Decision

Notice by the Secretary of State under section 52 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949: Portsmouth to South Hayling and MR1

Published 6 March 2024

Applies to England

Introduction 

On 19 July 2017 Natural England submitted a coastal access report relating to the stretch of land between Portsmouth to South Hayling to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs under section 51 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (“the 1949 Act”), pursuant to its duty under section 296(1) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (“the 2009 Act”).  

Modification Report 1 (MR1) was submitted to the Secretary of State on 10 March 2021.

In reaching a determination under section 52 of the 1949 Act the Secretary of State has considered: 

a. Portsmouth to South Hayling, chapters 1, 2 and 3- part of Natural England’s coastal access report for  Old Portsmouth to South Hayling, submitted to the Secretary of State on 19 July 2017, and Modification Report (MR1), submitted to Secretary of State on 10 March 2021

b. in accordance with paragraph 16(1)(a) of the Schedule, the objections which the appointed person determined to be an admissible objection

c. in accordance with paragraph 16(1)(b) of the Schedule, Natural England’s comments on the admissible objection which it sent to the Secretary of State

d. in accordance with paragraph 16(1)(c) of the Schedule, the reports given to the Secretary of State by the appointed person in respect of the objections which the appointed person determined to be an admissible objection

e. in accordance with paragraph 16(1)(d) of the Schedule, representations made by a person within paragraph 2(2)(b) to (f) of the Schedule and the summary of other representations made, and Natural England’s revised comments on those representations which it sent to the Secretary of State in November 2021

In this notice – 

(a) “objection” means an objection about the coastal access report which is made under paragraph 3 of Schedule 20 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009; and

(b) “representation” means a representation about the coastal access report which is made under paragraph 7 of Schedule 20 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.

Secretary of State’s approval of coastal access proposals 

The Secretary of State has determined to approve the proposal for the route and associated coastal margin as set out in the coastal access report, subject to the proposed modifications outlined in Modification Report 1, and Natural England’s comments on proposals and subsequent PINS report.

In the respects specified in the objection set out at Annex A to this notice, the Secretary of State determines that the proposals set out in the coastal access report do not fail to strike a “fair balance” as a result of the matters specified in the objections, providing the agreed modifications as detailed by Natural England are included. The Secretary of State therefore approves the proposals set out in the coastal access report, so far as they relate to those parts of the route (and associated coastal margin) to which those objections relate.   

Where proposals are approved in full, the additional conclusions and observations of the Secretary of State in relation to the representations are set out at Annex B to this notice. 

The Secretary of State has made available at http://www.gov.uk:   

A. A copy of this notice;

B. The reports on the objections given to them by the appointed person;

C. Representations made by a person within paragraph 2(2)(b) to (f) of the Schedule, and Natural England’s comments on those representations, which it sent to the Secretary of State in November 2021

D. Summary of other representations, and Natural England’s comments on those representations, which it sent to the Secretary of State in November 2021.

Natural England has also made available here:   

E. Portsmouth to South Hayling: the coastal access report

Annex A: Objections which did not fail to strike a “fair balance”

Objection Reference: MCA/PSH/1-16
The land in the Report to which the objections relate is the area of coastal margin located generally to the north of Warren Close (route section PSH-3-SO15). Secretary of State notes the consideration and recommendation of the appointed person in regard to this objection and approves the proposals in relation to route section.

Objection Reference: MCA/PSH/17
The land in the Report to which the objection relates is route section PSH-2-SO57 FP to PSH-2-SO58 FP. Secretary of State notes the consideration and recommendation of the appointed person in regard to this objection and approves the proposals in relation to route section.

Objection Reference: MCA/PSH/18
The land in the Report to which the objection relates is route section PSH-2-SO60. Secretary of State notes the consideration and recommendation of the appointed person in regard to this objection and approves the proposals in relation to route section.

Objection Reference: MCA/PSH/19
The land in the Report to which the objection relates is route section PSH-3-SO6. Secretary of State notes the consideration and recommendation of the appointed person in regard to this objection and approves the proposals in relation to route section.

Objection Reference: MCA/PSH/20
The objection relates to the entire route section between Portsmouth and South Hayling, specifically the mapping of coastal margin; and the Access and Sensitive Features Appraisal for this section of coast. Secretary of State notes the consideration and recommendation of the appointed person in regard to this objection and approves the proposals in relation to route section.

Objection Reference: MCA/PSH/21
The objection concerns the land below the mean high water included in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Report. Secretary of State notes the consideration and recommendation of the appointed person in regard to this objection and approves the proposals in relation to route section.

Annex B: Conclusions and observations on representations

Representation number: PSH/R/1

Organisation/ person making representation:
Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership

Report chapter:
All

Route sections:
All

Secretary of State’s conclusion and observations:
Secretary of State would like to thank Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership for their engagement and support. Regarding increased visitor numbers, SoS is content that Natural England (NE) have sufficiently paid due regard to this topic whilst developing their proposals. With regards to ‘mapping of spreading zone’, SoS notes that mapping of coastal margin on the OS maps do not form part of the proposals but would like to defer to NE’s comments on this topic in various documents and responses.

Representation number: PSH/R/2

Organisation/ person making representation:
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds 

Report chapter:
All

Route sections:
All

Secretary of State’s conclusion and observations:
SoS would like to thank RSPB for their engagement and support of NE during the proposal phase. SoS would like to acknowledge the change to Langstone Harbour now falling within the coastal margin and is satisfied to exclude access rights over the shingle islands and ridges as referenced by NE in the revised Habitat’s Regulations Assessment. SoS is content with NE’s proposed measures to manage access in these proposals.

Representation number: PSH/R/17

(Also submitted as objection PSH/O/13)

Organisation/ person making representation:
Langstone Harbour Board

Report chapter:
2 to 3 

Route sections:
PSH-2-S010 to PSH-3-S020

Secretary of State’s conclusion and observations:
SoS would like to refer you to the response to representation PSH/R/1 made by the Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership.

Representation number: PSH/R/20

Organisation/ person making representation:
The Hampshire Ramblers 

Report chapter:
3

Route sections:
PSH-3-S006 to S009

Secretary of State’s conclusion and observations:
SoS acknowledges The Hampshire Ramblers concerns and thanks them for their engagement. SoS acknowledges that simple roll back of the route is not possible in this case but encourages NE to be involved in future conversations regarding the long-term future of the Hayling Billy Line where appropriate, and to submit a variation report should any change to the current route be required. 

Representation number: PSH/R/21

Organisation/ person making representation:
The Hampshire Ramblers 

Report chapter:
2

Route sections:
PSH-2-S056 to S058

Secretary of State’s conclusion and observations:
SoS is content that NE have determined the route with the Environment Agency and the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust, and the route conforms to the published standards of National Trails.

Representation number: PSH/R/22

Organisation/ person making representation:
The Hampshire Ramblers 

Report chapter:
2

Route sections:
PSH-2-S013 to S014 and PSH-2-S027 to S028

Secretary of State’s conclusion and observations:
Secretary of State thanks the Hampshire Ramblers for their engagement and support of the KCIIIECP. SoS is content with Natural England’s proposed waymarking along this section ad is content that infrastructure that would be subject to damaging wave action is inappropriate as reinforced by the access authority.

Representation number: PSH/R/23

Organisation/ person making representation:
The Hampshire Ramblers 

Report chapter:
2

Route sections:
PSH-2-S010

Secretary of State’s conclusion and observations:
Secretary of State would like to thank The Hampshire Ramblers’ for their engagement and support of the KCIIIECP, however is content with NE’s measures along this section and acknowledges Hampshire County Councils highways report, confirming the low risk status of this section.

Representation number: PSH/R/24

Organisation/ person making representation:
The Hampshire Ramblers 

Report chapter:
3

Route sections:
PSH-3-S019 to S020

Secretary of States conclusions and observations:
Secretary of State would like to thank The Hampshire Ramblers’ for their engagement and support of the KCIIIECP, however is content with NE’s measures along this section and acknowledges Hampshire County Councils highways report, confirming the low-risk status of this section.

Representation number: PSH/R/25

Organisation/ person making representation:
Hampshire Countryside Access Forum 

Report chapter:
3

Route sections:
PSH-3-S006 to S009

Secretary of State’s conclusion and observations:
Secretary of State would like to refer you to his response to representation PSH/R/20 made by the Hampshire Ramblers and is content with Natural England’s proposals for this section.

Representation number: PSH/R/26

Organisation/ person making representation:
Hampshire Countryside Access Forum 

Report chapter:
2

Route sections:
PSH-2-S056 to S058

Secretary of State’s conclusion and observations:
Secretary of State would like to refer you to his response representation PSH/R/21 made by the Hampshire Ramblers and is content with Natural England’s proposals for this section.

Representation number: PSH/R/27

Organisation/ person making representation:
Hampshire Countryside Access Forum 

Report chapter:
2 to 3

Route sections:
PSH-2-S010 to PSH-3-S020

Secretary of State’s conclusion and observations:
Secretary of State refers you to his response to representation PSH/R/1 made by the Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership. SoS is content with NE’s proposals here, including the signage and waymarking they have proposed.

Representation number: PSH/R/30

Organisation/ person making representation:
The Hampshire Ramblers 

Report chapter:
All

Route sections:
All

Secretary of State’s conclusion and observations:
Secretary of State would like to thank the Hampshire Ramblers for their support.

Representation number: PSH/R/31

Organisation/ person making representation:
Countryside Landowners Business Association 

Report chapter:
All

Route sections:
All

Representation in full
The report considers access around the estuary of Langstone Harbour.

 Inspection of the detailed maps for the route sections reveals that the entirety of the route around the estuary is located either on existing public rights of way/highway, or on “other existing walked routes”. There is one very short section of new route at Eastney which appears to be on the section of coast outside the estuary.

 The overview also indicates that access to the vast majority of the coastal margin will be excluded under s.25A CROW direction.

 The Coastal Access Scheme states that Natural England will “take fully into account whether the cost of extending the trail….would be proportionate to the extra public enjoyment of the coast that would result”. 

 The report overview contains no analysis of the total cost of extending the trail specifically around the estuary.  The report also contains no analysis of the cost to those affected by extending the trail, although surely such analysis must have been done to be able to assert that the proposals represent a fair balance?  

 The report also contains no analysis of the extra benefit that the public will derive from extending coastal access up the estuary. The public already has existing access along this stretch of estuary. The extra benefit that will be derived from designating that existing access as a coastal trail has not been identified or quantified within the report. It addition, there has been no analysis of the balance between that extra benefit and the increased burden which will be borne by owners and occupiers along this section of estuary, and whether that will result in the necessary fair balance. 

 The overview considers only two options for Langstone harbour: aligning the trail around the harbour (as is proposed), or stopping at the mouth of the harbour. The option of extending access as far as the ferry crossing is not mentioned. The ferry service is discussed earlier and the report acknowledges that there is a regular service across the mouth of the harbour. 

 We believe that the report fails in its duty – as set out in the coastal access scheme – to properly consider the option of utilising the ferry service.  There is no assessment as to the recreational benefits and cost of extending access around the estuary, despite the presence of a ferry.

Furthermore, we note that the coastal access scheme states that in considering whether the cost of extending the trail would be proportionate to the extra public benefit that would result:

 “This might not be the case for example:

• Where the first bridge or tunnel is very far from the sea;
• Where a ferry downstream from the bridge or tunnel provides a convenient means for trail users to cross the estuary on foot”.

There should have been a full assessment of the scope for utilising the ferry crossing, especially as the access that is being provided around the estuary itself is entirely based on existing routes, and there will be no new public access to large areas of the margin, for reasons of safety.  

The cost benefit and fair balance should have been considered in this context.

 Secretary of State’s conclusion and observations:
Natural England feels appropriate discussion of the public benefit against impact to private interest, and cost to the project is given within Part 5 of the Overview.

 The proposed stretch contains sections that fall upstream of the seaward limit of Langstone Harbour estuarial waters. The neighbouring South Hayling to East Head stretch then includes the adjoining Chichester Harbour, which has many similar characteristics. For the purposes of developing and considering these report proposals, we suggested that it seems best to view the two harbours as a single estuary system interrupted by Hayling Island and the road bridge onto it. 

We refer you to Part 5 of the Overview which provides our commentary on our decision to propose use of our discretion around Langstone Harbour to treat the estuarial waters as if they were open coast. 

This representation questions why Natural England did not consider limiting the use of our discretion and align the trail only as far as the ferry terminal. We refer you to Part 5(e)(i) and also page 21 of the Overview.  In addition, we had concerns about the long-term provision of the ferry service given its recent period of closure and the impact any future closure would have for walkers following the England Coast Path. A further problem is that the ferry service only delivers passengers to the southwest of Hayling Island; it does not take passengers from one side of the estuary system to the other. Therefore, adopting the ferry as the route of the trail would have significant consequences for continuity of access across this stretch and the neighbouring South Hayling to East Head stretch.

Option 2 considers stopping the trail at the seaward limit of the estuarial waters. The ferry service is a short distance inland of the seaward limit, so the rationale for not choosing option 2 apply equally to the alignment suggestion made in this representation. As alluded to above, adopting this option would leave a significant gap in the England Coast Path on the mainland (around the west side of Langstone Harbour), inconveniencing coast path walkers who do not wish to walk around the island.

The representation also makes several points about weighing the public benefit against impact to private interests, and cost to the project.  The existence of the Langstone Harbour Waterside Walk means route establishment costs are minimal. The estimated costs and further discussion on recreational benefit can be found in the Overview.

The representation suggests that a reason for not proposing an estuary route is the presence of exiting access. We do not believe that this is a good reason to avoid trail alignment in this area. Indeed, aligning the trail over sections of the trail referred to as ‘other existing walked routes’ would often have the benefit of formalising access by introducing a legal right for people to access this land.

Representation number: PSH/R/32

Organisation/ person making representation:
Hampshire Countryside Access Forum 

Report chapter:
All

Route sections:
All

Secretary of State’s conclusion and observations:
Secretary of State would like to thank the Hampshire Countryside Access Forum for their support and comments.