Scottish Rights of Way & Access Society

  • Outdoor Access
    • Introduction
    • Signposting
    • Bridges
    • Grants
    • Heritage Paths
    • Scottish Hill Tracks
    • Maps and Leaflets
    • Catalogue of Rights of Way
    • Solicitor Enquiry Searches
  • Who We Are
    • Introduction
    • Our History
    • Directors
    • Staff
    • Contact Us
    • Governance
    • Vacancies
  • Support Us
    • Introduction
    • Become A Member
    • Become A Volunteer
    • Donate
    • Leave A Gift in Your Will
    • Sign Up to Our E-Newsletter
    • Take Action
    • Shop
  • News
  • Ask Ken
 0 Items - £0.00

I’m Ken, the ScotWays Knowledge Base

Ask Me Your Outdoor Access Question

Important People of Scottish Access

12
  • Important People of Scottish Access – Adam Black (1784-1874)
  • Important People of Scottish Access – Archibald Eneas Robertson (1870-1958)
  • Important People of Scottish Access – Arthur W Russell (1873-1967)
  • Important People of Scottish Access – Donald Bennet (1928-2013)
  • Important People of Scottish Access – Donald Grant Moir  (1902-1986)
  • Important People of Scottish Access – John George Bartholomew (1860-1920)
  • Important People of Scottish Access – John Hutton Balfour (1808-1884)
  • Important People of Scottish Access – Professor Sir Robert (Bob) Grieve (1910 -1995)
  • Important People of Scottish Access – Rennie McOwan (1933-2018)
  • Important People of Scottish Access – Viscount James Bryce (1838-1922)
  • Important People of Scottish Access – Walter Arthur Smith (1852-1934)
  • Important People of Scottish Access – William Ferris (1894-1963)

Introducing Ken

1
  • Hello, my name is Ken.

Court Cases

144
  • An outline of the Scottish Courts System
  • The Authority of Case Law
  • Cases under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003
    • Aviemore Highland Resort v Cairngorms National Park Authority
    • Caledonian Heritable Ltd v East Lothian Council
    • Creelman v Argyll & Bute Council
    • Forbes v Fife Council
    • Gloag v Perth & Kinross Council and the Rambler’s Association
    • Law Society of Scotland v Scottish Legal Complaints Commission
    • Renyana Stahl Anstalt v Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park Authority Appeal Decision
    • Snowie v Stirling Council and Ramblers Association Lindsay and Barbara Ross v Stirling Council
    • Tuley v Highland Council
    • Williamson v Highland Activities Limited
  • Public rights of way and private servitude rights of way
    • Creation of public rights of way – need for public place end points
      • Cuthbertson v Young
      • Darrie v Drummond
      • Duncan v Lees
      • Jenkins v Murray
      • Lauder v MacColl
      • Leith-Buchanan v Hogg
      • Magistrates of Dunblane v Arnold-McCulloch
      • Marquis of Bute v McKirdy & McMillan
      • Melfort Pier Holidays Ltd v The Melfort Club and Others
      • Midlothian Council v Crolla
      • Oswald v Lawrie
      • Scott v Drummond
      • Smith v Saxton
      • Wood v North British Railway
    • Creation of public rights of way – use as of right by the public for the prescriptive period
      • Aberdeen City Council v Wanchoo and Neumann v Hutchison
      • Ayr Burgh Council v British Transport Commission
      • Burt v Barclay
      • Cadell v Stevenson
      • Cumbernauld & Kilsyth District Council v Dollar Land (Cumbernauld) Ltd
      • Duffield Morgan v Lord Advocate
      • Kinloch’s Trustees v Young
      • Magistrates of Elgin v Robertson
      • McGregor v Crieff Co-operative Society Ltd
      • McInroy v Duke of Athole
      • Norrie v Magistrates of Kirriemuir
      • Rhins District Committee of the County Council of Wigtownshire v Cunninghame
      • Richardson v Cromarty Petroleum Co Ltd
      • Rome v Hope Johnstone
      • Scottish Rights of Way & Recreation Society Ltd v Macpherson
      • Strathclyde (Hyndland) Housing Society Ltd v Cowie
      • Wills Trustees v Cairngorm Canoeing and Sailing School Ltd
      • Wilson v Jamieson
    • Creation of rights of way – interruption of the prescriptive period
      • Mann v Brodie
    • Different kinds of use of rights of way
      • Aberdeenshire Council v Lord Glentanar
      • Carstairs v Spence
      • Crawford v Lumsden
      • Macfarlane v Morrison & Others (Robertson’s Trustees)
      • Mackenzie v Bankes
      • Malcolm v Lloyd
    • Need for a particular line for public rights of way
      • Home Drummond & Another (Petitioners)
      • Hozier v Hawthorne
      • Mackintosh v Moir
    • Obstruction of rights of way
      • Aitchison v India Tyre & Rubber Co.
      • Anderson v Earl of Morton
      • Drury v McGarvie
      • Earl of Morton v Anderson
      • Fife Council v Nisbet
      • Geils v Thomson
      • Glasgow and Carlisle Road Trustees v Tennant
      • Glasgow and Carlisle Road Trustees v Whyte
      • Graham v Sharpe
      • Hay v Earl of Morton’s Trustees
      • Kirkpatrick v Murray
      • Lanarkshire Water Board v Gilchrist
      • Lord Donington v Mair
      • Macdonald v Watson
      • Midlothian District Council v MacKenzie
      • Rodgers v Harvie
      • Soriani v Cluckie
      • Stewart, Pott & Co. v Brown Brothers & Co
      • Sutherland v Thomson
    • Procedural issues
      • Alexander v Picken
      • Alston v Ross
      • Hope v Landward District Committee of the Parish Council of Inveresk
      • Macfie v Scottish Rights of Way and Recreation Society Limited
      • Nairn v Speedie
      • Potter v Hamilton
      • Torrie v Duke of Atholl
    • Public and private rights of way – ancillary rights and burdens
      • Allan v McLachlan
      • Lord Burton v Mackay
      • McRobert v Reid
      • Milne v Inveresk Parish Council
      • Moncrieff v Jamieson
      • Preston’s Trustees v Preston
    • Relationship of public rights of way with private servitude rights of way and with ‘roads’ under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984
      • Public rights of way and ‘roads’ under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984
        • Davidson v Earl of Fife
        • Hamilton v Dumfries & Galloway Council
        • Hamilton v Nairn
      • Relationship of public rights of way with private servitude rights of way
        • Alvis v Harrison
        • McGavin v McIntyre
        • Thomson v Murdoch
    • Rights of way – land owned by statutory undertakers or the Crown
      • Ayr Harbour Trustees v Oswald
      • British Transport v Westmoreland County Council
      • Edinburgh Corporation v North British Railway Co.
      • Ellice’s Trustees v Commissioners for the Caledonian Canal
      • Kinross County Council v Archibald
      • Lord Advocate v Strathclyde Regional Council and Lord Advocate v Dumbarton District Council
      • Oban Town Council v Callander & Oban Railway
      • The Ramblers Association v The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (and Others)
  • Navigation rights and rights in relation to the foreshore
    • Navigation rights
      • Campbell’s Trustees v Sweeney
      • Colquhoun’s Trustees v Orr Ewing & Co
      • Crown Estate Commissioners v Fairlie Yacht Slip Ltd.
      • Denaby and Cadeby Main Collieries Ltd v Anson
      • Ellerman Lines Ltd v Clyde Navigation Trustees
      • Kames Bay Case – Petition of the Crown Estate Commissioners
      • Walford v David
      • Wills Trustees v Cairngorm Canoeing and Sailing School Ltd
    • Rights in relation to the foreshore
      • Leith-Buchanan v Hogg
      • Marquis of Bute v McKirdy & McMillan
      • Officers of State v Smith
  • Liability
    • Cases relating to contributory negligence
      • Smith v Finch
    • Liability of recreational users to one another
      • Anthony Phee v James Gordon & Niddry Castle Golf Club 4 November 2011
      • Milne v Duguid
      • Pearson v Lightning
    • Occupiers’ liability: Cases involving ‘hazards’ in the outdoors
      • Anderson v The Scottish Ministers
      • Brown v South Lanarkshire Council
      • Duff v East Dunbartonshire Council
      • Fegan v Highland Regional Council
      • Graham v East of Scotland Water
      • Johnstone v Sweeney
      • Lang v Kerr Anderson & Co.
      • Marshall v North Ayrshire Council
      • McCluskey v Lord Advocate
      • Michael Leonard v The Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park Authority
      • Prosecution by the Health & Safety Executive Dunoon Sheriff Court, 18th August 2010
      • Strachan v Highland Council
      • Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council
      • Trueman v Aberdeenshire Council
      • Wright v Nevis Range Development Company
    • Occupiers’ liability: Cases involving children
      • Dawson v Scottish Power
      • Glasgow Corporation v Taylor
      • Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council
      • Stevenson v Glasgow Corporation
    • Occupiers’ liability: Cases involving facilities/indoor premises
      • McCondichie v Mains Medical Centre
      • Poppleton v Peter Ashley Activities Centre
      • Porter v Borders Council
    • Cases involving animals
      • Gardiner v Miller
      • Shirley McKaskie v John Cameron
      • Welsh v Brady
  • Other cases of interest
    • Carol Rohan Beyts v Trump International Golf Club Scotland Limited
    • Law Society of Scotland v Scottish Legal Complaints Commission
    • Neizer v Rhodes
    • R v Howard

The Bookshelf

30
  • Welcome to The Bookshelf
  • Legislation
    • Legislation 1960-1969
    • Legislation 1970-1979
    • Legislation 1980-1989
    • Legislation 1990-1999
    • Legislation 2000-2009
    • Legislation 2010-2019
    • Legislation 2020-2029
  • Guidance on Legislation
    • Guidance on Legislation 1990-1999
    • Guidance on Legislation 2000-2009
    • Guidance on Legislation 2010-2019
    • Guidance on Legislation 2020-2029
  • Responsible Access
    • Publications on Responsible Access 1990-1999
    • Publications on Responsible Access 2000-2009
    • Publications on Responsible Access 2010-2019
  • Rights of Way and Outdoor Access Management
    • Land Management
      • Managing Land for Outdoor Access 2000-2009
    • Path Management
      • Path Management 1980-1989
      • Path Management 1990-1999
      • Path Management 2000-2009
      • Path Management 2010-2019
      • Path Management 2020-2029
    • People Management
      • Managing the Public 2000-2009
      • Managing the Public 2010-2019
    • Signposting
      • Signposting and Interpretation 1990-1999
      • Signposting and Interpretation 2010-2019
      • Signposting and Interpretation 2020-2029
  • Surveys of Rights of Way, Access and Procedures
    • Surveys of Rights of Way, Outdoor Access and Procedures 1980-1989
    • Surveys of Rights of Way, Outdoor Access and Procedures 1990-1999
    • Surveys of Rights of Way, Outdoor Access and Procedures 2000-2009
    • Surveys of Rights of Way, Outdoor Access and Procedures 2010-2019

About Access Rights

40
  • What are Outdoor Access Rights?
  • Rights of Way
    • A local landowner has fenced off a path that is well used by local people, and has put up a sign saying No trespassers’. What can I do about it?
    • Can I ride my motorbike on a right of way or take it off road?
    • Development Proposals and Outdoor Access
    • Do public rights of way exist in Scotland?
    • Horse riders are using a local path and churning it up so that it is difficult for walkers to use. What can be done?
    • How does a route become a right of way?
    • Is there any need for rights of way, now that there is freedom of access?
    • Is there any record of rights of way in Scotland?
    • My neighbour says he has a right to go along the path at the back of my house. Could this be a public right of way?
    • Private Signs, Private Roads, Public Roads, What’s the difference?
    • Rights of access to land
    • There is a path close to my house which local people say is a right of way. Can I divert the route so as to protect my privacy?
    • There is a proposal for a windfarm development that will be close to a well-used right of way. What can be done?
    • Where can I cycle?
    • Where Can I Ride or Drive my Horse?
    • Who’s responsible for path maintenance?
  • Statutory Access Rights
    • A Brief History of Access Rights
    • A local landowner has fenced off a path that is well used by local people, and has put up a sign saying No trespassers’. What can I do about it?
    • Are access rights different in Scotland from those in England and Wales?
    • Can I go wild camping in Scotland?
    • Can I ride my motorbike on a right of way or take it off road?
    • Horse riders are using a local path and churning it up so that it is difficult for walkers to use. What can be done?
    • Is there any need for rights of way, now that there is freedom of access?
    • Private Signs, Private Roads, Public Roads, What’s the difference?
    • Right to Roam Timeline
    • Rights of access to land
    • The Coming of Access Rights
    • The Scottish Outdoor Access Code, A Replacement for the Country Code
    • What activities are covered by rights of access?
    • What activities are not covered by rights of access?
    • What are core paths?
    • What does behaving responsibly mean?
    • What happens when there is a dispute about whether, or how, the rights of access apply?
    • What is a Local Access forum?
    • Where can I cycle?
    • Where Can I Ride or Drive my Horse?
    • Where do access rights not apply?
    • Who should I contact if I have a problem about access rights?
    • Who’s responsible for path maintenance?

History

17
  • 175th Anniversary
  • 1844 The beginning of ScotWays
  • 1964 When figure 740 changed the face of path signs
  • A Brief History of Access Rights
  • Boardwalks, the oldest types of constructed path
  • Historic Footpaths
  • Right to Roam Timeline
  • ScotWays’s Oldest Standing Signpost
  • The Association for the Protection of Public Rights of Roadway in and Around Edinburgh
  • The Bedford Memorial Bridge
  • The Changing Face of ScotWays Signs
  • The Coming of Access Rights
  • The First ScotWays Signposts
  • The History of ScotWays
  • The Launch of the Heritage Paths website
  • Welcome the Scottish Rights of Way and Recreation Society Limited
  • What’s in a name?

Scottish Hill Tracks

19
  • Scottish Hill Tracks ~ Overview
  • SECTION 11: Glen Coe & Appin
  • SECTION 13: Loch Leven to Glen Spean
  • SECTION 14: Ardgour, Moidart & Morven
  • SECTION 15: West Mounth & Sidlaw Hills
  • SECTION 17: Cairngorms
  • SECTION 19: Monadh Liath
  • SECTION 2: Central & South-West Borders
  • SECTION 20: Loch Eil to Glen Shiel
  • SECTION 21: Glen Affric, Kintail & Strathfarrar
  • SECTION 22: Mull & Skye
  • SECTION 23: Wester Ross
  • SECTION 24: Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross
  • SECTION 3: Lammermuir & Moorfoot Hills
  • SECTION 4: Pentland Hills
  • SECTION 5: Clydesdale & Lowther Hills
  • SECTION 6: Galloway & South Ayrshire
  • SECTION 7: Arran, Inverclyde & North Ayrshire
  • SECTION 9: Southern Highlands

Heritage Paths

18
  • Heritage Paths Introduction
  • Historic Footpaths
  • The Launch of the Heritage Paths website
  • About Types of Heritage Paths
    • Coffin Roads
    • Drove Roads
    • Fish Roads
    • Heritage Paths Introduction
    • Leisure Paths
    • Medieval Roads
    • Military Roads
    • Pilgrimage Routes
    • Postie Paths
    • Public works and private enterprise: moving towards the modern transport system
    • Religious Routes
    • Roman Roads
    • Salters’ Roads
    • Trade Routes
    • Traveller Routes

Signposting

5
  • 1964 When figure 740 changed the face of path signs
  • A Signposting Tour of the Cairngorms
  • ScotWays’s Oldest Standing Signpost
  • The Changing Face of ScotWays Signs
  • The First ScotWays Signposts

#RespectProtectEnjoy

3
  • A different way to get there or doing something different.
  • Different Ways
  • Places to Visit
  • Home
  • Ask Ken
  • Court Cases
  • Cases under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003
  • Gloag v Perth & Kinross Council and the Rambler’s Association

Gloag v Perth & Kinross Council and the Rambler’s Association

Case Report: 2007 S.C.L.R. 530
Perth Sheriff Court, Court ref: B111/06
Scottish Courts Service decision.

Decision by Sheriff Michael Fletcher in the Perth Sheriff Court on 12th June 2007.

Facts: Mrs Gloag bought Kinfauns Castle, a former hotel and country house to the east of Perth, lying on a slope above the A90 trunk road and the inner estuary of the River Tay, and she renovated it for her own residential use and for use in her charitable activities. Kinfauns castle is a substantial mansion surrounded by mown grass, specimen trees and policy woodland.

Mrs Gloag erected a new fence around the grounds to enhance the security of her property, for which she obtained planning permission retrospectively from Perth & Kinross Council. She then applied to the Court under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, section 28(1)(a), to have the area of her land that was within the fence declared to be exempt from the exercise of access rights. The Sheriff said, as a finding of fact, that this amounted to about 11 acres of grounds (the Council maps indicated an overall area of 14.6 acres within the fence). Mrs Gloag claimed this land was land adjacent to Kinfauns Castle sufficient to enable those living there to have reasonable measures of privacy in the house, and to ensure their enjoyment of it was not unreasonably disturbed. Mrs Gloag claimed that she and her family had a greater than normal security risk because of her high profile and the high value of the contents of the house.

Evidence: For Mrs Gloag, it was argued that her status as a public figure, her collection of valuable art, the use of the area by family, and visits by other public figures supportive of her charitable work, all called for a high degree of security and protection. The whole area sought as exempt from access rights was said to be in use, albeit that renovation of the woodland area was still in progress (though the Sheriff did debate the validity of the claim to use the whole area intensively). There were proposals for extension of the building to provide new leisure facilities.

Perth & Kinross Council proposed a smaller area to be excluded from access rights, making about 4 acres of woodlands and rough grass available for access, and the Ramblers Association also took the same approach. Both parties placed emphasis on the role of the Scottish Outdoor Access Code in advising how access takers should act when close to domestic property, and in identifying whether policy woodland areas and rough grass should be included within access rights. As well as arguing the case for a smaller exempt area, both parties led procedural evidence: for the Council on its role in overseeing implementation of the Act; and for the Ramblers, on the principles behind the legislation.

Decision: The Sheriff said that the court had no discretion to take the rights of the access taker into consideration in determining where there should be a right of access close to property. Parliament had decreed there were no access rights on such excluded land. The court had to decide the amount of ground to be excluded in accordance with its interpretation of section 6. He said the Code was intended to give help and guidance, on the one hand to the people taking access and, on the other hand, to those over whose land access is to be taken, as to how to act responsibly in relation to the rights given by the Act. However, there was no mention in the Act of the Code being a tool for interpretation of any other part of the Act, in particular, of section 6.

The exemption claimed by Mrs Gloag is contained in section 6(1)(b)(iv) of the Act, and one of the determining factors is the location and other characteristics of the house (section 7(5) of the Act). The Sheriff said that the Act gave little assistance on the issue of how much adjoining land was required for privacy and enjoyment, and he therefore had to rely to some extent on judicial knowledge, but the evidence in the case also led to the view he had reached. The test of how much adjoining land was required for privacy and enjoyment was an objective one, and not related to a particular owner at any one time. He therefore set aside claims of special needs made on behalf of Mrs Gloag, and said that an appropriate area should be determined against the reasonable needs and expectations of any person who purchased such a house. Any person who purchased such a property would only do so if they had a substantial area round the house to provide reasonable measures of privacy and the enjoyment of the house. Whoever owned Kinfauns Castle would be likely to have considerable resources and would be likely to possess valuable objects. The Sheriff also took the view that enjoyment of the house extended to the grounds around it.

Applying this objective test, the Sheriff held that all the land within the fence should be excluded from the exercise of access rights. The evidence had shown that the fence had been placed in the most suitable location. The fact that it followed the line of a previous fence showed that it had not been placed along a purely arbitrary line, but one which a previous occupant had considered was required to secure their privacy and enjoyment of the property.

The Sheriff therefore granted a Declarator to Mrs Gloag that all the land that had been the subject of her application (i.e. all the land within the security fence) was excluded from the exercise of access rights. The Sheriff said “In my opinion it encompasses sufficient adjacent ground to enable persons living there to have reasonable measures of privacy in that house and to ensure that their enjoyment of that house is not unreasonably disturbed. The enjoyment of the house in my view depends on an extremely large number of factors, but it could not be ensured by a smaller area of adjacent ground such as the one suggested by the respondents, taking into account the location and characteristics of the house.”

All parties had agreed that the 2003 Act was not incompatible with the European Convention of Human Rights. The Sheriff said that the Act required the Court to find what was sufficient land for privacy and enjoyment of the house, and if this judgment was wrong that could be put right (presumably on appeal). There was no need to refer to the Convention.

Note on the parties in this case:
Under section 28 of the 2003 Act, a person applying to the court must give notice of their application to the local authority, and it is then up to the local authority whether they oppose it, as Perth & Kinross Council did in this case. Other parties may apply to the court to be joined as defenders in the action, and the Ramblers Association did so in this case, and in the case of Snowie.

Amount of Land Needed for Privacy, Case Law Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, Court Case, Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2203 - Section 28, Statutory Access Rights
Did this help?
Share This Article :
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Pinterest
Still stuck? How can we help?

How can we help?

Updated on 2 January 2022

Powered by BetterDocs

Privacy Policy & Cookies Terms & Conditions of Business Website Terms & Conditions
  • Follow
  • Follow
The Scottish Rights of Way & Access Society. Upholding Public Access.
Registered Office: 24 Annandale Street, Edinburgh, EH7 4AN. Tel: 0131 558 1222.
A company limited by guarantee, registered in Scotland. Company number 24243.
Scottish Charity number SC015460.
VAT registration number 221 6132 56.
©2000-
Website by Digital Routes Ltd