If we all believe that we have an unhindered legal right to roam in appropriate places as set out in the Land reform Act 2003 then we have all been misled for 12 years.
The Act states that land managers can block or barricade any historic drove road or ancient footpath by claiming that their action is not primarily to stop walkers, riders, cyclists or invalids but to protect their crops from deer and lambs from foxes. In East Lothian they padlock footpaths which link two “B”roads. They sling chains across drove roads.
Because of the wording of the Act users do not have the legal right to roam unhindered even in approved places.
Landowners justify padlocked gates to keep out poachers, motorcyclists, joy riders in 4x4 vehicles and to curb hare coursing. These are criminal matters and should be handled by our police officers. Such behaviour has nothing to do with access to the countryside. Low level Kent bollards or chevronned gates can inhibit offenders effectively but allow legitimate user groups to pass freely.
Section 13/1 of the Act states: "It is the duty of the local authority to assert and keep open and free from obstruction any route by which access rights may be reasonably exercised."
Yet the Act is ambivalent. As it stands, no local authority will challenge a landowner in court as they know that they will lose their case because of the wording of chapter 5, Section14/1 which states: "The owner of land, in which access rights are exercisable, shall not – for the purpose – or for the main purpose – prevent or deter any person entitled to exercise these rights from doing so – by putting up any fence or wall, or plant."
Section 14 overrides the power of the local authorities to act against padlocked gates or barricades.
In East Lothian, in and around the John Muir Country Park, the paths are blocked by 26 padlocks, fallen trees and fences and barbed wire. Yet East Lothian Council is helpless to act on behalf of 500,000 visitors each year. Section 14's is ambivalence can be addressed by removal of the words "for the purpose – or for the main purpose".
This would give true freedom to roam to 5.5 million Scots and 15 million visitors to Scotland each year.
Arthur Greenan,
21 McCall Gardens,
East Linton.
Christine Grahame MSP's Private Bill to increase the size of the Pentland Hills Regional Park is to be applauded ("Farmers and estate managers oppose MSP's bid to double the size of regional park over funding fears", The Herald, September 30).
Supporters of this Bill are under a major misapprehension if, as reported, they think "the plan would protect the environment and minimise developments such as wind farms". Our organisation was set up nearly 11 years ago to fight the regular efforts of wind farm developers to apply for planning permission for Clyde Muirshiel Regional Park, the largest of the three regional parks. Despite our best efforts and ignoring the small turbines, approval has been given, some by councils and some by Scottish ministers, for 30 turbines at heights of 110 to 125 metres.
An application for another eight turbines is the subject of a public local inquiry (PLI) and a further six turbines have been applied for and await a decision. The latter, if refused, will no doubt be the subject of an appeal to Scottish ministers and yet another PLI .
We petitioned the Scottish Parliament for the conservation and preservation of all regional parks from inappropriate industrialisation including wind farms and obtained the full support of the cross-party petitions committee but, despite this, the Scottish Government ruled that such a Bill was not allowed.
Nigel Willis,
Chairman,
Save Your Regional Park campaign,
Nervelstone, Lochwinnoch,
Renfrewshire.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here