No access through Beinn Glas campsite

[electricfly]

While staying at the campsite in early May our group quizzed the bar staff re the gate security and were shocked to hear some of the reasons for these measures. Whilst most WHWers use the site on mon/tues nights. Families staying at weekends got to see a far nastier side of the site. Basically non residents would rock up for Saturday night drinking binges and end up fighting each other, sleeping campers and staff. On several occasions police and ambulances needed to attend and deal with the carnage.

In Glasgow the establishments use door stewardship, in Inverarnan the cheaper option is to build a big fence and gate.

Apparently they are within their rights legally to do this as they own and upkeep the bridge and as already stated there is alternative access to the site a mile upstream.

Worth bearing in mind for those planning an early hike up Chabhair and using the Drovers for cheeky parking.

Both Ben Glas and the Drovers are about to get it really tough this autumn/winter when work starts on the A82 at pulpit rock which has closures pencilled in for 16-20 weeks!

[rabthecairnterrier]

[In Glasgow the establishments use door stewardship, in Inverarnan the cheaper option is to build a big fence and gate.

Apparently they are within their rights legally to do this as they own and upkeep the bridge and as already stated there is alternative access to the site a mile upstream.

Not so - owning and upkeeping a bridge doesn't mean that access rights don't apply to it; take the example of the once-notorious fortified bridge at Alltchaorunn down Glen Etive.

The 1;25000 map shows a footpath following the river S and then looping round to bypass the campsite but, not being familiar with the area, I can't say if it is there on the ground. Looks like this is something that will have to be sorted out between the campsite owners and the NP Access Officers. Walkers are going to want to access the B. Chabair route this way whatever, so if the owners don't play ball and negotiate some form of acceptable compromise they are only buying themselves a heap of future trouble. If the NP as the access authority take a different view it may end up having to go to the Sheriff Court or - ultimately - the Court of Session, which could get VERY expensive. It shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to devise a bypass route which accesses the hill using the bridge without going through the campsite itself. The NP should even be able to help pay for any required work too.

[magicdin]

The response from the Access Officer will be interesting

If the gate/fence is 9 feet high they would surely have required planning permission.
And that permission would have come from LLNP
Surely should have been a stipulation that EXISTING access was maintained/accommodated

[gneiss-camper]

The campsite seems to indicate that the path crosses through an area of residential caravans which may allow them to restrict access. They might also count as an area you pay to enter.

Access rights do not apply in the following places:

• Land on which there is a house, caravan, tent or other place
affording a person privacy or shelter, and sufficient adjacent
land to enable those living there to have reasonable
measures of privacy and to ensure that their enjoyment of
the house or place is not unreasonably disturbed.

• Places where you have to pay to go in, such as castles,
historic houses and gardens, historic sites, and visitor
attractions.

Of course, if access through has been long established that may be an issue in favour of continued transit.

Personally I was already looking at access from the north next time, I suspect it may be a better route.

[MarilynMunro]

Further update to all who have been reading this post. I spoke with the NP Access Officer this morning and although he was aware the campsite had erected a gate, he was concerned to hear that it was locked at the times previously stated.
He will be contacting the campsite to discuss this issue, he also told me that the path which is shown on OS maps across the bridge and leading south around the campsite is a "core path" and as such should be maintained for public access.
Whilst he understands the owners wish for security and controlling access to their campsite this doesn't detract from the right of access to walkers going into the hills or joining the WHW.
He has my email address and says he will keep me informed of any developments, which Ill post up up when I receive them.
I've attached the link and foreward on core paths

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Environment/Countryside/16328/5612/core-paths
Every local authority and National Park authority (access authorities) in Scotland is required to draw up a plan for a system of paths (core paths) sufficient for the purpose of giving the public reasonable access throughout their area.

Most access authorities have now adopted their plans and others are working towards adoption.

Core paths are paths, waterways or any other means of crossing land to facilitate, promote and manage the exercise of access rights under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, and are identified as such in access authority core paths plans.

In drawing up their core paths plans each access authority was required to consult on the plan with:

The local access forum
Persons representative of those living and working on the land that may be affected by the plan
Scottish Natural Heritage
Anyone else whom they considered appropriate
If no formal objections to the Plans are made, or an objection is withdrawn subsequently, then the access authority may adopt the plan. Where a valid objection is made and not withdrawn the core paths plan will go to Local Inquiry and will not be adopted unless directed to do so by Scottish Ministers.

The Paths for All Partnership has assisted with the core path planning process.

Once the access authority have adopted their plan they must compile a list of core paths. The provision of a core path network provides for a greater opportunity for people to enjoy the countryside.

Core paths must cater for everyone, including those with disabilities. In drawing up their core paths plans access authorities must have special regard to all those people with disabilities who seek to exercise their access rights.

[jmarkb]

I spoke with the NP Access Officer this morning

Well done! Let's hope for a sensible negotiated outcome on this one.

[magicdin]

Interesting response right enough

[Holly]

I have no interest (yet) in doing the West Highland Way but last year had some trepidation due to the threatening notices about having a dog crossing their land to do Ben Chabair. I must admit that for a moment I felt somewhat uncomfortable till I noticed dogs who were part of the camp holidaymakers having fun in the parks surrounded by sheep and livestock. So,, I took the bull by the horns so to speak and walked right through. No one stopped me, no one hassled me and if they had, I already had my phone on video to record any interaction that may give cause for legal rights of passage to the mountain.
I suggest others do the same as those Mountains and the route through that site is public to the best of my knowledge and pleased if anyone can prove me wrong?

[Stu101]

Owing to its use, I would be surprised if a servitude right of access hadnt been formed by perscription over the years.

[MarilynMunro]

A further update on the issues at Bein Glas campsite
The NP Acccess Officer is incontact witht he owners and is "mediating" a suitable solution for all, he has conducted site visits and is aware of the severe issues the owners are trying to control

[MarilynMunro]

A further update on the issues at Bein Glas campsite
The NP Acccess Officer is in contact with the owners and is "mediating" a suitable solution for all, he has conducted site visits and is aware of the severe antisocial and disruptive behaviour issues the owners are trying to control. and obviously aware of the rights of access to the countryside
At present the owners have now to apply for retrospective planning permision for the gate, within that mechanism is provision for the maintenance of the core path via crossing the bridge and skirting to the south to gain access to the hills and beyond.
The owners have also been instructed they must adhere to their advertised times (0700 - 2300) of allowing access through the gate.
Any further updates and I ll post them up, hopefully I havent muddied the waters too much, but clarified matters

[dtaylor5632]

One thing I dont quite get it this. If they have put these measures in to protect against anti-social behaviour.... I cant imagine too many Neds trying to access the paths or site at 7am in the morning. late at night maybe but why shut it in the morning?

[stuart mclovin]

One thing I dont quite get it this. If they have put these measures in to protect against anti-social behaviour.... I cant imagine too many Neds trying to access the paths or site at 7am in the morning. late at night maybe but why shut it in the morning?

This.

while i can understand they may be well within their rights to erect the gate, i do worry that this could be the start of other places, not necessarily along the WHW, following suit and restricting walkers access.

[RyanfaeScotland]

One thing I dont quite get it this. If they have put these measures in to protect against anti-social behaviour.... I cant imagine too many Neds trying to access the paths or site at 7am in the morning. late at night maybe but why shut it in the morning?

Err, they don't shut it in the morning, they open it?

Guess they needed to pick a time and 7am seemed reasonable.

[dtaylor5632]

But not till 9am from what the original poster said. Hence the having to wait to gain access.