Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003

Gazza

Well-Known Member
One of my farmers has recently had numerous run ins with local youths accessing his land basically to cause mayhem. Pregnant sheep disturbed, cattle pens opened allowing beasts out, setting fire to straw, tampering with machinery etc. Being an ex cop I am ashamed to say the Police response has been shocking. They seem to be intent on telling my farmer what he can't do rather than what he can and quoting the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 as a right to roam and that the Police are powerless to stop these ferral youths from doing as they please as regards accessing his land.
On behalf of the farmer I have been doing a bit writing to MSPs, Police, local Council, Community Councils. It should be very clear in whatever situation there is no right to roam, there is a right to responsible access. I was not aware that each Council have an appointed employee who "looks after" the running of this legislation and apparently can serve on any person who does not act responsibily in their access a prohibition notice. Worth remembering if you have "problems" with persons who believe that their "right to roam" can unneccesarily infringe on your right to stalk. Dogs in particular must be controlled and in most aspects kept on a leash.
 
Thanks Gazza that is a useful piece of information regarding the Council's having an employee 'looking after' the legislation.

Mulac
 
I'd love to contribute more to this thread but I'll resist the urge to explain in just how many different ways I think the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 is bad law.. It's misused, misrepresented, often misunderstood (on purpose) and causes more trouble, solving problems that didn't previously exist, than any other piece of legislation I can think of. I am convinced (all the more so now, as I see what I anticipated a decade ago start to unfold, just as I'd imagined) that it will take several generations to suffer and rectify all the nuisance it will cause.

p.s. The Council Employees.... they're called "Access Rangers" ... guess where their priorities lie.
 
Tamus, I don't think this legislation is a bad law as such but what needs enforced is the "responsible" part. I have accesssed the countryside all my life. Some with permission eg having shooting rights and other places where I have just walked. I totally respect that I am on somebody else's property and leave it as I find it. This I believe is the spirit of the legislation. Enjoy the countryside but do so with total respect and consideration. A landowner who observes somebody on his property not behaving himself should be able to order that person off and be back by the legislation and law enforcers.
 
From the behavior you are quoting, the act does not cover or allow for any of it, so the police are failing in their duty.
 
what is the maximum current you can run through an electric fence legally and while displaying the appropriate signs obviously. Because lets be honest they will touch it....
 
Tamus, I don't think this legislation is a bad law as such but what needs enforced is the "responsible" part. I have accesssed the countryside all my life. Some with permission eg having shooting rights and other places where I have just walked. I totally respect that I am on somebody else's property and leave it as I find it. This I believe is the spirit of the legislation. Enjoy the countryside but do so with total respect and consideration. A landowner who observes somebody on his property not behaving himself should be able to order that person off and be back by the legislation and law enforcers.

As an ex policeman you are no doubt aware that what you advocate is more or less how the law stood in Scotland
prior to to the country side access act , there was no trespass law unless causing damage, but you could be asked to leave, it was also possible to bring an injunction against habitual offender, IMO the law was OK as it was
no real problem for anyone walking in the country so long as they were behaving.
 
Tamus, I don't think this legislation is a bad law as such but what needs enforced is the "responsible" part. I have accesssed the countryside all my life. Some with permission eg having shooting rights and other places where I have just walked. I totally respect that I am on somebody else's property and leave it as I find it. This I believe is the spirit of the legislation. Enjoy the countryside but do so with total respect and consideration. A landowner who observes somebody on his property not behaving himself should be able to order that person off and be back by the legislation and law enforcers.

The Ann Gloag case and the Richard Attenborough debacle highlight two areas of difficulty. She had to fight her case (and win), i.e. that a wealthy person might have the right of exclusive access to a huge garden but He couldn't sell his property at the price an independent buyer was willing to pay because a local "community" put first dibs on his land and He lost, to the tune ofa large amount of money .


An owner is no longer "an owner". They are land managers, stake-holders and/or any of a list of other diminished categories of person and the sort of respect I imagine you would show for their property, though it is right and proper and decent of you to do so, is simply an anachronistic attitude NOT fostered by either the Act or SNH's guide.

I'll give you a little for instance, within the terms of the Act and the SNH guidleines, if someone wished to hold a Gymkhana on my land they would be obliged to liaise with me... but only insofar as necessary to discuss issues of practicality and safety, health and hygiene. i.e. how I might facilitate their access to my land, e.g. arrangements for parking and toilets and the likes, for which they would have no rights but would argue a reasonable need for.... can I tell them to just sugar off? Well, not really. I can require them to make good any damage and I can try and hold them liable if they don't... but which rider? the first or the hundred and first? What I most certainly cannot do is, out of hand, deny them any access whatsoever...

Now, can I picnic in any of their pretty gardens in return?.... well... NO Way! ... because although what's mine is now their's.. what their's is their own.

Do we want to start on the subject of the core-path network and the twenty year rule on the formation of rights of way?.... which effectively remove virtually all previously held rights from an owner for many pathways so created on his land.... The Late Duke of Buccleuch spoke honestly and accurately on the matter... it is simply a land grab.

The dissolution of Estates and the short termist profiteering of tenants in the process?.... I could go on and on but I'll stop.
 
Last edited:
Bad legislation badly applied with absolutely no teeth to enforce "responsible access". My advice is to document EVERY access issue, report each incident to the police and get it recorded and make sure you complain to the council access officer over every bonafide issue. This creates a paper trail that cannot be ignored forever.If things go quiet from the council deliver all your info and a strong letter or visit to your local MP's surgery. He will then usually send a letter to the council who will become more interested in resolving the problem. If not satisfied another visit to MP who sends a stronger letter and so on until your such a pain in the butt something may actually be done to help.
 
Hi Gazza,

Access officer for West Lothian is David Oldham. As you have correctly stated, individuals who pursue their right of access must do so responsibly therefore someone who drops litter, allows thier dog to defecate without picking it up while exerscing those access rights is not doing it responsibly. Therefore what your landowner is putting up with is unresponsible access. Should speak with David and have him pursue this on behalf of the farmer.
 
Hi Gazza,

Access officer for West Lothian is David Oldham. As you have correctly stated, individuals who pursue their right of access must do so responsibly therefore someone who drops litter, allows thier dog to defecate without picking it up while exerscing those access rights is not doing it responsibly. Therefore what your landowner is putting up with is unresponsible access. Should speak with David and have him pursue this on behalf of the farmer.

Yes have been in contact with him and to be honest he has been helpful as has the local MSP. The only people who have been less than helpful are the ones who should be doing something about the situation and that is the Police but I am assured that will change. Their understanding of farming, farmers and what is and is not responsible access is nil. Not only are these youths being irresponsible in their access they are also committing crimes of vandalism, costing money in lost stock (still born lambs) but all the Police want to do is warn the farmer about what he can't do. They are not on.
 
The Late Duke of Buccleuch spoke honestly and accurately on the matter... it is simply a land grab.

And I'm sure he would have known all about land grabs, isn't that the way his ancestors acquired enough to make him the owner of the most amount of private land in the UK?
 
Hi Gazza,

Access officer for West Lothian is David Oldham. As you have correctly stated, individuals who pursue their right of access must do so responsibly therefore someone who drops litter, allows thier dog to defecate without picking it up while exerscing those access rights is not doing it responsibly. Therefore what your landowner is putting up with is unresponsible access. Should speak with David and have him pursue this on behalf of the farmer.

And what will he do?? There is no sanction whatever to 'police' land access legislation. We are told it is a right of 'responsible'access....or what? Police aren't....and shouldn't be....interested. Another example of stupid, ill-considered, legislation introduced to solve a problem that didn't exist.
 
The law was introduced by a urban government as a political statement, just as the hunting act in England, both are a legal minefield for law enforcement and utterly useless.

I do not and never have hunted, but can see that it is not about animal welfare, but about perceived class war!
 
And what will he do?? There is no sanction whatever to 'police' land access legislation. We are told it is a right of 'responsible'access....or what? Police aren't....and shouldn't be....interested. Another example of stupid, ill-considered, legislation introduced to solve a problem that didn't exist.

You are correct that there is nothing written into the legislation to "police" land access but surely you only have the right to access if you act responsibly. Failing to act responsibly looses you the "right" and either the land owner or Police should be able to have you removed. In this instance these youths are commiting criminal acts and the Police certainly should be interested or at very least investigating these crimes but all they are coming away with is that they are powerless due to a right to access. There is something far wrong when a business man who pays his taxes etc is living in fear of his business being ruined through some asshole setting fire to his farm buildings etc and the Police warn him.
 
Just looking at my copy of the Outdoor Access Code, Section 6.14 " If a person's behavior is criminal , you should contact the police."
I would mention Aggravated trespass - Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 Section 68, Collective Trespass - Criminal Justice and Public Order Act Sec 61, Dropping of litter -Environmental Protection Act 1990 Sec 87, lighting fires - Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 Sec3 or Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 Sec56, Vandalisim - Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 Sec 78.
This is staight from the Access Code Book hope it helps with the Police.
 
My point exactly...all these offences are already part of existing substantive legislation, and if the police chose to act they could. The Land Reform Act/Outdoor Access Code in such cases is completely irrelevant and therefore worthless. The only function of an 'Access Officer' is to swell the ranks of useless public sector employees. It was a cynical piece of anti land-owner legislation and social engineering; all it did was create an illusion of so called rights without any responsibility from those who take those 'rights'. It will get worse.
 
Back
Top