[448]
...
On the front page of today's Herald, it is reported that the Swiss owner of the island is to close it to the public. I have tried to find a link to this on the Herald website without success. Anybody got any more info?
Dave
Dave
Sanda
- Thread starter [448]
- Start date
Quandary
Well-Known Member
There is a bit more of the story on the inside pages. The Council advised the Swiss owner he would have to treat the drinking water used in his boutique hotel and his exclusive restaurant which apparently were open for almost two months last year. They said boiling would satisfy or they offered a grant for a treatment plant. He decided that instead he would close the island to all visitors and use it as a private retreat for him and his partner. I think he is accepting that he can not deny access to the beach but will not permit access to the pier or any other part of the island
From his history I suspect that this was always his plan.
Scottish 'right to roam' powers are stronger than he may have anticipated as only the private curtilage of dwellings are normally excluded so I reckon he hopes he has found a way to thwart them. I suspect he could not legally prevent you from walking across the island if you were prepared to brave the hostility, but it will probably be argued that much of the land around the cottages and lighthouse are private.
A Scuttlebutt expedition and beach party might be worth considering but the publicity today will probably encourage more strident protest.
From his history I suspect that this was always his plan.
Scottish 'right to roam' powers are stronger than he may have anticipated as only the private curtilage of dwellings are normally excluded so I reckon he hopes he has found a way to thwart them. I suspect he could not legally prevent you from walking across the island if you were prepared to brave the hostility, but it will probably be argued that much of the land around the cottages and lighthouse are private.
A Scuttlebutt expedition and beach party might be worth considering but the publicity today will probably encourage more strident protest.
Last edited:
[448]
...
Aye. I was so indignant about this that I posted after seeing the front page!
Still can't find a link on the website though.
If he carries out this threat(?), perhaps a flotilla and landing party could be organised.
Dave
Sgeir
Well-Known Member
Gardenshed on BlueMoment (http://www.bluemoment.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=7583) posted a link to today's Scotsman at http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/heritage/millionaire-closes-sanda-island-to-the-public-1-2818179.
oldbilbo
...
A latter-day Lord Brockett, methinks..... 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXW_hSjxTo0&playnext=1&list=PL74DD3231CD61440D&feature=results_main
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXW_hSjxTo0&playnext=1&list=PL74DD3231CD61440D&feature=results_main
bikedaft
Well-Known Member
We've had dealings with him before - can't find the thread now, but there was a sign up saying residents only. Council access officer were helpful. Will be heading past, with obligatory landing towards end april. I'm well grumpy now, but will read the herald article and try and calm down a bit...
Kylora
Well-Known Member
I wondered why an article in the Daily Record seemed identical, http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scottish-island-sanda-shutdown-after-1738691, but Mr Google reveals that the author of both articles is an Oban based, freelance journalist, http://forargyll.com/2012/02/oban-journalist-moira-kerr-awarded-top-story-of-the-year-2/.
Maybe she can be persuaded to investigate further.
Ash
Quandary
Well-Known Member
Been thinking a bit more about this while polishing my prop. polishing bronze is very therapeutic so I am a bit more relaxed now.
My interest in Sanda was the solitude, the wildlife and the fascinating engineering of the lighthouse, we rarely went ashore when the Gannons were there preferring to go on to Rathlin or Gigha if we wanted a drink ashore. This guy spent a couple of million on an island with no permanent resident population since the lighthouse was automated, so Mr. Gannon got a good return on his investment. Unfortunately because the seller was not local the purchase money would not have been recycled in the Kintyre economy but that is not unusual. Since the only visitors now generally are (wealthy?) yachties like us from the same social class as the owner now that the scruffy Irish rib boat drinkers have stopped coming why should he feel that he must share it with us. If you are prepared to pay to own something why can you not use it in the way you want. The significant difference here is that this was an unpopulated island sold for a high price on the open market so comparisons with Lord Brockett are not really fair, no crofters have been turned off the land. It is unfortunate that this guy is too mean spirited to share his island with the very occasional visitor and that his website depicted the insensitivity of his previous efforts to restrict access to wealthy visitors painting him as a snob, but it is his land and none of us has a real need to share it with him.
So let him keep it, we can still anchor in the bay and land on the beach when the waves are small enough I suspect he will not often be in residence to chase us away and if he employs a resident bouncer at least that is a job for someone, this guy will soon tire of Sanda and lose interest in it.
My interest in Sanda was the solitude, the wildlife and the fascinating engineering of the lighthouse, we rarely went ashore when the Gannons were there preferring to go on to Rathlin or Gigha if we wanted a drink ashore. This guy spent a couple of million on an island with no permanent resident population since the lighthouse was automated, so Mr. Gannon got a good return on his investment. Unfortunately because the seller was not local the purchase money would not have been recycled in the Kintyre economy but that is not unusual. Since the only visitors now generally are (wealthy?) yachties like us from the same social class as the owner now that the scruffy Irish rib boat drinkers have stopped coming why should he feel that he must share it with us. If you are prepared to pay to own something why can you not use it in the way you want. The significant difference here is that this was an unpopulated island sold for a high price on the open market so comparisons with Lord Brockett are not really fair, no crofters have been turned off the land. It is unfortunate that this guy is too mean spirited to share his island with the very occasional visitor and that his website depicted the insensitivity of his previous efforts to restrict access to wealthy visitors painting him as a snob, but it is his land and none of us has a real need to share it with him.
So let him keep it, we can still anchor in the bay and land on the beach when the waves are small enough I suspect he will not often be in residence to chase us away and if he employs a resident bouncer at least that is a job for someone, this guy will soon tire of Sanda and lose interest in it.
bikedaft
Well-Known Member
The pier is marked as being being below HW.
Just a thought...
I have no problem with not walking in someone's garden, but the rest of the island? Guess it depends on how much of the island they state is their garden (was it gloag who claimed a huge garden recently?) not very clear from the media article.
But anything beneath HW is another matter
Especially a pier presumably constructed by the NLB
Just a thought...
I have no problem with not walking in someone's garden, but the rest of the island? Guess it depends on how much of the island they state is their garden (was it gloag who claimed a huge garden recently?) not very clear from the media article.
But anything beneath HW is another matter
Especially a pier presumably constructed by the NLB
awol
Well-Known Member
I liked the Byron Danton and the landlord was fine as long as there were a few twitchers in residence to interrupt his monologue. Without the pub I have only landed 'cos there was a sign saying I couldn't, to risk my life in the cemetery*, to walk to the lighthouse and to climb the hill, all of which I can continue to do if I so wish. As for his "pier", it is a slip which covers with the tide and I leave it to the sea lawyers to decide whether between high and low water on a slip is fair game or not. So, as far as I'm concerned he can bluster all he wants.
Mind you if the place starts sprouting armed guards, importing lots of steel, concrete and electronic gear and theowner is seen stroking a white persian cat, I may change my mind.
*Death shall befall within a year on anyone who stands on St Ninian's grave - but does the owner know?
Mind you if the place starts sprouting armed guards, importing lots of steel, concrete and electronic gear and theowner is seen stroking a white persian cat, I may change my mind.
*Death shall befall within a year on anyone who stands on St Ninian's grave - but does the owner know?
Robert Wilson
Well-Known Member
I'm aiming to anchor there end of June/Early July en-route to/from the Fife Regatta. I probably would not have gone ashore in any case, except in an emergency ( for which I'll risk the wrath of the owner/militia etc if needs be)
As for a mass protest, I agree with above comments, probably do more harm than good; "toes to be dug-in etc". Mind you, Ann Gloag lost her case...............
As for a mass protest, I agree with above comments, probably do more harm than good; "toes to be dug-in etc". Mind you, Ann Gloag lost her case...............
oldbilbo
...
Is it a decent anchorage in a blow?
bikedaft
Well-Known Member
whether there is a mass trespass or not, i don't think we should let the matter lie. the land access act 2003 is crystal clear regarding access to areas such as this. whether he is actually trying to restrict access to the whole island, or just the bit at the pier and the three or so houses remains to be seen. will find out in april ;-)
hopefully he will get short thrift if he is trying to restrict access to the whole island.
hopefully he will get short thrift if he is trying to restrict access to the whole island.
Contest1
Well-Known Member
Planning to go for the inner Isles this June, now a must see.
Spyro
Well-Known Member
Yes if there is any south in it but If you were looking for proper shelter Campbeltown would be a better bet. It's not to far away.
Tomahawk
Well-Known Member
I am with QuNdry on this one...
If you want to have a stroll over the island... talk to the chap, make him an offee and buy it from him.... The do as you please..
Taking the attitude that it there so I should be allowed to walk all over it is the same as saying, your boat looks pretty so I should be allowed to sail it if I want to... Would you say that is fair?
Do peeps feel they have the right ot wander round any large house, on the simple idea it is big and interesting so should be freely available? Pehaps your house is larger than someone elses... does that give them the right to walk through your garden?
If you want to have a stroll over the island... talk to the chap, make him an offee and buy it from him.... The do as you please..
Taking the attitude that it there so I should be allowed to walk all over it is the same as saying, your boat looks pretty so I should be allowed to sail it if I want to... Would you say that is fair?
Do peeps feel they have the right ot wander round any large house, on the simple idea it is big and interesting so should be freely available? Pehaps your house is larger than someone elses... does that give them the right to walk through your garden?
oldbilbo
...
I think that a rehearsal of the Land Reform ( Scotland ) Act 2003 in Scotland regarding free access might clear the air somewhat. As I recall, the situation is similar to that in Norway and Sweden, and here is the 'skinny'....
http://www.outdooraccess-scotland.com/outdoors-responsibly/your-access-rights/
There are those who would like to see the same throughout the UK....
NormanS
Well-Known Member
The problem is with the definition of "Curtilage". Under the Freedom to Roam law in Scotland, we have the right to roam on all uncultivated land outwith the curtilage of the built property. For most of us, that means our garden. Some landowners have a rather inflated view of what constitutes their "garden".
DaveS
Well-Known Member
Yes, that was the basis of the disagreement I had with the mad monks of Papa Stronsay. I pointed out that I had kept well away from their monastery. They claimed that the entire island was their monastery. I quoted the access legislation, they denied its existence!
Jcorstorphine
Well-Known Member
I felt the same about the restrictions at Caladh in the Kyles of Bute. Been going there since the lates 50s, now only to find that we cant use the small stone landing pier and have to clamber ashore on the beach. All a bit of shame, as a younster, I used to love wondering round the area with all its old boathoues, piers and boatsheds.
Other threads that may be of interest
