That Coastal Path

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?

9 comments on “That Coastal Path

  1. “It astonishes me that such provisions are not already in the act.”

    Why..?

    I mean, haven’t Labour done their very, very best over the last ten years to prove just how utterly hateful they are…?

  2. I agree with you Tim, but there is a catch.

    Land is property: if the government takes someone’s property then just compensation must be paid. It’s that simple.

    If this compensation is paid by the ramblers, fine. Who compensates the taxpayers who are forced to pay for this?

  3. “I’m aware of all the points about how land was originally stolen etc”: what on earth can “originally” mean in an island that’s been populated since the ice went back?

    Tim adds: There was, I seem to recall, a fairly major transfer of land ownership sometime around 1066 as a result of military manouvres….

  4. How exactly do they determine the compensation when my bull, being worried by Mr & Mrs Townies dog, tramples them to death and I am sued? How do they then compensate my neighbor, who not wanted to end up like me stops buying pedigree dairy bulls (many breads of which are renowned for their bad temper), but whose cattle then start to degrade over generations due to inferior genetics? How do they calculate the compensation due to my increase insurance premiums for people walking over my land? What if these people use the access to case my farm and start stealing stuff (as has happened in many right to roam areas)?

    More importantly….

    How the fuck do they compensate me if I brought the coastal house because I think many of the people of the UK are generally selfish, ignorant, guardian reading wankers and I wanted to get away from them?

    If people want to negotiate to walk over an area of my land, then a deal could be struck, as I might with someone wishing to shoot on my land, or hold a one day grasstrack event, or something. The problem is, this would envolve paying a fair market rate.

    The Ramblers Association, in cahoots with the BBC / Nu Labour alliance despise those who actually live and work in the countryside, as they clutter the place up. They also don’t really like paying for things that rightly belong to these annoying country folk. So they steal it.

    Simple, innit?

  5. “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?”

    Let’s all have a mass trespass folks. Some of us can head for Harriet Harmful’s roof, while the rest of us converge on the ancestral home of Hilary Benn, occupy his living room, and start dismantling the sea defences protecting his home (and no-one else’s).

  6. “Some of us can head for Harriet Harmful’s roof..”

    Will there be room? It seem as if ‘Fathers 4 Justice’ are always up there..!

  7. This could be done more equitably and more simply in these times than at any other.

    Someone, ideally from among potentially-concerned landowners, needs to make an initial investment to investigate the extent to which landowners of suitable parcels might be willing to subordinate them to such purpose and development by either a joint-stock or coooperative form of enterprise.

    The landowners’ problems are not the only. Not everybody wants to use the new “facility” nor ever will. Why should they, as taxpayers, pay for others to free-ride?

    Another advantage is that the large entity would be in good position to insure its individual members’ remaining property (against theft, vandalism, fire, etc. related to the facility).

    It might even already be possible to sketch out the probable layout by resort to one of the google aerial-view compilations (maybe, maybe not).

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.