteria.

Table 14.2:      Option Appraisal Against Key Criteria


Criterion               Option 1– Use of          Option 2– Use of        Option 3 –                 Option 4 –
                        Highways                  CRoW Section 3          Voluntary                  Unmapped
                        Legislation to                                    Approach to                Coastal Access
                        Create a PRoW                                     Create Permissive          Corridor
                                                                          Access

1. Extent               √√ - access available     √√ - access within      √ - access is limited in   √√√ - access within
                        all round coast but       mapped blocks only      extent                     corridor around entire
                        limited to linear route                                                      coast
                        with no spreading
                        room

2. Quality              √√√ - access along        √√√ - access is         √√ - access may be         √√√ - access is across
                        clear linear route,       across area as a        subject to certain         the whole of the
                        well understood and       whole, including        conditions                 corridor and other
                        unlikely to be            foreshore, but within                              areas such as
                        restricted                national regime of                                 headlands
                                                  restrictions

3. Permanency           √√√ - access rights       √√√ - access in         √ - permission can be      √√√ - access in
                        are in perpetuity,        perpetuity              withdrawn                  perpetuity
                        provided eroding
                        coasts have rolling
                        path agreements

4.1 Clarity/Certainty   √√ - implementation       √√√ -                   √ - implementation         √√ - implementation
– implementation        takes place over 10       implementation          takes place over 20        takes place over 10
                        years                     takes place over Yrs    years                      yrs
                                                  3–4

4.2 Clarity/Certainty   √√√ - PRoWs are           √√√ - access areas      √ - terms of               √√ - access is not
– end position          fixed and are marked      shown on 1:25,000       availability of access     shown on maps and
                        on OS maps, and           scale OS maps           varies with every          new tier of rights
                        rights better                                     agreement, except          added but the corridor
                                                                                                     will be clearly marked




                                                  Asken Ltd
                                          Final Report – May 2007
                                                    178


Criterion           Option 1– Use of         Option 2– Use of         Option 3 –               Option 4 –
                    Highways                 CRoW Section 3           Voluntary                Unmapped
                    Legislation to                                    Approach to              Coastal Access
                    Create a PRoW                                     Create Permissive        Corridor
                                                                      Access
                    understood                                        s16 dedications          on-the-ground, and be
                                                                                               consistent around the
                                                                                               coast

5. Cost             See Table 14.1 for summary of monetised benefits and costs in NPV terms
effectiveness

6. Monitor and      √√√ - can use            √√√ - can use            √√√ - can use existing   √√ - will need new
Enforce             existing systems         existing systems         systems                  systems but these can
                                                                                               be based on existing
                                                                                               ones

7.1 Spread of       √√√ - given the need     √√ - may be a            √ - may be a             √√√ - will be a
opportunities *     to comply with DDA       requirement to           requirement to           requirement to comply
                                             comply with DDA          comply with DDA but      with DDA where
                                                                      provision would be       infrastructure is
                                                                      piecemeal and based      installed
                                                                      on what is reasonable
                                                                      for landowners

7.2 Spread of       √√ - can be targeted     √√ - area access         √ - can be targeted at   √√√ - can be targeted
opportunities **    to areas of most         offers more diverse      areas of most benefit    at areas of most
                    benefit but linear       uses but land types      and can be area          benefit and area
                    access only              not always suitable      access but provision     access offers more
                                                                      piecemeal and            diverse uses
                                                                      dependent on
                                                                      landowner
                                                                      participation

8.1 Environmental   √√ - specific routing    √√ - spatial and         √ - variable             √√ - spatial and
gain – improved     of delimited linear      temporal regulation      depending on             temporal limitation to
access              access but regulated     possible                 mechanism used           access will be possible
management          use is difficult

8.2 Environmental   √ - some                 √√ - gains arise         √√√ - access             √√√ - gains arise
Enhancement -       improvements from        where AMGS               provision could be       where extra resources
Habitat             path management          enhances land            part of wider land       enhance land
management                                   management plus          enhancement scheme       management, and
/restoration                                 regime of restrictions                            sensitive areas can be
                                             available                                         aligned out of corridor

8.3 Environmental   √√√ - linear routes      √√√ - potential to       √√ - variable            √√√ - potential to guide
gain – awareness    facilitate use of        guide people to          depending on             people to interesting
raising             awareness signs          interesting areas        mechanism used           areas and provide
                                             and provide                                       information
                                             information
Key: √ = Criterion satisfied to small degree; √√ = Criterion satisfied to moderate degree √√√ =
Criterion satisfied to large degree
* Disability discrimination legislation requires service providers (e.g. local authorities) to make
provision for disabled people. Private landowners/occupiers may be required to make
reasonable provision for disabled people if the Courts find that a landowner/occupier is a
service provider within the meaning of disability discrimination legislation.
** potential to target early action in areas more likely to be used by a diverse range of users
and area based schemes offer more opportunities for a diverse range of uses.

The scoring system is intended to be relative to the baseline but, perhaps inevitably,
there is an element of comparison with other options. When comparing options, it is
important to consider both the quantified and the unquantified effects. Key features
of the options, taking all elements into account, are:



                                             Asken Ltd
                               Final Report – May 2007
                                         179


   -   Option 1: provides a continuous route around the English coast that is
       proofed against erosion by rolling path agreements, and carrying fairly well
       recognised rights. However, access is limited to a narrow path (c 2 m wide)
       and may veer inland some way to circumvent obstructions. New paths would
       be created and maintained to a high standard, with good provision made for
       disabled.
   -   Option 2: creates a right of area-wide access to all the foreshore and ‘islands’
       of land, linked by foreshore (when and where passable) and any existing
       PRoWs or permissive paths). However, the onward passage would not be
       available along all the coast and Access Land, although marked on large
       scale maps, would be subject to occasional restrictions.
   -   Option 3: although a relatively low cost option, access around the coast
       would be piecemeal, insecure and not continuous. The new access would be
       shown on websites but not OS maps.            There would be significant
       environmental gains associated with the improved management of land
       entered into agri-environment schemes, and farmer support for access would
       be generally more positive.
   -   Option 4: provides a continuous corridor around the English coast that is
       proofed against erosion by the workings of the method used to define the
       ‘coastal access corridor’. The width of the corridor allows for more wide
       ranging access. Access infrastructure within the whole corridor (not just new
       sections) would be built and maintained to a high standard, and this would
       provide visual clues to the corridor limits, which would not be mapped.
It is important to recognise that Option 4 contains new legislative proposals and
access rights, and so past experience is less appropriate as a source of guidance on
future benefits and costs than for other options, meaning the monetary estimates
carry a higher level of uncertainty.




                                  Asken Ltd
                               Final Report – May 2007
                                         180



Appendix 1
References

ADAS Consulting Ltd (2003). Key Issues Study. Report for Bedfordshire County
Council.
Agra CEAS Consulting 2005. Socio-economic Evaluation of Tir Gofal. Final report to
Countryside Council for Wales and Welsh Assembly Government. CCW, Bangor.
Andersen, U.V. 1995. Resistance of Danish coastal vegetation types to human
trampling. Biological Conservation 71: 223-230.
Asken Ltd and Land Access Ltd 2005. Research on Monitoring Local Highway
Authority Provision of Public Rights of Way. Report to the Countryside Agency.
Website: http://www.countryside.gov.uk/Images/DGdoc_tcm2-28078.pdf
Asken Ltd, Entec UK Ltd, FPD Savills (2002). Advice on Managing Risks to Public
Health and Safety on Open Countryside. Report to the Countryside Agency,
Countryside Council for Wales and Forestry Commission. Countryside Agency,
Cheltenham.
Baker, M 2002. North West Coastal Trail: Summary of the Missing Links in the
Golden Thread and estimated costs to complete. Morecambe Bay Partnership, for
North West Coastal Forum, Kendal, 2002.
Ball, D.J. (1998). Cave Rescues. Sports exercise & injury Vol. 4 pt 1.
BBC 2006. 17 people rescued after landslide. BBC News 14 January 2006.
Website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/dorset/4613410.stm.
Bateman, I., Willis, K. and Garrod, G. (1994). Consistency between contingent
valuation estimates: a comparison between two studies of UK National Parks.
Regional Studies 28, 457-474.
Beale, C. M., and P. Monaghan. 2004. Human disturbance: people as predation-free
predators? Journal of Applied Ecology 41:335-343.
Beatty, C. and Fothergill, S. (20030). The Seaside Economy. Centre for Regional
Economic and Social Research, Sheffield Hallam University.
Beedell, J., Jones, P., Wooldridge, M. 2006. Dedicating land for public access
research project – development of a payment scheme. Scoping report for
Countryside Agency.
Bennett, R., Tranter, R. Beard, N. and Jones, P. (1995). An economic appraisal of
the viability of a community woodland scheme. Centre for Rural Economy, Working
paper 15 University of Newcastle upon Tyne.
Benson, J. F. and Willis, K. G. (1992). Valuing Informal Recreation on the Forestry
Commission Estate. Forestry Commission Bulletin 104, Forestry Commission,
Edinburgh.
Bird, W. (2004). Natural Fit: Can greenspace and biodiversity increase physical
activity? A report for the RSPB, Sandy.



                                  Asken Ltd
                               Final Report – May 2007
                                         181


Bolduc, F., and M. Guillemette. 2003. Human disturbance and nesting success of
Common Eiders: interaction between visitors and gulls. Biological Conservation 110.
Boorman, L. A., and R. M. Fuller. 1977. Studies on the impact of paths on the dune
vegetation at Winterton, Norfolk, England. Biological Conservation 12:203-216.
Brown, A., and P. Grice 2005. Birds in England. T & A D Poyser Ltd, London.
Caffyn, D.J.M. 2004. The Right of Navigation on Non-Tidal Rivers and the Common
Law. Published by the author – DJM Caffyn, Eastbourne.
Carney, K. M., and W. J. Sydeman. 1999. A review of human disturbance effects on
nesting colonial waterbirds. Waterbirds 22:68-79.
Carson, R. T., Flores, N. E., Martin, K. M. and Wright, J. L. (1996). Contingent
valuation and revealed preference methodologies: comparing the estimates for
quasi-public goods. Land Economics 72, 80-99.
Cheffings, C. M., L. Farrell, T. D. Dines, R. A. Jones, S. J. Leach, D. R. McKean, D.
A. Pearman, C. D. Preston, F. J. Rumsey, and I. Taylor. 2005. The Vascular Plant
Red Data List for Great Britain. Species Status 7:1-116.
Christie, M. (1999). An assessment of the economic effectiveness of recreation policy
using contingent valuation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. 42,
547-564.
Christie, M., Hanley, N., Garrod, B., Hyde, T., Lyons, N., Bergmann, A and Hynes, S.
(2006). Valuing Forest Recreation Activities: Final Phase 2 Report. Forestry
Commission, Edinburgh.
Church, A .2003. Research into ownership patterns, and owner’s attitudes and
perceptions of public access provision in the south east of England. Report by the
University of Brighton to the Forestry Commission Research Agency.
Church, A., Ravenscroft, N., Rogers, G. 2005. Woodland Owners’ attitude to public
access provision in south east England. FC Information Note. ISSN 1460-3800;
ISBN 0-85538-666-5
CJC Consulting (2005a) Review of Evidence for the Formulation of Forestry Policy in
England. Report for Defra. http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/forestry-
strategy/review-evidence.Pdf
CJC Consulting (2004). Cost Effectiveness Study of Approaches for Delivery of PSA
Target Relating to SSSIs. Report to Defra.
CJC Consulting (2005b). Economic Benefits of Accessible Green Spaces for
Physical and Mental Health. Report to the Forestry Commission.
www.forestry.gov.uk/economics
CLA (2006). Coastal Walks Survey. ICM Research for the CLA.
Clark, J. A., S. R. Ballie, N. A. Clark, and R. H. W. Langston. 1993. Estuary wader
capacity following severe weather mortality. BTO Research Report No. 103. Energy
Technology Support Unit, Department of Energy, London.
Clark, G., Darrell, J. Grove-White, R., Macnaghten, P. and Urry, J. (1994). Leisure
Landscapes. Council for the Protection of Rural England, London.




                                  Asken Ltd
                              Final Report – May 2007
                                        182


Communities and Local Government Committee (2007). Coastal Towns. Second
Report of Session 2006-07. The Stationery Office, London.
Countryside Agency 2006a. Coastal Access Information Sheet.       February 2006,
Issue 2.
Coulson, J. C., C. A. Fielding, and S. A. Goodyear. 1992. The management of
moorland areas to enhance their nature conservation interest. Joint Nature
Conservation Committee, Peterborough.
Countryside Agency 2006b. Results of the National Trail User Survey 2005.
www.nationaltrail.co.uk.
Countryside Agency. 2006c. Evaluation of the Access Management Grant Scheme.
Countryside Agency, Manchester.
Countryside Agency, English Nature, Rural Development Service 2006. Lessons
Learned Report: CROW Mapping and Mapping Appeals. See website:
http://www.countryside.gov.uk/Images/Lessons%20Learnt%20final%20report_tcm2-
29845.pdf#search=%22Lessons%20Learned%20CROW%20Mapping%20and%20M
apping%20Appeals%22
Countryside Agency 2005a. Managing Public Access: a guide for land managers.
Ref CA210. Countryside Agency Publications, Cheltenham.
Countryside Agency 2005b. Dedicating Land for Public Access Research Project
Final Business Plan. Countryside Agency, Cheltenham.
Countryside Agency 2005c. “What about us?” – under-represented groups’ visitor
needs.      Countryside Agency publications, Wetherby.        See website:
http://www.countryside.gov.uk/Images/DR%20PUBS%20ETHNOS%20FULL%20RE
PORT_tcm2-27064.pdf
Countryside Agency 2004. Open Access Total Project Costs. Board Paper Ap04/20.
Countryside Agency, Cheltenham.
Countryside Agency. 2002. Out in the Country: where you can go and what you can
do in the countryside. Ref: CA9. See:
http://www.countryside.gov.uk/Images/79398%20Country…ide%20Agency%20KL_tc
m2-27092.pdf
Countryside Agency (Thames Path Team). 1999. Summary of 1999 Visitor Survey.
http://www.nationaltrail.co.uk/ThamesPath/uploads/Thames%20Path%20Visitor%20
Survey%20Summary(1).pdf
Countryside Commission (1990) Pennine Way Survey 1990; Use and Economic
Impact. Countryside Commission.
Countryside Council for Wales (1995). Offa’s Dyke Path. National Trail User Survey
1994-1995.
Countryside Council for Wales. 1997. Pembrokeshire Coast Path: National Trail
User Survey 1996-1997. CCW, Bangor.
Countryside Council for Wales. 2000. Offa’s Dyke Path National Trail User Survey
1999. CCW, Bangor




                                 Asken Ltd
                              Final Report – May 2007
                                        183


Crabtree, J. R. and Macdonald, D. (1997). The supply of access to the countryside:
financial efficiency in government provision of a public good. Proc. 8th European
Association of Environmental and Resource economics Conference. Tilburg.
Curry, N. (2006). Consuming Leisure Landscapes.            Paper presented at the
‘Landscapes for Living and Leisure’ Conference, Kendal, 30th May to 2nd June 2006.
International Conference for the Uplands - Cumbria, Penrith.
Curry, N. and Ravenscroft, N. (2001). Countryside recreation provision in England:
exploring a demand-led approach. Land Use Policy 18, 281-291.
Davidson, N. C., D. Lafoley, J. P. Doody, L. S. Way, J. Gordon, R. Key, C. M. Drake,
M. W. Pienkowski, R. Mitchell, and K. L. Duff. 1991. Nature conservation and
estuaries in Britain. Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough.
Davidson, N. C., and P. I. Rothwell. 1993. Disturbance to waterfowl on estuaries.
Wader Study Group Bulletin 68 (Special Issue): 97-106.
DCLG (2006): Planning for the Protection of European Sites: Appropriate
Assessment. Guidance for Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development
Documents
Defra 2005 Making Space for Water: taking forward a new Government strategy for
flood and coastal risk management in England. Defra, London.
Defra 2004. Managing coastal activities: a guide for local authorities. Ref PB9268.
Defra Publications, London
Defra 2003. Sites of Special Scientific Interest: encouraging positive partnerships.
Defra, London.
Department for Transport (2004). 2003 valuation of benefits of prevention of road
accidents and casualties. Highways Economics Note No.1. DfT, London.
Department of Health (2002). Health Check: on the state of public health. Annual
Report of the Chief Medical Officer. Department of Health, London.
Department of Health (2004). At least five a week. Department of Health, London,
2389.
Doody, P. 2000. Coastal Guide Country File – England. Prepared for the Coastal
Guide Europe. See website: http://www.coastalguide.org/england/engrcol.html
Drew Associates (2004). Research into the economic contribution of sea angling.
Report to Defra.
Duffy, A (2005). ISPS Code and Public Rights of Way. Letter to Scottish Harbour
Authorities, Feb 2005. Cyclo BPA/059/05. British Ports Association, London
ELVS (2006). England Leisure Visits 2005. Research International for the ELVS
Consortium. Research International, London
Entec UK Ltd (1999). Appraisal of options on access to the open countryside of
England and Wales. Final report for the Department for Environment, Transport and
the Regions.       Defra, London.        Website: http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-
countryside/access/appraise/index.htm




                                  Asken Ltd
                                Final Report – May 2007
                                          184


Environment Agency 2006. A Better Place to Play. Our strategy for water-related
sport and recreation 2006-2011. Environment Agency, Bristol. Website:
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subjects/recreation/345720/1296722/
Financial Times (2006) Outlook sunny but not for old style breaks. Financial Times
July22/23 2006 p3.
Fisher German (2005). Advice on a scale of incentives to landowners to dedicate
land for public access under s16 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.
Unpublished report to the Countryside Agency, Cheltenham.
Fleming, S., R. D. Chiasson, P. C. Smith, P. J. Austin-Smith, and R. P. Bancroft.
1988. Piping plover status in Nova Scotia related to reproductive and behavioural
responses to human disturbance. Journal of Field Ornithology 59:321-330.
Forestry Commission (2005). Forestry Commission Corporate Plan for England and
Great Britain 2005/05. See website:
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/gbengcorp2005.pdf/$FILE/gbengcorp2005.pdf
Garber, A. M. (2003) Advances in cost effectiveness analysis of health interventions.
In Culyer, A. J. and Newhouse, J. P. (ed) Handbook of Health Economics Volume
1A, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Garrod G.D. and Willis K.G. (1999). Economic Valuation of the Environment.
Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Gill, J. A., K. Norris, and W. J. Sutherland. 2001a. The effects of disturbance on
habitat use by black-tailed godwits Limosa limosa. Journal of Applied Ecology
38:846-856.
Gill, J. A., K. Norris, and W. J. Sutherland. 2001b. Why behavioural responses may
not reflect the population consequences of human disturbance. Biological
Conservation 97:265-268.
Gimingham, C. H. 1971. British heathland ecosystems: the outcome of many years of
management by fire. Pages 293-321. Proceedings of the 10th Annual Tall Timbers
Fire Ecology Symposium.
Gimingham, C. H. 1972. Ecology of heathlands. Chapman & Hall, London.
Gimingham, C. H. 1992. The lowland heathland management handbook. English
Nature, Peterborough.
Green, S., R. C. Green, and D. J. Jefferies. 1984. A radio-tracking survey of otters
Lutra lutra on a Perthshire river system. Lutra 27:85-145.
Gregory, R. D., N. I. Wilkinson, D. G. Noble, J. A. Robinson, A. F. Brown, J. Hughes,
D. Procter, D. W. Gibbons, and C. A. Galbraith. 2002. The population status of birds
in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man: an analysis of conservation
concern 2002-2007. British Birds 95:410-448.
Falconer, K., Dupraz, P., Whitby, M. (2001). An investigation of policy administrative
costs using panel data for the English Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Journal Of
Agricultural Economics. 52 (1): pp 83-103




                                   Asken Ltd
                               Final Report – May 2007
                                         185


Garrod, G., Willis, K. G., Raley, M. and Rudden, M. (1998). Economic Evaluation of
Access Provisions in the MAFF Agri-environmental Schemes. Report to MAFF.
GBLDVS (2004). Great Britain Leisure Day Visits Survey 2002/2003. Countryside
Agency
Gillespie, Gary, and Melly, Daniel (2003). Health and Economic Benefits of
Increased Physical Activity in Scotland. Scottish Executive, Edinburgh.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/finance/ser03-15.asp
Green, C. H. (1997) quoted by Whitmarsh et al. (1999).
Grossman, M. (2003) The human capital model. In Culyer, A. J. and Newhouse, J. P.
(ed) Handbook of Health Economics Volume 1A, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Harley, D.C. and Hanley N. D. (1989). Economic Benefits of Nature Reserves:
methods and results. Discussion Paper in Economics 89, Department of Economics,
University of Stirling.
Health and Safety Executive (2004). HMRI Specific Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA)
Checklist. HSE, London.
Health & Safety Executive (1998). Hazard and Risk Explained - Control of
Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1998 (COSHH), Leaflet No.
IND(G)67(L), HSE Books, Sudbury.
Health & Safety Executive (1988). The Tolerability of Risk From Nuclear Power
Stations. HMSO. London.
HM Treasury (2003). The ‘Green Book’: Appraisal and evaluation in central
government. HM Treasury, London. Website: http://greenbook.treasury.gov.uk/
Hockin, D., M. Ounsted, M. Gorman, D. Hill, V. Keller, and M. A. Barker. 1992.
Examination of the effects of disturbance on birds with reference to its importance in
ecological assessments. Journal of Environmental Management 36.
House of Commons Environment Committee (1995). The Environmental Impact of
Leisure Activities. Volume 1. HMSO, London.
Hylgaard, T., and M. J. Liddle. 1981. The effect of human trampling on a sand dune
ecosystem dominated by Empetrum nigrum. Journal of Applied Ecology 18:559-569.
IPSOS/MORI (2006) Coastal Access in England. Research Study Conducted for
Natural England.
Jefferies, D. J. 1987. The effects of angling interests on otters, with particular
reference to disturbance. Pages 23-30 in M. P.S., and T. A.K., editors. Angling and
Wildlife in Freshwaters. Institute of Terrestrial Ecology.
Jones, A., Bateman I. and Wright J. (2002). Estimating Arrival Numbers and Values
for Informal Recreational Use of British Woodlands. Report to the Forestry
Commission. CSERGE, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East
Anglia.
Jones-Lee, M. W., Hammerton M., and Philips P. R.(1985). The Value of Safety:
results of a national sample survey. The Economic Journal 95, 49-72.




                                  Asken Ltd
                               Final Report – May 2007
                                         186


JNCC. 2003. Guidance for Common Standards Monitoring introduction text. JNCC,
Peterborough.
Keller, V. E. 1991. Effects of human disturbance on Eider ducklings Somateria
mollissima in an estuarine habitat in Scotland. Biological Conservation 58:213-228.
Labour Party (1997). New Labour: because Britain deserves better. Labour Party,
London. Website:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/election97/background/parties/manlab/5labman.htm
Labour Party (2005). Labour party manifesto. Labour Party, London.         Website:
http://www.labour.org.uk/manifesto
Lemauviel, S., and F. Roze. 2003. Response of three plant communities to trampling
in a sand dune system in Brittany, France. Environmental Management 31:227-235.
Liley, D., and W. J. Sutherland. in press. Predicting the population consequences of
human disturbance for Ringed Plovers Charadrius hiaticula: a game theory
approach. Ibis.
Maclean, I.M.D., and Austin, G.E. 2006. Wetland Bird Survey Alerts 2004/2005.
Changes on numbers of wintering waterbirds in the constituent countries of the
United Kingdom, Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Sites of Special Scientific
Interest (SSSIs). British trust for Ornithology, Thetford.
McGuire, W. 2006. Holiday 2030. Report for Halifax Travel Insurance.
Moxon, D. 2006. The future of cycling in the countryside.       NCAF Paper 22/9.
Cyclists’ Touring Club, Godalming.
National Audit Office 2006. The right of access to open countryside. See website:
http://www.nao.org.uk/pn/05-06/05061046.htm
National Farmers’ Union 1998. Access to Open Countryside in England and Wales.
The response of the NFU (to the Government’s consultation paper). NFU,
Stoneleigh.
National Water Safety Forum (undated).        Coastal Drowning Trends.     Website:
http://nationalbeachsafety.org.uk/facts.htm
NFO System Three. 2001. Survey of behaviour associated with access and informal
recreation.    Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report F99/ACC08
(Unpublished report).
Nisbet, I. C. T. 2000. Disturbance, habituation, and management of waterbird
colonies. Waterbirds 23:312-332.
Nix. J. (2006). Farm Management Pocketbook (2007) 37th Edition. Imperial College
London, Wye Campus, Ashford.
ODPM (2004). The English Indices of Deprivation 2004; Summary. Office of the
Deputy Prime Minister, London. See:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1128442




                                  Asken Ltd
                                Final Report – May 2007
                                          187


Paths for All Partnership 1997. The Benefits of Local Path Networks: Factsheet 1.1.
PFAP, Alloa. See website: http://www.pathsforall.org.uk/downloads/1-
1_The_Benefits_of_Local_Path_Networks.pdf
Pearce, D., Atkinson, G. and Mourato, S. (2006). Cost-Benefit Analysis and the
Environment. OECD, Paris.
Penning-Rowsell, E. C., Green, C. H., Thompson, P. M., Coker, A. M., Tunstall, S.
M., Richards, C. and Parker, D. J. (1992). The Economics of Coastal Management,
Belhaven Press. London .
Penning-Rowsell, E. Johnson, C., Tunstall, S., Morris, J., Chatterton, J. and Green,
C. (2005). The Benefits for Flood and Coastal Management: A Manual of
Assessment Techniques. Middlesex University Press.
Penning-Rowsell, E., Johnson, C., Tunstall, S., Tapsell, S., Morris, J., Chatterton, J.,
Green, C. (2006). The Benefits of Flood and Coastal Risk Management: A
Handbook of Assessment techniques. Middlesex University Flood Hazard Research
Centre, Enfield.
Peter Scott Planning Services Ltd, Asken Ltd, Wood Gee, V. 2003. Developing
Advice for Land Managers on Positive Access Management. Unpublished report for
SNH, Edinburgh.
Powe, N. A. and Willis, K. G. (1996). Benefits received by visitors to heritage sites: a
case study of Warkworth Castle. Leisure Studies 15, 159-271.
Pretty, J., Griffin, M., Peacock, J., Hine, R., Sellens, M., South, N. 2006. A
Countryside for Health and Wellbeing: The physical and mental health benefits of
green exercise – Executive Summary. Countryside Recreation Vol13 No.1 Spring
2005. CRN, Sheffield Hallam University.
Produce Studies Ltd 1994. The Countryside Stewardship Scheme: A Review of
Payments. Quoted in: Entec UK Ltd (1999). Appraisal of options on access to the
open countryside of England and Wales. Final report for the Department for
Environment, Transport and the Regions. Defra, London. Website:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/access/appraise/index.htm
Reading Agricultural Consultants (RAC) and Furness, M. 2002. Creation of new
public rights of way: A code of practice for local highway authorities and landholders
involved in negotiation. Report to the Countryside Agency and Countryside Council
for Wales.
Risk & Policy Analysts Ltd (2006). Options to improve coastal access in England –
Study to investigate costs. Interim Report to the Countryside Agency.
Ridgill, S. C., and A. D. Fox. 1990. Cold weather movements of waterfowl in Western
Europe. IWRB Special Publication 13. IWRB, Slimbridge. ODPM (2005).
Robertson Gould Consultants 1992. Summary of the report of monitoring on the
meadowland option of the Countryside Premium Scheme. Quoted in: Entec UK Ltd
(1999). Appraisal of options on access to the open countryside of England and
Wales. Final report for the Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions.
Defra, London. Website: http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-
countryside/access/appraise/index.htm



                                   Asken Ltd
                               Final Report – May 2007
                                         188


Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (2002). Drowning Statistics in the UK
2002. RoSPA, Birmingham. See:
www.rospa.com/waterandleisuresafety/drownings/2002statistics.htm
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds 2005. Offences against wild bird legislation
in 2005. RSPB, Sandy.
Rural Development Commission (1997). The Economic Impact of Recreation and
Tourism in the English Countryside. Rural Development Commission, Salisbury.
Russell, N. 1997. An analysis of the potential costs to landowners under a statutory
right of “Open Access” over “Mountain, Moorland and Common Land”. Report to the
Countryside Landowners Association. CLA, London.
Saunders, C., J. Selwyn, S. Richardson, V. May, and C. Heeps 2000. A review of the
effects of recreational interactions within UK European marine sites. A report
prepared for the UK Marine SACs Project, CCW. Countryside Council for Wales,
Bangor.
Schulz, R., and M. Stock. 1993. Kentish Plovers and tourists: competitors on sandy
coasts? Wader Study Group Bulletin 68:83-91.
Scott Wilson, Levett Therivel, Treweek Environmental Consultants and Land Use
Consultants (2006) Appropriate Assessment of Plans. Internal document.
Shaw, S. C., B. D. Wheeler, P. Kirby, P. Phillipson, and R. Edmunds. 1996. Literature
review of the historical effects of burning and grazing of blanket bog and upland wet
heath. Page 103. English Nature, Peterborough.
Shirt, D. B., editor. 1987. British Red Data books: 2: insects. Nature Conservancy
Council, Peterborough.
Simonson, W., and R. Thomas 1999. Biodiversity: making the links. English Nature,
Peterborough.
Sneddon, P., and R. E. Randall 1993. Coastal vegetated shingle structures of Great
Britain. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.
South West Ecological Services, Levett-Therivel Sustainability Consultants, and
Oxford Brookes University. 2004. Strategic Environmental Assessment and
biodiversity: guidance for practitioners. CCW, English Nature, Environment Agency
and RSPB
Streeter, T. 1971. The effects of public pressure on the vegetation of chalk downland
at Boxhill, Surrey. Pages 459-468 in E. Duffey, and A. S. Watt, editors. The scientific
management of animal and plant communities for conservation. Blackwell, Oxford.
Stroud, D. A., G. P. Mudge, and M. W. Pienkowski 1990. Protecting internationally
important bird sites: a review of the EEC Special Protection Area network in Great
Britain. Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough.
Swales, Caspar (2001). A Health Economics Model: the cost benefits of the physical
activity strategy for Northern Ireland – a summary of key findings. Economics
Branch, Department of Health. Social Services and Public Safety for the Northern
Ireland Physical Activity Strategy Implementation Group. Belfast.




                                   Asken Ltd
                               Final Report – May 2007
                                         189


SWT (2003). The Economic Value of the South West Coast Path.                  Tourism
Associates and Southwest Tourism
Taylor, K., P. Anderson, D. Liley, G. Hawley, and J. Underhill-Day. 2006. Promoting
positive access management to sites of nature conservation value. A guide to good
practice. Report to English Nature. English Nature, Peterborough.
Taylor, K., P. Anderson, R. Taylor, R. Longden, and P. Fisher. 2005. Dogs, access
and nature conservation. English Nature, Peterborough.
Tucker, G. M. 2003. Review of the impacts of heather and grassland burning in the
uplands on soils, hydrology and biodiversity. English Nature, Peterborough.
UKTS (2005). UK Tourism Survey 2004. http://www.staruk.org.uk
Urfi, A. J., J. D. Goss-Custard, and S. E. A. le V dit. Durell. 1996. The ability of
oystercatchers Haematopus ostralegus to compensate for lost feeding time: field
studies on individually marked birds. Journal of Applied Ecology 33:873-883.
VisitBritain (2006) personal communication Jonathan Gingold.
Verhulst, S., B. J. Oosterbeck, and B. J. Ens. 2001. Experimental evidence for effects
of human disturbance on foraging and parental care in oystercatchers. Biological
Conservation 101:375-380.
Warwickshire County Council 2005. Rights of Way Improvement Plan – draft for
Public Consultation. Warwickshire County Council, Warwick.
West, A. D., J. D. Goss-Custard, R. A. Stillman, R. W. G. Caldow, S. E. A. Le V. dit
Durell, and S. McGrorty. 2002. Predicting the impacts of disturbance on shorebird
mortality using a behaviour-based model. Biological Conservation 106:319-328.
Whitby, M., Falconer, K. 1998. The potential public costs of access agreements over
“Mountain, Moor and Common Land”. Report to the CLA. CLA, London.
Whitehaven News 2007. Woman killed as Whitehaven cliff collapses. See website:
www.whitehaven-news.co.uk/news/viewarticle.asp?id=450465
Whitmarsh, D., Northen, J. and Jaffry S. (1999). Recreational benefits of coastal
protection: a case study. Marine Policy, 23 453-463.
Willis K.G. (1990). Valuing Non-Market Wildlife Commodities: an evaluation and
comparison of benefits and costs. Applied Economics 22, 13-30.
Willis, K. G., G. D. Garrod, J. F. Benson and Carter, M. (1996). Benefits and Costs
of the Wildlife Enhancement Scheme: a case study of the Pevensey Levels. Journal
of Environmental Planning and Management 39, 387-401.
Willis, K.G. (1991). The Recreational Value of the Forestry Commission Estate in
Great Britain: a Clawson-Knetsch Travel Cost Analysis. Scottish Journal of Political
Economy 38, 58-75.
Willis, K.G. and G.D. Garrod (1991). Valuing Open Access Recreation on Inland
Waterways: on-site recreation surveys and selection effects. Regional Studies 25(6),
511-524.
Woodfield, E., and R. Langstone. 204. Literature review on the impact of bird
populations of disturbance due to human access on foot. RSPB, Sandy.



                                   Asken Ltd
                               Final Report – May 2007
                                         190



Appendix 2
Assessment of Benefits to Users

A2.1 Introduction
There are two main groups of beneficiaries from enhanced access to the coast: the
public who use the access, and local businesses that benefit from expenditures
associated with the access. In order to quantify the size of the net benefits to users
we need to estimate:
   -   The numbers of additional visits attributable to the new access;
   -   The number of displaced visits;
   -   The value of the benefits derived from new access.
These ideally require a transferable trip generation model and a transferable benefit
model. In these, information relating to existing use of the coast or other countryside
destinations would be transferred to the new access areas. We are not aware of any
quantitative models of either trip generation to seaside destinations or the benefits
derived from such visits. Instead, we use a more ad hoc approach in which the
available information is reviewed and used to derive estimates of the impacts of new
access on seaside/coastal trips and their value. We start by assessing the current
use of the coast by different types of user.


A2.2 Demand for countryside recreation
Theory indicates that demand for countryside recreation is determined by population
size, the cost of trips (including time), incomes, preferences, and the price and range
of substitutes available. The annual number of seaside trips is also affected by the
weather and may increase over the longer term with global climate change (i.e. more
days per year when a coastal visit may seem attractive and fewer people holidaying
in Mediterranean areas where summer temperatures may become uncomfortably
high or ski-ing when snow conditions are poor). Curry (2006) has analysed the
consumption of leisure landscapes (i.e. countryside recreation trips) in the UK. He
concludes that the evidence from the UK Day Visits Survey showed a decline in
countryside visits from 1994 to 1998. However, it is not entirely clear whether this
was a real effect or an effect related to changes in survey methodology and
interpretation.
Previously, Curry and Ravenscroft (2001) had concluded that there had been no
increase in recreation consumption in the countryside for more than 20 years. This
concurred with the House of Commons Environment Committee (1995), which
concluded that it had ’not received conclusive evidence that the number of visitors to
the countryside has increased significantly in recent years’. The more recent
evidence suggests some decline. In the England Leisure Visits Survey (ELVS 2006),
total leisure visits fell from 5.38bn in 2002/03 to 3.57bn in 2005. Curry explained the
earlier shift in relative demand for countryside trips in terms of changes in
preferences rather than specific constraints on travel. Three elements were
suggested as affecting demand:



                                   Asken Ltd
                                  Final Report – May 2007
                                            191


     -   Increased home-based leisure opportunities including TV and the internet;
     -   Busy lives with a shift to shorter, more intensive, specialised leisure; and
     - A growth in more specialised and exclusive leisure opportunities including
       sport.
This analysis suggests that changing preferences and a growth in the supply of
competing leisure activities (including those undertaken abroad) are mainly
responsible for changes in use of the British countryside for leisure.
There is evidence for a positive effect of income on the public’s willingness to pay
(WTP) for countryside leisure trips (e.g. Powe and Willis, 1996) but this does not
appear to have been sufficient to counter other downward pressures on demand.
Evidence from forest recreation trips suggests that the income elasticity of demand
may be less than 0.5 in contrast to more specialised leisure trips and activity, such as
yachting and wildlife safaris, which are income elastic (CJC Consulting, 2005). We
doubt if income growth can be expected to increase demand for countryside trips by
any appreciable amount in the future.
Although Curry (2006) argues that constraints (apart from health) are unimportant in
explaining trip numbers, Jones et al. (2002), in an analysis of visitor numbers to
forests in GB, found that the dominant factor determining visits was the negative
effect of increasing travel time. Visits were also significantly related to increases in
travel time to substitute sites, as many potential woodland visitors appeared to
consider similar natural and man-made environmental outdoor attractions (inland
water, heathland, coast and NT sites) as substitutes for woodland recreation. Travel
costs including possible congestion may thus limit visits to some locations. Specific
evidence on the impact of congestion is lacking.


A2.3 Numbers of visits to the coast
A2.3.1 Domestic tourists (overnight stays)
The coast is a popular tourist destination and 72% of English people have visited the
coast in the last 12 months (IPSOS/MORI, 2006). The majority are attracted to towns
and villages and the facilities they offer (beaches, food and drink).
The UK Tourism Survey (UKTS) gives statistics on domestic (UK originating) seaside
tourism in England, defined as stays of one night or longer. The number of nights
spent on trips for holidays, pleasure/leisure, and visiting friends and relatives mainly
as a holiday 48 varied in the last 11 years between 73.4m and 103.6m per year
(Figure A2.1). There was a significant downward linear trend of –2.34m nights per
year (SE 0.64, p<0.001). There have been changes in the survey methods over
time. The survey was operated on a telephone basis from 2000-2004 but on a face-
to-face basis in the other years. Regressing with a dummy variable for survey type
had little effect. The downward trend was –2.24m per year (SE 0.82, p<0.05) and the
dummy variable coefficient was not significant. The downward trend is accepted by



48
  We exclude trips for business and visiting friends and relatives other than as a holiday on
the basis that access to the coast is less likely to be of relevance to such trips.




                                     Asken Ltd
                                           Final Report – May 2007
                                                     192


VisitBritain (2006) and this seems to apply particularly to the traditional seaside
holiday at traditional resorts (Financial Times, 2006).

             110.00




             100.00
  seanight




             90.00




             80.00




             70.00


                      1994   1996   1998     2000   2002   2004      2006

                                            year1


Figure A2.1: Total domestic tourism nights at the seaside (1995-2005)


Table A2.1 gives the regional breakdown for holiday trips to the seaside in 2005.
There were 83.27m nights spent at the seaside on holiday trips. The most popular
region was the South West which accounted for 45% of all nights. Three regions
(East, South West and South East accounted for 72.4% of all nights. The average
stay length was 4.31 nights. The expenditure data are discussed below.
Tourism nights at the seaside in 2005 (83.27m) were very similar to the trend
prediction discussed above (86.82m). We use the 2005 data as the basis for
estimating future tourism trips and spend, but note the fact that some decline in
nights at the seaside has been observed over the last decade.
VisitBritain indicated that there were no specific data on the numbers of international
tourists visiting the coast. However the numbers are thought to be relatively small.




                                              Asken Ltd
                                     Final Report – May 2007
                                               193



Table A2.1: Domestic tourism (overnight) trips to the seaside for holiday, pleasure/leisure, and
visiting friends and relatives mainly as a holiday (2005)


                  No. of seaside   No of nights   No of seaside Spending on Spend per      Spend per
                    trips (m)      per holiday     nights (m)   holiday trips night (£,     trip (£,
                                    trip to the                     (£m)       mean)         mean)
                                   seaside (m)

East of England       2.11            4.368           9.236        340         36.82       160.85

East Midlands         1.38            4.067           5.631        214         38.05       154.72

London                0.02            3.814           0.067          4         53.56       204.26

North West            2.32            3.462           8.033        397         49.42       171.08

North East            0.48            4.332           2.062         80         38.87       168.39

South East            3.51            3.839          13.490        545         40.42       155.17

South West            7.54            4.982          37.573       1713         45.60       227.20

Yorkshire             1.75            3.783           6.617        263         39.80       150.57

Total England        19.11           32.647          82.709      3556.0         43.0       186.08
Source VisitBritain (2006). Regions are government regions.


A2.3.2 Day trips
The main source of data on day trips (not staying overnight) is the ELVS 2006
(previously GB Leisure Day Visits Survey, GBLDVS 2004). The latest published
dataset is for 2005 (ELVS 2006). In the ELVS, a distinction is made between leisure
day visits (round trips made from home for leisure purposes) and tourism visits (those
leisure day visits that lasted three hours or more and were not taken on a regular
basis). Tourism visits are a subset of all leisure day visits. Some data are also
available on trips from a holiday base but these are excluded since they may double
count with the VisitBritain tourism data.
Whilst the GBLDVS (2004) shows that the number of trips to the seaside and coast
between 1998 and 2002/03 increased from 179m to 200m, the 2005 ELVS data
indicate that visits to the seaside increased from 200m to 246m despite a fall in the
number of countryside visits (from 1,126m to 699m). The 246m consisted of 174m to
a seaside town/city and 72m to the seaside/coast. It continues a positive trend from
1994. The implication is that seaside trips have increased substantially (by 8.0m on
average, or 4.95% per year between 1994 and 2005). However, the form of the
survey questions has changed over time with a new classification of destinations
introduced in 2005. The apparent trend is thus not unambiguous and considerable
caution should be taken in the interpretation of these figures. However, using the
published data the implication is for a growth of around 5% per year in seaside day
visits, although not for overnight tourism visits. Increased temperatures due to global
warming may be part of the explanation for the increased day visits although this
might be expected to also affect tourism visits. Congestion in travel or amenities has
not apparently limited day visit growth. It may be of course that there are constraints
in particular locations and at peak holiday times.




                                          Asken Ltd
                                          Final Report – May 2007
                                                    194


Of the 246m seaside trips, there were 62m tourism day visits. The 2005 survey splits
coastal visits between seaside town/city and the seaside/coast. 71% of seaside day
trips are to seaside town/city (Table A2.2). Twenty-five per cent of seaside/coast
leisure day visits had as the main activity either swimming or a visit to the beach,
sunbathe, paddle in the sea, and 33% had as the main activity a walk, hill walk,
ramble (Table A2.2).


Table A2.2: Seaside/coast and seaside town/city leisure day visits activities (ELVS 2006)


                                                   All day visits                 Tourism day visits



                                     Seaside town/city      Seaside/coast   Seaside town/city Seaside/coast

Visits to beach, sunbathe, paddle,
                                              14                      25           16              32
swim (% of visits)

Walk, hill walk, ramble, cycle,
                                              19                      35           12              15
mountain biking (% visits)

Total visits (m)                             174                      72           47.0           25.2


Comparison of 2005 with 2002/03 suggests that walking/cycling has increased in
popularity (Table A2.3) with trips numbers increasing from 40m to 58.3m. The
number of beach visits has remained broadly constant.


Table A2.3: Numbers of day trips to the coast by main activity (GBLDVS, 2004, ELVS 2006)


                                          2002/03              2005

Visits to beach, sunbathe, paddle,
                                              44              42.4
swim (m visits)

Walk, hill walk, ramble, cycle,
                                              40              58.3
mountain biking (m visits)

Total visits (m)                             200               246
Considerable care should be taken in comparing the 2002/03 and 2005 results (see Section
A2.3.2)

Fifty-seven per cent of all seaside trips were to the East, South West or South East of
England (Table A2.4). This is slightly lower than the proportion of seaside domestic
tourism nights spent in these regions (72.4%) (see above). The South West is much
less important as a destination for day trips than overnight trips presumably because
of the travel distance involved for all but residents of the region.




                                              Asken Ltd
                                     Final Report – May 2007
                                               195


Table A2.4: Destinations of day visits to the seaside/coast (ELVS 2006)


                  No. of day      No. of day     No of seaside    Spending     Spend per     Spend per
                   trips (m)    tourism trips     nights (m)      on holiday    night (£,     trip (£,
                                     (m)                          trips (£m)     mean)         mean)


East of England        11.0           13            9.236           340         36.82       160.85

East Midlands           2.5            5            5.631           214         38.05       154.72

London                  0.2            0            0.067             4         53.56       204.26

North West             10.9            7            8.033           397         49.42       171.08

North East             12.5            2            2.062            80         38.87       168.39

South East             13.7           14           13.490           545         40.42       155.17

South West             16.1           14           37.573          1713         45.60       227.20

Yorkshire               3.1            5            6.617           263         39.80       150.57

Total England          71.6           60            83.27        3597.3         43.20       186.41
Note: Regions are government regions. The discrepancies between the total numbers of trips in this
table and the figures quoted elsewhere in the text are present in the original data.



A2.4 Residents and non-resident users of the coast
The average distance travelled on coastal day trips was 22.5 miles to a seaside
town/city and 31.9 miles to seaside/coast. If residents are defined as those living
within five miles 49 of the coast, then the percentage of resident day visitors was 43%
for a seaside town/city and 38% for trips to the seaside/coast. The ELVS survey
does not give a cross tabulation by distance travelled and activity so we assume the
38% applies to all activities.
It may be that trips by residents to the coast are under-estimated because
respondents may not consider short walks to the beach/coast as ‘visits’. However,
there is no information on the possible under-representation of seaside and coastal
use by residents.
Seaside towns have experienced considerable in-migration on the last 30 years
(Beatty and Fothergill, 2003). This has been most evident in the South West, and to
a lesser extent in the South, of England. There is no indication that this is
diminishing. Beatty and Fothergill did not survey new residents to discover what
attracted them to migrate but it seems likely that the better climate of the South Coast
is a major factor. Relative tranquillity may be important for some people. We assume
that new access will have a very minor impact on the rate of migration and can be
ignored.




49
  A 3 mile distance, which would have fitted better with the information on benefit values for
residents, was not used in the ELVS survey.




                                           Asken Ltd
                                      Final Report – May 2007
                                                196


A2.5 Total numbers of visits
Table A2.5 gives the 2005 visit numbers for those activities relevant to coastal
access. We split these between residents (living within 5 miles) and non-residents.
The domestic tourist data is from VisitBritain (2006) and domestic tourists by
definition spend at least one night at the coast. The VisitBritain 2005 survey data
records 82.7m nights spent at the seaside. There is no information on the activities of
the domestic tourists. It is therefore assumed that their breakdown of activities is the
same as that for day visitors. The ELVS 2006 report does not give detailed cross
tabulations that would allow a regional analysis of the data in Table A2.5.


Table A2.5: Numbers of visits to the seaside coast in England (ELVS 2006)


                     Total (m)   Swimming        Walking (m)        Total associated with access
                                 and beach                          (swimming, beach, walking)
                                 (m)                                (m)


Leisure day visits       72.0          18.0                23.8                              41.8
(person ‘days’)

Of which:

Residents                27.4            6.8                9.0                              15.9

Non-Residents            44.6          11.2                14.7                              25.9

Domestic tourism         82.7          20.7                27.3                              47.9
(2005 nights)
Note: Domestic tourism activities derived pro rata from leisure day visit data. Use of the coast by local
residents may be underestimated in the leisure day visit survey dataset.


A2.6 Benefits to users and potential users
Expanding the supply of coastal access provides three types of benefit to the public.
First, the use value benefits that flow to users of the access from the enhanced
supply of access to the coast and the pleasure they derive from its recreational use.
In some cases existing benefits will be enhanced through the connection of existing
accessible areas. Most obviously this occurs where new access leads to the
development of long distance routes. There may also be benefits from greater
security when formal arrangements are made to cover previous de facto access (but
not de jure access). However, these latter benefits are not easy to quantify.
Second, the option value benefit that derives from the extension of opportunity and
choice of coastal access, irrespective of use. This benefit from the ‘option to use’
derives from the knowledge that additional access is available even if it is not used
within a specified time frame. Since there is little empirical information on option
values for access and given that over time we might expect any value of the option to
use new access to be revealed through use, we concentrate on use benefits as the
most reliable measure. In this, it is important to take into account an expected
increase in use over time as more information on new access opportunities becomes
available, and option to use are translated into actual use.
Finally, the health benefits from walking over and above any recreational benefits.
The evidence is that the public do not fully account for health benefits in their
valuation of recreational value of frequent walking and engagement in other physical



                                          Asken Ltd
                                     Final Report – May 2007
                                               197


activity (CJC Consulting, 2005b). Hence, health benefits are considered to be largely
additional to the direct hedonic benefits typically measured as use and option values.

A2.6.1 Recreational benefits from access
These benefits comprise the use and option values of the newly accessible coast,
which in turn is based on the benefits to existing and new users of the coast, taking
account of any displacement of activity.
There are numerous estimates of the welfare benefit to the public from access to a
range of countryside locations, including heritage sites, canals, forests, wildlife areas,
etc., but few that examine coastal access specifically. These typically use stated
preference methods (e.g. elicitation of willingness to pay, or responses to choice
experiments) or revealed preference (the travel cost method) (Garrod and Willis
1999).
Beach access
In relation to holidaymakers, Whitmarsh et al reviewed seven studies from the South
of England and found benefit estimates lying in the range £7.48-£9.48 per person per
day visit for access to coasts (Whitmarsh et al 1999; Penning-Rowsell et al 1992;
Green 1997). A more extensive review is provided by Penning-Rowsell et al. (2005)
who collated benefit values from 21 coastal site WTP surveys of which they were
aware (Table A2.6). The mean WTP for all site visitors was £12.59 per day visit
when converted to 2006 values. For residents, the mean was £4.71 per day. The
lower value for local residents agrees with other benefit valuation work on
countryside visits, where the WTP by local residents who typically make frequent
visits, such as dog walkers, is considerably lower than that for purposeful visitors and
tourists (e.g. Willis and Garrod, 1991; CJC Consulting, 2005a).
Table A2.6: Value of recreational enjoyment from visits to coastal sites


Location                    Survey       Sample type        Mean value of
                            year                            enjoyment (£ per
                                                            person per day visit,
                                                            2006 values)

Undeveloped sites

Hurst Spit                  1991         Site visitors      10.55

Hengistbury Head            1996         Site visitors      11.87

Dunwich                     1988         Site visitors      12.12

Spurnhead                   1988         Site visitors      14.99

Resorts/developed sites

Corton                      2001         Residents          2.54

Corton                      2001         Staying visitors   3.84

Herne Bay                   1990         Residents          5.42

Peacehaven                  1988         Residents          6.18

Filey                       1988         Site Visitors      6.42




                                        Asken Ltd
                                       Final Report – May 2007
                                                 198


Scarborough                    1988          Site Visitors       8.70

Morecambe                      1989          Site Visitors       9.43

Bridlington                    1989          Site Visitors       9.68

Cliftonville                   1993          Site Visitors       10.05

Lee-on-Solent                  1995          Site Visitors       11.16

St. Mildred’s Bay              1995          Site Visitors       12.15

Hastings                       1992          Site Visitors       13.61

Hunstanton                     1988          Site Visitors       14.32

Frinton                        1988          Site Visitors       16.86

Herne Bay                      1990          Site Visitors       17.38

Clacton                        1989          Site Visitors       17.23

Clacton                        1988          Site Visitors       17.56

Mean site visitors                                               12.59

Mean residents                                                   4.71
     Source Penning-Rowsell et al. (2005). 2006 values derived using the GDP deflator.
     Residents: Those living within a three-mile radius of a site which is deemed to be a possible walking
     distance.
     Site visitors: All visitors on site
     Staying visitors: Anyone staying away from home for one or more nights. This includes visitors not
     staying at or near the site but making a day trip there while staying away from home.

Unfortunately the benefits data for seaside access are quite restricted geographically
and contain no sites in the South West where most tourist activity is located. It is
possible that the mean WTP for access in the South West is higher than £12.59 per
day visit but we have no specific evidence on this and therefore apply the figure to all
locations. There is only one observation specifically for staying visitors (£3.84) and
this is surprisingly low. Whitmarsh et al. (1999) found that staying visitors had a
higher WTP than that of residents or day visitors. There is some evidence from the
data that undeveloped sites have a similar value to developed sites. Although the
characteristics of coastal sites may be expected to affect their value for public
enjoyment, the dataset was not extensive or detailed enough to allow a hedonic
analysis in relation to location characteristics.
The records for site visitors reflect a random sample of the mix of visitors at the time
the surveys were undertaken. This will in fact be a biased estimate of the WTP for
visitors because visitors spending the longest time at the beach/coast will have the
highest probability of being interviewed. One might reasonably expect WTP to be
positively related to stay length. Hence longer stay visitors will dominate the site
visitor sample. Without more detailed information on the types of visitors and their
stay lengths it is difficult to correct for this. As an approximation we separate out the
residents and take their mean WTP as a rounded £4.70 per day visit. For other
visitors we assume a mean of £12.50 per day.
If we assume there are around 25% of residents in the total users of the
seaside/coast (Table A2.3) the overall mean WTP is around £10.50 per day visit.




                                           Asken Ltd
                                            Final Report – May 2007
                                                      199


A2.6.2 Access for walkers
The value of improved access for walkers (but not specifically coastal access) has
been assessed in several economic benefit studies. Garrod et al. (1998) estimated
the benefits of additional access to walkers where the access was procured under
the CSS and ESA Schemes. The marginal WTP for additional access is given in
Table A2.7. However, it is not clear how such values might be aggregated to
produce values for new paths in specific locations.


Table A2.7: Marginal Willingness to Pay for an additional mile of access (£, 2006 values)


                                             North of England         South of England

One mile within 5 miles of a respondent’s
                                             0.453                    0.569
home

One mile of additional access within 5-50
                                             0.349                    0.326
miles of a respondent’s home


As may be expected, the value of additional access close to where people live is
higher than for more remote locations. To use these estimates they need to be
aggregated by the population of users. The aggregate WTP will depend on the
number of users living within 5 or 50 miles of the new access. There are densely
populated areas along the coast and here the value of new access will be
considerable. Even so, it may be that the use of these data underestimates the
benefits. Not only will many users of coastal access be tourists travelling from more
than 50 miles, but the quality of the experience and the relatively limited number of
substitutes would be expected to increase the marginal benefit. Garrod et al give no
information on the extent to which WTP declines as access is expanded.
Christie (1999) used WTP surveys to estimate the value to the public from path
creation (which implies new or improved access) and found lower values of £1.6 to
2.8 50 per household per year. In his study, coastal access improvement was
associated with relatively low values as compared with mountain, farm or river
access. However, this was located in Scotland, where the relative values of coastal
to inland locations may be lower than in England.
There are numerous studies that value access in other contexts, such as heritage
sites, canals, forests and wildlife areas (e.g. Harley and Hanley, 1989; Powe and
Willis, 1996; Willis, 1991; Willis and Garrod, 1991; Bennett, 1995). Some of these
are typically used as venues for walking, but allow a variety of other activities. The
use benefits from such studies have generally been much lower than those for
coastal access, and typically no more than £2 per head per visit. WTP is lower for
repeated, casual visits (e.g. for dog walking), than for purposive and more
specialised visits. Crabtree and MacDonald (1997) undertook a meta analysis of a
number of studies, which provided evidence that site characteristics are important in
determining the public’s WTP for visits. The use and option value of forest sites was

50
   This includes both positive and zero values. It would therefore include those people who
did not visit the coast and those with a zero WTP for the creation of additional access.




                                               Asken Ltd
                                    Final Report – May 2007
                                              200


£1.67 per person per visit at 2006 values. However, when birds and water were also
important site features, the WTP increased to £4.16 per person per visit.

A2.6.3 Access benefits to other users
Additional coastal access may also benefit cyclists, horse riders and anglers. The
numbers of people involved are likely to be relatively small when compared to those
people on foot and taking general seaside enjoyment. We might expect the
individual WTP for such activities to be higher than for walking because substitute
opportunities are more limited. However, whatever their individual WTP, the
aggregate effect will be very small because of the small populations involved under
the current set of assumptions (usage and value of benefits may grow more
significantly if – say – a coastal bridleway was created).
Christie et al. (2006) surveyed visitors engaged in a variety of activities in seven
forest sites in the UK. Whilst some were noted for the excellence of their experience
(e.g. Glentress for mountain biking), others (e.g. the New Forest) provide facilities for
a wide spectrum of users. Consumer surplus values were estimated using the travel
cost method (Table A2.8). Values for all categories, apart from ‘nature watchers’,
were in the range of £14.20 to £14.99 per head per visit. Although the ‘general forest
visitor’ figure is substantially higher than that estimated by Benson and Willis, the
data suggest that differences between types of user are not large.
It may be that these figures are over-estimates and reflect the methodology used,
because the Contingent Valuation methods have typically produced lower benefit
values than revealed preference methods, such as travel cost, in several recreation
studies (e.g. Carson et al., 1996). Nevertheless, the results do suggest that it should
be possible to use broadly the same benefit value for different coastal activities.


Table A2.8: Consumer surplus values for different forest activities (from Christie et al., 2006)


                                              Consumer surplus (mean, £ per head per trip)

 Cyclists                                     14.90

 Horse riders                                 14.20

 Nature watchers                              7.90

 Walkers                                      14.51

 General forest visitors                      14.99


There may be increased opportunities for sea angling, if coastal access is improved.
This would affect land-based, rather than boat-based, anglers. Drew Associates
(2004) in their study on recreational sea angling for Defra estimated a consumer
surplus for land-based anglers of £26 per day. This was considered to be high as
compared with CV estimates (see above). In a choice experiment, land-based
anglers were found to be willing to pay to catch more fish (£0.81 per extra fish
caught).




                                        Asken Ltd
                                  Final Report – May 2007
                                            201


With no evidence that current levels of access restrict opportunities for sea anglers
(reported above) we regard the benefits for sea angling from increased access as
small.

A2.6.4 Health benefits
The extension of the supply of coastal access will extend the resource available for
physical activity. There is considerable concern in Government at the increasingly
sedentary nature of lifestyles and their negative health consequences (Department of
Health, 2002). Regular physical activity is highly efficacious as a preventer of illness
and as a therapeutic intervention for existing illness. The Department of Health
(2004) estimated that the cost of physical inactivity in England is £8.2bn per year with
an additional £2.5bn cost for the inactivity element in obesity.
Department of Health (2004) assessed the health benefits from physical activity and
concluded that ‘for general health, a total of at least 30 minutes a day of at least
moderate intensity physical activity on five or more days of the week reduces the risk
of premature death from cardiovascular disease and some cancers, significantly
reduces the risk of type 2 diabetes and it can also improve psychological well-being’.
The emphasis is on regular activity rather than sporadic activity. Access to, and use
of, greenspace has benefits for psychological health (e.g. Pretty et al, 2005; Bird,
2004), but these are more difficult to quantify with the evidence available.
With the existing knowledge of health benefits from physical activity, it is only
possible to quantify benefits in economic terms in relation to changes from a
sedentary to an active lifestyle (Swales, 2001; Gillespie and Melly, 2003; CJC
Consulting, 2005b). The usual procedure is to derive the change in relative risk 51 of a
particular health outcome (e.g. cardiovascular disease) that is attributable to level of
physical activity. From this, the excess deaths from relevant diseases due to a
sedentary lifestyle can be estimated. Using this approach, CJC Consulting (2005b)
estimated that 1,063 deaths would be averted in the UK if the sedentary percentage
in the population decreased by 1% from the current levels.
A number of approaches exist for calculating the benefits and costs to society from
averted illness and deaths (Garber, 2003; Grossman, 2003). The approach normally
used by Government is based on an individual’s WTP to reduce the probability of
injury or death (Jones-Lee et al., 1985). This current VPF, as used by Department
for Transport (2004), is £1.31m, and corresponding values are available for serious
and minor injuries (Health and Safety Executive, 2004). By applying such benefit
estimates, together with impacts on health care costs, it is possible to derive a benefit
from increased physical activity in economic terms. CJC Consulting (2005b)
estimates the annual value of health benefits, from a 1% change in the sedentary
population in the UK, at £479m per year. This is based on people under 75 years of
age. This translates into £805 per additional person shifted from a sedentary to an
active lifestyle per year. There are expected to be additional benefits from improved


51
    Relative risk is a measure of how much a particular risk factor (e.g. inactive lifestyle)
influences the risk of an outcome (e.g. death by age 70). For example, if RR=0.5 for a factor
this means that there is half the risk of the specified outcome for persons exhibiting that
factor.




                                     Asken Ltd
                                Final Report – May 2007
                                          202


psychological health, but there is insufficient quantitative evidence on the relative
risks to allow these to be included.
Using this approach, the benefits from increased coastal access will be determined
by the number of people who move from a sedentary to an active lifestyle (as defined
by Department of Health, 2004), because of the improved access. This change can
be autonomous, or related to health programmes that use accessible greenspace
(e.g. Walk the Way to Health Initiative). It is unlikely that new access will trigger off
new health programmes, but it could provide more opportunities for existing
programmes to exploit. The main impact will be a possible increase in autonomous
activity. This will be greatest where improved access significantly expands existing
provision of greenspace suitable for physical activity. The impact will be on
sedentary residents, who become active because of such additional provisions. The
marginal benefits to visitors, who increase their physical activity because of new
access, will be minimal, because the Department of Health (2004) has emphasised
that regular activity is required if health is to benefit.
Overall, there may be some health benefits to residents in areas where current
coastal access provides limited opportunities for enjoyable physical activity. Even if
such areas could be identified, there is no evident method for determining the
proportion of the population that would use the new access to move from a sedentary
to an active lifestyle. However, the social benefits are potentially large. Were 100
people to change their behaviour in this way, the social benefit is estimated at
£80,500, assuming these were a cross section of the sedentary population (CJC
Consulting, 2005b).

A2.6.5 Coastal access benefits
Based on studies that attempt to explain differences in benefits between sites (e.g.
Benson and Willis, 1992; Bateman et al., 1994; Jones et al., 2002) we can conclude
that the individual WTP is relatively high where there are few substitutes, where sites
have unique and desired characteristics, and where travel distance is low. The
aggregate WTP will also depend on the size of the population of beneficiaries.
Where new coastal access is in highly visited and desirable areas, or where it has
special environmental qualities, its value to the public will clearly be much greater
than in remoter, less used and less populated locations.
A limited geo-spatial analysis was undertaken to indicate whether the size of the
population density in the proximity of the improved coastal access was different from
that under existing access. The census output areas were mapped on to the 200 m
access buffer and the populations that overlaid existing and new access compared.
The overlaid population increased by 28.0% when the new access was added. Since
new access would create an increase of 30.2% in access length (see below), this
suggests that population proximity to the new access is broadly the same as with
existing access.
We were unable to develop an indicator of site ‘quality’ for recreation in order to
determine whether the new access was of equivalent quality to existing access.
Although analysis of habitat types was undertaken these could not readily be related
to differences in public recreational benefit. However, research was done to identify
what proportion of the improved access would arise in high value areas (National




                                    Asken Ltd
                                  Final Report – May 2007
                                            203


Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Heritage Coasts). This is discussed
in Appendix 10.
The seaside valuation studies suggest a mean WTP for non-residents of around
£12.50 per day, and for residents of £4.70 per day. Christie et al. (2006) produced
similar benefit values to these for a range of forest activities. As compared with a
number of other valuation studies on countryside recreation these are very high
values. This may reflect the methodological issues raised above. They also
represent the WTP for existing access whereas in the present context we need to
estimate the WTP for additional or improved access. Unfortunately there are no
valuations that indicate what this might be.
People taking additional trips to the seaside because of new access provision would
have a positive WTP for these trips. Similarly, those switching trips from existing to
newly accessible coast would also have a positive WTP for the provision. We would
expect the mean WTP per day to be higher for those making additional trips as
compared with those making displaced trips. However, there is no information on the
differential between these two groups. In fact, as indicated above there is no
information that directly gives valuations for marginal trips related to new access
provision. All that can be said is that theory indicates a lower valuation for the
additional access, following the law of declining marginal utility. For these reasons we
take a lower value for the additional access as compared with the evidence from the
valuation studies given above. We use 50% of the values given above for all
activities (non-residents £6.25 per day and residents £2.35 per day). We do not
differentiate between additional and displaced trips because of a lack of evidence.
This does not affect the relative ranking of the four options because it has no impact
on the relative value of the benefits.

A2.7 Use of new access
The total potential increase in accessible coastline is 1,365 km (Table A2.9)
Discounting industrial areas (300 km of ports, docks, harbours, power stations, yards,
MOD training areas, coastguard structures and other industrial area), where the
quality of access will result in minimal benefits, the increase in accessible coastline is
23% (1,060 km) 52, although the total length of linear access routes would be longer
to allow obstructions to be circumnavigated (see Section 8.3.1 and Section 10.3).
Table A2.9: Coastal access areas (ha)


                                    Length of coast (km)

Secure and not secure access        3,505

No access                           1,365

Of which industrial area            305

Total excluding industrial area     4,565.0



52
   This is lower than the 30.2% given in A2.8.5 because of the subtraction of the length of
industrial coastal areas




                                        Asken Ltd
                                   Final Report – May 2007
                                             204


In order to determine whether there were regional differences in the supply of new
access that might affect use we undertook a regional analysis (Table A2.10). There
were some differences between regions in the degree to which access would
expand. However, these were not considered to merit a regional basis for the
analysis given a lack of regional differentiation in the benefit values and in the
information on changes in trip behaviour (IPSOS/MORI, 2006).


Table A2.10: Potential increase in available access (%)


                                                    New access as % of
                                 Length of new      all regional coastal
                                  access (km)              access

East Midlands                        55.75                  35.6

East of England                      212.62                 25.9

North East                           57.02                  22.1

North West                           167.33                 27.0

South East                           146.92                 18.0

South West                           355.26                 21.5

Yorkshire and The Humber             64.64                  26.6

Total                                1059.7


In the national IPSOS/MORI (2006) survey, respondents were offered various coastal
access scenarios and asked whether they would visit the coast more frequently
under each option. The options on offer were similar (though not identical) to the
options being appraised. The percentage who said they would definitely visit the
coast more frequently varied from 5% to 9% 53 depending on the access supplied.
The highest level will be for Option 1. If this is interpreted conservatively as one
additional day/night visit per respondent, the number of additional days spent at the
coast would be 0.74m - 1.33m based on an adult population of 40m and the 37% of
the population that visit the coast in a year (ELVS 2006 54). The additional use is
assumed to increase to reach this figure by year 20.
One factor that these findings may not have reflected is the attractiveness of the
areas to which access is improved. A concern here is that the habitat type with the
lowest level of existing access is mudflats, which may not be particularly attractive to
visitors. Further, the survey is unable to reflect the extent to which respondents
would make more use of existing coastal access opportunities if subject to a


53
   This is a net figure after adjustment for those who stated that they would visit less
frequently.
54
  This is believed to be a conservative estimate, given that 72% of respondents in the
IPSOS/MORI (2006) survey said that they had engaged in “any activity around England’s
coastline” in the previous 12 months.




                                       Asken Ltd
                                Final Report – May 2007
                                          205


promotional campaign co-ordinated by a government agency (such as NE) and/or
tourism boards.
Without any further information available on the type of trips or the difference
between residents and non-residents, we allocate them as pro rata additions to the
existing trips. Since the same benefit value is used for all trips, whatever the activity
(see above) the precise activity engaged in does not affect the valuation.
The above deals with additional trips resulting from additional access to the coast. In
addition to this there will be activity displaced from existing areas of accessible coast
(and from inland visits). IPSOS/MORI (2006) did not ask about displacement and
there is no survey information that can provide direct information on the extent of
displaced activity. Displacement will not exceed the supply of new access (23%) and
is likely to be well below this figure given the developed infrastructure and information
surrounding existing access. In the absence of other information we assume a
maximum 5% displacement of walking under the different options.




                                    Asken Ltd
                               Final Report – May 2007
                                         206



Appendix 3
Assessment of Benefits to Local
Economies

A3.1 Benefits to businesses and the coastal economy
The impact of new access arrangements on local businesses and economies will
depend critically on the extent to which there are increases in the total expenditures
in coastal zones. It is assumed that the expenditure of residents will not change and
that any additional access will not influence the size of the resident population.
Economic impacts are thus dependent on changes in the number of visitors and the
money they spend at the coast.
We separate day visitors from tourists because of their different expenditure patterns.
Tourists staying overnight inject considerably more into the local economy than day
visitors. For the overall coastal economy, the important determinants of economic
impact are the aggregate expenditures of net additional day visitors and tourists as a
consequence of the new access. If the new access displaces people from one area
of coast to another this will have a minimal impact on the overall coastal economy at
national level, assuming the per capita expenditures are unchanged. There will be
some geographical re-distribution of spending but it is not possible to estimate this
effect without a detailed geo-spatial study which was beyond the scope of the project.
A3.1.1 Expenditures
Residents
We exclude any changes in expenditures of residents (those residing with the local
economy). It is assumed that new access would not significantly change their total
local expenditures or the composition of this expenditure.
Day and overnight visitors
We wish to estimate the expenditures of net additional visitors (excluding local
residents) which occur as a consequence of the provision of new access
opportunities. A number of sources of information are available to assist:
   -   The UKTS (UKTS 2005) gives expenditures for domestic tourists to the
       seaside in England of £43.2 per night (see Table A2.1). There is some
       variation between regions but it is not known if differences are statistically
       significant. The expenditures are higher than the actual injections into the
       coastal economy because they include travel costs and other expenditures
       incurred in getting to the coast. The statistics do not allow travel costs to and
       from the destination to be separated from that incurred during the trip. Total
       travel expenditure averages 11.03% of total trip expenditure (VisitBritain,
       2006);
   -   The ELVS (2006) found that people visiting the seaside/coast in England,
       without overnight stays, spent on average £19.79 per trip. £6.53 is spent on
       admission tickets which would not apply to trips associated with new access.




                                   Asken Ltd
                                    Final Report – May 2007
                                              207


         This leaves £13.3 per trip. Based on a mean party size of 2.4, the expenditure
         per person is £5.5. However, this includes residents whose expenditure
         would be expected to be quite low. If residents had no expenses the mean
         would increase to £8.9 per person;
    -    Information is also available on the expenditures of people using National
         Trails (Table A3.1). In these National Trail studies, no differentiation is made
         between day users who are local residents and visitors from outside the local
         area. Local users would have lower average expenditures than day visitors.
         Hence the figures underestimate the day visitor expenditure to the extent that
         local resident form part of the user population. This would, in part, explain the
         low expenditures associated with users of some National Trails such as the
         Thames Path, where use by residents may be expected to dominate. In
         addition, some surveys such as the SWCP underestimate day visitor
         injections into the local economy by restricting expenditures to those that took
         place whilst using the path.

Table A3.1: Expenditures of users of National Trails (£ per person per day)


Location                            Type of user           Average daily      Average daily spend
                                                           spend (£ per       (£ per person; 2006
                                                           person)            values)

South West Coast Path (2002)        Day user               5.45               5.97

Offa’s Dyke (2000)                  Overnight visitor      23.94              27.74

                                    Day user               17.33              20.08

Offa’s Dyke (1994/95)               Overnight visitor      12.67              17.05
                                    (excluding overseas
                                    tourists)

                                    Day user               3.30               4.42

Pembrokeshire Coastal Path (1996)   Overnight visitor      29.89              37.81

                                    Day user               5.86               7.41

Thames Path (1999)                  Overnight visitor      26.25              30.81

                                    Day user               1.23               1.45
Sources:
       SWT (2003)
       Countryside Council for Wales (1995)
       Countryside Council for Wales (1997)
       Countryside Council for Wales (2000)
       Countryside Agency (1999)

There is a suggestion from the information available that those visitors primarily
interested in walking (path users) spend less than other visitors to the seaside.
However the survey methods differ because the tourism and day visits data are
derived by Omnibus survey whereas the National Trail data are usually gathered on
the trail itself. The Omnibus survey includes all expenditure associated with overnight
trips (including transport costs), whereas the National Trail data tend to be specific




                                       Asken Ltd
                                       Final Report – May 2007
                                                 208


expenditures on the trail. Hence the evidence is not sufficiently reliable to provide a
basis for estimating different expenditures for each group.
We conclude that the mean daily expenditure injections into the coastal economy
across England by non-resident users of new access would lie in the following
ranges:

    -     Non-resident day visitors: £6 - 9 per person per day
    -     Tourists (overnight visitors): £35 - 45 per person per night/day.

A3.1.2 Types of expenditure and businesses benefiting
Table A3.2 gives the breakdowns that are available for domestic tourists and day
visitors on trips to the seaside. The key businesses that benefit are those providing
accommodation and food/drink. These receive 52% of tourism spending and 53% of
day visitor expenditure.


Table A3.2: Breakdown of expenditure by type of coastal visitor


                                                               Day visitors (excl
                      Domestic tourist   Domestic tourists   admission and travel)

                          £ Millions         % of Total            % of Total

 Package Trip               218                 8.08                  n/a

 Accommodation
                             863               31.98                   0
 (non package trip)

 Travel                     298                11.03                 25.5

 Services or advice           5                 0.20

 Buying clothes             190                 7.03                  9.8

 Eating & drinking          529                19.58                 53.2

 Other shopping             300                11.11                  6.8

 Entertainment              248                 9.20                  n/a

 Other expenses              48                 1.79                  4.7

 Total                      2,700               100                   100
Source VisitBritain (2006) (May—December, 2005) and ELVS (2005)

A3.1.3 Impacts on small businesses
Specific impacts on small businesses (<250 employees) will depend on their
representation amongst firms receiving revenues from coastal users. There are no
data available on the business structure of seaside businesses, such that the
proportion of small businesses in each segment can be quantified. It is clear,
however, from the Annual Business Inquiry that small businesses are very important
in the accommodation and food sectors. They would also be expected to be
prominent in the provision of shopping and entertainment in coastal areas.




                                          Asken Ltd
                                 Final Report – May 2007
                                           209


Reference to the expenditure patterns of tourists and day visitors (see Table A3.2)
indicates that at least 50% of tourism expenditure would be in sectors where small
businesses predominate.

A3.1.4 Income and employment coefficients
Spending by visitors to the coast on goods and services are injections into the local
economies. These injections of expenditure produce benefits to the businesses that
supply the goods and services. This only applies to the expenditures of visitors (non-
residents), since we assume that the total injection by local people of cash into the
local economy will be unaffected by any new provision of access. These additional
revenues impact on business income and employment both directly, and indirectly
through multiplier effects driven by the spending of firms and their employees. The
final impacts will depend on the makeup of the expenditure, the structure of local
businesses and the extent to which expenditure flows are retained within the local
economies. It is only possible to provide broad estimates of the total impacts
because there is no specific multiplier information that relates to visitor expenditure in
coastal economies.
Countryside Commission (1990) gives employment and income coefficients in
relation to walkers’ expenditures on the Pennine Way (Table A3.3). These
coefficients include the multiplier effects. The impacts differ between day and long-
distance walkers, because of their different patterns of expenditure. The higher
accommodation element in the long-distance walkers’ expenditure generates more
income and employment than the more food and travel dominated expenditure of the
day walkers.

Table A3.3: Employment and income coefficients (Pennine Way)


                               Employment (jobs per            Income (£ per £1 spent)
                               £10,000 spent)

Long-distance walkers          1.0                             0.27

Day walkers                    0.6                             0.155


The Rural Development Commission (1997) provides a lower estimate of the
employment impact of rural tourism at 0.4 FTEs per £10,000 expenditure. The
differential between overnight and day tourists was not investigated.
Drew Associates (2004), in their study of recreational sea angling, surveyed
providers of accommodation and food at seaside locations in England and found first
round impacts of 0.86 FTE per £10,000 expenditure and £0.18 income per £1
change in turnover. These would be increased slightly by indirect and induced
effects but given the generally open nature of local economies these additional
effects are probably quite small. Countryside Commission (1990) found that the first
round effect of walkers on the Pennine Way accounted for 87% of the total impact.
Employment and income coefficients for shops providing equipment were 0.19 FTE
per £10,000 turnover and £0.17 income per pound. Impacts of spending on transport
(travel) were very small.




                                     Asken Ltd
                                         Final Report – May 2007
                                                   210


      The SWT (2003) study found that 27.6% of visitors to all accommodation within 1
      mile of the coast (except hostels) were derived purely because of the proximity to the
      SWCP. For non-serviced accommodation, the figure was 36.2%. Multiplying these
      by the total revenue of the accommodation gives an annual expenditure of overnight
      visitors of £142.9m per year. However, these data are not easily applied to the
      present study because expenditures were not linked to impacts on businesses, and
      the latter only consisted of accommodation providers. In addition, respondents were
      given limited response options that may have introduced bias into the responses.
      The implication that overnight stays would have been 27%-36% lower in the South
      West in the absence of the long-distance path certainly seems unrealistic.
      The evidence on expenditure impacts is patchy. Table A3.4 brings together the
      available estimates.
      Table A3.4: Total local employment and income impacts of visitor expenditure


                    Food and accommodation         Other                         Total


                    % spend   Employme    Income   %         Employ     Income   Employme   Income
                              nt (FTE     (£ per   spend     ment       (£ per   nt (FTE    (£ per £1
                              per         £1                 (FTE per   £1       per        spent)
                              £10,000     spent)             £10,000    spent)   £10,000
                              spent)                         spent)              spent)

Domestic tourists   52        1.0         0.2      48        0.25       0.2      0.64       0.2

Day visitors        68.5      1.0         0.2      31.5      0.25       0.2      0.76       0.2
      Source: Spending pattern from Table A 3.2; income and employment coefficients see text.




                                             Asken Ltd
                                Final Report – May 2007
                                          211



Appendix 4
Consideration of Health and Safety Issues

A4.1 Risks in the countryside
The risks to public health and safety in open countryside were explored in depth by
Asken et al (2002). The researchers concluded that open countryside carries many
risks (over 500 hazard-injury combinations were listed), although all of these risks
were considered to be minor. However, amongst these minor risks, the most
significant were identified as:
   -   infection by zoonoses (human diseases carried by animals – such as
       Escherichia Coli 0157);
   -   falls in abandoned mines and quarries;
   -   attacks by suckler cows with calves on people with dogs;
   -   swimming.
All the above risks will be encountered on coastal land but are considered of low
significance overall. In addition, a potential risk has been identified where wildfowling
takes place. This is discussed further in Section 12.4.1.

A4.2 Additional risk of coastal users being drowned by the
sea
At the coast, there is the additional risk of people drowning as a result of being
trapped by the incoming tide, falling into the sea, or being swept off the land by
waves. Data have been examined about deaths arising from being trapped by the
sea. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) collects data on
deaths by drowning and, for 2002, there were 87 drownings recorded as ‘coastal’ in
the UK, out of a total of 427. RoSPA provides a breakdown of the activity being
pursued by some of those 427 people who drowned (the 2002 data provide activity
information for 246 of the drownings in the UK). These are broken down in Table
A4.1.




                                    Asken Ltd
                                     Final Report – May 2007
                                               212




Table A4.1: Drownings by Activity for 2002


Activity                                          Number of People

Fell In                                                                  80

Alcohol related accidents                                                73

Swimming                                                                 34

Boating                                                                  22

In vehicles                                                              20

Sub-aqua                                                                 9

Playing                                                                  4

Canoeing                                                                 2

Cycling                                                                  2

Total                                                                   246


Using 2002 figures as a base, relevant activities (‘fell in’, ‘swimming’ and ‘playing’)
account for 48% of drownings for which the activity prior to drowning was recorded,
and 28% of all drownings. Assuming the same spread of locations at which drowning
occurs, then about 10% (n=43) of all drownings will occur in coastal waters in UK. It
is difficult to split this between component countries. Length of coast is not the ideal
basis (for example, Scottish islands account for as much of the coastline as does
England) and a disaggregation on the grounds of population may be more accurate.
On this basis, some 80% of these drownings (i.e. 34) will occur in English coastal
waters.
Looking over a longer period, data compiled by the National Water Safety Forum
from RoSPA data show an average of 100 deaths per annum in the UK’s coastal
waters (within 5 miles of the land) each year between 1993 and 2003 (National Water
Safety Forum, undated).
The ELVS (ELVS 2006) is the most recent dataset that provides an estimate of
number of visits to the seaside, from which a Fatal Accident Rate (FAR) can be
derived 55. In 2005, there were an estimated 246m leisure day visits to the seaside
(coast and towns/cities) by English residents.
Bringing the two datasets together suggests around 1 drowning for every 7.23m (say
5m to 10m) visits to the seaside. Whether this rate is unchanged when access to the
coast is improved will depend on:
        -   the awareness of any new visitors of the risks (relative to existing visitors);



55
  FAR is a measure of number of fatal accidents relative to rate of participation in the activity.
This is explained further in Ball (1998).




                                        Asken Ltd
                                  Final Report – May 2007
                                            213


      -   the nature of the coast to which access is improved (e.g. whether it has
          rapidly rising tides against un-scaleable cliffs or dangerous mud/sand flats).
The National Water Safety Forum also reports that:
      -   during a three-year period (years not stated), the RNLI responded to 3,406
          major and 14,800 minor incidents, saved 69 lives, rescued 4,076 people and
          gave major first aid to 1,023. Not all of these would be recreational coastal
          visitors, though;
      -   the majority of incidents are dealt with by local authorities or members of the
          public, and are not recorded.
Assuming an equal level of awareness amongst new visitors and a similar level of
risk at the coast overall, the rate at which drownings occur should remain unchanged.
However, it is reasonable to suppose that rescue arrangements could be less well-
developed in areas where no public access exists than where it does (in response to
frequency of incidents), although incident rates may well be the same. In the
absence of rescue services nearby, drowning rates may be slightly higher for the
short term until the necessary facilities are developed (e.g. lifeguards, warnings at
dangerous locations). However, such circumstances are difficult to quantify.
Consequently, it is assumed that any change in drowning rate is minimal. The value
of any lives lost can be calculated using the Department for Transport’s VPF
(£1.31m/death).

A4.3 Additional coastal visitors affected by landslips or
coastal instability
There is an additional risk associated with coastal instability on eroding coastlines,
either to people injured or killed by the landslip or trapped by it, or by falling when
climbing an unstable cliff. A recent incident in Dorset testifies to the risks and
indicates the more common outcome to such incidents – a rescue (e.g. BBC 2006).
A further incident occurred in Cumbria in December 2006 (Whitehaven News 2007),
resulting in a woman’s death.
The National Water Safety Forum has collated data from the Sea Related
Emergency Monitoring Committee. These data indicate that, in 1999, there were
over 2,000 incidents on cliffs and coastlines around the UK involving people dealt
with by HM Coastguard 56 (plus a further 1,000 associated with people using
sailboards, inflatables and other small craft).
As with drownings, assuming an equal level of awareness amongst new visitors and
a similar level of risk at the coast overall, the rate at which cliff and coastline incidents
occur should remain unchanged. This means that the number of incidents is
expected to increase pro-rata with the number of additional visitors, although the rate
may be expected to be higher with area-wide access and less with a linear route
(assuming the line followed takes people away from dangerous areas). However,
lack of data mean that any variation from the average rate would be speculative.


56
     Now the Maritime and Coastguard Agency




                                     Asken Ltd
                                  Final Report – May 2007
                                            214


A4.4 Acceptability of Risks
The HSE (HSE, 1999) introduced the concept of a risk ‘triangle’ that represents
changes in the level of risk encountered as we move from the bottom of the triangle
towards the top. This conceptual model is illustrated in Figure A4.1 below and can
be used to categorise the risk scores generated from the crude analysis undertaken
above. The HSE advise that “the darker zone at the top of the triangle represents a
region where the level of risk is intolerable, and a risk (score) falling into this region is
regarded as being unacceptable whatever the benefits. Any activity or practice
giving rise to risks falling in this region should be halted unless the activity or practice
can be modified to reduce the degree of risk so that it falls in one of the other regions
of the triangle”.

Figure A4.1: The Risk Triangle




        Intolerable

                                                  Tolerable (undesirable)

             ALARP Region


                                                  Tolerable (balance)

     Broadly acceptable


In order to translate this conceptual model to absolute thresholds, then some
guidance is needed on what constitutes ‘Tolerable’ and ‘Intolerable’. HSE (HSE,
1988) suggest that “an individual risk of death of 1 in 1000 per annum should on its
own represent the dividing line between what could be just tolerable for any
substantial category of workers for any large part of a working life, and what is
unacceptable for any but fairly exceptional groups. For members of the public who
have a risk imposed on them “in the wider interests of society” this limit is judged to
be an order of a magnitude lower at 1 in 10,000 per annum”.
In an analysis of risks in the countryside (Asken et al, 2002), the authors indicated
that the risk of a fatality during a walk in the countryside was less than 1 in a million.
They therefore argued that all public activities currently occurring in the countryside
carry a broadly acceptable level of risk (or a tolerable level at worst). The estimated
risk of a fatality during a visit to the coast for walking and similar beach-based
activities has been assessed at 1 in 7,230,000, and so falls well within what could be
regarded as an acceptable level of risk.




                                     Asken Ltd
                                    Final Report – May 2007
                                              215


A4.5 Other information on rescues
The RNLI has provided information about its rescue activities in 2005 (although it is
noted that the RNLI is only one provider of rescue services around the English coast,
albeit the most significant). From its 89 lifeboat stations in England (excluding those
higher up the Thames estuary), it undertook 1,071 rescues of people who got into
difficulties from the land (as opposed to those in difficulties from vessels). These
were made up as shown in Table A4.2. Many of these rescues are not associated
with the types of access from which the proposed access option will cater (e.g.
airsports and watersports accidents). Using the same visitor numbers as for
drownings, then the incident rate is about 1 rescue per 230,000 visitors.


Table A4.2: RNLI Rescues in 2005 by Activity


                                                              People Rescued
 Type of Casualty           Launches           Lives Saved    (inc lives saved)

 Air bed                       41                   3                20

 Bather                        92                   3                41

 Cliff Climber                  3                   0                0

 Microlite Aircraft             2                   0                1

 Paraglider                     3                   0                0

 Person                        57                   1                8

 Person unwell                  9                   0                2

 Person on shoreline           138                  2               112

 Person on bridge              58                   0                5

 Person cliff fall             17                   1                9

 Person cut off                 7                   0                10

 Person drowning               289                 26                49

 Person on island              13                   0                22

 Person jetty fall             32                   1                1

 Person on rocks               45                   3                40

 Person on sandbank            64                   8                62

 Person stranded                6                   0                1

 Person injured                11                   0                4

 Person missing                184                  0                5

 Grand Total                  1071                 48               392
Source: RNLI

The average cost of a lifeboat launch depends on the type of lifeboat. On average,
an All-Weather Lifeboat launch costs RNLI £5,880 and an Inshore Lifeboat launch
costs £2,200. Most of the incidents of interest will have been dealt with by inshore




                                       Asken Ltd
                               Final Report – May 2007
                                         216


lifeboats. RNLI also provide lifeguards at 9 locations around the coast of England,
from May to September inclusive. The average cost of an incident dealt with by a
lifeguard is £500, according to RNLI.

A4.6 Conclusion
Increased drownings could arise at a rate of 1 per 5m to 10m additional visitors to the
coast. There may also be an increase in rescues at the rate of 1 per 230,000
visitors. Assuming the RNLI costs are typical, the cost per incident will range from
£500 to £5,800. RNLI is funded from charitable donations and so this is a cost to
society as a whole.




                                   Asken Ltd
                                 Final Report – May 2007
                                           217



Appendix 5
Assessment of Costs to Owners of
Property
A5.1 Potential Costs to Different Categories of Property
Owner
Many different types of property may be affected by improved access to the coast.
The potential effects experienced will vary but will tend to be either a change of
capital value and/or trading performance where commercial property is involved.
It is important to recognise the difference between one-off capital effects and on-
going ones. For example, if a strip of arable land is taken out of production to carry a
footpath, this could be regarded as an effect that is capital in nature (in effect, a local
authority may make a payment that equates to buying the land) or is seen as an
annual loss of crop yield (in effect, the farmer retains ownership of the asset but
receives an annual payment of compensation for loss of profit). In practice, on-going
effects can be capitalised – the annual loss of yield and increase in costs could be
packaged into a one-off payment of compensation. In this study, costs have been
recorded as either capital or recurring, as appropriate, over a 20-year period and
then converted to NPV at 3.5%.
A further complication arises where the capital value of a business asset is directly
proportional to its potential to earn profits (e.g. where returns on capital employed in
a business drop by 10%, the capital value of the investment may drop by 10%). In
such a case, it is important not to include both loss of capital value and loss of
earnings in an assessment of effects, as this is double counting.
Finally, it is important to recognise that each option for providing public access has
an element of mitigation built into it. For example, it is unlikely that a PRoW would be
created through someone’s garden and a potato field would not become Access
Land. Consequently, many of the more significant perceived effects are unlikely to
arise. However, the way that property owners can respond to improved public
access will differ between options, and so the question of mitigating action is
discussed further under the separate options.
With these considerations in mind, types of effect are considered below for a number
of different types of property.

A5.2 Farm holdings
A5.2.1 Effects on capital value of agricultural land
There may be an effect on capital value of land by introducing public access to and
over it; this could be through loss of profitability and/or through loss of property rights.
The value of agricultural land is not closely related to its potential to earn income
from agriculture. Over the last 11 years, the earnings from agricultural land have
declined, whilst land values have continued to increase, as seen in Figure A5.1
below.




                                     Asken Ltd
                                             Final Report – May 2007
                                                       218


Figure A5.1: Sales of Agricultural Land Relative to Earnings From It


                           Graph of Agricultural Land Values against Farm
                                               Profits
                    9000                                                400
                    8000                                                350




                                                                              Profit from Land
 Land Sales Price




                    7000                                                300                      Land
                    6000                                                250                      Sales
      (£/ha)




                                                                                     (/ha)
                    5000                                                                         Price
                                                                        200
                    4000
                                                                        150                      Profit
                    3000                                                                         from
                    2000                                                100
                                                                                                 Land
                    1000                                                50
                       0                                                0
                        95
                        96
                        97
                        98
                        99
                        00
                        01
                        02
                        03
                        04
                        05
                      19
                      19
                      19
                      19
                      19
                      20
                      20
                      20
                      20
                      20
                      20
                                             Year


Source: NFU based on Defra data

The lack of a close relationship between sales value and earning potential means
that other factors affect land’s value. These could include:
        -           wish to own land for its own sake;
        -           long-term security for investment funds;
        -           tax reasons;
        -           balance of demand and supply;
        -           potential for built development;
        -           wish for exclusive use of land and property (i.e. privacy).
New public access is unlikely to affect the first four reasons but could influence the
last two. However, little evidence has been found that help to quantify any such
effect. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to suppose that creation of access rights will
affect capital value.
In the appraisal of options for CRoW Part I (Entec, 1999), the question of loss of
capital value of grouse moors was considered in detail. The potential for loss of
amenity value as suggested by Russell (1997) was recognised by Entec but his
proposed method for estimating it was rejected as being unreliable. Eight years on,
another possible source of information is whether the value of mountain, moor, heath
and down land has been affected by the introduction of CRoW, but no systematic
analysis of any effect has been found.
A further consideration is that much land in the countryside is inherited, not bought,
and so a sale never actually occurs (although a valuation may be made at the time of
ownership transfer). In view of the difficulties, the authors concluded that whilst there




                                                Asken Ltd
                                           Final Report – May 2007
                                                     219


may be some loss of amenity value due to increased access, it was likely to be low in
most cases and difficult to quantify.
In Scotland, the creation of a right of responsible public access over most farmland,
through the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, appears to have done nothing to
dampen increases in land prices 57. There are no references in the Strutt and Parker
review to any effects of the Act’s introduction. However, the Scottish situation differs
significantly from that in England.
A variety of other sources of information have been consulted during the course of
the research for this report but little objective/recorded information has been found to
change this conclusion with respect to agricultural land. In practice, where a
compensation package is being offered, loss of capital value is usually incorporated
as part of the sum on offer, along with compensation for trading losses and direct
costs incurred.
In conclusion, therefore, there could be a reduction in capital value of some
agricultural land if a right of public access onto or across it was provided where it did
not exist before. However, whilst this may be significant in a small number of
cases, it is likely to be minimal in most cases but no data have been found which
allow the effect to be quantified.

A5.2.2 Effects on income from farming
Assessment of Income
Farmers are obliged to submit annual census returns, and data on the area of coastal
land devoted to each farm type category within a coastal strip can be derived from
the census. Also, accounts for a representative sample of farmers from around the
country are compiled in the Farm Business Survey (FBS); this survey provides
financial information of value to this study. The Farm Management Pocketbook (Nix,
produced annually) provides standard gross margin data for common farm
enterprises.
Defra uses a standard categorisation of farm holdings by dominant type of cropping.
These are listed in Box A5.1.


Box A5.1:       Categorisation of Farms by Dominant Type of Cropping/Stocking

Cereals:
farms on which cereals and other crops generally found in cereal rotations (e.g. oilseeds, peas and beans harvested
dry and land set-aside) account for more than two thirds of their total Standard Gross Margin (SGM). These crops
constitute a relatively homogenous group in that they are all harvested with a combine harvester and are readily
interchangeable with little impact on the capital and labour required. Farms on which land set-aside accounts for
more than two thirds of their total SGM - specialist set-aside holdings - are excluded from this type and included in
the other robust type, which is not included within the field of survey of the Farm Business Survey.

General cropping:
farms on which arable crops (including field scale vegetables) account for more than two thirds of their total SGM
excluding farms classified as cereals; farms on which a mixture of arable and horticultural crops account for more
than two thirds of their total SGM excluding farms classified as horticulture and farms on which arable crops account



57
     See: http://www.struttandparker.com/html/rurfarmmarketscotland.php




                                               Asken Ltd
                                            Final Report – May 2007
                                                      220


for more than one third of their total SGM and no other grouping accounts for more than one third.

Horticulture:
farms on which fruit (including vineyards), hardy nursery stock, glasshouse flowers and vegetables, market-garden-
scale vegetables and outdoor bulbs and flowers account for more than two thirds of their total SGM.

Pigs and poultry:
farms on which pigs and/or poultry account for more than two thirds of their total SGM.

Dairy:
farms on which dairy cows and followers account for more than two thirds of their total SGM. A farm is classified as a
Less Favoured Area (LFA) farm if 50 per cent or more of its total area is in the LFA and a lowland farm if less than 50
per cent of its total area is in the LFA.

Cattle and sheep:
farms on which cattle and sheep account for more than two thirds of their total SGM except farms classified as dairy.
A farm is classified as a Less Favoured Area (LFA) farm if 50 per cent or more of its total area is in the LFA. Of farms
classified as LFA, those whose LFA land is wholly or mainly (50 per cent or more) in the Severely Disadvantaged
Area (SDA) are classified as SDA; those whose LFA land is wholly or mainly (more than 50 per cent) in the
Disadvantaged Area (DA) are classified as DA. A farm is classified as lowland if less than 50 per cent of its total area
is in the LFA.

Mixed: farms on which crops account for one third, but less than two thirds of total SGM and livestock account for
one third, but less than two thirds of total SGM. It also includes farms with mixtures of cattle and sheep on the one
hand and pigs and poultry on the other and holdings where one or other of these two groups is dominant, but does
not account for more than two thirds of the total SGM.

Other: holdings which either do not fit well with mainstream agriculture, such as specialist mushrooms, specialist
goats and specialist horses, or which are of limited economic importance, such as specialist set-aside, specialist
grass and forage and non classifiable holdings. Specialist grass and forage holdings consisting only of fodder crops,
or only of grass or rough grazing and having no livestock. Non classifiable holdings are holdings consisting of fallow
or buildings and other areas only, for which no SGM coefficients are calculated.

Source: http://www.defra.gov.uk/esg/work_htm/publications/cs/farmstats_web/Census/class.htm


Farm type data provided by NE from the June Agricultural Census 2005 show the
dominant farm type within districts adjacent to MHWM. Some census data are
suppressed (where these may reveal individual farm data) but, even so, a reasonably
good indication of farming patterns along the English coast can be gained.
Typical cropping can be derived by applying the dominant farm type data to the
average area of each type (using data obtained from the FBS, 2005 58). This analysis
assumes that farms on the coast and in the FBS are typical, in terms of area farmed,
of farms in England as a whole. Standard Gross Margin data have been obtained
from Nix (2006). In terms of intensively farmed land area, the most significant
farm types along the coast are cereals, general cropping, mixed, grazing
livestock and dairy. Data covering these enterprises are shown in Table A5.1.
It is not proposed to attempt an assessment of effects on other farm types for various
reasons. The intensity of the cropping on horticultural units is greater than for other
types of plant production (in terms of labour and capital inputs and outputs); so it is
likely that horticultural units would be treated as a form of industrial unit, along with
intensive pig and poultry units; hence, public access would not be provided to the
land they occupy. The ‘other’ category, which covers non-mainstream agriculture,
such as specialist set-aside, specialist horse keeping and mushroom growing,
probably covers a wide range of sizes of farm. Where the farm is an intensive unit
(such as for mushroom growing, the likelihood is that it would be treated in the same
way as intensive horticulture (see above); but where the use is extensive (e.g. set-


58
     See: http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/publications/fab/2005/default.asp




                                                Asken Ltd
                                   Final Report – May 2007
                                             221


aside or horse grazing) the impacts are likely to be low in commercial terms.
Therefore, although large in number, these other types of farm have been
excluded.


Table A5.1: Relevant Dominant Farm Types Around the English Coast


Farm Type           Percentage       Average      Percentage       Gross          Estimated
                    of Farms of      Area per       by area    Margin (£/ha      Contribution
                      this Type     farm (ha –                 – from Nix 59)   to Composite
                    (excluding      from FBS)                                   Gross Margin
                    ‘other’ and                                                    (£/ha of
                     intensive)                                                 coastal land)

Cereals                  20           210.1            32           281             89.9

Dairy                    13            88.9            9            1,434           129.1

General cropping         14           211.5            23           405             93.2

Less Favoured
Area – livestock         3            151.1            3            236              7.1

Lowland livestock        39            75.4            22           427             93.9

Mixed                    11           135.4            11           452             49.7

Total                   100                            100                          462.9


Assessment of Effects of Public Access
Many farmers already have experience of the public coming on to their land, both
along PRoWs and on an area-wide basis. This experience was used by those
representing farmers and landowners (i.e. the NFU and CLA) to voice concerns over
the extension of public access rights prior to the introduction of CRoW (NFU, 1998;
Russell, 1997). Table A5.2 reproduces the list of their potential costs to landowners
highlighted by Russell for CRoW Access Land; by Warwickshire County Council, for
lowland PRoWs; and by NFO System 3, for Scottish farmers where area-wide access
is generally accepted. In contrast, anecdotal evidence of complaints received by the
NE suggests that there have been few problems to date on CRoW Access Land (one
exception being the frequent ignoring by dog owners of dog bans on grouse moors).
However, there appears to be little objective evaluation of the actual economic
effects of public access on farming income.
Fisher German (2005) found that an overarching concern of land managers was the
loss of management control that they associate with providing public access. There
is a need, however, to translate these concerns into costs, as far as reasonably
possible.




59
     J Nix, Farm Management Pocketbook, 37th Edition




                                      Asken Ltd
                                           Final Report – May 2007
                                                     222




Table A5.2: Key Concerns of Farmers with Respect to Public Access


Warwickshire (n=186) (in                 Russell, 1997 (for CRoW-like,   NFO System 3 (n=475) (in
descending order of                      area-wide access)               descending order of
significance) (applicable                                                significance) (Scottish system,
largely to PRoWs)                                                        akin to Unmapped Coastal
                                                                         Access Corridor approach)

Dogs running loose                       Gates left open                 Gates left open

Deliberate trespass by path users        Litter                          Litter

Litter                                   Sheep-worrying                  Problems with dogs

Dog fouling                              Vandalism                       Fences/walls damaged

Inadvertent trespass by path users       Trespass                        Gates/vehicles blocked with vehicles

Misconception that the ‘right to roam’   Erosion                         Vandalism of property/machinery
applies to all land in Warwickshire
                                         Theft                           People starting fires
Stock getting out
                                         Fires                           People camping without permission
Stock worrying
                                         Fouling                         Invasion of privacy
Time/cost in maintaining rights of way
                                         Pollution                       Disturbance of wildlife
Cycling on footpaths and farmland
                                         Parked Cars                     Theft of machinery
Vehicles on footpaths and bridleways
                                         Disturbance                     Disturbance of stalking
Inconsiderate parking
                                         Privacy                         Horse riders
Vehicles on byways and unclassified
roads                                    Poaching                        Attacks/theft of livestock

Intrusion of privacy at residence        Vermin control                  Mountain bikers

                                         Substance abuse

                                         Abandoned cars

                                         Misguided help

                                         Complaints

                                         Public liability

                                         Metal detecting
Sources: WCC 2005, Russell 1997, NFO System 3 2001

There are a number of scenarios for which costs need to be estimated:
         -   an area of arable land is converted to grassland, and public access is
             provided to it;
         -   an area of grassland is opened to public access;
         -   a strip of land is lost from arable production to carry a public footpath;
         -   a strip of grassland is used as a public footpath.
In practice, however, most of the assessments of costs appear to revolve around
compensation on offer through incentive schemes (see, for example, RPA Ltd 2006,




                                                  Asken Ltd
                                Final Report – May 2007
                                          223


Fisher German 2005). NE is proposing to undertake research into the effects of the
introduction of CRoW but there are no data available as yet (NE, pers comm.). Few
studies have been found that examine the actual costs. Nevertheless, it is expected
that there will be some effects on farm income and management, which will be
significant in some cases. The extent to which these effects may be felt vary with
the option adopted and so quantification is considered in relation to each.

A5.2.3 Forestry
The long-term nature of forestry makes it relatively appropriate to identify forestry as
a separate land use. The NE access buffer strip database records inaccessible
woodland as occupying 75 km of coastline (1.5%). Church et al (2005) found from an
analysis of responses by 61 woodland owners (of whom 22 were owners of private
woods, as distinct from public or voluntary bodies) that:
   -   80% had woodland accessible from PRoWs;
   -   66% allowed public access to parts of their wooded area;
   -   50% allowed access on tracks;
   -   30% allowed people to roam at will.
Generally speaking, impacts of public access on the woodland as a crop are
relatively small. However, Church (2005) found that foresters, like farmers, are
concerned over the loss of management control that they associate as resulting from
the provision of public access. In response to questions about problems arising from
public access, the 61 woodland owners in the South East questioned by Church et al
(2005) provided the responses listed in Table A5.3. Owners appear to have been
left to determine their own view on severity, rather than it being assessed against a
standard scale.
Some of the concerns listed above are not directly relevant to the current proposals
(e.g. illegal motor vehicles), or appear more related to farming activity (e.g.
interference with livestock).
In terms of economic effects, FC was unable to find research that would provide
evidence of loss of profits from forests as a result of public access. It is concluded,
therefore, that there are unlikely to be significant effects once a crop has been
established (FC, pers comm.). This view was supported by Forest Enterprise (pers.
comm.). However, costs will arise when forestry operations take place, which pose a
risk to public safety (e.g. felling, thinning). Administrative costs will be incurred by
either having to apply for a temporary closure/diversion of a PRoW/permissive linear
route or a direction to suspend access rights to Access Land/permissive area access.




                                   Asken Ltd
                                       Final Report – May 2007
                                                 224




Table A5.3: Woodland Owners’ Experiences of Problems with Public Access


                                                                  A few    Many     Very
                                            No        Minor       major    major   severe
                                         problems inconvenience problems problems problems

 Illegal motor vehicles                     34         22         31       10        3

 Erosion of paths/gateways                  36         30         29        1        3

 Visitors in non-access areas               35         37         22        6        2

 Vandalism                                  21         38         29       10        2

 Interference with livestock                57         26         14        2        2

 Disturbance to game birds                  68         15         11        5        2

 Litter                                     15         49         19       15        1

 Policing visitors                          50         33         13        3        0

 Insurance claims                           17         16         5         3        0

 Gates left open                            50         32         12        6        0

 Fire                                       61         17         9         3        0

 Damage to equipment                        69         22         9         0        0

 Claims about legal status of routes        81         12         6         0        0

A5.2.5 Businesses reliant on exclusive coastal access
There are some types of business commonly associated with the coast that may be
adversely affected by improved public access. These are too diverse to consider
individually, so three types have been identified as illustrative:
     -    Rental accommodation with exclusive use;
     -    Marinas and ports;
     -    Golf courses.
It is important to remember, when reading this sub-section, that the emphasis here is
on an examination of potential costs to some types of businesses along the coast.
There will be other businesses that stand to benefit from increased numbers of
visitors, which the policy proposals hope to generate (discussed in Section 4), or may
not be affected at all.
Rental Accommodation with Exclusive Use
The coast offers many opportunities for enjoyment of scenery, fresh air and, for those
who seek it, seclusion. Some businesses have been developed to meet these
needs. They may range from camping and caravan sites (the 200 m access buffer
strip dataset identifies that 26 km of the coastal strip is occupied by static caravan
sites and campsites to which there is no public access at present) to expensive
hotels, perhaps with private access to coastal land and foreshore. It is reasonable to




                                          Asken Ltd
                                Final Report – May 2007
                                          225


suggest that by imposing a right of public access to land which these businesses
occupy, the market position of these businesses could be affected. However, it
would require a hedonic pricing study to properly impute a value to the coastal
exclusivity element in the charges levied to clients and their WTP for exclusive use of
coastal land versus a similar situation in which such use was not exclusive. N such
studies were found and, consequently, we need to consider other sources.
Nevertheless, during the course of the research, including discussions with small
businesses (see Section 13), examples were found of business owners who believe
that imposing public access to land they occupy will have a significant impact on their
businesses. However, no means was found to assess how representative such
businesses are.
Further, every business will operate in a unique set of circumstances and it would
require an analysis of each one to assess the potential impact. Evidence from the
assessment of effects on the local economy (see Section 6.2.1) and the SBS (see
Section 13) suggests that business opportunities may grow as a result of improving
and marketing public access. The extent to which an existing business could or
would wish to adjust to tap into new markets is unknown and unknowable.
Another potential effect of public access at static caravan parks (according to
operators of sites where public access already exists) is people straying from areas
where they are permitted to go into areas where they should not, and the problems
arising from this (listed as vandalism, theft from tents/caravans/motor homes,
increased security requirements, higher insurance premiums, disturbance from dogs,
resulting in distress to holidaymakers and customer dissatisfaction)(pers comm.
Camping and Caravan Club [CCC] and National Caravan Council [NCC]). This is
criminal activity and not bona fide recreational access, and it is improvements of the
latter which is the intention of the proposals.
Some of these concerns would be mitigated with clear waymarking and other
steering techniques, where routes pass alongside parks. Further, increased
presence of responsible users could deter thieves and vandals.
It is concluded that such businesses could be affected by public access, and this
could be significant for some.
Marinas and Ports
Improving public access along the coast could impact upon operators of marinas and
ports, whether in terms of planning for the presence of members of the public, or
seeking their exclusion. Two issues face operators of such facilities in the context of
public access:
   -    security;
   -    public health and safety.
Ports
The British Ports Association (BPA) estimates that there are approximately 400 small
and medium sized ports in England. The access buffer strip dataset identified ports
and docks without public access as occupying 103 km of the coastal strip. Following
the terrorist attacks on September 9th 2001, the International Maritime Organisation



                                    Asken Ltd
                               Final Report – May 2007
                                         226


adopted a comprehensive series of maritime security measures in 2002. The
International Ship and Port facility Security (ISPS) Code, one of a number of
amendments to the 1974 Safety Of Life At Sea (SOLAS) Convention, sets out
mandatory security-related requirements for port authorities, amongst others. The
ISPS Code has been adopted in the UK and is run by a Home Office body known as
TRANSEC. It has served as the basis for the EU Port Security Directive, which will
be fully implemented in the UK before the end of 2008. The ISPS Code promotes a
risk management approach including an assessment of any weaknesses in physical
security, structural integrity and protection systems, as well as requirements for a
port facility security plan and for port facility security officers.
The majority of large ports already have extensive security measures in place, but
many small port facilities do not, and public access is frequently possible. The
measures required under the ISPS Code/EU Directive, however, will apply to all ports
in one way or another and will effectively exclude public access in the interests of
ensuring port security. In the future, therefore, there will be little or no difference
between the larger ports and the smaller and medium sized operators (i.e. public
access will be excluded from the port facility at all ports). As such, it appears that
increased public access to the coast will have little if any cost implications for
ports, once the requirements of the ISPS Code are in force.
Marinas and Yacht Harbours
Across the UK, it is estimated that there are some 89,000 berths for recreational
craft. The Yacht Harbours Association (TYHA) has about 500 marina and yacht
harbour operators in the UK as members. The British Marine Federation (BMF)
estimate that there could be a total of around 400-500 marinas and yacht harbours in
England (i.e. whereas some TYHA members will be located elsewhere in the UK,
there are also other marinas, etc. in England which are not TYHA members). The
number of berths at each facility will vary from tens to several hundreds, with
associated varying infrastructure provisions. The access buffer strip dataset records
13 km of the coastal strip as being occupied by marinas.
In the course of discussions undertaken for this study, BMF and others have noted
that many marinas are not located in areas which are readily accessible on foot.
Access to/past the marina along the foreshore is usually not possible because of
dredged channels, pontoons, etc.. Further, land-based marina facilities are typically
surrounded by either residential or commercial/industrial development, so foot
access would require a considerable effort. That said, if public access on foot were
to increase, measures to ensure the safety of the public and security of the facility
might be necessary, such as additional fencing, warning signs and possibly surfacing
and lighting.
In addition to fencing and signage, the BMF expressed a concern that, in the ‘worst
case’ scenario, other measures may be required due to the combination of the high
value of recreational craft, the increase in numbers of individuals present on or
passing through the site, and the possibility of round-the-clock public access.
Specifically, some marina operators may perceive an increase in the risk of theft,
anti-social behaviour, etc. and consider a need to employ additional on-site, 24-hour
security personnel.




                                   Asken Ltd
                                    Final Report – May 2007
                                              227


In practice, though, many of the risks (of public ingress and of security) already exist
and anyone intent on gaining access to a site for mischievous purposes will do so
irrespective of the legality of the situation. Therefore, we conclude that it is likely to
be only in the occasional ‘worst-case’ scenarios that more infrastructure as
described above will be needed, with a consequent significant cost implication.
Golf Courses
The English Golf Union (EGU) has 1,950 affiliated clubs as members, which
comprise the large majority of golf courses in England. NE’s 200 m access buffer
strip dataset shows 13 km of coast being occupied by golf courses which do not
currently have any public access. Further, EGU has identified 60 courses (47
definites, based on a response of 15 counties; and 13 probables estimated from a
review of maps covering 2 counties that did not respond to their queries) that have
coastal frontages, but no public access. This is defined as having a part of the
course adjacent to the foreshore or cliff-top, without any intervening land use and
which carry no public access between course and coast. (By way of comparison, 55
courses were affected by mapping of mountain, moor, heath, down and registered
common land 60.) Many of these are long-established links courses – a form of golf
course which poses unique challenges to golfers, recognised by the fact that the only
golfing major competition held in Britain (the Open) is always held on a links course.
Many courses already have PRoWs across/around them. The impacts on golf
courses and those who play them are reported (by EGU) as being:
      -   play being interrupted to allow walkers to pass;
      -   dog faeces on courses (including in the rough);
      -   free-running dogs picking up in-play golf balls;
      -   increased risk of injury to walkers, leading to increases in public liability
          insurance.
The risks are lower when paths cross, rather than run alongside, fairways. Walkers
are not necessarily aware of the risks and so the onus tends to be on the golfer to
judge when it is safe to play. Management measures available to golf course
managers are:
      -   reviewing risk assessments;
      -   erecting signs warning walkers to be aware of golfers playing from left or
          right, and requesting them not to linger;
      -   erecting signs warning golfers to be aware of dangers to walkers;
      -   placing nets at critical risk points.
Where course design means that safe play is difficult, re-alignment of either the
access route/area or the specific hole (tee, fairway, green and adjacent rough) may
be necessary. In practice the latter option is often not possible, as:


60
     See http://www.englishgolfunion.org/showpage.asp?code=00010001000100020008




                                        Asken Ltd
                                Final Report – May 2007
                                          228


   -   there may be insufficient room for re-alignment;
   -   on historic courses, re-engineering may be precluded on environmental or
       historic grounds;
   -   re-design of a hole on a top quality course could cost upwards of £50,000;
   -   many courses have holes of unique character which re-alignment could ruin.
It is concluded, therefore, that there are likely to be some effects on golf players and
golf course managers where new access is created alongside or on a course. In
most cases, the presence of the public is likely to require some adjustments to
play (e.g. pausing to allow walkers to pass out of danger) and investment in
infrastructure development (e.g. netting, slight re-alignment). In some case, these
costs could be significant.

A5.2.6 Residential properties
Imposition of a right of public access on or across land means giving up a property
right, i.e. the right to exclude the general public from entering onto one’s land. In the
context of residential properties by the sea, the access is likely to be to private beach
and/or foreshore rather than to the residence itself or its immediate curtilage (e.g. a
garden or outbuildings). An effect may also be apparent when public access is
provided to land adjacent to someone’s home. The value of the loss of the right to
exclusivity will vary between individuals – some may see it as being of no
consequence, or even a benefit, whereas others may see it as a blight on their
property, leading to a reduction in its capital value.
These effects, in the context of residential properties, apply to personal enjoyment of
a property, not its ability to generate income. The potential effects are discussed
further below.
Rights created on or across land
It seems reasonable to argue that loss of exclusivity would equate to a loss of
amenity value, and so a reduced capital value of a property. In essence, the
argument is that if two identical properties – one with a right of public access to part
of the property, one with no right of public access to any part - were placed on the
open market, the latter would command a higher price. The price difference could
thus be attributed to the existence of a public access.
A number of factors make this simple thesis difficult to prove:
   -   it is seldom possible to make a comparison between two identical houses
       where the existence of public access is the only difference;
   -   any loss in value resulting from creating public access is only realised when
       the asset is sold;
   -   a new owner will view a property afresh and will perceive its value against
       his/her own unique set of criteria. Some people may be attracted to a
       property that has good coastal access, whereas others may be deterred and
       look elsewhere;
   -   any effect might be reduced over time, if residential properties with private
       beaches are no longer available on the market (i.e. the choice of properties
       with, or without, public access to the foreshore no longer exists).



                                    Asken Ltd
                                   Final Report – May 2007
                                             229


In practice, therefore, it is difficult to identify if a loss has occurred, let alone the
size of the loss.
One way of trying to determine the scale of the effect is to use hedonic pricing
studies. A brief overview of hedonic studies has been conducted in an effort to find
out if such an analysis has been conducted. Much of the academic work unearthed
in this way emanates from USA and focuses on factors such as water quality,
countryside, presence of intensive livestock units and road noise 61. We are aware of
some UK studies that show the positive effects of forestry but conclude that no
research of relevance has been done that quantifies the effect on residential property
values of exclusive versus non-exclusive use of adjoining coastal frontage.
The absence of supporting data is not, however, evidence to deny the existence of
the effect. Whilst no data have been found that show the actual effect on sale value
of residential property as a result of public access being created to, or over, it, some
indirect evidence can be obtained from valuations of specific properties confronted
with a requirement to provide access across their land, as has occurred to
accommodate the South West Coast Path (SWCP). Key influences on the putative
loss appear to be the proximity of the new access to the residents’ homes (i.e. the
houses, as opposed to their gardens or other curtilage) and the level and nature of
use of the new access (SWCP Trail Team, pers comm.). There may also be an
element of the owner seeking to ‘hold the access authority to ransom’ on sections
where no easy alternative access route exists.
Research for this report has revealed some examples that range from no effect to
10% of property value which may represent the upper and lower limits of the
spectrum of injurious affection 62 valuations. The potential effect on high value
residential properties have been featured in the press 63, which suggests even greater
effects.

Rights created to adjoining or adjacent land
The second situation is where access is created on land adjoining a residential
property. In many cases, public access is already available in the vicinity of
residential properties along highways (including PRoWs). However, improved public
access for walkers along the coast may involve access to the rear of houses, or
access to the vicinity of properties accessible only along private access routes,
where public access has not previously been available. Again, the argument is that
in the case of two identical properties, where one has public access to adjoining land
and the other has no such access, the latter would command the higher price. As
with rights being created across land, no objective research has been found to

61
     see for example - http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/ssc/labs/cameron/nrs98/hedoninv.htm
62
   Injurious Affection is defined as “A physical interference with the public or private property
rights of others, by the construction of works on adjoining or nearby land” (Butterworths Law
Dictionary)
63
   See:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/main.jhtml?xml=/property/2006/04/19/pbeaches19.xml&s
Sheet=/property/2006/04/20/ixpmain.html




                                       Asken Ltd
                                    Final Report – May 2007
                                              230


quantify the effects. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the effect is viewed as highly
variable. It is concluded that an effect exists but is likely to be small and
unquantifiable.
Indicative house values
The Valuation Office Agency (VOA) provides indicative house prices 64 from around
the country, although not specifically those with coastal frontage (the value of which
could be expected to be above average). The BBC also produces an Internet-based
guide to average house prices 65 based on actual sales. However, these sales
figures do not provide any insight into costs of coastal properties, nor of any
difference between prices paid for houses with or without public access and located
on the coast. Also, as we have no reliable basis for assessing losses per property,
there is little benefit in analysing the data further.
Number of properties affected
It has proved impossible to find any readily accessible source of data that allow the
number of properties that may be affected by injurious affection to be determined.
NE’s access buffer strip dataset does not identify areas which are occupied by
residential property. It records “Roads/Promenades”, and this category extends over
647 km of coast; however, the category will include thinly populated countryside
areas as well as heavily urbanised areas and so is not a reliable indicator of density
of residential properties along the coast. Finally, there are no data available from
research in the four Study Areas.
Eligibility for compensation
Where PRoWs are created by order under HA 1980 s26, the landowner is entitled to
receive compensation. If PRoWs are created by agreement under HA 1980 s25, the
landowner can expect to receive payments. However, no such compensation is
payable through CRoW. It is expected that no compensation would be payable
under Option 4.
With respect to injurious affection, in the situation where a highway (such as a
PRoW) is created in a house’s vicinity, the eligibility for compensation for injurious
affection is governed by Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973. The effect of this
legislation is that compensation is limited to depreciation in the market value of the
‘qualifying interest’ caused by the use of the land, but only insofar as it is attributable
to physical effects. These are defined in s1 of the Act, as noise, vibration, smell,
fumes, smoke, artificial lighting, or solid or liquid substances. The introduction of
rights of public access to adjoining or adjacent land is not, of itself, a basis for
claiming compensation for injurious affection (District Valuer’s Office, Taunton),
although any noise nuisance created by the public could be. However, the onus of
proof rests with the claimant. It is assumed, therefore, that any effect of injurious
affection as a result of creating public access would rest with the home owner, and
not be met from public funds. The VOA has produced a guidance note on how



64
     See: http://www.voa.gov.uk/publications/property_market_report/pmr-jan-06/housing.pdf
65
   See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/uk_house_prices/regions/html/region3.stm




                                       Asken Ltd
                                   Final Report – May 2007
                                             231


injurious affection is assessed 66.      There is no eligibility for compensation from
injurious affection under CRoW.
Conclusion
The overall conclusions drawn from the above are that:
      -   there are likely to be some residential properties that would command a
          lower value in the market place, were public access rights to be created on,
          or across, part of the property;
      -   it is not possible to quantify this effect;
      -   properties affected will be those where a private foreshore is affected so it is
          likely that only a small number of high value properties will be adversely
          affected;
      -   injurious affection will also arise, but the impact on property value is
          expected to be much lower;
      -   these costs will be borne by a relatively small number of individual house
          owners.

A5.2.7 Other properties located on the coast
There will be other types of property along the coast that could be affected by
improvements to public access. In practice, access improvements are unlikely to
include access to, or through, areas of land that are developed for major industrial
and commercial purposes. This assumption is justified on grounds of:
      -   health and safety – some properties and land will be dangerous for
          members of the public. For example, anyone entering into a hazardous
          industrial area comes under the COMAH regulations 67 and, in some
          circumstance, would be required to be trained in safety procedures. This is
          clearly impractical for members of the public engaged in recreational pursuits;
      -   customs and excise control – opening up ports to members of the public
          could breach security, threaten international trade and make customs and
          excise requirements impossible to impose;
      -   legal framework – there may be difficulties in using existing legal powers for
          creation of access rights in such areas;
      -   costs – compensation requirements could exceed the benefits to be derived.
Evidence of the logic of this assumption can be seen where coastal paths have been
created (see, for example, the Solent Way and the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Path).
These paths deviate around industrial areas of the types referred to here, such as
ports. Consequently, it is expected that the improvement of public access will
have little effect on these other types of property.




66
     See: http://www.voa.gov.uk/instructions/chapters/land_compensation_ch5/sect3/frame.htm
67
     Control of Major Accident Hazards SI 1999:743




                                       Asken Ltd
                               Final Report – May 2007
                                         232



Appendix 6
Flood Defence Issues

Discussions with the Environment Agency (EA) identified several different categories
of coastal frontage with different coastal defence characteristics which, in turn, may
present different access issues. For the purposes of this study, coastal defence
types can be broadly described as follows:
-    coastal and outer estuarine flood defences, including embankments,
     concrete seawalls, rock armour revetments and other structures;
-    defences in inner estuarine areas, such as Suffolk, North Kent, Essex and
     parts of the Central South coast;
-    flood defences, typically earth embankments, where maintenance is
     uneconomic and where, in due course, EA maintenance activities will cease.
     Such ‘candidate frontages for withdrawal of maintenance’ are primarily in
     estuarine areas;
-    coastlines which have been identified as being ‘candidate frontages for
     managed re-alignment’, either to meet nature conservation (Birds or Habitats
     Directive, or biodiversity) targets or - more usually - as ‘win-win’ sites, where
     there are both flood defence savings and potential nature conservation
     benefits;
-    defended cliff coastlines (i.e. where erosion has been halted as a result of
     the construction of a seawall or other form of defence). Such ‘coast protection’
     structures are typically the responsibility of the local authority, although
     responsibility for the strategic planning of coast protection is in the process of
     switching to the EA;
-    ‘currently undefended’ or ‘natural coastlines’, for example, fronted by a
     natural structure such as a shingle ridge and/or backed by sand dunes, where
     erosion is either not significant or not a cause for concern, and where there is
     currently no requirement for defence. These include undefended eroding cliff
     coastlines, where erosion rates might vary from a few centimetres to several
     metres each year and also artificially recharged or nourished beaches, or
     managed shingle structures. Table A6.1, which has been compiled following
     extensive discussions with the EA, reflects the key coastal defence and access
     issues identified.
The table also provides estimates of the total length of frontage in each category. In
all cases it is of note that, beyond a requirement for increased local community and
local authority liaison, the EA do not perceive any particular differences between
different access options. Rather, cost differences are driven by an assessment of
whether or not a coastal defence frontage is - or is not - already accessible to the
public (i.e. whether access happens to be a PRoW, permissive, or otherwise is not
the primary determinant of anticipated future costs).




                                  Asken Ltd
                                                                                            Final Report – May 2007
                                                                                                      233




Table A6.1: Summary of increased access implications for coastal defence


Current nature of coastline                   Assumptions based on discussions with EA                                   Anticipated implications of increased              Potential extra costs (to
                                                                                                                         coastal access                                     EA) due to considerations
                                                                                                                                                                            of increased access
Indicative length of frontage in
this category
                                                                                                                                                                                               3
1. Existing sea and tidal                     All Environment Agency owned/maintained assets are subject to a            No additional implications                         None anticipated
defences (including outer                     public safety risk assessment covering the potential risk to the public
estuarine areas such as Humber,               posed by each asset in the context of its environment (i.e. proximity to
Severn, Wash, Thames (north                   populated areas, extent to which the structure is accessible by the
                                                           2
bank))                                        public, etc.)
                                              Most coastal structures including sea walls, groynes, etc. which are
                                              fronted by beaches and/or are alongside coastal paths (irrespective of
                                              whether or not these paths are PRoWs) will already have been
Assume 1500 km (1000 km sea                   classified as very likely to be accessed (and necessary works will thus
defences and 500 km outer                     have been undertaken)
                  1
estuarine defences )
                                              Unlike many of EA’s recreation and navigation sites, most flood risk
                                              management sites are not owned by EA. In such cases, the prime
                                              duty of care to the public rests with the owner/occupier. The EA’s
                                              responsibility is, as far as is practicable, to take measures to control
                                              any additional potential hazards resulting from their assets
                                              In access terms, land on which coastal defence structures are built,
                                              including their curtilage, may be classified as ‘excepted land’ (subject
                                              to legal interpretation) under Options 2 and 4.
2. Existing tidal defences in inner           Many existing structures in these more rural areas are not designed        For those sea defences which are economic to       Assume 340 km of defences
estuarine areas (e.g. Suffolk,                for ‘mass access’ because they are typically on private land and/or        maintain (i.e. the benefits of maintenance works   require:
North Kent, Essex, parts of                   access to the coast in such areas is more difficult                        exceed the costs), typical works are likely to
central South Coast)                                                                                                     include:                                           risk assessment: two man days
                                              EA’s risk assessments do not therefore assume high levels of use                                                              (@ £300) per km
                                                                                                                         review of risk assessments
                                              Some structures may not be suitable for increased use                                                                         engineering works: typically
Assume 1470 km but actual                                                                                                remedial works (e.g. levelling bank crest, basic   £3,500 per km
                                              EA feel some improvements are likely to be necessary where access          surfacing)
                                                                                                                                   4
figure is entirely dependent on
                                              is improved, particularly if rights of way are designated                                                                     maintenance: average £580 per
extent of inclusion of inner
                                                                                                                         subsequent maintenance                             km per year
estuary areas
                                                                                                                         For ‘uneconomic’ defences, see 4. below            Note: some of these costs may


c:\documents and settings\a161828\desktop\final report kt 31-05-07 final final.doc


                                                                                           Asken Ltd
                                                                                            Final Report – May 2007
                                                                                                      234



Current nature of coastline                   Assumptions based on discussions with EA                                  Anticipated implications of increased                  Potential extra costs (to
                                                                                                                        coastal access                                         EA) due to considerations
                                                                                                                                                                               of increased access
Indicative length of frontage in
this category
                                                                                                                                                                               be met by other public sector
                                                                                                                                                                               bodies – varies with option
3. Managed re-alignment                       Managed re-alignment might reduce or increase the overall length of       In already ‘accessible’ areas, no additional           Assume approximately 180km
candidate frontages                           flood defence (i.e. it may be cheaper to maintain a longer length of      implications are anticipated (i.e. as 1. above)        requires:
                                              protected/set back earth embankment than a shorter length of
                                              (exposed) concrete sea wall                                               In addition, EA experience suggests that there will    additional effort to resolve local
                                                                                                                        be more staff time, etc. involved in resolving local   community issues: £500 per km
Assume 200 km over 20 years;
                                              EA confirm that savings in frontage length at some managed re-            community and user group issues, and that some         (£1000 per km if PRoW);
further assume that 20-50 km will
                                              alignment sites are likely to be offset by an increase in the length of   additional expenditure will be necessary (e.g.
affect existing sea and outer                                                                                                                                                  provision of extra signing, etc.:
                                              defence at other sites. EA thus agree with Defra FRM that it is           constructing stiles to prevent access by motor
estuarine defences and 150-180                                                                                                                                                 £500 per km (£1000 per km if
                                              reasonable to assume that there will be neither a net gain nor a net      bikes, providing signing, etc.). In all cases (staff
km will affect inner estuarine                                                                                                                                                 PRoW);
                                              loss of defence length overall (i.e. that the total length of defences    effort and works), costs will be higher if a PRoW is
defences
                                              following managed re-alignment implementation will be similar to the      involved                                               extra maintenance costs -
Based on a report prepared for                existing total length of defences)                                                                                               average £580 per km per year.
                                                                                                                        Potential benefits for birdwatchers, etc. if re-
RSPB (‘Seas of Change’, 2002)                 Design and construction of the re-aligned defences will be the same       alignment results in increased use by birds            There should be no costs for
which identified target sites for
                                              as for existing defences (i.e. it will take into account public safety                                                           additional works, based on the
managed re-alignment in                       issues based on expected use)                                                                                                    assumption that new banks will
England, it has been assumed
                                                                                                                                                                               already be leveled and that no
that between 10% and 25% of                   ‘Expected use’ may be higher in an improved coastal access scenario
                                                                                                                                                                               additional surfacing is required.
managed re-alignment                          than might otherwise have been the case for example because of
opportunities are located in                  increased recreational use, bird-watching, etc.                                                                                  NB. no additional risk
coastal/outer estuarine areas with                                                                                                                                             assessment costs as EA will do
the remainder in ‘inner estuarine’                                                                                                                                             this anyway. Also, reduced
environments.                                                                                                                                                                  construction costs are
                                                                                                                                                                               anticipated as the necessary
                                                                                                                                                                               plant will already be on site.
                                                                                                                                                                               Note: some of these costs may
                                                                                                                                                                               be met by other public sector
                                                                                                                                                                               bodies – varies with option
4. Candidate frontages for                    Defra policy is for the EA to withdraw future maintenance of              EA intend to make decisions based only on FRM          EA estimate the additional cost
withdrawal of maintenance                     uneconomic defences                                                       criteria but accept that already difficult decisions   of dealing with such access
                                                                                                                        may become even more complex if PRoW and/or            issues to be £500 per km
                                              Flood defence powers are permissive                                       if CRoW access issues are raised                       (£1000 per km if PRoW is
                                                                                        5
Assume withdrawal of                          EA has a duty to consider access issues but Flood Risk Management                                                                affected)
                                                                                                                        Dealing with local communities and user groups
maintenance will take place over              has no specific powers to maintain/improve access
                                                                                                                        may lead to additional costs being incurred in
c1000 km within 20 years


c:\documents and settings\a161828\desktop\final report kt 31-05-07 final final.doc


                                                                                            Asken Ltd
                                                                                             Final Report – May 2007
                                                                                                       235



Current nature of coastline                   Assumptions based on discussions with EA                                         Anticipated implications of increased                  Potential extra costs (to
                                                                                                                               coastal access                                         EA) due to considerations
                                                                                                                                                                                      of increased access
Indicative length of frontage in
this category
Further assume that 50 km will                EA will not generally maintain a defence only because of access                  terms of man days, legal fees, etc. These will
                                              considerations                                                                   similarly increase further if a PRoW is affected
affect existing sea and outer
estuarine defences and 950 km
                                              If maintenance is withdrawn, responsibility for access, including
will affect inner estuarine
defences                                      deciding whether to retain the access along the current line or relocate
                                                               6
                                              it further inland will rest with landowner/occupier or Highways Agency
                                              The landowner is already responsible under Occupiers’ Liability Acts
                                              (1957; 1984)); the Highways Agency is already responsible for PRoWs
                                              Depending on its nature, withdrawal of maintenance in many
                                              agricultural areas may be straightforward: EA could withdraw
                                              maintenance within two years or less of a decision
                                              Some (higher use) recreational areas may be more complex and will
                                              take longer. CRoW access issues could be used as an additional
                                              argument by local communities against withdrawal of maintenance
5. Defended cliff coastlines                  Local authorities are currently responsible for coast protection but             It is assumed that there are no additional             Allow 2 man days per km for
                                              Defra propose that EA assume responsibility for this at the strategic            implications over 95% of the defended length           local authority to carry out risk
                                              level                                                                            because access considerations are already taken        assessment.
Making Space for Water (MSW)                                                                                                   into account (i.e. as with point 1 above)
                                              Most existing coast protection works protect residential and/or
suggests 900 km of defended cliff                                                                                              However, in the event that erosion is being
          1                                   commercial assets in the immediate vicinity, thus it is assumed that
coastline
                                              there is typically some form of existing access, and that Local                  slowed but not stopped and/or at sites where
                                              Authority risk assessments and design already take this into account             future maintenance proves uneconomic (e.g.
                                                                                                       1                       following EA assuming responsibility), it is
                                              Further, the Defra MSW consultation document (see ) indicates that
                                                                                                                               possible that rolling path agreements will be
                                              EA will be able to ‘step in’ in future if a local authority fails to undertake
                                                                                                                               required over a proportion (say 5%, i.e. 45 km) of
                                              agreed maintenance
                                                                                                                               currently defended cliff coastline
                                              Although there will be some exceptions (e.g. where erosion is slowed             Given the defended nature of these 45km of
                                              rather than stopped), it is assumed that the presence of a defence will
                                                                                                                               coast, an additional provision should be made for
                                              typically mean that no rolling path agreement is required
                                                                                                                               risk assessment of 2 man days per km
6. Currently undefended cliff                 Some undefended coastlines may be accreting or stable, or erosion                In the absence of information to the contrary, it is   No additional costs due to
coastlines; ‘natural’ areas such as           rates may be minimal. Other areas may be actively eroding: erosion               assumed that rolling path agreements could be          coastal defence considerations
dunes, shingle features, etc.                 rates on the East Yorkshire (Holderness) coast may be as high as 2m              required over as much as 50% of undefended cliff
                                              per year on average, although an average of 0.2m to 0.5m per year is             or natural area coastline (i.e. 500 km). This does
                                              probably more typical                                                            not seem unreasonable given that applying the
                                                                                                                               case study outcomes to the coast as a whole

c:\documents and settings\a161828\desktop\final report kt 31-05-07 final final.doc


                                                                                             Asken Ltd
                                                                                         Final Report – May 2007
                                                                                                   236



Current nature of coastline                   Assumptions based on discussions with EA                                 Anticipated implications of increased              Potential extra costs (to
                                                                                                                       coastal access                                     EA) due to considerations
                                                                                                                                                                          of increased access
Indicative length of frontage in
this category
Assume 1000 km total
                            1
                                              Some ‘natural’ coastlines are actually managed by the EA (e.g. re-       would give a figure of between 416 km and 561
                                                                                                                       km (see Section 8.4.2)
                                              profiling of shingle ridges). It is assumed that there are 50km of
                                              managed natural coastlines. EA advise that the vast majority of these    No additional implications are assumed with
                                              are in locations which are already accessible to/accessed by the         respect to shingle features which are managed by
                                              public, thus risk assessments already take public safety into account.   the EA (i.e. as with point 1)
                                              For example, in the case of shingle management activities, EA advise
                                              that provision is already made for diverting footpaths (PRoWs) and/or
                                              for the presence of a banksman whilst machines are working
                                              Rolling path agreements could potentially be required on any eroding,
                                              retreating (or, indeed, rapidly accreting) coastlines. In areas where
                                              erosion rates are very low, re-alignment may only be required very
                                              infrequently




c:\documents and settings\a161828\desktop\final report kt 31-05-07 final final.doc


                                                                                         Asken Ltd
                                      Final Report – May 2007
                                                 237


Notes
1
    Sources of these estimates are as follows:
       -   the 2006 Defra Making Space for Water (MSW) consultation (Environment Agency
           strategic overview) indicates on page 36 that, of approximately 2,900 km of English
           coastline, 1,000 km has man-made defences primarily to control flooding, 900 km is
           protected against erosion, and 1,000 km is ‘natural’
       -   this total figure thus differs from the 4,870 km length agreed by Defra and used by the
           Asken team for the CRoW partial RIA.
       -   the extent to which estuaries are included in the MSW figure remains unclear: however,
           in the absence of any other information, it is assumed that the difference (i.e. 1,970 km)
           is comprised of frontages currently protected by tidal (rather than coastal) defences
       -   EA is intending to withdraw maintenance from more than 1,000 km of uneconomic
           defences over the next 20 years: most of this will be in inner estuarine areas
       -   in line with MSW, it is assumed that the 900 km of coastline protected against erosion
           includes all urban/resort frontages (promenades, revetments, etc.) maintained by local
           authorities as well as rural coast protection works
       -   the figure for unprotected coastlines is also taken from the MSW report
2
 Following two fatalities in South West England in the recent past, EA has carried out a full risk
assessment in relation to all its coastal defence structures and has spent a considerable sum on
measures designed to reduce or mitigate risks to the public (personal communication, EA, June
2006).
3
  The exception would be any situations in which it is determined that (despite them being
defined as ‘excepted’) access is required along the top of certain types of structure. Whilst there
is currently access along the top of many embankments, access in the vicinity of defences such
as rock armour revetment tends to run parallel to, but behind or in front of, the defence. EA
already evaluate the need for, and provide safe access across such structures, but in the
unlikely event that the provision of access along the top of such defences is deemed necessary,
this would incur substantial extra costs not shown here
4
 No increase in crest width is included as EA feel this would be ‘too expensive’. Thus, in the
event that any increase in crest width is required to facilitate access, it should be noted that the
EA would incur very significant costs additional to those shown here
5
  The 1995 Environment Act (Sections 7(2)-7(5)) sets out the EA’s various duties to consider
access including the need to have regard to the desirability of preserving for the public any
freedom of access to areas of ……. cliff or foreshore ………, and also the need to take such
steps as are reasonably practical and b) consistent with the purposes of the enactments relating
to the functions of the Agency to ……….ensure that ….water or land is made available for
recreational purposes
6
 EA advise that they expect some landowners to take over maintenance of the existing defences
whilst others may choose, for example, to put land into agri-environment schemes. EA further
advise that the residual life of many such defences is such that widespread breaching of existing
defences would not necessarily be anticipated within 5-10 years of a decision to withdraw
maintenance




                                         Asken Ltd
                                Final Report – May 2007
                                           238



Appendix 7
Species of particular conservation concern

Species are considered to be of particular conservation concern in coastal habitats if
they are listed under Annex I of the Birds Directive, or Annex II of the Habitats Directive
or are UKBAP Priority Species, and occur regularly in England, primarily in coastal
habitats (as defined in this study) at some point in their annual cycle. Fish, birds and
marine species that occur in open coastal waters are not included because potential
impacts on them are unlikely to be significant.
Information about species of particular conservation concern is given in Table A7.1. An
important point to note is that the UKBAP Priority Species list is incomplete for
invertebrates due to inadequate information on the status of many species. With more
data, it is possible that more species would be listed as Priority Species.
Key. Status (birds in England): T = present throughout the year and breeds; S =
Mainly in summer and breeds; P = occurs on passage in spring and autumn; W =
present mainly in winter. Use of coastal habitats by birds: B = breeding habitat; F =
feeding habitat; R = roosting/resting habitat. Birds / Habitats Directive: Status in the
EU Directive on the Conservation of Wild Birds (79/409/EEC) or Habitats Directive: I =
Listed in Annex I of the Birds Directive as a rare, threatened or otherwise vulnerable
species that must be the subject of special conservation measures concerning their
habitat, including the classification of SPAs; II = listed in Annex II of the Habitats
Directive as an animal and plant species of community interest whose conservation
requires the designation of SACs; IV = listed in Annex IV of the Habitats Directive as an
animal and plant species of community interest in need of strict protection. UK BAP =
UK Biodiversity Action Plan status, P = Priority Species and subject to an Action Plan.
UK threat status = UK Red Data Book Status for species other than birds: E =
Endangered; V = Vulnerable; R = Rare; NS = Nationally scarce. Species of
Conservation Concern list for birds: R = Red listed birds (high conservation concern); A
= Amber listed birds (medium conservation concern). WCA = Wildlife and Countryside
Act: I = listed in Schedule I (I) of the Wildlife and countryside Act (1981) as a species
afforded special penalties, and which cannot be intentionally or recklessly disturbed
when nesting. 5 = Animals other than birds specially protected under Schedule 5 of the
Act; 8 = Plants specially protected under Schedule 8 of the Act.




                                   Asken Ltd
                                     Final Report – May 2007
                                                239




Table A7.1: Species of Particular Conservation Concern


Species                     Status    Use of coastal   Birds /     UK BAP   UK       WCA
                                      habitats by      Habitats    status   threat
                                      birds            Directive            status

 Mammals
 Common Seal                 T         BR               II
 Grey Seal                   T         BR               II
 Birds
 Fulmar                      S         B                                     A
 Manx Shearwater             S         B                                     A
 Storm petrel                S         B                I
 Cormorant                   T         BR                                    A
 Shag                        T         BR                                    A
 Shelduck                    T         F                                     A
 Eider                       T         B                                     A
 Peregrine                   T         BFR              I                    A       I
 Oystercatcher               T         BFR                                   A
 Avocet                      T         BFR                                   A       I
 Ringer Plover               T         BFR                                   A
 Grey Plover                 PW        FR
 Knot                        PW        FR                                    A
 Purple Sandpiper            PW        FR                                    A       I
 Dunlin                      PW        FR                                    A
 Black-tailed Godwit         T         FR                                    R
 Bar-tailed Godwit           PW        FR                                    A       I
 Whimbrel                    P         FR                                    A
 Curlew                      T         FR                                    A
 Spotted Redshank            PW        FR                                    A
 Redshank                    T         BFR                                   A
 Turnstone                   PW        FR                                    A
 Mediterranean Gull          T         BFR              I                    A       I
 Lesser Black-backed Gull    T         BFR
 Herring Gull                T         BFR
 Kittiwake                   T         B                                     A
 Sandwich Tern               SP        BR                                    A




                                       Asken Ltd
                                       Final Report – May 2007
                                                  240



Species                       Status    Use of coastal   Birds /     UK BAP   UK       WCA
                                        habitats by      Habitats    status   threat
                                        birds            Directive            status

 Roseate Tern                  SP        BR               I          P         R       I
 Arctic Tern                   SP        BR
 Little Tern                   SP        BR               I                    A       I
 Guillemot                     T         B                                     A
 Razorbill                     T         B                                     A
 Puffin                        T         B                                     A
 Chough                        T         BFR              I                    A       I
 Snow Bunting                  PW        FR                                    A       I
 Invertebrates
 Amara strenua (a ground                                             P
 beetle)
 Anisodactylus poeciloides                                           P
 (a ground beetle)
 Bembidion nigropiceum (a                                            P
 ground beetle)
 Cicindela hybrida (a tiger                                          P         V
 beetle)
 Dune Tiger Beetle                                                   P         NS
 Cicindela maritima
 Harpalus cordatus (a                                                P         R
 ground beetle)
 Harpalus parallelus (a                                              P         R
 ground beetle)
 Melanotus punctolineatus                                            P         E
 (a click beetle)
 Gilkicker weevil                                                    P         E
 Pachytychius
 haematocephalus
 Crucifix Ground Beetle                                              P         V
 Panagaeus cruxmajor
 Toadflax brocade                                                    P         R
 Calophasia lunula (moth)
 White Spot Hadena                                                   P         V
 albimacula (moth)
 Bright Wave Idaea                                                   P         R
 ochrata cantiata (moth)
 Belted Beauty Lycia                                                 P         R
 zonaria britannica (moth)
 Fisher’s estuarine moth                                  II
 Gortyna borelii lunata
 Euophrys browningi (a                                               P         R
 jumping spider)




                                         Asken Ltd
                                     Final Report – May 2007
                                                241



Species                     Status    Use of coastal   Birds /     UK BAP   UK       WCA
                                      habitats by      Habitats    status   threat
                                      birds            Directive            status

 Orthotylus rubidus (a                                             P         R
 plant bug)
 Evagetes pectinipes (a                                            P         E
 spider-hunting wasp)
 Vascular plants
 Shore Dock Rumex                                       II & IV              EN      8
 rupestris
 Lower plants
 Petal wort Petalophyllum                               II         P
 ralfsii
 Baltic stonewort Chara                                            P
 baltica
Sources: Status: Birds: Brown & Grice (2005). UK Threat Status: Birds: Gregory et al.
(2002); Insects: Shirt (1987); Vascular plants: Cheffings et al. (2005). Use of coastal
habitats by UK BAP Priority Species of invertebrate: Simonson & Thomas (1999).




                                       Asken Ltd
                                        Final Report – May 2007
                                                    242



Appendix 8
Access impacts on species of particular
conservation concern

A semi-quantitative assessment of the likely current impacts of access on coastal
Priority Habitats and species of particular conservation concern in coastal habitats in
England is presented in Table A8.1. This is based on a review of scientific evidence of
biodiversity impacts, which is briefly summarised below. Numbered codes indicate that
the assessment is based on specific evidence of impacts on the species in question.
There is insufficient information to assess current impacts of access provision on
invertebrate species of particular conservation concern
Key. Current impacts on habitats and species (breeding and non-breeding populations):
H = High (i.e. probably reducing the extent of suitable habitat and population levels); M
= Moderate (i.e. frequent impacts on productivity and survival rates); L = Low (i.e.
occasional impacts on individuals but no detectable population impacts); ? = insufficient
information to estimate likely impacts.
Dist = Disturbance and nest losses from trampling; T&E = Trampling of vegetation and
Erosion; Cont = Contamination (litter and dog fouling); Wfire = Wildfires; NR = Nest
robbing; LM = Influence on land management.


Table A8.1: Semi-Quantitative Assessment of Current Impacts on Coastal Priority Habitats

                                         Dist   T&E       Cont   Wfire   NR   LM   Notes

 Habitats

 Maritime cliff and slope                       M         L      L            M

 Coastal sand dunes                             H         L      M

 Coastal vegetated shingle                      M         L      L

 Saltmarsh                                      M         L

 Mudflats                                       ?

 Saline lagoons                                           L

 Coastal and floodplain grazing marsh           L         L                   L

 Lowland calcareous grassland                   M         L                   L

 Lowland heathland                              M         L      M

 Fens                                                     L      L

 Reedbeds                                                 L      L

 Mesotrophic lakes                                        L

 Eutrophic standing water bodies                          L




                                          Asken Ltd
                           Final Report – May 2007
                                    243




Species

Mammals

Common Seal                L                             8

Grey Seal                  L                             8

Otter                      M                             9, 10

Birds

Fulmar                     L

Manx Shearwater            L

Storm petrel

Cormorant

Shag                       L

Shelduck                   L

Eider                      L                             1, 2

Peregrine                  M                         L

Oystercatcher              M                             4, 5, 6

Avocet                     L                             1

Ringer Plover              H                             7

Grey Plover                M

Knot                       M

Purple Sandpiper           L

Dunlin                     M

Black-tailed Godwit        M

Bar-tailed Godwit          M

Whimbrel                   L

Curlew                     M

Spotted Redshank           L

Redshank                   M

Turnstone                  M

Mediterranean Gull         L

Lesser Black-backed Gull   L

Herring Gull               L

Kittiwake                  M                             3

Sandwich Tern              H                             2

Roseate Tern               H                             2

Arctic Tern                M                             2




                               Asken Ltd
                                    Final Report – May 2007
                                                244


 Little Tern                        H                                                2

 Guillemot                          M                                                3

 Razorbill                          M?

 Puffin                             M?

 Chough                             L                               L       L

 Snow Bunting                       M?

 Vascular plants

 Shore Dock Rumex rupestris                 ?

 Lower plants

 Petalwort Petalophyllum ralfsii

 Baltic stonewort Chara baltica
Sources: 1 Bolduc & Guillemette (2003); 2 Keller (1991); 3 Beale & Monaghan (2004); 4
Verhulst et al. (2001); 5 Urfi et al. (1996); 6 West et al. (2002); 7 Liley & Sutherland (in press); 8
Saunders et al. (2000); 9 Green et al. (1984); 10 Jefferies (1987).

Notes: 1 Most are in nature reserves. 2 Many sites are now wardened, but expansion
constrained.

A8.1 Disturbance of birds and mammals, and trampling of birds
nests and young
Birds
There has been concern for some time over the potential impacts of the presence of
people on birds and animals in a variety of habitats. As a result there has been a large
number of studies carried out on disturbance impacts, particularly on ground-nesting
birds. These have been subject to a number of reviews (e.g. Carney & Sydeman 1999;
Davidson & Rothwell 1993; Hockin et al. 1992; Nisbet 2000; Taylor et al. 2006.; Taylor
et al. 2005) including a review by the RSPB (Woodfield & Langstone 2004) in response
to increased access resulting from the CRoW Act.
These reviews indicate that the quality of disturbance studies is variable and the
findings often inconclusive. Many studies focus on the behavioural responses of birds
and although many document disturbance effects (e.g. displacement of individuals)
most do not quantify the level of disturbance or the birds’ response. A further problem is
that behavioural responses are not necessarily a good indication of the consequences
of disturbance on bird survival and recruitment rates, and thus are not good predictors
of impacts on populations (Gill et al. 2001b).
Woodfield and Langston (2004) note that when assessing the impact of human
disturbance on birds, it must be recognised that birds can sometimes compensate for
the effects of disturbance. For example, birds may move their territory or foraging site to
a less disturbed area, or increase food intake rates at times of lesser disturbance.
However, this relies on the birds having a choice (such as alternative sites), or having
the opportunity to compensate for disturbance effects (such as availability of extra
feeding time). It must also be remembered that compensation actions may have a cost,
for instance the energetic cost of moving (potentially to a poorer quality site), or an
increased risk of predation.




                                         Asken Ltd
                                Final Report – May 2007
                                           245


Despite the limitations of many disturbance studies, there is clear evidence that
disturbance from people causes frequent behavioural responses, including
displacement of incubating birds, increased flights to alternative foraging or roosting
areas, and reduced feeding efficiency resulting from increased vigilance. A recent
review has also shown that these behavioural responses are exacerbated when a dog
is present (Taylor et al. 2005). The presence of a dog often provokes a disturbance
response at a greater distance and for a longer period than stimuli from recreational
activities. This has been shown through observations of incubating waders, wintering
waders and through experimental manipulation of nesting plovers.
There is also evidence that disturbance responses and direct impacts of trampling can
in turn lead to reduced breeding productivity and survival rates, and in some cases
reduced populations in a number of birds and mammals.
Many studies have demonstrated that birds can be deterred from breeding in areas that
are disturbed by large numbers of people. For example, a study of kentish plovers in
Germany found that the presence of people in the best habitat areas prevented the
birds from colonising a large part of their potential breeding habitat (Schulz & Stock
1993). If suitable alternative sites are not available then such disturbance will reduce
the amount of suitable nesting habitat, and will constrain population size. Furthermore,
even if alternative sites are available an increase in population density may result, in
which case survival and recruitment rates may decline as result of density-dependent
effects (e.g. competition for food).
Indeed a recent study of ringed plovers on beaches in Norfolk found that populations
are lower than they would be in the absence of human disturbance as a result of habitat
loss and density-dependent effects (Liley & Sutherland in press). The study found that
human disturbance displaces birds from areas of high disturbance, and a small number
of nests are trampled by people walking on the beach. Models were then developed
incorporating human disturbance, habitat quality and density-independent and density-
dependent population variables to predict population sizes resulting from different levels
of disturbance and trampling. The model predicted that if nest loss from human activity
was prevented, for example by fencing nests, then the plover population size would
increase by 8%. A complete absence of human disturbance would cause a population
increase of 85% and if the numbers of people were to double it is predicted that the
population would decrease by 23%.
It is well known that disturbance of incubating birds can cause them to leave the nest,
which may then expose the eggs or chicks to predation or adverse weather. For
example, the study of kentish plovers in Germany found that the most successful nests
were found in remote or protected areas away from people and that resting people
caused more direct disturbance than walkers, as walkers mainly followed the high tide
line and were rarely seen within the nesting area (Schulz and Stock 1993).
Furthermore, the study found that exposed nests failed more than hidden nests, which
indicates that aerial avian predators were likely to have been the main cause of nest
losses, the increased disturbance of plovers by tourists making nests easier for
predators to find.
A study of kittiwakes and guillemots breeding of St Abbs Head in Scotland, found that
disturbance can lead to increased rates of desertion by adults despite an absence of an
apparent behavioural effect (Beale & Monaghan 2004). The study developed models




                                   Asken Ltd
                               Final Report – May 2007
                                          246


that incorporated all parameters affecting nesting success and visitor numbers were
manipulated by a combination of increasing numbers of visitors to viewpoints, and
allowing access to some generally inaccessible areas. The models found that increases
in visitor numbers by 8.5% led to a decline in nesting success for kittiwakes (29.4%)
and guillemots (66.2%), whilst halving visitor levels resulted in increased nesting
success (95.6% for kittiwakes and 87.2% for guillemots). When people load (number of
visitors and their distance from the nest) was kept constant, the average distance
between visitors and nests was negatively correlated with nesting success. Although
the biological cause of this was not known, the authors suggested that it was due to an
increase in metabolic rate at a time of high metabolic demand, and hence a decline in
condition, leading ultimately to desertion.
Several research studies have shown a reduction in chick foraging and/or chick
provisioning at the pre-fledging stage as a result of disturbance. However, evidence that
this has an impact on chick survival is limited. Woodfield and Langston (2004) note that
several studies indicate no apparent detrimental impact, probably because
compensatory feeding is possible. However, a study in North America has shown a
reduction in survival, e.g. piping plover on coastal beaches (Fleming et al. 1988).
Research has also shown that disturbance can have significant impacts on non-
breeding birds. For example, studies of wintering geese (which frequently use coastal
grasslands, saltmarshes and mudflats in England) have demonstrated that human
disturbance can reduce food utilisation and feeding time, increase flight frequency, and
cause changes of feeding site (Woodlfield and Langston 2004). Although birds may be
able to escape disturbance by flying to other areas, flight requires considerable
energetic expenditure, especially for heavy birds such as geese. Therefore, flights
caused by disturbance, may incur significant additional energetic costs, thereby
exacerbating reductions in feeding time. Furthermore, displaced birds are likely to be
forced to use poorer quality feeding habitat (Stalmaster & Kaiser 1998).
Birds may be able to compensate for disturbance by spending more time feeding.
However, this may not be possible during times of particularly high energy demand,
such as during migration periods and in winter, and especially during periods of severe
weather. During such periods birds may not be able to obtain sufficient food to off-set
disturbance effects (Woodfield & Langstone 2004). In fact, some studies have shown
that a reduction in available feeding time under severe weather conditions can result in
increased mortality, e.g. of waders (Clark et al. 1993). Population models for
oystercatchers on the Exe Estuary also demonstrated that disturbance during periods of
severe weather in particular led to increased mortality, especially when the birds were
at high population levels (West et al. 2002). In contrast, a study of non-breeding black
tailed godwits on estuaries in eastern England found no detrimental effect of
disturbance by people (Gill et al. 2001a). However, this study did not include periods of
severe weather, during which access disturbance might be expected to have an
adverse effect.
In conclusion, although caution is needed when extrapolating the results of individual
bird disturbance studies, it is clear that an increase in disturbance resulting from
increased and inadequately managed access could have detrimental impacts on
several bird species of conservation concern (see summary table above) particularly
during migration periods and winter, and especially during prolonged periods of cold
weather.




                                  Asken Ltd
                                 Final Report – May 2007
                                            247


Seals
It is evident that grey seals and common seals are potentially vulnerable to disturbance
when hauled out for resting, breeding or feeding young. The disturbance of resting
seals may cause them to return to the water, which will have energetic consequences
and may lead to drowning of young or ill animals, particularly in severe weather
conditions.
Breeding seals and their young could be vulnerable to disturbance, and especially
common seals because their breeding season coincides with the peak tourist summer
months. However, pups are very well developed at birth and can swim and dive when
just a few hours old. Common seals also generally breed on inaccessible sand banks in
England and are therefore unlikely to be affected by increased coastal access for
walkers etc.
In contrast to common seals, grey seals give birth to less developed pups, which
remain on land and suckle from their mother for 18-21 days. They are, therefore,
potentially much more vulnerable to the possible impacts of disturbance. However, they
tend to breed on small islands or in isolated caves and coves etc, which are often
inaccessible on foot. Therefore, disturbance may in practice be relatively infrequent on
most coasts. They also breed later in the autumn (September – November) when
visitor numbers to coasts are low.
Overall Saunders et al (2000) concluded that there is no evidence for effects at the
population level for either seal species as a result of disturbance, either by land-based
disturbance, or from those approaching from the sea, although behavioural responses
were regularly witnessed.

A8.2 Trampling of vegetation and erosion
There are a variety of studies that have shown that intensive trampling of vegetation by
walkers can lead to changes in vegetation composition and structure, and in severe
cases vegetation loss and erosion (Taylor et al. 2006). Such impacts can be
exacerbated by periods of drought (which may reduce protective vegetation cover) and
heavy rainfall (which may reduce soil stability). The use of mountain bikes along paths
can lead to particularly severe damage, especially as they are often used in muddy
conditions.
Trampling can affect plants through soil compaction (which reduces root and tuber
growth) and abrasion which reduces above ground biomass. In general, as the primary
productivity of the vegetation increases with higher fertility, the vulnerability to trampling
decreases (Liddle 1975a; Kellomaki and Saastamoinen 1975). Thus vegetation
communities of high nature conservation value are often particularly vulnerable to
trampling as they tend to occur on less fertile soils.
Plants that are more tolerant of trampling tend to be where the bud or apex is protected
from direct damage, and which can regenerate rapidly after damage. Thus as trampling
levels increase, sensitive species, such as slow growing species with thin leaves and
tall woody stems, tend to die out and become replaced by grasses and species with
basal rosettes.
Grassland habitats thus tend to be more resilient to trampling than some other coastal
habitats. Nevertheless, significant impacts can occur from intensive trampling. Chalk




                                    Asken Ltd
                                 Final Report – May 2007
                                            248


grasslands and their species of conservation interest can also be sensitive to trampling.
Taylor et al. (2006) concluded from a review of studies, that the typical, locally
distributed, broad-leaved species of chalk grassland are the first to disappear under
trampling pressure. Although a few species are resistant to moderate levels of
trampling, these are replaced by common and widespread resistant path species,
including grasses, which can spread widely away from the paths.
There is particularly strong evidence that trampling and erosion from the recreational
use of sand dunes and heaths has a profound effect on sand dunes habitats. Although
low levels of trampling may actually help counteract the effects of the abandonment of
grazing, more intensive use can cause a proliferation of paths and widespread erosion
(Boorman & Fuller 1977). As Hylgaard and Liddle (1981) showed on an ericaceous
dominated fixed dune, after only 200 passages by one person, a footpath 24cm wide
and 15mm deep had been created with a reduction in vegetation cover of 50% and of
plant species of 75%. Evidence also suggests that the vegetation of fixed dunes where
these are dominated by ericaceous shrubs (dune heath) takes a long time to recover
(Lemauviel & Roze 2003). Lichen communities are especially easily damaged and
recovery takes a long time. In most studies, extended periods of trampling are more
damaging than single events. In extreme cases, there is some evidence that extensive
trampling on a dune system may result in fixed dunes reverting to mobile dunes, which
can cause a severe deterioration in nature conservation value.
According to Taylor et al. (2006) no studies appear to have been carried out on the
impacts of human trampling on the plants and animals of coastal shingle. However, it is
known that shingle vegetation is easily damaged and that recovery can be very slow
(Sneddon & Randall 1993).
Similarly, trampling on inter-tidal muds and salt marsh has been little studied, though
there is some evidence that they may be partly sensitive. Andersen (Andersen 1995)
found no reduction in species diversity, little reduction in species number but a
reduction of about 30% in cover of saltmarsh plants from light trampling.

A8.3 Contamination
Litter
Taylor et al. (2006) note that there are many documented cases of litter having affecting
wildlife, such as:
    - wildlife eating discarded matter and suffering internal injuries or infection;
    - physical injuries (e.g. from broken glass/abandoned disposal barbeques);
    - small mammals being trapped and dying in discarded bottles and other
      containers;
    - increasing food resources for rats and other scavengers such as foxes and
      crows, which may increase predator numbers and thereby increase predation
      impacts on other species;
    - litter may contain non-degradable or toxic materials which can damage natural
      communities by indefinite shading or pollution.
Despite this there appears to be very little scientific information in the literature on these
threats and no published studies of their impacts on species. However, it can probably




                                    Asken Ltd
                                 Final Report – May 2007
                                            249


be reliably assumed that most impacts from litter, although occasionally fatal to
individual animals, will be minor and insignificant in population terms. Nevertheless, in
some circumstances predators can have significant impacts on populations at coastal
sites (e.g. tern colonies). In fact, even one individual predator can have a marked
impact on a season’s breeding productivity. Therefore, litter may in such circumstances
indirectly lead to significant impacts by maintaining predator populations at higher than
normal densities. But this issue requires further research.

Dog fouling
A number of research studies and anecdotal reports show that dogs contribute to
nutrient enrichment of infertile habitats through defecation and urination (Taylor et al.
2005). This is important on soils where nutrient levels, especially of phosphorus and
nitrogen, are low and where this is critical for the survival of the vegetation. Heathlands,
nutrient-poor grasslands and sand dunes are most sensitive to such enrichment.
Vegetation impacts from enrichment are a loss of stress-tolerant species, which tend to
be of high conservation interest, and increased dominance of nutrient-loving
competitive species. This in turn results in a reduction in species diversity in the sward
and conservation value.
However, the extent and significance of such impacts depends on the numbers of dogs,
where faeces are concentrated, the proportion of the site that is affected, and the
presence of particularly important populations of species in the faeces deposition zone.
Impacts from dog fouling tend to be concentrated around car parks and site entrances
as dogs tend to perform their bodily functions shortly after being let out of cars or taken
off a lead, and in approximately a one metre zone beside the paths.
Thus in most cases the impacts of dog fouling are likely to be localised. But impacts can
be extensive where large numbers of people walk dogs. For example, Streeter (1971)
studied the effect of visitor numbers on the vegetation and nutrient status of the soil
adjacent to a footpath on chalk grassland on Box Hill, Surrey. The extent of
replacement of the chalk grassland flora sward by crested dog’s-tail and perennial rye-
grass was about 50m from the path, even though soil compaction was pronounced only
in the first 20-30m. Moreover, the peak in ryegrass content was correlated with peaks in
available phosphorus which was apparent not in the bare path, but in the 10 to 65m
zone from it. Although Streeter did not offer an explanation for the soil enrichment, it is
likely to be a product of dog faeces (and perhaps waste food). Although this was not a
coastal site, it is conceivable that similar impacts could arise on frequently visited
sensitive vegetation communities.

A8.4 Wildfires
Wildfires are fires that are not part of managed burning, and are not controlled. They
can occur as a result of lightning, but are more often started by human actions, either
as the result of accidents or arson. Most wildfires arise from accidents associated with
recreational uses (Anderson 1997). They typically start close to roads, paths and other
access areas, often originating from discarded cigarettes or sparks from barbeques and
open fires. Most happen in the summer, when weather conditions are dry and warm,
because this both increases the fire risk and the numbers of visitors present (Anderson
1986).




                                    Asken Ltd
                                Final Report – May 2007
                                           250


Management fires may also occasionally get out of control and turn into wildfires.
According to government figures, over 25,000 ha of land are affected by wildfires each
year, although this can be substantially greater in extremely dry periods, such as the
spring of 2003 (Taylor et al. 2006).
In fact, fire is a natural component of many ecosystems in Britain and has been used by
man since Mesolithic times to clear woody vegetation and manage habitats (e.g. for
livestock). Although it is still commonly used to manage upland moors for grouse and
livestock, burning management is less common on lowland heaths
Most of the research on fires in Britain has been carried out on Scottish grouse moors.
Relatively few scientific studies have been carried out of the impacts of managed fires
in England, especially on habitats other than dwarf shrub heaths. Nevertheless, some
of the results from the upland burning studies are applicable to lowland coastal heaths.
Recent reviews of managed burning and wildfire impacts (e.g. Coulson et al. 1992;
Shaw et al. 1996; Tucker 2003) indicate that the impacts of fires on soils, hydrology and
biodiversity are complex and vary according to a number of interrelated factors.
Characteristics of the fires are especially important, such as their frequency,
temperature, ground surface intensity, residency time and size. These characteristics in
turn depend on a range of factors including: fuel type and structure, width of fire, slope,
wind and moisture levels in the vegetation and soil, and burning method (if managed).
Impacts also depend on soil and habitat conditions at the time of burning (which partly
reflect the cumulative impacts of burning), season, weather conditions and interactions
with grazing and other management practices.
Nevertheless it is evident from the studies that, in appropriate circumstances, managed
burning can help to maintain some semi-natural habitats in England. In particular,
carefully controlled management burns can arrest succession processes and help to
maintain low nutrient conditions in lowland heathlands (Gimingham 1971; Gimingham
1972, 1992). Burning also reduces fuel loads and thus to some extent the risks of large
and very hot wildfires.
However, wildfires (and inappropriate and poorly managed burns) can have significant
detrimental impacts, including:
    - ignition, combustion and loss of peat and humus layers by hot fires in dry
      conditions;
    - increased erosion, particularly after hot fires and where large or old stands of
      vegetation are burnt;
    - reduction of structural and species diversity and vegetation composition
      changes, especially on frequently burnt areas or from large/intense fires;
    - post-fire establishment of invasive species such as bracken, for example where
      old heather stands are burnt;
    - destruction and long-term exclusion of fire sensitive and slow colonising species;
    - removal of cover for ground-nesting wildlife and destruction of birds nests and
      clutches.
Wildfires can become extremely severe, especially when they occur during dry weather
(which is the most likely time). They can extend over very large areas and may also




                                   Asken Ltd
                                 Final Report – May 2007
                                            251


result in combustion of peat and other organic components of the soil leading to soil
degradation, severe erosion and long-term ecological and hydrological impacts.

A8.5 Nest robbing and egg collecting and falconry
Although there are incidents of nest robbing along English coasts, there appear to be
no published studies of their impacts on bird populations. Nevertheless, it seems
unlikely that nest robbing is having any significant population level impacts on any
species, though occasional local impacts may occur. In fact some coastal species that
are particularly prone to nest robbing for eggs and falconry, such as the peregrine, are
increasing in England (Brown and Grice 2005). Although some declining species of
terns, waders and other coastal ground nesting birds may occasional suffer nest losses
(e.g. to egg collectors and from vandalism) these losses are likely to be small compared
to other impacts (e.g. disturbance and accidental trampling).
There is also evidence from the RSPB’s annual report on offences against wild bird
legislation, ‘BirdCrime’, that incidents of egg collecting and nest robbing for falconry are
declining in the UK (RSPB 2005). This is in part probably due to changes in legislation
which have resulted in some prison sentences for nest-robbing. Furthermore, the taking
of wild birds for falconry has probably declined as a result of an increase in captive bred
birds and the use of DNA technology, which has made it possible secure prosecutions
by distinguishing between wild caught and captive bred birds.
It is also unlikely that a lack of access is a major deterrent for dedicated and well
organised egg collectors or falconers, who are already knowingly taking part in an
illegal activity. This is evident from the fact that many incidents of nest robbing take
place on private estates in locations that are far from the nearest point of public access.
Indeed, public access may dissuade some nest robbers from attempting to get to nests
if they are visible from paths etc.
Overall the potential effects of increasing access on nest robbing are uncertain, but it
seems unlikely that any impacts would be significant.

A8.6 Influence on land management
Taylor et al (2005) found that managers of sites valued for nature conservation are
influenced in their land management decisions by the presence of public access
because of the likelihood of dogs accompanying visitors. This can affect the decision to
re-introduce grazing intended to improve vegetation cover, for example.
It has been suggested that in some circumstances landowners may deliberately convert
grassland and other habitats to arable crops in order to prevent the land being classed
as Access Land under the CROW Act, so preventing public access being granted to it.
Any such change could have potentially significant detrimental impacts on a number of
coastal grassland habitats of high nature conservation value (e.g. chalk grasslands and
some drier examples of coastal grazing marsh). However, there appears to be no data
on the extent to which this has happened so far or on its likely impacts on coastal
habitats. In any event, ploughing of uncultivated or semi-natural grassland now
requires permission under the Environmental Impact Assessment (Uncultivated Land
and Semi-natural Areas) (England) Regulations 2001. Consent may be withheld if the
project would have unacceptable environmental effects.




                                    Asken Ltd
                                Final Report – May 2007
                                           252



Appendix 9
Option 2a – Creation of Coastal Access Land
without Mapping

A9.1 Introduction
This section provides a description of Option 2a and its expected effects. The label
applied to this option is “Creation of Coastal Access Land without Mapping”. In view of
the similarity of this option to Option 2, many of the assumptions, benefits and costs are
shared. In order to avoid repetition, cross-references to Option 2 are provided; the
commentary focuses on where the two options differ.

A9.2 Option Description
Defra’s tender document describe this option as being: “A descriptive approach which
identifies the extent and location of coastal land, and permits access to that land except
in specified circumstances. This approach is likely to require primary legislation”.

A9.2.1 Legal framework
What is envisaged is that new legislation is passed (or existing legislation modified) that
would say, in effect, that “the public has a right of access to coastal land”. This would
be supported by guidance on how to recognise coastal land, issued by NE and
approved by the SoS.
Under this option, coastal land could be defined in the form of a description based upon
the wording used in CRoW s3 (see Section 9.2.1). However, a map showing specific
areas of land would not be produced. It is expected that it would work in the following
way:
   -   the public would have a right of access on foot to the whole of the foreshore
       from the extent of the MLWM to MHWM;
   -   this area would include any beach, salt marsh, mud flat, dune and the top of any
       sea wall, sea bank, barrier and cliff;
   -   access would be subject to any notified restrictions and subject to excepted land
       types, as applied to CRoW Access Land.

A9.2.2 Key Assumptions
Key assumptions used are that:
   -   as with Option 2 (see Section 9.2.2), no new Access Land would be created
       under ‘Do nothing’;
   -   the definition of coastal land would be as per CRoW s3 (see Section 9.2.1) and
       so the same areas of land would be covered by the definition;
   -   no maps would be prepared, but there would be a series of cases taken through
       a dispute resolution process to test the limits of the definition;




                                   Asken Ltd
                                Final Report – May 2007
                                           253


   -   because no mapping is needed, implementation would be relatively rapid,
       perhaps a sufficient time for a publicity campaign (whereas a short delay has
       been assumed to occur for Option 2 between enactment and implementation to
       allow time for mapping);
   -   where the definition applies, it would come under a similar management regime
       as other types of CRoW Access Land. As a result, there would be a need to
       develop mechanisms for dealing with applications for restrictions (including
       requests from the relevant statutory bodies). It is assumed that these would be
       similar to the approach using CRoW s3 (see Section 9) although it may be more
       expensive initially under this option, as there will be a need to devise a system
       to identify the piece of land that is subject to restriction or exclusion (in the
       absence of conclusive maps), and to check that it is actually Access Land
       (otherwise it cannot be restricted);
   -   costs to farmers and landowners would be similar to those discussed in Section
       9 (for area-wide access). No compensation would be payable to affected
       landowners;
   -   provision would be made for access to the coast, as per other options;
   -   existence of such a right would not affect the application of planning legislation,
       other than where planning legislation may be used to protect the right of access
       – e.g. by not permitting the erection of walls or fencing, where these are not
       permitted development and where these would enclose land that falls within
       access rights.

A9.3 Scale of Effects
Given that the same definition of ‘coastal land’ is used as in Option 2 (see Section 9.3),
then this will affect:
   -   250,000 to 288,000 ha of foreshore;
   -   150,000 ha of coastal land.
However, there are expected to be differences between this option and Option 2 as a
result of differences in the process used for defining the area to which rights of access
would apply. These are discussed below in relation to each of the different processes.

A9.4 Effects Relative to Baseline
A9.4.1 Benefits
A9.4.1.1       Economic
Benefits to Users
Under this option, there would be no mapping and areas would not be shown on the OS
maps. IPSOS/MORI found that 6% of respondents would visit the coast more frequently
if descriptions of where one could and could not go were available. We are somewhat
sceptical about this response especially given the general concern with the need for
provision of clear mapped and signed information in other responses. Taken at face
value the 6% gives the same benefits as under Option 2. However, we conclude that




                                     Asken Ltd
                                            Final Report – May 2007
                                                     254


benefits would in fact be lower because of increased uncertainty over what constituted
legal access. We assume that trips would only increase by 5%. This gives a benefit of
£16.26m per year (Table A9.1).


Table A9.1: User Benefits as at Year 20


Displaced and additional                              Unit Benefit
visits                               Visits (m)         (£/visit)       Benefit (£m)

Residents                               0.80               2.35              1.88

Tourist and other day visits            2.30               6.25             14.38

Total                                   3.10                                16.26

Benefits to Owners and Managers of Properties Along the Coast
These benefits would be limited to the non-financial benefits listed in Section 4.2, plus
payments associated with creation of access to the coast (110 km and 125
agreements).

Benefits to the Coastal Economy
The impacts of other options depend entirely on the additional visitor days they
generate. Table A9.2 summarises the impacts derived from the visitor data in
Appendix 2.


Table A9.2: Economic impacts of the Option 2a


Increase in total visitor      Employment associated with new         Income associated with new
days (m/yr)                    access (FTEs) range                    access (£m per year) (range)

0.54                           646 to 856                             2.02 to 2.68


Enhanced access would encourage additional trips to the coast and the increased
expenditure will increase provide employment opportunities and increase incomes for
local businesses. The impacts are estimated at 646 - 856 FTE jobs and £2.02 - £2.68m
per year in additional income for local businesses (see Appendix 3).
There would also be benefits from a proportion of the increased spending by public
sector bodies (see Table A9.3 below).

Benefits to Public Sector Bodies
Benefits would be:
       -   savings in costs incurred through agri-environment schemes;
       -   savings in other payments through permissive agreements.
It has not been possible to quantify these benefits.




                                               Asken Ltd
                                 Final Report – May 2007
                                            255


A9.4.1.2        Environment
As noted under Section 9, this option would potentially increase access to large areas
of saltmarsh, coastal grazing marsh, sand dunes and cliffs. The benefits would also be
similar to Option 2, namely:
   -   sensitive coastal land that is currently used by the public in an unmanaged way
       would come under a similar Access Land management regime and so could
       potentially benefit from better management and increased protection;
   -   access also provides better options for controlling access to particularly
       sensitive sites and during critical periods in comparison to Options 1 and 3.

A9.4.1.3       Social
Social benefits will be fundamentally the same as for Option 2. The opportunities for
disabled people, horse riders and cyclists afforded by this option are the same as for
Option 2.

A9.4.2 Costs
A9.4.2.1       Economic
Costs to Users
The costs to users would be similar to those attributed to users in Section 9.4.2.
However, because no maps are to be produced under this option, users – especially
user groups - may be involved in cases where the access rights are challenged by a
landowner or other interested party.
Although such challenges would be taken up voluntarily, it is reasonable to include their
costs as they will be part of the process of securing rights of access.
There will also be costs associated with a minor increase in accidental drownings
(valued at £5.4m over the full 20 year period at mid-point 2006 values).

Costs to Owners and Managers of Properties Along the Coast
Owners of properties along the coast would suffer costs as a result of access being
provided to:
   -   all land meeting the legal definition of Access Land on an area-wide basis;
   -   110 km of linear access (PRoW) created to gain access to the coast.

One-off Costs of Disputes
It is to be expected that disputes will arise over what land meets the legal definition (and
so the extent of where public rights of access would exist). It is assumed that a dispute
resolution mechanism would be established (or an existing mechanism used) to resolve
any such disputes. Therefore, similar unit costs (as used in Option 2) are assumed to
apply, along with the same propensity to use expert advice. However, there is
uncertainty whether the number of disputes which might arise will be higher or lower
than for Option 2 because:




                                    Asken Ltd
                                 Final Report – May 2007
                                            256


    -   without a clear definition of Access Land boundaries, there is an absence of a
        prompt to landowners to check mapping;
    -   new mechanisms have been put in place (e.g. establishment of Local Access
        Forums) that may provide alternative and less formal or legalistic means (and so
        less costly) of resolving disputes;
    -   in contrast, without a clearly defined mapped area, users may be uncertain
        where they can and cannot walk and so prompt owners of land (some of which
        will be found to fit the legal definition of coastal land and some of which will not)
        to seek clarification.
In Scotland, where a general right of access was provided by the Land Reform
(Scotland) Act 2003, which did not require any mapping, few disputes have arisen to
date.
It is unlikely that many challenges would be made about the extent of foreshore.
Consequently, for the purposes of this study and to cover the inherent uncertainty, a
range of assumptions has been applied, giving a range of 50% reduction (“low”
scenario), 50% increase (“high” scenario) and no change (“Mid” scenario). This gives
overall costs, at 2006 values, of £5.9m, with lower and upper limits of £2.7m to £14.3m.
Costs will also be incurred in negotiating access to the coast.

Loss of Capital Value
The same costs are assumed to be the same under this option as for Option 2 (see
Section 9.4.2).

Recurring costs
The same costs are assumed to be the same under this option as for Option 2 (see
Section 9.4.2), except that they will start earlier within the 20-year period.

Occupiers’ Liability
On CRoW Access Land where previously no public access was allowed and
trespassing was not known to have occurred, then the occupier of that land will have to
consider whether he is meeting his duty of care to the people now coming onto his land.
However, this duty would be modified by CRoW s13. As a result, it is unlikely to be
significant in most cases.

Costs to Coastal Economy
See comments under Section 9.4.2.

Costs to Public Sector Bodies

Legal Appeals
As with costs to landowners, unit costs are estimated to be the same as for Option 2 but
with variation in the rate of appeals between +/-50% and no change. This gives overall
costs, at 2006 values as £2.6m, with lower and upper limits of £1.3m to £6.0m.




                                    Asken Ltd
                                 Final Report – May 2007
                                             257


Infrastructure Costs, Management, Nature Conservation Research and Access Appraisals
Costs are assumed to be as per Option 2, although slight differences arise due to the
slightly faster implementation (which means that recurring costs start to arise earlier).

Promotion and Information Provision
Several costs are expected to arise under this option. Firstly, a communications
strategy and promotional campaign is likely to be needed to ensure landowners are
aware of the new access rights. RPA Ltd (2006) estimates this as costing between
£2.4m and £4.8m, with a mid-point of £3.6m.
In addition, a public promotional campaign would be devised and implemented, with
particular effort made to explain what is and what is not coastal land, as there will not
be the possibility of referring them to maps. This has been estimated by RPA Ltd as
being around £1.95m (range of +/- 33%).
As with other options, it is expected that NE would develop a coastal access code at a
cost of between £500,000 and £1.3m.
Research and monitoring costs would be £0.3m to £0.5m, spread over the initial four
years of implementation.

Restrictions
The restrictions regime is expected to apply in the same way under this option as under
Option 2, so costs will be similar except that the OACC will need to develop a means by
which restrictions can be recorded and publicised without recourse to mapping, or to
allow mapping to be entered onto the system as requests for restrictions are received.
RPA Ltd (2006) has provided an estimate of the additional costs, and a figure of £3.3m
has been included (range of £2.2m to £4.4m).

Ministry of Defence and Environment Agency
Costs are expected to be the same as under Option 2, although implementation is
marginally quicker.

Summary
Costs to public sector bodies are summarised in Table A9.3.




                                      Asken Ltd
                                        Final Report – May 2007
                                                       258




Table A9.3: Additional Costs to Public Sector Bodies


Body/Type of Body          Additional cost factors                    Cost estimate Years 1 – 20 (£’000
                                                                      at £2006 value)

Not yet determined         Dispute resolution                         2,580 (1,250 – 6,000)

NE                         Provision of information aimed at          3,600 (2,400 – 4,800)
                           landowners

NE                         Public promotional campaign                1,950 (1,300 – 2,600)

NE                         Development of coastal access code         750 (500 to 1,330)

NE                         Environmental and Appropriate              280
                           Assessments

NE                         OACC changes (as per Option 2)             600 (200 – 1,000)

NE                         Additional costs for Option 4              1,000 (500 – 1,500)

NE                         Research                                   400 (300 – 500)

NE/Relevant Authorities    Operation of restrictions regime over      3,330 (2,220 – 4,440)
                           additional access land

Central govt (managed by   Infrastructure, including mitigation       219 (180 - 258)
NE)

Central govt (managed by   Maintenance of infrastructure (via AMGS)   176 (108 – 250)
NE)

AAs                        Infrastructure, including mitigation       73 (60 - 86)

AAs                        Maintenance of infrastructure (via AMGS)   1,562 (954 – 2,219)

MoD                        Site assessments                           88 (42 – 150)

MoD                        Site implementation work                   131 (75 – 200)

Environment Agency         Risk assessments and community liaison     294

Environment Agency         Infrastructure, including mitigation       1,280

Environment Agency         Maintenance of infrastructure              5,429
                 68
Various bodies             Costs of access TO the coast               3,666 (1,175 – 6,989)

Total                                                                 27,409 (18,678 – 39,502)

A9.4.2.2        Environment
The costs and disadvantages of access under this option would be similar to Option 2.
However, it could be more difficult to avoid or regulate access to sensitive land (e.g.
important archaeological features, breeding bird colonies or vegetation that is sensitive
to trampling). This is because some sensitive vegetation communities or other features
are not easily distinguished from other apparently similar habitats. Thus, in the absence



68
  This covers the cost of providing access to the coast and would be borne by a range of public
sector bodies (e.g. LHAs, PINS)




                                            Asken Ltd
                                 Final Report – May 2007
                                            259


of mapping, there would be a greater risk that people would unknowingly wander off
Access Land onto other areas, which could lead to environmental damage.
Although these potential additional impacts cannot be quantified with the information
currently available to this study, it is considered unlikely that they would be substantial.
It is therefore predicted that the overall range of residual impacts would be the same as
predicted for Option 2 for each environmental receptor (see Table 9.8).

A9.4.2.3      Social
As with Option 2, there may be uncertainty over where access rights exist, and what
land is excepted, particularly where there are businesses such as campsites and
caravan sites. In the absence of definitive maps, this uncertainty is likely to be more
pronounced and place greater importance on accurate signage.
There may be conflict between owners of private beaches and the public, where the
exclusive rights of the former have been given up for the benefit of the latter, without
compensation being paid. Again, the risk is greater as trespass onto unaffected
properties is more likely in the absence of definitive maps.
Although providing a right of access to land that meets the description of coastal land is
not intended to restrict development, it may influence decisions to grant planning
permission (CLA pers comm.). Were this to occur, this would serve to reduce the
increase in economic efficiency.
As in other options, there will be a slightly increased cost to society of additional
rescues of people in difficulty in the sea (estimated at £0.4m over the 20-year period).

A9.5 Other Issues
A9.5.1 Implementation
Implementation would be largely the same as in Option 2 (see Section 9.5.1). The key
difference is that mapping would not be undertaken. Instead, it is expected that there
would be some cases heard by the LT (or similar) to clarify how the descriptive
definition of Access Land is applied on the ground. Further cases may arise after some
years, when erosion alters the coast’s alignment and the area of land that fits the
description.

A9.5.2 Competition Assessment
The Competition Assessment Filter has been applied to this option (see Table A9.4
below).

Table A9.4: Competition Assessment Filter


Question                                                                        Answer
                                                                                yes or no


Q1: In the market(s) affected by the new regulation, does any firm have         No
    more than 10% market share?
Q2: In the market(s) affected by the new regulation, does any firm have No




                                    Asken Ltd
                                   Final Report – May 2007
                                                260



Question                                                                                      Answer
                                                                                              yes or no

        more than 20% market share?
Q3: In the market(s) affected by the new regulation, do the largest three No
    firms together have at least 50% market share?
Q4: Would the costs of the regulation affect some firms substantially more Yes
    than others?
Q5: Is the regulation likely to affect the market structure, changing the No
    number or size of firms?
Q6: Would the regulation lead to higher set-up costs for new or potential No
    firms that existing firms do not have to meet?
Q7: Would the regulation lead to higher ongoing costs for new or potential No
    firms that existing firms do not have to meet?
Q8: Is the market characterised by rapid technological change?                                No
Q9: Would the regulation restrict the ability of firms to choose the price, Yes
    quality, range or location of their products?

The answer to Question 4 is “Yes” because some firms that depend on exclusive use of
(say) a private beach for their business’s competitive advantage would be more
significantly affected than those that do not have such reliance. Similarly, “Yes” is
entered against Question 9, as such businesses would not be able to price their product
on the basis that it provides accommodation that is secluded and private.

A9.5 Summary
The benefits and costs, both quantified and unquantified, identified for this option are
summarised in Table A9.5 below, broken down by type of receptor. In order to allow
comparison at current prices, monetary data have been adjusted to NPV based on a
3.5% discount rate.

Table A9.5: Summary of Benefits and Costs (Yrs 1 – 20)

                                Benefits                             Costs
Quantified                     £m (at 2006)       (£m NPV)           £m (at 2006)        (£m NPV)

Users                          163 (81 – 244)     102 (51 – 153)     5 (4 – 8)           3 (3 – 5)

Property Owners                1 (<1 – 1)         1 (<1 – 1)         11 (6 – 20)         9 (5 – 17)

Society                        0                  0                  <1 (<1 – 1)         <1

Public Sector                  0                  0                  27 (19 – 40)        22 (15 – 33)

Unquantified                   Benefits                              Costs
Users                          Increased health and well-being       Costs of involvement in challenges
                               arising from 3.1m visits (Moderate)   to extent of Access Land (Moderate
                                                                     for those affected)
                               Access rights are secure against
                               erosion along approximately           Uncertainty from lack of conclusive




                                      Asken Ltd
                               Final Report – May 2007
                                              261


                            Benefits                                 Costs
                            150,000 ha of coast (Moderate)           maps along the whole of the 4,870