
Originally Posted by
keehotee
Whilst I'm sure that every member of the Ramblers Association would be more than happy for the general public to have undisputed right of access to
their back gardens and property at any time, I for one wouldn't.
Why is the coastline any different?
This is inevitably going to lead to hundreds of miles of previously untouched coastline being fenced in and sanitized, as liability for the safety of users will fall on the landowners, and none of them are going to risk having a walker fall off a cliff
As far as I know, with a few exceptions, the public already have full access to the coast - below the high tide line - as the seabed belongs to the crown..
I'd forgotten about this thread until whilst researching another access issue, I came across the fact that land used as parks or gardens or which is close to homes cannot be included in open access areas under the "Right to Roam" act. I would imagine the same exception would be made under the Marine and Coastal Access Bill.
I'm afraid that in England and Wales the public certainly don't have access to any of the coastline which is privately owned, unless there's a right of way there or the landowner chooses to allow access, which many don't. Yes, they do have access to the area between the high and low tide lines, but in areas where miles of coastline above the high tide line are inaccessible that's not really very useful. In Scotland the situation is quite different - the public have (with I believe limited exceptions) right of access to the coastline. To the best of my knowledge that hasn't led to the fencing in or sanitizing of miles and miles of coastline.
Just by the by, I know of one cacher who owns a piece of coastline and yet welcomes the proposed Bill and has signed the petition about it.
Last edited by Bill D (wwh); 28th March 2009 at 09:43 PM.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light. (Dylan Thomas)