Sanda

[l'escargot]

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

Doesn't a pier by definition extend below high water? Surely if it didn't it wouldn't qualify as a pier. Every pier I know of is owned by somebody with restrictions on access.

 

[bikedaft]

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?

please read the relevant legislation to sanda. ie the link as posted by oldbilbo. gardens are exempt (as are boats, houses etc)

 

[bikedaft]

isn't a pier by definition below high water? Surely if it wasn't it wouldn't qualify as a pier. Every pier I know of is owned by somebody with restrictions on access.

depends on how high up the pier the water goes at HW. was involved in an access issue pre 2003 re a pier, the landowner owned the land between the pier and the public highway. so in effect the pier was not the issue (and probably isn't in sanda either). can't say i'm actually fussed about landing on the pier either, if there is pre existing bad feeling ie we have been told to keep off the island except the beaches according to the herald article, i'll be avoiding the pier (it is right beside the house) and go elsewhere on this fair sized island.

 

[l'escargot]

depends on how high up the pier the water goes at HW...

Does it? It would be interesting to see how any legislation saying that was written...

 

[bikedaft]

Does it? It would be interesting to see how any legislation saying that was written...

have wondered this myself - my understanding is the queen owns everything beneath HW, and we are allowed to wander around, except military bases etc.

but not quite sure re piers/other manmade structures. land above HW is subject to land access legislation in scotland anyway

but part of most piers is covered at HW.

anyone know?

 

[l'escargot]

have wondered this myself - my understanding is the queen owns everything beneath HW, and we are allowed to wander around, except military bases etc.

but not quite sure re piers/other manmade structures. land above HW is subject to land access legislation in scotland anyway

but part of most piers is covered at HW.

anyone know?

I think you will find that man made structures remain private even if they extend below the high water mark - there would be significant implications for many structures, not least marinas if they didn't. Land below high water can also be privately owned with restrictions on landing imposed - particularly on islands.

 

[bikedaft]

Land below high water can also be privately owned with restrictions on landing imposed - particularly on islands.

i think that is just harbours and eg MOD property. never come across it up here apart from MOD facilities. i believe there is a bit of that in the solent.

 

[Quandary]

Sanda Sound is on the route from our home where we lay up at one end of the canal to our summer berth at the other and it is also on the route to a lot of the closer islands which we visit, so we go through the sound a fair bit, the way the tide works, splitting at the Mull we usually do not find it useful to stop but few others appear to do either, even when the Byron Darnton was open you only saw a boat in the anchorage about one time in a dozen so I suspect it is not really such a popular anchorage, by contrast the moorings in Gigha are usually all taken before evening except early and late season. When we did stop (before the pub opened) I can only recall sharing the anchorage once or perhaps twice
So the loss of access probably affects a small number of people and only for a year or two until this guy goes away to piss some one else off somewhere warmer and midge free.
No need to get worked up about it?
The change at Caladh is warranted by the new dwelling and the old slips and boathouse are definitely within its curtilage, it is good that someone is using them again and the beach is so sheltered it is no hardship to use it. The island there is private too but access is not curtailed though you are expected to respect the graves. There are highland estates with private slips and boathouses everywhere at the foot of nearly every glen (a good example is Inverscaddle anchorage) no one expects to use the boathouse slip there. The people that own and maintain these facilities are preserving them and are entitled to control their use in whatever way they see fit, that so many of the sporting estates welcome us in remote islands and glens is great when we contribute so little to these places.

 

[Tomahawk]

please read the relevant legislation to sanda. ie the link as posted by oldbilbo. gardens are exempt (as are boats, houses etc)

It may be a legal position, but doesn't mean I have to agree with it...
It seems a bad principle to say that one person has a right to use someone elses property. You say that houses gardens boats are exempt... that is mere detail... Once the principle is established, it is a simple matter to change the detail through changes to the regulations.... How easy is it to then grant public rights right of access to any garden extending more than 25 feet from the rear door of the main house... (that on the principle that moden urban houses have not genally got more than 25 feet of rear garden)... Clearly that would be a major commitment towards equality... All good Labour policy..

How strange that peeps on another thread consider that Labours give away attitude towards welfair is not so desirable, yet now seem to support them without reservation.

 

[NormanS]

Scotland has lots and lots of wild land, and has always had the tradition of "Freedom to roam". This is now enshrined in the law of our land. We do not have (legal) KEEP OUT notices, but we do respect other peoples reasonable private property. This civilised attitude to life does require some give and take, and common sense.

Macleod of MacLeod, who happened to own the Skye Cuillins, (mountains to some of you), wanted to sell them to raise money to repair the roof of his castle. The hills were advertised as "Viewing by appointment only". Some people indeed have delusions of grandeur.

 

[bikedaft]

It may be a legal position, but doesn't mean I have to agree with it...
It seems a bad principle to say that one person has a right to use someone elses property. You say that houses gardens boats are exempt... that is mere detail... Once the principle is established, it is a simple matter to change the detail through changes to the regulations.... How easy is it to then grant public rights right of access to any garden extending more than 25 feet from the rear door of the main house... (that on the principle that moden urban houses have not genally got more than 25 feet of rear garden)... Clearly that would be a major commitment towards equality... All good Labour policy..

How strange that peeps on another thread consider that Labours give away attitude towards welfair is not so desirable, yet now seem to support them without reservation.

Not sure what other thread you refer to, but not contributed to by me

I guess the relatively open access enjoyed by us up here can seem slighty intimidating, however it works well generally, by the silent majority acting responsibly, and low population density, and long standing wish to roam over what was until relatively recently, land held in trust by clan chief's. i could waffle on, but its also the law. And for good reason.

There are plenty other people who visit sanda, twitchers and kayakers mostly, so the access is an issue.

 

[oldbilbo]

The 'Right To Roam' is a principle long honoured in Scotland, and it was codified in law in, I believe, 2003. It emulates the 'Allemansratten' Codes ( "every man's rights" ) of Sweden, Iceland, Norway and Finland < http://www.sverigeturism.se/smorgasbord/smorgasbord/natrecspo/nature/every.html > and < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam >

Why is this principle so ingrained in these Northern European countries?

"....A possible explanation as to why the right has survived mainly in these four countries is that feudalism and serfdom were not established there...."

 

[uxb]

i think that is just harbours and eg MOD property. never come across it up here apart from MOD facilities. i believe there is a bit of that in the solent.

The beach at Machrihanish is privately owned as far onto the water as a man can ride on horse back until his scabbard touches the water.... So I'm told.

 

[bikedaft]

oh well that's me stuffed then - i've landed from a dinghy there

 

[uxb]

oh well that's me stuffed then - i've landed from a dinghy there

You'll be fine- as long as there isn't an angry man on horseback waving a sword around...

 

[bikedaft]

i emailed michi meier (we corresponded last time this all hit the news) and have received this reply; ( i asked if we were able to walk up the hill, and over to the lighthouse);

"Of course you are welcome to make a walk on sanda island
This article has no context with owners ideas

michael meier"

 

[awol]

i emailed michi meier (we corresponded last time this all hit the news) and have received this reply; ( i asked if we were able to walk up the hill, and over to the lighthouse);

"Of course you are welcome to make a walk on sanda island
This article has no context with owners ideas

michael meier"

It's that kind of rational, sensible behaviour that ruins perfectly good threads that were doing quite nicely fomenting hatred of Lord Brocket style landlords, had touched on serfdom and feudalism, and generated a capitalist knee-jerk reaction against the welfare state and the Labour party. Then you have to go and spoil it!

ForArgyll has an article ...................

All that will remain closed for the coming tourist season on Sanda Island, off the east coast of the Mull of Kintyre, is the hotel and the restaurant.

The owners have made it clear that visitors are welcome to land on the beaches as usual.

This is private property open to public access in accordance with Scotland’s liberal land access legislation, But this does not – and could not legitimately require a landowner to absorb the cost of maintaining a private pier to facilitate such access.

When the hotel and the restaurant reopen, the pier will be open for those who pay to come to stay and eat there.

The water situation does not seem to be particularly serious – but it is a temporary obstacle for the enterprise.

Argyll and Bute Council’s Environmental Health department is requiring simply that all water for human consumption must be boiled.

This would indicate nothing more than the usual bacterial contamination in run-off water. A straightforward and low cost solution to this is the use of a UV steriliser.

The closure of the hotel and the restaurant is a loss to the Kintyre visitor menu and a disappointment. It may even be partly due to the owner’s disconcertedness at the poor response to the venue in the awful weather of the 2012 season.

Sanda and its little archipelago compose a unique and specialist destination but one with genuine potential if it is linked to existing services that would support it – such as the Kintyre Express fast passenger ferry business – and if it is energetically and imaginatively marketed.

Access to its glorious and quite unique lighthouse, built in 1850 by Alan Stevenson of the truly remarkable family of lighthouse builders, would be another major draw.

When the owners of the island get everything back up and running – or preferably before then, we are committing ourselves here to do a major photojournalism piece to help to promote it to our substantial audience.

 

[oldbilbo]

It's that kind of rational, sensible behaviour that ruins perfectly good threads that were doing quite nicely fomenting hatred of Lord Brocket style landlords, had touched on serfdom and feudalism, and generated a capitalist knee-jerk reaction against the welfare state and the Labour party.

Awlrite! Awlrite! Let's shift over to the Lounge, and we can rant away contentedly without recourse to fact, logic or reason.

 

[webcraft]

Awlrite! Awlrite! Let's shift over to the Lounge, and we can rant away contentedly without recourse to fact, logic or reason.

You've been on ForArgyll I see . . .

- W

 

[AntarcticPilot]

Is it a decent anchorage in a blow?

Depends on wind direction, but not really.