UKC

Surely to goodness Mr and Mrs Brown could have tried to find a more constructive way of resolving this issue, instead of getting folk to "gang up" on the landowner. I can honestly say that I have never had any problems with landowners when out walking. However, I have seen plenty dog walkers letting their animals run all over the place, frightening wildlife such as ducks, deer and ptarmigan and on several occasions, chasing sheep!

In reply to Ann Teallach: I'm afraid you are misinformed on this one. The access issues on Ledgowan estate have been on the radar of the Local Access Forum almost since day one, who - along with Highland Council's Access Officer (the least "confrontational" individual you can ever hope to meet)- have been working to resolve problems to no avail. The estate management have consistently demonstrated an intransigent and confrontational attitude to absolutely everyone, from local residents,to visiting walkers, to neighbouring landowners - even Network Rail who have wayleave rights over estate grounds for track maintainance purposes. Highland Council have already had to take legal action over one issue involving deliberate blocking of a section of the public highway by the estate (the council workmen removing the obstruction had to have the security of a police presence while doing so). One of the much-criticized unsightly bulldozed tracks on the estate has been built up to just one metre from the boundary of an SSSI. The evidence is clear - Legowan estate are not interested in polite discussion with anybody.

Criminal proceedings may be brought against ledgowan by SEPA as a result of the landowners actions:

http://www.andywightman.com/?s=ledgowan

Obviously just because an investigation is taking place doesn't make the individual or organisation guilty. That is for the courts to decide should it get that far.

From what I've read and seen at Ledgowan, public criticism of the estate is entirely deserved.

In reply to Ann Teallach:

0/10

must try harder

In reply to Ann Teallach: If it is such a clear cut case, I would have thought a better place to protest would be outside the Highland Council, to ask why they have not raised a court action against the landowner. As for the track, I agree that it looks awful but if the owner was within his rights putting it there, time would be better spent contacting MPs/MSPs asking for a change in the law.

In reply to Ann Teallach:

Because it's better to address things through dialogue and not the courts. Unfortunately in this case the estate seems to have a hard line attitude.

In reply to Saor Alba: I wouldn't call what has been planned "dialogue"!

In reply to Ann Teallach:

Well look at the history then. SOAC is well established, hill walking is well established, good relations with walkers and landowners are well established. This estate is being difficult.

Personally I would be much harder on what large sporting estates but that is another subject.

In reply to Saor Alba: If the landlord is being as difficult and the matter as well documented as folk are making out, then I would be asking why on earth have Highland Council not gone ahead with a court action. It is not as if it is a first for them (case on the Black Isle involving access for horse riders).

In reply to Ann Teallach: In practice things tend to be a little more complicated. Taking a case to the Court of Session is expensive and Highland Council, like virtually every other, will not do this until everything else has been tried first. Unscrupulous landowners know this which allows them to exploit the situation. Also, as another large landowner with an estate not far from Ledgowan (and who is no fan of their management philosophy)once said to me, being obnoxious is not in itself a crime; the Council's advocate would have to prove to the satisfaction of the court that the behaviour of the estate owner/employees was specifically intended to discourage or prevent access, which is not as easy as it sounds. Given the intrasigence of the estate, I believe it will go to court eventually, it may just take some time.
As for bulldozed tracks, the SNP administration recently decided not to bring hill tracks into the planning system. No great surprise, as it is consistent with their general philosophy that "economic development" - however dubious - trumps all.

In reply to Removed Userrabthecairnterrier: I agree that Court actions can be expensive but I believe that the action here would be in the Sheriff Court and if successful, Highland Council could reclaim their costs from the landowner.

In reply to Ann Teallach:

It would be cheaper, for everyone, if this landowner just behaved in a reasonable manner. Failing that, a bit of public pressure will do no harm.

In reply to Saor Alba:

Correct. I was dismissive of their behaviour in another thread and it sounds like I shouldn't have been. Do they really think they will be able to reverse the last 50 years of access progress on their estate by being an arsehole?

In reply to Ann Teallach: Sheriff Court in the first instance, Court of Session if that judgement is contested. The case you mentioned earlier regarding access for horse riders on the Black Isle went to the Court of Session and the Council lost out, rendering them liable for the landowners costs. Part of the reson they lost was probably due to a decision to try and save a pound or two by not employing an advocate themselves and using their own legal dept, a tactic which backfired spectacularly. (That they lost at all was quite bizarre as the issue was pretty clear cut, but the judgement was final nonetheless.)If the Council resorted to the courts every time there was an access dispute it would cost a fortune and occupy their legal staff to the exclusion of other work. This is why the original legislation created a Local Access Forum for each area, a system which generally works well. Only when all other approaches have been exhausted will the Council resort to enforcement action (as has already happened at Ledgowan over the blocked road).

In reply to MG:

No, they won't succeed in reversing it, - but - just like Paul Lister up at Alladale - it doesn't mean they're not going to try.

In reply to Saor Alba:
It is quite remarkable how different the attitude is of the current landowner to the previous one. It was partly through the instigation of the previous owner (if I remember correctly) that the SSSI was established over part of the estate. It was also the same land owner who actively campaigned against the establishment of nearby windfarms.

Obviously estates will change hands but the contrast in attitude and interest in the environment of the new owner is quite striking sad.

In reply to RossJ:

Exactly and this exposes the skewed and weak system of land ownership in Scotland. Money buys you power and you can buy the land, destroy it by raising deer numbers, provide a few poorly paid and insecure jobs and use it in any way you see fit whilst harvesting subsidies and offsetting your supposed loss against tax.

It's remained pretty much unreformed for centuries. I see the Scottish Parliament is taking evidence on deer numbers today and the usual sporting estate guff is being spouted by people desperate to maintain their grip on a system which benefits them and very few others.