Jump to content

The right to roam


Max Power
 Share

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Pipsqueak said:

paths not fit for purpose being closed rather than maintained , its not like there could be a privacy issue up the hills. i guess it needs ascertaining why the pathways are being closed if it hasn't been already and i just don't why, others may.  i can understand not wanting dogs among sheep but no need to ban humanity.

They’re on private land. They aren’t public paths, they aren’t public rights of way. Anyone on them has no right to be there and the landowner has no obligation to maintain or repair.

Now do you understand why your comment is meaningless and irrelevant.

Even if there was a right to roam, and I would support the introduction of right to roam, that wouldn’t impose a maintenance and repair obligation on the landowner.

Of course, if they were declared PROW the taxpayer would have to pay for repair and maintenance.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a number of routes up to the summit however the majority only know of the main path from the base of Beinn y phott. That is very clearly a well established path, but now one which has cycle tracks. The lesser known access is via a) a kissing gate b) a style. Neither of which seem to be active barriers to access. My guess as with many other upland areas, lockdown has brought strangers to the environment who do not necessarily respect it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, english zloty said:

The lesser known access is via a) a kissing gate b) a style. Neither of which seem to be active barriers to access. 

..both of which make a statement "world come this way".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, John Wright said:

They’re on private land. They aren’t public paths, they aren’t public rights of way. Anyone on them has no right to be there and the landowner has no obligation to maintain or repair.

Now do you understand why your comment is meaningless and irrelevant.

Even if there was a right to roam, and I would support the introduction of right to roam, that wouldn’t impose a maintenance and repair obligation on the landowner.

Of course, if they were declared PROW the taxpayer would have to pay for repair and maintenance.

doesn't the millennium way pass over it ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Chris C said:

Max is right if enforceable it does set a very dangerous precedent and shouldn't be allowed.

That said I've always been of the opinion that if you want to walk somewhere then just do it, what are they going to do?

The worst that's ever happened to me doing this is someone came up to us and asked us to leave. When I asked why they said because it's private land, when I asked if that was the only reason they said yes, I politely declined and carried on. They did nothing. 

As long as you're doing no harm what are they going to do? 

I wouldn't walk near anybody's house or anything or climb fences in a field or anything,  but an upland track just crack on, if anyone objects then that's their problem. 

Seems logical.

I can only assume this had came about because of an impact some description being caused by people using the area.

I'd tell the owner to do one though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

It used to be all the people's land, the Commons, until it was stolen off them in the 19th century.   If you look at Manngis though you can see areas of land marked as public ramblage.  But oddly all of Carraghyn does not seem to be.

Not sure who has the land.  I wondered whether it was the same people that have Cardle Veg, Corlett's, but then I met the farmer recently and he seemed laid back so not sure.

It does seem strange to close off the unenclosed land, so I would have thought the same in thinking it is because of bikes.  There are complete twats about on bikes or quadbikes. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, La_Dolce_Vita said:

It used to be all the people's land, the Commons, until it was stolen off them in the 19th century.   If you look at Manngis though you can see areas of land marked as public ramblage.  But oddly all of Carraghyn does not seem to be.

Not sure who has the land.  I wondered whether it was the same people that have Cardle Veg, Corlett's, but then I met the farmer recently and he seemed laid back so not sure.

It does seem strange to close off the unenclosed land, so I would have thought the same in thinking it is because of bikes.  There are complete twats about on bikes or quadbikes. 

 

The St Luke's track runs alongside the eastern side of Carraghyn, you may be right in that some are straying off the track, which is irresponsible? That doesn't really answer for the signs elsewhere though?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...