Hardly anyone has walked the 16 miles of coast and estuary east of Sowley in Hampshire. There are few rights of way, the beaches are marked "private", and the official coastal path takes walkers along minor roads a kilometre or so from the shoreline. Try to reach the water and you meet forbidding signs. The Beaulieu and Sowley estates do not want people on their land.

They are not alone. The public can access almost 70% of the English coastline, but there are perhaps 1,000 barriers to walking its 4,000km length. Natural England, the government's statutory adviser on landscape, reckons that on average it is not possible to go more than two miles without being diverted by landowners. Footpaths are frequently eroded, and existing rights of way often do not join up. Above all, there is no legal right of access as there is in most other European countries.

Last week, in line with a manifesto pledge by Labour, and as a follow-up to the countryside and rights of way (Crow) legislation - which redressed an open sore in British social history by allowing the public limited right to roam on nearly 800,000 hectares (2m acres) of previously barred moor and heathland for the first time, Natural England came up with proposals to radically improve coastal access.

It was clear from the start, it says, that opening up access to the coast would be very different to moor and heathland. For a start, it was not possible to say how long the path would be. Moreover, the coast is a moving mix of cliffs and mudflats, shingle, dunes and marsh, all prone to erosion and change. Mapping the 450,000 hectares involved would be expensive, and would need to be repeated frequently. It also rejected making voluntary agreements with individual landowners.

Instead, Natural England settled on the idea of a 4,000km legal "corridor" that would give a right of way around the whole English coast and could shift if necessary as erosion, or sea level rises, or managed retreat of coastlines determined. Exactly where the right of way passes would be decided by local forums of landowners and farmers, outdoor organisations, local authorities and interested parties.

Their report, which will be considered by the Natural England board today, was backed by more than 150 pages of research and suggested that it could cost about £50m to set up, and a few million each year to manage, all spread over a decade.

Public support

"It had to be a different model to the Crow model. This mapped the land and imposed a right of way and then allowed people to appeal. This would not have worked on the coast. The challenge will be determining the sort of rights it enshrines, how it will be implemented, and whether the government feels it has enough public support to invest in it," says one man who worked on the proposals for two years.

The interim verdict is that the corridor approach makes sense on many levels, avoiding the worst pitfalls of the Crow legislation but offering the government a principled, popular and fairly cheap way to permanently improve the public's recreational experience.

Surveys by the Ramblers' Association (RA) and others suggest the coast is fundamental to how British people see themselves. It is where most people want to go. Last year, there were more than 200m visits and an ICM poll released eight months ago found 87% of the population believed they had a legal right to walk along beaches, foreshore or cliffs. When told they had no legal right, 94% said they wanted it.

Reactions to the proposals have been mostly positive. Outdoor organisations including RA, the British Canoe Union, British Mountaineering Council, British Caving Association, CTC (the national cyclists' organisation), Central Council of Physical Recreation, Equestrian Access Forum, International Mountain Biking Association UK, and the Open Spaces Society all lobbied hard for a corridor and inclusive access rights along the coast. They wanted more but will likely settle for the right of way.

The landowners, recognising the political wind of change and not so frightened after the "right to roam" was introduced to moorland and heath, are mostly not opposing the idea outright. Nobody knows exactly how many people own the English coastline, but the most significant owners are the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall, the great private estates, environment groups such as the RSPB and the National Trust, local authorities, farmers, the church and the Ministry of Defence.

They range from the mean to the public spirited. Some encourage or have no option but to allow access, but many others neglect paths, bar them, allow people on their land only occasionally, or withdraw access for often spurious reasons.

Only the National Farmers' Union (NFU) has been outwardly hostile: "These proposals ... can only generate conflict and confrontation. It is a great pity that Natural England should embark on a course of action which, as they must know, risks miring an issue as sensitive and important as increasing access to the coastline in unnecessary controversy," says NFU deputy president Meurig Raymond.

There is suspicion that the farmers deliberately misunderstood the proposals - which make great play of the fact that the routes of the right of way will not be imposed but will be determined specifically by local stakeholders, including themselves. "If anyone is looking for confrontation then it seems to be the NFU," says one government source.

The Country Land and Business Association (CLA), which speaks for large estates, seems more concerned about money: "The CLA is heartened that managers and owners of coastal land will be involved in access arrangements. The danger is that there will be no compensation to landowners where their property is used for public access. In creating any new legislation provision there should be a presumption of compensation paid where a loss is shown. "

The big estates and the environment groups such as the RSPB and the National Trust said yesterday that they welcomed the proposals to let people get closer to the coast, but maintained that there should be no disturbance of wildlife. "Wildlife interests can also be seen as a public good," says one conservation grandee.

"Some very sensitive areas, harbouring rare and vulnerable wildlife, are found on the coast. Redshanks breed on saltmarshes and little terns on shingle, and both of these birds are in decline and easily disturbed. Provided that access is managed to protect these sensitive areas, we welcome the idea of a coastal corridor," says Sue Armstrong-Brown, head of countryside conservation at the RSPB, which owns 88 reserves that have coastal frontage.

Nesting birds

The big estates have echoed this stance but have been accused of hiding behind the birds. Rachel Pearson, resident agent of the Beaulieu estate in Hampshire, which has 15km of sea and estuary shoreline, says the estate fears that the cost of providing car parks and fencing would be high, but insists that the non-disturbance of birds is a prime reason for potentially barring people in future. "The wildlife [on the estate] is so sensitive. We have nesting birds and at certain times of year they need very little disturbance," she says.

The National Trust, which owns more than 800km of English coastline and was heavily involved in the consultation, says the idea of a corridor is welcome. But it, too, has concerns about the environment. "Trying to define the corridor could be difficult, especially along estuaries where there is more development and housing than on the coast. Finding an access regime that works for all the interests will be hard," says Jo Burgon, the trust's head of access.

In the end, the corridor of access will depend on the financial and political commitment of the government. If it opens up the coastline it will have not only fulfilled an election pledge but it will be able to say it redressed a longstanding social injustice. If not, it may be another generation before the chance arises again.