Seascale Promenade to Eskmeals Coastal Access: Whitehaven to Silecroft - Natural England’S Proposals

www.naturalengland.org.uk

Chapter 3: Seascale promenade to Eskmeals Coastal Access: Whitehaven to Silecroft - Natural England’s Proposals

Part 3.1: Introduction

Start Point: Seascale promenade (grid reference: NY 037 009) End Point: Eskmeals (grid reference: SD 087 942) Relevant Maps: 3a to 3g

Understanding the proposals and accompanying maps:

The Trail:

3.1.1 Generally follows existing walked routes, including public rights of way, along most of this length.

3.1.2 Mainly follows the coastline quite closely and maintains good views of the sea, as far south as Drigg dunes car park. From this point, it passes through the confluence of the Irt, Mite & Esk estuaries, often on existing routes, slightly further away from the open coast.

3.1.3 Includes 9 sections of new path, between Seascale and the River Irt, and to the south of Walls Bridge, Ravenglass. See maps 3a to 3c & 3g and associated tables below for details.

3.1.4 Is aligned on the beach or foreshore in 2 locations, south of Seascale and south of Ravenglass. See part 3.2.1 and maps 3a & 3f for details.

3.1.5 Will not be available for use in two areas (sections WHS-3-S013 to S019 and WHS-3-S039 to S043) unless and until new river crossings have been installed to complete this part of the route. (See ‘Future Change’ below and Part 8 of the Overview). Until that time, no new coastal access rights will apply on these sections.

3.1.6 Follows a route similar to the existing Cumbria Coastal Way in some places but stays closer to the coast from Drigg dunes car park southwards.

3.1.7 This part of the coast includes the following sites, designated for nature conservation or heritage preservation reasons (See map C of the Overview):

 Drigg Coast Special Area of Conservation (SAC) which also includes the Drigg Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) for its biological interest;

 the Drigg Dunes and Gullery Nature Reserve;

 the Eskmeals Dunes Nature Reserve; and

 the Ravenglass Roman fort Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM).

Coastal Access | Whitehaven to Silecroft | Natural England’s Proposals | Chapter 3: Seascale promenade to Eskmeals We have assessed the potential impacts of access along the proposed route (and over the associated spreading room described below) on the features for which the affected land is designated and on any which are protected in their own right.

3.1.8 Part of the Drigg Coast SAC (on the northern side of the River Irt) is already designated as CROW access land and the proposed route of the trail through this part of the site will largely follow existing paths and tracks. One small area of land within the site, with no existing access, would see new rights in place if these proposals are approved. To the south of the River Irt, the proposed route of the trail follows existing roads, tracks and public rights of way as far as Walls Bridge (to the south of Ravenglass). After advice from specialists we have concluded that our proposals would not be likely to have any significant effect on these features. In reaching this conclusion we have identified that it would be beneficial to provide additional information signs at various locations, to encourage people to stay on or close to the trail and to prevent dogs from disturbing wildlife.

3.1.9 In relation to those nature conservation sites listed above, refer to our published Access & Sensitive Feature Appraisal for more information.

See part 5b of the Overview - ‘Natural environment’ - for more information.

3.1.10 The proposals within this chapter include the crossing of two rivers (the Irt and Esk) within the boundaries of the Drigg SAC (see ‘Future Change’ below) and rely on the future installation of new bridges at these locations before the proposed route would become available for public use.

3.1.11 The installation of these new bridges is not something the England Coast Path programme is able to fund. Although this is likely to mean that there could be a considerable period of time during which this part of the route is not physically implemented because the crossings have not been installed, we believe that this approach delivers the right alignment of the trail. The proposed alignment of the trail is much more attractive than the alternative option, which would have been to propose a far less direct route around each estuary that would not necessarily comply with the key principles for alignment within the approved Scheme, and would certainly not represent the natural desire line for a coastal path on this part of the coast.

3.1.12 It follows from this delayed implementation approach that our appraisal of the scope for any potential impact on key sensitive features on this part of the coast necessarily falls into two stages:

 an in-principle appraisal now as to whether having the public cross these two rivers in a specified way at the identified points is likely to have a significant effect on the features for which the site is designated; and

 a more detailed appraisal later, when specific structures are proposed and designed to achieve this result.

3.1.13 We have conducted the first stage of these appraisals, based on the assumptions listed under ‘Future change’ below. As a result we have concluded, in principle, that the proposals in relation to these river crossings would not be likely to have a significant effect on the features for which the site is designated. This conclusion is subject to our undertaking the necessary further appraisal if and when detailed designs are proposed for implementing these river crossings. If a more detailed appraisal for crossings in these locations indicates in due course the likelihood of significant effects on the designated features, we will proceed at that stage to a full appropriate assessment of the proposed works. If that assessment indicates a potential adverse effect on the features, we will propose any necessary variations of the route of the England Coast Path shown in this report in order to avoid such an adverse effect.

Accessibility

3.1.14 Generally, there are few artificial barriers to accessibility on the proposed route, which makes use of existing surfaced paths wherever these meet the criteria in the Coastal Access Scheme.

Coastal Access | Whitehaven to Silecroft | Natural England’s Proposals | Chapter 3: Seascale promenade to Eskmeals 3.1.15 However, there are places where the trail may not be entirely suitable for people with reduced mobility because:

 it lies partly on the foreshore or within mobile sand-dune systems, on soft sand; or

 in other places, it would follow an uneven grass or bare soil path through Drigg dunes.

3.1.16 Either side of Drigg Dunes car park, gates on the line of the proposed route will provide a high level of accessibility to the areas of dunes beyond. We envisage this area continuing to be popular with a wide range of users and we wish to do all that we can to facilitate lawful access.

See part 5a of the Overview - ‘Recreational issues’ - for more information.

Where we have proposed exercising our discretion

The discretions referred to below are explained in more detail in the Overview.

3.1.17 Estuaries: This report proposes that the trail should include a route around the lower estuary of the rivers Irt, Mite and Esk. On the River Mite, the trail will extend upstream from the open coast as far as the existing railway viaduct bridge, which is the first public foot crossing point over the river. In the case of the rivers Irt and Esk, the report proposes that the trail should extend as upstream as the points shown on maps 3d and 3g, these being the likely locations for any new crossings, which would as a result become the first public foot crossings over each river. The trail covered by this chapter includes part of these estuary routes.

3.1.18 Landward boundary of the coastal margin: We have used our discretion on some sections of the route to map the landward extent of the coastal margin to an adjacent physical boundary such as a fence line, pavement or track to make the extent of the new access rights clearer. See Table 3.2.1 below.

3.1.19 Where we have shown the inclusion of additional, more extensive areas within the coastal margin, landward of the trail, this is because those areas match the description of ‘coastal land’ within the approved Scheme and are thus automatically included within the margin because of their proximity to the trail. We have used our discretion to propose boundaries for these areas, as shown on the relevant maps and detailed in Table 3.2.1 below.

See also part 3 of the Overview - ‘Understanding the proposals and accompanying maps’, for an explanation of the default extent of the coastal margin and how we may use our discretion to adjust the margin, either to add land or to provide clarity. See also Annex C of the Overview - ‘Excepted land categories’.

3.1.20 Restrictions and/or exclusions: Access rights to the spreading room would be subject to the national restrictions on coastal access rights listed in Annex D of the Overview. These restrictions would not apply to public rights of way.

3.1.21 We propose to permanently exclude access to the saltmarsh and mudflat in an area of seaward margin adjacent to sections WHS-3-S017 to WHS-3-S021 as we do not believe that the land is suitable for public access. This exclusion will not affect the route itself. See map F in the Overview for details.

See part 9 of the Overview - ‘Restrictions and exclusions’ - for details.

3.1.22 Temporary routes: At the time of writing this report, we do not foresee the need for any temporary routes in relation to the length of coast covered by this chapter.

3.1.23 Alternative routes: At the time of writing this report, we do not foresee the need for any alternative routes in relation to the length of coast covered by this chapter.

3.1.24 Optional alternative routes: An optional alternative route would be available when parts of the route south of Ravenglass (WHS-3-S032 to WHS-3-S038) are affected by high tide. It would follow existing public rights of way and other existing walked routes and would be clearly way-marked.

Coastal Access | Whitehaven to Silecroft | Natural England’s Proposals | Chapter 3: Seascale promenade to Eskmeals 3.1.25 Establishment: Some physical establishment of the trail would be necessary, in accordance with the general approach described in part 6 the Overview. The anticipated new bridges over the rivers Irt and Esk (see ‘Future Change’ below) are not part of the initial establishment of this length of trail and will not be completed before the new access rights come into force.

3.1.26 Ongoing management: Ongoing management and maintenance would be necessary in accordance with the general approach described in part 7 of the Overview. The overall need for this is likely to be greater on those parts of the stretch where it will be necessary for the route to roll back from time to time in response to coastal processes, as described below.

See parts 6 - ‘Physical establishment of the trail’ and 7 - ‘Maintenance of the trail’ of the Overview for more information.

Future Change

3.1.27 Part of the route of the trail on this length of coast would be able to change without further approval from the Secretary of State in response to coastal erosion or other geomorphological processes, or encroachment by the sea. This would happen in accordance with the criteria and procedures for ‘roll back’ set out in part 8 of the Overview. See tables 3.2.1 & 3.2.3 below for details of the sections likely to be affected.

3.1.28 As previously indicated, the proposals within this chapter depend in part on the construction in due course of two new river crossings (over the Irt and Esk) before those specific parts of the trail could be used by the public. At the time of writing these proposals, detailed designs do not exist for either crossing, since both are aspirational. The location of each potential crossing has been selected on the basis of an initial feasibility study and the best information currently available. It is possible that, if and when more detailed work is carried out in the future, certain unforeseen constraints may be identified that might lead to a reassessment of the proposals for crossing either river. In such circumstances we would propose any necessary variations of the route of the England Coast Path shown in this report.

3.1.29 In the absence of detailed designs, we have made the following assumptions about each crossing, based on preliminary discussions with the Environment Agency, Network Rail and our own specialists:

River Irt crossing:

 A new bridge at this location will feature a single span, with no piers constructed between the banks.

 There will be sufficient clearance below the bridge to minimise risk of floating debris being trapped.

 The design of the bridge and its parapets should minimise any flow impedance to flood waters.

 Elevated walkways or ramps may be required on either bank, to ensure that the bridge approaches are passable irrespective of the normal tidal range. Any such structures will also need to be designed to offer minimal impedance to flood waters.

 Both the bridge itself and any elevated approached walkways would be on the line of or very close to the line of the existing Unclassified County Road. The bridge itself would probably be immediately adjacent to the existing ford, so as not to prevent vehicular use of the ford under the pre-existing public rights.

River Esk crossing:

 A new crossing at this location is likely to consist of a new structure fixed to the seaward side of the existing railway viaduct. It would be entirely supported by that structure with no new piers constructed between the banks or within the adjacent salt-marsh zone.

 The deck of the new crossing over the river and adjacent salt-marsh would sit at a similar level to, or just below the deck of the existing viaduct. Coastal Access | Whitehaven to Silecroft | Natural England’s Proposals | Chapter 3: Seascale promenade to Eskmeals  To the north, the trail and approach to the new crossing would sit on Network Rail land and / or on adjacent farm land. From the edge of the saltmarsh to the existing viaduct, the trail would be at a similar level to the adjacent railway track. Any additional supports or structures required to create the trail at this level would only affect existing Network Rail infrastructure.

 To the south, the trail and approach to the new crossing would remain at a similar level to the adjacent railway track in order to cross the minor road.

 Any new crossing over the Esk, on the line proposed and subject to the above assumptions, would be entirely dependent on agreement with all owners and occupiers in the area, and specifically with Network Rail.

3.1.30 At the time of preparing the report, we do not foresee any other need for future changes to the access provisions proposed for the length of coast described in this chapter.

See parts 5e - ‘Coastal processes’ and 8 - ‘Future changes’ of the Overview for more information.

Coastal Access | Whitehaven to Silecroft | Natural England’s Proposals | Chapter 3: Seascale promenade to Eskmeals Part 3.2: Commentary on Maps See Part 3 of Overview for guidance on reading and understanding the tables below.

3.2.1 Section Details – Maps 3a to 3g: Seascale promenade to Eskmeals

Notes on table: Column 2 – an asterisk (*) against the route section number means see also table 3.2.2: Other options considered. Column 5 – ‘Yes – normal’ means roll-back approach is likely to follow the current feature (e.g. cliff edge/beach) for the foreseeable future. Column 5 – ‘Yes – see table 3.2.3’ means refer to that table below about our likely approach to roll-back on this part of the route.

1 2 3 4 5 6a 6b 7 Map(s) Route section Current status Current Roll-back Landward boundary of Reason for Proposed exclusions number(s) of this section surface of this proposed? margin landward or restrictions section (See Part 8 of (See maps) boundary (see Part 9 of Overview) Overview) discretion 3a WHS-3-S001 Other existing Tarmac Yes - Wall Clarity and None walked route normal Cohesion WHS-3-S002* Other existing Concrete Yes – see Landward edge of Not used None walked route table 3.2.3 trail WHS-3-S003* & Other existing Shingle Yes – see Landward extent of Not used None WHS-3-S004* walked route table 3.2.3 Foreshore WHS-3-S005* & Not an existing Grass Yes - Fence line Clarity and None WHS-3- S006* walked route normal Cohesion 3b WHS-3-S007 Other existing Grass Yes - Fence line Clarity and None walked route normal Cohesion WHS-3-S008 Other existing Gravel Yes - Fence line Clarity and None walked route normal Cohesion WHS-3-S009 Public Tarmac No Landward edge of Not used None Highway trail 3c WHS-3-S010 Other existing Grass No Fence line Clarity and None walked route Cohesion WHS-3-S011 Not an existing Grass No Fence line Clarity and None walked route Cohesion WHS-3-S012 Not an existing Grass No Landward edge of Not used None walked route trail 3d WHS-3-S013 Public Grass No Fence line Clarity and None Highway Cohesion WHS-3-S014 Public Bare Soil No Fence line Clarity and None Highway (compacted) Cohesion WHS-3-S015 & Public Bare Soil No Landward edge of Clarity and None WHS-3-S016 Highway (compacted) bridge Cohesion WHS-3-S017 Public Bare Soil No Fence line Clarity and Saltmarsh and Highway (compacted) Cohesion mudflats in margin WHS-3-S018 Public Gravel No Fence line Clarity and Saltmarsh and Highway Cohesion mudflats in margin WHS-3-S019 Public Tarmac No Landward edge of Clarity and Saltmarsh and Highway road Cohesion mudflats in margin 3e WHS-3-S020 Public Tarmac No Landward edge of Clarity and Saltmarsh and Highway road Cohesion mudflats in margin 3f WHS-3-S021 Other existing Gravel Yes - Fence line Clarity and Margin Saltmarsh walked route normal Cohesion and mudflats in margin WHS-3-S022 Public Gravel Yes - Fence line Clarity and None Footpath normal Cohesion WHS-3-S023 Public Boardwalk Yes - Fence line Clarity and None Footpath or raised normal Cohesion walkway WHS-3-S024 Public Concrete No Fence line Clarity and None Footpath Cohesion

Coastal Access | Whitehaven to Silecroft | Natural England’s Proposals | Chapter 3: Seascale promenade to Eskmeals 1 2 3 4 5 6a 6b 7 Map(s) Route section Current status Current Roll-back Landward boundary of Reason for Proposed exclusions number(s) of this section surface of this proposed? margin landward or restrictions section (See Part 8 of (See maps) boundary (see Part 9 of Overview) Overview) discretion 3f WHS-3-S025 Public Tarmac No Landward edge of Clarity and None Footpath bridge Cohesion WHS-3-S026 Public Tarmac No Fence line Clarity and None Footpath Cohesion WHS-3-S027 Other existing Grass No Landward edge of Not used None walked route trail WHS-3-S028 Other existing Tarmac No Seaward edge of Clarity and None walked route road Cohesion WHS-3-S029 Other existing Grass No Seaward edge of Clarity and None walked route road Cohesion WHS-3-S030 Public Tarmac Yes - Landward edge of Clarity and None Highway normal road Cohesion WHS-3-S031 Public Concrete Yes - Landward edge of Clarity and None Bridleway normal road Cohesion WHS-3-S032* Public Shingle Yes – see Wall Clarity and None Bridleway table 3.2.3 Cohesion WHS-3-S033 Public Gravel Yes – see Wall Clarity and None Footpath table 3.2.3 Cohesion WHS-3-S034* Other existing Grass Yes – see Landward edge of Not used None walked route table 3.2.3 trail WHS-3-S035* Other existing Steps: Yes – see Landward edge of Not used None walked route Timber table 3.2.3 trail WHS-3-S036* Other existing Grass Yes – see Landward edge of Not used None walked route table 3.2.3 trail WHS-3-S037* Other existing Shingle Yes – see Landward edge of Not used None walked route table 3.2.3 trail WHS-3-S038* Other existing Shingle Yes – see Landward edge of Not used None walked route table 3.2.3 trail 3g WHS-3-S039 to Not an existing Grass No Fence line Clarity and None WHS-3-S041 walked route Cohesion WHS-3-S042 & Not an existing Sand No Landward edge of Clarity and None WHS-3-S043 walked route bridge Cohesion 3f WHS-3-A001 Other existing Tarmac No Landward & seaward Not used None walked route edges of trail WHS-3-A002 Public Tarmac No Landward & seaward Clarity and None Footpath edges of path Cohesion WHS-3-A003 Public Boardwalk No Landward & seaward Clarity and None Footpath or raised edges of bridge Cohesion walkway WHS-3-A004 Public Gravel No Landward & seaward Clarity and None Footpath edges of path Cohesion WHS-3-A005 Public Tarmac No Landward & seaward Clarity and None Footpath edges of road Cohesion WHS-3-A006 Public Gravel No Landward & seaward Clarity and None Footpath edges of road Cohesion WHS-3-A007 Other existing Gravel No Landward & seaward Clarity and None walked route edges of path Cohesion WHS-3-A008 Public Tarmac No Landward & seaward Clarity and None Footpath edges of road Cohesion WHS-3-A009 Other existing Gravel No Landward & seaward Clarity and None walked route edges of path Cohesion WHS-3-A010 Public Tarmac No Landward & seaward Clarity and None Footpath edges of road Cohesion WHS-3-A011 Public Tarmac No Landward & seaward Clarity and None Footpath edges of path Cohesion Coastal Access | Whitehaven to Silecroft | Natural England’s Proposals | Chapter 3: Seascale promenade to Eskmeals 3.2.2 Other options considered: Maps 3a to 3g: Seascale promenade to Eskmeals

Map(s) Section Option(s) considered Reasons for not proposing this option as the number(s) route 3a WHS-3-S001 We considered aligning the trail along the We opted for the proposed route because to existing roadside pavement as far as the we concluded that overall this strikes WHS-3-S006 southern edge of Seascale, before finding a the best balance in terms of the criteria new route back towards the coast towards described in chapter 4 of the Coastal Access the northern end of Drigg dunes. This would Scheme. avoid a route along the foreshore itself. 3a & 3b WHS-3-S001 We also considered a variation of the We did not pursue this option as the advice to above, but continuing the route south from the highways authority was that this WHS-3-S007 along Drigg Road (B5344) as far as Summer would not provide a safe route for a national View, before heading back towards the trail. There is no pavement or footway on coast along the existing public bridleway. much of this part of the road. 3d WHS-3-S012 We considered extending the route up We did not pursue this option because we to the Irt estuary, as far as Holme bridge (the believe that it would not necessarily comply WHS-3-S020 first existing pedestrian crossing), using with the key principles for alignment within a combination of road-side pavements, the approved Scheme, and would certainly rights of way and minor roads. not represent the natural desire line for a coast path on this part of the coast.

3.2.3 Roll-back implementation – more complex situations: Maps 3a to 3g: Seascale promenade to Eskmeals

Map(s) Section Feature or site How we will manage roll-back in relation to this feature or site numbers(s) potentially affected 3a WHS-3-S002 Houses and gardens If it is no longer possible to find a viable route seaward of the to on the cliff tops, specified excepted land (e.g. buildings, curtilage, gardens etc), WHS-3-S004 above the foreshore. we will choose a route landward of it, following discussions with owners and occupiers. 3f, 3g WHS-3-S032 Houses, gardens If it is no longer possible to find a viable route seaward of the to and coastal railway. specified excepted land (e.g. buildings, curtilage, gardens etc), WHS-3-S038 we will choose a route landward of it, following discussions with owners and occupiers.

Note: In relation to all other sections where roll-back has been proposed, the trail is likely to be adjusted to follow the current feature (e.g. cliff edge/beach) for the foreseeable future.

Coastal Access | Whitehaven to Silecroft | Natural England’s Proposals | Chapter 3: Seascale promenade to Eskmeals Part 3.3: Chapter 3 - Formal Proposals  Below are our formal proposals to the Secretary of State for the length of coast shown on maps 3a to 3g.

 They should be read in conjunction with the relevant maps.

 The commentary above explains the practical effect of these proposals.

Formal Proposals – Seascale promenade to Eskmeals

Discretion to include an estuary

3.3.1 Natural England proposes to exercise its functions as if the sea included the estuarial waters of the River Irt as far as unclassified county road and ford, as indicated by the extent of the trail shown on map 3d – this being the intended location of a permanent new river crossing.

3.3.2 Natural England proposes to exercise its functions as if the sea included the estuarial waters of the River Esk as far as the existing rail viaduct, as indicated by the extent of the trail shown on map 3g – this being the intended location of a permanent new river crossing.

3.3.3 Natural England proposes to exercise its functions as if the sea included the estuarial waters of the River Mite as far as existing cycleway bridge just seaward of the rail viaduct, as indicated by the extent of the trail shown on map 3f - this being the first permanent public crossing.

Proposed route of the trail

3.3.4 In relation to route sections WHS-3-S009 to WHS-3-S020, WHS-3-S024 to WHS-3-S029, WHS-3-S039 to WHS-3-S043 & WHS-3-A001 to WHS-3-A011 the route is to be at the centre of the line shown on maps 3a to 3g as the proposed route of the trail.

3.3.5 In relation to route sections WHS-3-S001 to WHS-3-S008, WHS-3-S021 to WHS-3-S023 & WHS-3-S030 to WHS-3-S038 the route, as initially determined at the time the report was prepared, is to be at the centre of the line shown on maps 3a to 3f as the proposed route of the trail.

3.3.6 If at any time any part of a route section listed in the previous paragraph needs, in Natural England’s view, to change, as a result of coastal erosion or other geomorphological processes or encroachment by the sea, in order for the overall route to remain viable, the new route for the part in question will be determined by Natural England without further reference to the Secretary of State. This will be done in accordance with the criteria and procedures described under the title ‘Roll-back’ in part 8 of the Overview and section 4.10 of the Coastal Access Scheme. If this happens, the new route will become the approved route for that section for the purposes of the Order which determines where coastal access rights apply.

Landward boundary of coastal margin

3.3.7 Adjacent to route sections WHS-3-S001, WHS-3-S032 & WHS-3-S033, the landward boundary of the coastal margin is to coincide with the existing boundary wall which, at the time of writing this report, is landward of the trail on maps 3a & 3f.

3.3.8 Adjacent to route sections WHS-3-S005, WHS-3-S013, WHS-3-S014, WHS-3-S017, WHS-3-S018, WHS- 3-S021 to WHS-3-S024, WHS-3-S026 & WHS-3-S039 to WHS-3-S041, the landward boundary of the coastal margin is to coincide with the existing boundary fence which, at the time of writing this report, is landward of the trail on maps 3a to 3g.

3.3.9 Adjacent to route sections WHS-3-S015, WHS-3-S016, WHS-3-S025, WHS-3-S042 and WHS-3-S043, the landward boundary of the coastal margin is to coincide with landward edge of the bridge shown as the trail on maps 3d, 3f & 3g.

Coastal Access | Whitehaven to Silecroft | Natural England’s Proposals | Chapter 3: Seascale promenade to Eskmeals 3.3.10 Adjacent to route sections WHS-3-S019, WHS-3-S020, WHS-3-S030 and WHS-3-S031, the landward boundary of the coastal margin is to coincide with landward edge of the road shown as the trail on maps 3d, 3e & 3g.

3.3.11 Adjacent to route sections WHS-3-S028 & WHS-3-S029, the landward boundary of the coastal margin is to coincide with seaward edge of the road, which is landwards of the trail, as shown on map 3f.

3.3.12 Adjacent to route sections WHS-3-S006 to WHS-3-S011, the landward boundary of the coastal margin is to coincide with the existing boundary fence, as indicated by the coastal margin landward of the trail on maps 3b & 3c.

Local restrictions and exclusions

3.3.13 Natural England proposes to restrict or exclude access on this length of coast as follows:

 Access to the saltmarsh and mudflats in parts of the margin seaward of sections WHS-3-S017 to WHS-3-S021 is to be excluded permanently as we do not consider this land suitable for public access. (See map F in the Overview).

Refer to Part 9 of the Overview for further details.

Alternative routes

3.3.14 An optional alternative route is to be available at times when parts of the main route between sections WHS-3-S032 and WHS-3-S038 are affected by high tides. The optional alternative route is to be at the centre of the line shown as route sections WHS-3-A001 to WHS-3-A011 on map 3f.

3.3.15 Adjacent to route sections WHS-3-A002 to WHS-3-A011, the landward and seaward boundaries of the coastal margin are to coincide with the landward and seaward edges of the roads, paths and bridge shown as the trail on map 3f.

Coastal Access | Whitehaven to Silecroft | Natural England’s Proposals | Chapter 3: Seascale promenade to Eskmeals T r a c h k at Coastal Access - WhitehPaven to Silecroft - Natural England's Proposals Map 3a Seascale promenade to Whitriggs Scar M a

PROPOSALS Other information p

Trail using other existing 3 Sea below mean low water walked route a

The S Lodge Trail not using existing Other access rights and routes e FB a

walked route Public bridleways s c a

Trail shown onE other maps T l U

r Seascale Public byways e a N c k E p

Coastal margiA n landward

Public footpaths r Club

of the trail o

W m House N H

O Existing access land

h O

Town T

t e

Coasta al margiS n landward

I P E

End n of the trail whN ich is

Farm O H Trail Infrastructure a C

O d existing access land U S T E New gap in fence required e EN R C O ES PO AD t R o C Sinks New interpretation panel required

S W

Hotel K

N I

L THE FAI RW h AYS New sleeper bridge required

Seascale i t

Scar r

New steps required i PW g

Hall g

PW PW s

Liby S c

RTH ROAD a Station GOSFO r

Fire AY N W Cricket Sta SANTO Pav Ground Car E Park D A R A P

S P Seascale promenade a T th P H a E t h C

WHS-3-S001 E

Spreads C

W Whitriggs H W S - A Broadlea Beck 3 S e - D n S A i 0 L L E 0 P e 2 A p i R Whitriggs P K Farm

DR IGG R W OAD H S - 3 - S 0 Whitriggs 0 3 The Villa IVE Croft DR RY ER EB U M R E A N W L O Whitriggs H W S Scar -3 W - A S T 0 E 0 R 4

0 50 100 200 300 400

N W H Metres S - 3 - S 0 © Crown copyright and database right 2014. 0 5 All rights reserved. Tr in ac Natural England Licence No. 100022021 ra k D in ra This map is intended to be printed in colour at A3 size. Whitriggs Scar D

Issues Explanatory note: coastal margin Part 3 of the Overview to the report explains where the landward boundary of the coastal margin falls by default. Our proposals include any suggested variation of this default boundary. The purple wash on the map indicates Sinks where as a result of our proposals the coastal margin would extend significantly to the landward side of the proposed route of the trail. The coastal margin may include some areas where coastal access rights do not apply, either seaward or landward of the proposed route of the trail: the Spreads Overview explains more about this. The landward boundary of the coastal margin may in due course move inland, if the trail rolls back under proposals in this report to respond to coastal change.

Collects

Collects Coastal Access - Whitehaven to Silecroft - Natural England's Proposals Map 3b Whitriggs Scar to Drigg Dunes car park M a

PROPOSALS Other information p

Trail using existing public Sea below mean low water 3 right of way or highway b

Whitriggs Scar W Trail using othKierkr setoxniseting Other access rights and routes h

walked route i

Public bridleways t r

T i r Trail not using existing g in ac Existing access land g ra k walked route

D s

in S ra Trail shown on other maps Trail Infrastructure D Moor House c

D a rain Coastal margin landward New gap in fence required r

of the trail which is o Issues New kissing gate required

existing access land D

Summer View r

New interpretation panel required i W Trail sections which follow existing g

Sinks g H public rights of way or highways S New sleeper bridge required - D 3 - are indicated by a suffix: S Low Moor u 0 New stepping stones required 0 n 6 RD - Public Road Spreads e

Existing field gate in s

satisfactory condition c a r

Collects 0 50 100 200 300 400 p a

N r k Collects Metres

This map is intended to be printed in colour at A3 size. Collects Spreads Collects

T r a c k

T r a c Carl k Crag Collects

A -

3 T

Dunes -

E S

0 7

Issues

T ra ck ain Dr

Collects Spreads Sandy Acre

Sand

Explanatory note: coastal margin Issues Part 3 of the Overview to the report explains where the landward boundary of the coastal margin falls by default. Our proposals include any suggested W variation of this default boundary. The purple wash on the map indicates H OAD S- E R where as a result of our proposals the coastal margin would extend 3- Drigg Dunes car park OR S0 SH significantly to the landward side of the proposed route of the trail. The 0 8 Tra RD coastal margin may include some areas where coastal access rights do not ck 09- -S0 apply, either seaward or landward of the proposed route of the trail: the S-3 WH Overview explains moRraed abr out this. The landward boundary of the coastal margin may in dueC caoluibrsrea tmioonve inland, if the trail rolls back under proposals in this report to respMoanrdk etro coastal change. Spreads

Barn Scar Coastal Access - Whitehaven to Silecroft - Natural England's Proposals Map 3c Drigg Dunes car park to River Irt Tip Issues Sinks (disused) M a p AD RO Drigg Dunes car park RE 3 HO D S rain c

Tra Sks ck D Collects r

n Iss

a r

g D

Spreads u Issues n Spreads River e s

AD Irt c SHORE RO

Sinks a r

W Dunes Tr p ac H Collects k S Issues a - 3 r - 2 S 1 k 0 0 S

1 t 0 -

3 Ford o - Sks S

H R D

r W i a Explanatory note: coastal margin v i n Part 3 of the Overview to the report explains where the landward boundary e r

of the coastal margin falls by default. Our proposals include any suggested Spreads t

r I I variation of this default boundary. The purple wash on the map indicates r r

e t v where as a result of our proposals the coastal margin would extend i significantly to the landward side of the proposed route of the trail. The R coastal margin may include some areas where coastal access rights do not Collects apply, either seaward or landward of the proposed route of the trail: the Collects WHS-3-S011 Overview explains more about this. The landward boundary of the coastal margin may in due course move inland, if the trail rolls back under proposals Collects in this report to respond to coastal change.

PROPOSALS Other information Trail using other existing Collects Spreads Sea below mean low water walked route Collects Other access rights and routes Trail not using existing Collects walked route Public footpaths

T ra c Trail shown on other maps Existing access land k Coastal margin landward Sand of the trail which is Trail Infrastructure 0 50 100 200 300 400 existing access land New boardwalk required N Metres New culvert required New interpretation panel required © Crown copyright and database right 2014. New footbridge required All rights reserved. New interpretation panel required Natural England Licence No. 100022021

New kissing gate required This map is intended to be printed in colour at A3 size. Sand New pedestrian gate required Collects M

A New sleeper bridge required N L O Existing barrier in W W satisfactory condition A T ER Gables Coastal Access - Whitehaven to Silecroft - Natural England'sD Prigrog posals 16m MaGpre 3endsid Re iver Irt to Hall C1a7mrleton

18m M

Iss Hall a

PROPOSALS Other information p

Meadowbridge AD Trail using existing public 3 RO Sea below mean low water RE d SHO right of way or highway Tk LD Track O R

Other access rights and routes i D Trail shown on other maps v A

O e R Sinks

Public bridleways r N Coastal margin landward PH IO P T I

a A r th T of the trail Sta S Existing access land t

Coastal margin landward o

of the trail which is Trail Infrastructure H LC Storage Maudsyke existing access land a New field gate required l l

Depot Tr C ac Trail sections which follow existing

New interpretation panel required a k public rights of way or highways r l

are indicated by a suffix: e t - Public Road o RD n k c ra T

Tip (disused)

Issues W H S River -3 D -S E ROA 0 Irt SHOR 1 3 - R

D WHS-3-S014-RD WHS-3-S015-RD

Ford WHS-3-S016-RD

t r Possible location I r for new bridge e v i R Collects

WHS-3-S017-RD

WHS-3-S018-RD Hall Carleton Hall Carleton

WHS-3-S019-RD

Coombe View

0 50 100 200 300 400

N Metres

This map is intended to be printed in colour at A3 size.

L Sand Explanatory note: coastal margin O W Part 3 of the Overview to the report explains where the landward boundary W of the coastal margin falls by default. Our proposals include any suggested Track AT variation of this default boundary. The purple wash on the map indicates ER where as a result of our proposals the coastal margin would extend significantly to the landward side of the proposed route of the trail. The coastal margin may include some areas where coastal access rights do not Sand Track apply, either seaward or landward of the proposed route of the trail: the Overview explains more about this. The landward boundary of the coastal margin may in due course move inland, if the trail rolls back under proMpuodsals in this report to respond to coastal change.

Track

Mean Coastal Access - Whitehaven to Silecroft - Natural England's Proposals Map 3e Hall Carleton to Low Saltcoats M

Collects a

PROPOSALS Other information p

Trail using existing public Sea below mean low water 3 right of way or highway e

Trail shown on other maps Other access rights and routes a l l

Public bridleways Trail sections which follow existing C a

public rights of way or highways Existing access land r l

are indicated by a suffix: e t

Trail Infrastructure o

RD - Public Road n

New interpretation panel required t o

Iss L o

0 50 100 200 300 400 w

N S Hall a l

Coombe This map is intended to be printed in colour at A3 size. View

T ra ck

Mite

Houses Pa Netherholme th Track Sinks T k ra ac c Tr k

D ra in ck Tra Saltcoats W HS Crossing -3-S 020 -RD

k c a r T

High Saltcoats

High Saltcoats Farm

Caravan Park Saltcoats

Low Saltcoats

D ra in Path Issues Mud & Sand Tr ack NTL Mud

Explanatory note: coastal maRragbibnit Cat Part 3 of the Overview to the report explains where the landward boundary of the coastal margin falls by default.H Oouwr proposals include any suggested variation of this default boundary. The purple wash on the map indicates where as a result of our proposals the coastal margin would extend W significantly to the landward side of the proposed route of the trail. The MEAN LOW ATER coastal margin may include some areas where coastal access rights do not apply, either seaward or landward of the proposed route of the trail: the River Irt Overview explains more about this. The landward boundary of the coastal margin may in due course move inland, if the trail rolls back under proposals in this report to respond to coastal change. Sand Mud Mite

Houses Pa Netherholme Coastal Accetshs - Whitehaven to Silecroft - Natural England's Proposals Track Sinks Map 3f Low Saltcoats to Walls Bridge T ra M ck a

PROPOSALS Other information p

Trail using existing public Sea below mean low water 3 f

right of way or highway L Saltcoats Other access rights and routes o

Trail using other existing w Crossing

walked route Public bridleways S

Public footpaths a

Optional Alternative Route l t c

Trail shown on other maps Existing access land o a t

High Coastal margin landward Trail Infrastructure s

Saltcoats of the trail t New gap in fence required o

Trail sections which follow existing W

New interpretation panel required a public rights of way or highways l l High are indicated by a suffix: New sleeper bridge required s

Saltcoats B Farm BW - Public Bridleway Existing barrier in r i satisfactory condition d - Public Footpath g Caravan FP Mud Park Existing boardwalk in e Saltcoats RD - Public road satisfactory condition P a th Existing footbridge in Low satisfactory condition Saltcoats WHS-3-S024-FP Existing steps in WHS-3-S023-FP satisfactory condition WHS-3-S022-FP Raven W D H ra S in Villa -3 Issues -S k 0 c

2 a

1 r

Tr WHS-3-S025-FP ack Viaduct WHS-3-S026-FP

Ford

War WHS-3-S027 Memorial Mus The AN LOW WATER ME Grove 9 2 WHS-3-S028 0 Mud & S Sta W River Irt - FP 3 - Sta 4 H Sand - 0 S 0 S Sinks A - H WHS-3-A001 - 3 3 Tel - - W S Ex A Sand Car H 0 W 0 Park 5 Walls - F Ravenglass P Caravan Park

e t W i WHS-3-A003-FP M H r Tr S e ac Mud k - v 3 i WHS-3-A002-FP R - R Cross A iv e 0 r 0 I rt WHS-3-S030-RD 6 -

P Mud Path Iss WHS-3-S031S-aBnWd

Ravenglass W WHS-3-S032-BW a l l Fishery s Boat P WHS-3-S033-FP l House a n Riv t er E W a sk W t H i Mud & Sand a o S l Sand -3 l n - s S0 D 3 r WHS-3-A007 i 4 v

0 50 100 200 300 400 e

N Mussel Mud Bed WHS-3-S035 Metres WHS-3-A008-FP Walls Castle © Crown copyright and database right 2014. W All rights reserved. WHS-3-S036 H ROMAN BUILDING S - (remains of) Natural England Licence No. 100022021 3 Mussel Iss ROMAN -A 0 Bed WELL 0 This map is intended to be printed in colour at A3 size. W 9 H GLANNAVENTA S - ROMAN FORT 3

- S P Explanatory note: coastal margin 0 -F 3 0 7 1 Part 3 of the Overview to the report explains where the landward boundary Esk 0 Mussel -A of the coastal margin falls by default. Our proposals include any suggested -3 Bed Garth S variation of this default boundary. The purple wash on the map indicates H where as a result of our proposals the coastal margin would extend WHS-3-S038 W significantly to the landward side of the proposed route of the trail. The Mud T coastal margin may include some areas where coastal access rights do not r

a apply, either seaward or landward of the proposed route of the trail: the c WHS-3-A011-FP Salmon k Overview explains more about this. The landward boundary of the coastal Fishery Walls margin may in due course move inlaMndu, sisf ethl e trail rolls back under proposals Bridge in this report to respond to coastal cBheadnge. E s k m e a l s

k s E r e v i R W a l l s D

r i Coastal Access - Whitehaven to Silecroft - Natural England's Proposals v

Mussel Mud Map 3g Walls Bridge to Eskmeals Bed M

Walls Castle a

PROPOSALS Other information ROMAN BUILDING p

Trail not using existing Sea below mean low water (remains of) 3 Mussel g walked route Iss ROMAN

Bed WELL W Other access rights and routes Trail shown on other maps GLANNAVENTA a l

Public bridleways ROMAN FORT l s

Coastal margin landward Public footpaths B

of the trail r i Trail Infrastructure Mussel Esk d Bed Garth g New interpretation panel required e

t o

Mud E r

a s c

k Salmon k

Fishery Walls m Mussel

Bridge e

Bed H

Eskmeals a

S l

- s

k 0 s 3 E 9 r e v i R Dunes

Mud Iss Brighouse

T r a c k Sand

Sks Mud Sand

Issues W

Mud

Sand Mud

Iss Sks Iss P a th Dunes

Sand

r a

c k Esk River 0 50 100 200 300 400

W This map is intended to be printed in colour at A3 size. Eskmeals Pool

Explanatory note: coastal margin Mud Part 3 of the Overview to the report explains where the landward boundary of the coastal margin falls by default. Our proposals include any suggested variation of this default boundary. The purple wash on the map indicates where as a result of our proposals the coastal margin would extend significantly to the landward side of the proposed route of the trail. The Mud coastal margin may include some areas where coastal access rights do not Eskmeals apply, either seaward or landward of the proposed route of the trail: thDe unes Overview explains more about this. The landward boundary of the coastal margin may in due course move inland, if the trail rolls back under proposals in this report to respond to coastal change.

Heron Pool Creek Bridge

Iss ain Dr