You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
As above will free access to land be put at risk by this development?
You're not really paying for access though are you? You're paying for the use of a constructed and maintained facility if you choose to use it. Are those areas cordoned off to prevent general access?
I'd heard about the travelator but not actually seen it, so wasn't sure if it was a joke 🤣
Neither the travelator or trail centres are my thing, but I can see why they're popular and a draw for tourist money to different areas.
OK,watched further and seen the comments. Obviously no quite been thought out fully as there are LRA issues need addressing. I'm not ready familiar with that area, so assumed it was within an exempt area due history of payment etc.
As above will free access to land be put at risk by this development?
Isn't the question more about whether centres like the Seven Stanes will be tempted to introduce charges for using the trails? I can't see that it's going to have any impact on wider access.
Erm, 22 quid for a day / 16 for a half day including the curious uplift thing that looks like a baggage carousel that's been straightened, elongated and pointed uphill and a commercially run and maintained trail centre.
Will other trail centres follow suit? No idea, seems unlikely unless they're going to start including uplift services, which most don't need?
There has always been a clause that means access rights are not available " for land set aside for a specific purpose" or something similar. Like much or the LRA its not been tested in court. Is the payment for access to the trails or for use of the uplift thing?
Is the payment for access to the trails or for use of the uplift thing?
According to the website and the video it's both, you pay for the uplift and the trails, there's no other option.
It’s a specific attraction, don’t see it’s any different to visiting a go ape. The argument that you wanted to walk on that particular part of the huge national park and this is removing your right to roam is a bit weak, should somebody present that. As Teej says, there is an exemption for businesses.
Just to save people some time the relevant part of the video is at 14 minutes in.
Also these concerns are very much my own and not Mctrail riders.
I don't think things will change, 7 stanes could start charging to ride but aside from Glentress and Innerleithen, would it make more money or actually put people off from travelling to somewhere a bit off the beaten track.
I found an article which says
"Two 100m conveyor belt uplifts will take riders to the top of the lower zone, where they can easily access the green and lower blue routes.
A purpose-built climb trail will take the more experienced riders to the top of the upper blue and red trails."
So the uplift is basically two magic carpets for beginner skiers that they are allowing bikes on.
I can't imagine there will be any issue with the tiny number of people who might be descending on a bike via coire Cas joining the upper blue and red trails on their way through.
I'm almost certain you can't charge for access to land in Scotland, even if you've invested in 'developing' the land.
I'm not sure if it's exactly the same thing as GoApe. It seems like a no-brainer that you wouldn't just pitch up and start using GoApe equipment citing access laws. Possibly if there were decades of free versions of GoApe and a company came along and tried to charge for use then someone might bring up access laws but as far as I know there has never been a free version of GoApe so the fact that 'technically' access to it should be free hasn't come up.
It is actually kind of worrying if it does go to court. I think if people started looking too closely at the access laws the courts might conclude that what we have at the moment is too sweeping, especially when it comes to access for bikes.
You’re not really paying for access though are you? You’re paying for the use of a constructed and maintained facility if you choose to use it.
Like a golf course. Trial centres pretty much are the golf courses of the future. Theres a bit of an arms race between bikes becoming ever more capable and trail centres having to become bigger and more baroque in order for riders to have somewhere to feel challenged on their 200mm travel ebikes. They can't function on volunteer trail fairies and pay and display parking forever so they'll be paid for - and people paying will want exclusivity.
They can’t function on volunteer trail fairies and pay and display parking forever so they’ll be paid for – and people paying will want exclusivity.
It actually amazes me that this model works at all! How are e.g. Tarland making it work (assuming this is non-forestry?).
Sometimes amazes me the level of entitlement displayed (NOT here on or on this thread necessarily) that people should have free access to purpose built trails where previously there were none. See e.g. uproar on other pages when Glentress had the temerity to ask people not to ride a new trail built for the World Champs etc.
I wonder what would happen if there was a legitimate business model for building trail centres, how many might spring up?
How are e.g. Tarland making it work (assuming this is non-forestry?).
Parking. From the website:
Where does all the parking cash go?
Every penny spent with us goes straight back into the trails.
Tarland Trails is part of the Tarland Development Group, a charity focused on improving the area in and around Tarland for it's residents. All of the money we make is spent on maintaing existing trails, creating new ones or on activities that help promote the facility.
You can't seal off an area that currently has open access and start charging because you built some paths. You need the land to be redesignated.
Folk have been skiing down the pisted slopes since they existed. The only payment extracted is for parking and for uplift. Walk/skin up and it's free.
There are maintained footpaths in the same area. Again, free to use.
The danger here is one of precedence. If a public body (HIE) can flout the law and get away with it then there's nothing to stop any unscrupulous land owner/manager "building some infrastructure" and closing off access to their land (see Paul Lister / Taymouth).
that people should have free access to purpose built trails where previously there were none
Do you mean only purpose built trails or any trails (or paths) at all?
I kind of see your point if there was absolutely nothing there before (although strictly speaking people could still access that blank hillside provided they didn't damage it), but if there were paths in the area before you are effectively annexing those paths or trails by building purpose built trails around them. Unless you are going to police access to each and every trail to make sure no one who is using the existing trails sneaks onto one of the paying trails.
Comparing it to golf isn't really the relevant, imo. There were never people golfing on 'natural surfaces'. In living memory, as far as I know, it's always been a sport played on a built and prepared ground. Not the same thing as mountain biking at all.
Ultimately, trail centres are nice to have, but they are not essential for mountain biking. If purpose built trails start annexing land that includes areas existing riders are already using that's not OK. Even if existing riders aren't using it yet, I still don't think it's OK.
Maybe someone can explain for me, does this interpretation of access rights suggest outdoor recreation can't be monetised at all? Is there any level of investment and work on trail building that would make it appropriate?
I'd love more open access in England but we have bike parks where it doesn't seem unreasonable they should charge for access. There's plenty of places with public paths next to or through places you'd otherwise pay to access, and yes it's quite easy to sneak in without paying if you want to but that's a problem for the owner rather than visitors.
I get concerns about access rights being eroded but were they ever intended to cover purpose built facilities?
Maybe someone can explain for me, does this interpretation of access rights suggest outdoor recreation can’t be monetised at all?
The access code suggests it can:
The main places where access rights do not apply are:
...
* visitor attractions or other places which charge for entry
When the Land Reform Act was being introduced, land that already had an access charge was exempted from open access. A local example being the Highland Wildlife Park. Anyone who wants to build something new needs to have land redesignated and that would be part of the planning process, subject to the usual review system. Paul Lister had a plan to build an enclosed wolf sanctuary covering hundreds of acres. That failed, partly due to his requirement to fence that all off.
Morally, I can see the sense in being able to generate an income to support new facilities, but that needs to be carefully weighed against the restrictions it would introduce and needs to go through the approval process.
@scotroutes has it - you cannot just fence off an area and declare it private or paid access. There is a full planning process and permissions system that has to be gone through - and it is/has been used to both allow charging and refuse large scale 'fence off an area and keep folk out' proposals.
The exception is the immediate surrounds / gardens, reasons of health and safety or protecting vulnerable groups. So you can restrict access to a school grounds or a working factory yard or the garden of the house. It is covered well and there is precedent for this in cases and in agreements made.
As an aside, I've already had a conversation with someone at Cairngorm Mountain about the statement in their FAQ that flying a drone over the bike park is forbidden. That's wrong too as a sub-250g drone would be perfectly legal. (Tricky place to fly one though, due to fences and tow cables.).
As an aside, I’ve already had a conversation with someone at Cairngorm Mountain about the statement in their FAQ that flying a drone over the bike park is forbidden.
Do have a chat with Historic Scotland who have 'no drones' signs everywhere....
Thanks for the responses, so they're trying to restrict access entirely without following the processes that exist to manage that?
Yep. Wasn't part of the planning approval so folk couldn't object. In this case I put that down to ignorance rather than malfeasance.
sounds like you guys need the services of one of those youtube 'auditors'...
At Cairn Gorm it's the potential for slippage that bothers me Mctrail rider says that he used the access trail then went on to the MTB trails not the uplift conveyor belt which I think doesn't take you all the way anyway. If people use the access trail to reach other areas they shouldn't be charged, that's the status quo at the moment but could it change?
I'll have to go and try it out because the actual trails look like something I might enjoy.
Otherwise it's the potential to set a precedent which might be followed in other areas that really concerns me. I often cycle on the whw for example. It's also maintained and in places completely rerouted.
I suspect that bit in the vid is a junior employee not understanding the rules or badly briefed.
It would be interesting to see the response from senior management when challenged
Senior Management are (currently) of the opinion that the trails can't be used without payment.
Senior Management are (currently) of the opinion that the trails can’t be used without payment.
Be interesting to see what they'd do if someone decided they were going to ride the trails despite what senior management thought.
Call the police?
Oh wow, just watched the vid. Given the success of taking our 5yr old down Laggan Green (having towed him up manually 🙄) those look ideal! With the added bonus of a ride on the funky elevator looking thing 😎
Sorry, I'm going to undermine everybody's concerns and gladly hand over some cash 😂
Sorry, I’m going to undermine everybody’s concerns and gladly hand over some cash 😂
Don't think anyone's got any concerns about paying for uplift.
If ever Parkswatch Nick was to get his knickers in a twist, then this would be it....
It will be a short lived issue. The top 1m of all the berms will be bulldozed ready for winter, as that area is the beginner area, hence the "magic carpets".
Incredible short-sightedness from HIE, who paid for trails to be built this year, and will need to rebuild them again next year... You couldn't make it up.
Senior Management are (currently) of the opinion that the trails can’t be used without payment.
Needs a challenge then. courts if nessasary
Needs a challenge then. courts if nessasary
Would need someone to care enough. Most people who just want to get across the land from A-B will follow a simple diversion which would be safer than having cyclist flying at you anyway. So the only people who will really care enough to make a fuss are people who want to make a point (but presumably the result of that point would be anyone trying to restrict access must follow the proper process - theres nothing to suggest that creation of a paid facility is and of itself illegal) or would be people who want to make their own way to the top and ride it without permission. Most of them will just turn up when no staff are around - but no doubt someone will feel entitled to a free ride at peak time because they think they know what the LRA says. I wouldn't bank on a Sheriff taking the same view!
I think there's already precedence - there are trails and skills parks with heavily signposted "Bikes only" "No walking" "One way" "No horses" signs etc. I haven't heard cyclists protesting that these routes were having their wider access rights eroded - some of the grumbling I've heard from local dog walkers etc has been shot down with "these paths were specifically built for MTB or reinforced so the rest of the paths are better for you". Now I'd probably rather it was achieved as an uplift charge and a "tax" on parking, but I don't think a paid skills loop is really stopping the public from accessing the area in general.
I wouldn’t bank on a Sheriff taking the same view!
Would the sheriff care?
Surely all you're doing if you ride the trails despite the staff telling you to go away is trespass which is a civil matter.
No trespass in Scotland ?
I think there’s already precedence – there are trails and skills parks with heavily signposted “Bikes only” “No walking” “One way” “No horses” signs etc.
None of which have any legal standing by my understanding but are purely advisory - and I have never seen such signs at any trail centre. ~the ones at GT appear to be advisory? It could be its a breach of the "reasonableness" test however
Its one of the bits that I don't think has ever been tested in court to give a definitive answer. Are MTB trails " land set aside for specific purpose" I think is the wording
Edit: there are others here who know more about how the LRA works. Hopefully one comments further
In the case of the likes of Glentress the signs have no absolute legal authority. However, their existence might be important if it was required to establish blame in the case of a collision. Walk up a marked MTB trail, get hit by a descending cyclist, and it's going to fail the "reasonable" test. If the same happened on a marked walkers trail then one would expect the cyclist to be found to be at fault.
Either way, it has nothing to do with the situation at Cairngorm Mountain as the discussion is around free vs paid access, not the user type making use of the access.
I'm unlikely to go to use the new trails, but it wouldn't be out of the question for me to be descending in that general direction, coming off the plateau. Would I divert onto them, maybe/maybe not. As in my first post, I'm more concerned that it sets a precedent. If CM think they can control access to "built" facilities then what's to stop them putting up "No Cycling" signs on the Windy Ridge path, or from the Ptarmigan up to the summit? Or, taking it slightly further afield, Anders Povlsen looks at his lovely new gravel track linking Tromie and Feshie and decides to charge cyclists?
Ta
I was hoping you would post
I would think it would go the way of previous legal cases e.g. Clive Freshwater. If you can establish a historical right of way has existed then the landowner cannot close off the route or charge for access. That’s what the campaigners are trying to establish for the Dalwhinnie private level crossing. The right to traverse from Feshie to Tromie has been used for many years prior to the new gravel double track.
Clive Freshwater proved that people had travelled down the Spey for many years so the Knockando estate couldn’t stop him from running his canoe trips. Same principle. I’m sure any landowner would be advised not to take a case like that to court. The Police would only be concerned with criminal law not civil stuff I’d presume. So I’m sure you could ride down these tracks as long as you’re not damaging anything and not causing a hazard to others. However if there is a path running parallel to the facility you could use for access it may seem unreasonable.
As in my first post, I’m more concerned that it sets a precedent.
without a legal case decided in their favour surely it does not set precedent?
I fully expect that the Cairngorm trails will prove to be a commercial failure- Laggan and Glenlivet will take more serious riders, and they will largely price themselves out of the tourist market. They might get a few families coming to get one or two kids a half day while on holiday, but people will very quickly realise that they can ride for free elsewhere.
without a legal case decided in their favour surely it does not set legal precedent?
Subtle difference.
They might get a few families coming to get one or two kids a half day while on holiday,
That's what brings money into an area. All the "serious" riders are tooling about in vans, eating and sleeping in car parks and spending as little as possible in local businesses. Families do this kind of thing, spend money in cafes then go off and do something else touristy in the afternoon.
People are pumping money into facilities, why shouldn't we have to pay to use them?
To me, this is a completely different topic to open access. It's not like we are suddenly being charged for access to something that already existed. I take it you can still get through this area without using these trails? If so, is your access really being impeded by this?
The sad truth is this facility would be more accessible, weather-proof on a daily basis and usable all year if it were built down in Glenmore near the Hayfield. The same with the (now abandoned) plan to put a dryslope on Windy Ridge.
Back in the 90s Cairngorm should have relocated the base station to Glenmore and installed a Gondola. Don't get me started on the Funicular debacle...
To me, this is a completely different topic to open access. It’s not like we are suddenly being charged for access to something that already existed. I take it you can still get through this area without using these trails? If so, is your access really being impeded by this?
What about if a landowner put in a new path up a mountain and then demanded payment for access to that path? Would you deem that reasonable?
Its a test of the LRA - there is a mechanism in place in the LRA to make it legal. They have not used this mechanism.
the usual way landowners get round this is to pay for carparking or uplift given that payment to access land is unacceptable under the LRA
It’s not the same. These new trails not a means of access, they are a means of entertainment.
In my view it’s the same as being able to freely walk around a golf course but having to pay to play golf there
BadlyWiredDog
Full MemberIsn’t the question more about whether centres like the Seven Stanes will be tempted to introduce charges for using the trails? I can’t see that it’s going to have any impact on wider access.
The stanes and other forestry commission venues are a special case, since it's publically owned land, and the FC has a statutory obligation to support recreational use of their forests, which has a ton of political support (if sadly not financial support) because councils and MSPs and MPs all know it makes a bunch of money, just not for the venues. TBF it's a subject we do well not to poke at too much- I cringe a bit every time someone says "does all my parking money at glentress go to the trails" frinstance, because the stanes cost more to build and run than they're ever going to take in with parking fees, and we'd be much worse off it it were on some strictly monetarised model of access fees or parking fees to pay for it.
(yes yes I know, lots of that money gets pissed away on visitor's centres at the bottom of a hole, and not enough goes on the trails. But that wouldn't be any different if it was all self-funding, they'd be spending even more on barriers and cake shops. The current model just about works, sort of, and any other model's not likely to work better. If nothing else it's the only way we get million pound investments with no real return-on-investment plans)
Basically pay-to-play venues create an extra route by which we might get trails. I can't see it's a bad thing? It's harder to do in Scotland probably since free and cheap access is already so damn good. The Cairngorm thing doesn't look great to me, twas ever thus with Cairngorm, but it just wouldn't have happened if they didn't have a funding model they like.
Clubby - all they need to do is follow the process to make it possible to charge to ride. Its possible to do so under the LRA. they haven't done so so they cannot charge to ride.
I don't think many of us think that they should not be able to charge to ride - but they have to follow the legal route to do so
I don’t think many of us think that they should not be able to charge to ride – but they have to follow the legal route to do so
Fair enough, but I think there are a huge number of riders that just expect to be allowed to ride anywhere they want for free, citing LRA as justification.
There are also huge numbers of people that would complain about anything Cairngorm did regardless. I’m not a fan, but seems like they’re damned if they do, damned if they don’t.
Fair enough, but I think there are a huge number of riders that just expect to be allowed to ride anywhere they want for free, citing LRA as justification.
and they would be right unless the correct legal process has been gone thru and as long as their behaviour is reasonable
The general mountain biker’s version of reasonable is very different to other peoples.
Tbe first week Tarland opened, riders were parking up farmers lanes to get closer to the trails they wanted to ride and avoid paying the car park. This was despite passing 4 signs asking them not to park up there.
Is there any reliable data on what a "general" mountain biker is? If I was to go with personal experience only a tiny portion are trail centre riders, which obviously wouldnt be a reasonable overall assessment. Not a dig, genuinely curious.
We are looking forward as a family to checking this out next year as part of a wander round in our campervan. Will April be too early up that way?
Not sure. There's normally an effort made to keep the ski runs open through the Easter holidays and if there's enough snow still at that level (they have a snow factory too) then I can see that there might be a window where (as already pointed out) there is some MTB trail re-construction to be done before they can be opened. I'd say you just need to see nearer the time. Follow CM on Facebook for updates, or just PM me and I'll see what I know/can find out at the time.
and I have never seen such signs at any trail centre
Callander trails have these signs. They built dedicated mountain bike trails then had a lot of problems with walkers and runners, usually running up the trails so a real risk of a head on collision. They put up signs explicitly saying no pedestrians on the bike trails. From memory I think Glassie Bike Park has similar signs
To be able to restrict access, you need planning permission to change the land use. It's why you can't just rock up to any golf course and (legally) have a round of golf for free. Technically you don't even have a legal right to walk across a golf course, however for most courses, they have a fairly relaxed approach, and there are often legal rights of way across golf courses anyway.
That is why AFAIK Cairngorm can't legally prevent you from using the trails, as they have not gone to the expense of getting the required planning. Although I do wonder if there is something historic whereby they can restrict access. Just because they haven't restricted access in the past, doesn't mean that such a restriction doesn't exist, although I have no idea how enforcing the restriction after several years would actually pan out legally.
Something else touched on in this thread is purpose built trails.
If a trail is purpose built, then under the outdoor access legislation, you only legally have right of access to use the trail for it's built purpose. I.e. if it's a purpose built bicycle trail, you only have right of access on a bicycle. You have no right of access to walk it, or ride a horse on it.
However it's one area that nobody is likely to be prosecuted for due to the lack of trespass laws, just like nobody is likely to be prosecuted for just walking through someone's garden.
Restricting access was something I looked at a few years ago, as I was asked to see if a dedicated pay for use freeride type area would be commercially viable. The short answer was no, unless you wanted to risk a lot of money/had a lot of money to burn, but getting the permission to legally restrict access was probably one of the easier problems that would need addressed.
Technically you don’t even have a legal right to walk across a golf course,
Its not s simple as that - you can cross a course to get somewhere but you must not interfere with the folk playing a game by my reading. You can walk on the edge or ride your bike if its the route to somewhere. You cannot go on the greens. I have been told this by a green keeper who wanted me off the access path but knew I actually had the right to cross as I was doing
If a trail is purpose built, then under the outdoor access legislation, you only legally have right of access to use the trail for it’s built purpose. I.e. if it’s a purpose built bicycle trail, you only have right of access on a bicycle. You have no right of access to walk it, or ride a horse on it.
ONly if the land is designated as such for purposes of the LRA by my understanding and none of the seven stanes are. this is a point that would need to be tested in court to be definitive and to the best of my knowledge has not been. Its perfectly legal to walk on the MTB trails in the seven stanes. It might fail the reasonableness test but without a court case we simply do not know
As you state - it is possible to legally restrict access but that needs to be done properly. Its not automatic on building a path or anything else
I've seen it, it's for toddlers.
you can cross a course to get somewhere but you must not interfere with the folk playing a game by my reading. You can walk on the edge or ride your bike if its the route to somewhere.
Not disagreeing, but the problem with the wording in the LRA is it's unbelievably vague. From memory it says you can't exercise your access rights on land set aside for a specific recreational purpose when in use.
A golf course in use is much easier to walk across than a football pitch with a match in progress, or a tennis court in the middle of a game
It also doesn't define that the land set aside for a recreational purpose has to be a commercial entity.
Thinking about bike races, the organisers have to get a section 11 order which temporarily restricts access to the areas that will be uses in the race, and that applies to bikers, walkers, horse riders etc that might normally be using the trails.
Legally, I don't think the uncertainty will ever be resolved and even then it will never be definitive as "recreational purpose" land is such a wide range of scenarios that one legal ruling would never cover every eventuality
ONly if the land is designated as such for purposes of the LRA by my understanding and none of the seven stanes are.
Chapter 2, Section 6,1,e,ii -
(e)which has been developed or set out—
(i)as a sports or playing field; or
(ii)for a particular recreational purpose;
( https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2003/2/part/1/chapter/2 )
It's something that is not likely to be tested in criminal court, as not having a legal right of access isn't a crime in itself. You'd have to to do something that would warrant something like a breach of the peace charge for it to reach that stage.
It's far more likely to be used as a factor in a civil case.
With golf courses then I stop out of line of sight if possible when they are taking their shot. Wait until they are passed before crossing the fairway etc thus I am not interrupting their game thus I am IMO acting reasonably under the LRA
I think Trump tried to stop folk walking on the aberdeenshire course but got told he couldn't so long as they acted reasonably and were passing thru. Been court cases on that IIRC
Yes MC but does that apply to the seven stanes? I do not believe it does and crossing golf courses is certainly OK if its your route to somewhere - that has been tested in court I think
the signs at glentress are only advisory. It might fail the reasonableness test not to follow them or it might not.
otherwise anyone building a footpath could declare it land set aside for a particular recreational purpose and ban cyclists from using it which would be an obvious nonsense
Its not as definitive as you seem to think and without being tested in court we will never know. I have been challenged on golf courses riding my bike. I told the golf course emplyee i was exercising my access rights and he agreed that so long as I did not interrupt a game, kept to the edges where possible and off the greens then actually i could do so
'edit: Obviously walking across a football pitch during a game when there is any easy way round would not be acceptable reasonable access. Equally obviously building a path and stating it land set aside only for walking would not be an acceptable restriction. between the two its a grey area .
Thanks Scotroutes 🙂
Access aside, what a bloody mess! Bad as Glencoe or , dare I say it Fort William.
tjagain
Full Member
I think Trump tried to stop folk walking on the aberdeenshire course but got told he couldn’t so long as they acted reasonably and were passing thru. Been court cases on that IIRC
He used a fancy house when he used to visit, folk were walking up his drive and banging on his windows. Only time I have had any sympathy for him.
Yes MC but does that apply to the seven stanes? I do not believe it does and crossing golf courses is certainly OK if its your route to somewhere – that has been tested in court I think
the signs at glentress are only advisory. It might fail the reasonableness test not to follow them or it might not.
otherwise anyone building a footpath could declare it land set aside for a particular recreational purpose and ban cyclists from using it which would be an obvious nonsense
I've not got time to argue with you, but there are more purpose built trails than the 7 Stanes.
However to answer that specific question, it does and it doesn't.
Trails that were built before the LRA, are a bit dubious as the whole purpose built facilities legal wording didn't appear until the LRA, so it could be argued that when they were built, they were not legally a purpose built trail.
Anything first used after the LRA, the LRA does apply, however it's never been tested in court (plus see my previous comment about what you could actually be charged with).
However the latest trails at Glentress do have full planning permission as purpose built trails, but again if you walk up them, what are you actually going to be charged with? It's just like walking through somebody's private garden, you don't have a legal right of access, but with the absence of a Scottish trespass law, the possible charges are very limited.
And yes, somebody could potentially build a dedicated footpath, and ban cyclists/horse riders from it, but again, what are you going to get charged with if you do ride it?
It's also why what would historically be called cycle paths, the relevant bodies are very careful to use the term multi-use paths in anything official.
Ultimately for a lot of access, it comes down to don't be a dick.
Ultimately for a lot of access, it comes down to don’t be a dick.
Absolutely - the basic principle of the LRA
What about if a landowner put in a new path up a mountain and then demanded payment for access to that path? Would you deem that reasonable?
im not actually convinced that would be unlawful. Of course they couldn’t put a path up the mountain and then block all other routes up the mountain but they could put a route that was designated for a specific purpose and charge for that purpose. Commercially of course that would be insane - because you could simply walk up a different route…
Its a test of the LRA – there is a mechanism in place in the LRA to make it legal. They have not used this mechanism.
actually the point being made is that potentially they have - simply by designating the land as being for a specific recreational purpose it may no longer be access land. I don’t think the LRA was intended to stop land owners from commercially developing their land and charging users for access to those commercial facilities.
As long as that restriction was made clear during the planning process and open to public objections...
have they charged for access before 2001 and each year after that for at least 90 days for that particular area?
No.
There has never been any charge for access to that area.
any proof that they didn't get permission to charge or get the land access changed?
They would have to have consulted with the Cairngorms National Park, Highlands Council, Local Access Forum, Nature's it, probably Scotways too, as well as any other local user groups potentially affected so I'm sure it would have hit the news and someone like Scotroutes would have been aware of it. It should have been a condition of planning permission to have approval if the planning authority knew what they should be doing. And then the relevant authority would need to make an order to suspend them.
I looked into this in regards to removing access rights in large areas being fenced of, and charged for admission, for dog exercise areas in that were previously open access countryside, but these didn't actually have any existing routes on them, not even informal ones, they were just open hill.
It is a bit bonkers because if you get PP to build some other facility/buildings/compound/works storage area the rights are automatically suspended for that area, assuming you're not having to deal with a core path , PROW or evidence comes to light of a PROW that runs through it. So, hypothetically a big indoor BMX/skate/jump park. But then PP word be a whole different issue.