Breadcrumbs
South West Coast Path: review of the National Trail in South Devon (AP01/43)
FOR DECISION
|
Relevance to Strategy and Corporate Plan:
|
Staff and financial implications: We expect to spend c. £100 k on preparatory work , construction and legal advice which can be met from existing budgets over the Corporate Plan period. Compensation payments are less predictable as is the timing . We propose to meet any such costs from a related programme underspend, so progress on implementation will depend upon funds becoming available in future years. |
Main issues to concern the Board:
|
Background
- From Strete Gate to Warren Point in South Hams, Devon, the
South West Coast Path cuts inland for some 5 miles, avoiding
private property along the coastline and diverted round the back of
the two villages, Strete and Stoke Fleming. More than 50 per cent
is on tarmacked roads, including rural sections of busy A road with
no pavement. Most walkers avoid this section - usage is one quarter
of the level on adjacent stretches of the Trail. Since the 1950s
there have been several inconclusive efforts to negotiate both
major and minor realignments or improvements. Devon County Council
has generally been in favour of realignment, and ready to do the
work, but landowner opposition and potential costs of compensation
for a truly coastal route often deterred the Countryside Commission
when reviewing the options for improvement.
- In 1998 the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and
the Regions was asked by the Ramblers' Association and South West
Way (Coast Path) Association to use his reserve powers to make a
Public Path Creation Order along a coastal route they proposed. The
Department sought advice from the Countryside Commission which
commissioned a full review from the South West Coast Path Team. The
Team submitted its report, proposing a 'preferred route' for a new
path, to the Agency in July 2001. Board members were sent either
the full report or a summary . The Agency now needs to
advise the Secretary of State of its intended course of
action.
Relevant powers or duties - To realign a National Trail where there is no existing public
right of way, a Varying Report is required (to move the Trail
route) and Path Creation Agreements or Orders are needed to create
the rights of way.
- The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (s55)
gives the Countryside Agency powers to propose changing the
route of a National Trail by submitting a Varying
Report for Secretary of State approval. The Agency may also offer
up to 100% grant aid for establishing and improving National
Trails.
- The Highways Act 1980 (s 25) gives Devon County Council, as
highway authority, power to enter into Public Path Creation
Agreements. Section 26 (1) and (2) gives both the highway authority
and the Secretary of State powers to make Public Path Creation
Orders ie. compulsory powers to create a route, provided that they
are satisfied on certain points (see extract from s 26 (1) at
Annex 5).
The review - Officers judge the review has been thorough and professional .
It addressed in detail all key aspects of the route question, took
specialist and professional advice and conducted surveys of
residents' and users' views. Key bodies were
consulted and solutions sought which would gain maximum acceptance
among those with a direct interest in the land through which a new
route might run..
- Its main conclusions are:
- that this section of the National Trail should be re-routed to improve the safety of coast path users, meet National Trail Quality Standards, provide a better coastal experience for walkers and increase local economic benefits;
- that an entirely new route for the Coast Path would be required to meet these criteria. The review recommends a route (1E, 2C, 3C, 4C and 5C - see maps at Annex 3) which runs closer to the coast, mainly on the seaward side of the A379, but also includes the centres of both villages. This aims to minimise effects on archaeology , wildlife , landscape and the curtilage of private property in the area.
Informal consultation
8. Before seeking Board approval, officers sought views from local authorities and parish councils, key interest groups, local residents and affected landowners. The South West Regional Office sent out letters and reports/summaries on 23 July inviting comments by 7 September 2001. The exercise was publicised locally through posters and a press release and copies of the report were available on deposit and on the Agency's website. Up to 26 October, 162 responses had been received. They are analysed in Annex 2.
Response to the consultation
9. a. there is substantial support for most of the review's
recommendations from the local authorities and all
key bodies, other than the two directly affected parish councils.
The report has also been well received by a number of local people
and users. Devon County Council's response, proposing one minor
adjustment and further consideration at two other points, is set
out in full at Annex 4.
b. there is strong opposition from some local property owners and other private individuals . Their main concerns are about:
- the process and content of the review
- the informal consultation process
- the perceived effect on the privacy, security and enjoyment of their property
- the potential cost to the public purse, and value for money, of creating a new route. Concerns have also been expressed about the cost estimates.
- the potential use of compulsory path creation powers on private property
- the safety of walkers alongside the road, a track and along the coast itself
- the effect on wildlife and the landscape.
c. the two directly affected Parish Councils and some local residents favour minor modifications to the existing inland route (rather than substantial re-routing) which would create safer off-road paths benefiting local users.
d. some users consider that sections of the preferred route are
not sufficiently coastal and take the walker inland and into
villages unnecessarily.
Assessment of main issues raised by respondents
10. Para. 9a - Devon County Council has clearly expressed its support for the principle of re-routing the Trail and its readiness to proceed quickly with the Agency's support and resources .The alignment issues raised by the Council (in sections 1, 3 and 5) warrant consideration as the final precise line of the route is agreed.
11. Para. 9b - Local property owners, supported by a number of other respondents, have raised significant concerns about these proposals . Officers' assessment of each of the issues raised (in the same order as paragraph 9b above) is set out below:
- We believe the review process was robust and that the contents are robust. Some respondents wished to see an environmental impact assessment and full safety audit of all route options carried out. We do not believe these pieces of work are needed at this stage of the process. If a decision is taken to proceed, more detailed work may be needed before a precise alignment is agreed and statutory Orders are prepared.
- A number of respondents felt the informal consultation period was badly timed and too short. More people would have liked to be have been mailed directly. Our response time was consistent with trunk road consultations (longer than many) and we continued to accept responses throughout October. We also attracted a significant number of responses from holiday home owners.
- Although a new coastal route would cross private land, the aim has been to minimise infringement on the curtilage of private properties. Suitable provision for warden and ranger services might allay some concerns about nuisance and dogs.
- The review's estimates of path construction costs are based on the advice of experienced local Coast Path managers, and maintenance costs on a funding formula agreed by the Agency and Highway Authorities for the whole Trail. Although legal costs remain unpredictable, we estimate that costs to the Agency, including footpath inquiry costs, would be in the £25 - 50k range .
- The amount of compensation to private property owners will depend on the precise route and degree to which its impact can be mitigated and may ultimately be determined by a tribunal . We have received private advice from the Inland Revenue's Valuation Office about the possible cost range . It will ultimately be for the Secretary of State in considering the Varying Report, and Agency in considering the final costs, to decide whether to proceed.
- Walker safety was a key consideration in the review and specialist advice was taken. We understand that mitigation work may be necessary at some points on the A road.
- Effects on wildlife and landscape were also addressed in the review. The RSPB and Devon Bird Watching and Preservation Society are content subject to timing of construction work and some minor points of detail
13. Para 9d - The coastal topography and cliff-edge position of some of the private houses would make an entirely coastal route extremely difficult to achieve .
Conclusion
14. The range of responses received confirms the difficulty of finding a route which will command widespread support, given the local topography and location of private property and the A road. Subject to detailed alignment work and further consideration of the issues identified in Devon County Council's response, the review has in our judgement identified the best available option, and stands up well to scrutiny.
Next steps
15. The next stage involves further detailed work and discussion with property owners to produce a precise alignment. This gives an opportunity to design mitigating measures to address local concerns, and to seek Path Creation Agreements where possible. Path Creation Order/s and a Varying Report would then be prepared (the latter for submission to the Secretary of State). Depending on representations received once the Orders are published, the Secretary of State may decide to hold a public footpath inquiry. The final decision would subsequently be made either by the inspector or by the Secretary of State.
Risks and mitigation measures
16. The main risk in this proposal is that we may fail to achieve our objectives yet incur a high level of expenditure and cause further local uncertainty. Our approach has been to ensure the work is carried out in a professional manner, with due regard to economy, and in an open and consultative manner.
17. There is also a significant risk in not proceeding with necessary realignments of nationally important long distance routes as this would give a strong public signal that we had abandoned this type of work on the grounds of its being too difficult and too expensive. Our approach is to judge each particular case on its merits, make individual assessments about whether to proceed and seek specific Board approval before proceeding.
Annex 1
Date | November 2001 |
Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs DRAFT | John Dower House, Crescent Place Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL50 3RA | |||
Telephone | 01242 533 | |||
Switchboard Fax | 01242 521381 01242 228914 | |||
ewen.cameron@countryside.gov.uk | ||||
SOUTH WEST COAST PATH NATIONAL TRAIL : ADVICE ON POSSIBLE REALIGNMENT STRETE GATE TO WARREN POINT, DEVON
Three years ago the former DETR sought the Countryside Commission's advice on proposals for resolving the long standing difficulties with a section of the South West Coast Path National Trail in Devon. It was agreed that a thorough review of the options was needed to enable the Commission to determine the best course of action. I am confident that we have now found a way forward and am writing to update you on our proposed course of action.
The original request for advice dates back to 1998 when the Ramblers' Association and South West Way Association asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to use his statutory powers to create a new route for this section of the National Trail taking it closer to the coast. The Countryside Commission advised that, as Devon County Council had recently indicated it was willing to undertake the work and make the necessary orders, there was no reason for the Secretary of State to use his reserve powers to create a route. But it advised it would be timely to carry out a review of the options before taking further action.
The South West Coast Path Team (employed by Devon CC) was commissioned to carry out the review and published its report in July this year. Before putting it to the Board, the Agency informally consulted key bodies and interest groups, potentially-affected landowners and local people to seek their opinion of the report's contents and recommendations. Having considered both the review report and the feedback from the consultation, the Board's opinion is that the review was thorough and well-researched and that it makes a sound case for substantially re-routing the Trail. It considers that the 'preferred solution' recommended in the report is a useful basis for further progress in defining a precise alignment for the route, although certain stretches may need to be examined in particular detail in the light of some responses to the consultation.
As a next step the Agency has agreed to support Devon County Council in carrying out the detailed work necessary to identify the best alignment on the ground and to design mitigating measures to address issues and concerns raised by local property owners and other residents. My Board has authorised me, as Chairman of the Agency, to agree a precise alignment with Devon County Council for inclusion in statutory Path Creation Orders.
We aim to ensure that the necessary work is put in hand quickly, bringing to an end the history of inconclusive attempts to resolve the problems and controversies on this section of the coast. I will write again when we are likely to see the Orders published and submit the Varying Report seeking your approval for the new National Trail route.
Annex 2
ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES TO INFORMAL CONSULTATION
Up to Friday 26 October 2001, the South West Regional Office had received 162 responses commenting on the review and its proposals. Board members have already received some responses direct from property owners or their representatives, and are offered the opportunity to see all others. A table summarising all responses will be sent to Board members in advance of the meeting.
Routes referred to below are shown on the maps at Annex 3.
Responses from key bodies and other
organisations
At a meeting of the full council, Devon County
Council unanimously accepted the principle
of re-routing this section of the National Trail and accepted the
preferred route option identified in the review subject only to a
minor route change at section 3 (3F rather than 3C), and further
consideration being given to route alignment in a small part of
section 1 and the eastern half of section 5. It is keen for work to
start as quickly as possible. The full minute and response is at
Annex 4.
Full support for the conclusions of the review has been given by:
South Hams AONB Joint Advisory
CommitteeSouth West
Tourism Ramblers Association
HQ South West Coast Path
Association Long Distance Walkers
AssociationBlackawton Parish
Council (near the route, but not on it)
Devon Area Ramblers' Association also supports the proposals but prefers Route 4D to 4C.
6. Strete Parish Council states a
preference for other, less coastal, routes identified in the review
(1F, the existing route 2A, and largely-existing 3D). It is
concerned about creating a new path through private property in
section 1, and considers that its preferred solution meets road
safety considerations. Both Strete
and Stoke Fleming Parish Councils prefer the
inland route 3D, claiming that up to an acre of land would be taken
from Blackpool Sands car park by option 3C, and concerned about
road safety where 3C would meet the A379. Stoke
Fleming PC welcomes the review's preferred route at 4C.
But, for Section 5, it recommends a route 5E along Redlap Lane
rather than the Shady Lane/coastal route 5C. The main reason given
is safety, but it also points out that the privacy and security of
the homes around Redlap Cove and Mill Meadow (the coastal section
of 5C) would suffer. The Dartmouth and Kingswear
Society (whose President is one of the major land owners)
endorses the views of these two parish councils and asks that more
time be given to addressing some of the issues. It does, however,
congratulate the Coast Path team on its comprehensive review.
7. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has no objection to the proposed route provided that hedging with native species, rather than fencing, is used for any new boundaries, and that its recommendations are followed on timing of works and reinstatement of habitats to protect important breeding species.
8. The National Farmers Union (SW Region) is broadly supportive of the concept and welcomes the opportunity to resolve the uncertainty over this section of the route. However, it points out that farmers in sections 1 to 3 will need to be compensated for the effect of a re-route on their incomes and way they farm the land. They prefer the more inland on road routes 1F, 2A, 3D.
9. One business and two groups with a particular interest in specific sections have responded. The Venus Company , a beach based business operating from Blackpool Sands , claims that route 3C crossing the car park would reduce parking space and severely affect its income, with the potential loss of three jobs. The Overseas Residents Association (representing 26 residents in Overseas Estate, section 4) have no objection to the preferred route but might be concerned if it changed. The Friends of Mill Meadow, which claims up to 200 members who spend holidays at Mill Meadow (section 5), expresses strong opposition to the preferred route 5C and is highly critical of the review and consultation process and concerned at potential conflicts of interest on the Agency Board. (There have also been some 70 individual responses, many referring specifically to Mill Meadow, which appear to be from members of this group).
Responses from property owners and other individuals
10. We sent a copy of the review report for comment to the owners of all 13 properties across whose land the preferred route would cross . We have received responses from (or on behalf of ) eight owners . One owner (section 1) has decided not to object to the preferred route , provided that certain conditions are met and appropriate compensation is paid. The remaining seven continue to oppose the route or specific sections of it. Five owners have not responded.
11. Among the above responses, we have received a substantial report from one owner, proposing an alternative route similar in several respects to that backed by the local parish councils, and containing many detailed criticisms of the review and the Agency's approach to the recent consultation. We have also received a detailed response and associated documents from a solicitor representing five of the owners. It is not easy to summarise such detailed documents but we note that copies were sent direct to Board members. Many of the key points are included in the summary below.
12. Two tenant farmers who rent fields which might be affected (sections 1, 2 and 3) have expressed concerns about the proposed alignment and its potential effect on their business or security. The Captain of the local shoot has also written because he fears the loss of a significant part of the shoot (and all wildfowling on the pond at Strete) if route 3C goes ahead. He believes this would threaten the shoot's existence.
13. We have received 133 other individual responses. Of these, 23 (18 of them residents of Strete and Stoke Fleming) support the whole route or single out particular sections for support (with no comment on the rest). 8 also suggest that there is historical evidence that coastal paths were previously in public use along this stretch and were closed off in the 20th century.
14. Another 10 support the coastal stretches but would prefer a fully coastal route, avoiding villages altogether. Several of these respondents believe that the review was too heavily influenced by economic benefit criteria and property owners' interests.
15. 6 responses criticise the review's recommendations because they are likely to require compulsory Path Creation Orders and lead to " high " levels of compensation payment . The remaining 94 responses are critical of all or part of the route (see paragraph 32 onwards for specific sections) and share some of the property owners' concerns, as detailed below. Around 70 of these responses may result from a letter writing campaign .
16. General concerns raised by owners and
others:
- the process and content of the review
- the Agency's informal consultation process
- the potential cost to the public purse, and value for public money, of creating a new route
- the potential use of compulsory path creation powers on private property
- the safety of walkers alongside the road, a track and along the coast itself
- the effect on wildlife and the landscape
17. Criticisms of review content and process
We have received substantial representations from or on behalf of 5 property owners making detailed comment on the review and report. Board members have received this material in full.
a. They question the need for a review when the Countryside Commission previously decided not to go ahead with realignment in 1996 . As explained in the report, the issue was reopened by the Ramblers' Association/ South West Way Association request that the Secretary of State use his powers to create a new route. It was decided that only a fuller review of the issues could resolve the question once and for all.
b. The brief for the review said it should consider priorities for realignment. Critics argue that this was not done as the report recommends complete realignment. The SWCP Team did consider the issue separately for each section but concluded that only by recommended improvement of the whole stretch would the issue of low usage and dissatisfaction be adequately resolved.
c. The brief for the review said it should consider value for money considerations . The review steering group decided that VFM was primarily an issue for the Agency . The review team sought , and received , a confidential assessment of potential compensation costs from the Valuation Office . We have declined several requests to release either individual or total figures . We recognise that this has led to some dissatisfaction among respondents but is normal practice in such cases .
d. There are suggestions that the proposals to use compulsory path creation powers would infringe the Human Rights Act. It is our understanding that HRA requirements would be fulfilled by the statutory Order processes which enable objectors to be heard in public. At this stage the Board is deciding whether or not to proceed with preparatory work on alignments prior to making Orders.
e. The findings of the residents survey conducted during the review are challenged by several people who claim there is very little support from local people. Two petitions from residents in Stoke Fleming and discussion at the parish council meetings are used to substantiate this. While we are aware of views among local residents as a result of our informal consultation, and recognise that there is concern about the prospect of change, the fact remains that the survey attracted a high response rate and had the benefit of being anonymous. Both door to door petitions were conducted by owners of property directly affected . The Board should note that a significant number of local people appear to be concerned about the implications of a route change and that this will need to be addressed , and some reassurance provided , if further work proceeds.
f. Some question the independence of the review as it was carried out by the South West Coast Path Team.Neither the Commission or Agency had a pre-determined agenda about the outcome of the review. We wanted a thorough study of all route options put forward by the various parties and agreed the criteria which should be used to evaluate them. The Team had the advantage of relevant experience, a good knowledge of the whole SW Coast Path, its quality, standards and relevant National Trail issues. As the staff are public sector employees, it also offered good value for money. By seeking the professional advice of other specialists where appropriate and carrying out fresh survey work, its conclusions were based on sound independent information.
g. Some believe the review is incomplete and unbalanced because it does not subject every route option to an environmental impact audit, traffic survey , or comparative assessment of sea views and potential compensation costs. For routes which met the criteria agreed by the steering group, the review took appropriate environmental and road safety advice (see also paragraphs 31 and 26), assessed sea views and obtained estimates of compensation payments. It would not have been appropriate or cost effective to do this work for routes which failed to meet the basic criteria.
h. Most issues raised by the responses (including land slippage and coastal regression, wildlife impacts, road and coastal safety, respect for privacy and private curtilage) are addressed in the review to an appropriate level for this stage of the work, and will, where appropriate, be examined in greater depth if detailed alignment work proceeds. The few new issues raised, such as unexploded shells, and additional parking will be considered if a detailed alignment is to be prepared. Respondents' concerns about potential nuisance from users, dogs and litter can also be addressed in due course.
18. Criticisms of the Agency's informal consultation process
The Agency has been criticised for publishing the report over the summer holiday period (23 July), allowing seven weeks for response and not circulating every household with a letter. We have repeatedly stressed that this period of informal consultation was an additional, non-statutory, process which we undertook to help Board members in their consideration of the review report. Nonetheless our motives and actions have been condemned by a number of respondents. Coinciding, by chance, with the summer holidays, the information in fact reached more holiday-home owners than it might otherwise have done. Seven weeks is considerably more than a statutory Path Order would require, and is longer than usually allowed for consultation on trunk road proposals. To accommodate requests for more time, we agreed to accept responses for a few more weeks and, in the event, received some 20 responses between 7 September and 26 October, including them in this analysis.
19. Property owners who use the existing public footpath, Shady Lane in Stoke Fleming, as their access route felt that we should have contacted them all individually, and relied less on local publicity and local deposit copies of the report. One response alleges that the Agency deliberately concealed the summary from many affected people. While we accept that we could have written to more people along the route, we focused mainly on those whose land might be directly affected by path creation or who had previously expressed an interest in the review, and the parish councils. That mailing list numbered 70. We also placed copies of the report on deposit in local libraries, post office and council offices, publicised it through a press release and posters, and put it on the Agency's website. Summaries were sent to out to all who requested them.
20. Cost to public purse and value for money
Some respondents challenge the review's cost estimates for legal work and path construction and maintenance. Several question whether the recommendations will give value for public money as they envisage high compensation payments to property owners.
21. It is accepted that legal costs to the Agency and Devon County Council will be higher than the review report indicates , as it simply gives the cost of publishing a Path Creation Order (£4,500). A fuller estimate including the costs of a footpath inquiry and land tribunal representation gives a figure between £25,000 and £50,000 depending on the length of any inquiry and how many Orders were used.
22. Challenges to the costings for path construction and maintenance are not accepted. The construction cost estimates in the review are based on advice from experienced path managers in the area who are familiar with this terrain and aware of the coastal instability and made appropriate site visits - any further refinement of the estimates would have to await a decision on precise alignment which would take into account the extent and severity of coastal instability. The figures for maintenance are based on an established formula agreed between the Agency and local highway authorities for calculating maintenance payments (labour and materials) throughout the length of the National Trail - they are a known factor.
23. Judgements about value for public money are for the Agency to decide when we have all the necessary information to hand . Representatives of some of the major property owners have estimated that compensation would cost more than £2.5 million. Compensation levels will also depend on precise route alignment and on other factors such as the possibility of establishing history of previous use.
24. Use of compulsory path creation
powers
Many respondents oppose in principle the use of compulsory powers
to create a path. The highway authority remains ready to negotiate
path creation agreements if possible but attempts at negotiation
have repeatedly failed in the past and it is considered that
Creation Orders are an appropriate next step to resolve such a high
profile and long standing issue. The Highways Act 1980 specifically
allows for the use of compulsory powers where necessary to add to
the 'enjoyment of a substantial number of the public' (s26 see
Annex 5), and recognises that appropriate compensation will be
payable (s28). It could be argued that the use of Path Creation
Orders is particularly justified in the case of National Trails
which are so well used and, in their 50 year history have made such
a big contribution to enjoyment of the countryside and sustainable
tourism.
25. Safety of walkers
Although one purpose of the review was to improve the safety of walkers who currently use a particularly busy and confined stretch of the A379 between in section 1, it is striking how many respondents opposing the recommended route say it would be dangerous for walkers.
26. Road safety on A379 As the A road comes very close to the coastline at several points, the route which gives best coastal access inevitably brings walkers close to the road (and onto and across the road) more often than the existing route which largely runs through housing estates and back lanes some distance from the coast. The review recognises the difficulties and, with the benefit of two professional road safety audits, recommends pavements, wider edgelines and signed crossing points where appropriate. Helpful and detailed comments from some local respondents on the risks of certain stretches should be considered further if work goes ahead on a final alignment. See section 5 for the concerns expressed about the dangers of Shady Lane.
27. Walker safety on cliff-edge and coastal paths
The very nature of the South West Coast Path means it uses the
coastal slope for much of its 630 mile length and often runs along
cliff tops. That accounts for much of its strong appeal to all
types of people.. The Agency and path managers are well aware of
the potential dangers but also of the huge benefits of creating and
maintaining such a route. Detailed alignment work will ensure that
it is set sufficiently far from any cliff edge to avoid exposing
users to significant risk. The review established that cliff
instability on this stretch of coastline was no greater than
elsewhere in South Devon. The long term sustainability of the route
and its vulnerability to slippage (with implications for costly
path reinstatement) will be examined in greater detail at alignment
stage.
28. Effect on wildlife & landscape
Many respondents are concerned at the potential impact of
a coastal route on local wildlife, as much of this coastline is a
(non-statutory) County Wildlife Site where peregrine falcons and
cirl buntings are among the more important species. Advice to the
review team from the RSPB, Devon County Ecologist and Devon Bird
Watching and Preservation Society has been consistent and
reassuring: provided that appropriate care is taken in precise
alignment of the path and its construction, there is no in
principle objection to path creation along the recommended
route.
29. It should be remembered that the South West Coast Path passes through many statutory wildlife sites - National Nature Reserves and Sites of Special Scientific Interest - Slapton Ley and the Undercliff at Lyme Regis and Seaton among others. Peregrine falcons breed successfully along whole South West Coast Path including such well-visited areas as Durlston Country Park on the edge of Swanage. South Hams is renowned for its cirl buntings, even where the Coast Path currently runs through their territory. Subject to the precautions suggested by the wildlife bodies, and continuing dialogue with them if work were to proceed, there is no reason to believe that wildlife interests would be compromised.
30. A few property owners have expressed concerns about the landscape impact of a new path. As the Government's advisor on the English landscape, the Agency is keenly aware of landscape impacts of all types of human activity: walking is one of the most sustainable and least damaging. Although, some types of terrain (eg. peat moors) cannot easily sustain large numbers of walkers, there are no comparable issues here. For most of its length, the SW Coast Path already passes through some of the most treasured landscapes in the country, a National Park, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Heritage Coast. Any tendency to path erosion can be dealt with by adequate maintenance, which the Agency already funds along the Trail.
31. Some respondents are surprised that a full environmental assessment was not carried out as part of the review. As shown above, the review certainly addressed the relevant issues. We confirm that there is no statutory requirement for environmental assessment, nor is planning permission needed for footpath creation. If the Agency felt that any further work were desirable in the course of preparing a Varying Report, this would be done at the appropriate time.
Comments on specific route sections by owners and others
32. Section 1 - Strete Gate to Hyne Town Road, Strete
The debate on section 1 focuses on the relative merits of three main options:
- the 'preferred' route (1E) along the coastal slope and up the field at Asherne Gully (this meets all of the review criteria, is supported by several local residents and others and one of the key property owners on the route does not object)
- a completely coastal route (such as 1C) (this is supported by several respondents but is probably not practical because of the cliff-edge position of Asherne and its garden in the next section)
- the various inland route options, such as 1F (these are supported by the Parish Council and the owner of Asherne as a cost-effective solution to the road safety concerns but do not improve the walking experience. 1F was previously abandoned by the County Council after being strongly contested by other property owners and user groups. Several respondents have written to oppose it).
We have not heard from four of the eight land and property owners directly affected by the preferred route 1E. One property owner has decided not to object to 1E through Asherne Gully but would strongly oppose the alternative route (1D) along the eastern boundary of Sea Cliff (surprisingly, Devon County Council has asked for further consideration of 1D, although we have received no indication of support from other respondents).
The remaining two property owners are opposed to 1E on the basis of loss of privacy/security and potential loss of private access to the beach. The parish council and some other respondents refer to the route as going through private gardens at Turnpike, but it is proposed that it would use scrubland on the coastal slope, out of sight of the cottages. An appropriate path boundary and gated access to the beach could be provided.
Other issues raised could be addressed at detailed alignment stage - the potential dangers from unexploded shells in the woods and precise route alignment in the Asherne Gully field taking into account the needs of the grazing tenant.
33. Section 2 - Hyne Town Road to Strete Village
centre
Responses on this short section again focus on three main
options:
- the 'preferred' route (2C) along a field edge then joining the A379 through the village (this meets all of the review criteria; although several respondents express concerns about road safety, local people use this street for access to the pub, shop and other facilities: traffic speeds are low and the road safety audit suggested how improvements could be made)
- routes skirting inland of the village centre such as the existing 2A (which is supported by the Parish Council) or variations on this route bringing walkers back to the A379 at different points (none meet the review aim of improving walker experience)
- a coastal route such as 2B (this is supported by some users but, like 1C, considered impractical when the cliff-edge position of Asherne and the greater vulnerability of this stretch to slippage are taken into account).
The tenant's concerns for ewes and lambs in the fields at Asherne would need to considered at alignment stage.
34. Section 3 - Strete Village centre to Blackpool Sands
Responses focus principally on two main options in this long section:
- the predominantly coastal 'preferred' route (3C) using fields and coastal scrub
- ( this route would give access to a substantial length of coast with excellent views, is well supported and meets all review criteria; the landowner, the Blackpool and Start Estate, is opposed to it for reasons given below; other responses tend to focus on issues at either end of the coastal stretch eg. variations on leaving Strete village and Devon County Council's preference for variation 3F in the Jenkin's Meadow area)
- minor improvements to the existing inland route, such as 3D
(these are supported by the Parish Councils and the landowner at
3C, but do not meet the review criteria).
One respondent claims to have evidence of a popular coastal path in this section, featured in early guidebooks, which might help in establishing a coastal route.
The Blackpool and Start Estate (with Parish Council support) opposes the creation of 3C across its land on the grounds of engineering considerations (coastal instability and its cost implications), compensation costs, environmental impact, economic impact on the estate and Blackpool Sands business (eg. the potential loss of car parking if a new route is fenced off to control walkers' dogs), and health and safety (unstable cliffs and discharge of partially treated water at the cliff edge). Board members have received detailed representations on behalf of the estate. Most of these points were addressed in the review, any new information (eg. on coastal instability or public health issues) would be considered at alignment stage. Given Devon County Council's recent decision in favour of 3F in the Jenkin's Meadow area, the relative merits of that variation should also be reconsidered at alignment stage.
Some local respondents have concerns about privacy and the effect of 3C on farming and shooting in the area near Strete village, suggesting modifications to that part of the route. Others are concerned about the road safety arrangements where 3C would rejoin the A379 at Matt's Point. These issues were taken into account in the review but any new options can be considered further at alignment stage.
35. Section 4 - Blackpool Sands to Stoke Fleming Village centre
For this section, the responses focus on:
- the 'preferred' route 4C, off-road from Blackpool Sands then crossing the A379 to go steeply up Old Road into Church Road and Stoke Fleming village (this is supported by the Parish Council, Blackpool and Start Estate and Devon County Council; it meets the review criteria but some respondents are concerned about road safety or would prefer the more level route 4D)
- option 4D, which continues along the A379 up to Shady Lane/Stoke Fleming, subject to a pavement being provided (this meets the review criteria and is closer to the coast; it is preferred by Devon Area Ramblers' Association; there is some local support as it would provide safe and easy pedestrian access from the village to Blackpool Sands)
- a more coastal route avoiding Stoke Fleming village (several respondents have asked for this, but the review concluded that the coastal topography makes it impractical. The review also discounted a part-coastal route (4B) via the private road at Overseas Estate in favour of other, more direct, options which fulfilled the review criteria equally well.)
- the existing inland route 4A (this is a pleasant country detour, mostly off-road and supported by a few local respondents, but does not meet the coast path review criteria)
In the light of the responses, it may be worth reconsidering at alignment stage whether 4C or 4D is the more appropriate in road safety terms a) because of the A379 crossing in 4C and b) because of the busy road link through the centre of Stoke Fleming between Church Road (4C) and the start of Shady Lane (5C). Either route is satisfactory and each of them appears to have a measure of local support.
36. Section 5 - Stoke Fleming Village centre to Warren Point
Debate on this section focuses on two main options:
- the 'preferred' route 5C, which would use an existing public footpath (Shady Lane) for the first half of the route from Stoke Fleming and then emerge onto the coast for the remaining distance to Warren Point (this route meets the review criteria and is supported by a number of local resident; it has met strong resistance from property owners along the coastal section of 5C and from other owners who use Shady Lane for access. Devon County Council supports the use of Shady Lane but asks that further consideration be given to the line of the route between the end of the existing right of way and Warren Point)
- the existing inland route 5A (or variations on it) which takes a back route out of Stoke Fleming, and uses Redlap Lane to Little Dartmouth car park about half a mile from the coast (neither this route nor its variations meet the review criteria; it is supported by the Parish Council, local property owners and a number of other respondents, as indicated below)
We have received substantial representations by or on behalf of three big property owners in this section, which were also sent direct to Board members. They make detailed criticisms of the consultation process and review and express general concerns as summarised at paragraphs 16 to 31 above. They also emphasise specific concerns about route 5C: a) the potential loss of privacy and security and loss of their exclusive access to the coast b) the potential conflict between walkers and traffic on Shady Lane and c) the potential impact on the County Wildlife Site at Mill Meadow. These issues are covered below.
Eight of the individual responses specifically supporting route
5C, claim personal experience or other evidence of a coast path in
this section being used by the public before the rights of way were
mapped. This is new information which deserves further
investigation.
The majority of critical responses are from people who have
stayed at Mill Meadow and have written at the request of the owner
to oppose or express concern about route 5C which would pass
through the eastern edge of the property. Few of them have seen the
review, or summary, and see little justification for the route to
be changed. Relying on the information received from the owner,
they perceive that a new path would be very damaging to the
tranquillity and security of the property, risk damage to the
wildlife and put walkers at risk on Shady Lane. They claim that
Redlap Lane, set well back from the coast, is a more pleasant route
than Shady Lane, and question the overall benefit of the more
direct part-coastal route 5C.
Two petitions, organised by two of the affected property owners,
also focus on section 5. One, containing 68 names not recorded
elsewhere, supports Stoke Fleming PC's preferred route 5E. The
other, containing 19 new names collected mainly from the holiday
chalets in Shady Lane, expresses concerns about the private
road/public footpath becoming a National Trail because of danger to
motorists and walkers, noise, litter, loss of privacy, threat to
security and lower property values.
Finally, assessing the three main issues raised by critics of this section:
a. Perceived effects on privacy, security and enjoyment of property are major concerns for many of the respondents in this section. One owner believes that walkers on 5C would be able to look straight into their house and entire garden, and would be in full view of the property for 15 minutes, even if they kept moving. These assertions do not square with route recommended in the review, where the house and garden would not be visible to walkers on the proposed line through a field on the edge of the property. The first glimpses would be at some distance. Elsewhere, the route would again run mainly through uncultivated land, much of it on the coastal slope, largely out of sight of houses and gardens. The review's intention was to avoid the curtilage of private gardens. From a security point of view, the dense scrub vegetation, including gorse, along the coastal slope would be an effective barrier against intrusion. Should further investigation reveal exceptions to this, other types of natural screen or barrier would be explored in discussion with owners at detailed alignment stage.
b) the potential conflict between walkers and traffic on Shady Lane. Much has been made of the potential traffic dangers along this private track/public footpath by opponents of route 5C but they are not considered to be significant by road safety or countryside professionals who are familiar with the range of routes regularly used by Coast Path walkers. Speeds are likely to be low and motorists would be warned of the likelihood of meeting National Trail walkers. It is accepted that good vegetation management alongside a narrow track will help visibility and allow more passing room and this would be seen as a priority for meeting the high standards expected of National Trail management.
c) the potential impact on the County Wildlife
Site at Mill Meadow. The issues at this wildlife site are
much the same as at the other sites in the area. See paragraphs 28
and 29 for comments.
In conclusion, the responses received for Section 5, although more numerous than for any other section, do not undermine the review's recommendations. Opposition from property owners was anticipated as the history of this stretch of Coast Path is well known. No significant new issues have been raised and the process of working out a detailed alignment would allow for further attempts to address genuine concerns through alignment, mitigation work or future management of the route.
Annex 4
EXTRACT FROM THE MINUTES OF DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL'S EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF 11 SEPTEMBER, AS AMENDED BY THE COUNTY COUNCIL ON 18 OCTOBER 2001
23 Countryside Agency Consultation on Review of South West Coast Path – Strete Gate to Warren Point
(Councillor Mrs. Spence declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item)
The Committee considered a report by the County Environment Director (ED/01/191/HQ) on a comprehensive review by the Countryside Agency of the Strete Gate to Warren Point section of the South West Coast Path National Trail and the recommendation, after assessing a number of possible options, that a new route be created between Strete Gate and Warren Point.
RESOLVED that the Council
(a) accept the principle of the need to re-route the Strete Gate to Warren Point section of the South West Coast Path on the grounds of walker safety, compliance with National Trail quality standards, coastal experience, economic benefit to local communities and the views of users, local residents and land owners;
(b) accept the preferred option as the best alignment with the following exceptions:
- Section 1 that where the preferred route passes through Asherne Gully consideration be given to routing this section along a field boundary;
- Section 3 that option 3F be adopted in the Jenkin's Meadow area
- Section 4 that the route follows the A379 and Old Road
- Section 5 that further consideration be given, including further consultation, regarding this section between the end of the current public right of way in Shady Lane and Warren Point
- In all other sections and parts thereof the preferred route be accepted as the best option.
(c) urge the Countryside Agency to seek Government funds necessary to carry out the re-alignment along the preferred route including the exception and that this should be expedited as quickly as possible;
(d) endorse the consultation response to the Countryside Agency set out in Appendix 1 subject to the amendments above.
Appendix I
To ED/01/191/HQ
Devon County Council's Response to the Consultation on the "South West Coast Path National Trail: Review of the Strete Gate to Warren Point Section"
The Countryside Agency will be aware of the long standing commitment since the 1980's by Devon County Council to seek an improvement in the Strete Gate to Warren Point section of the South West Coast Path National Trail.
The County Council welcomes the investigation into the existing route of the Strete Gate to Warren Point section for the South West Coast Path which examined user numbers, walker safety, National Trail Quality Standards, economic benefit, impact on wildlife and archaeology and the views of users, local residents, and landowners. The Council feels that the case has been thoroughly examined and that there is overwhelming evidence that a re-alignment of the Path would be beneficial.
Having accepted the case for re-alignment, the County Council endorses the comprehensive analysis of the various options for each sub-section and the extent that they meet the six criteria. These criteria are based on the need to ensure walkers' safety, enrich the walker experience, maximise social and economic opportunity for local communities, avoid or minimise the impact on archaeology, wildlife and landscape, ensure long-term sustainability by avoiding unstable ground and minimise impact on owners of private property.
It is felt that all these criteria have been carefully examined and the logical outcome has been arrived at (save for one small exception detailed below). The County Council would like to comment on two issues in detail:
Section 4: Blackpool Sands to Stoke Fleming Village Centre. It is felt that Option 4D would provide a better experience for Coast Path walkers and is a more direct route whereas Option 4C uses Old Road which does not provide sea views and is very steep. This is recognised in the Review in Appendix XIII; the Road Safety Audit undertaken by Devon County Council in Para 14 on page 81.
The Review concludes that Option 4C should be preferred as users would rather walk along a safe minor road than a pavement on a main road. It also concludes that this option is best for walkers as it would take them right through the village and thus offers better economic opportunity; this, however, is a very marginal advantage.
On the basis of being closer to the coast, and thus a more 'true' experience for walkers, the County Council would prefer Option 4D.
Potential Effect on Wildlife. This process was informed by consultation with key organisations, with the results of this process detailed in Appendix X of the independent report. The main conclusion of this process was that, despite the County Wildlife Site non-statutory designation of most of the coastal stretch in question, there is no in-principle objection to the re-routing of the South West Coast Path closer to the sea. However, two specific wildlife concerns are identified; firstly, the presence of breeding cirl buntings in the cliff-top scrub habitat and, secondly, the presence of breeding peregrine on the cliffs in this general area.
Although these wildlife concerns are not sufficient to exclude of any of the various route options, further consideration would need to be given to the precise alignment and construction details for any selected route, informed by further consultation with relevant conservation organisations. Key issues will include timing the route construction to avoid disturbance during the early part of the bird-nesting season, minimising and compensating for any loss of scrub habitat and ensuring that the selected route is kept well back from the cliff-edge in the vicinity of any habitual peregrine nesting location. Provided that these matters are addressed in this manner, the re-routing of the South West Coast Path should not compromise its wildlife importance.
Summary
The County Council welcomes the conclusions of the Review and urges the Countryside Agency to seek the Government funds necessary to carry out the re-alignment along the preferred route (albeit including option 4D) and that this should be expedited as quickly as possible.
Annex 5
COMPULSORY POWERS FOR CREATION OF FOOTPATHS AND BRIDLEWAYS - HIGHWAYS ACT 1980, section 26, subsection (1)
(1) Where it appears to a local authority that there is a need for a footpath or bridleway over land in their area and they are satisfied that, having regard to -
(a) the extent to which the path or way would add to the
convenience or enjoyment of a substantial section of the public, or
to the convenience of persons resident in the area; and
(b) the effect which the creation of the path or way would have on
the rights of persons interested in the land, account being taken
of the provisions as to compensation contained in section 28
below,
it is expedient that the path or way should be created, the
authority may by order made by them and submitted to and confirmed
by the Secretary of State, or confirmed by them as an unopposed
order, create a footpath or bridleway over the land.
