Umm, there seems to be some controversery over whether owners of land should get compensation for the access to their land being demanded.
Owners affected by the route of the coastal path around England should be paid if they can prove they will suffer financial loss as a result, says a new report.
This could mean, for example, that a farmer who loses the use of a field due to having to allow the public to pass through it could be given a payout to cover the loss.
Landowners should also have the right to appeal if the route of the coastal path allows walkers on to their land, says the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee (EFRA).
The MPs describe the lack of a formal appeal process in the Draft Marine Bill as a "fundamental weakness" and say it will be impossible to create a continuous path around the coast without causing financial loss to an owner or occupier.
It astonishes me that such provisions are not already in the act.
Land is property: if the government takes someone\’s property then just compensation must be paid. It\’s that simple.
Yes, I\’m aware of all the points about how land was originally stolen etc: but we are where we are now. And that means that takings of property must be compensated. No ifs and no buts. And it doesn\’t matter whether the taking is to build an airbase or create a walking path.
Unless we defend what is theirs from the depredations of the government taking property for what government thinks is a good idea who will defend what is ours in the future?