Land Access - Pentlands

Last year when i was up there at the rear of black hill there was a locked gate, which is usually open. i just threw my bike over and continued... reading the link sounds to me a breach of of the act. I would contact the local authorities get advice from them.

"In terms of s 1 of the 2003 Act, “(1) Everyone has the statutory rights established by this Part of this Act.

“(2) Those rights (in this Part of this Act called ‘access rights’) are (a) the right to be, for any of the purposes set out in subsection (3) below, on land; and (b) the right to cross land.”

By subs (3) access rights may be exercised for (i) recreational purposes, (ii) carrying on a relevant educational activity, or (iii) carrying on, commercially or for profit, an activity which the person exercising the right could carry on otherwise than commercially or for profit.

Access rights must be exercised responsibly (s 2). In assessing what amounts to responsible access taking, regard must be had to the Scottish Outdoor Access Code (s 10). Access rights apply to all land except that which is excluded under s 6 (e.g. to the extent that there is a place on the land affording a person privacy or shelter). "

IIRC the owner of black hill does not like bikes and does not allow the rangers to put in bike friendly gates.  Again IIRC a locked gate is not necessarily a breach of the LRA  (someone with better knowledge than me might correct this)

I'd like to hear the other side of this before making up my mind.  I know events have been held in the pentlands before which were totally unsuitable resulting in a lot of damage to the paths.

The key point is was what was proposed "responsible access" and access was not denied in this case just conditions put on it.

The key point is was what was proposed “responsible access” and access was not denied in this case just conditions put on it.

Eh? They have denied access to certain hills. I am not sure how you count that as a condition?

As I said - I'd like to hear the otherside of this before being sure.  Black hill is always a disputed area because of the attitude of the landowner which is very anti access.  Would having a mass event mean leaving gates open for example?  Or cause disruption to livestock?  Or is the landowner just being anti access?  Is there intended to be a shoot on on that day? Potentially there are valid reasons why some areas are not suitable for a mass event.  with only one side of the story we simply cannot be sure

Pentlands because of its proximity to the city and heavy recreational usage is always going to be difficult to balances risks responsibilities and rights

The key point is was what was proposed “responsible access” and access was not denied in this case just conditions put on it.

Access was outright denied to certain hills and a £5 charge per entrant was mandated.

There's been little things going on in the Pentlands for a few years that try to restrict access.

There's been an official Regional Park sign appearing on Harbour Hill and the top of Scalextric since 2020 that says mountain bikers shouldn't use the paths as it scares sheep that are hefted (i.e., bred on the land and therefore stick together on a single area of open land) from March to June. It allowed walkers to continue. When I raised the issue with Pentland Hills Regional Park, pointing out that the science [url= https://www.jstor.org/stable/3803110 ] shows that mountain bikers spook sheep less than hikers (6% of sheep fleeing instead of 61%) [/url]they were entirely dismissive and didn't consider it an access issue. You could, therefore, walk an aggressive dog on a lead along the track that skirts the north west of Harbour Hill, scare all the sheep, and PHRP would be happy, while they'd be upset if you rode a bike along there scaring hardly any of the sheep.

PHRP won't help here. They're very much aligned with the vested interests of prejudiced landowners, like the owner of Logan House and Black Hill, who ignore the reality that bikes don't scare sheep like walkers, and that the Skyline doesn't really do any damage.

The only body I thought might be interested would be Scotways, but it took them 7 months to get back to me about my query about the closure of Harbour Hill, by which time the signs had already been down for 5 months.

As above - without the other side of the story we do not know if the response from the landowners was reasonable.  If there is a shoot on on blackhill then diverting round it might be reasonable for example  Or it could be the landowner being unreasonable as he has a reputation for being

The PLMA were formed in Oct 2022, no doubt as a direct result of Lockdown bellendery activity in the area. So I am sure they have had to respond to absolute tools who rip the arse out of access rules. But it does seem to be attempting to give legitimacy to land owners who have been trying for many years to restrict access further.

could well be but we don't have enough info to be sure

Even if there were a shoot on, to move a shoot to the weekend of a long running event, that they know the dates for almost a year in advance, could well be an act to restrict access in itself. I suspect we do have enough info here-

• the race has been going on for years with no problems
• the landowners are known to be awkward
• there's no flexibility on the part of the landowners because they're unwilling to let the race run
• if there's issues with livestock or gates, it hasn't been a problem in the last 37 years

The other side's arguments, like in the case of access to Harbour Hill and Scalextric, are spurious and based on prejudice, not fact.

Fair enough

Needs National Access Forum involvement IMO. https://www.outdooraccess-scotland.scot/act-and-access-code/national-access-forum

Strikes me as landowners being unreasonable, but I also get that events in the past have caused issues or damage confirming their prejudice and that there is a growth in public use of their land.

I have just been in contact with them over access for Educational rights. We have more and more local authorities who are asking for notification on public land/spaces such as parks and woods for school or early years groups. While I understand that to help a land manager in a place over-run with groups, to ask for permissions and (a lot) of information before 'allowing' a visit is against the spirit of the Act and I suggest the legal aspect to. The Panel is considering and I have asked them for a public letter confirming that education access is automatic - although with a 'be sensible and work with the land manager for big or re-occuring events.

Some observations:

1. It’s not just CHR who are finding access for events harder.  Almost every hill running, orienteering, ultra, MTBO, XC, Canicross etc organiser is finding that getting “permissions” is harder than it used to be.  Covid seemed to shift the tone of permissions and got some landowners used to saying no or at least not saying “of course”.

2. it’s not just the pentlands - all sorts of landowners including local authorities and FLS have produced their own hoops to jump through and often introduced charges.  A collective group may have made matters worse; were it me I might have been tempted to approach some individuals directly to understand the concerns.

3. Even sub 50 people events face a headache as officially they don’t need permission but you want to make sure 49 people aren’t turning up the same day as some other large event / conflict so it’s sensible to contact the land owner.  I think NatureScot have made a bit of a mess of their guidance on events.

4. The way you approach a land manager has a huge impact on how they tend to respond.  It’s very easy for one volunteeer to upset a land owner by saying things like “we don’t even need your permission”.  I’m not saying this is the case here - could well be someone from a totally different org did something the week before that undermined all future events.

5. There’s a growing number of professional event organisers.  They are making money from the event - often profiting from the geography/setting as a selling point.  That creates resentment in land owners, it also creates a perceived opportunity - the “fee”.  Too many event organisers have taken free or very low cost access as a given - and keep their entry fees at 1990s levels; it might be that if you want whatever benefit comes from running an event rather than running on your own - you need to get used to paying £5-10 more so the people who own the land get a slice.

6. Im not totally convinced that a 200 person event defaults to being within responsible access.  The ski centre might be taking the brunt of this but there will be a need for parking, toilets, etc.  Gates, litter, erosion all need a bit of thought - that doesn’t necessarily equate to 17 page impact assessments but it sounds like they’ve been doing all of this by email - the world’s worst communication method.

7.  The big problem is that there isn’t really a sensible solution for an event organiser who doesn’t get a welcoming response.  The local authority access officer might help sort out some specific issue but in general running an event across land you are not welcome on is going to be high risk.

8. the “let’s just run without an event” response is not necessarily the best choice.  A. 200 people all going the same way isn’t necessarily responsible access even if each individual would be ok; B. With no organisation in place there’s no rescue plan, no one picking up litter etc; C. Adding 100+ cars without parking arrangements is chaos and provides no warning to those who were innocently going to use the area (which presumably an organiser event would have given some forewarning of) D. Antagonising landowners doesn’t seem the best route to getting future permissions.  E. There’s a fine line between an organised event, a lot of people who happen to be in the same place at once, a protest/demonstration, and a busy day in the hills.  I don’t know if any cases of an unofficial event organiser being sued but probably one day it will happen, there’s a comfort factor as an organiser in knowing that I have insurance so if the landowner claims we wrecked his gate, or a mountain biker hits a group of runners, etc that I’m not personally on the hook.

9. We’ve done this for X years isn’t necessarily the best argument for being allowed to continue doing it.  Circumstances change (increased use of the area in general, more events, etc) as well as the landowners experience not necessarily being perfect after previous events (again may not be CHR events could be anyone else’s - expecting a farmer to understand the nuance of a CHR event v someone else may be too nuanced).

It’s a shame that CHR have had to cancel the event.  It’s hugely frustrating for organisers and club committees when it gets to that point, and has a ripple effect so other organisers get the jitters too.  It’s more volunteer time, but perhaps more hill runners etc should get involved in access forums, working with NatureScot on clearer guidance etc. And certainly if I was the organiser I’d be visiting the LA access officer, the local councillors, the MSPs etc.  with a clear message about the positive work our club does and how it helps get people active etc.

@poly covers almost everything.

I would add that the fact the MOD (initially) wanted £700 is shocking too.

The PHRP has always been more supportive of land owners/managers than recreational users. That's behind the reason I was "asked to leave" as a Volunteer Ranger 🙂

On the whole, I don't think it's unreasonable for land owners/managers to charge for use of their land for an event that's already charging for admission. This was all covered when the LR(S)A wsa going through the various committee stages of course and we did end up with a bit of a fudge. For instance, what if you hire me as a ride/walk/climb guide and I'm earning a living from it while utilising someone else's property? Morally, I think there's a case that I should be giving them a cut, but the LR(S)A says something about it not being an issue as long as it's the same sort of activity that an individual might carry out on their own (sorry - too lazy to look it up).

the race has been going on for years with no problems

that’s the organisers’ perception, but it might not be the land manager’s.  Their perception may be right or wrong.

the landowners are known to be awkward

some of them are, but I’d also suggest that some event organisers are awkward too!

there’s no flexibility on the part of the landowners because they’re unwilling to let the race run

actually that’s not true - they seem to be willing to let a hill race run, just not necessarily in the exact manner the organiser wanted

if there’s issues with livestock or gates, it hasn’t been a problem in the last 37 years

Were the gates the same? Were the livestock in the same areas?  Were they the same type of livestock?  Now, I am sure that a lot of those issues could be resolved but it must be at least possible that the farmer has moved his least public friendly stock into different areas because of growing use of other areas since Covid woke the world up to the great outdoors.

@moab - I’ve seen similar headaches for small coaching groups - clearly don’t need permission, but if they tell a local authority land owner they plan to be there they have hoops to jump through (insurance, RA, maps, etc - all being done anyway but now there is a perception that if the LA ranger hasn’t actually said OK maybe we shouldn’t be there). When actually all we wanted was a heads up if they had tree felling / a bigger organised event / etc planned for that date.  Some LAs seem to have seen an opportunity to get some cash - but also to make something that should be easy into a process you need to apply for 8 weeks before!

the danger with saying “educational groups have an automatic right” is that grumpy landowner spots a clever trick - agree educational access every weekend and then you can refuse any other event you don’t like - as it might conflict!  Or your local bike club wants to do a XC race and they get forced through the full s11 process so that educational groups can be refused, when actually they never intended to be there anyway or a sensible “ranger” would just have had a phone call and said - probably best to use the other end of the area that week.  And then you will get people testing what educational means - eg would a “Scottish schools cross country race” with 500 participants count as educational? Or a bushcraft skills workshop that’s paid for by parents?  Are the scouts educational?  Is the school PTA “fundraising BBQ”? Granting some sort of special permission to one group over another is when an issue arises.

It’s a shame no rationale given for wanting to reroute as that could explain a lot here rather than just prejudice being root cause. If it’s worked land dozens of possible reasons.

We’ve only heard one side here but the veiled threat of running what was an organised fee paying event by stealth is clearly not helpful for a mature debate.

bikes don’t scare sheep like walkers

this is nonsense, I have seen mountain bikers strava through sheep in the Pentlands far too many times and I know it is a big issue for the farmers, especially in lambing areas like around Scaletrix.

I used to attend the PHRP consultative forum many years ago when making the core paths plan, and after that representing mountain bikers, so I can understand the point of view of the landowners, there were many issues with littering from big events as well as significant path damage, livestock worrying and so on. Covid times must have been a real nightmare as well. It's a shame the Forum fizzled out during covid though, but I think the landowners who were pretty much the only people who could be bothered to attend the forum anyway probably just filled the vacuum left by it, it is too one sided now though.

3rd time at this post as I keep cocking it up and navigating away.

I live on the south side and have used the hills to bike, walk and run for years in all seasons and weathers. We've discussed the PLMA  access a lot recently as my wife is a runner and knows some race organisers.

COVID brought extra strain to the hills as echoed around the country and frequently brought the ' wrong types' as well.  A fair few folk seem to know all of their rights and few of their responsibilities.  The harbour hill sign was frustrating but from my perspective was a request and not a demand backed up with an impenetrable fence.

I was on the Pentland hills user facebook page but came off it for the above reasons. One  I did take umbrage with was the stile that had existed at the SW corner of bonaly woods. After it was damaged some folk on that page were on thes Verge of suggesting vandalism to open the informal path up.

Onto the PLMA, from what I've read and from their Facebook page they appear a faceless organisation. They may have the best of intentions but they don't seem open to compromise. I feel their demands are going to lead to unofficial Strava events which benefit no one.

I heard proposed MTB marathon was abandoned due to a couple of landowners.

I heard proposed MTB marathon was abandoned due to a couple of landowners.

A few years back there was a big MTB trailquest type thing organised in the pentlands by folk from down south.in november   They clearly had no idea of the balance of rights and responsibilities.  the comments afterwards from entrants were full of "glorious muddy ride, what fun"  Yes you plonker - thats our paths you are wrecking.  It caused a lot of ill feeling

As above, it would be good to know the true reasons behind PLMA obstructing the race.

no doubt as a direct result of Lockdown bellendery

Bellendery, sure, but to repeat the obvious the Pents have been so much more heavily used since lockdown. It used to be a great place to escape the city while looking at it, now it feels like half the city is there at times. What used to be barely singletrack grass paths in places are now eroded double tracks. I play my part in that, I've explored lesser ridden paths in the past 3 years and watched them grow wider, deeper, rockier ... Other then reported dog attacks on livestock, I don't know what material impact additional footfall has on animals. If they were a sensible bunch, I'd guess the PLMA would want a cut to go towards maintenance, but I guess they get funding from elsewhere.

https://theferret.scot/access-fees-and-rules-pentland-event-cancellations/

An MoD spokesperson said: “We are required to ensure all third party activities that are hosted on our estate are appropriately charged and licensed to achieve value for money for the taxpayer from the use of public land and to ensure that public liability is in place for the protection of all parties.”

They should be careful what they wish for. If they charge for "ensuring public liability is in place" then they become responsible, which they're currently not!