Having some knowledge of coast paths, I have not the smallest hesitation in supporting the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, which provides for limited access to a very small part of the English coastline. She described it as being modest in the extreme and not extending existing rights. It is entirely appropriate that horses should continue to have access to foreshore beaches and bridle paths where that access has existed previously. I understand entirely what she said about trying to resist any curtailment of long-existing rights.
On the basis of experience in, again, the Black Mountains, I refer to the fact that perhaps the only exception would be a temporary closure of routes where you get heavy corrugation. In particular, paths used by pony trekkers sometimes are rendered almost unusable for a time and it may be necessary to have some temporary ability to manage the situation. But in general I wholly support what the noble Baroness said.
I wanted to hear what my noble friend would say about his final amendment, which has only recently been added to the Marshalled List; I have some anxieties about it. What are, ""appropriate parts of the route at appropriate times"?"
That is a vague definition, and we were told about "local knowledge". What might be an obviously appropriate part of a route could be a golf course, where there would be plenty of room for horses? In saying that I am ragging my noble friend slightly because he has gone on about them, but this is a difficult and important issue. One has to understand that on the majority of the length of national coastal paths, it would be extremely dangerous and a folly to allow access for horses. I cannot think of anywhere on the Pembroke coast national park path where it would not be insane to do so. It would present a danger both to horses and to people, particularly to the unaccompanied young people my noble friend wishes to encourage to use these paths, as well as to people walking their dogs. It is simply an unsuitable route.
I have been thinking of other areas along the coast where I have walked recently, particularly of a beautiful and interesting stretch of the Dorset coast. The path starts in a well managed National Trust car park and takes a steep, winding route over a gully and passes through one of those sites that concerned my noble friend earlier, a permanent caravan site. I do not think you would want to encourage horses through such a site where the children play on their front steps. The path then drops down to enter an area that is entirely suitable for horses, on the beach and the foreshore, where horses should be. Another recent walk along the Gower coast revealed very sandy headlands and steep paths descending to dunes, and thus in my view wholly unsuitable for horses.
Before we go into the extension being proposed by my noble friend, I want rather more detail about the planning and decision-making behind what would be safe. It may be that new bridle paths could be introduced which are wholly compatible with walkers. I hesitate on the subject of bicycles. My daughter-in-law is a keen mountain biker, and if I come out too strongly against mountain bicycles being allowed access, I suspect that I might be in trouble. However, even they would be a danger on many parts of the coastal path. So I say to my noble friend that we will need more clarification about exactly how the whole thing is to be managed so that walkers are not put at risk. We should maintain the existing bridle paths and extend new bridle paths where there is an appropriate mechanism for doing so. But let us not spoil the whole thing by allowing pressure to build up to provide access for horses—not beautifully controlled as they would be by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, but perhaps those belonging to riders such as inexperienced pony trekkers, and even mountain bicyclists in large numbers who can be extremely hazardous on a footpath.
I am doubtful about my noble friend’s amendment, but I strongly support the first amendments in this group.
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Crickhowell
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 30 March 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
709 c948-9 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 10:50:19 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_544674
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_544674
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_544674