Today's most viewed
Ramblers’ right to roam victory
RAMBLERS in Scotland claimed a historic victory yesterday after a sheriff ruled that a millionaire businessman was not allowed to seal off most of his 70-acre estate.
Euan Snowie, 40, argued that he should be allowed to restrict access to Boquhan Estate in
Stirlingshire, for the security of family and tenants.
The waste disposal magnate and his wife, Claire, installed electronic remote-controlled gates to prevent car access and locked a pedestrian gate on the west of the estate.
But, in a major affirmation of Scotland's "right to roam" legislation, Sheriff Andrew Cubie decreed that the 46-acre area which the Snowies wanted to restrict was excessive and that
15 acres around their £4m mansion would safeguard the family's security and enjoyment.
In his written judgment, the sheriff ruled evidence suggesting there was a security threat was "wholly unreliable" and the section of land "far too much". He criticised Mr Snowie's interpretation of the 2003 Land Reform Act.
Dennis Canavan, the former MSP and president of Ramblers Scotland, said: "This result sends a message to all landowners of big estates that people are entitled to walk on land provided they are acting in accordance with the Scottish Outdoor Access Code."
It is the second major test of the act. Stagecoach founder Ann Gloag was the first private landowner in Scotland to seek exemption from the law last year and succeeded in her application to ban ramblers from the grounds of Kinfauns Castle in Perthshire.
A legal representative for the Snowies declined to comment but the couple have the right to appeal following a further hearing on May 13.
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: Graham, Glasgow on 10:50pm Wed 23 Apr 08
Poor Euan he was obviously not related to the Gloogs and Sooter Johnie. Friends of the Socialist SNP.[bold]bold[/bold]
Poor Euan he was obviously not related to the Gloogs and Sooter Johnie. Friends of the Socialist SNP.
Posted by: Wardog, Buckie on 11:31pm Wed 23 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Graham[/bold] wrote:
Poor Euan he was obviously not related to the Gloogs and Sooter Johnie. Friends of the Socialist SNP.[bold]bold[/bold] [/quote]
Are you suggesting that the law courts are corrupt?
Graham wrote:
Poor Euan he was obviously not related to the Gloogs and Sooter Johnie. Friends of the Socialist SNP.
Are you suggesting that the law courts are corrupt?
Posted by: tris, scotland on 11:52pm Wed 23 Apr 08
Gloag's grounds are just a wee garden in comparison to this man who has hundreds of acres. His [italic]garden[/italic] is being made private. His extended estate is not.
Gloag's grounds are just a wee garden in comparison to this man who has hundreds of acres. His
garden is being made private. His extended estate is not.
Posted by: Happy Harry, Glasgow on 11:56pm Wed 23 Apr 08
He is very good friend of socialist NuLabour who he gave a nice big donation to after being awarded a multi million pound contract to dispose of dead cattle during the foot and mouth outbreak.
He is very good friend of socialist NuLabour who he gave a nice big donation to after being awarded a multi million pound contract to dispose of dead cattle during the foot and mouth outbreak.
Posted by: Colin B, Bearsden on 12:02am Thu 24 Apr 08
What a poor judgement based on personalities, ignoring precedent elsewhere and trying to suppress one party's right to introduce evidence helpful to his case rather Cubie was found siding for the other party's solicitor( his colleague in the Law Society- another dark day for Scots Law
What a poor judgement based on personalities, ignoring precedent elsewhere and trying to suppress one party's right to introduce evidence helpful to his case rather Cubie was found siding for the other party's solicitor( his colleague in the Law Society- another dark day for Scots Law
Posted by: Graham, Glasgow on 12:24am Thu 24 Apr 08
Wardugg,11:31. Nein Mein Wardugg. How could they be corrupt. We are a Democracy![bold]bold[/bold]
Wardugg,11:31. Nein Mein Wardugg. How could they be corrupt. We are a Democracy!
Posted by: Donald Anderson, glasgow on 6:53am Thu 24 Apr 08
Nationalise Scottish Land.
Nationalise Scottish Land.
Posted by: mulross, Glasgow on 10:59am Thu 24 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Colin B[/bold] wrote:
What a poor judgement based on personalities, ignoring precedent elsewhere and trying to suppress one party's right to introduce evidence helpful to his case rather Cubie was found siding for the other party's solicitor( his colleague in the Law Society- another dark day for Scots Law[/quote] What "precedent" are you referring to Colin? The previous case of Ann Gloag only entitled her to something like 12 acres of privacy around her house. In this case the Snowies are still being allowed 15 acres of privacy aroudn their house?
This is a family with 2 children demanding [bold] 70 acres[/bold] of privacy for themselves, which would result in members of the public ,who have had access to the ground for years, being barred. If the Snowies had won their case, then [bold]that[/bold] would have been a very dark day for both Scots Law and Scottish Democracy.
Colin B wrote:
What a poor judgement based on personalities, ignoring precedent elsewhere and trying to suppress one party's right to introduce evidence helpful to his case rather Cubie was found siding for the other party's solicitor( his colleague in the Law Society- another dark day for Scots Law
What "precedent" are you referring to Colin? The previous case of Ann Gloag only entitled her to something like 12 acres of privacy around her house. In this case the Snowies are still being allowed 15 acres of privacy aroudn their house?
This is a family with 2 children demanding
70 acres of privacy for themselves, which would result in members of the public ,who have had access to the ground for years, being barred. If the Snowies had won their case, then
that would have been a very dark day for both Scots Law and Scottish Democracy.
Posted by: Toophingers, Bellshill. on 1:31pm Thu 24 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Graham[/bold] wrote:
Wardugg,11:31. Nein Mein Wardugg. How could they be corrupt. We are a Democracy![bold]bold[/bold] [/quote] A democracy, Graham? Government of the people by the people or their elected representatives.?
Who elected the funny hats and ermined Lords? Or the royals and their countless hangers-on?
China has more right to claim to be a democracy.
Graham wrote:
Wardugg,11:31. Nein Mein Wardugg. How could they be corrupt. We are a Democracy!
A democracy, Graham? Government of the people by the people or their elected representatives.?
Who elected the funny hats and ermined Lords? Or the royals and their countless hangers-on?
China has more right to claim to be a democracy.
Posted by: john bennett, Glasgow on 1:58pm Thu 24 Apr 08
Hey Warduggy
Be better if we walled in this pack of chancers . preferably on a permanent basis.
Hey Warduggy
Be better if we walled in this pack of chancers . preferably on a permanent basis.
Posted by: interstellarmince, outer-space on 2:11pm Thu 24 Apr 08
When Scotland becomes independent the land must return to the nation. What individuals have the right to own vast swathes of land?
When Scotland becomes independent the land must return to the nation. What individuals have the right to own vast swathes of land?
Posted by: Landowner, Edinburgh on 2:21pm Thu 24 Apr 08
[quote][bold]mulross[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Colin B[/bold] wrote: What a poor judgement based on personalities, ignoring precedent elsewhere and trying to suppress one party's right to introduce evidence helpful to his case rather Cubie was found siding for the other party's solicitor( his colleague in the Law Society- another dark day for Scots Law[/quote] What "precedent" are you referring to Colin? The previous case of Ann Gloag only entitled her to something like 12 acres of privacy around her house. In this case the Snowies are still being allowed 15 acres of privacy aroudn their house? This is a family with 2 children demanding [bold] 70 acres[/bold] of privacy for themselves, which would result in members of the public ,who have had access to the ground for years, being barred. If the Snowies had won their case, then [bold]that[/bold] would have been a very dark day for both Scots Law and Scottish Democracy.[/quote] The Snowies obviously bought the land so their children could enjoy a small potion of the countryside for walking, horseriding etc. in private. They did NOT buy it so that so-called ramblers, local teenagers, doggers etc could enjoy it. It is a natural human instinct to protect what is rightfully yours. Why do ramblers need to encroach on private estates when Scotland is home to many Public or National Parks? Scottish law is not in line with the rest of the world. In Spain Russian landowners put up 10' fences and have armed guards protecting them. In the US no doubt trespassers would be shot in most states. If the general public of Scotland want to roam why don't they buy their own land? If they can't afford it, "tough", they should roam on public land.
mulross wrote:
Colin B wrote: What a poor judgement based on personalities, ignoring precedent elsewhere and trying to suppress one party's right to introduce evidence helpful to his case rather Cubie was found siding for the other party's solicitor( his colleague in the Law Society- another dark day for Scots Law
What "precedent" are you referring to Colin? The previous case of Ann Gloag only entitled her to something like 12 acres of privacy around her house. In this case the Snowies are still being allowed 15 acres of privacy aroudn their house? This is a family with 2 children demanding 70 acres of privacy for themselves, which would result in members of the public ,who have had access to the ground for years, being barred. If the Snowies had won their case, then that would have been a very dark day for both Scots Law and Scottish Democracy.
The Snowies obviously bought the land so their children could enjoy a small potion of the countryside for walking, horseriding etc. in private. They did NOT buy it so that so-called ramblers, local teenagers, doggers etc could enjoy it. It is a natural human instinct to protect what is rightfully yours. Why do ramblers need to encroach on private estates when Scotland is home to many Public or National Parks? Scottish law is not in line with the rest of the world. In Spain Russian landowners put up 10' fences and have armed guards protecting them. In the US no doubt trespassers would be shot in most states. If the general public of Scotland want to roam why don't they buy their own land? If they can't afford it, "tough", they should roam on public land.
Posted by: interstellarmince, outer-space on 2:52pm Thu 24 Apr 08
The above post by 'Landowner' shows why it's imperative to take ALL the non-farming land back into public hands. Selfish greed and arrogance have no place in an independent Scotland with fairness and living space for all. Landowner and his creed have no place in the social structure of our nation.
The above post by 'Landowner' shows why it's imperative to take ALL the non-farming land back into public hands. Selfish greed and arrogance have no place in an independent Scotland with fairness and living space for all. Landowner and his creed have no place in the social structure of our nation.
Posted by: Los Angeles, Edinburgh on 3:36pm Thu 24 Apr 08
Landowner Pal of General Franco[quote]The Snowies obviously bought the land so their children could enjoy a small potion of the countryside for walking, horseriding etc. in private.[/quote]This is the only factual and pleasant sentence I can quote from your entire post, so obnoxious are the rest of your comments.
We love your genteel use of the phrase "small portion."
[bold]That "small portion" will be why the rest of us are stacked on top of each other in city tenements.[/bold]
Landowner Pal of General Franco
The Snowies obviously bought the land so their children could enjoy a small potion of the countryside for walking, horseriding etc. in private.
This is the only factual and pleasant sentence I can quote from your entire post, so obnoxious are the rest of your comments.
We love your genteel use of the phrase "small portion."
That "small portion" will be why the rest of us are stacked on top of each other in city tenements.
Posted by: mulross, Glasgow on 3:50pm Thu 24 Apr 08
Spot on L.A.. Pity that the Snowies are so keen to prevent their children from mixing with the local riff-raff, as their kids might grow up to be slightly less obnoxious than their parents and their ilk
Spot on L.A.. Pity that the Snowies are so keen to prevent their children from mixing with the local riff-raff, as their kids might grow up to be slightly less obnoxious than their parents and their ilk
Posted by: Lobeydosser, Woodlands Road on 5:51pm Thu 24 Apr 08
The whole thing is a balance, you cant have the land in public ownership unless there is a need for it to be so, just taking it back for some political issue is not justified, unless you live in Zimbabwe and are a supporter of ZANU/PF.
Also Mr Landowner's views are well off the mark unless you are one of the Russia mafia and I do not think Scotland is out of step with the rest of the world and may lead it in this field (excuse the pun)
Most estates are hundreds if not thousands of acres in size, but most estate houses have about 10 acres or so around them as private land, and the court has reflected this; unfortunately Mr Snowie is unhappy with the result but that's the way it goes. Access to the land beyond the estate house private land is usually controlled for a particular reason at different times of the year (lambing, beating or stalking), but access is normally allowed providing you are sensible about it.
I do sympathise with Mr Snowie to an extent because if you have been in the Ardvorlich House area, on the South Lochearn road, fishermen have literally turned the south shore of Lochearn into a s**t hole with human excrement and used toilet paper everywhere. This is within the view of the windows of Ardvorlich House and the owners can do nothing about it because of some legal loophole; I am sure some of you posters are laughing at this but it is disgusting - it is beside the road too.
The whole thing is a balance, you cant have the land in public ownership unless there is a need for it to be so, just taking it back for some political issue is not justified, unless you live in Zimbabwe and are a supporter of ZANU/PF.
Also Mr Landowner's views are well off the mark unless you are one of the Russia mafia and I do not think Scotland is out of step with the rest of the world and may lead it in this field (excuse the pun)
Most estates are hundreds if not thousands of acres in size, but most estate houses have about 10 acres or so around them as private land, and the court has reflected this; unfortunately Mr Snowie is unhappy with the result but that's the way it goes. Access to the land beyond the estate house private land is usually controlled for a particular reason at different times of the year (lambing, beating or stalking), but access is normally allowed providing you are sensible about it.
I do sympathise with Mr Snowie to an extent because if you have been in the Ardvorlich House area, on the South Lochearn road, fishermen have literally turned the south shore of Lochearn into a s**t hole with human excrement and used toilet paper everywhere. This is within the view of the windows of Ardvorlich House and the owners can do nothing about it because of some legal loophole; I am sure some of you posters are laughing at this but it is disgusting - it is beside the road too.
Posted by: ella, ontario on 6:43pm Thu 24 Apr 08
So Mr Snowie wanted to restrict 70 acres which he bought and owned and was told by the judge that 15 acres only was sufficient for public restriction.
Why, in 2008 can one wealthy (non Royal)individual be allowed to have this much acreage sold to him, in such a small country too.
The law needs to limit the amount of land any one individual can privately own in a small country .
Technically speaking Mr Snowie is within the law but that has now been shaken up by this ruling.
The wealthy landowner isn't wrong ;the old landowning law is.
Does this apply to Royal estates too?
So Mr Snowie wanted to restrict 70 acres which he bought and owned and was told by the judge that 15 acres only was sufficient for public restriction.
Why, in 2008 can one wealthy (non Royal)individual be allowed to have this much acreage sold to him, in such a small country too.
The law needs to limit the amount of land any one individual can privately own in a small country .
Technically speaking Mr Snowie is within the law but that has now been shaken up by this ruling.
The wealthy landowner isn't wrong ;the old landowning law is.
Does this apply to Royal estates too?
Posted by: stevie, glasgow on 7:02pm Thu 24 Apr 08
Ella,Ontario.
I'm not sure about the law when it comes to the Royal estates.I can say that I am often in "Royal Deeside " hill walking and have never had any problems with access. I have known of people who have been asked not to walk in certain parts of the estates during the stalking season.
This is quite normal on shooting estates.
Ella,Ontario.
I'm not sure about the law when it comes to the Royal estates.I can say that I am often in "Royal Deeside " hill walking and have never had any problems with access. I have known of people who have been asked not to walk in certain parts of the estates during the stalking season.
This is quite normal on shooting estates.
Posted by: Lobeydosser, Woodlands Road on 7:15pm Thu 24 Apr 08
I agree with Stevie, there are large land owners who are not too bothered about people walking across the estate providing they are not walking through the garden or through the fields during lambing or if there is a shoot on.
All the hill walkers I know usually call hill phones or the forestry commission before going out to find out what is going on in the area they want to walk in; usuall a recorded message is left telling you where to avoid, so it is no problem.
People are getting hot under the collar for what may be a non-issue.
I agree with Stevie, there are large land owners who are not too bothered about people walking across the estate providing they are not walking through the garden or through the fields during lambing or if there is a shoot on.
All the hill walkers I know usually call hill phones or the forestry commission before going out to find out what is going on in the area they want to walk in; usuall a recorded message is left telling you where to avoid, so it is no problem.
People are getting hot under the collar for what may be a non-issue.
Posted by: JOHN MacGregor, LUMFANIN on 10:09pm Thu 24 Apr 08
70 acres on some farms is a small field. Public ownership !!! get real.
A cow with small calf is going to kill somebody shortly ,there have been a few near misses, then what ??? The general public are so ignorant to country life and some have no respect for next door nieghbours let alone farm animals .
70 acres on some farms is a small field. Public ownership !!! get real.
A cow with small calf is going to kill somebody shortly ,there have been a few near misses, then what ??? The general public are so ignorant to country life and some have no respect for next door nieghbours let alone farm animals .
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (20)
