Forum menu
It’s not the same. These new trails not a means of access, they are a means of entertainment.
In my view it’s the same as being able to freely walk around a golf course but having to pay to play golf there
BadlyWiredDog
Full MemberIsn’t the question more about whether centres like the Seven Stanes will be tempted to introduce charges for using the trails? I can’t see that it’s going to have any impact on wider access.
The stanes and other forestry commission venues are a special case, since it's publically owned land, and the FC has a statutory obligation to support recreational use of their forests, which has a ton of political support (if sadly not financial support) because councils and MSPs and MPs all know it makes a bunch of money, just not for the venues. TBF it's a subject we do well not to poke at too much- I cringe a bit every time someone says "does all my parking money at glentress go to the trails" frinstance, because the stanes cost more to build and run than they're ever going to take in with parking fees, and we'd be much worse off it it were on some strictly monetarised model of access fees or parking fees to pay for it.
(yes yes I know, lots of that money gets pissed away on visitor's centres at the bottom of a hole, and not enough goes on the trails. But that wouldn't be any different if it was all self-funding, they'd be spending even more on barriers and cake shops. The current model just about works, sort of, and any other model's not likely to work better. If nothing else it's the only way we get million pound investments with no real return-on-investment plans)
Basically pay-to-play venues create an extra route by which we might get trails. I can't see it's a bad thing? It's harder to do in Scotland probably since free and cheap access is already so damn good. The Cairngorm thing doesn't look great to me, twas ever thus with Cairngorm, but it just wouldn't have happened if they didn't have a funding model they like.
Clubby - all they need to do is follow the process to make it possible to charge to ride. Its possible to do so under the LRA. they haven't done so so they cannot charge to ride.
I don't think many of us think that they should not be able to charge to ride - but they have to follow the legal route to do so
I don’t think many of us think that they should not be able to charge to ride – but they have to follow the legal route to do so
Fair enough, but I think there are a huge number of riders that just expect to be allowed to ride anywhere they want for free, citing LRA as justification.
There are also huge numbers of people that would complain about anything Cairngorm did regardless. I’m not a fan, but seems like they’re damned if they do, damned if they don’t.
Fair enough, but I think there are a huge number of riders that just expect to be allowed to ride anywhere they want for free, citing LRA as justification.
and they would be right unless the correct legal process has been gone thru and as long as their behaviour is reasonable
The general mountain biker’s version of reasonable is very different to other peoples.
Tbe first week Tarland opened, riders were parking up farmers lanes to get closer to the trails they wanted to ride and avoid paying the car park. This was despite passing 4 signs asking them not to park up there.
Is there any reliable data on what a "general" mountain biker is? If I was to go with personal experience only a tiny portion are trail centre riders, which obviously wouldnt be a reasonable overall assessment. Not a dig, genuinely curious.
We are looking forward as a family to checking this out next year as part of a wander round in our campervan. Will April be too early up that way?
Not sure. There's normally an effort made to keep the ski runs open through the Easter holidays and if there's enough snow still at that level (they have a snow factory too) then I can see that there might be a window where (as already pointed out) there is some MTB trail re-construction to be done before they can be opened. I'd say you just need to see nearer the time. Follow CM on Facebook for updates, or just PM me and I'll see what I know/can find out at the time.
and I have never seen such signs at any trail centre
Callander trails have these signs. They built dedicated mountain bike trails then had a lot of problems with walkers and runners, usually running up the trails so a real risk of a head on collision. They put up signs explicitly saying no pedestrians on the bike trails. From memory I think Glassie Bike Park has similar signs
To be able to restrict access, you need planning permission to change the land use. It's why you can't just rock up to any golf course and (legally) have a round of golf for free. Technically you don't even have a legal right to walk across a golf course, however for most courses, they have a fairly relaxed approach, and there are often legal rights of way across golf courses anyway.
That is why AFAIK Cairngorm can't legally prevent you from using the trails, as they have not gone to the expense of getting the required planning. Although I do wonder if there is something historic whereby they can restrict access. Just because they haven't restricted access in the past, doesn't mean that such a restriction doesn't exist, although I have no idea how enforcing the restriction after several years would actually pan out legally.
Something else touched on in this thread is purpose built trails.
If a trail is purpose built, then under the outdoor access legislation, you only legally have right of access to use the trail for it's built purpose. I.e. if it's a purpose built bicycle trail, you only have right of access on a bicycle. You have no right of access to walk it, or ride a horse on it.
However it's one area that nobody is likely to be prosecuted for due to the lack of trespass laws, just like nobody is likely to be prosecuted for just walking through someone's garden.
Restricting access was something I looked at a few years ago, as I was asked to see if a dedicated pay for use freeride type area would be commercially viable. The short answer was no, unless you wanted to risk a lot of money/had a lot of money to burn, but getting the permission to legally restrict access was probably one of the easier problems that would need addressed.
Technically you don’t even have a legal right to walk across a golf course,
Its not s simple as that - you can cross a course to get somewhere but you must not interfere with the folk playing a game by my reading. You can walk on the edge or ride your bike if its the route to somewhere. You cannot go on the greens. I have been told this by a green keeper who wanted me off the access path but knew I actually had the right to cross as I was doing
If a trail is purpose built, then under the outdoor access legislation, you only legally have right of access to use the trail for it’s built purpose. I.e. if it’s a purpose built bicycle trail, you only have right of access on a bicycle. You have no right of access to walk it, or ride a horse on it.
ONly if the land is designated as such for purposes of the LRA by my understanding and none of the seven stanes are. this is a point that would need to be tested in court to be definitive and to the best of my knowledge has not been. Its perfectly legal to walk on the MTB trails in the seven stanes. It might fail the reasonableness test but without a court case we simply do not know
As you state - it is possible to legally restrict access but that needs to be done properly. Its not automatic on building a path or anything else
I've seen it, it's for toddlers.
you can cross a course to get somewhere but you must not interfere with the folk playing a game by my reading. You can walk on the edge or ride your bike if its the route to somewhere.
Not disagreeing, but the problem with the wording in the LRA is it's unbelievably vague. From memory it says you can't exercise your access rights on land set aside for a specific recreational purpose when in use.
A golf course in use is much easier to walk across than a football pitch with a match in progress, or a tennis court in the middle of a game
It also doesn't define that the land set aside for a recreational purpose has to be a commercial entity.
Thinking about bike races, the organisers have to get a section 11 order which temporarily restricts access to the areas that will be uses in the race, and that applies to bikers, walkers, horse riders etc that might normally be using the trails.
Legally, I don't think the uncertainty will ever be resolved and even then it will never be definitive as "recreational purpose" land is such a wide range of scenarios that one legal ruling would never cover every eventuality
ONly if the land is designated as such for purposes of the LRA by my understanding and none of the seven stanes are.
Chapter 2, Section 6,1,e,ii -
(e)which has been developed or set out—
(i)as a sports or playing field; or
(ii)for a particular recreational purpose;
( https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2003/2/part/1/chapter/2 )
It's something that is not likely to be tested in criminal court, as not having a legal right of access isn't a crime in itself. You'd have to to do something that would warrant something like a breach of the peace charge for it to reach that stage.
It's far more likely to be used as a factor in a civil case.
With golf courses then I stop out of line of sight if possible when they are taking their shot. Wait until they are passed before crossing the fairway etc thus I am not interrupting their game thus I am IMO acting reasonably under the LRA
I think Trump tried to stop folk walking on the aberdeenshire course but got told he couldn't so long as they acted reasonably and were passing thru. Been court cases on that IIRC
Yes MC but does that apply to the seven stanes? I do not believe it does and crossing golf courses is certainly OK if its your route to somewhere - that has been tested in court I think
the signs at glentress are only advisory. It might fail the reasonableness test not to follow them or it might not.
otherwise anyone building a footpath could declare it land set aside for a particular recreational purpose and ban cyclists from using it which would be an obvious nonsense
Its not as definitive as you seem to think and without being tested in court we will never know. I have been challenged on golf courses riding my bike. I told the golf course emplyee i was exercising my access rights and he agreed that so long as I did not interrupt a game, kept to the edges where possible and off the greens then actually i could do so
'edit: Obviously walking across a football pitch during a game when there is any easy way round would not be acceptable reasonable access. Equally obviously building a path and stating it land set aside only for walking would not be an acceptable restriction. between the two its a grey area .
Thanks Scotroutes 🙂
Access aside, what a bloody mess! Bad as Glencoe or , dare I say it Fort William.
tjagain
Full Member
I think Trump tried to stop folk walking on the aberdeenshire course but got told he couldn’t so long as they acted reasonably and were passing thru. Been court cases on that IIRC
He used a fancy house when he used to visit, folk were walking up his drive and banging on his windows. Only time I have had any sympathy for him.
Yes MC but does that apply to the seven stanes? I do not believe it does and crossing golf courses is certainly OK if its your route to somewhere – that has been tested in court I think
the signs at glentress are only advisory. It might fail the reasonableness test not to follow them or it might not.
otherwise anyone building a footpath could declare it land set aside for a particular recreational purpose and ban cyclists from using it which would be an obvious nonsense
I've not got time to argue with you, but there are more purpose built trails than the 7 Stanes.
However to answer that specific question, it does and it doesn't.
Trails that were built before the LRA, are a bit dubious as the whole purpose built facilities legal wording didn't appear until the LRA, so it could be argued that when they were built, they were not legally a purpose built trail.
Anything first used after the LRA, the LRA does apply, however it's never been tested in court (plus see my previous comment about what you could actually be charged with).
However the latest trails at Glentress do have full planning permission as purpose built trails, but again if you walk up them, what are you actually going to be charged with? It's just like walking through somebody's private garden, you don't have a legal right of access, but with the absence of a Scottish trespass law, the possible charges are very limited.
And yes, somebody could potentially build a dedicated footpath, and ban cyclists/horse riders from it, but again, what are you going to get charged with if you do ride it?
It's also why what would historically be called cycle paths, the relevant bodies are very careful to use the term multi-use paths in anything official.
Ultimately for a lot of access, it comes down to don't be a dick.
Ultimately for a lot of access, it comes down to don’t be a dick.
Absolutely - the basic principle of the LRA
What about if a landowner put in a new path up a mountain and then demanded payment for access to that path? Would you deem that reasonable?
im not actually convinced that would be unlawful. Of course they couldn’t put a path up the mountain and then block all other routes up the mountain but they could put a route that was designated for a specific purpose and charge for that purpose. Commercially of course that would be insane - because you could simply walk up a different route…
Its a test of the LRA – there is a mechanism in place in the LRA to make it legal. They have not used this mechanism.
actually the point being made is that potentially they have - simply by designating the land as being for a specific recreational purpose it may no longer be access land. I don’t think the LRA was intended to stop land owners from commercially developing their land and charging users for access to those commercial facilities.
As long as that restriction was made clear during the planning process and open to public objections...
have they charged for access before 2001 and each year after that for at least 90 days for that particular area?
No.
There has never been any charge for access to that area.
any proof that they didn't get permission to charge or get the land access changed?
They would have to have consulted with the Cairngorms National Park, Highlands Council, Local Access Forum, Nature's it, probably Scotways too, as well as any other local user groups potentially affected so I'm sure it would have hit the news and someone like Scotroutes would have been aware of it. It should have been a condition of planning permission to have approval if the planning authority knew what they should be doing. And then the relevant authority would need to make an order to suspend them.
I looked into this in regards to removing access rights in large areas being fenced of, and charged for admission, for dog exercise areas in that were previously open access countryside, but these didn't actually have any existing routes on them, not even informal ones, they were just open hill.
It is a bit bonkers because if you get PP to build some other facility/buildings/compound/works storage area the rights are automatically suspended for that area, assuming you're not having to deal with a core path , PROW or evidence comes to light of a PROW that runs through it. So, hypothetically a big indoor BMX/skate/jump park. But then PP word be a whole different issue.