walkhighlands

This forum is for general discussion about walking and scrambling... If writing a report or sharing your experiences from a route, please use the other boards.

Right to roam v Private Road

Re: Right to roam v Private Road

Postby rabthecairnterrier » Mon Jun 14, 2021 5:33 pm

The discussion is indeed becoming a tad heated, but then that's what happens when people believe others are interfering with their basic legal rights without just cause.
In an earlier post I asked pt2021 a simple question: viz - do the his Title Deeds include the area of land that navarr was walking on (he should know this). The question has not been answered. Subsequently Iluvsuilven stated that our land runs to stockiemuir road and to the track you like to use but - significantly - failed to specify whether the disputed track actually forms part of their property. This is important, as no matter the other circumstances you do not have the right to restrict access over land over which you have no ownership or control (ie as a lessee or tenant).
I have previously come across cases where people have tried to do this. None have succeeded, for the very obvious reasons I've described.
rabthecairnterrier
Munro compleatist
 
Posts: 339
Munros:282   Corbetts:168
Grahams:122   Donalds:27
Sub 2000:80   Hewitts:110
Wainwrights:56   Islands:41
Joined: Aug 4, 2009
Location: N. Highlands

Re: Right to roam v Private Road

Postby Navvarr » Mon Jun 14, 2021 5:49 pm

rabthecairnterrier wrote:The discussion is indeed becoming a tad heated, but then that's what happens when people believe others are interfering with their basic legal rights without just cause.
In an earlier post I asked pt2021 a simple question: viz - do the his Title Deeds include the area of land that navarr was walking on (he should know this). The question has not been answered. Subsequently Iluvsuilven stated that our land runs to stockiemuir road and to the track you like to use but - significantly - failed to specify whether the disputed track actually forms part of their property. This is important, as no matter the other circumstances you do not have the right to restrict access over land over which you have no ownership or control (ie as a lessee or tenant).
I have previously come across cases where people have tried to do this. None have succeeded, for the very obvious reasons I've described.


The Access Officer has looked into this and confirmed that ownership of the path or road is with Auchineden Estate not the fellow that owns the property, he has no right to try to deny access.
Navvarr
Munro compleatist
 
Posts: 72
Munros:75   Corbetts:7
Joined: May 27, 2014

Re: Right to roam v Private Road

Postby rabthecairnterrier » Mon Jun 14, 2021 6:00 pm

Navvarr wrote:
rabthecairnterrier wrote:The discussion is indeed becoming a tad heated, but then that's what happens when people believe others are interfering with their basic legal rights without just cause.
In an earlier post I asked pt2021 a simple question: viz - do the his Title Deeds include the area of land that navarr was walking on (he should know this). The question has not been answered. Subsequently Iluvsuilven stated that our land runs to stockiemuir road and to the track you like to use but - significantly - failed to specify whether the disputed track actually forms part of their property. This is important, as no matter the other circumstances you do not have the right to restrict access over land over which you have no ownership or control (ie as a lessee or tenant).
I have previously come across cases where people have tried to do this. None have succeeded, for the very obvious reasons I've described.


The Access Officer has looked into this and confirmed that ownership of the path or road is with Auchineden Estate not the fellow that owns the property, he has no right to try to deny access.


In which case the householder does not have a legal leg to stand upon, as he will no doubt discover if this unhappy affair ever progresses to the Sheriff Court/Court of Session - being in the dock on the wrong side of a disapproving glare from the Sheriff - or even worse, a High Court Judge - is not a comfortable place to be. Let's hope for the sake of pt2021 that Stirlingshire Council's Access Officer prevents that happening.
rabthecairnterrier
Munro compleatist
 
Posts: 339
Munros:282   Corbetts:168
Grahams:122   Donalds:27
Sub 2000:80   Hewitts:110
Wainwrights:56   Islands:41
Joined: Aug 4, 2009
Location: N. Highlands

Re: Right to roam v Private Road

Postby BigTed » Mon Jun 14, 2021 6:17 pm

rabthecairnterrier wrote:The discussion is indeed becoming a tad heated, but then that's what happens when people believe others are interfering with their basic legal rights without just cause.
In an earlier post I asked pt2021 a simple question: viz - do the his Title Deeds include the area of land that navarr was walking on (he should know this). The question has not been answered


There is a map on the Scottish Land Register site which appears to show the boundaries of this chap's land. If the map is correct his land does indeed run up to Stockiemuir Road but does nt include the shared drive or the part where the track/path meets the private drive.

Image

https://scotlis.ros.gov.uk/

Assuming his land is the area around the house enclosed by the black line and the wider areas are Aucheneden Estate.
BigTed
Mountain Walker
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Aug 18, 2017

Re: Right to roam v Private Road

Postby Skmf16 » Mon Jun 14, 2021 6:21 pm

What a lovely bunch of individuals you all are. I hope you are proud of your vile comments that are upsetting to myself regarding our reasons for trying to prevent increased traffic past our house. This is nothing short of trolling.
For your information I am not the other poster and I joined this forum to put across our point. Clearly I am nothing short of bait for you to mock.
Skmf16
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Jun 13, 2021

Re: Right to roam v Private Road

Postby Navvarr » Mon Jun 14, 2021 6:37 pm

Skmf16 wrote:What a lovely bunch of individuals you all are. I hope you are proud of your vile comments that are upsetting to myself regarding our reasons for trying to prevent increased traffic past our house. This is nothing short of trolling.
For your information I am not the other poster and I joined this forum to put across our point. Clearly I am nothing short of bait for you to mock.


Vile comments?
You've accused me of bullying yet when asked you've not substantiated when Ive been bullying.

The householder asserts he has the right to deny access- yet he's been found out from a number of sources that he doesn't have that right.

You are taking the side of the householder since you have a vested interest in denying access to this road- you don't want increased traffic - plain and simple.

Sadly, you're targeting everyone and trying to deny access by implying that everyone shares the values of the people that you say have been anti social- ie burned bins etc.
I do take umbrage at that- as already stated, I'll walk past the householder's residence and join the path to Edenmill- no bins will be burned, no children upset and no windows peeked through.
It's up to you and the householder handle that, that will determine whether that plan runs to plan.
Navvarr
Munro compleatist
 
Posts: 72
Munros:75   Corbetts:7
Joined: May 27, 2014

Re: Right to roam v Private Road

Postby Skmf16 » Mon Jun 14, 2021 6:50 pm

For your information I am also the homeowner. Go back and read this thread from the start and tell me that some of the comments made from yourself and your fellow ramblers are not intimidating. I am appalled at this entire thread. Posting pictures of our title so everyone knows where we live and encouraging other walkers to start using this route is inconsiderate given the reasons we are stating for being at our wits end with it all. Whilst you may belittle our reasons .e.g. peeping through the windows of my sons bedroom, I can assure you that everything that has been mentioned is accurate and the police have been involved.
Skmf16
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Jun 13, 2021

Re: Right to roam v Private Road

Postby Navvarr » Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:12 pm

Skmf16 wrote:For your information I am also the homeowner. Go back and read this thread from the start and tell me that some of the comments made from yourself and your fellow ramblers are not intimidating. I am appalled at this entire thread. Posting pictures of our title so everyone knows where we live and encouraging other walkers to start using this route is inconsiderate given the reasons we are stating for being at our wits end with it all. Whilst you may belittle our reasons .e.g. peeping through the windows of my sons bedroom, I can assure you that everything that has been mentioned is accurate and the police have been involved.


Except its not accurate, no right to stop anyone using the path.
And, yes- I would very much encourage others to use the path, its a great circular route up and over the Queens View, past Burncrooks, Edenmill and back along the path into Cameron Avenue and back to your car- in fact I'll be writing a walk report on it shortly. I notice Walk Highlands is offering a prize for just that.

Involving the police? Well that'll be interesting- next time I'm round that way I'll happily wait as you phone the police to report absolutely nothing except a fantasy of why you don't want anyone passing your front door, you're going to look a tad foolish reporting me walking past your house minding my own business- tis a free world, the police might not see it that way mind.
Navvarr
Munro compleatist
 
Posts: 72
Munros:75   Corbetts:7
Joined: May 27, 2014

Re: Right to roam v Private Road

Postby Skmf16 » Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:35 pm

Do you know what private curtilage is? I’m sure you do seeing as you appear to know everything…. It applies here.
Clearly you don’t read my comments or you would note that I wasn’t implying I would phone the police for you walking by our house but that in fact they were called when our bin was set on fire and for the numerous times during lockdown that people like yourself chose to block our driveway entrance because queens view car park was closed thus preventing resident s from gaining access to their homes. It’s great to see that people like yourself think you have the right to post comments like this when you’ve been informed of the circumstances. What a reasonable individual you are.
Skmf16
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Jun 13, 2021

Re: Right to roam v Private Road

Postby Marty_JG » Mon Jun 14, 2021 7:51 pm

Skmf16 wrote: Posting pictures of our title so everyone knows where we live.


The posted the picture of your title because you made mention of it and have claimed land that is not yours is yours. You made a strong claim and the evidence has been posted that you have lied through your teeth.

Nobody here has set fire to your bins, blocked your entrance, or peeped through your windows. You have no right to prevent legitimate walkers using that path. None whatsoever.

If you do not want through-traffic then you must live somewhere without through traffic. It is as simple as that.
User avatar
Marty_JG
Backpacker
 
Posts: 1128
Munros:8   Corbetts:2
Sub 2000:3   
Islands:3
Joined: Sep 12, 2016
Location: Glasgow

Re: Right to roam v Private Road

Postby Navvarr » Mon Jun 14, 2021 8:01 pm

'The police have been informed'?

I'm quite sure the police have way more important things to do than investigate an exchange of opinions on Walk Highlands.

Again with the assumptions- I've never ever parked in Cameron Avenue- perhaps others have, but I've certainly haven't.

You're continuing to assert that you have the right to deny access- I'll continue to tell you that you don't have that right. The Stirling Council Access Officer has been made clear of your complaints against people passing along Cameron Avenue from the path leading from Edenmill- they have the authority to make the judgememt on this and they're saying your assertion that you can deny access to walkers is wrong.

I've made my position clear, I'll continue to use the path with impunity.

Others reading this may make their own minds up on whether they too might wish to stand against someone who clearly wishes to restrict access to local paths.
Navvarr
Munro compleatist
 
Posts: 72
Munros:75   Corbetts:7
Joined: May 27, 2014

Re: Right to roam v Private Road

Postby Paul Webster » Mon Jun 14, 2021 8:53 pm

This thread has got rather heated. I'd like to remind posters that the following is against the moderation policy:-

- "personal insults, generalised criticism or abuse,.... name-calling";
- "using multiple identities on the site";
- "If you wish to complain about the way a thread has been moderated then please contact us directly" so making posts saying the moderators are biased when they haven't seen / read the thread yet, let alone moderated it in any way, is dishonest and possibly deceptive.

As regards the issue being discussed, I have served for 6 years on access forums:
- private roads are not excluded from access rights
- gardens / curtledge around dwellings are excluded
- going up to people's windows, setting fire to bins or threatening children is clearly not allowed but no one here is suggesting that

The access code states that walkers should:
- "use a path or track, if there is one, when you are close to a house or garden;"
- "keep a sensible distance from houses, and avoid ground that overlooks them from close by if there is no path or track";

If the track IS actually a part of the owners' private garden (which is obviously strongly disputed) then responsible behaviour is that the landowner "may want to signpost alternative routes" on his land to get past the garden if he wants more privacy from walkers passing through than use of the track allows.

No names or details of individuals have been shared in this thread, beyond the place being discussed. We will not allow sharing of private details. I can't see anyone has threatened to do anything illegal - and none have been reported to us to date.

It's been reported in this thread that the access officer has stated that access rights apply to the track. I suspect people have already made their opinions very clear and there is little else to say until or if the Access Officer looks into the complaint further.

Please think twice - and read the moderation policy - before making further posts on this thread.
User avatar
Paul Webster
Site Admin
Mountain Walker
 
Posts: 5423
Munros:282   Corbetts:222
Grahams:68   Donalds:45
Sub 2000:117   Hewitts:133
Wainwrights:134   Islands:92
Joined: Jan 6, 2007
Location: Highland
Walk wish-list

Re: Right to roam v Private Road

Postby al78 » Tue Jun 15, 2021 10:00 am

I suspect this isn't really about access rights and more about the homeowner having had bad experiences from a minority who have been invading their privacy or causing damage (i.e. breaking the law), and they have projected that behaviour onto anyone who wishes to use the path, trying to deny access to all on the basis of the behaviour of the worst. A bit like when some people claim all cyclists jump red lights and ride on pavements because they selectively remember those examples and ignore the rest.

Unfortunately groupthink and tribal mentality is rife and one or two bad apples in a minority out-group will frequently tarnish the rest.
User avatar
al78
Walker
 
Posts: 976
Munros:28   Corbetts:8
Donalds:1
Joined: Feb 1, 2018

Re: Right to roam v Private Road

Postby Navvarr » Tue Jun 15, 2021 1:33 pm

al78 wrote:I suspect this isn't really about access rights and more about the homeowner having had bad experiences from a minority who have been invading their privacy or causing damage (i.e. breaking the law), and they have projected that behaviour onto anyone who wishes to use the path, trying to deny access to all on the basis of the behaviour of the worst. A bit like when some people claim all cyclists jump red lights and ride on pavements because they selectively remember those examples and ignore the rest.

Unfortunately groupthink and tribal mentality is rife and one or two bad apples in a minority out-group will frequently tarnish the rest.


Ah cyclists... now don't get me started :D
Navvarr
Munro compleatist
 
Posts: 72
Munros:75   Corbetts:7
Joined: May 27, 2014

Re: Right to roam v Private Road

Postby Moriarty » Tue Jun 15, 2021 5:14 pm

al78 wrote:I suspect this isn't really about access rights and more about the homeowner having had bad experiences from a minority who have been invading their privacy or causing damage


Perhaps, or perhaps not. There has been a noticeable use of doubtful tales on social media backing anti-access agenda this year. If someone wishes to garner public sympathy it's usually the same buttons to press, Child Safety being one of the more effective.

Reading the thread there has been odd use of new and dummy accounts attempting to disrupt the conversation, the moderation team have stated that one of those was leading with false claims about editing of the thread. I'd also say that, in addition to the tales of horror committed by country walkers, the anti-access proponent is interestingly careful in use of language to give an impression that the Law is on their side, while actually reminding me of a cephalopod - evading scrutiny in a cloud of ink. ;)

I'd encourage any local forum users to walk the walk and register any worries with the Local Access Forum.
Moriarty
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Dec 15, 2013

PreviousNext



Walkhighlands community forum is advert free


Your generosity keeps this site running.
Can you help support Walkhighlands and the online community by donating by direct debit?



Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AJ01, Gigha and 39 guests