Forum menu
Hmm... first attempt at posting this got lost to the ether, can't quite be bothered retyping.
Basically a landowner is attempting to block access to an established long distance trail on the Ardnamurchan peninsula.
Have donated to help the legal funds
https://netdonor.net/page/93920/donate/1
I'm intrigued by this one - from memory that's near the castle, but there's a couple of tracks past a sawmill? I'm assuming it's that Southern end (I've not done the through walk) as I don't think there's much other than hillside and woods at the north/beach end?
I'm also intrigued that Ramblers are funding an action, not local authority access officer enforcing rights.
Is there a link to more information?
Donated.
Have a read of this article
I also thought it seemed very odd that the RA were the ones taking this action, and i see Scotways are supportive of them, but not leading the action.
I've no idea of the situation and never been there, but OA rights don't normally exist through working farms yards etc which a sawmill is likely considered to be. Obviously if it is considered a PROW (meets the criteria) or a core path exists that's a different matter that is above general access rights and more clearly defined/enforced.
Regardless of the exact detail of the sawmill area all the locked gates across the estate show a worrying attitude for sure. Sadly it's not that unusual and not just with big estates. The last 2 years with Covid fears and high numbers of less knowledgeable/responsible access takers has riled quite a few land managers who have normally been quite accepting of access rights.
Cheers Matt, cross posted, that answers some of the other questions.
I wouldn't give the Ramblers money until they change their stance on access for cyclists.
In Scotland in such situation access rights would be available to cyclists too. There is no real footpath/bridleway/byway hierarchy as in England and Wales, though a route might not be particularly practical for some cyclists.
PROW may record specific rights such as vehicular rights, but the LRA and SOAC don't differentiate between non motorised modes of use.
I wouldn’t give the Ramblers money until they change their stance on access for cyclists.
In this instance, I think you’re picking the wrong hill to die on.
Times carrying story too.
In this instance, I think you’re picking the wrong hill to die on.
1. I'm sure they'll manage without any meagre funds I can give them. 2. Why would I give money to an organisation who's stated policy is to restrict my access to the countryside because of the method I choose to do that?
If the ramblers want my help, than they have to help me in return.
I’m also intrigued that Ramblers are funding an action, not local authority access officer enforcing rights.
Moab - whilst described that way they’ve “joined” an action alongside the council. So there were already court proceedings to determine if the land was access land or not, and establish if there is a right of way over it. Ramblers have decided to sit on the same side of the table as the council, and having been permitted to do so by the Sheriff their lawyers will now be able to raise legal points, bring or cross examine witnesses etc. I’m not sure what the merits of doing so are rather than just letting the council access officer get on with it. One possible reason is it stops the council being able to back out / settle without the ramblers agreement (although the way the LRA works, as I understand it the council have to be parties to the proceedings and so you could now end up with a real mess if they think a sensible compromise is agreed and ramblers don’t!). Being cynical, I wonder if there’s a wee bit of a political game with the membership too - why become a member of the RA in Scotland if they don’t seem to do very much, this is a relatively high profile way to show that the RA are fighting for the rights of its members; and it may help them get a little more respect from both land owners and access officers where there is a matter in dispute, since they are clearly willing to put their money where their mouth is when necessary.
My understanding is the owner is anti access generally and is using the pretext of the sawmill to close off access. The route thru the working farm is an old route - I have been on it IIRC. the obvious answer is to divert the path.
The councils rarely take action. ramblers joining in will help I have no doubt. Its an important test case
As I type this, I’m looking across Loch Sunart towards Glenborrodale. I have an Ardnamurchan Loop on my list of rides for next year but this track is part of the route - maybe I’ll need to pack some bolt croppers or an angle-grinder? I’ve noticed elsewhere landowners are using COVID and other reasons to lock gates and give various reasons to restrict access.
I'm with nick on this one.
I think what the landowner is doing is wrong, and i hope the ramblers hand him his arse , but it's nowhere near as big an injustice as the lack of access across the southern chunk of GB. Which I understand the ramblers help to perpetuate so ahm oot.
( apologies if I have misunderstood the ramblers' stance)
I live nearby and have done this route on MTB. It is achievable with the locked gates if you don't mind hanging your bike on a fence by a pedal and climbing over.
But it is blatantly obvious the landowner has a rotten attitude, the number of locked gates to get from Borrowdale to Loch Laga must have cost them a fortune in padlocks.
I contacted the local Highland Council Rights of Way officer after what I saw, something I had never done before and have never done since.
This is a court case that could greatly ease access on a mountain bikable route between Acharacle and Borrowdale. United we stand and divided we fall. Ramblers interests may often be different than ours but here we stand to gain throughout Scotland.
United we stand and divided we fall. Ramblers interests may often be different than ours but here we stand to gain throughout Scotland.
In all other aspects, the attitude of the Ramblers to the wider cycling community is no different to that of the landowner in this case, and they (the Ramblers) wouldn't hesitate to grasp any opportunity to further restrict the teeny rights that cyclist have. And yet people on a mountain bike site are giving those folks their dollar?
They can go **** themselves as far as I'm concerned.
I’ve no idea of the situation and never been there, but OA rights don’t normally exist through working farms yards etc which a sawmill is likely considered to be.
From the article it sounds like the sawmill is a recent development though.
As I understand it, the sawmill got the go ahead on the proviso that access was maintained. TBH I'm not sure anyone thinks that access through the working area is a good idea, so it just needs a bit of a detour added around it. This is normal practice with RoWs in Scotland.
In all other aspects, the attitude of the Ramblers to the wider cycling community is no different to that of the landowner in this case, and they (the Ramblers) wouldn’t hesitate to grasp any opportunity to further restrict the teeny rights that cyclist have.
Maybe not in Scotland.
https://www.ramblers.org.uk/news/blogs/2016/september/shared-use-paths.aspx
Maybe not in Scotland.
well, if a Rambler's representative can admit that "on the whole sharing paths with cyclist in Scotland works fine, it just needs compromise and education" than that makes their stated position in England even less defensible doesn't it.
The big picture really is the estate owner doesn't want people on his land. This is another attempt to stop access. I've seen lots of detours by farmers and landowners to keep access open but away from working areas, some officially done and signposted some more as hoc.
If this rich estate wins it sets a precedent that will erode access in Scotland. Ramblers are pushing this because they are better organised also the optics are better. Older folk bimbling around is harder to fight than raucous hooligans on MTBs. I'm happy for them to fight my corner.
Whilst I get the anti Rambler bit if it goes through I imagine a floodgate of similar situations will happen so donated and so has my Climbing Club. United we should stand for access for all.
I used to live there it's not exactly a busy place to start with.
United we should stand for access for all.
This is an important statement on this.
well, if a Rambler’s representative can admit that “on the whole sharing paths with cyclist in Scotland works fine, it just needs compromise and education” than that makes their stated position in England even less defensible doesn’t it.
Yes.
I’m happy for them to fight my corner.
This.
United we should stand for access for all.
This is an important statement on this.
I agree. And since they don't ( where I live) then I'm not.
( appreciate that Scotland is a different, more enlightened country, and your view is different)
I’m happy for them to fight my corner.
they don't fight my corner.
they don’t fight my corner
If you ever want to ride an MTB in Scotland away from trail centres or you want England to follow with better access laws then you might just find that in this case that are.
Donation made.
More details here. As to why RAmblers SCotland are involved - as per the link it was two of their members who were reported to the PF for aggravated trespass while walking on the estate.
https://theferret.scot/highland-landowner-breaching-public-access/
Landowner needs reined in.
"In an email dated 22 February 2019, passed to The Ferret, Houston threatened the council’s then-access officer, Donald Kennedy, with legal action. "
The Ramblers, whilst in some ways doing some good things are way to hypopcritical and disgustingly narrow minded to warrant support. I take on board the suggestion that this could be the thin end of a wedge but the associations appaling actions against legimtimate use of RoW is immoral at best.
A complete disregard for local preferences in favour of urban-centric or incomer whims saw the negative side of CROW.
The National article mentions that the landowner is applying for something under section 28 of the Land Reform Act. A quick google hasn't helped me here - does anyone know what that means?
My goodness some of you are petty about the ramblers
this case is in Scotland - the ramblers are on our side
or you want England to follow with better access laws
Show me something that says The Ramblers support increased access for mtbs in England and I'll gladly change my view.
Bottom line is the fact that we have this being brought as a court case shows just how fragile things are. We need to see land access as being about ensuring secure land (and river) access for all and get away from the user group focus.
Show me something that says The Ramblers support increased access for mtbs in England and I’ll gladly change my view.
this is in scotland! nowt to do with anything that happens south of the border
nowt to do with anything that happens south of the border
Sweet, then likewise I don't need to bother myself with what happens north of the border either then, do I?
The point being that you cannot tar ramblers Scotland with the same brush as you do the ramblers in England. thus your dislike of the parties to this case is unfounded
Appears to be one organisation.
I believe so, it is registered in Scotland and England separately as a charity but has just the one company number. I believe they'd need the OSCR number due to having an office in Edinburgh/operations in Scotland.
They seem to refer to the individual countries with the term "devolution" so you could endlessly argue the toss over that if you was so inclined.
nickc Full Member
Sweet, then likewise I don’t need to bother myself with what happens north of the border either then, do I?
Obviously you will not be coming up here to ride a bike ever again then?
For ****s sake, some of you really would cut your noses off to spite your faces wouldn't you?
The point being that you cannot tar ramblers Scotland with the same brush
Yeah I can; leopards, spots, all that jazz. If offered the chance, the Ramblers either side of the border wouldn't hesitate to jump at the chance to restrict the rights of the cycling community regardless of current legislation.
Obviously you will not be coming up here to ride a bike ever again then?
I've never paid any attention to the legalities of the routes that I choose, regardless of what campaigning organisations would prefer me to do otherwise. I'm not going to rely on the Ramblers to fight my battles, I don't think they'd be overly reliable allies
At least half the Ramblers I know are also cyclists. Folk have been using bikes to access the hills since the dawn of time.
And?
I don't know how many different ways I need to say that the Ramblers as an organisation are not on our side.