Government plans to invest a further £5.3 million over the next 18 months to speed up public access to the coastline is a waste of time and money, according to the NFU.
Throughout the development of an England Coastal Path, the NFU has always questioned the value for money of a new statutory coastal access corridor on the grounds it fails to recognise the significant majority of our coast – some 3,700km – is already accessible. We believe there’s a need to invest adequately in maintaining current footpaths along the coast, many of which lie on top of vital sea defences.
Visitors to the countryside do bring benefits to rural areas including extra income, but the NFU fears unless there is money to support long-term maintenance of existing footpaths such benefits can be jeopardised. Other organisations have already highlighted concerns about the declining funding for the maintenance and upkeep of paths by local access authorities, causing concern both to land managers and users alike.
NFU Vice President Guy Smith, who farms on the Essex coast, said: “One day after the Chancellor announced that the Government will need to continue to reduce public expenditure during the next parliament, I am disappointed we are accelerating investment in new public access we don’t need, nor can afford. I am concerned that coastal access could put at risk the commercial sustainability of agricultural businesses along our coasts especially if proposals are rushed to meet an accelerated political timetable.
“I believe the English countryside should be welcoming and accessible, but the long-term success of this project will be measured by the quality of the experience had by visitors to the coast and not the overall quantity of pathways available. For that reason I believe public funds would be much better spent on making the walking experience better and safer where there is an actual need.
“The NFU will continue to work with Natural England to represent farmers and growers and ensure that the working nature of existing coastal farmland is properly recognised in coastal access proposals. And I continue to question the need for compulsory coastal access where there seems to be limited public benefit.”
