My Lords, my amendments in this group return to an issue which I raised in Committee—the question of what is considered a relevant interest in land. The Minister stated his view that the CROW Act definition, which is wider than the definition used here, is more appropriate on the grounds that coastal land does not give rise to the sort of rights, particularly sporting rights, to the same extent as the land that was being made accessible in the CROW Act.
However, a government e-mail to the Countryside Alliance on this point noted that coastal land involves many other rights which may be affected by the route and associated margin. The Government therefore seem to be defending their new definition with two contradictory points. Either the wider definition of relevant interest has been rejected because the rights are not relevant to coastal land, as the Minister said in Committee, or it has been rejected because it will include too many people in the review process, as the Defra e-mail suggests. I would welcome some clarity on the Government’s thinking. Surely the point should be one of principle, not just numerical weight. If a right will be affected by the new route and margin, why is it being denied the role that was considered appropriate under the CROW Act? I beg to move.
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 1 June 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
711 c30 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 11:43:14 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_562178
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_562178
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_562178