Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the Deputy Leader of the House of Lords, moved an amendment to Part 9 of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill intended to protect the existing access currently enjoyed by horse riders. What do you think of this wording? Is it clear and unambiguous? Does it give ‘clarity and security’ to English horse riders like the Scottish law?
Amendment 124T
Moved by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
124T: Clause 293, page 188, line 37, at end insert—
“( ) In section 20 (codes of conduct and other information)—
(a) in subsection (1), omit “and” at the end of paragraph (a) and after paragraph (b) insert
“, and (c) that, in relation to access land which is coastal margin, the public are informed that the right conferred by section 2(1) does not affect any other right of access that may exist in relation to that land.”,
and
(b) after that subsection insert—
“(1A) The duty imposed by subsection (1) to issue and revise a code of conduct may be discharged, in relation to access land which is coastal margin, by (or in part by) issuing and revising a separate code relating to such access land only.” ”
Amendment 124T agreed.
Well, I don’t see the word ‘horse’ here. In 2010 when the Bill has been passed, the Coastal Access provisions will be implemented by local authorities and others. Do you really think that horse riders will immediately spring to mind when they read the words ‘any other rights of access that may exist’?
More Importantly, how will horse riders prove they have existing rights, when government refuses to acknowledge them. As Baroness Mallalieu so succinctly put it to the House of Lords, when explaining horse riders’ concern that their existing access is likely to be eroded:
“I urge that the matter cannot simply be left in the air or in the realms of ministerial assurances. There needs to be a clear requirement in the Bill to try to preserve those existing rights. Many people ride on the foreshore for pleasure or other reasons. People train racehorses on the beach and many more like to take their bicycles on to the hard sand. Whether justified or not, people have a real fear that when the Bill is implemented barriers will go up preventing access to anyone other than pedestrians. I rather think that waving a copy of the excellent letter which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, wrote to me would be less effective in getting those barriers removed than having a clear statement in the Bill. That is what that simple amendment would do and I hope that, if not now, at a later stage there will be no objection to something of that sort being included in the Bill.”
If like me, you don’t think the wording of this Bill cuts the mustard, please contact your MP now. The Bill is currently being considered in the Commons and there’s still time to ask for more clarity.
Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Monday, 22 June 2009
Horse and Hound comment
“Horseworld misses bridleway and coastal access chances”
Horse and Hound 11th June 2009.
This unhelpful and misleading article about coastal access for equestrians seems to imply that the hard working people involved in improving our countryside access have not done enough.
This is simply not true. Baroness Mallalieu, Lord Greaves and Lord Taylor were extremely well briefed by the BHS and the National Federation of Bridleways Associations. They put the case to the Lords for the need to protect our existing access, and the inclusion of equestrians to the coastal margin with great cogency. The amendments which have been made to the Bill as a result of their support do at least represent some progress for horse riders.
Before jumping in to criticise, Horse and Hound would do well to recognise what the equestrian access lobby is actually up against and lend them their support.
Government policy that the scope of the Coastal Access would only apply to walkers, was set in stone as early as 2005 and predated the consultation period. The Minister with responsibility for that decision was Jim Knight, the then Minister for the Horse. What this important sounding post actually entails, is a mystery. Certainly not acting as a champion for equestrian access.
In 2007 a research paper commissioned by Defra was published, the Asken Report into Coastal Access. The Report noted the popularity of horse riding on many beaches around the country. It wisely alerted government to the possible disadvantage to equestrian access of promoting a statutory access on foot only.
As a way of limiting that damage the report recommended that ‘the opportunity could be taken to extend access rights for horses to foreshores and beaches, thereby making a wider range of such areas available for horse riding.’ The report was considered (presumably in some detail) by the Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, the then Minister for the Horse Minster Barry Gardiner.
The British Horse Society and the Equestrian Access Forum were in correspondence with Barry Gardiner at that time but still no action was taken to either protect existing equestrian access or to improve it. Lobbying a government which is not prepared to even listen to your concerns is not a rewarding experience but at least the consultation period would offer the equestrian community a chance to have their say.
Of the 35 respondents to the consultation question, whether higher rights should be included, 27 were in favour and only 9 were against. Unfortunately, even this pronounced majority in favour of the inclusion of higher rights was not enough to change the government’s mind. The unchanged Bill rolled on to the Select Committee.
Since the Coastal Access provisions put before the Select Committee excluded horse riders, no representative from the equestrian access lobby was invited to appear. The discussions were almost entirely limited to the concerns of the Ramblers Association and the Country Landowners Association.
However, written evidence from other groups was made available to the Committee. The 19 respondents in favour of including horse riders were characteristically Local Authorities, Local Access Forums and representatives of charitable organisations with an interest in promoting countryside access. 7 of those expressed concern that Natural England had not recognized existing traditional recreational use. Evidence was also received from the four Coastal Access pilot study areas, three of these recommended that horse riders should be included.
Pieces of written evidence against the inclusion of horse riders were slightly fewer, 16 in all. These were mainly from landowners, occupiers or their advisory bodies. The striking point about these responses was that it was not always clear to whether they were referring to the coastal paths, the coastal margin or the foreshore. Only 2 out of a total of 16 respondents against were specifically concerned about horse riders’ current use of the foreshore. Which flags up the fact that amending the Bill to include statutory access to that area, would probably be a popular measure.
So, Amendment 124T, obtained in the House of Lords, which aims to preserve our existing access to the foreshores, was really quite an achievement in the face of such determined opposition from government. That was the first opportunity horse riders have had to express their concerns, which government has done its utmost to suppress.
There is still work to do though. The amendment is worded in very general terms (see below) and the fact that the Bill does not specifically recognize horse riders as legitimate existing users, is a serious omission which needs to be challenged in the House of Commons. It would be most encouraging if Horse and Hound supported this measure.
124T: Clause 293, page 188, line 37, at end insert—
“( ) In section 20 (codes of conduct and other information)—
(a) in subsection (1), omit “and” at the end of paragraph (a) and after paragraph (b) insert
“, and (c) that, in relation to access land which is coastal margin, the public are informed that the right conferred by section 2(1) does not affect any other right of access that may exist in relation to that land.”,
Whereas the amendment tabled by Lord Greaves and Lord Tyler but subsequently withdrawn was more strongly worded:
propose that the CROW Act Schedule 2 be amended by inserting at the end of paragraph 1c, “or in the case of that part of the Coastal Margin land which is foreshore, a dog or a horse.”
Horse and Hound 11th June 2009.
This unhelpful and misleading article about coastal access for equestrians seems to imply that the hard working people involved in improving our countryside access have not done enough.
This is simply not true. Baroness Mallalieu, Lord Greaves and Lord Taylor were extremely well briefed by the BHS and the National Federation of Bridleways Associations. They put the case to the Lords for the need to protect our existing access, and the inclusion of equestrians to the coastal margin with great cogency. The amendments which have been made to the Bill as a result of their support do at least represent some progress for horse riders.
Before jumping in to criticise, Horse and Hound would do well to recognise what the equestrian access lobby is actually up against and lend them their support.
Government policy that the scope of the Coastal Access would only apply to walkers, was set in stone as early as 2005 and predated the consultation period. The Minister with responsibility for that decision was Jim Knight, the then Minister for the Horse. What this important sounding post actually entails, is a mystery. Certainly not acting as a champion for equestrian access.
In 2007 a research paper commissioned by Defra was published, the Asken Report into Coastal Access. The Report noted the popularity of horse riding on many beaches around the country. It wisely alerted government to the possible disadvantage to equestrian access of promoting a statutory access on foot only.
As a way of limiting that damage the report recommended that ‘the opportunity could be taken to extend access rights for horses to foreshores and beaches, thereby making a wider range of such areas available for horse riding.’ The report was considered (presumably in some detail) by the Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, the then Minister for the Horse Minster Barry Gardiner.
The British Horse Society and the Equestrian Access Forum were in correspondence with Barry Gardiner at that time but still no action was taken to either protect existing equestrian access or to improve it. Lobbying a government which is not prepared to even listen to your concerns is not a rewarding experience but at least the consultation period would offer the equestrian community a chance to have their say.
Of the 35 respondents to the consultation question, whether higher rights should be included, 27 were in favour and only 9 were against. Unfortunately, even this pronounced majority in favour of the inclusion of higher rights was not enough to change the government’s mind. The unchanged Bill rolled on to the Select Committee.
Since the Coastal Access provisions put before the Select Committee excluded horse riders, no representative from the equestrian access lobby was invited to appear. The discussions were almost entirely limited to the concerns of the Ramblers Association and the Country Landowners Association.
However, written evidence from other groups was made available to the Committee. The 19 respondents in favour of including horse riders were characteristically Local Authorities, Local Access Forums and representatives of charitable organisations with an interest in promoting countryside access. 7 of those expressed concern that Natural England had not recognized existing traditional recreational use. Evidence was also received from the four Coastal Access pilot study areas, three of these recommended that horse riders should be included.
Pieces of written evidence against the inclusion of horse riders were slightly fewer, 16 in all. These were mainly from landowners, occupiers or their advisory bodies. The striking point about these responses was that it was not always clear to whether they were referring to the coastal paths, the coastal margin or the foreshore. Only 2 out of a total of 16 respondents against were specifically concerned about horse riders’ current use of the foreshore. Which flags up the fact that amending the Bill to include statutory access to that area, would probably be a popular measure.
So, Amendment 124T, obtained in the House of Lords, which aims to preserve our existing access to the foreshores, was really quite an achievement in the face of such determined opposition from government. That was the first opportunity horse riders have had to express their concerns, which government has done its utmost to suppress.
There is still work to do though. The amendment is worded in very general terms (see below) and the fact that the Bill does not specifically recognize horse riders as legitimate existing users, is a serious omission which needs to be challenged in the House of Commons. It would be most encouraging if Horse and Hound supported this measure.
124T: Clause 293, page 188, line 37, at end insert—
“( ) In section 20 (codes of conduct and other information)—
(a) in subsection (1), omit “and” at the end of paragraph (a) and after paragraph (b) insert
“, and (c) that, in relation to access land which is coastal margin, the public are informed that the right conferred by section 2(1) does not affect any other right of access that may exist in relation to that land.”,
Whereas the amendment tabled by Lord Greaves and Lord Tyler but subsequently withdrawn was more strongly worded:
propose that the CROW Act Schedule 2 be amended by inserting at the end of paragraph 1c, “or in the case of that part of the Coastal Margin land which is foreshore, a dog or a horse.”
Friday, 19 June 2009
A Plaskitt Case - comment.
James Plaskitt MP for Warwick and Leamington, seems to think its OK to ignore the many residents who have contacted him, asking specifically about the inclusion of access for equestrians in the Marine Bill.
I note that he simply repeats the usual excuses for not including horse riders in the access provisions, i.e. the complexity of the environment, impractibility and lack of money.
In no way does this stock reply answer the question many of us are most concerned about. How is the government going to protect our existing traditional access to the foreshore?
Horse riders in Scotland have already been granted a statutory right of responsible access to their beaches and foreshores. By choosing not to do so in England, government is missing a simple and cost effective opportunity to increase statutory access for horse riders.
Instead of approaching this matter with a closed mind, please would Mr. Plaskitt listen to his constituents. There is still the time and the opportunity to include statutory access to the forshore for equestrians in this Bill. To be effective and clear it needs to recognise that horse riders are legitimate users of those areas.
This would be a sustainable, practical and affordable solution. It would also help to correct the impression held by many of us, that Labour is intent on air brushing horse riders out of the countryside access picture.
I note that he simply repeats the usual excuses for not including horse riders in the access provisions, i.e. the complexity of the environment, impractibility and lack of money.
In no way does this stock reply answer the question many of us are most concerned about. How is the government going to protect our existing traditional access to the foreshore?
Horse riders in Scotland have already been granted a statutory right of responsible access to their beaches and foreshores. By choosing not to do so in England, government is missing a simple and cost effective opportunity to increase statutory access for horse riders.
Instead of approaching this matter with a closed mind, please would Mr. Plaskitt listen to his constituents. There is still the time and the opportunity to include statutory access to the forshore for equestrians in this Bill. To be effective and clear it needs to recognise that horse riders are legitimate users of those areas.
This would be a sustainable, practical and affordable solution. It would also help to correct the impression held by many of us, that Labour is intent on air brushing horse riders out of the countryside access picture.
Monday, 30 March 2009
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE MARINE BILL
The Liberal Democrat peers Lord Greaves and Lord Tyler are proposing a welcome amendment to the Marine Bill on behalf of the National Federation of Bridleways Associations (NFBA), and horse riders everywhere. They have actually dared to suggest that the word ‘horse’ should appear in the Bill.
Section 9 of the Marine Bill deals with public access to the coast, and is to be considered by the House of Lords today, 30th March 2009. As matters stand, the Bill will provide a statutory right of access on foot only, and will be authorized under by the CROW Act Section 2.1. This will create a new category of land to be known as the ‘coastal margin’, which will include the foreshore .
Lord Greaves and Lord Tyler propose that the CROW Act Schedule 2 be amended by inserting at the end of paragraph 1c, “or in the case of that part of the Coastal Margin land which is foreshore, a dog or a horse.”
This amendment would go a long way towards protecting the continued enjoyment of access to the foreshore for horse riders which has been overlooked in this legislation. It would also sensibly, give parity with the rights of horse riders in Scotland.
Please be aware that this may not be welcomed by private landowning interests. They claim that access to our coastline can be provided for by environmental stewardship grants, permissive agreements, and dedication of land under section 16 of the CROW Act.
Natural England appear to have been persuaded that this will be adequate. But horse riders already know from experience that is unlikely to be the case:-
Environmental stewardship schemes have been running for some years now and have failed to provide any meaningful access for horse riders on a national basis.
They are temporary arrangements for fixed periods of time and are only capable of providing local solutions.
Permissive access can be removed at any time.
Dedication of access to CROW land under section 16, (which has been possible since the year 2000) has, to date, only provided a pitiful 0.25 of a hectare of access for horse riders.
So good luck to their Lordships and many thanks.
Section 9 of the Marine Bill deals with public access to the coast, and is to be considered by the House of Lords today, 30th March 2009. As matters stand, the Bill will provide a statutory right of access on foot only, and will be authorized under by the CROW Act Section 2.1. This will create a new category of land to be known as the ‘coastal margin’, which will include the foreshore .
Lord Greaves and Lord Tyler propose that the CROW Act Schedule 2 be amended by inserting at the end of paragraph 1c, “or in the case of that part of the Coastal Margin land which is foreshore, a dog or a horse.”
This amendment would go a long way towards protecting the continued enjoyment of access to the foreshore for horse riders which has been overlooked in this legislation. It would also sensibly, give parity with the rights of horse riders in Scotland.
Please be aware that this may not be welcomed by private landowning interests. They claim that access to our coastline can be provided for by environmental stewardship grants, permissive agreements, and dedication of land under section 16 of the CROW Act.
Natural England appear to have been persuaded that this will be adequate. But horse riders already know from experience that is unlikely to be the case:-
Environmental stewardship schemes have been running for some years now and have failed to provide any meaningful access for horse riders on a national basis.
They are temporary arrangements for fixed periods of time and are only capable of providing local solutions.
Permissive access can be removed at any time.
Dedication of access to CROW land under section 16, (which has been possible since the year 2000) has, to date, only provided a pitiful 0.25 of a hectare of access for horse riders.
So good luck to their Lordships and many thanks.
Friday, 27 March 2009
APPENDIX V A Flawed Consultation Process
Access to the foreshores for horse riders,(widely considered to be public places) has not been properly addressed.
This is because the consultation included the foreshores in the area to be known as the coastal margin, much of which is privately owned land, & includes areas which are more environmentally complex. This blanket approach has resulted in heightened concerns about possible damage and disturbance to the more environmentally sensitive areas.
Result: the question of whether our existing access to the foreshores should be given the same statutory protection as access for those on foot, was never asked.
Excluding us is an arbitrary decision made by government without justification.
Summary of Written Evidence submitted to the Select Committee on the Marine Bill 2008
In Favour:The respondents in favour were characteristically Local Authorities, Local Access Forums and representatives of charitable organisations with an interest in promoting countryside access.
19 respondents in favour.
7 expressed concern that Natural England had not recognized existing traditional recreational use.
4 of those made specific reference to preserving access to beaches for horse riders.
General Comment:
It should also be noted that 3 out of 4 Coastal Access Stakeholder Working Groups who carried out pilot studies on coastal access for Natural England also recommended that horse riders should be included.
Against:
The respondents against were mainly landowners, occupiers or their advisory bodies, + the CPRE and two independent people who expressed walkers perspective.
16 were against the inclusion of higher rights.
(14 if the 2 bodies representing church properties whose only comments were concerned with burial grounds are discounted as not relevant)
7 specifically mentioned being against the inclusion of higher rights on the coastal trail and spreading room.
2 were not in favour of increased use of beaches by horse riders.
General comment:
Those against expressed more concern about disturbance to wildlife and erosion. It was not always clear to whether they were referring to the coastal paths, the coastal margin or the foreshore. Only 2 out of a total of 35 respondents were specifically concerned about horse riders’ current use of the foreshore.
This is because the consultation included the foreshores in the area to be known as the coastal margin, much of which is privately owned land, & includes areas which are more environmentally complex. This blanket approach has resulted in heightened concerns about possible damage and disturbance to the more environmentally sensitive areas.
Result: the question of whether our existing access to the foreshores should be given the same statutory protection as access for those on foot, was never asked.
Excluding us is an arbitrary decision made by government without justification.
Summary of Written Evidence submitted to the Select Committee on the Marine Bill 2008
In Favour:The respondents in favour were characteristically Local Authorities, Local Access Forums and representatives of charitable organisations with an interest in promoting countryside access.
19 respondents in favour.
7 expressed concern that Natural England had not recognized existing traditional recreational use.
4 of those made specific reference to preserving access to beaches for horse riders.
General Comment:
It should also be noted that 3 out of 4 Coastal Access Stakeholder Working Groups who carried out pilot studies on coastal access for Natural England also recommended that horse riders should be included.
Against:
The respondents against were mainly landowners, occupiers or their advisory bodies, + the CPRE and two independent people who expressed walkers perspective.
16 were against the inclusion of higher rights.
(14 if the 2 bodies representing church properties whose only comments were concerned with burial grounds are discounted as not relevant)
7 specifically mentioned being against the inclusion of higher rights on the coastal trail and spreading room.
2 were not in favour of increased use of beaches by horse riders.
General comment:
Those against expressed more concern about disturbance to wildlife and erosion. It was not always clear to whether they were referring to the coastal paths, the coastal margin or the foreshore. Only 2 out of a total of 35 respondents were specifically concerned about horse riders’ current use of the foreshore.
APPENDIX IV: Addressing Environmental Concerns
Access to the Foreshore: Addressing Environmental Concerns:
Horse riders & carriage drivers have traditionally enjoyed access to the foreshores for ‘air and exercise’ comparable with the way that our urban commons are now used. This recognised activity is capable of being regulated by byelaws where it is considered necessary.
While government has acknowledged our traditional use of the foreshore, it has stopped short of giving our access statutory protection under the Marine Bill. Despite assurances that existing rights will not be affected, the Bill offers no guarantee that our access will be allowed to continue in a transparent and equitable manner.
Horse riders feel strongly that without formal recognition, it will be all too easy for the Marine Management Authorities and others, to engage in speculation as to the extent of damage horses might cause and to act prematurely to prevent it. The Bill contains no mechanism by which their existing access can be protected from restrictions being imposed in a haphazard fashion around the coast.
Horse riding: evaluation of environmental impact on the foreshore areas:
1. Trampling and erosion:
the Foreshore characteristically comprises a perfectly sustainable, firm sandy surface. Any impact made by horses hooves is repaired twice daily by the natural ebb and flow of the tides.
2. Disturbance of Birds:
the foreshore is obviously unsuitable as a habitat for ground nesting birds, therefore this is unlikely to be an issue[i]. The English Nature, Cumbrian Team (1997) noted that horse riding may disturb migratory and wading birds[ii], however, the UK Marine website states that:
“Disturbance to birds may result from many activities (not just horse riders). The evidence of the impact of these short term events on wider population levels is not conclusive.”
3. Seals:
The UK Marine website also evaluates the possible disturbance of seals by horse riders, which it regards as ‘minimal’[iii].
4. Horse riders feel that it is the experience of people who actually ride horses, that they encounter many more birds and animals on horseback than they do when on foot and it is possible to see species of wildlife at close proximity without startling them. It is widely believed that this is because animals and birds only perceive the closeness of an animal rather than a human threat. An American study tends to bear out that theory.[iv]
“For example, the rapid movement of people in the refuge caused the birds to flush to adjacent ponds. Despite their rapid movements, birds were tolerant of horse riders and only flushed when horses were close enough to trample them.”
5. Horse manure:
In some coastal areas there are byelaws or guidance notes urging horse riders to remove any manure deposited by their horses. Although regarded by many as unpleasant, studies have found that horse manure does not pose a health threat to humans. A study carried out on behalf of the BHS investigated all published written evidence on the subject and concluded that:[v]
“Conclusion:
No evidence in the medical literature that horse manure would pose any significant risk to human health when deposited on public rights of way”
6. One submission of written evidence to the Select Committee the Marine Bill was particularly concerned about water quality and saw horse manure as a health hazard[vi]. It should be noted that the example given to illustrate this was Holkham beach, in Norfolk, where the Household Cavalry hold their summer camp, so it is fair to say that is an exceptional case.
7. As horse riders generally gain access to the foreshore from inland, by means of established linear routes, they feel strongly that they are unlikely to cause any environmental damage that cannot be minimized by good path management. Robust, sustainable paths to the seashore, which help to prevent erosion and disturbance to wildlife, should be an essential provision for all types of visitor to English beaches, therefore, we do not perceive a problem with the status quo.
Conclusion:
We do not believe that there is any evidence that horse riders pose a significant threat to the foreshore areas that cannot be managed by raising awareness of the needs of wildlife or by the existing byelaws.
For these reasons we believe that a statutory right of access to the foreshore for horse riders is appropriate. The Land Reform Act Scotland 2003 has already established such a right. This has enabled the authorities in Scotland to develop a uniform code of conduct for responsible access. It also provides for appeal if access is restricted needlessly, for example, without evidence that actual environmental damage has occurred.
[i] UK Marine: Summary of environmental impacts
http://www.ukmarinesac.org.uk/activities/recreation/r06_11_2.htm
[ii] English Nature - Cumbrian Team 1997
Access and recreation can result in disturbance to wintering and passage waders and wildfowl on their feeding grounds and at high water roosting sites as well as breeding birds such as terns. This can include disturbance by walkers and particularly their dogs, vehicles, horse riding, microlights, bait digging and wildfowling. These areas, especially the roosting sites, can be limited in extent, and exhaustion and death of birds can result from frequent disturbance of these refuges, especially during cold weather.
http://www.english-nature.org.uk/science/natural/profiles%5CnaProfile119.pdf
[iii] UK Marine. Summary of impacts. Seals
http://www.ukmarinesac.org.uk/activities/recreation/r06_11_2.htm
[iv] Wildlife tourism
By David Newsome, Ross Kingston Dowling, Susan A. Moore (2005)
Pages 42- 45
“For example, the rapid movement of people in the refuge caused the birds to flush to adjacent ponds. Despite their rapid movements, birds were tolerant of
Horse riders and only flushed when horses were close enough to trample them.”
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ral_pGRWutsC&pg=PA180&dq=1990+%22duffus+and+dearden%22&lr=&as_brr=3&as_pt=ALLTYPES#PPA45,M1
[v] Jane Greatorex November 2006.
Conclusion:
No evidence in the medical literature that horse manure would pose any significant risk to human health when deposited on public rights of way
http://www.bhs.org.uk/_Attachments/Resources/2473_S4.doc
[vi] Memorandum submitted by Jean Perraton (DMB 28)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmenvfru/656/656we25.htm
Horse riders & carriage drivers have traditionally enjoyed access to the foreshores for ‘air and exercise’ comparable with the way that our urban commons are now used. This recognised activity is capable of being regulated by byelaws where it is considered necessary.
While government has acknowledged our traditional use of the foreshore, it has stopped short of giving our access statutory protection under the Marine Bill. Despite assurances that existing rights will not be affected, the Bill offers no guarantee that our access will be allowed to continue in a transparent and equitable manner.
Horse riders feel strongly that without formal recognition, it will be all too easy for the Marine Management Authorities and others, to engage in speculation as to the extent of damage horses might cause and to act prematurely to prevent it. The Bill contains no mechanism by which their existing access can be protected from restrictions being imposed in a haphazard fashion around the coast.
Horse riding: evaluation of environmental impact on the foreshore areas:
1. Trampling and erosion:
the Foreshore characteristically comprises a perfectly sustainable, firm sandy surface. Any impact made by horses hooves is repaired twice daily by the natural ebb and flow of the tides.
2. Disturbance of Birds:
the foreshore is obviously unsuitable as a habitat for ground nesting birds, therefore this is unlikely to be an issue[i]. The English Nature, Cumbrian Team (1997) noted that horse riding may disturb migratory and wading birds[ii], however, the UK Marine website states that:
“Disturbance to birds may result from many activities (not just horse riders). The evidence of the impact of these short term events on wider population levels is not conclusive.”
3. Seals:
The UK Marine website also evaluates the possible disturbance of seals by horse riders, which it regards as ‘minimal’[iii].
4. Horse riders feel that it is the experience of people who actually ride horses, that they encounter many more birds and animals on horseback than they do when on foot and it is possible to see species of wildlife at close proximity without startling them. It is widely believed that this is because animals and birds only perceive the closeness of an animal rather than a human threat. An American study tends to bear out that theory.[iv]
“For example, the rapid movement of people in the refuge caused the birds to flush to adjacent ponds. Despite their rapid movements, birds were tolerant of horse riders and only flushed when horses were close enough to trample them.”
5. Horse manure:
In some coastal areas there are byelaws or guidance notes urging horse riders to remove any manure deposited by their horses. Although regarded by many as unpleasant, studies have found that horse manure does not pose a health threat to humans. A study carried out on behalf of the BHS investigated all published written evidence on the subject and concluded that:[v]
“Conclusion:
No evidence in the medical literature that horse manure would pose any significant risk to human health when deposited on public rights of way”
6. One submission of written evidence to the Select Committee the Marine Bill was particularly concerned about water quality and saw horse manure as a health hazard[vi]. It should be noted that the example given to illustrate this was Holkham beach, in Norfolk, where the Household Cavalry hold their summer camp, so it is fair to say that is an exceptional case.
7. As horse riders generally gain access to the foreshore from inland, by means of established linear routes, they feel strongly that they are unlikely to cause any environmental damage that cannot be minimized by good path management. Robust, sustainable paths to the seashore, which help to prevent erosion and disturbance to wildlife, should be an essential provision for all types of visitor to English beaches, therefore, we do not perceive a problem with the status quo.
Conclusion:
We do not believe that there is any evidence that horse riders pose a significant threat to the foreshore areas that cannot be managed by raising awareness of the needs of wildlife or by the existing byelaws.
For these reasons we believe that a statutory right of access to the foreshore for horse riders is appropriate. The Land Reform Act Scotland 2003 has already established such a right. This has enabled the authorities in Scotland to develop a uniform code of conduct for responsible access. It also provides for appeal if access is restricted needlessly, for example, without evidence that actual environmental damage has occurred.
[i] UK Marine: Summary of environmental impacts
http://www.ukmarinesac.org.uk/activities/recreation/r06_11_2.htm
[ii] English Nature - Cumbrian Team 1997
Access and recreation can result in disturbance to wintering and passage waders and wildfowl on their feeding grounds and at high water roosting sites as well as breeding birds such as terns. This can include disturbance by walkers and particularly their dogs, vehicles, horse riding, microlights, bait digging and wildfowling. These areas, especially the roosting sites, can be limited in extent, and exhaustion and death of birds can result from frequent disturbance of these refuges, especially during cold weather.
http://www.english-nature.org.uk/science/natural/profiles%5CnaProfile119.pdf
[iii] UK Marine. Summary of impacts. Seals
http://www.ukmarinesac.org.uk/activities/recreation/r06_11_2.htm
[iv] Wildlife tourism
By David Newsome, Ross Kingston Dowling, Susan A. Moore (2005)
Pages 42- 45
“For example, the rapid movement of people in the refuge caused the birds to flush to adjacent ponds. Despite their rapid movements, birds were tolerant of
Horse riders and only flushed when horses were close enough to trample them.”
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ral_pGRWutsC&pg=PA180&dq=1990+%22duffus+and+dearden%22&lr=&as_brr=3&as_pt=ALLTYPES#PPA45,M1
[v] Jane Greatorex November 2006.
Conclusion:
No evidence in the medical literature that horse manure would pose any significant risk to human health when deposited on public rights of way
http://www.bhs.org.uk/_Attachments/Resources/2473_S4.doc
[vi] Memorandum submitted by Jean Perraton (DMB 28)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmenvfru/656/656we25.htm
Saturday, 21 March 2009
No Thank You Natural England - Not the way to Go...
Below are the Lindsey District Council guidance notes for horse riders wishing to ride on beaches around Skegness and Mablethorpe on the east coast of Lincolnshire. I appreciate that these are popular tourist areas with blue flag status to keep up and it is possible they have experienced particular problems with horse riders in the past but this approach is hostile, officious and unwelcoming.
I am not comfortable with the suggestion that ‘droppings must picked up immediately’. I don’t see how that is practical or agree with the implication that horse droppings are harmful. In addition, the quieter areas adjacent to Skegness and Mablethorpe are classed as SSSIs, a Nature Conservation site and a Coastal Conservation Area. So horse riding is not permitted as it may disturb wildlife. Perhaps even more disturbing to horse riders is the fact that Natural England is directly responsible for limiting the numbers of horses on these beaches by administering a permit system so you have to book in advance.
It doesn’t look too good for the future - No riding on busy beaches especially in summer – no riding on quiet beaches because of a perceived threat to wildlife
- hefty fines for ‘wrong doers’ imposed under Marine Bill.
No thank you Natural England this is not the way to go.
http://www.e-lindsey.gov.uk/leisure/tourism/beach-safety/index.cfm
Horse riding on beaches + guidance notes
• Between 1st April and 30th September horses are NOT ALLOWED on the Beach between the hours of 9.00am and 6.00pm
• Any ride must at all times be conducted in an orderly and responsible manner and all droppings from the horse(s) must be removed from the foreshore area and beach IMMEDIATELY
• The ride must not interfere with or cause nuisance or danger to any other persons using the beach
• Vehicles are not allowed to go on to the beach or promenades
• Riders must indemnify the Council against all claims, actions, damages or proceedings of whatever nature arising directly out of the granting of this permission
• Permission is only granted in respect of the exercising of horses or ponies and does not allow the hire of animals on the beach for gain or any other commercial purpose of whatever nature
• The area south of Skegness central beach is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). As a nature conservation site, horse riding is NOT permitted here due to ground nesting birds and other animals that may be endangered
• The land and beach area north of Mablethorpe central beach is designated as a Coastal Conservation Area (CCA1) and horse riding is by permit only and restricted to the southern end of the beach and off of all vegetated areas. Permits can be obtained from the Site Manager, Natural England Eastern Area Team (Email: enquiries@naturalengland.org.uk or telephone/fax: 01205 723614) with details of applicant (name and address) dates (although an annual permit can be given to local users) and the number of horses.
The Council will take appropriate action if these rules are not followed.
I am not comfortable with the suggestion that ‘droppings must picked up immediately’. I don’t see how that is practical or agree with the implication that horse droppings are harmful. In addition, the quieter areas adjacent to Skegness and Mablethorpe are classed as SSSIs, a Nature Conservation site and a Coastal Conservation Area. So horse riding is not permitted as it may disturb wildlife. Perhaps even more disturbing to horse riders is the fact that Natural England is directly responsible for limiting the numbers of horses on these beaches by administering a permit system so you have to book in advance.
It doesn’t look too good for the future - No riding on busy beaches especially in summer – no riding on quiet beaches because of a perceived threat to wildlife
- hefty fines for ‘wrong doers’ imposed under Marine Bill.
No thank you Natural England this is not the way to go.
http://www.e-lindsey.gov.uk/leisure/tourism/beach-safety/index.cfm
Horse riding on beaches + guidance notes
• Between 1st April and 30th September horses are NOT ALLOWED on the Beach between the hours of 9.00am and 6.00pm
• Any ride must at all times be conducted in an orderly and responsible manner and all droppings from the horse(s) must be removed from the foreshore area and beach IMMEDIATELY
• The ride must not interfere with or cause nuisance or danger to any other persons using the beach
• Vehicles are not allowed to go on to the beach or promenades
• Riders must indemnify the Council against all claims, actions, damages or proceedings of whatever nature arising directly out of the granting of this permission
• Permission is only granted in respect of the exercising of horses or ponies and does not allow the hire of animals on the beach for gain or any other commercial purpose of whatever nature
• The area south of Skegness central beach is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). As a nature conservation site, horse riding is NOT permitted here due to ground nesting birds and other animals that may be endangered
• The land and beach area north of Mablethorpe central beach is designated as a Coastal Conservation Area (CCA1) and horse riding is by permit only and restricted to the southern end of the beach and off of all vegetated areas. Permits can be obtained from the Site Manager, Natural England Eastern Area Team (Email: enquiries@naturalengland.org.uk or telephone/fax: 01205 723614) with details of applicant (name and address) dates (although an annual permit can be given to local users) and the number of horses.
The Council will take appropriate action if these rules are not followed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
