I know that TJ but why?
Thats all it is. Exercise of power and an attempt to reduce folks rights. Keep the plebs out.
rickmeister
Full Member
I really don’t understand their motivation for being so angsty. I followed the facebook linkand they look like they are very active in opening the area up for events and free gatherings…the Spooky event must be the halloween one you mentioned. So why box-off a few locals in such an aggressive manner.
Just, why?
Same as i see it, the 'landowner' is the trust, not the 'famous' person, who i've never heard off before.
Looks like the trust put a lot of work into that area and encourage people to visit, the Halloween event was free from the website, you just had to sign up for a free ticket, so no keeping the plebs out, you just had to buy a ticket.
Maybe the best course of action is to become a volunteer and work out what reasoning there is against that path, from the maps they don't appear to have a single point of entry for the woods anyway.
To be fair, they have done good work in the woods. They turned what were muddy trodden paths on grass into well surfaced paths that all can access. They run nice events in the woods, walks, educational stuff for kids etc.
They do however absolutely hate the fact these houses were built there. Ironically, the guy who owns the woods sold the land that the houses are built on. It's utter madness. He still owns all the surrounding land, and he himself has got various planning permissions in place for some of the land. Permission to build a pub & restaurant, permission to build retail, permission to build more houses, all on land adjacent to the woods.
It's utterly bizarre
As a dog owner I wouldn't rule out poo being an issue. I walk mine through fields often and always pick up. But there's someone who claims it's not necessary. She has three dogs twice a day that's a lotta poo
There are core paths all over those woods.
core paths plan for SLC can be read here:
https://www.southlanarkshire.gov.uk/downloads/file/7588/core_paths_plan_adopted_november_2012_-_text
assuming yours is the development to the north west of the woods, your access path to the core paths hasn't been adopted yet, presumably because SLC core paths plan is 10 years old, and your house is not.
The landowner would need to apply for permission and have to have pretty robust reasonable grounds for restricting access, or removal of core paths.
definitely one for the council to sort.
the guy who owns the woods sold the land that the houses are built on.
It's the trust that owns it, not the individual, not even sure how much he'd be part of what's going on, looks like he was the 'philanthropist' who set it up, and probably only turns up for events where the press are around, we have similar down here, they are the poster person for the trust/charity, but do little for the day to day stuff.
Ask to join up as a volunteer and see what is happening, get a few more from your estate as well, makes it a stronger case if you're assisting the area as well.
Balaclava. Face mask. Bolt cutters or whatever tools are required to maintain access.
There are core paths all over those woods.
Just above where it says EK/4007/1 is where this new path would join that existing core path
It’s the trust that owns it, not the individual, not even sure how much he’d be part of what’s going on
He's very hands on. My father in law met him out digging in the woods one day. He owns pretty much all the land around us for some considerable distance either directly or through one of his companies or trusts.
Lots of nice chat on their website that seems to totally contradict their actions:
n bringing the woodland into active management in respect to its historic beginnings, improving integral core path routes and linking to the wider core path network and building a new Community Engagement Programme, we will provide locally distinctive, added value ensuring that the woodland becomes a more connected, regenerative, functional and resilient place.
If they want it to be connected, why remove the connection to local houses?
The planning documents for your development clearly show access planned there, noting the train station and the usual notes about making sure the neighbourhood is integrated to the surroundings and amenities properly.
[img] 
[/img]
The council need to be getting involved in my opinion.
Not up on Scottish law but wouldn't they need permission for the fence and to alter the drainage? Plus that fence looks unsafe and the ditch is a hazard to anyone walking. It's practically a man-trap. Perhaps the council might be interested in that aspect. Or a quiet word to the walloper about how much of his fortune would disappear if the fence fell on someone or an ankle got damaged in the ditch.....
Its not as clear cut in Scotland unlike England with the bridleways / foot paths stuff where blocking a ROW is not allowed
I think if its a core path it cannot be blocked but other paths tend to live in a legal grey area and can be blocked so long as some access remains
RoWs can't be blocked in Scotland either but none of the paths in question are RoWs
Ta Scotroutes - I was hoping you would comment ( I didn't mean that ROW could be blocked btw)
I have never been clear on this - do we actually have rights of way in Scotland in the same way as England and how are they defined? I know core paths are a different - are core paths rights of way and are all rights of way core paths?
Ta
RoWs have a specific legal standing over and above the right of access that applies more generally. They have existed since long before Core Paths (though there is obviously an overlap as some routes can be both). Also, you may have seen the occasional sign pointing out a RoW and mentioning that there is no path. I recently had to survey one of these between Dalwhinnie and Laggan. It was an interesting day.
[url= https://i.postimg.cc/N0GvZc9X/DSC-2575.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.postimg.cc/N0GvZc9X/DSC-2575.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
Ta. Ive been on a few of those myself 🙂
Try to get into a telephone conversation with the landowner or his representatives over this issue and make sure you record the conversation. If he/they are used to overtly threatening the council they could be more likely to make the same mistake towards a member of the public.. There can be no denial or misinterpretation then, and it looks like The Herald would be more than keep to publish a story were it to include threats.
In the mean time, if the fence is wooden, burn it.
