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.