Agriculture and Land Reform

[StreetwiseHercules]

You *are* allowed to padlock gates if you can show reasonable cause to do so, like preventing access to unauthorised vehicles. The right to roam does not extend to vehicular access.

Oh FFS. Here we go.

No, the right to roam does not extend to vehicular access. Nobody, I repeat nobody, said it did though.

Locking gates is not allowed. Locked gates do not only prevent unauthorised vehicular access, they prevent access on horseback which IS allowed and they prevent access for emergency vehicles.

The most that can be done legally is to put signs up saying "no vehicular access".

And the only exception to all of this is to roads leading to farm steading which don't go anywhere else. Locking gates to fields is illegal.

[StreetwiseHercules]

My point was you don't have to remove the wire just lift it over the top of the post.

The wire here is twisted far, far too tightly for that.

[Wee Willie]

The wire here is twisted far, far too tightly for that.

As someone else said, bolt cutters are the answer

[Ad Lib]

Oh FFS. Here we go.

No, the right to roam does not extend to vehicular access. Nobody, I repeat nobody, said it did though.

Locking gates is not allowed. Locked gates do not only prevent unauthorised vehicular access, they prevent access on horseback which IS allowed and they prevent access for emergency vehicles.

The most that can be done legally is to put signs up saying "no vehicular access".

And the only exception to all of this is to roads leading to farm steading which don't go anywhere else. Locking gates to fields is illegal.

Locking of gates controlling access to fields is allowed. The Scotish Outdoor Access Code is very clear about this. Locking of gates is a legitimate activity to keep farm animals enclosed within a field or to prevent unauthorised vehicular access. All a landowner has to do is ensure that reasonable means of access continues to exist. In the circumstances, what is reasonable may simply be "you have to jump over a gate".

No one is under an obligation to make it convenient for people on horseback to access a field without limit.

[HaikuHibee]

Oh FFS. Here we go.

 

You should know this, mate. Ad Lib's an expert rambler. I can testify.

[Ad Lib]

You should know this, mate. Ad Lib's an expert rambler. I can testify.

Your poetry's pish. Your football club is pure pish. Your posts aye Hibs it.

[StreetwiseHercules]

Locking of gates controlling access to fields is allowed. The Scotish Outdoor Access Code is very clear about this. Locking of gates is a legitimate activity to keep farm animals enclosed within a field or to prevent unauthorised vehicular access. All a landowner has to do is ensure that reasonable means of access continues to exist. In the circumstances, what is reasonable may simply be "you have to jump over a gate".

No one is under an obligation to make it convenient for people on horseback to access a field without limit.

Farm animals aren't generally known for opening gates on their own. The Access Officers I have dealt with in the past disagree with you that the locking of gates to fields or chaining up with barbed wire is reasonable and lawful.

[Ad Lib]

Farm animals aren't generally known for opening gates on their own. The Access Officers I have dealt with in the past disagree with you that the locking of gates to fields or chaining up with barbed wire is reasonable and lawful.

Access Officers are not the final arbitrators of what constitutes reasonable impediment.

You were the one that embarked with blanket statements to the effect that locks on gates were, in and of themselves, illegal. The law does not say this, and the interpretation of the right to roam does not entail a ban on the use of locks on gates that lead to fields. The Access Code, drawn-up by the Scottish Government itself, specifically acknowledges the need of locks where there is the possibility that an unlocked gate may be compromised by determined animals which may otherwise leave one field and enter another, or which may escape a field and emerge onto a road. They also specifically acknowledge there will be circumstances in which a lock may reasonably be used to prevent unauthorised access by vehicles.

It may well be the case with this specific gate that the grounds of reasonableness cannot be established, but that categorically is not the same as all field gates having to be unlocked. All that matters is that the impediment of fencing and gates must not be unreasonable (for which, read, excessive) to the interest being protected, and that a court of law can be satisfied as to that.

[StreetwiseHercules]

The Access Officers I have spoken to, and who have enforced Section 14 orders against landowners in the circumstances I have described, do not share your view.

You'll just need to deal with that.

[Ad Lib]

The Access Officers I have spoken to, and who have enforced Section 14 orders against landowners in the circumstances I have described, do not share your view.

You'll just need to deal with that.

I don't really care what the Access Officers you've spoken to have said. The statute is completely clear.

Note the wording of s14(1).

 

Prohibition signs, obstructions, dangerous impediments etc.

The owner of land in respect of which access rights are exercisable shall not, for the purpose or for the main purpose of preventing or deterring any person entitled to exercise these rights from doing so—

(a) put up any sign or notice;

(b) put up any fence or wall, or plant, grow or permit to grow any hedge, tree or other vegetation;

© position or leave at large any animal;

(d) carry out any agricultural or other operation on the land; or

(e) take, or fail to take, any other action.

Note the bit in bold. It is only unacceptable to do any of these things where the purpose is to exclude or deter the exercise of access rights. Keeping animals in a field or deterring unauthorised vehicular access are not examples of this, so you are allowed to raise an impediment for those purposes.

Notice also s14(4), which allows any local authority access notice to be challenged in the Sheriff Court.

[Peppino Impastato]

 

Access Officers are not the final arbitrators of what constitutes reasonable impediment.

And neither are you champ. The breathtaking arrogance of you to presume to know better than them and someone who has repeatedly dealt with them is hilarious. You're a walking caricature.

[Ad Lib]

If you're going to dribble like a toddler at least try quoting properly before you do.

[invergowrie arab]

Whilst you are legally correct as lib the realpolitik is it still worth contacting access officers about these things as they will act upon them.

It's my greatest achievement in politics that I got a 4 foot hole cut in a hawthorn bush to go around a gate locked to prevent unauthorised vehicular access.

I'm pretty much Perthshire's Rosa Parks.

[Ad Lib]

Whilst you are legally correct as lib the realpolitik is it still worth contacting access officers about these things as they will act upon them.

It's my greatest achievement in politics that I got a 4 foot hole cut in a hawthorn bush to go around a gate locked to prevent unauthorised vehicular access.

I'm pretty much Perthshire's Rosa Parks.

I have no doubt that in practice if you complain about these things the default position of an enforcement officer will be to serve a notice. I was just objecting to the suggestion that padlocking a gate was somehow "illegal" in and of itself.

[invergowrie arab]

They didn't serve a notice they just phoned the landowner and came to an arrangement.

There is another landowner who has deliberately and consistently blocked access on a core path. The access officer's response is they won't serve a notice as they get ignored and they don't have resource to take it to court.

This the PKC access officer who is a good guy. Didn't even get that much help in a Co-terminus authority.

[Ad Lib]

They didn't serve a notice they just phoned the landowner and came to an arrangement.

Oh sure, that's obviously anyone's first port of call. When people start throwing the word "illegal" round willy nilly it just annoys me.

There is another landowner who has deliberately and consistently blocked access on a core path. The access officer's response is they won't serve a notice as they get ignored and they don't have resource to take it to court.

Part of the problem is non-compliance with a notice still ultimately requires the Council to go round and take measures themselves, and then good luck to anyone willing to go to court over recovery of five minutes' labour bolt-cutting a padlock.

[StreetwiseHercules]

I don't really care what the Access Officers you've spoken to have said. The statute is completely clear.

Note the wording of s14(1).

Note the bit in bold. It is only unacceptable to do any of these things where the purpose is to exclude or deter the exercise of access rights. Keeping animals in a field or deterring unauthorised vehicular access are not examples of this, so you are allowed to raise an impediment for those purposes.

Notice also s14(4), which allows any local authority access notice to be challenged in the Sheriff Court.

Your ego is so fragile.

[HaikuHibee]

Oh sure, that's obviously anyone's first port of call. When people start throwing the word "illegal" round willy nilly it just annoys me.

 

 

The SNP have plans to tighten up on aspects of land ownership if reelected, but there is another element of Land Reform I'd like to see dealt with.

 

He wants the law changed. Your arguing about nothing. Take a break Ad Lib.

[strichener]

Locking of gates controlling access to fields is allowed. The Scotish Outdoor Access Code is very clear about this. Locking of gates is a legitimate activity to keep farm animals enclosed within a field or to prevent unauthorised vehicular access. All a landowner has to do is ensure that reasonable means of access continues to exist. In the circumstances, what is reasonable may simply be "you have to jump over a gate".

No one is under an obligation to make it convenient for people on horseback to access a field without limit.

 

"Locking a gate on any path or track without reasonable cause or on any well-used path or track without providing an appropriate alternative for non-motorised access"

 

is classed as an obstruction

 

There is allowance to lock gates where it may be important to prevent animals from moving from one field to another.  The pertinent word here is important - having a locked field between two grazing parks would be deemed to be an obstruction.  Whilst it may be desirable to restrict the animals to a singular field, no harm would be caused by access and horse-riders can ride in grazing fields with no right to deny access.

 

Alternative access does not include climbing a gate or jumping it.

[StreetwiseHercules]

I personally wouldn't walk through a field containing livestock at all. The gates I tend to find obstructed and which bother me are the ones leading to empty fields.