Analysis of representations made on the draft Scottish Outdoor ...

REPORT 2 

<strong>Analysis</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>representations</strong> 

<strong>made</strong> on the draft 

Scottish Outdoor Access Code 

Report on the outcome <strong>of</strong> the consultation on the 

draft Scottish Outdoor Access Code 

This report provides the context for the 

Proposed Code submitted to Ministers under 

the terms <strong>of</strong> Section 10 <strong>of</strong> the Land Reform 

(Scotland) Act 2003

REPORT 2 

ANALYSIS OF REPRESENTATIONS MADE 

ON THE CONSULTATIVE DRAFT OF THE 

SCOTTISH OUTDOOR ACCESS CODE 

Report on the outcome <strong>of</strong> the consultation on the 

draft Scottish Outdoor Access Code

Report 2 

ANALYSIS OF REPRESENTATIONS MADE ON THE CONSULTATIVE DRAFT 

OF THE SCOTTISH OUTDOOR ACCESS CODE 

Contents 

Page 

INTRODUCTION 

Background 

Purpose <strong>of</strong> Report 2 

2 

2 

REPRESENTATIONS AND ANALYSIS 

<strong>Analysis</strong> and conclusions drawn from the <strong>representations</strong> – all 

Questions 

Detailed comments <strong>made</strong> in response to Questions 21 and 22 

5 

201 

ANNEXES 

Annex 1 

Annex 2 

Extract from Report 1 on the process <strong>of</strong> consultation 

and analysis <strong>of</strong> <strong>representations</strong> on the draft 

Scottish Outdoor Access Code 

Key to the coding <strong>of</strong> respondents 

258 

260 

1

INTRODUCTION 

Background 

1. On 25th February 2003, the Land Reform (Scotland) Act received Royal 

Assent. Part 1 <strong>of</strong> this Act (also referred to as the access legislation) 

establishes new statutory rights <strong>of</strong> public access to the outdoors – rights that 

come with responsibilities. These rights, however, cannot come into effect 

until guidance on the responsibilities in the form <strong>of</strong> a Scottish Outdoor Access 

Code has been approved by the Scottish Parliament. Thereafter, and 

following approval <strong>of</strong> Ministerial guidance to local authorities under Section 27 

<strong>of</strong> the Act on the exercise <strong>of</strong> their new powers and duties, a commencement 

date for the access legislation can be set. 

2. Under Section 10 <strong>of</strong> the access legislation, Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) 

has a duty to draw up and issue a code, to be known as the Scottish Outdoor 

Access Code (also referred to as the Access Code). The legislation states in 

Section 10 (2): 

‘Scottish Natural Heritage shall consult local authorities and such other persons or 

bodies as they think appropriate about the proposed Access Code and then submit it 

(with or without modifications) to Ministers together with copies <strong>of</strong> any objections or 

<strong>representations</strong> <strong>made</strong> in response to the consultation.’ 

3. To meet this requirement, SNH undertook a consultation on a draft Scottish 

Outdoor Access Code between 26th March 2003 and 30th June 2003. This 

included extensive distribution <strong>of</strong> a consultative draft <strong>of</strong> the Code which posed 

28 questions to assist responses. The process <strong>of</strong> consultation and analysis <strong>of</strong> 

<strong>representations</strong> <strong>made</strong> is described in the supporting Report 1 and an account 

<strong>of</strong> the wider issues raised during the consultation process is described in the 

supporting Report 3. 

Purpose <strong>of</strong> Report 2 

4. The aim <strong>of</strong> this report is to present a summary <strong>of</strong> the main analysis <strong>of</strong> the 

wide-ranging comments received in the 1,362 <strong>representations</strong> <strong>made</strong> on the 

draft Code. It provides data on the responses to each question, some 

quotations to give the reader an impression <strong>of</strong> the range <strong>of</strong> views expressed 

and a concluding summary on our analysis <strong>of</strong> the points expressed. 

5. Although the concluding summary draws mainly on the large number <strong>of</strong> 

comments contained in the written <strong>representations</strong> submitted, it also takes into 

account the many comments expressed at meetings and on the SNH website 

discussion forum. Where appropriate, the summary also makes links to the 

wider issues raised regarding implementation <strong>of</strong> the legislation. Because these 

issues are not strictly about the proposed Access Code they are presented 

separately in supporting Report 3 on the wider issues raised on 

implementation <strong>of</strong> the access legislation. 

6. Inevitably there is great diversity in the range <strong>of</strong> comments contained in the 

1,362 responses. This reflects the wide range <strong>of</strong> respondent interests and the 

detail <strong>of</strong> some responses. Many <strong>of</strong> the comments reflected the policy interests 

2

<strong>of</strong> organisations – for example, public agency, NGO or local authority – while a 

large proportion came from individuals, <strong>of</strong>ten with strongly expressed views. 

Some responses answered all the questions posed in the consultative draft <strong>of</strong> 

the Code, whilst others were more selective, answering only a limited number 

<strong>of</strong> questions. 

7. This report aims to present material related to each question posed in the 

consultative draft <strong>of</strong> the Access Code. For each question, material is 

presented on: 

• The number <strong>of</strong> responses <strong>made</strong> to that question. Inevitably, this can only 

give an indication <strong>of</strong> the level <strong>of</strong> responses <strong>made</strong> because <strong>of</strong> the scale and 

varied nature <strong>of</strong> the comments <strong>made</strong>. 

• The different types <strong>of</strong> responses <strong>made</strong>. These different types <strong>of</strong> responses 

have been grouped to generate answer categories comprising similar 

comments and views. This typically divided comments in terms <strong>of</strong> those 

‘for’ or ‘against’ the proposition in the question. For example, some answer 

categories for Question G3 (that is, ‘Does the Code provide clear, sensible 

and helpful practical guidance on rights and responsibilities…?’) were: 

‘Yes’; ‘No, goes beyond the spirit <strong>of</strong> the legislation…’; and ‘No, doesn’t go 

far enough…’. More detail on the process <strong>of</strong> grouping comments and 

generating answer categories is provided in Annex 1 - an extract <strong>of</strong> the 

analysis process outlined in Report 1. 

• The main respondents to each answer category are listed by the code given 

to each response. The key to the coding <strong>of</strong> respondents is provided in 

Annex 2. 

8. Further, for each question: 

• A selection <strong>of</strong> quotations is provided to illustrate the views <strong>made</strong> for each 

answer category; and 

• A concluding summary statement drawn from the analysis is presented. 

9. The concluding summary <strong>of</strong> the analysis <strong>of</strong> each question is presented in 

terms <strong>of</strong>: 

• Whether there was support for the guidance provided in the draft Code; 

• The key issues and concerns <strong>made</strong> in <strong>representations</strong> by respondents; and 

• The main changes <strong>made</strong> to the Proposed Code in accepting, reflecting on, 

or rejecting comments <strong>made</strong>. 

10. Supplementary comments gathered in addition to the specific responses to the 

questions are incorporated, where appropriate, into this report. 

3

11. Finally, SNH would like to take this opportunity to record our thanks to the 

many individuals and organisations who took the trouble to respond to the 

consultative draft Code. We hope that this report has captured the many and 

different opinions and views expressed. 

Scottish Natural Heritage 

22 December 2003 

4

<strong>Analysis</strong> and conclusions drawn from the <strong>representations</strong> 

Question G1 - Does the Code provide an acceptable reference point on access rights and the 

responsibilities <strong>of</strong> users and land managers? 

Answer Category Main Respondents Selected Quotations 

G1a. Yes 

A/0009/X, A/0036/X, A/0037/X, 

A/0362/X, A/0373/X, A/0382/X/d, 

A/0621/Y, A/0105/X, A/0518/X, 

A/0289/X, A/1344/X, A/1351/X, 

A/1338/X, A/1283/X, A/0967/X, 

A/1073/X, A/1081/X, A/1084/X, 

A/0425/X, A/0471/X/d, A/0475/X, 

A/0598/X, A/0469/X, A/0469/X, 

A/0718/X, A/0719/X/d, A/0724/X, 

A/0726/X, A/0762/X, A/0774/X, 

A/1381/ B/0620/Y, B/0631/X, 

B/0312/X, B/0551/X, B/0668/X, 

B/0673/X, B/0679/X, B/0260/X, 

B/1313/X, B/0879/X, B/1160/X, 

B/0983/X, B/0406/X, B/0409/X, 

B/0419/X, B/0794/X, C/0070/X, 

D/0350/Y, D/0175/Y, D/0521/X, 

D/1274/Y, E/0616/X, F/0998/X, 

F/1050/X, F/1134/X, G/0559/Y, 

G/1254/X, G/0960/X, G/1098/X, 

G/0604/X, G/0468/X, G/0795/X, 

G/1057/X, G/1044/X, H/1349/X, 

H/1222/X, H/0808/X, H/1179/X, 

H/0460/X, H/0515/X, H/1128/X, 

J/1203/X, K/0714/X, L/0647/X, 

L/0527/X, L/0513/X, L/1026/X, 

L/0992/X, L/0410/X, L/0439/X, 

L/0747/X, M/0463/X, M/0829/X, 

M/1154/X, N/0694/X, P/0643/X, 

P/0646/X, P/0491/X, P/0274/X, 

P/0384/X, P/1219/X, P/1237/X, 

P/1247/X, P/1296/X, P/0804/X, 

P/0889/X, P/0928/X, P/0492/X, 

P/0717/X, P/1060/X, Q/0357/X, 

Q/0364/X, Q/0176/X, Q/0309/X, 

5 

Number <strong>of</strong> 

Responses 

I wish to register my general welcome for this draft code, the emphasis in favour <strong>of</strong> a 

'presumption <strong>of</strong> access to the outdoors etc.' is clearly stated. (A/0289/X) 

We welcome the general tone and recommendations <strong>of</strong> The Code, in so far as it 

provides a guide for those who wish to exercise access responsibility. (B/0406/X) 

The SOAC appears generally to be a sensible guide to decent behaviour and 

constructive approaches in the light <strong>of</strong> new legislation. (L/0992/X) 

The Draft Access Code is to be welcomed in many respects since it helps clarify the 

relative positions <strong>of</strong> land managers and access takers where the picture was rather 

confused previously. (X/0405/X/d) 

339

G1b. No 

Q/0333/X, Q/0256/X, Q/1230/X, 

Q/1275/X, Q/0828/X, Q/0415/X, 

Q/0232/X, Q/0526/X, Q/0686/X, 

R/0395/Y, R/1221/X, R/1090/X, 

U/1242/Y, V/0035/X, W/0017/X, 

W/0074/X, W/0143/X, W/0145/X, 

W/0388/X, W/0617/X, W/0179/X, 

W/0180/X, W/0182/X, W/0168/X, 

W/0530/X, W/0268/, W/0279/X, 

W/0301/X, W/0328/X, W/0562/X, 

W/1018/X, W/1029/X, W/0246/X, 

W/1315/, W/0977/X/d, W/0979/X, 

W/1202/X, W/1204/X, W/1217/X, 

W/1225/X, W/0112/X, W/0926/X, 

W/1052/X/d, W/0986/X, W/0817/X, 

W/0886/X, W/1001/X/d, W/0972/X, 

W/1080/X/d, W/0578/X, W/0221/X, 

W/0235/X, W/0403/X, W/0434/X, 

W/0423/X, W/0746/X, W/0758/X, 

W/0781/X, W/0789/X, W/1054/X, 

W/1149/X, W/1111/X, X/0644/X, 

X/0193/X/d, X/0196/X, X/1345/X, 

X/1212/X, X/0989/X, X/1069/X, 

X/0405/X/d, X/0784/X. 

A/0320/X/d, A/0259/Y/d, A/1333/X, 

A/0636/X, B/0366/X, B/0376/X, 

B/0377/X, B/0380/X, B/0385/X/d, 

B/0628/X, B/0317/X, B/0288/X/d, 

B/0305/X, B/315/X, B/1019/X, 

B/1025/X, B/1027/X, B/0456/X, 

B/0956/X, B/1335/, B/0443/X, 

B/1238/X, B/1250/X, B/1240/X, 

B/1347/X, B/0816/X, B/0891/X, 

B/1152/X, B/0936/X, B/0938/X/d, 

B/0969/X, B/0227/X/d, B/0428/X/d, 

B/0436/X, B/0506/X, B/0461/X, 

B/0465/X, B/0466/X/d, B/0472/X, 

B/0481/X, B/0731/X, B/0741/X, 

B/1356/, E/0516/X, G/1330/X/d, 

H/0959/X, J/1028/X, J/1058/X, 

I would stress that I am a keen walker, hill walker, and have seen no problems, in fact 

you are creating more problems on the Access Code now, (A/0636/X) 

As the owner <strong>of</strong> a garden which is open to the public under the Scotland's Gardens 

Scheme I am very concerned about the implications <strong>of</strong> the proposed access code. 

(B/0377/X) 

At present access takers and access providers are likely to interpret it differently, giving 

rise to more strife than harmony. As it stands the draft Code is not an acceptable 

reference point. (B/0956/X) 

...the draft makes an unacceptable political statement. "a national asset to enjoy and 

look after" (B/0465/X) 

In general we would like to see more practical advice to land managers on exactly what 

responsibilities they hold and more practical examples <strong>of</strong> what would be considered 

responsible actions by land managers. (K/0444/X) 

"Having read the Scottish Outdoor Access Code makes very worrying reading as the 

proposal have obviously been drawn up by amateurs who have no ideas <strong>of</strong> the working 

countryside and how dangerous it can be. (W/0779/X) 

6

G1c. Not acceptable 

regarding Rights 

J/1255/X, K/0444/X, P/0576/X, 

P/0577/X, Q/0974/X, Q/0866/X/d, 

W/0381/X, W/0618/X, W/0190/X, 

W/0524/X, W/1012/X, W/1023/X, 

W/0457/X, W/0803/X, W/0810/X, 

W/0880/X/d, W/0901/X/d, 

W/0993/X, W/0950/X/d, W/0955/X, 

W/0581/X, W/0591/X, W/0610/X, 

W/0612/X, W/0708/X/d, W/0779/X, 

W/1035/X, X/0358/X, X/0543/X, 

X/0495/X, X/0421/X. 

A/1326/X, A/0437/X, A/0927/X, 

A/0422/X, G/0386/X, G/0854/X, 

G/0920/Y/ , Q/0157/X, W/1342/X, 

W/0607/X, W/0430/X/d, W/0705/X. 

The definition <strong>of</strong> access includes the right to cross land/water, remain on it before 

leaving it both for the purposes defined and for getting from one place to another. For 

many canoeists access may include time when they stay on one place on the water for a 

while either to enjoy the surroundings, receive instruction, assess the best line, play on a 

wave, picnic or set up safety cover on a more technical rapid. These activities require 

access for longer than would be required to simply pass down a stretch over river. The 

exclusion <strong>of</strong> "land or water that has been developed or set out for a recreational 

purpose" requires to be more clearly defined as not covering fishing rivers, to bring the 

definition in line with the guidance issued by ministers during the passage <strong>of</strong> the Land 

Reform Act through Parliament. (A/1326/X) 

The Code relates to the statutory rights established under this Act; it does not alter or 

affect other access rights under common law or customary freedoms. This should be 

clearly stated within the Code; this could be done by prefacing the currently used term 

"access rights" with the word "statutory" when referring to rights under the 2003 Act. 

(A/0927/X) 

We have concerns over the language used throughout the Code. At the outset, the Code 

states that it is to be the 'reference point' on access rights. However, it is our 

understanding that it is the reference point only for the statutory rights established under 

the Land Reform (Scotland) Act. We ask, therefore that the word 'statutory' be inserted 

as appropriate to make this clear. (G/0854/X) 

The Land Reform (Scotland) Act (the Act) gives SNH the duty <strong>of</strong> preparing a Code that 

will give guidance, in relation to access rights, on the circumstances in which those 

exercising managing the rights are doing so in a responsible or irresponsible manner. So 

the focus <strong>of</strong> the Code is clearly about responsible behaviour, and it is appropriate that it 

should be a reference point for access responsibilities. However, the Act does not 

require the Code to provide advice on access rights - these are detailed in the Act. It 

would be useful if the Code was to assist in public understanding <strong>of</strong> the legislation by 

presenting it in easily understood language. SNH must be careful not to change the 

meaning and intent <strong>of</strong> the Act by the words it uses in the Code. (G/0920/Y) 

7

G1d. Not acceptable 

regarding Responsibilities 

G1e. Other 

A/0155/X, B/0366/X, B/0624/X, 

B/0116/X/d, B/0329/X, B/0331/X, 

B/0512/X/d, B/0814/X, B/0840/X, 

B/1062/X, B/0226/X, L/0513/X, 

P/0878/X, Q/0323/X, W/0273/X, 

W/1315/ . 

A/0134/X/d, B/0151/X, B/0628/X, 

B/0638/X/d, B/0167/X, B/1187/X, 

B/0238/X, B/1301/X, B/1005/X, 

B/0801/X, B/0826/X/d, B/1173/X, 

B/1063/X, B/0585/X, B/0613/X, 

B/0488/X/d, B/0711/X, B/0738/X, 

B/0738/X, B/0760/X, C/0721/X, 

G/1214/X, G/1229/X, G/0604/X, 

H/0941/X, H/0220/X, H/1042/X, 

K/1302/X, K/1241/X, K/0722/X, 

L/0659/X, P/1304/X, P/1218/X, 

P/1272/X, P/0899/X, P/0491/X, 

Q/1233/X, Q/1178/X, Q/1122/X, 

Q/0707/X, R/1278/X, R/0121/X, 

U/1172/X, W/0071/X, W/0641/X, 

W/0498/, W/0669/X/d, W/1016/X, 

W/1282/X, W/0812/Y, W/1119/X, 

W/0217/X, W/0700/X, W/0775/X, 

X/0509/Y, X/1056/X. 

The Code requires to be more prescriptive setting out specifically what or what does not 

fall within the meaning <strong>of</strong> responsible access. (B/0512/X/d) 

As a Farmer who has reared Livestock for over 50 years I would like to know how it is 

possible for any Access to enclosed land with Livestock, can be termed responsible? 

(B/0814/X) 

More emphasis should be placed on the responsibility to help land managers. The test 

<strong>of</strong> responsible behaviour is currently set too low. (B/0226/X) 

Hopefully access will be considered irresponsible if it severely hinders wealth creation. 

(W/1315/ ) 

The Code has been written by reasonable people for reasonable people. Unfortunately 

this approach fails to take on board that the main problem with access occurs when 

either people are unreasonable, or when there are too many (reasonable or 

unreasonable) people for the site to bear without damage or disturbance to other 

interests. The Code is very weak in addressing both these problems. (B/0167/X) 

I haven't read the hefty SNH document from cover to cover due to lack <strong>of</strong> time and 

inclination. I suspect, having glanced at it , that it is very much in the mould <strong>of</strong> most SNH 

documents - fundamentally out <strong>of</strong> touch with reality. (B/1301/X) 

...a policy to promote public access rights particularly across farmed land, where there is 

a lack <strong>of</strong> understanding <strong>of</strong> the fragile nature <strong>of</strong> the environment, is in itself irresponsible. 

(B/0760/X) 

While we remain supportive <strong>of</strong> this general approach to this issue, we feel that the draft 

Code, as published, is rather disappointing in its treatment <strong>of</strong> nature conservation 

issues. (K/1302/X) 

The draft code is a useful reference point, but there are still areas where it could be 

improved, in particular the information on the responsibilities <strong>of</strong> public bodies and local 

authorities is inadequate. (K/1241/X) 

Whilst we believe the code might prove a good reference point, we are nervous that it is 

too verbose in places to be practical. (Q/1178/X) 

sportscotland strongly recommends that the Code should be based primarily on the key 

responsibilities that appear on pages 28 and 39 <strong>of</strong> the consultation document and that all 

other text should be regarded as further guidance, explanation or supplementary 

information. The key responsibilities being in effect the definition <strong>of</strong> responsible 

behaviour. ........... Appendix 1 is based on the advice <strong>of</strong> pages 28 and 39 but also 

includes what sportscotland considers as the fundamental guidance on responsible 

access included in the text <strong>of</strong> chapers 3 and 4 <strong>of</strong> the consultation document but which 

does not currently appear on pages 28 and 39. sportscotland considers that the majority 

<strong>of</strong> information contained in chapters 3 and 4 <strong>of</strong> the consutlation document should be 

considered as supplementary to the Code, necessary to amplify and explain the Code 

rather than form part <strong>of</strong> the Code itself. (R/1278/X) 

The text has emphasised on countryside access rather than outdoor access I.e. urban 

8

Summary - 

Degree <strong>of</strong> support. 

and periurban access does not seem well covered and yet is where 90% <strong>of</strong> problems 

occur. (W/0071/X) 

We welcome the reference in the introduction and section 1.8 to open space in towns. 

This is very useful because there still appears to be a common misconception that the 

access rights apply only to the wider countryside. It would be helpful if this message 

could be reinforced in the summary versions and associated information and promotions 

by use <strong>of</strong> appropriate words and particularly images. (X/1056/X) 

Overall, there was agreement that the draft Code provides an acceptable reference point on access rights and responsibilities. Whilst there was general 

support, a number <strong>of</strong> concerns were raised by both land managers and recreation users on the detail <strong>of</strong> the consultative draft <strong>of</strong> the Code. 

Key issues/concerns raised. 

The main areas <strong>of</strong> concern raised in responses relate to the need for further clarity in advising: 

• that the Act does not affect customary access or rights established under common law (such as public rights <strong>of</strong> way); 

• on specific responsibilities in particular circumstances, e.g. dogs and livestock; 

• on the responsibilities <strong>of</strong> public bodies and local authorities in implementing the access legislation; and 

• the areas where the new statutory rights apply. 

Main changes <strong>made</strong>. 

SNH has sought to reflect these comments in the Proposed Code. In order to provide the clarity sought, the text has been both sharpened and expanded 

appropriately. For example, further guidance on the possible effects <strong>of</strong> access on nature conservation interests is contained in the Proposed Code. 

9

Question G2 - Does the Code provide a balanced outcome in terms <strong>of</strong> the responsibilities <strong>of</strong> 

both users and land managers under the legislation? 


G2a. Yes 

A/0009/X, A/0362/X, A/0097/X, 

A/0500/Y/d, A/0518/X, A/1194/X, 

A/0661/X, A/0666/X, A/1283/X, 

A/0968/X, A/1084/X, A/0135/X, 

A/0133/X, A/0469/X, A/0487/X, 

A/0743/X, A/1037/X, B/0015/, 

B/0054/X, B/0120/X, B/0178/X, 

B/0540/X, B/0668/X, B/0673/X, 

B/0247/X, B/0839/X, B/0874/X, 

B/0931/X/d, B/0409/X, B/0715/X, 

B/0715/X, B/1039/X/d, B/0041/X, 

C/0070/X, D/0093/X, D/1274/Y, 

G/0082/X, G/0189/X, G/0960/X, 

G/0584/X/d, G/0468/X, G/0730/X, 

G/1057/X, J/1203/X, J/1051/X, 

K/0722/X, L/0185/X, L/0520/X, 

L/0410/X, L/0439/X, L/1055/X, 

L/0410/X, M/0667/X, M/0463/X, 

N/0773/X, P/0642/X, P/1247/X, 

P/1296/X, P/1060/X, Q/0357/X, 

Q/0157/X, Q/1312/X, Q/1275/X, 

Q/1122/X, Q/0232/X, R/1221/X, 

R/0868/X, R/0763/X, U/1242/Y, 

W/0021/X, W/0061/X, W/0063/X, 

W/0074/X, W/0102/X, W/0108/X, 

W/0119/X, W/0182/X, W/0511/X, 

W/0328/X, W/0334/X, W/0542/X, 

W/0562/X, W/0675/X, W/1016/X, 

W/1202/X, W/1204/X, W/0112/X, 

W/0843/X, W/1085/X, W/0221/X, 

W/0423/X, W/1149/X, X/0637/X, 

X/0193/X/d. 

G2b. No 

A/0933/X, B/0288/X/d, B/1240/X, 

B/0731/X, B/0772/X, B/1133/X, 

B/0294/X, E/0523/X, G/0854/X, 

H/1348/X, J/1058/X, Q/0739/X, 

W/0524/X, W/0589/X, W/0130/X/d, 



I was impressed with the Draft Access Code. Like the Land Reform Act (Scotland) 

2003), it strikes for the most part exactly the right balance the access rights <strong>of</strong> the 

general public and the right <strong>of</strong> land managers to carry on their work without interference. 

(A/0743/X) 

An excellent balance has been reached between the rights <strong>of</strong> access and the 

responsibilities <strong>of</strong> users and landowners. (G/0189/X) 

The Code will be a useful reference point for both recreational users and land managers 

and does appear to strike a reasonable balanace between the needs <strong>of</strong> both. (R/0868/X) 

Given that it represents a serious erosion <strong>of</strong> our rights as landowners, we feel that it for 

the most part, strikes a good balance between land-managers and the public. 

(X/0193/X/d) 

The document is not balanced. The responsibilities being mainly that <strong>of</strong> the occupier and 

rights <strong>of</strong> those <strong>of</strong> the access raker. Other land uses become incidental to recreation. 

Please do not ignore the fact that countryside and rural businesses provide jobs and 

investment in rural communities. (B/0288/X/d) 

If this code is to work, and all <strong>of</strong> us who live and earn their living in the countryside 

10 

382

G2c. Not balanced: Code 

favours users / too many 

restrictions on land 

managers 

/1371/. earnestly hope it will, I would have thought that any encouragement to the public to be 

confrontational, which is what I get from this document, should be avoided and a much 

more conciliatory and or balanced approach, which is how the vast majority <strong>of</strong> country 

folk behave, should be the underlying theme <strong>of</strong> the code. (B/0731/X) 

"Does the code strike a sensible balance -------" The answer is obviously NO. 

(W/0130/X/d) 

B/0798/X, B/0628/X, A/0077/X, 

A/0320/X/d, A/0719/X/d, B/0571/X, 

B/0571/X, B/0337/X, B/0152/X, 

B/0342/X, B/0376/X, B/0385/X/d, 

B/0620/Y, B/0628/X, B/0631/X, 

B/0634/X, B/0638/X/d, B/0116/X/d, 

B/0085/X, B/0183/X, B/0288/X/d, 

B/0293/X, B/1195/X, B/0535/X, 

B/0545/X, B/0563/X, B/0569/X, 

B/0672/X, B/1015/X, B/1017/X, 

B/1027/X, B/1030/X, B/0141/X, 

B/0258/X, B/0209/X/d, B/0956/X, 

B/0443/X, B/0446/X, B/1208/X, 

B/1210/X, B/1250/X, B/1271/X, 

B/0802/X, B/1347/X, B/0801/X, 

B/0826/X/d, B/0834/X, B/0835/X, 

B/0879/X, B/0883/X, B/0912/X, 

B/0925/X, B/1152/X, B/0935/X, 

B/0954/X, B/1062/X, B/0593/X, 

B/0599/X/d, B/0608/X, B/0127/X, 

B/0419/X, B/0510/X, B/0465/X, 

B/0466/X/d, B/0480/X, B/0481/X, 

B/0681/X, B/0704/X, B/0741/X, 

B/0754/X, B/0760/X, B/0761/X, 

B/0782/X, B/1049/X, B/1033/X, 

B/1131/X, B/1142/X, B/1108/X, 

B/1117/X, B/0294/X, E/0523/X, 

E/1257/X, E/0906/X, E/0921/X, 

E/0923/X, E/0703/X, F/0998/X, 

G/0920/Y, H/0534/X, H/1103/X, 

H/0808/X, H/1179/X, H/0988/X, 

H/0941/X, H/0959/X, H/0220/X, 

H/0460/X, H/0515/X, J/1058/X, 

M/0101/X, P/0384/X, P/1219/X, 

The responsibilities are balanced but I feel that the practical burden will be borne by the 

static and easily contacted land manger. The imbalance <strong>of</strong> this load cannot be covered 

by the code and should be addressed through land management grants or simple routes 

for compensation. (A/0719/X/d) 

Imbalance in the access code. The code should put more emphasis on the needs <strong>of</strong> 

those who live and work on the land e.g. farming activities should take precedence over 

recreational activities. (B/0571/X) 

A balanced outcome? No. Almost everything seems to be saying what the user may do, 

how the land manager should allow it and how they should both behave perfectly…..I do 

not think my interests as owner are properly represented in the code. (B/0620/Y) 

The problem is that the land manager is static and can be "clobbered" by higher 

authority but the access taker can not. Both the legislation and now the code do not 

provide any way <strong>of</strong> addressing this issue, Its too late to change the Act but not the code: 

put more emphasis on land managers right to control irresponsible access. (B/0826/X/d) 

A natural asset to enjoy and look after - is this for the majority to enjoy and the minority 

to look after? (B/1108/X) 

Although the Code tries to address the rights and responsibilities <strong>of</strong> both users and land 

managers, the balance overall seems to be towards giving rights to the user and 

responsibilities to the land manager, with insufficient safeguards for their rights. 

(H/0988/X) 

Many <strong>of</strong> the points on which comment is invited relate to BALANCE, and it might indeed 

appear that the Code is heavily weighted against landowners. However, in this respect 

the Code merely reflects the spirit <strong>of</strong> the Act. The overall balance is established by the 

Act, and is not therefore at this stage open to negotiation. (M/0101/X) 

You would seem to be concerned to strike a fair balance between "land users" and "land 

managers" but the code immediately introduces bias by denying the concept <strong>of</strong> land 

ownership. Most people understand the concept <strong>of</strong> "ownership" and that concept 

enables them to appreciate that if you own something you have more rights over its use 

than someone who does not own it or have any responsibility for its care and 

maintenance, (W/0566/X) 

11

P/1300/X, P/0890/X, Q/0256/X, 

Q/0974/X, Q/1232/X, Q/1252/X, 

Q/1061/X, Q/0415/X, Q/0697/X/d, 

Q/0707/X, U/1172/X, W/0140/X, 

W/0143/X, W/0348/X/d, W/0616/X, 

W/0103/X, W/0104/X, W/0292/X, 

W/0354/X/d, W/0853/X, W/1189/X, 

W/0533/X, W/0556/X, W/0566/X, 

W/1014/X, W/1315/, W/1263/X, 

W/1280/X, W/0926/X, W/1052/X/d, 

W/0990/X/d, W/0817/X, W/0907/X, 

W/1159/X/d, W/0950/X/d, 

W/0962/X/d, W/0972/X, W/1119/X, 

W/1123/X, W/0217/X, W/0435/X, 

W/0490/X, W/0483/X, W/0708/X/d, 

W/0735/X, W/0771/X, W/0780/X, 

W/1110/X, X/0543/X, X/0664/X, 

X/1174/X, X/0122/X, X/0727/X. 

G2d. Not balanced: 

Code favours land 

managers / too many 

restrictions on users 

A/0155/X, A/0098/X, A/0330/X, 

A/0537/X, A/0557/X, A/0290/X, 

A/0477/X, A/0740/X, G/0146/X, 

G/0854/X, G/0900/X, G/0736/X/d, 

K/1241/X, L/1026/X, L/0791/X, 

P/0274/X, Q/0930/X, Q/0415/X, 

R/1278/X, W/0278/X, W/0071/X, 

W/0498/, W/0508/X, W/0307/X, 

W/1018/X, W/1342/X, W/0198/X, 

W/0581/X, W/0489/X, W/0792/X, 

W/1054/X, W/1040/X. 

Annex 1 It is interesting to note that all the <strong>of</strong>fences listed are those which can be 

committed by access takers, while <strong>of</strong>fences which may be committed by land managers 

are omitted entirely. This greatly undermines the balance and impartiality <strong>of</strong> the Code. 

There should be an Annex covering the duties <strong>of</strong> the land manager. (A/0098/C) 

The presentation sees the issues <strong>of</strong> access in terms <strong>of</strong> two groups: recreationists on the 

one hand and land owners and managers on the other. The first group wanting access: 

the other wishing to control access. This is altogether the wrong approach for it will 

perpetuate a climate <strong>of</strong> confrontation and gives the impression that the Code has been 

drafted so as to maintain as far as possible the current powers <strong>of</strong> land managers to 

control access solely in their terms without regard to the wider needs <strong>of</strong> the public. 

(G/0146/X) 

The tenor <strong>of</strong> the consultation document is unbalanced, concentrating on how to minimise 

inconvenience to land managers and thereby giving the impression that it is their 

interests that should take priority in the outdoors. (R/1278/X) 

...the Code is about Land Management and the control <strong>of</strong> access rather than the 

facilitating <strong>of</strong> the right <strong>of</strong> access provided by the Act. It is a land management tool rather 

than an aid to individuals exercising basic freedoms. (W/0489/X) 

The Draft Code perpetuates and, to some extent, emphasises the division between 

those accessing land and those who either own or manage it. …….there is the 

presumption that members <strong>of</strong> the public exercising access are less likely to behave 

responsibly than are landowners and land managers. (W/1040/X) 

G2e. Code needs more A/0927/X, B/0622/X, B/0626/X, This section should also make note <strong>of</strong> the fact that Scotland has a number <strong>of</strong> existing 

12

information for those 

undertaking activities 

outwith access rights 

G2f. Other 

B/0628/X, B/1117/X, E/0616/X, 

G/0854/X, G/1192/X, G/0831/X, 

G/0604/X, P/0640/X, Q/0930/X, 

W/0641/X, W/1227/X/d. 

G/1226/X, W/1085/X, B/1323/X, 

H/0807/X, W/1085/X, W/0700/X, 

A/0658/X/d, A/0825/X, A/0997/X, 

A/1073/X, A/1077/X, A/1081/X, 

A/0737/, A/0796/X/d, B/0622/X, 

B/1197/X, B/0551/X, B/0558/X, 

B/1269/X, B/1292/X, B/1078/X, 

B/1093/X, B/1094/X, B/1096/X, 

B/0608/X, B/0613/X, B/0613/X, 

B/0752/X, B/0783/X, B/0794/X, 

B/1144/X, B/1145/X, C/0721/X, 

C/0721/X, G/0657/X, G/1251/X, 

G/0831/X, G/1098/X, G/0580/X, 

G/0604/X, H/1103/X, H/0807/X, 

J/1255/X, J/1284/X, M/1258/X, 

N/1297/X, P/0646/X, P/0899/X, 

Q/1185/X, Q/1178/X, Q/0686/X, 

Q/0739/X, R/0549/X, V/0398/X, 

W/0017/X, W/0556/X, W/0562/X, 

W/0566/X, W/1260/X/d, 

W/0901/X/d, W/1123/X, W/0586/X, 

W/0587/X, W/0222/X, W/0746/X, 

W/0746/X, W/0780/X, W/0781/X, 

common law rights and customary freedoms <strong>of</strong> access; the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 

2003 adds to these by establishing statutory public rights <strong>of</strong> access for recreational and 

other purposes. The Code should make it clear that the Act does not alter or reduce 

these existing rights <strong>of</strong> entry, way, passage or access. (A/0927/X) 

Notable by its absence from the main body <strong>of</strong> the Code is any discussion <strong>of</strong> the impact 

<strong>of</strong> access taking on shooting and other country sports. (B/0628/X) 

We support the position <strong>of</strong> MC<strong>of</strong>S and RAS that the code should give guidance on 

responsible behaviour to the outdoors in a general sense both within and outwith access 

rights. We would stress, however, that what is being sought is guidance and not 

prescription. (G/0854/X) 

Hunting shooting and fishing are not considered in the Code, but shooting arrangements 

dictate much <strong>of</strong> my (and many <strong>of</strong> my friends) access as a horse rider in winter. Shooting 

parties also litter the countryside with spent cartridges. The BHS and BASC have 

developed a code <strong>of</strong> responsibility, since there have been a number <strong>of</strong> accidents to 

riders unaware <strong>of</strong> shooting near bridleways. To refer to that in the Access Code may be 

relevant. (G/1192/X) 

NB There is overlap between individuals as users and land managers - they are not 

exclusive categories. (A/0825/X) 

I also feel that in its current from the code will have a large impact on my ability to enjoy 

my sport…… I feel that both angling and canoeing are recreational activities and the 

Access Code should be written in such a way as to place them on an equal footing. If the 

code is to ask canoeists to wait for a signal before passing quietly by anglers it should 

also advise anglers not to commence fishing near where canoeists are paddling or 

practising manoeuvers. (A/1073/X) 

However, there is one area close to my heart that I feel is understated in the document. 

Although mentioned a few times I feel the guidelines are too vague & leave too much 

room for error on the part <strong>of</strong> the public. I am refering specifically to Wildlife/Conservation 

areas & their need for protection. (B/0551/X) 

The above access code may apply better to hill land but certainly for in bye land it needs 

to favour the landowner - you are asking us to be PARK RANGERS with no wage!! 

(B/1144/X) 

There is a tendency in the Code to over emphasise farming as a land use to the 

detriment <strong>of</strong> forestry and sport. At the beginning <strong>of</strong> the code this should be 

acknowledged and appreciated as land managers are clearly expected to devote time to 

access without recompense. (B/0558/X) 

The code is imbalanced in favour <strong>of</strong> pedestrian access takers with too much emphasis 

on defining the rights and responsibilities <strong>of</strong> this group. There are no clear rights and 

responsibilities for other users, in this instance cyclists and horse riders. Clearer 

statements are required to ensure these groups <strong>of</strong> users know how to behave 

13

Summary - 


W/1135/X, W/1111/X, X/1298/X. 

responsibly to other access users and landowners. This should be supported using 

simple examples and likely day to day scenarios. (G/0657/X) 

As drafted, the Code lacks balance and demonstrates little understanding <strong>of</strong> the needs 

<strong>of</strong> land owners and managers. The SLF would like to see the Code revised to reflect 

better the need for access rights to integrate with land management, not to over-ride 

these economic activities. (H/1103/X) 

The Code gives a golden opportunity to ensure the needs <strong>of</strong> people with disabilities are 

built into the process, rather than added as an adjunct or, worse, subject to remedy by 

complaint. (M/1258/X) 

In light <strong>of</strong> our comments above, we were concerned to read the accompanying notes on 

page 33, para 10. These give the impression that no power to suspend access exists, 

that the land manager's obligations under HSWA can be dealt with by assuming 

everyone will be sensible and that walking or cycling along a road is more dangerous 

anyway. If the code is to be the balanced document I am sure you intend it to be, it 

needs to avoid such narrow and misleading statements. (R/0549/X) 

There was a range <strong>of</strong> views on whether the draft Code was balanced, with comment – both positive and negative - coming from a cross section <strong>of</strong> 

respondent types. However, a large number <strong>of</strong> responses from those with land management interests thought that the draft Code was not balanced and, 

by placing more restrictions on their interests, tended to favour recreation users. 


A number <strong>of</strong> the concerns raised, particularly from land managers, referred back to the access legislation itself. These respondents felt that the Act 

favoured the interests <strong>of</strong> the access taker and that there was over-emphasis on the possible impacts on farming, compared to the more limited guidance on 

the effects on other land management operations such as forestry and sporting interests. Similarly, when advising recreation users, there was a perception 

that the draft Code was biased towards serving the interests <strong>of</strong> walkers rather than those <strong>of</strong> other users, such as horseriders, cyclists and people with 

disabilities. 


The Proposed Code cannot amend the extent <strong>of</strong> access rights set out in legislation. However, the Proposed Code does reflect many <strong>of</strong> the comments 

<strong>made</strong> and explains more about the background to the responsibilities. The Proposed Code also has more examples to illustrate responsibilities. In this 

respect, there is now greater reference to water-based activities, to horse riders and cyclists and people with disabilities and to a wider range <strong>of</strong> land 

management activities. 

14

Question 

G3 - Does the Code provide clear, sensible and helpful practical guidance on 

access rights and responsibilities that you can use to make informed decisions 

about everyday situations in the outdoors? 


G3a. Yes - clear, sensible 

and useable 

G3b. Clear and sensible, 

but doesn't cover enough 

day-to-day examples 

G3c. Not clear, sensible 

or practical 

A/0009/X, A/0655/X/d, A/0500/Y/d, 

A/0518/X, A/0846/X, A/1084/X, 

A/0469/X, B/0668/X, B/0673/X, 

B/0247/X, B/1205/X, B/0931/X/d, 

B/0715/X, B/0794/X, C/0070/X, 

D/1274/Y, E/0616/X, F/1134/X, 

G/0189/X, G/0960/X, G/0584/X/d, 

G/0468/X, G/0730/X, H/1179/X, 

H/0460/X, J/1203/X, J/1051/X, 

K/0714/X, L/0507/X, L/0520/X, 

L/0213/Y, L/0439/X, L/0747/X, 

L/0410/X, P/0384/X, P/1237/X, 

Q/0651/X, Q/0177/X, Q/0187/X, 

Q/1275/X, Q/0828/X, Q/1122/X, 

Q/0611/X, Q/0232/X, Q/0479/X, 

W/0017/X, W/0074/X, W/0359/X, 

W/0182/X, W/0511/X, W/0307/X, 

W/1332/X, W/1201/X, W/1202/X, 

W/1204/X, W/1217/X, W/1227/X/d, 

W/0112/X, W/1052/X/d, W/0887/X, 

W/0972/X, W/0578/X, W/0423/X, 

W/1149/X, X/1059/X. 

B/0620/Y, B/1019/X, B/0226/X, 

H/0808/X, P/0287/X, P/0928/X, 

Q/0304/X, V/0245/X, W/0843/X. 

A/0320/X/d, A/0786/X/d, B/0142/X, 

B/0385/X/d, B/0628/X, B/0633/X, 

B/0167/X, B/0340/X, B/0293/X, 



This is a well thought out document, easily understood and easy to follow. (A/0655/X/d) 

In general terms we think the Code is written in a clear, easily understood way which 

should help all users. (B/0931/X/d) 

It provides useful advice covering many complex issues. It formalises what many 

regarded was the traditional position under Scots law. (G/0189/X) 

In general, the Scottish Wildlife Trust is satisfied that the draft Code provides an 

acceptable reference point, and contains clear, helpful and practical guidance on access 

rights and responsibilities <strong>of</strong> users and land mangers. (K/0714/X) 

It is easy to use to check access rights in particular instances. We appreciated the 

Appendices <strong>of</strong> existing relevant law, and the contacts suggested in cases <strong>of</strong> 

disagreement over access in specific cases. (Q/0828/X) 

The Code is clearly explained but sometimes needs further clarification e.g. "air sports" 

- does this include the noisy and intrusive sport <strong>of</strong> micro lighting? (2.8). … (2.13) needs 

further interpretation - would it include "outward bound" type schools? (B/0226/X) 

A section giving examples <strong>of</strong> land management operations and conservation schemes 

would be very useful. Many <strong>of</strong> the above points may seem insignificant or are covered 

by other codes and legislation, but by including them in the Access Code the document 

would be more encompassing and considered a more useful document that would be 

more likely to be referred to . (P/0928/X) 

In the past landowners / managers had the right to ask persons to leave or to refuse 

permission. It is perhaps not entirely clear whether or when such rights exist except in 

the case <strong>of</strong> irresponsible behaviour. (W/0843/X) 

There needs to be more emphasis throughout on common sense and courtesy/respect. 

(B/0142/X) 

The draft SOAC is at fault in trying to generalise when specific advice is needed and is 

15 

167

G3d. Other 

B/0569/X, B/0241/X, B/0956/X, 

B/1240/X, B/1094/X, B/0574/X, 

B/0465/X, B/0466/X/d, B/0787/X/d, 

B/1133/X, B/0294 /X, B/0294/X, 

E/0616/X, E/0921/X, H/0534/X, 

H/0552/X, H/0915/X, J/1284/X, 

N/0137/X, Q/0309/X, Q/0323/X, 

Q/0210/X, Q/0707/X, V/0398/X, 

W/0619/X, W/0190/X, W/1189/X, 

W/0531/X, W/1071/X, W/0221/X, 

W/0708/X/d, W/0735/X, X/0543/X. 

B/0956/X, B/1303/X/d, B/1323/X, 

W/0173/X, A/0290/X, A/0871/X, 

A/0719/X/d, B/0624/X, B/0634/X, 

B/0505/X, B/1186/X, B/1197/X, 

B/0545/X, B/1017/X, B/1261/X, 

B/0801/X, B/0839/X, B/0909/X, 

B/0918/X, B/1094/X, B/1121/X, 

B/1125/X, B/0585/X, B/0594/X, 

B/0594/X, B/0738/X, B/0754/X, 

B/0754/X, B/0760/X, B/0782/X, 

B/0788/X, B/1117/X, C/0721/X, 

E/0616/X, E/0536/X, E/1257/X, 

E/0765/X, G/0832/X, G/0920/Y, 

G/0759/X, H/0916/X, H/0615/X, 

H/0515/X, K/1241/X, N/0137/X, 

N/0139/X, N/1120/X, P/0640/X, 

P/0642/X, P/1304/X, P/0899/X, 

P/0717/X, Q/0157/X, Q/0856/X, 

Q/1178/X, Q/0686/X, Q/0790/X, 

R/0549/X, R/0868/X, U/1172/X, 

W/0140/X, W/0641/X, W/0191/X, 

ambiguous in that it hedges and makes exception to nearly every instruction it gives. I 

believe that it should make general statements about rights <strong>of</strong> way and core paths, 

which clearly take precedence over any limitations but leave it at that. (B/0340/X) 

I'm afraid it falls far short. …….it does not distil down readily to a few reliable pithy rules 

<strong>of</strong> thumb, that people can know and understand quickly……… A functional code would 

need to be as explicit as the highway code, and this draft is certainly not that. (B/0465/X) 

FTA feels that there are still too many matters left in doubt, particularly as the code 

should be easy to understand for town dwellers unfamiliar with the countryside. 

(H/0915/X) 

"you must not disturb wildlife or plants" "You must keep your dog on a lead in areas 

where ground nesting birds are breeding……" These are not unreasonable, if somewhat 

vague and imprecise in their practical implementation. For example what, exactly, does 

"disturb" mean, and how are dog owners to know if an area is one where ground nesting 

birds are breeding. Do SNH propose to put signs up? I presume not, so the practicality 

<strong>of</strong> such advice is questionable at best. (N/0137/X) 

No. It is trying to do two things and probably failing to do both. It cannot be a clear and 

concise "code" for access users and access providers and provide guidance for the 

courts on what reasonably constitutes responsible behaviour in all circumstances. 

(W/0708/X/d) 

A series <strong>of</strong> individuals taking access responsibly (and therefore acting within the code) 

taken cumulatively may result in damage and/or disturbance. This point requires much 

more attention in the current draft. (B/0801/X) 

Many members <strong>of</strong> the public are quite unfamiliar with how rural land is used and 

managed and cannot be expected to know, or understand, when and where access is 

appropriate in terms <strong>of</strong> the draft Code. (B/0594/X) 

The draft Code assumes a level <strong>of</strong> respect and understanding for the natural 

environment among the general public, which <strong>of</strong>ten does not exist. (B/0760/X) 

Both angling and canoeing are recreational activities and the code should be written in 

such a way as to place them on an equal footing. The code should make it clear that 

Land managers do not have powers to restrict or limit access rights, only Local 

Authorities can do this. (G/0832/X) 

When the Land Reform Bill was being debated in the Scottish Parliament in 2002 it was 

<strong>of</strong>ten said by members <strong>of</strong> the Justice 2 Committee that issues that were "black and 

white" should be included in the Bill, whereas issues that were regarded as having 

"shades <strong>of</strong> grey" should be dealt with in the Code. It is important that the Code does not 

attempt to make these grey areas, where in one set <strong>of</strong> circumstances it is advisable to 

do one thing, but in a different set <strong>of</strong> circumstances it might be better to do something 

different, into black and white issues where you should always take the same course <strong>of</strong> 

action. In other words the Code should not be overly prescriptive. (G/0920/Y) 

We believe that the regulations and guidelines for lowland and upland areas should, in 

16

W/0159/X, W/0855/X, W/1016/X, 

W/0873/X, W/0901/X/d, 

W/1102/X/d, W/1119/X, W/0581/X, 

W/0589/X, W/0614/X, W/0217/X, 

W/0221/X, W/0746/X, W/0780/X, 

W/1109/X, W/1110/X, W/1111/X, 

W/1112/X. 

some respects, be different and that these differences are not sufficiently reflected in the 

Draft Code. (Q/0856/X) 

The Act and Code do not seem to specify an age at which the access rights apply. An 

unsupervised group <strong>of</strong> children present a different set <strong>of</strong> issues and risks compared to 

adults. This is particularly true for water safety. (R/0868/X) 

I can see that what goes in to the Code will become as important as what is left out <strong>of</strong> it, 

particularly the examples given for the various sections. (W/0191/X) 

17

Supplementary Comments – Is the Code written in a way that is easily understood? 


The Code is written in a 

way which is easily 

understood 

The Code is not easily 

understood 

Other views on whether 

Code is easily understood 

A/0039/X, A/0655/X/d, A/0163/X, 

A/0135/X, B/0120/X, B/1261/X, 

B/0211/X, B/1167/X, B/0041/X, 

G/0043/X, G/0189/X, G/0580/X, 

L/0659/X, L/0125/X, P/1273/X, 

Q/0357/X, Q/0697/X/d, W/0007/X, 

W/0011/X, W/0119/X, W/0095/X, 

W/0675/X, W/1153/Z/d, X/0099/X, 

X/0811/X. 

A/0320/X/d, A/0820/X, A/0825/X, 

A/0919/X, A/0927/X, A/1037/X, 

B/0085/X, B/0167/X, B/0326/X, 

B/0569/X, B/0673/X, B/0835/X, 

B/0842/X, B/1173/X, B/0613/X, 

B/0236/X, B/0695/X, E/0616/X, 

E/0923/X, E/0703/X, E/1113/X, 

G/0854/X, G/1099/X, H/1103/X, 

H/0808/X, H/1179/X, J/1058/X, 

L/0650/X, L/0865/X, M/0101/X, 

M/1327/X, M/0687/X, P/0316/X, 

P/1304/X, P/1300/X, P/0889/X, 

P/0890/X, P/0928/X, P/1066/X, 

Q/0157/X, Q/0304/X, Q/0224/X, 

U/0922/X, V/0398/X, W/0014/X, 

W/0057/X, W/0143/X, W/0619/X, 

W/0296/X, W/0335/X, W/0848/X, 

W/1189/X, W/0815/X, W/0818/X, 

W/0822/X, W/0221/X, W/0708/X/d, 

W/0217/X, W/0720/X, W/0720/X, 

W/0767/X, X/1067/X. 

A/0155/X, A/0362/X, A/0796/X/d, 

A/1136/X/d, B/0195/X, B/0160/X, 

B/1195/X, B/0677/X, B/0679/X, 

B/0879/X, B/1161/X, B/1175/X, 

B/1094/X, B/1096/X, B/0574/X, 

B/0613/X, B/0704/X, B/0755/X, 

C/0721/X, D/1274/Y, G/1307/X, 



The code deals with most aspects <strong>of</strong> this in a concise way making clear walkers & land 

managers responsibilities to each other (A/0039/X) 

SNH are to be congratulated on producing a document that attempts to cover all the 

areas relating to the subject. The four main principles for access are set out clearly 

(B/1167/X) 

The code should clearly state in its opening paragraph that there is 'a presumption in 

favour <strong>of</strong> responsible access' as the Act itself sets out in statute this presumption… The 

code should follow the wording <strong>of</strong> the Act, so that potential difficulties are avoided 

(A/0820/X) 

As the Code provides guidance on responsible behaviour for both land managers and 

the public its use would be greatly facilitated if there were clear cross referencing 

between relevant sections and paragraphs (A/0927/X) 

Everything in the consultation is too vague, and the word responsible means different 

things to different people (B/0236/X) 

In general we would like to see the Code simplified for the benefit <strong>of</strong> land users, 

managers and owners (E/0703/X) 

There are a number <strong>of</strong> instances <strong>of</strong> repetition and lack <strong>of</strong> logical sequence…This may 

reflect the process <strong>of</strong> intense negotiation that has taken place on the Access Forum… 

but it does lead to loss <strong>of</strong> clarity. It may be helpful to involve a pr<strong>of</strong>essional writers in fine 

tuning and editing the final version (H/1179/X) 

Consideration should be given for inserting an index to assist in its use as a reference 

document (P0890/X) 

The layout <strong>of</strong> the code is confusing, with similar information scattered in various places 

throughout. The table in section 5 is clearer and more user friendly ( W/0720/X) 

To encourage responsible behaviour guidance should be included throughout the code 

within each category <strong>of</strong> User and Land manager by identifying what is criminal behaviour 

and giving examples <strong>of</strong> irresponsible behaviour (A/0796/X) 

Land manager is an ugly term. For most persons a manager is someone that does no 

real work. (B/1096/X) 

The Use <strong>of</strong> more direct language would cut down on words and make the code easier to 

understand….More direct language would also make the Code easier for foreign 

18 

157

G/1155/X, H/1196/X, H/1103/X, 

K/1302/X, K/1241/X, K/0722/X, 

L/0659/X, L/0113/X, M/1258/X, 

P/0643/X, P/0548/X, P/1219/X, 

P/1272/X, P/0899/X, P/0928/X, 

P/0575/X, P/0576/X, P/0577/X, 

Q/0176/X, R/1256/X, R/1278/X, 

R/0121/X, V/0398/X, V/0245/X, 

V/1285/X, W/0024/X, W/0619/X, 

W/0087/X, W/0088/X, W/0182/X, 

W/0168/, W/0530/X, W/1189/X, 

W/0554/X, W/1265/X, W/1282/X, 

W/1153/Z/d, W/1170/X, W/0587/X, 

W/0124/X, W/0217/X, W/0700/X, 

W/0705/X, W/0766/X, W/0767/X, 

W/1109/X, X/0637/X, X/0638/X/d, 

X/0122/X. 

tourists to use (L/0659/X) 

Diagrams could be useful in illustrating some points for example, how the new access 

rights relate to ROW for the difficult question <strong>of</strong> access to farm - yards. (P/1219/X) 

19

Supplementary Comments – Is the Code written in an appropriate style? 


The Code is written in an 

appropriate style 

The Code is not written in 

an appropriate style 

A/0522/X, A/1283/X, A/0469/X, 

B/0668/X, B/0835/X, B/1152/X, 

B/1147/X, G/0806/X, G/0730/X, 

H/1276/X, Q/0073/X, W/0063/X, 

W/0056/X, W/0359/X, W/0619/X, 

W/1225/X, W/0597/X, X/0129/X. 

A/0400/X, A/0319/X, A/0205/X, 

A/1320/X, A/0838/X, A/0927/X, 

A/0126/X, A/0477/X, A/1136/X/d, 

B/0139/X, B/0385/X, B/0107/X, 

B/0085/X, B/0181/X, B/0183/X, 

B/0167/X, B/0525/X/d, B/0863/X, 

B/1183/X, B/1190/X, B/0672/X, 

B/1341/Z/d, B/0141/X, B/0455/X, 

B/1309/X, B/1281/X, B/1288/X, 

B/0835/X, B/0884/X, B/0925/X, 

B/0946/X, B/1078/X, B/0049/X, 

B/0436/X, B/0461/X, B/0473/X/d, 

B/0695/X, B/1047/X, B/1356/, 

D/1065/X, E/1243/X, G/0146/X, 

G/0854/X, G/1192/X, G/1254/X, 

G/0831/X, G/0917/X, G/1057/X, 

J/1058/X, J/1284/X, K/0444/X, 

L/0865/X, M/0263/X, N/1138/X, 

P/0643/X, P/0274/X, P/1304/X, 

P/0928/X, P/1066/X, Q/0024/X, 

Q/0256/X, Q/1233/X, Q/1286/X, 

Q/0866/X/d, Q/1061/X, U/0922/X, 

U/1172/X, V/0398/X, V/0245/X, 

V/1228/X, W/0014/X, W/0078/X, 

W/0078/X, W/0044/X, W/0140/X, 

W/0143/X, W/0359/X, W/0110/X, 

W/0182/X, W/1189/X, W/1198/X, 

W/0541/X, W/0556/X, W/0566/X, 

W/0669/X/d, W/1032/X, W/0239/X, 

W/1310/X/d, W/1337/X, W/0812/Y, 

W/0872/X, W/0907/X, W/1159/X/d, 

20 

Total Number <strong>of</strong> 


Generally the Code is clearly written for local people exercising access rights and land 

managers (B/1147/X) 

I have to say I am most impressed. The layout and presentation are <strong>of</strong> the highest order 

(A/0522/) 

The tone <strong>of</strong> much <strong>of</strong> the draft code conveys an impression <strong>of</strong> two groups in opposition, 

rather than the give and take <strong>of</strong> co-operation demonstrated in the Hill Phones (A/0205/X) 

The tone changes when you come to what Local authorities must do and becomes 

firmer. The tone, throughout needs to be firm and explicit and not mealy - mouthed and 

s<strong>of</strong>t (B/0672/X) 

Only sections 3, 4 and 5 <strong>of</strong> the consultative draft fulfil these statutory duties and 

therefore only sections 3, 4 and 5 should comprise the Code (G/1057/X) 

It is important that the code maintains a positive tone in relation to dogs . It appears 

overly negative in its present form. (L/1284/X) 

183

Other views on the style 

<strong>of</strong> the Code 

W/1001/X/d, W/0957/X, W/1071/X, 

W/0591/X, W/0591/X, W/0217/X, 

W/0221/X, W/0222/X, W/0235/X, 

W/0709/X/d, W/0777/X, W/1040/X, 

X/0099/X, X/0811/X, X/0939/X, 

X/1067/X, X/0122/X. 

A/0369/X/d, A/0397/X/d, 

A/0658/X/d, A/0111/X, A/0163/X, 

A/0933/X, A/0422/X, A/0737/, 

A/0740/X, B/0049/X, B/0375/X, 

B/0648/X, B/0654/X, B/0326/X, 

B/1195/X, B/0443/X, B/0574/X, 

D/1340/X, D/1065/X, E/0616/X, 

E/1257/X, G/1251/X, J/1058/X, 

K/0714/X, L/0527/X, P/1247/X, 

P/0899/X, P/0491/X, P/0575/X, 

P/0576/X, P/0576/X, P/0576/X, 

P/0577/X, P/0577/X, Q/0501/X, 

Q/1252/X, Q/1178/X, Q/0526/X, 

Q/0526/X, Q/0686/X, R/1278/X, 

W/0056/X, W/0143/X, W/0096/X, 

W/0173/X, W/0511/X, W/1265/X, 

W/1277/X, W/1052/X, W/0489/X, 

W/0434/X, W/0789/X, W/1135/X, 

W/1130/X, X/0149/X, X/0099/X. 

A good wordsmith is vital. Advice for users and land managers should be positive 

encouraging language where at all possible. The language needs to be consistent to all 

parties (D/1340/X) 

It is important that the language <strong>of</strong> the document is accessible to all (D/1065/X) 

21

Summary – 


Many recreational users and some land management interests did say that the draft Code provided clear, sensible and practical guidance to help people to 

make informed decisions about everyday situations. However, many others, particularly from land management interests, felt that the draft Code did not 

achieve this. 


Some responses included concerns that the draft Code attempted to present too much detail and thereby diminish the emphasis on common sense and 

courtesy, whilst others felt that there was over reliance on the recreational users’ ability to make informed decisions, because <strong>of</strong> the lack <strong>of</strong> clear or practical 

guidance for some every day situations. There was also concern that the cumulative impacts arising from recreational use were not adequately considered 

in the draft Code. 

Comments were also collated on the way in which the draft Code had been written and its general style in presenting the guidance. There was a range <strong>of</strong> 

views on these issues, although on balance the majority <strong>of</strong> comments were seeking changes to the draft Code. 


It is clear that there are mixed and varied expectations <strong>of</strong> the Code. Whilst the Proposed Code has changed to reflect many <strong>of</strong> the points raised, SNH will 

also report to the Scottish Executive on the wider issues raised, for example the need for further guidance on certain matters and a link with wider 

education initiatives. 

SNH has resisted making dramatic changes to the structure <strong>of</strong> the Proposed Code or to the key responsibilities, because it must fulfil its statutory role and 

key interests have been closely involved, particularly through the national Access Forum, in the drafting <strong>of</strong> the Code. However, SNH recognises and 

accepts the views <strong>of</strong> respondents in that the additional educational products that will flow from the Approved Code must be tailored to the needs <strong>of</strong> their 

target audience, so that responsibilities are clearly set out and can then be easily understood. 

22

Question G4 - Is the Code written in a way which reflects the spirit <strong>of</strong> the legislation? Number <strong>of</strong> 



G4a. Yes 

A/0009/X, A/0369/X/d, A/0518/X, 

A/0958/X, A/1084/X, A/0469/X, 

A/0719/X/d, B/0118/X, B/0519/X, 

B/0668/X, B/0673/X, B/0409/X, 

B/0466/X/d, B/0794/X, C/0070/X, 

D/1274/Y, E/0616/X, G/0189/X, 

G/0146/X, G/0960/X, G/1098/X, 

H/0808/X, H/1179/X, H/0460/X, 

K/0722/X, L/0439/X, P/0646/X, 

P/1237/X, P/0804/X, P/0899/X, 

P/0577/X, P/0717/X, P /0575/X, 

Q/0157/X, Q/1312/X, Q/1232/X, 

Q/1275/X, Q/1178/X, Q/1122/X, 

Q/0686/X, Q/0707/X, W/0017/X, 

W/0021/X, W/0074/X, W/0087/X, 

W/0182/X, W/1016/X, W/1204/X, 

W/0112/X, W/0833/X, W/0972/X, 

W/0581/X, W/0423/X, W/0056/X, 

X/0727/X. 

G4b. No 

A/0319/X, A/0740/X, B/0628/X, 

B/0275/X, B/0288/X/d, B/1195/X, 

B/1199/X, B/0754/X, B/1150/X/d, 

E/1079/X, E/1097/X, H/0534/X, 

H/0515/X, J/1255/X, J/1284/X, 

L/0747/X, M/0463/X, P/0274/X, 

P/0548/X, W/0173/X, W/1227/X/d, 

W/0990/X/d, W/0587/X, W/0610/X, 

W/0708/X/d, W/0780/X. 

I am <strong>of</strong> the opinion that in general terms the Act adequately covers access rights as 

reflected in Parliamentary debate and the proposed Access Code reflects this. 

(A/0369/X/d) 

Now that statutory rights <strong>of</strong> responsible access have been enshrined in law it is essential 

that the Code does not dilute these rights. The draft in general does reflect the spirit <strong>of</strong> 

the legislation. (K/0722/X) 

We accept that the Code in general reflects the spirit <strong>of</strong> the legislation, whatever our 

reservations about Part 1 <strong>of</strong> the Act. (H/1179/X) 

The key principles within the code broadly reflect the overall spirit <strong>of</strong> the Act and the 

general message <strong>of</strong> responsible access is to be welcomed. (P/0575/X) 

The Forum feels it is a good document, which reflects the spirit <strong>of</strong> the legislation and 

provides useful guidance. (P/1237/X) 

Yes. The Code is in accordance with the original concept propounded by the Access 

Forum. (W/0021/X) 

You state that the code must accurately reflect the spirit <strong>of</strong> the Land Reform (Scotland) 

Act 2003 but it must also reflect the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Act. There are a number <strong>of</strong> 

incidences where it does not do so. For example, Section 2.13 states that commercial 

activities carried on in pursuance <strong>of</strong> access rights must be closely linked to open air 

recreation or education undertaken by the general public; the Act does not say that and 

I do not believe that access rights are so limited (although I believe that it is outwith the 

original objectives <strong>of</strong> introducing statutory access rights thay they should cover 

commercial activies at all). Later on, paragraph 3.4.3 says that if an event is being 

organised the permission <strong>of</strong> land managers must be obtained; whilst I agree that that 

ought to be the situation, I do not believe that the statute justifies that statement unless 

facilities over and above the land are required. (B/1150/X/d) 

Page 30 Q.6. Para 2.15, The proposed code is too wide ranging and, I believe, goes 

further than most people would want or would have expected. (H/0534/X) 

The Code is not written in the spirit <strong>of</strong> the legislation, as it seems to acknowledge the 

rights <strong>of</strong> the access taker, whilst not recognising sufficiently the rights <strong>of</strong> the access 

provider. (H/0515/X) 

...The Code also appears willing to pontificate on such matters without taking into 

account the fact that there is no legislative definition <strong>of</strong> "recreational purposes". By 

23 

211

G4c. No the Code goes 

beyond the spirit <strong>of</strong> the 

legislation and provides 

the public with too much 

freedom to access the 

outdoors 

A/1333/X, B/0186/X, B/0845/X, 

B/0670/X, B/0141/X, B/0986/X, 

B/1094/X, B/0226/X, B/0236/X, 

B/1033/X, B/1133/X, F/1134/X, 

H/0916/X, J/1203/X, P/0640/X, 

Q/0866/X/d, Q/0415/X, 

W/1052/X/d, W/0810/X, 

W/0901/X/d, W/1119/X. 

creating its own definition <strong>of</strong> "open air recreation" and going on from there it seems to be 

usurping the normal functions <strong>of</strong> the Scottish Parliament. Since the Land Reform Act 

legalises "recreational purposes" but not "open air recreation" upon which the SOAC is 

based, it is not inconceivable that the whole lot might be dismissed as illegal! 

....................... SNH has sought our views in order to produce a Code which accurately 

reflects "the spirit <strong>of</strong> the Act". SANA would consider it more appropriate if SNH applies its 

efforts to produce a Code which accurately relfects the letter <strong>of</strong> the Land Reform 

(Scotland) Act 2003. It might have more credibility, be less likely to cause conflict, be 

more widely acceptable and indeed closer to what the Scottish Parliament actually 

tasked SNH to do. (J/1255/X) 

The Act makes specific mention <strong>of</strong> the needs <strong>of</strong> disabled people on more than one 

occasion. This can be taken as a commitment on behalf <strong>of</strong> the Scottish Parliament to 

ensure the inclusion <strong>of</strong> disabled people. The Code cannot be said to have picked up nor 

developed this theme. (M/0463/X) 

No, the spirit <strong>of</strong> the legislation I think is the simple concept that responsible members <strong>of</strong> 

the public can take responsible access. The code complicates it. (W/0708/X/d) 

I am very uneasy about the principle <strong>of</strong> almost unfettered access embodied in the Code - 

I think the longstanding, common sense tradition <strong>of</strong> mutual tolerance between 

landowners and the public will be replaced by confrontation. (A/1333/X) 

I do not wish walkers to have more rights than I do myself. I have a job to do and it is 

not my sport but my income. (B/0226/X) 

If, as it seems to me, the code is intended to convey the message that all landowners 

are over-privileged aristocrats who use their land as a shield to isolate themselves from 

the common man, and that all access takers are good and honest people whose only 

wish is to climb a hill in freedom, then yes, the code is written in such a way! (W/1119/X) 

The Act expressly limits access rights on golf courses to crossing from one place to 

another. This advice/commentary contradicts the Act and in doing so the Code is 

overstepping its powers and risks legitimising behaviour that is prevented by the primary 

legislation. We strongly object to this wording remaining in the Access Code. (J/1203/X) 

As access to the outdoors is to be less restrictive it is felt that there is a requirement for 

those taking access to express their commitment to the code and to make certain 

information more readily available to Land Mangers in emergency situations… It is 

suggested that an "access card" scheme is introduced where by parties taking access 

will carry a card which will commit to and disclose the following information; ....'The 

holder <strong>of</strong> this card has read, understood and will adhere to the access responsibilities as 

detailed in the Scottish Outdoor Access Code'.... Name and Address; Next <strong>of</strong> Kin; Blood 

Group; Insurance details.... It is envisaged that the "access card" would be issued once 

only for a period <strong>of</strong> life. On issue a small cost would be charged to cover administration 

costs, this administration cost could be artificially inflated to include a donation 

component towards important access projects. (P/0640/X) 

24

G4d. No – the Code 

doesn't go far enough and 

does not provide greater 

freedom to enjoy the 

outdoors 

G4e. Other 

A/0820/X, A/0111/X, A/1326/X, 

A/0927/X, A/0997/X, A/0958/X, 

A/0968/X, A/1081/X, A/0219/X, 

A/0471/X/d, A/0471/X/d, 

A/1136/X/d, A/1070/X/d, B/0738/X, 

D/1340/X, G/0831/X, G/0146/X, 

G/0164/X, G/0854/X, G/0197/X, 

G/1226/X, G/1254/X, G/0920/Y, 

G/0580/X, K/1302/X, K/0714/X, 

K/0722/X, K/1241/X, L/1026/X, 

L/0791/X, P/0575/X, P/0577/X, 

P/1218/X, P/1247/X, P/1273/X, 

P/0890/X, Q/0930/X, Q/0415/X, 

Q/1308/X, R/1278/X, W/0018/X, 

W/0078/X, W/0498/, W/1029/X, 

W/0239/, W/0246/X, W/1310/X/d, 

W/0944/X, W/0610/X, W/0610/X, 

W/0429/X, W/0430/X/d, W/0781/X, 

W/0792/X, W/0532/X, W/1287/X, 

W/1130/X, X/0811/X, X/0937/X, 

X/0727/X. 

A/0162/X, A/1073/X, A/0477/X, 

A/0740/X, A/0743/X, B/0054/X, 

B/0620/Y, B/0624/X, B/0628/X, 

B/0558/X, B/0569/X, B/0956/X, 

B/0891/X, B/1152/X, B/1062/X, 

B/1094/X, B/0594/X, B/0465/X, 

B/0731/X, B/0772/X, C/0721/X, 

E/0984/X, E/1079/X, H/0674/X, 

J/1255/X, L/0791/X, P/0640/X, 

P/0642/X, P/0643/X, P/0384/X, 

P/0548/X, P/0928/X, P/0889/X, 

Q/0251/X, R/1278/X, W/0102/X, 

W/1071/X, W/0573/X, W/0579/X, 

W/0579/X, W/0587/X, W/0217/X, 

W/0489/X, W/0751/Y, W/0775/X, 

W/0781/X, W/1130/X, X/0099/X, 

X/0896/X. 

"The CODE" provides guidance, not rules and regulations, on responsible behaviour by 

the public and land managers. Therefore, the word "must" is only appropriate where 

there is an obligation under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 or under other 

statutory provisions (to which a reference should be <strong>made</strong> in the text); where there is no 

such legal obligation the appropriate word is "should". (A/0924/X) 

Scotland has a long-standing tradition <strong>of</strong> freedom to roam. The Act and the Code 

recognise this but, where statutory access rights are excluded from the Act, the Code 

should emphasise that it is still possible to take responsible access. (A/0471/X/d) 

The Act was supposed to facilitate assured access; the current guidance in the SOAC 

leaves us guessing. In fact the guidance is in the style <strong>of</strong> the old culture - find the 

manager and ask permission. That is quite unsatisfactory. (P/0890/X) 

While para. 1.8 does make it clear that the term "outdoors" is inclusive <strong>of</strong> open spaces in 

towns and cities the emphasis throughout the code, perhaps understandably, is on 

rural/countryside issues. Given the Executive's (and indeed SNH's) recent declarations 

on the importance <strong>of</strong> dealing with environmental injustices in deprived urban areas 

experiencing degradation is there an opportunity to raise the pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong> the relevance <strong>of</strong> 

the Code to urban Greenspace issues perhaps through use <strong>of</strong> examples or 

photographs? (W/0018/X) 

It is hoped that it will in no way undermine the existing rights <strong>of</strong> public access by 

formalising the situation. (W/1029/X) 

It does not encourage me to take pride in and care for the land. Indeed it makes me feel 

dismissed and vulnerable. It is as though I no longer have the right to "own" the land and 

that my family's efforts to conserve and manage it over fifty years are <strong>of</strong> little merit or 

value. If this is the spirit <strong>of</strong> the legislation then yes it does reflect it. (B/0620/Y) 

As worded so far, the Access Code is being imposed. If the Scottish Executive does 

pursue the present course with few amendments, meaning that Right <strong>of</strong> Access is 

imposed, the following proposal is submitted for serious consideration. Collectively and 

Individually, the Access Fora and their Members should carry the burden <strong>of</strong> cost <strong>of</strong> all 

related matters including Risk Assessment and Insurance Cover for any and all 

members <strong>of</strong> the Public. This would certainly focus minds on the reality <strong>of</strong> the proposed 

legislation. This is a serious point which SNH must consider. (B/0891/X) 

The stated aim is to produce a "reference point" on those rights and responsibilities. In 

practice, however, in many instances in sections 3 and 5 it appears to stray into the area 

<strong>of</strong> determining and interpreting what is responsible action and what is not. This is, in 

effect a ruling on what is legal and what is not and this is surely a function <strong>of</strong> the Courts 

finalising instances <strong>of</strong> disagreement originating in the local Access Forums and going 

through local authority procedure rather than by any reference to SNH. (J/1255/X) 

Sportscotland is very concerned by the amount and variety <strong>of</strong> content that is included in 

the consultation document under the collective term <strong>of</strong> the Code. Section 10 <strong>of</strong> the Act 

25

<strong>Analysis</strong> – 


states that the Code should set out guidance on responsible access; the Code, as it is 

drafted, does this but also includes a substantial range <strong>of</strong> supplementary guidance, 

explanation and information which does not strictly set out guidance on responsible 

access. This would include for example, the summary <strong>of</strong> access rights, the appendices 

and the practical guide. Sportscotland recognises the value <strong>of</strong> this supplementary 

information and considers that it should appear in the same document as the Code but 

Sportscotland does not consider that it should form part <strong>of</strong> the Code itself. (R/1278/X) 

"Places where you have to pay to go in"! This seems perfectly fair but are 

arrangements in place to deal with new areas <strong>of</strong> land post the Act when the owner 

decides to make a charge. It appears from the Act, Section 6(1)(f) that the decision to 

take land out <strong>of</strong> access in this way rests solely with the owner, provided that the public 

are admitted on payment for not fewer than 90 days. See also 7(9). Some clarification 

<strong>of</strong> this issue would be helpful. (W/0781/X) 

There was both support and disagreement in responses as to whether the draft Code had been written in a way which reflected the spirit <strong>of</strong> the legislation. 

These comments came from a range <strong>of</strong> respondent types. 


Some respondents, particularly from recreation groups, felt that the draft Code did not follow the legislation closely enough and had introduced potential 

restrictions, whilst others, particularly those with land management interests, were looking to the Code to adjust perceived shortcomings <strong>of</strong> the legislation 

itself. 


The Proposed Code is now more accurate in relation to the legislation and in its use <strong>of</strong> the terms “must” – an action that is backed up by existing legal 

<strong>of</strong>fences or requirements <strong>of</strong> the law – and “should” – guidance on what is responsible. 

26

Question 1 - We would welcome any ideas on how we can balance the need to cover all issues 

in sufficient detail with the length <strong>of</strong> the Code 


1a. the Code is too long 

and covers too much 

detail 

1b. the length <strong>of</strong> the 

Code is about right 

A/0009/X, A/0786/X/d, B/0058/X, 

B/0626/X, B/0633/X, B/0638/X/d, 

B/0317/X, B/0337/X, B/0863/X, 

B/0545/X, B/0244/X, B/0835/X/ , 

B/0884/X, B/1126/X, B/0613/X, 

B/0738/X, B/0755/X, B/0794/X, 

B/1047/X, G/0189/X, G/1229/X, 

J/1028/X, L/0527/X, L/0513/X, 

M/0687/X, M/0948/X, N/0879/X, 

P/1304/X, P/1237/X, P/0890/X, 

P/0575/X, Q/0344/X, Q/0264/X, 

R/1278/X, W/0853/X, W/1342/X, 

W/0246/X, W/0979/X, W/1223/X, 

W/0870/X, W/0898/X, W/0901/X/d, 

W/1158/X, W/1170/X, W/0217/X, 

W/0489/X, W/0708/X/d, W/0758/X, 

W/0766/X, W/0767/X, W/0778/X, 

W/0780/X, W/1053/X, X/0664/X. 

A/0437/X, A/0477/X, A/1037/X, 

B/0028/X, B/0347/X, B/1022/X, 

B/0461/X, B/0470/X, D/0022/X, 

D/0521/X, G/1330/X/d, G/1214/X, 

G/0806/X, H/0310/X, H/0220/X, 

L/0185/X, P/0384/X, P/0643/X, 

P/0646/X, P/0287/X, P/0384/X, 

P/1273/X, Q/0501/X, Q/1346/X, 

U/0922/X, W/1189/X, W/1007/X, 

W/1032/X, W/0255/X, W/1329/X, 

W/0972/X, W/0423/X, X/1174/X, 

X/0405/X/d. 

Total Number <strong>of</strong> 


The introductory sessions are rather excessive: one reaches nothing substantial till page 

22. Perhaps some <strong>of</strong> the introductory material can go in an annex (A/0009/X) 

The Consultion document itself appears very wordy, repetitive and unwieldy. We hope 

that a future code will be simpler (B/0626/X) 

There is far too much <strong>of</strong> it. It is complicated and in parts contradictory (J/1028/X) 

Essentially, whilst I can't disagree with the mass <strong>of</strong> detail in the report I feel that it is in 

danger <strong>of</strong> getting bogged down with these details and losing sight <strong>of</strong> the essential points 

(W/0870/X) 

The summary <strong>of</strong> my critique would be: Simplify!…..The Access Code should simply state 

the principles and not try and cover all situations - very few people will read the code as 

it stands (W/0780/X) 

I believe the detail is necessary, given the lack <strong>of</strong> detail in the actual legislation 

(A/1037/X) 

it is clearly essential to establish a base document that is comprehensive. (B/0470/X) 

It is important that a document is available, particularly for land managers and access 

<strong>of</strong>ficers, that gives detailed guidance on as many situations as possible. The Code as 

proposed would not appear to be excessively lengthy given the many facets covered. 

(G/1214/X) 

Whilst the code is not a legal document it is likely to be used as material evidence 

should disputes arise and have to be taken to court. This means that the document is, <strong>of</strong> 

necessity, fairly detailed (P/0646/X) 

218 

1c. the Code is too short 

and needs to provide 

more detail 

B/0385/X/d, B/0167/X, B/0801/X, 

B/0834/X, B/0599/X/d, E/0924/X, 

G/1291/X, P/0576/X, W/0182/X. 

The Code must set out guidance for the general public in far more detail than given at 

present (B/0834/X) 

In that the Act looks so heavily to the Code to clarify and define measures within the Act 

it is imperative that the Code covers everything in detail sufficient to leave no ambiguity. 

In this context the Code is part <strong>of</strong> the law and as such it must cover everything in 

27

sufficient detail and not kowtow to the desire for brevity. At present the Code fails in 

clarity and this will lead to much unnecessary debate and perhaps litigation. (B/0167/X) 

We feel that to be effective as a guide and reference document, the Code in its entirety 

must be a lengthy document and in its present format does not cover all <strong>of</strong> the key 

issues in sufficient detail. (P/0576/X) 

1d. other A/0362/X, A/0098/X, A/0518/X, 

A/0319/X, A/0825/X, A/1070/X/d, 

A/1084/X, A/0422/X, A/0469/X, 

A/0719/X/d, A/0740/X, A/0743/X, 

A/0796/X/d, B/0054/X, B/0648/X, 

B/0654/X, B/0525/X/d, B/1183/X, 

B/0565/X, B/0668/X, B/0462/X, 

B/0443/X, B/0446/X, B/1288/X, 

B/1240/X, B/1152/X, B/1093/X, 

B/0574/X, B/0409/X, B/0436/X, 

B/0466/X/d, B/1267/X/d, B/0752/X, 

B/0772/X, D/1340/X, E/0616/X, 

E/0984/X, E/0590/X, E/0703/X, 

G/1099/X, G/1226/X, G/1251/X, 

G/1254/X, G/0917/X, G/0920/Y, 

G/1098/X, G/0580/X, G/0698/X, 

G/0759/X, G/1057/X, H/1103/X, 

H/0807/X, H/0808/X, H/1179/X, 

H/0941/X, K/0444/X, K/1302/X, 

K/1241/X, K/0714/X, L/0659/X, 

L/0410/X, L/0439/X, M/0463/X, 

N/0694/X, P/0640/X, P/0642/X, 

P/0643/X, P/0548/X, P/1218/X, 

P/1219/X, P/1239/X, P/1247/X, 

P/1272/X, P/0804/X, P/0878/X, 

P/0869/X, P/0899/X, P/0928/X, 

P/1066/X, P/0577/X, P/0491/X, 

P/0717/X, P/0889/X, Q/0157/X, 

Q/0206/X, Q/0445/X, Q/1275/X, 

Q/1122/X, Q/0697/X/d, Q/0707/X, 

R/1221/X, R/1256/X, R/1278/X, 

R/0763/X, W/0143/X, W/0529/X, 

W/1310/X/d, W/1202/X, W/0986/X, 

W/1235/X, W/1151/X, W/1001/X/d, 

I am sorry to say that I cannot think <strong>of</strong> many ways <strong>of</strong> shortening the main version <strong>of</strong> the 

code and would be worried that because <strong>of</strong> its length very few people will refer to it 

(B/1093/X) 

More important than the length <strong>of</strong> the Code is the need for it to cover all key issues in an 

unequivocal and unambiguous way. The less woolly and more specific the wording 

within the spirit <strong>of</strong> the Act, the less need for recourse to lawyers and for determinations 

by Sheriffs. (B/0525/X/d) 

SORN considers that the code should be based on the guidance in chapters 3 and 4 <strong>of</strong> 

the consultation document. A revised code document should be produced which 

contains the Code and the range <strong>of</strong> supplementary information that appears in the 

consultation document....... only the code section <strong>of</strong> the revised document requires 

Parliamentary approval (G/1251/X) 

The main Code must include as much detail as possible to act as the reference 

document. (P/1219/X) 

The examples give in Section 3 and 5 <strong>of</strong> the draft Code are not exhaustive, but there is a 

risk that they will assume great importance if presented in a court should a dispute arise 

(W/0944/X) 

28

W/0944/X, W/0579/X, W/0581/X, 

W/0589/X, W/0217/X, W/0403/X, 

W/0489/X, W/0770/X/d, W/0780/X, 

W/0789/X, W/0800/X, W/1109/X, 

W/1112/X, W/1130/X, X/1212/X, 

X/0937/X, X/1067/X, X/1092/X, 

X/0784/X. 

Summary – 


Some <strong>representations</strong> criticised the length <strong>of</strong> the draft Code. Some also advocated that Parliamentary approval be sought for only Sections 3, 4 and 5. A 

smaller number <strong>of</strong> <strong>representations</strong> sought a longer Code or felt that the length <strong>of</strong> the draft Code was about right. 


There is a general tension between the common view that the draft Code is too long and the responses <strong>made</strong> to other issues that sought more explanation 

or detail in order that the Code was an appropriate reference point in guiding responsibilities. 


SNH has concluded that the Proposed Code should provide a detailed reference point and, as such, cannot be <strong>made</strong> short. To make the Proposed Code 

more readable and accessible, “at-a-glance” summaries and “key points to remember” have been included, along with greater use <strong>of</strong> foot notes and cross 

referencing. However, and despite development <strong>of</strong> Section 5 to cover more every-day situations that may be encountered, it is recognised that the 

Proposed Code cannot cover all eventualities. In this respect, the length <strong>of</strong> the Proposed Code reflects the complexity <strong>of</strong> many <strong>of</strong> the detailed responses 

<strong>made</strong> and that a comprehensive access education programme, including shorter promotional material, is being developed to support implementation <strong>of</strong> the 

legislation and can be used to provide an additional layer <strong>of</strong> advisory detail. 

29

Question 2 - We would welcome any ideas on what sort <strong>of</strong> short summary code you would find 

useful and what its content should be. 


2a. short version aimed 

at users 

A/0009/X, A/0098/X, B/0347/X, 

B/0288/X/d, B/1195/X, B/0565/X, 

B/1288/X, B/1295/X, B/1114/X/d, 

E/0616/X, E/0703/X, G/0082/X, 

H/1182/X, H/1179/X, H/0615/X, 

H/0460/X, H/0515/X, P/1304/X, 

P/1272/X, P/1300/X, P/0717/X, 

Q/0264/X, Q/1178/X, Q/0697/X/d, 

V/0398/X, V/1285/X, W/0021/X, 

W/0057/X, W/0348/X/d, W/0108/X, 

W/0095/X, W/0268/, W/0255/X, 

W/1265/X, X/1298/X. 



Short summaries should be <strong>made</strong> available in leaflet or booklet format for hillwalkers, 

cyclists, horse riders, dog owners, etc. Land Managers should be issued with the full 

Code. (A/0098/X) 

Short codes for individual recreational activities would make the code more practical and 

should be produced in conjunction with this comprehensive version. (B/1295/X) 

Recreational users will tend to be only interested in those sections that apply to their 

particular activity. A one <strong>of</strong> two page summary could only set out general principles. 

(H/0460/X) 

We consider than an A6 booklet / laminated card, targeting individual user groups would 

be ideal, with, <strong>of</strong> course, direction to the full code be be held in Libraries and other 

establishments. (Q/0697/X/d) 

402 

2b. short version aimed 

at land managers 

2c. short version aimed at 

both users and land 

managers 

2d. short version using 

the table in Section 5 

B/0120/X, H/1276/X, W/0268/. 

A/0039/X, A/0362/X, A/0126/X, 

A/0133/X, A/0469/X, A/0477/X, 

A/0487/X, B/0300/X/d, B/1181/X, 

B/0672/X, B/0211/X, B/1271/X, 

B/0470/X, B/0755/X, C/0721/X, 

E/0086/X, F/1134/X, G/1291/X, 

L/0113/X, N/0694/X, P/0642/X, 

P/0643/X, P/1272/X, P/1273/X, 

P/1296/X, P/0717/X, W/0017/X, 

W/0021/X, W/0100//d, W/0295/X, 

W/1277/X, W/1149/X, W/1130/X. 

A/0097/X, A/0500/Y/d, A/0518/X, 

A/0133/X, A/0743/X, B/0041/X, 

B/0670/X, B/1152/X, B/0409/X, 

B/1114/X/d, G/1098/X, H/0808/X, 

L/1026/X, N/1138/X, P/0576/X, 

P/0577/X, Q/0651/X, Q/0499/X, 

We see a need for more detailed guidance to be available to land managers. Indeed it 

might be better to develop separate summaries for land managers and those taking 

access. This would allow more detailed guidance to be given and might combine the 

appropriate parts <strong>of</strong> the "at a glance" summaries and the table in Section 5. (H/1276/X) 

A concise summary <strong>of</strong> the main responsibilities <strong>of</strong> the public and land managers, 

together with a briefing on where to go and what to do in the event <strong>of</strong> a dispute. The 

wording should reflect the principle <strong>of</strong> consensus - ie courtesy, consideration and 

common-sense. (A/0469/X) 

most people will read the Short Code, and I suggest that when this goes through 

Parliament the Short Code could be incorporated into the main Code as its prefacing 

pages. (A/0477/X) 

A summary should cover the main rights and resonsibilities giving refernces to the full 

code where further explanation is needed. (B/0672/X) 

The code should be produced in a concise manner in booklet form so that it is easily 

carried in pocket or bag. Also it would be useful if it was produced in a waterpro<strong>of</strong> form. 

(B/1181/X) 

There will always be a need for a simple generic code similar to the country code that is 

relevant to everybody. (P/0643/X) 

SECTION 5: …..The length and lay-out <strong>of</strong> this section seem about right for a concise 

summary <strong>of</strong> the Code. (A/0133/X) 

I think that any summary <strong>of</strong> the code should be easy to read, and concern itself more 

with the practical aspects <strong>of</strong> responsibilities and access so that people are more likely to 

read and apply it rather than getting involved in the principles <strong>of</strong> the code. The table 

layout and content <strong>of</strong> Section 5 would provide an ideal means <strong>of</strong> doing this. (B/0670/X) 

30

2e. summary version is 

needed 

Q/0686/X, R/1256/X, W/0391/X, 

W/1158/X, W/1130/X. 

A/0111/X, A/0442/X, A/0821/X/d, 

A/0958/X, A/1070/X/d, A/1084/X, 

A/0422/X, B/0167/X, B/1190/X, 

B/0462/X, B/0443/X, B/1005/X, 

B/1240/X, B/0835/X, B/0875/X, 

B/1173/X, B/1096/X, B/1126/X, 

B/0574/X, B/0599/X, B/0409/X, 

B/0466/X/d, B/0772/X, B/0783/X, 

D/0093/X, E/0984/X, E/1246/Y, 

E/0924/X, E/0590/X, G/1291/X, 

G/1214/X, G/1229/X, G/0920/Y, 

G/0960/X, G/0973/X, G/0759/X, 

G/0795/X, G/1057/X, H/0310/X, 

H/1103/X, H/0988/X, H/0941/X, 

H/0615/X, K/0444/X, K/1241/X, 

K/0722/X, L/0410/X, L/0439/X, 

L/0747/X, L/0791/X, M/0101/X, 

M/1154/X, N/0773/X, P/0274/X, 

P/0384/X, P/1218/X, P/1219/X, 

P/1237/X, P/1239/X, P/1247/X, 

P/0804/X, P/0878/X, P/0577/X, 

P/0492/X, Q/0024/X, Q/0357/X, 

Q/0157/X, Q/0445/X, Q/1232/X, 

Q/1346/X, Q/0932/X, Q/1122/X, 

Q/0415/X, R/1221/X, R/0868/X, 

R/0763/X, V/0245/X, V/0975/X, 

W/0057/X, W/0119/X, W/0498/, 

W/0529/X, W/0279/X, W/0328/X, 

W/1007/X, W/1342/X, W/0201/X, 

W/1310/X/d, W/1202/X, W/1217/X, 

W/1282/X, W/1052/X/d, W/0986/X, 

W/1170/X, W/0972/X, W/1102/X/d, 

W/1123/X, W/0579/X, W/0587/X, 

W/0221/X, W/0429/X, W/0423/X, 

W/0709/X/d, W/0770/X/d, 

Section 5 gives good clear at a glance advice and could maybe be produced as a stand 

alone leaflet <strong>made</strong> available to the public for general use? (G/1098/X) 

The most useful and informative part <strong>of</strong> the document is Section 5, which could form the 

basis <strong>of</strong> a shortened widely publicly available leaflet. (L/1026/X) 

It would be useful to have a sheet outlining:- The purpose <strong>of</strong> the Code. The guiding 

principles. A brief overview <strong>of</strong> access rights. How to obtain a full copy. Short summary 

codes for particular activities would also be helpful. (A/0958/X) 

A Shorter Code - This will be a matter <strong>of</strong> some urgency, and therefore it is vital that the 

main Code is clear, robust and unambiguous. (B/0574/X) 

Short codes should be available for access users and land managers for certain 

situations. Example summary codes:- Access to moorland/hills. Access to woodland. 

Access to enclosed land. Access to rivers. Access to lochs. The summary codes should 

be prepared in tandem with and published at the same time as the Code. (B/1240/X) 

Ultimately, shorter summary versions <strong>of</strong> the Code would be extremely useful for both 

users and land managers. Any short Code needs to be consistent with the full version 

and some system to check this would be helpful. ……………. An easy reference to the 

most common do's and don'ts would be useful. We would favour bringing together an 

edited version <strong>of</strong> the "at a glance" summaries. We would advocate the producation <strong>of</strong> at 

least two short codes, one for land managers and one for users. Other summary codes 

could be produced for particular user groups: horse riders, canoeists etc. Having a 

system for approving and 'kite-marking' existing guides, would be useful & help avoid 

confusion. (K/0444/X) 

This shortened version could form an appendix to the Code, and by also receiving 

parliamentary approval would have authoritative status. (G/1057/X) 

Guidance information for specific interest groups should be in a 'pocket size' format with 

new editions being issued when changes take place. (X/1212/X) 

31

W/0789/X, W/0800/X, W/1040/X, 

W/1111/X, X/1212/X, X/0099/X, 

X/1385/X, X/0989/X, X/0937/X, 

X/0939/X, X/0421/X, X/0727/X, 

W/1359/X . 

2f. other A/0077/X, A/0098/X, A/0162/X, 

A/0163/X, A/0518/X, A/0320/X/d, 

A/0846/X, A/1194/X, A/0437/X, 

A/0825/X, A/0838/X, A/1070/X/d, 

A/0719/X/d, A/0740/X, A/0762/X, 

A/0796/X/d, A/1037/X, B/0054/X, 

B/0058/X, B/0142/X, B/0385/X/d, 

B/0167/X, B/0525/X/d, B/0300/X/d, 

B/1195/X, B/0538/X, B/0563/X, 

B/0668/X, B/0254/X, B/0446/X, 

B/1281/X, B/1292/X, B/0826/X/d, 

B/0879/X, B/1093/X, B/0574/X, 

B/0599/X/d, B/0613/X, B/0613/X, 

B/0613/X, B/0404/X, B/1267/X/d, 

B/0711/X, B/0738/X, B/0738/X, 

B/0755/X, B/0794/X, C/0070/X, 

C/0721/X, D/0978/X, E/0616/X, 

E/1257/X, G/0379/X, G/0189/X, 

G/0164/X, G/1099/X, G/1330/X/d, 

G/1226/X, G/1251/X, G/1254/X, 

G/0806/X, G/0917/X, G/1155/X, 

G/1098/X, G/0580/X, G/0584/X, 

G/0698/X, G/0725/X, G/0759/X, 

H/0674/X, H/0807/X, H/0615/X, 

H/0220/X, J/1028/X, J/1058/X, 

J/1255/X, K/1302/X, K/0714/X, 

L/0647/X, L/0659/X, L/0527/X, 

L/1241/X, L/0865/X, M/0463/X, 

N/0137/X, P/0384/X, P/0643/X, 

P/0646/X, P/0491/X, P/0287/X, 

P/0316/X, P/0548/X, P/1247/X, 

P/0869/X, P/0889/X, P/0890/X, 

P/0899/X, P/0928/X, P/1066/X, 

P/0575/X, P/0577/X, P/0577/X, 

A summary could well be based on p28 "Exercising Access Rights Responsibly" and p39 

"Managing Land and Water Responsibly for Access". Dogs, litter and malicious damage 

are some <strong>of</strong> the most important worries to land managers and this must be stressed. 

(A/1194/X) 

An 'easy read' version, making it absolutely clear that it is subservient to the principal 

Code document, should be prepared for wide distribution. (B/0167/X) 

sportscotland considers that there are problems in producing a "short summary" <strong>of</strong> the 

Code….. sportscotland does not consider it possible to summarise a reference 

document. sportscotland considers that it is important for the Code to be short and 

concise. .......... Such a Code should not require a summary and this should ensure that 

there are not two reference points on responsible access, the Code and a summary 

Code.............. sportscotland considers that if a summary <strong>of</strong> the Code is used to interpret 

responsible behaviour, without reference to the full code document, there will be variable 

and misinterpretation <strong>of</strong> responsible access leading to confusion and erroneous 

understanding. ..... sportscotland could, therefore, support the use <strong>of</strong> summaries <strong>of</strong> the 

Code for information, educational and promotional purposes. (R/1278/X) 

We would support the idea <strong>of</strong> a suite <strong>of</strong> much briefer documents, perhaps tailored to 

particular user/land manager groups, with the full Code as a reference document for use 

only when there is a particular need. (R/0763/X) 

32

P/0577/X, P/0577/X, P/0491/X, 

P/0889/X, Q/0501/X, Q/0256/X, 

Q/0206/X, Q/1308/X, Q/1275/X, 

Q/1286/X, Q/0828/X, Q/0866/X/d, 

Q/0224/X, Q/0517/X, Q/0526/X, 

Q/0707/X, R/1278/X, R/0868/X, 

R/1090/X, R/0763/X, U/0922/X, 

U/1172/X, V/0398/X, W/0062/X, 

W/0080/X, W/0140/X, W/0143/X, 

W/0388/X, W/0119/X, W/0180/X, 

W/0182/X, W/0173/X, W/0511/X, 

W/0524/X, W/0307/X, W/0335/X, 

W/1012/X, W/1016/X, W/1023/X, 

W/0246/X, W/1329/X, W/1337/X, 

W/1260/X/d, W/1287/X, 

W/1052/X/d, W/1235/X, W/0833/X, 

W/0882/X, W/0901/X/d, W/1151/X, 

W/1153/Z/d, W/0991/X, W/0955/X, 

W/0579/X, W/0581/X, W/0581/X, 

W/0589/X, W/0589/X, W/0589/X, 

W/0124/X, W/0124/X, W/0217/X, 

W/0235/X, W/0403/X, W/0411/X, 

W/0705/X, W/0708/X/d, W/0720/X, 

W/0758/X, W/0766/X, W/0767/X, 

W/0780/X, W/1149/X, W/1109/X, 

W/1111/X, W/1112/X, X/0149/X, 

X/0637/X, X/0196/X, X/1212/X, 

X/0811/X, X/1174/X, X/1067/X, 

X/1092/X, X/0495/X, X/0421/X, 

X/0727/X, X/0784/X, X/0784/X, 

X/1056/X. 

33

Summary – 


Almost a third <strong>of</strong> all written <strong>representations</strong> supported the publication <strong>of</strong> a summary Code. Some <strong>representations</strong> advanced different forms that the 

summary could take. 


Although <strong>representations</strong> highlighted a range <strong>of</strong> different ways <strong>of</strong> presenting the summary Code, a key issue is whether such a summary is approved by 

Parliament or simply uses the Approved Code to provide a framework for producing one or more promotional codes in support <strong>of</strong> the work to promote 

understanding <strong>of</strong> the responsibilities guided by the Code. 


SNH agrees with many <strong>of</strong> the <strong>representations</strong> in supporting the need for a summary Code. However, on balance, SNH considers that this summary is a 

promotional and educational tool and should not substitute or replicate the key principles, “at-a-glance” or “key-points to remember” text contained in the 

Proposed Code. 

34

Question 3 – Do you find these key principles helpful in thinking about what responsible 

behaviour means? 


3a. Yes A/0009/X, A/0362/X, A/0098/X, 

A/0518/X, A/0320/X/d, A/0442/X, 

A/0821/X/d, A/0825/X, A/0958/X, 

A/1070/X/d, A/1084/X, A/0425/X, 

A/0469/X, A/0477/X, A/0719/X/d, 

A/0786/X/d, B/0028/X, B/0058/X, 

B/0345/X, B/0385/X/d, B/0288/X/d, 

B/0300/X/d, B/1231/X, B/1250/X, 

B/0826/X/d, B/0909/X, B/0925/X, 

B/1152/X, B/0935/X, B/1093/X, 

B/0574/X, B/0599/X/d, B/0613/X, 

B/0404/X, B/0470/X, B/0755/X, 

B/0787/X/d, D/0022/X, D/0093/X, 

D/0521/X, E/1246/Y, E/0703/X, 

G/0379/X, G/0114/X, G/0189/X, 

G/0806/X, G/0960/X, G/0580/X, 

G/0698/X, G/0759/X, G/0785/X, 

H/0674/X, H/1103/X, H/0807/X, 

H/0941/X, H/0515/X, K/0714/X, 

L/0439/X, M/0463/X, P/0384/X, 

P/0642/X, P/0643/X, P/0491/X, 

P/0384/X, P/0548/X, P/1218/X, 

P/1219/X, P/1239/X, P/1247/X, 

P/0287/X, P/1272/X, P/0928/X, 

P/0576/X, P/0577/X, P/0717/X, 

P/0889/X, Q/0157/X, Q/0264/X, 

Q/0323/X, Q/1275/X, Q/1346/X, 

Q/0893/X, Q/0526/X, Q/0697/X/d, 

R/1221/X, R/0868/X, R/1090/X, 

U/0922/X, V/0975/X, W/0003/X, 

W/0017/X, W/0021/X, W/0140/X, 

W/0388/X, W/0391/X, W/0625/X, 

W/0108/X, W/0100/d, W/0095/X, 

W/0194/X, W/0277/X, W/0307/X, 

W/1007/X, W/1032/X, W/0246/X, 

W/0214/X, W/1310/X/d, W/1217/X, 

W/1287/X, W/0112/X, W/1052/X/d, 

35 



"Yes. Although people should be encouraged to have Public Liability Insurance in case 

<strong>of</strong> any accidental damage done. (A/0518/X) 

Key Principles - I support the key principles set out at the beginning <strong>of</strong> the Code and 

view these as an important message to underpin the Code as a whole. Simply put - if 

people followed the key principles, then the rest <strong>of</strong> the Code would fall into place. 

(B/0574/X) 

The four key principles adequately encapsulate the spirit <strong>of</strong> reasonable access. Int the 

third key principle, 'natural environment' should be substituted for 'wildlife' in order to 

include plants, water etc. (G/0806/X) 

The Key Principles are helpful in defining what responsible behaviour means. We 

believe that the order in which they are presented is wrong. Point 4 should be first on the 

list. Point 2 should be reworded to read "assist those who earn a living from the land by 

heeding their advice". Point 3 should be reworded to read "show care for all aspects <strong>of</strong> 

the working countryside, wildlife and historic features". (H/0941/X) 

VisitScotland welcomes the highlighting <strong>of</strong> these 4 Key Principles Should "flora" be 

specifically highlighted in Key Principle 3? (R/1090/X) 

The four underlying principles are helpful, even though rather general. The detail 

provided in Section 2,3 (page 28) and Section 3,4 (page 39) is very helpful and could 

perhaps be clearly linked to the four underlying principles in both the final version <strong>of</strong> the 

Code and in any shorter summaries. (R/1221/X) 

The Trust considers that the principles themselves are helpful. Principle 4 would be 

strengthened by the inclusion <strong>of</strong> a responsibility to take reasonable steps to find out 

about the circumstances before visiting a particular place or engaging in a particular 

activity. Access takers could fulfil this by familiarising themselves with the appropriate 

sections <strong>of</strong> the Access Code. (X/1092/X) 

330

W/1158/X, W/0950/X/d, 

W/0940/X/d, W/0947/X/d, 

W/0972/X, W/1071/X, W/0589/X, 

W/0589/X, W/0217/X, W/0423/X, 

W/0708/X/d, W/1111/X, W/0780/X, 

W/1359/X, W/1358/, W/1364/, 

W/1367/, W/1373/, W/1377//d, 

W/1378/ , X/1212/X, X/0099/X, 

X/1385/X, X/1092/X, X/0405/X/d. 

3b. No B/0347/X, B/0525/X/d, B/0637/X, 

B/0446/X, B/1288/X, B/1062/X, 

G/0043/X, J/1284/X, K/1241/X, 

P/0274/X, Q/0445/X, V/0398/X, 

W/0641/X, W/0182/C/, W/0457/X, 

W/0812/, X/0122/X, X/0495/X, 

/1364/ . 

The 4 key principles are generalisations, it is the actual practice that matters. (B/0446/X) 

I did not find the key principles helpful and would delete it and go straight into Section 1 

on the Act. (G/0043/X) 

There is a need to strengthen the third principle. The idea <strong>of</strong> 'mutual respect' is very 

important, and although 'respect' is mentioned in the first principle, 'respect' and 

'responsibility' need to be highlighted in others. There is a need to mention that being in 

the outdoors is not a non-hazardous activity. There is also a need to mention that what 

you do can have an impact on others. (P/0274/X) 

Principle Three should say clearly that everyone who enjoys the use <strong>of</strong> the land has a 

responsibility to avoid damaging it or polluting it in any way. (Q/0445/X) 

'Show extra care to wildlife' is a rather meaningless phrase. There is no mention about 

care/respect <strong>of</strong> property. "Responsible Behaviour" is not defined and it is unclear what 

should be done in the event that a land manager thinks that access takers are behaving 

irresponsibly. (V/0398/X) 

3c. key principles are 

aimed at Users 

A/0155/X, A/0319/X, A/0437/X, 

A/0927/X, A/0933/X, A/0968/X, 

A/0422/X, B/0834/X, B/0599/X/d, 

B/0049/X, B/0226/X, B/0794/X, 

G/0146/X, G/0164/X, G/1099/X, 

G/1212/X, G/1098/X, G/0604/X, 

H/0460/X, K/0722/X, L/1026/X, 

P/0274/X, P/0804/X, Q/1286/X, 

Q/0686/X, Q/0790/X, R/1278/X, 

T/0911/X, U/0363/X, W/1329/X, 

W/0944/X, W/0700/X, W/0800/X, 

X/1290/X, X/0937/X, /1370/ . 

The 'Key Principles' are satisfactory in respect <strong>of</strong> the public who wish to exercise access 

rights but there are here no Key Principles for land managers. (A/0319/X) 

These four principles currently read as if they are aimed more at the public - they should 

apply equally to the public and land mangers. For example bullet point 3 refers to "visit" 

and "enjoy" but not "manage". (A/0927/X) 

Overall, I found the principles helpful, but overbalanced favouring the rights <strong>of</strong> the those 

benefiting from the increased access rights. (1) ) (B/0226/X) 

These are absolutely fundamental to the code and are concise and clear, although 

heavily biased towards the users. This needs redressing with an additional principle 

addressed at land managers. (G/1214/X) 

The four key principles are to be applauded and will be very useful in educating both 

those taking access and land managers. That said, the principles came across as aimed 

mainly at those taking access and, to redress the balance, should contain reference to 

land managers respecting the right <strong>of</strong> the public to take access for the enjoyment <strong>of</strong> the 

outdoors. (P/0804/X) 

36

3d. key principles are 

aimed at Land Managers 

E/0086/X 

3e. other A/0111/X, A/0097/X, A/0163/X, 

A/0838/X, A/0126/X, A/0471/X/d, 

A/0740/X, A/0769/X/d, B/0054/X, 

B/0371/X, B/0375/X, B/0085/X, 

B/0167/X, B/0171/X/d, B/0558/X, 

B/0565/X, B/0672/X, B/0462/X, 

B/1295/X, B/1240/X, B/0801/X, 

B/0879/X, B/1075/X, B/1078/X, 

B/1083/X/d, B/1096/X, B/1125/X, 

B/0574/X, B/0574/X, B/0594/X, 

B/0613/X, B/0409/X, B/0461/X, 

B/0466/X/d, B/0481/X, B/1267/X/d, 

B/0733/X, B/0738/X, B/0754/X, 

B/0772/X, B/1114/X/d, B/1117/X, 

E/0616/X, E/1074/X, E/1079/X, 

E/0590/X, F/0748/X, G/0067/X, 

G/1099/X, G/1291/X, G/1330/X/d, 

G/1226/X, G/1251/X, G/1254/X, 

G/0831/X, G/0917/X, G/0920/Y, 

G/0973/X, H/0310/X, H/1103/X, 

H/0808/X, H/1179/X, H/0988/X, 

H/0615/X, H/0220/X, J/1058/X, 

K/0444/X, L/0113/X, L/0513/X, 

L/0410/X, M/1327/X, M/1043/X, 

P/0464/X, P/0115/, P/0287/X, 

P/1304/X, P/1237/X, P/1273/X, 

P/0869/X, P/0899/X, P/1066/X, 

P/0577/X, P/0492/X, P/0491/X, 

Q/0024/X, Q/0501/X, Q/1275/X, 

Q/1178/X, Q/1122/X, Q/0707/X, 

Q/0707/X, Q/0707/X, R/1278/X, 

T/0911/X, U/1172/X, V/0245/X, 

Q3) key principles These appear to be balanced too far toward guidance to visitors; 

insufficient emphasis is placed on the expected behaviour <strong>of</strong> land managers. 

(Q/0790/X) 

We suggest that greater emphasis should be given to the fact that all the land over 

which access rights are given, is owned, occupied and in most cases used by some 

other person or public body for their own purposes, so that it is vital for the access users 

to “do as they would be done by” and for land managers to follow the same precept. 

(E/0086/X) 

Third principle - "look after the"... This strikes me as far too vague and open to different 

interpretations. I think it needs to reflect the principle that we should leave the 

land/water/living things exactly as we find them. In this respect, the wording in 3.32 (p35) 

seems more appropriate. (A/0163/X) 

The fourth "key principle" should be strengthened to read" …. For you own actions and 

any consequences arising from irresponsible behaviour, so take care…" (B/1096/X) 

Principle 4 would be strengthened by the inclusion <strong>of</strong> a responsibility to take reasonable 

steps to find out about the constraints before you visit a particular place or engage in a 

particular activity. (P/0869/X) 

iv) Remember that you have to take responsibility for your own actions and there will be 

a 'Voluntary Assumption <strong>of</strong> Risk' when you are exercising your Rights <strong>of</strong> Access. In 

addition to caring for your own safety you also have a 'Duty <strong>of</strong> Care' for the safety <strong>of</strong> 

others, particularly if you are in charge <strong>of</strong> a group. (Q/0501/X) 

However the issue <strong>of</strong> safety is not relevant to the code as it is not a facet <strong>of</strong> the Land 

Reform Act. It is covered in detail in many other aspects <strong>of</strong> Health & Safety legislation in 

the UK. (V/1228/X) 

They and the Code completely fail to address the situation where sheer weight <strong>of</strong> 

numbers <strong>of</strong> visitors (the cumulative effect) results in interference and/or damage. 

Individually everyone may be observing the principles. Collectively the result can be 

considerable harm to the environment and to those who earn a living from the land. 

(B/0167/X) 

Generally the principles are good but we would like to see them linked more closely to 

the 6 main responsibilities for access takers (section 3) and the 3 key responsibilities for 

land managers (section 4). Such a link would provide a strong theme running through 

whole document. Principle 4 would be strengthened by the inclusion <strong>of</strong> a responsibility 

to take reasonable steps to find out about the constraints before you visit a particular 

place or engage in a particular activity. (P/0869/X) 

Ensure you are well informed about the status <strong>of</strong> the land and management operations 

in progress before taking access. (H/0615/X) 

A 5th key principle should maybe be added that states that "those exercising access 

rights should always consider they are accessing someone else's property and that they 

should have regard to they might like their own property treated if utilized by the general 

37

V/1228/X, W/0056/X, W/0143/X, 

W/0641/X, W/0644/X, W/0529/X, 

W/0335/X, W/0675/X, W/1016/X, 

W/0255/X, W/1337/X, W/1223/X, 

W/0986/X, W/1235/X, W/0817/X, 

W/0833/X. W/0901/X/d, W/1151/X, 

W/1153/Z/d, W/1163/X, W/1170/X, 

W/0991/X, W/1001/X/d, W/0581/X, 

W/0587/X, W/0130/X/d, W/0221/X, 

W/0403/X, W/0429/X, W/0708/X/d, 

W/0709/X/d, W/0770/X/d, 

W/0780/X, W/0789/X, W/1112/X, 

W/1130/X, X/0664/X, X/0939/X, 

X/1066/X, X/0727/X, X/0784/X, 

/1356/. 

public". ..... A 6th key principal might read " that rural Scotland is not a homogenous 

feature but that it ranges from the wild open hill to intensively managed enclosed land on 

the urban fringe and what is responsible access in one are may not be in another. 

(W/0901/X/d) 

Key principles.. Add a bullet 'Leave nothing and take nothing during your visit/stay in the 

countryside.' (W/1337/X) 

Summary – 


Many <strong>representations</strong> supported the key principles and put forward suggestions for improving them. A few respondents thought the principles were aimed 

too much at recreational users, but very few responses disagreed with the principles as a whole. 


Some responses wished the key principles to apply to both recreational users and land managers, whilst others sought separate principles for these two 

different groups. However, the majority <strong>of</strong> comments related to the details <strong>of</strong> how the principles were worded or how they were ordered in the text. 


The Proposed Code reflects many <strong>of</strong> the comments put forward in that it provides short, all-embracing principles that underpin responsible behaviour. 

There are now three principles and they have been written to apply equally to both users and land managers. These principles have also been moved 

forward within the Proposed Code to emphasise their role . 

38

Question 4 – The role and status <strong>of</strong> the Code is determined by the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 

2003. Do you think it is clearly explained in this introduction 


4a. Yes A/009/X, A/0518/X, A/0442/X, 

A/0821/X/d, A/0958/X, A/1070/X/d, 

A/0425/X, A/0719/X/d, A/0740/X, 

B/0028/X, B/0058/X, B/0347/X, 

B/0385/X/d, B/0167/X, B/0300/X/d, 

B/0565/X, B/0211/X, B/0826/X/d, 

B/1152/X, B/1089/X, B/0574/X, 

B/0599/X/d, B/0594/X, B/0613/X, 

B/0409/X, B/0772/X, B/0794/X, 

B/1114/X/d, C/0182/X, D/0022/X, 

D/0093/X, E/0616/X, E/0590/X, 

E/0703/X, E/1113/X, G/0043/X, 

G/0379/X, G/0114/X, G/0189/X, 

G/1214/X, G/0806/X, G/0960/X, 

G/1098/X, G/0580/X, G/0698/X, 

G/0785/X, H/1103/X, K/0714/X, 

L/0439/X, M/0101/X, P/0384/X, 

P/0642/X, P/0643/X, P/0646/X, 

P/0384/X/d, P/0548/X, P/1218/X, 

P/1237/X, P/1239/X, P/1247/X, 

P/0287/X, P/0804/X, P/0869/X, 

P/0577/X, P/0889/X, Q/0157/X, 

Q/0264/X, Q/0445/X, Q/1275/X, 

Q/1346/X, Q/0893/X, Q/0232/X, 

Q/0232/X, Q/0526/X, Q/0686/X, 

U/0922/X, V/0398/X, V/0207/X, 

V/0975/X, W/0003/X, W/0017/X, 

W/0140/X, W/0143/X, W/0388/X, 

W/0391/X, W/0625/X, W/0641/X, 

W/0108/X, W/0100/d, W/0095/X, 

W/0194/X, W/1007/X, W/1032/X, 

W/0255/X, W/1217/X, W/1287/X, 

W/112/X, W/1052/X/d, W/1235/X, 

W/0901/X/d, W/1158/X, W/0972/X, 

W/0589/X, W/0423/X, W/0709/X/d, 

W/0770/X/d, W/0780/X, W/1111/X, 

W/1112/X, W/1130/X, W/1358/, 

39 



In general this explanation is fine, possible a little legalistic but probably necessarily so 

as a basic statement <strong>of</strong> the position (A/0740/X) 

Agree role & status <strong>of</strong> code clearly explained in introduction. (B/0599/X/d) 

The Estate is generally supportive <strong>of</strong> the role and status <strong>of</strong> the code and its clarity <strong>of</strong> 

expression. (B/1089/X) 

Section 1: Introduction - This section helps to explain a number <strong>of</strong> key terms that will 

help people understand the document as a whole. (B/0574/X) 

Yes, this introduction adequately explains the role and status <strong>of</strong> the Code. However, 

Scottish Borders Council is disappointed to note that remote areas are solely equated 

with the Highlands (para 1.1) and no reference I <strong>made</strong> to other areas <strong>of</strong> Scotland, 

including the Southern Uplands. (P/1239/X) 

The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 seems to be adequately explained for someone 

like myself who has no previous knowledge (W/0388/X) 

The role and status <strong>of</strong> the Code is explained well in the introduction. However, it is 

important that people understand what the access rights mean rather than the 

background and history. (W/1217/X) 

273

W/1367/, W/1373/, W/1377//d, 

W/1378/ , X/0405/X/d, X/0727/X, 

X/0784/X, X/1212/X. 

4b. No A/0362/X, A/0098/X, A/0098/X, 

A/0437/X, A/0471/X/d, B/0116/X/d, 

B/0184/X, B/0525/X/d, B/0288/X/d, 

B/0672/X, B/1019/X, B/0443/X, 

B/1208/X, B/1288/X, B/1075/X, 

B/0510/X, B/0404/X, B/0466/X/d, 

B/1267/X/d, E/1079/X, G/1099/X, 

G/1291/X, G/0917/X, G/0920/Y, 

H/0310/X, H/0808/X, J/1284/X, 

L/1026/X, P/0878/X, P/0575/X, 

Q/1275/X, Q/1286/X, Q/0707/X, 

W/0279/X, W/1018/X, W/0246/X, 

W/1329/X, W/0457/X, W/1153/Z/d, 

W/0130/X/d, W/0235/X, W/0403/X, 

X/1290/X, X/1174/X, X/0122/X, 

X/0495/X. 

4c. other A/0825/X, A/0838/X, A/0927/X, 

A/0933/X, A/1084/X, A/0469/X, 

A/0126/X, A/0732/X, A/0740/X, 

B/0028/X, B/0538/X, B/0462/X, 

B/0443/X, B/0446/X, B/1295/X, 

B/1240/X, B/1078/X, B/1093/X, 

B/1096/X, B/0594/X, B/0049/X, 

B/0794/X, B/1117/X, D/0022/X, 

D/0350/X, E/0616/X, E/1079/X, 

G/0146/X, G/1330/X/d, G/1251/X, 

G/1254/X, G/0973/X, G/0604/X, 

G/0759/X, G/1057/X, G/1057/X, 

H/0310/X, H/1179/X, H/0941/X, 

H/0220/X, H/0460/X, J/1058/X, 

K/0444/X, K/1241/X, K/0722/X, 

L/1026/X, L/0410/X, M/0463/X, 

M/1043/X, N/0694/X, P/0643/X, 

P/1304/X, P/1219/X, P/1247/X, 

P/1272/X, P/1273/X, P/0899/X, 

Not entirely. The fact that the Code itself has no place in Law leaves the uncertainty <strong>of</strong> 

its authority, I.e. it may in practice have no more authority than the Access Concordat. 

(A/0098/X) 

The code places "responsibility" on the public without stating any legal case if he or she 

does not. …….Can we have a firm legal definition <strong>of</strong> "responsible" so that everybody 

knows exactly where they stand. (B/0184/X) 

The status <strong>of</strong> the code is that <strong>of</strong> an advisory document. Its style, tone and general 

presentation strongly indicates that is has a regulatory status. (L/1026/X) 

Paragraph 1.4 and 1.5 - The status <strong>of</strong> the code is unclear. The following questions are 

unresolved: If it is not an <strong>of</strong>fence to break the code, what is the point <strong>of</strong> the code? What 

powers does the sheriff have to punish those that have broken the code? What happens 

if the sheriff finds one party is in the wrong? an explanation to this is required in the text 

at this point. (W/0246/X) 

There seems to be some inconsistency in the use <strong>of</strong> the words "must" and "should". I 

think "must" ought to be used only where the Code refers to particular statutory 

provisions. (W/0279/X) 

The introduction to the Code should clearly restate the presumption <strong>of</strong> the Land Reform 

(Scotland) Act 2003 in favour <strong>of</strong> access, and also make clear that both access users and 

land managers have rights and duties under the Act. I assume that the Code is a 

"reference point" only for the statutory rights and responsibitlies established by the 2003 

Act, and not for other customary access rights. This needs to be <strong>made</strong> clear. (A/0933/X) 

If the Code is to have "evidential status" in any dispute arising, then the description <strong>of</strong> 

"irresponsible behaviour" should be much more clearly and legally defined, otherwise the 

document will be merely ammunition for contesting lawyers. (B/1096/X) 

I think there should be an overall statement <strong>of</strong> the aim to provide 'access for all'. The 

principle <strong>of</strong> all authorised users having an equal right to access does not seem to be 

stressed. Legitimate users should not be prevented from access by physical barriers. 

(D/0350/Y) 

In 1.2 bullet point 3 surely this should include public agencies? (G/1251/X) 

The second and third sentences <strong>of</strong> paragraph 1.1 are inaccurate. The right is a right <strong>of</strong> 

responsible access. Access rights do not exist outwith responsible behaviour. These 

sentences should be replaced by: Those who undertake outdoor recreation responsibly 

can do so as a matter <strong>of</strong> right under the Act. This Code defines what is meant by 

"responsible". Similarly, the second bullet point <strong>of</strong> paragraph 1.2 should say: 

The...Code...gives practical guidance on: what constitutes responsible behaviour by 

40

P/0928/X, P/1066/X, P/0576/X/ , 

Q/0499/X, Q/0501/X, Q/1286/X, 

Q/1178/X, Q/1122/X, Q/0415/X, 

Q/0697/X/d, Q/0707/X, Q/0707/X, 

Q/0790/X, R/1221/X, R/1278/X, 

R/0910/X, U/0922/X, U/1172/X, 

V/0245/X, W/0018/X, W/0021/X, 

W/0056/X, W/0388/X, W/0644/X, 

W/0530/X, W/1189/X, W/0532/X, 

W/0201/X, W/1310/X/d, W/1337/X, 

W/1235/X, W/0897/X, W/1151/X, 

W/1153/Z/d, W/0991/X, W/0573/X, 

W/0579/X, W/0581/X, W/0217/X, 

W/0702/Y, W/0702/Y, W/0708/X/d, 

W/0720/X, W/1141/X, W/1111/X, 

W/1370/, X/0099/X, X/0939/X, 

X/1067/X, X/0122/X, X/0122/X. 

access takers. (H/0310/X) 

Generally yes - the key point is to ensure that there is a good understanding <strong>of</strong> what the 

access rights mean. In the "master code" there should be more cross-referencing <strong>made</strong> 

to the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. Perhaps through the use <strong>of</strong> 

footnotes/endnotes. (P/0899/X) 

...I am thinking in particular <strong>of</strong> common law access, rights <strong>of</strong> way, implied consent and 

trespass…this need not lengthen the code hugely… 

..The parliamentary and other debates on the bill investigated and clarified many aspects 

<strong>of</strong> existing Scottish legislation and case law. It would be a shame if the results <strong>of</strong> this 

process were lost or not put into practice... 

...As an example, it became clear that there is no basic law <strong>of</strong> trespass in Scotland. The 

fact should be <strong>made</strong> absolutely clear from the word go in the access code, and indeed 

propagated down to the shortest summaries <strong>of</strong> the code......Obviously the code should 

point out that there are aggravated trespass, collective trespass and trespassory 

assembly laws. (W0702/Y) 

41

Supplementary Comments - Relationship between the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 and other 

legislation. 


A/0658/X/d, A/0098/X, A/0518/X, 

General comments A/0290/X, A/0927/X, A/1076/X, 

A/0126/X, A/0134/X/d, A/0478/X/d, 

A/0487/X, A/0769/X/d, A/0786/X/d, 

A/0796/X/d, B/0151/X, B/0377/X, 

B/0396/X/d, B/0628/X, B/0085/X, 

B/0184/X, B/0167/X, B/0525/X/d, 

B/0326/X, B/0858/X, B/1187/X, 

B/1199/X, B/0563/X, B/0242/X, 

B/0247/X, B/0260/X, B/0443/X, 

B/1271/X, B/1281/X, B/1288/X, 

B/0677/X, B/0801/X, B/0834/X, 

B/0839/X, B/1089/X, B/1096/X, 

B/1101/X, B/1126/X, B/0409/X, 

Dog fouling 

B/0510/X, B/0506/X, B/0738/X, 

B/0752/X, B/0754/X, B/0772/X, 

B/0787/X/d, B/1142/X, B/1143/X, 

B/1114/X/d, B/1127/X/d, D/0350/Y, 

E/0616/X, E/0523/X, E/1243/X, 

E/1245/X, E/1079/X, E/0809/X, 

E/0924/X, E/1074/X, E/1079/X, 

F/0360/X, F/0998/X, G/1291/X, 

G/0920/Y, G/1155/X, G/0132/X, 

G/0795/X, G/1044/X, H/1182/X, 

H/1276/X, H/0808/X, H/0915/X, 

H/1140/X, J/1058/X, J/1255/X, 

Poaching 

K/0444/X, K/1302/X, K/0714/X, 

Road traffic 

L/0650/X, L/0791/X, M/0852/X, 

M/0463/X, N/1268/X, P/0642/X, 

P/0643/X, P/1219/X, P/1247/X, 

P/1272/X, P/1273/X, P/1296/X, 

P/0899/X, P/1066/X, P/0577/X, 

P/0577/X, P/0577/X, P/0717/X, 

Criminal justice and public P/0889/X, Q/1061/X, Q/0790/X, 

order 

R/0549/X, R/1278/X, U/0922/X, 

V/1304/Y, V/1228/X, V/1285/X, 

42 



It is the opinion <strong>of</strong> the Legal Team <strong>of</strong> Aberdeen City Council that owners <strong>of</strong> land are not 

subject by virtue <strong>of</strong> the Occupiers Liability (Scotland) Act 1960 to have responsibility for 

people who injure themselves by coming onto land without the invitation <strong>of</strong> the 

landowner. This, and how the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 sits within the legal 

hierarchy should be clarified in the Code. For example, where Acts such as the Land 

Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 and Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865, in instances such as 

wild camping, have differing positions, which <strong>of</strong> the two takes precedence? (P/0577/X) 

The Park Authority considers it necessary that the Code should be prefaced with a 

section placing it into context with other legislation and guidance e.g. Disability 

Discrimination Act and Biosecurity. (X/1036/X) 

It is inappropriate to link legitimate access with criminal behaviour (p22 2.5, p26 2.16). 

It would be relevant and informative to carry details <strong>of</strong> relevant Acts, for the benefit <strong>of</strong> 

land managers and the public alike, as an Annex 1. (W/0489/X) 

Under 'keep your dog under proper control' you quite rightly refer to the disposal <strong>of</strong> dog 

dirt. With the implementation later this year <strong>of</strong> the Dog Fouling (Scotland) Act 2003 it will 

be a legal obligation to dispose <strong>of</strong> dog dirt in all open places with the exception <strong>of</strong> 

agricultural land. This bullet point should be amended to make this obligation clear. The 

Code demands in para 3.37 that dogs should not go into fields <strong>of</strong> vegetables or fruit, nor 

on to play and sports areas because <strong>of</strong> the diseases that they may transmit. Yet in para 

3.38 the Code advises dog owners to dispose <strong>of</strong> dog dirt safely in these and similar 

places, and there is a legal requirement to dispose <strong>of</strong> dog dirt on rights <strong>of</strong> way and other 

public places. As I mentioned above, the Dog Fouling (Scotland) Act 2003 requires all 

dog dirt to be picked up and disposed <strong>of</strong> in an appropriate reseptacle from all open-air 

places (Except agricultural land or where the owner has given permission). Some clarity 

here would be welcome.(A/0658/X/d) 

Access will become even easier for poachers and poaching law is outdated. (E/0523/X) 

Driving a vehicle <strong>of</strong>f the public road. I grew up with this, having to deal with the recovery 

<strong>of</strong> broken down vehicles. It has to be stated that private roads are covered by this 

section <strong>of</strong> the RTA. The last sentence may need rewording. In my day, the distance was 

50 feet and there had to be a reason for going <strong>of</strong>f the road such as something wrong 

with the vehicle or someone inside it. Perhaps the wording and intention <strong>of</strong> the RTA has 

been changed and I am wrong but I think you should check up on this. (W/0641/X) 

Page 58. Trespassory Assemblies. Groups <strong>of</strong> 20 or more can be prohibited unless 

permission <strong>of</strong> land managers has been given. This gives cause for concern to Ramblers. 

(G/1155/X) 

157

Trespass- general 

Tresspass - the 1865 Act 

regarding fires 

W/0071/X, W/0143/X, W/0641/X, 

W/0649/X, W/0088/X, W/0182/X, 

W/0524/X, W/0277/X, W/0848/X, 

W/0857/X, W/0532/X, W/0533/X, 

W/0566/X, W/0255/X, W/0212/X, 

W/1315/, W/1277/X, W/0817/X, 

W/0818/X, W/1158/X, W/1001/X/d, 

W/1071/X, W/1102/X/d, W/0573/X, 

W/0579/X, B/1261/X, W/0587/X, 

W/0489/X, W/0705/X, W/0746/X, 

W/0758/X, W/0768/X, W/0770/X/d, 

W/0775/X, W/0780/X, W/0781/X, 

W/0792/X, W/1141/X, W/1110/X, 

W/1112/X, X/0192/X/d, X/1353/X, 

X/1298/X, X/0896/X, X/1036/X, 

X/0811/X, X/0989/X, X/1067/X, 

X/0600/X. 

Page 24 - Para 2.4 - Unsure how 'wild camping' can sit wit the crime <strong>of</strong> trespassing 

under the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865, which says that parties encamping on land 

without permission and every person who encamps or lights a fire in or near any road or 

enclosed or cultivated land without the consent and permission <strong>of</strong> the owner or legal 

occupier is guilty <strong>of</strong> an <strong>of</strong>fence. (P/0577/X) 

The code notes that it is an <strong>of</strong>fence to light a fire near a road, on enclosed land or near a 

plantation etc. (page 57). In an other section on page 22 the code suggests that it is a 

criminal <strong>of</strong>fence to light a fire anywhere without permission (but permission from who?). I 

really think this subject is muddled and some better guidance is needed here, if not 

actually legislation. (B/0260/X) 

Traditional access rights Relating to the strong traditions in Shetland, he asked whether the LR(S) Act was 

affected by Feudal Law. How does Udal law affect the code? 

In case you don't know, Udal law is the old Norse system <strong>of</strong> landholding based, so far as 

I can judge, on "customary practice" rather than written law, i.e. in case <strong>of</strong> dispute, the 

court must judge what was the established practice in the past or in similar cases. 

(B/0151/X) 

We recommend that the access code cover all aspects <strong>of</strong> access law and practice, not 

just those covered by the Act. ….. I am thinking in particular <strong>of</strong> common law access, 

rights <strong>of</strong> way, implied consent and trespass. (L/0791/X) 

Rights <strong>of</strong> way The legislation relating to rights <strong>of</strong> way should be altered. I feel that the 20 year usage 

rule is old fashioned and out <strong>of</strong> date and should be ten or less. In ten years the number 

<strong>of</strong> houses in West Lothian will double, which clearly indicates the rate <strong>of</strong> change is much 

faster than at the time <strong>of</strong> the Rights <strong>of</strong> Way legislation could possibly have predicted. It is 

not clear how the access code ties in with the rights <strong>of</strong> way legislation. (W/0071/X) 

Paragraph 2.20 <strong>of</strong> the consultation document discusses rights <strong>of</strong> way in relation to the 

new access rights; sportscotland considers that it would be beneficial to point out that 

not all forms <strong>of</strong> recreation included in access rights will necessarily extend to rights <strong>of</strong> 

way. ......... The code document needs to clarify how the Code and code document relate 

to the country code; does it supersede the country code or is it complimentary to it? 

(R/1278/X) 

Environmental protection The existing criminal <strong>of</strong>fences listed in Annex 1 have little or no effect on behaviour, due 

to lack <strong>of</strong> resources or will to pursue prosectutions. Should local authorities be obligated 

43

to collect litter? Why should it be the responsibility <strong>of</strong> a landowner or manager? While 

the code mentions that everyone has a duty <strong>of</strong> care to themselves, this point seems to 

be given inadequate emphasis. (W/0277/X) 

Guns / firarms We note that armed trespass in not included in the list <strong>of</strong> criminal <strong>of</strong>fences, either on 

pages 26 and 27 or in Annex 1. Legal opinion taken by BASC Scotland indicates that the 

Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 effectively over-rides Section 20 (2) <strong>of</strong> the Firearms 

Act 1968, thereby removing the <strong>of</strong>fence <strong>of</strong> armed trespass on most land in Scotland. 

(Section 20 (2) states that "A person commits an <strong>of</strong>fence it, while he has a firearm with 

him, he enters or is on any land as a trespasser and without reasonable excuse (the 

pro<strong>of</strong> lies on him)." Obviously, a persona acting responsibly under the Access legislation 

would not be a trespasser and could not therefore be charged with armed trespass.) Is 

this SNH's understanding as well, thereby explaining the absence <strong>of</strong> any reference to 

armed trespass as a criminal <strong>of</strong>fence? We also understand that some within SNH feel 

that the effective over-riding <strong>of</strong> Section 20 (2) will somehow be replaced by Section 19. 

There are subtle but important difference between these two Sections <strong>of</strong> the Firearms 

Act and these must be fully explored. For example, Section 20 referes to " a firearm" 

whereas Section 19 refers to a "loaded" firearm or a firearm "together with ammunition 

suitable for use in that firearm. (H/0808/X) 

Protection <strong>of</strong> livestock It should be pointed out in the SHARPEST terms that where a dog is chasing livestock 

or even running uncontrolled & loose near livestock, the dog can be quite legally shot. If 

this point was underlined in the code, I think it would more than anything, effect how the 

dog owners conduct themselves. (B/0242/X) 

Nature conservation One <strong>of</strong> the main problems is going to be the wear and tear on tracks and paths if there is 

to be increased traffic on them be it from feet, cycle or horse. They will soon become 

muddy swamps in the wet bits and they well spread wider and wider and in the uplands 

particularly and also the wet places and lead to the destruction <strong>of</strong> the local flora, which 

under the Nature Conservation Bill you SNH are supposed to protect. (W/1102/X/d) 

Natura We wish to discuss with SNH how it will address the exercise <strong>of</strong> statutory access rights 

in Natura sites. Rather than await a potential conflict situation and, then, to rely on the 

Conservation (Natural Habitats &c) Regulations 1994 to address the situation, we 

believe that SNH and/or local access forums should consider what access is/may be 

exercised on these sites, consider whether there will be an impact and, if so, to 

agree/introduce the appropriate management measures. ................. Earlier versions <strong>of</strong> 

the Code included a section on the "responsibilities <strong>of</strong> statutory authorities" in addition to 

those <strong>of</strong> 'access-takers' and land managers. In this version, this seems to have been 

reduced to paras 6.7 and 6.8, as well as annex 3. We believe this to be unfortunate and 

would recommend a revision to re-insert a substantial section on the responsibilities <strong>of</strong> 

statutory authorities. In particular, we believe this is necessary in relation to SNH's duties 

and powers in relation to nature conservation (and its interaction with the new access 

arrangements). At present, SNH's natural heritage responsibilities are not even 

44

mentioned in paras 6.7, 6.8 or annex 3. ...... The Code should indicate that SNH will 

consider the issue <strong>of</strong> access, and if necessary its appropriate management, in 

determining the Site Management Statements for SSSIs and management objectives for 

SACs/SPAs. Where management measures to infulence the exercise <strong>of</strong> access rights is 

appropraite, the Code should indicate that SNH and the owner/occupier will agree the 

management according to the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as 

amended). It should further specify that such arrangments will be impemented by the 

use <strong>of</strong> S.29 signs, other specific local guidance, management rules, or whatever 'tool' is 

most appropriate and disseminated to potential users via the local access forum and 

other means. ....... "Management rules" in annex 3 refers only to local authority land. Can 

such rules not be agreed (with SNH? with local access forum?) for other recreational (or 

conservation) land, such as privately owned country parks, NG)-run nature reserves, 

SNH-managed NNRs? (K/1302/X) 

Wild mammals There is no mention in Annex 1 <strong>of</strong> the terms <strong>of</strong> The Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act and 

insufficient reference to The Animals Act and liability for animals arising from it. 

(E/0924/X) 

Wildlife and countryside Wildlife & Countryside Act. There is a striking contrast in the Code between the 

obsessively literal translation <strong>of</strong> access legislation and the extremely liberal and loose 

interpretation <strong>of</strong> the Wildlife & Countryside Act…… The Code should not contradict the 

provisions <strong>of</strong> the Wildlife & Countryside Act. (B/0628/X) 

Agri-environment Argyll & Bute Council would therefore like to see closer links between the work <strong>of</strong> 

Scottish Executive Departments, Government agencies and between the access 

legislation and Code and existing Government support measures such as Agri- 

Environment Schemes. (P/1296/X) 

Biosecurity As farmers in an area so badly affected by foot and mouth disease we find the proposed 

code so at odds with the Bio-security measures now insisted upon by SEERAD. That it 

beggars belief that these could both originate from the same Government! (B/1142/X) 

Hunting with dogs A cross reference to the hunting with dogs legislation might also be appropriate in Annex 

1. (W/1001/X/d) 

The foreshore 2.2 (and 2.17, bullet point 4) 

While we appreciate that the foreshore is not covered by the Land Reform Act, we feel it 

would be very sensible to include a reference to it in this Code, even if only to bring into 

one Code all the law, rules and guidance pertaining to being out and about. 

Annex 1. (In several entries) The word "trespass" is used without definition. (Q/0790/X) 

Byelaws Can By-laws and Management Rules be applied to non-local authority owned/managed 

sites? (B/0409/X) 

Human rights Explanatory text explains that there are a number <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fences in regard to access that 

are covered by previous legislation as listed in Annex 1 but in the draft code there is no 

45

eference to wher the Land Reform (Scotland) Act supersedes parts <strong>of</strong> previous 

legislation...........................There are some land managers who consider that the Act 

infringes their rights under European legislation for the quiet enjoyment <strong>of</strong> their assets. It 

would be helpful if the relevance <strong>of</strong> European legislation is explained. (B/0443/X) 

Fishing Currently the use <strong>of</strong> "set lines" whilst fishing for game fish is not dealt with by the police 

as the procurator fiscal is unwilling to bring prosecutions and the is a very bad start to 

the process. We would like to see a firmer reference to the fishing laws in the Code. 

(F/0998/X) 

Sundays. It is actually illegal rather than "not the practice" to fish for salmon & sea trout 

on Sunday, as part <strong>of</strong> the "weekly close time" - Section 13 <strong>of</strong> the Salmon & Freshwater 

Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951 as amended by further Acts & Regulations in 

1976,86988. The shooting <strong>of</strong> wildfowl is also illegal in Scotland on Sunday (& 

Christmans Day) under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981. Wildfowl are distinct from 

Game which has its own Scottish Legislation. (W/0649/X) 

Disability discrimination With reference to the requirements under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, a 

separate section on access for people with disabilities and managing access for people 

with disabilities may be required although care must be taken to ensure that this is not 

seen as an unnecessary form <strong>of</strong> segregation. (P/0577/X) 

It is surprising that the Code makes no mention <strong>of</strong> the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act, 

which also has increasing access for all at its core. There is an opportunity in the 

Scottish Outdoor Access Code to reinforce the spirit <strong>of</strong> the DDA legislation as well as to 

recommend provisions which are necessary to comply with the law. (V/1285/X) 

Common grazing The access code conflicts with Land Court rulings on Common Grazing which do not 

allow dogs on the hill at all without the consent <strong>of</strong> 3 shareholders (National Archives <strong>of</strong> 

Scotland LC/138 par.9). (H/1140/X) 

Other Para 2.13: NERC recommends that the Code should include a clause to clarify that it 

does not include land and water access by pr<strong>of</strong>essional bodies from the public sector 

(e.g. BGS, CEH, SEPA, Historic Scotland) or charitable istitutions (e.g. RSPB, SWT) for 

the purposes <strong>of</strong> carrying out a survey. Some <strong>of</strong> these activities are covered by separate 

Acts <strong>of</strong> Parliament including the Geographical Survey Act (1845) and the Science and 

Technology Act (1965). (P/1304/X) 

Our major concern remains that namely the lack <strong>of</strong> recognition that British Waterways 

has stautory obligations that it must meet. These obligations are all the subject <strong>of</strong> preexisting 

legislation <strong>of</strong> the type referred to in section 6 (1) (d) <strong>of</strong> the Land Reform 

(Scotland) Bill. The code fails to recognise these statutory obligations. ........ The 

statutory regime under which British Waterways operates those canals entrusted to it 

restricts public access in certain circumstances (Transport Acts 1962 to 1968; British 

Transport Commission Act 1954; British Waterways Act 1995; the Harbours Acts and 

some 20 or so other Acts relating to Scottish canals). Those canals therefore are subject 

to, at least, modified access rights by virtue <strong>of</strong> the provisions <strong>of</strong> s.6(1)d <strong>of</strong> the Land 

46

Summary – 


Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. It would be misleading if the Code <strong>made</strong> no reference to 

this limitation, at least by footnote. (X/0896/X) 

The majority <strong>of</strong> comments <strong>made</strong> indicated that the role and status <strong>of</strong> the draft Code had been clearly explained. There were a number <strong>of</strong> pleas for the 

language to be <strong>made</strong> simpler and for its tone to reflect an advisory rather than regulatory role. 


Many <strong>of</strong> the other comments received, particularly from those with land management interests, raised issues related to the enforcement <strong>of</strong> the Code and <strong>of</strong> 

irresponsible behaviour more generally. 

A number <strong>of</strong> respondents, particularly from land management interests, sought a formal means <strong>of</strong> redress against those who are not behaving responsibly. 

This was rejected during Parliamentary consideration <strong>of</strong> the access legislation and as such the Code can only refer to existing legal <strong>of</strong>fences. 

SNH also noted that many respondents were seeking greater clarity in the relationship between the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 and other legislation, 

for example the Health & Safety At Work Act 1974. 


As outlined in relation to General Question 4, the Proposed Code only uses the term “must” when relating to requirements set out in legislation or to an 

existing legal <strong>of</strong>fence. To address the link to rights <strong>of</strong> way and customary access, the Proposed Code provides greater clarity on the relationship between 

the new statutory rights, rights <strong>of</strong> way and customary access. SNH also recognises the degree <strong>of</strong> concern about enforcement and will continue to work with 

the Scottish Executive and local authorities to provide clarity in the process <strong>of</strong> resolving problems that may arise in implementation <strong>of</strong> the legislation. 

47


5 - The extent <strong>of</strong> access rights is determined by the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 

2003. Do you think this section <strong>of</strong> the Code summarises access rights accurately and 

is the interpretation within the Code understandable and easy to follow? 


5a. Yes - accurate 

summary <strong>of</strong> extent <strong>of</strong> 

access rights 

A/0009/X, A/0362/X, A/0442/X, 

A/0821/X/d, A/0927/X, A/0958/X, 

A/1084/X, A/0469/X, A/0719/X/d, 

A/0740/X, B/0028/X, B/1152/X, 

B/1093/X, B/0574/X, B/0599/X/d, 

B/0466/X/d, B/0772/X, B/1114/X/d, 

D/0022/X, D/0093/X, E/0616/X, 

E/0703/X, G/0189/X, G/1099/X, 

G/1214/X, G/0806/X, G/0960/X, 

G/0973/X, G/0580/X, G/0581/X, 

G/0785/X, G/1057/X, K/0444/X, 

K/1241/X, L/0439/X, M/1043/X, 

P/0640/X, P/0642/X, P/0646/X, 

P/0384/X, P/1219/X, P/1239/X, 

P/1247/X, P/0287/X, P/0804/X, 

P/0577/X, P/0717/X, Q/0157/X, 

Q/1275/X, Q/1346/X, Q/0932/X, 

Q/0232/X, Q/0526/X, Q/0686/X, 

Q/0697/X/d, U/0922/X, V/0975/X, 

W/0003/X, W/0017/X, W/0021/X, 

W/0388/X, W/0391/X, W/0641/X, 

W/0095/X, W/0182/X, W/1007/X, 

W/1032/X, W/0255/X, W/1217/X, 

W/1287/X, W/1052/X/d, 

W/1153/Z/d, W/1158/X, W/0972/X, 

W/0589/X, W/0589/X, W/0403/X, 

W/0423/X, W/1111/X, W/1358/, 

W/1359/X, W/1362/, W/1367/, 

W/1370/, W/1377//d, X/1212/X, 

X/0099/X, X/1174/X, X/0937/X, 

X/0784/X. 



Access rights are summarised accurately; interpretation within the code is 

understandable and easy to follow. (A/0821/X/d) 

The summary <strong>of</strong> access rights at a glance is useful and the explanation is thorough. One 

point we would pick up on is commercial collecting <strong>of</strong> mushrooms. How does its 

exclusion from the right affect activity on the ground? Does it infer that recreational 

picking is acceptable and how does it relate to the Code <strong>of</strong> Conduct developed by SNH 

for commercial pickers? (K/0444/X) 

Yes, Core Paths are first mentioned within Paragraph 2.2 and no definition is provided 

for these, it would be beneficial to do so. (P/0642/X) 

Section 2 provides a good summary but the guidance outlined here is expanded in 

sections 3 and 4 and largely repeated in table 5. Section 2 could be cut down and table 

5, which is very clear and helpful, expanded. In 2.15 Building, civil engineering and 

demolition sites are excluded from the right. A developer could interpret this and seek to 

exclude access takers from the whole <strong>of</strong> large development site over a long period <strong>of</strong> 

time whether works were being carried or not. In the Act (and in the "at a glance" section 

at the beginning <strong>of</strong> Section 2) such land is only excluded from the right whilst works are 

going on. Cross-referencing and consistency between the sections is required. 

(P/0869/X) 

5 - This section does clearly and concisely explain the access rights. Some <strong>of</strong> the text 

sections are too long and would be easier to read if they were split - to allow easier 

reading. (W/1358/ ) 

549 

5b. No - extent <strong>of</strong> access 

rights not summarised 

accurately 

A/0330/X, A/0820/X, A/0908/X, 

A/0919/X, A/0927/X, B/0012/X, 

B/0058/X, B/0375/X, B/0385/X/d, 

B/0120/X, B/0178/X, B/0195/X, 

Page 26, Section 2.15 Where do access rights not apply? Bullet point 9. Fishing beats 

should be added to grouse. (A/0907/X) 

“crossing over golf courses (but not over greens)". This is listed under the heading 

"Where and when you can exercise your access rights", However, it neglects to state 

48

B/0160/X, B/0167/X, B/0340/X, 

B/0288/X/d, B/0300/X/d, B/0863/X, 

B/1195/X, B/0663/X, B/0672/X, 

B/0249/X/d, B/0956/X, B/0446/X, 

B/1250/X, B/1261/X, B/1271/X, 

B/1295/X, B/0826/X/d, B/0834/X, 

B/0839/X, B/0874/X, B/0510/X, 

B/0404/X, B/0695/X, B/1267/X/d, 

B/1150/X/d, B/1117/X, C/0070/X, 

C/0721/X, D/1065/X, E/0013/X, 

E/0351/X, E/0086/X, E/1257/X, 

F/1134/X, G/0040/X, G/0040/X, 

G/0379/X, G/0164/X, G/0854/X, 

G/1099/X, G/1254/X, G/1291/X, 

G/0920/Y, H/0808/X, J/1058/X, 

J/1284/X, J/1051/X, K/0722/X, 

K/0722/X, L/0213/Y, M/0101/X, 

M/0667/X, P/0384/X, P/0274/X, 

P/0316/X, P/1272/X, P/1273/X, 

P/1273/X, P/0869/X, P/0928/X, 

P/0717/X, Q/0264/X, Q/1308/X, 

Q/1312/X, Q/0445/X, Q/1270/X, 

Q/0930/X, Q/0415/X, W/0018/X, 

W/0056/X, W/0057/X, W/0140/X, 

W/0102/X, W/0271/X, W/0354/X/d, 

W/0848/X, W/0675/X, W/1018/X, 

W/1021/X, W/1031/X, W/1318/X, 

W/1337/X, W/0457/X, W/0926/X, 

W/0817/X, W/0818/X, W/0833/X, 

W/0880/X/d, W/0907/X, 

W/1153/Z/d, W/0430/X/d, 

W/0700/X, W/0702/Y, W/0708/X/d, 

W/0709/X/d, W/0702/Y, X/0010/X, 

X/0192/X/d, X/1187/X, X/0664/X, 

X/1290/X, X/0939/X, X/0495/X, 

X/0405/X/d. 

that such crossing <strong>of</strong> golf courses can only be exercised when doing so will not interfere 

with play. This should be amended. The same section then continues to define "What 

you can do under access rights", including defining recreational pursuits. However, 

under the section "Where do access rights not apply?”, it is silent on the fact that access 

rights for recreational purposes DO NOT apply to golf courses. This is misleading and 

confusing, and needs to be corrected by addition to balance the statement in section 2.2 

and reflect accurately the content <strong>of</strong> the Land Reform Bill. (B/0178/X) 

page 22, paragraph 2.4 and Page 25 paragraph 2.15 The statements "non-residential 

buildings and associated land" and "non-residential buildings and other structures and 

works and the land adjoinging them" should be clarified to exclude ruined buildings, 

outlying sheds, walls, piers, slipways etc... Page 26, paragraph 2.15 "Harbours, piers 

and slipways should be clarified. (G/1307/X) 

At 2.2 The advice should be that you may cross fences and walls only if there is no 

reasonable alternative, and providing you do not cause any damage. (L/0513/X) 

This section generally summarises access rights accurately. However, the definition <strong>of</strong> 

education in 2.11 needs to be broadened to include all <strong>of</strong> the reasons why educational 

groups access land and water. Outdoor Education encourages use <strong>of</strong> the outdoors to 

develop personal and social skills-and to take part in healthy, physical exercise. 

(P/1218/X) 

There is not mention anywhere in the document <strong>of</strong> the right <strong>of</strong> access where there are 

wind farms. In some cases, there are padlocked gates with no right <strong>of</strong> entry. Why is the 

subject <strong>of</strong> wind farms omitted from the Draft Code? (Q/1270/X) 

A summary <strong>of</strong> your access rights: at glance (Page 22) - There is a general 

misconception that rights <strong>of</strong> way are eclipsed by the new access rights/core paths, 

although the legislation and the "code" clearly states that this is not the case....The draft 

code is however perfectly clear on the matter <strong>of</strong> the relationship between rights <strong>of</strong> way, 

access rights and core paths so perhaps I am pandering to the ill informed. (W/1149/X) 

5c. Yes - interpretation is 

understandable 

A/0319/X, B/0525/X/d, B/0181/X, 

D/0022/X, K/1241/X, P/0640/X, 

The summary <strong>of</strong> access rights is clear, I don't know whether it is accurate. The 

interpretation is clear. (A/0319/X) 

49

5d. No - interpretation is 

not understandable 

P/0491/X, P/1272/X, Q/0187/X, 

W/0056/X, W/0214/X, W/1130/X. 

A/0111/X, A/0098/X, A/0163/X, 

A/0666/X, A/0838/X, A/0871/X, 

A/0927/X, A/0425/X, B/0042/X, 

B/0054/X, B/0148/X, B/0371/X, 

B/0116/X/d, B/0118/X, B/0120/X, 

B/0085/X, B/0171/X/d, B/0288/X/d, 

B/1199/X, B/0670/X, B/0672/X, 

B/0673/X, B/0677/X, B/0241/X, 

B/1303/X/d, B/0982/X, B/1271/X, 

B/1288/X, B/0835/X, B/0912/X, 

B/0918/X, B/1267/X/d, D/1065/X, 

E/0013/X, E/0616/X, E/1257/X, 

E/0906/X, G/0043/X, G/0114/X, 

G/1099/X, G/1307/X, G/1254/X, 

G/0917/X, G/0132/X, H/1179/X, 

H/0684/X, J/1255/X, K/0714/X, 

K/0722/X, M/0852/X, M/1327/X, 

P/0384/X, P/1272/X, P/1273/X, 

P/0890/X, P/1066/X, P/0717/X, 

Q/0323/X, Q/0856/X, Q/1308/X, 

Q/0974/X, Q/1275/X, Q/1286/X, 

Q/1061/X, Q/0707/X, T/0911/X, 

U/1172/X, V/0398/X, V/0851/X, 

V/0245/X, W/0071/X, W/0057/X, 

W/0057/X, W/0140/X, W/0143/X, 

W/0143/X, W/0108/X, W/0354/X/d, 

W/0246/X, W/0212/X, W/1310/X, 

W/1325/X, W/1329/X, W/1265/X, 

W/1287/X, W/0903/X, W/1153/Z/d, 

W/0235/X, W/0702/Y, W/0708/X/d, 

W/0709/X/d, W/1139/X, W/1149/X, 

X/1290/X, X/0099/X, X/1174/X, 

X/1067/X. 

In general I think you have done a pretty reasonable job <strong>of</strong> translating the Act into 

something that is helpful and workable. (B/0181/X) 

This section is rather lengthy, but necessarily so in order to fully explain all rights <strong>of</strong> 

access. It is gratifying to see the retention <strong>of</strong> public right <strong>of</strong> way. The "at a glance" 

section is particularly useful in this section. (P/0491/X) 

Question 5. Yes, I believe the summary and interpretation <strong>of</strong> the access rights set out in 

the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 is clear and easy to follow. (W/0214/X) 

2.8 The Land Reform (Scotland) Act establishes statutory public rights for recreational 

and other purposes. As this is absolutely fundamental to statutory access rights the 

Code should not include definitions other than those within the Act; attempts to do so, 

however well meaning, may limit the breadth <strong>of</strong> the Act's intent. 2.14 This paragraph 

includes the statement "Access rights also allow you to "cross over land". This could be 

misinterpreted as meaning that you should not stop moving. The Act states that the 

public have a right <strong>of</strong> "remaining" on land. Recreation is not just about getting from one 

place to another. The intent <strong>of</strong> this potentially misleading statement should be clarified. 

(A/0927/X) 

No! Much ambiguity….for example, definition <strong>of</strong> garden… or curtilage? (B/0054/X) 

I do not consider that the Code gives a clear interpretation <strong>of</strong> the access rights <strong>of</strong> the 

public in the proximity <strong>of</strong> country houses set in private policies to the extent that these 

rights are neither clearly understandable nor easy to follow. (B/0982/X) 

2.2, 11th bullet, should be further qualified by the words "or when the exercise <strong>of</strong> access 

rights would not interfere with the recreational activity to which the land is being put". 

(G/1099/X) 

There is no right <strong>of</strong> free fishing on inland waters in Scotland - not for freshwater fish nor 

for migratory fish and there should be no implication to the contrary on the SOAC. 

(J/1255/X) 

Guidance on access rights is neither clear nor precise enough. Could be interpreted in a 

way that would cause problems. It needs to be precise and exact in similar ways to the 

"countryside code": (Q/0974/X) 

The whole composition does not make for easy reading, is confusing and <strong>of</strong>ten difficult 

to understand. Everything stated in 2.2 is clear, but seems to be purposely muddled 

thereafter, requiring repeated cross-referencing to other aspects <strong>of</strong> the same matter in 

subsequent sections. (W/0143/X) 

No - the interpretation is not easy to follow. This is because the Act has not been 

properly thought out. (X/0099/X) 

50

5e. other A/0098/X, A/1351/X, A/0437/X, 

A/0290/X, A/0933/X, A/1070/X/d, 

A/1076/X, A/1084/X, A/0126/X, 

A/0732/X, A/0786/X/d, A/0796/X/d, 

A/0796/X/d, B/0028/X, B/0028/X, 

B/0033/X, B/0033/X, B/0116/X/d, 

B/0118/X, B/0183/X, B/0538/X, 

B/0565/X, B/0672/X, B/0677/X, 

B/0679/X, B/0240/X, B/0252/X, 

B/0203/Y, B/0204/X, B/0459/X, 

B/0462/X, B/1306/X/d, B/1271/X, 

B/1281/X, B/1292/X, B/1295/X, 

B/1240/X, B/0835/X, B/0884/X, 

B/0885/X, B/0891/X, B/0970/X, 

B/1062/X, B/1072/X, B/1078/X, 

B/1096/X, B/0574/X, B/0574/X, 

B/0574/X, B/0574/X, B/0574/X, 

B/0574/X, B/0574/X, B/0574/X, 

B/0574/X, B/0609/X, B/0609/X, 

B/0609/X, B/0613/X, B/0127/X, 

B/0738/X, B/0741/X, B/0772/X, 

B/0782/X, B/0787/X/d, B/0794/X, 

B/1047/X, B/1033/X, B/1150/X/d, 

B/1114/X/d, B/1129/X, D/0022/X, 

E/1246/Y, E/0924/X, E/1074/X, 

E/0590/X, E/0590/X, F/1134/X, 

G/0627/X, G/0082/X, G/0546/X, 

G/1307/X, G/1330/X/d, G/1251/X, 

G/1254/X, G/0900/X, G/0960/X, 

G/1098/X, G/0580/X, G/0698/X, 

G/0725/X, G/0759/X, G/1057/X, 

G/1057/X, G/1057/X, H/0310/X, 

H/1103/X, H/0941/X, H/0220/X, 

H/1128/X, J/0544/X, J/1203/X, 

K/1302/X, K/1241/X, K/0714/X, 

K/0722/X, L/0153/X, L/0513/X, 

L/1026/X, L/0976/X, L/0410/X, 

L/0747/X, L/1055/X, M/0101/X, 

M/0463/X, N/1352/X, N/0694/X, 

P/0640/X, P/0643/X, P/0548/X, 

Under Section 2.15 Where do access rights not apply? I would suggest that 'grass/all 

weather/shavings/harrowed gallops that are used by racehorse trainers' be included. 

This is a serious safety issue. Furthermore, owners <strong>of</strong> horses-in-training pay the trainer, 

as part <strong>of</strong> the training fee, for the use <strong>of</strong> the gallops and therfore the public should not 

have 'free' access. (B/0240/X) 

Where do rights not apply? All lambing fields must be included in the list as indeed fields 

with cows and calves as any country person can tell you a cow with newborn calf can be 

more dangerous than any bull. Also pregnant women or women <strong>of</strong> child bearing age 

should be <strong>made</strong> aware <strong>of</strong> the risks <strong>of</strong> disease especially at lambing time. (B/0884/X) 

2.2 The use <strong>of</strong> the word 'parks' has different meanings in different parts <strong>of</strong> the country 

and in different contexts. (For example grass parks, national parks, country parks, 

regional parks and so on). (B/0574/X) 

Paragraph 2.17 makes it clear that excluded conduct includes motorised activities and 

instances the use <strong>of</strong> motor vehicles. It does not make it clear that the operation <strong>of</strong> 

motorised models is excluded. Remotely controlled model aircraft, in particular, can be 

intimidating to other land users and dangerous to horse riders. (B/1195/X) 

Under a summary <strong>of</strong> access rights Paragraph 2 page 22 <strong>of</strong> the code, I would like it 

specifically mentioned in the code that horse driving is included with horse riding and 

that horse drivers will be permitted access for recreational purposes. (G/0627/X) 

Extent <strong>of</strong> access rights. No. The "at a glance" summary and paragraph 2.1 suffer from 

the same problem as that identified under question 4 above. Paragraph 2.2 needs 

substantial qualification as regards access around the margins <strong>of</strong> fields where crops are 

growing. It would be irresponsible, i.e. not within the right, to take access in these 

places: where a path provides an alternative route; where the margin is covered by a 

management arrangement with government for conservation purposes; where signs 

indicate that there is a hazard to persons; where a temporary or long-term exclusion 

order is in place; where doing so would cause a breach <strong>of</strong> food safety rules and where 

livestock are present. (H/0310/X) 

Further vagueness is introduced on page 22 where it says access rights do not apply 'at 

visitor attractions or other places which charge for entry', without explanation <strong>of</strong> how 

other places are defined. (K/1241/X) 

The summary <strong>of</strong> access rights does not state who is entitled to these rights. For 

instance, do children have rights <strong>of</strong> access? Perhaps a statement such as "Access rights 

can be exercised by everyone, children and adults, people with and without disabilities, 

local people and visitors to an area" would provide a positive message on social 

inclusion. For many people who are currently excluded from the countryside uncertainty 

and a lack <strong>of</strong> confidence in their rights is a significant factor. (M/0463/X) 

51

P/1304/X, P/1218/X, P/1237/X, 

P/1247/X, P/0287/X, P/1272/X, 

P/1273/X, P/0804/X, P/0889/X, 

P/0899/X, P/0928/X, P/0576/X, 

P/0577/X, P/0577/X, P/0577/X, 

P/0577/X, P/0577/X, P/0491/X, 

P/0889/X, Q/0501/X, Q/1275/X, 

Q/1286/X, Q/0893/X, Q/1061/X, 

Q/1122/X, Q/0707/X, Q/0707/X, 

R/0549/X, R/1221/X, R/1278/X, 

R/0868/X, R/0603/X, V/0207/X, 

W/0007/X, W/0011/X, W/0017/X, 

W/0025/X, W/0056/X, W/0143/X, 

W/0381/X, W/0625/X, W/0629/X, 

W/0641/X, W/0644/X, W/0108/X, 

W/0194/X, W/1189/X, W/0562/X, 

W/0675/X, W/1011/X, W/1014/X, 

W/1023/X, W/0239/, W/1202/X, 

W/1217/X, W/1227/X/d, W/1280/X, 

W/0986/X, W/1235/X, W/0812/Y, 

W/0881/X, W/0882/X, W/0886/X, 

W/0901/X/d, W/1151/X, 

W/1153/Z/d, W/1163/X, W/1170/X, 

W/0940/X/d, W/0944/X, W/0573/X, 

W/0579/X, W/0579/X, W/0579/X, 

W/0579/X, W/0579/X, W/0581/X, 

W/0581/X, W/0581/X, W/0581/X, 

W/0581/X, W/0581/X, W/0581/X, 

W/0581/X, W/0581/X, W/0708/X/d, 

W/0709/X/d, W/0770/X/d, 

W/0777/X, W/0780/X, W/0789/X, 

W/0800/X, W/1048/X, W/1135/X, 

W/1112/X, W/1130/X, W/1359/X, 

W/1373/, W/1378/ ,X/0637/X, 

X/0656/X, X/0193/X/d, X/0664/X, 

X/1353/X, X/1290/X, X/0896/X, 

X/1174/X, X/0937/X, X/0939/X, 

X/0122/X, X/0495/X, X/0727/X, 

X/1056/X, X/1137/X. 

52

Supplementary Comments - Issues regarding the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 


Explicit statements <strong>of</strong> 

support 

Perception that legislation 

is unbalanced 

A/0050/Y, A/0621/Y, A/0111/X, 

A/0319/X, A/1194/X, A/0968/X, 

A/0601/X, A/0430/X/d, A/0718/X, 

B/0069/X, B/0337/X, B/0964/X, 

B/1127/X/d, D/0248/X, E/1246/Y, 

G/0082/X, G/1254/X, G/0580/X, 

H/1128/X, Q/1230/X, Q/1270/X, 

Q/0611/X, V/1285/X, W/0030/, 

W/0078/X, W/0618/X, W/0562/X, 

W/0239/, W/0427/X, W/0702/Y, 

W/0758/X. 

B/0995/X, A/0098/X, B/0012/X, 

B/0027/X, B/0038/X, B/0075/X, 

B/0041/X, B/0042/X, B/0049/X, 

B/0054/X, B/0055/X, B/0355/X, 

B/0376/X, B/0378/X, B/0620/Y, 

B/0631/X, B/0638/X/d, B/0645/X, 

B/0660/X, B/0116/X/d, B/0117/X, 

B/0118/X, B/0081/X, B/0085/X, 

B/0085/X, B/0181/X, B/0160/X, 

B/0165/X, B/0519/X, B/0339/X, 

B/0340/X, B/0272/X, B/0288/X/d, 

B/0293/X, B/0303/X, B/0326/X, 

B/0336/X, B/0337/X, B/0845/X, 

B/0859/X, B/1183/X, B/1186/X, 

B/1193/X, B/1200/X, B/0547/X, 

B/0563/X, B/0676/X, B/0677/X, 

B/0678/X, B/1027/X, B/1341/Z/d, 

B/0242/X, B/0252/X, B/0204/X, 

B/0215/X, B/0783/X/d, B/0956/X, 

B/1317/, B/0982/X, B/1250/X, 

B/1253/X, B/1261/X, B/1262/X, 

B/1271/X, B/1005/X, B/1240/X, 

B/1266/X, B/0834/X, B/0891/X, 

53 



Access should be a right not a favour, and it should be that all access should be allowed 

provided the persons act responsibly. (A/0111/X) 

I'd like to congratulate the Scottish Parliament for what I believe is one <strong>of</strong> the best pieces 

<strong>of</strong> legislation it has produced so far. (A/0968/X) 

I have always allowed access in and around the Estate, and now welcome The Land 

Refom Act 2002 and the Scottish Outdoor Access Code as it sets out guidelines to those 

who wish to take access responsibly. (B/0964/X) 

The Scottish Canoe Association is <strong>of</strong> the opinion that the Act and the Code will reduce 

the problems and tensions over access. The focus will move from whether the public 

have a right to be on land to what constitutes responsible behaviour. This should be to 

the benefit <strong>of</strong> all. (G/1254/X) 

The access provisions within the Act will be a blessing for generations to come. 

(W/0427/X) 

We consider it important to highlight that we do not think the legislation fairly respects 

the right <strong>of</strong> ownership nor does it recognise the legitimate business activities <strong>of</strong> both 

owners and occupiers. (B/1240/X) 

We believe the legislation is not balanced and provides a right <strong>of</strong> access that does not 

fairly and appropriately integrate with land management and the needs <strong>of</strong> those that live 

and work in the countryside. (B/1267/X/d) 

I regret that there are many parts <strong>of</strong> the code which alarm me. There are sections which 

seem close to depriving landowners...<strong>of</strong> their rights without compensation which may 

well breach human rights. (B/0376/X) 

I have been actively involved in Land Management in various different parts <strong>of</strong> the 

Highlands <strong>of</strong> Scotland for over 30 years and I am really rather ashamed that the Scottish 

Parliament has seen the need to introduce legislation, where in my experience there 

have been very few problems in the past which have not been sorted out at source. 

(B/0117/X) 

Responsible members <strong>of</strong> the public will continue to act responsibly in the country and 

irresponsible people will now act more unreasonably, content in the knowledge that they 

now have a "Right <strong>of</strong> Access". The publication <strong>of</strong> a Code is irrelevant. (B/0085/X) 

722

B/0895/X, B/0925/X, B/1152/X, 

B/1167/X, B/1168/X, B/1175/X, 

B/0995/X, B/0996/X, B/0935/X, 

B/0942/X/d, B/0953/X, B/1062/X, 

B/1068/X, B/0574/X, B/0583/X, 

B/0595/X, B/0595/X, B/0606 X, 

B/0608/X, B/0613/X, B/0049/X, 

B/0123/X, B/0127/X, B/0127/X, 

B/0127/X, B/0506/X, B/0223/X, 

B/0223/X, B/0227/X/d, B/0236/X, 

B/0406/X, B/0506/X, B/0480/X, 

B/0481/X, B/0485/X, B/0681/X, 

B/0681/X, B/0683/X, B/0685/X, 

B/1267/X/d, B/0713/X, B/0745/X, 

B/0749/X, B/0760/X, B/1046/X, 

B/1041/X, B/1131/X, B/1143/X, 

B/1144/X, B/1145/X, B/1148/X/d, 

B/1129/X, B/0294/X, B/0294/X, 

D/0509/X, E/0616/X, E/0172/X, 

E/0523/X, E/1257/X, E/1079/X, 

E/0765/X, E/1113/X, G/0040/X, 

G/0386/X, G/0725/X, H/0497/X, 

H/1103/X, H/1179/X, H/0515/X, 

H/0684/X, H/0728/X, H/1140/X, 

J/1058/X, J/1255/X, L/0647/X, 

L/0650/X, N/0716/X, P/0492/X, 

Q/0026/X, Q/0073/X, Q/0091/X, 

Q/0157/X, Q/0206/X, Q/1252/X, 

R/0549/X, U/0363/X, V/0035/X, 

W/0014/X, W/0017/X, W/0074/X, 

W/0047/X, W/0057/X, W/0140/X, 

W/0143/X, W/0381/X, W/0618/X, 

W/0641/X, W/0649/X, W/0103/X, 

W/0104/X, W/0109/X, W/0173/X, 

W/0503/X, W/0271/X, W/0278/X, 

W/0321/X, W/0354/X/d, W/1198/X, 

W/1023/X, W/1280/X, W/1282/X, 

W/1289/X, W/1294/X, W/0242/X, 

W/0130/X/d, W/1235/X, W/0812/Y, 

W/0817/X, W/0881/X, W/0901/X/d, 

54

Comments about access 

at night 

W/1151/X, W/1162/X, W/1170/X, 

W/1123/X, W/0591/X, W/0605/X, 

W/0612/X, W/0612/X, W/0124/X, 

W/0130/X/d, W/0130/X/d, 

W/0130/X/d, W/0217/X, W/0217/X, 

W/0489/X, W/0709/X/d, W/0750/X, 

W/0758/X, W/0767/X, W/0770/X/d, 

W/0780/X, W/1111/X, W/1371/, 

X/0652/X, X/0196/X, X/0196/X, 

X/0664/X, X/1298/X, X/0099/X, 

X/1174/X, X/0600/X, X/0122/X, 

X/0122/X, X/0122/X, X/0128/X. 

A/0155/X, A/0397/X/d, A/0400/X, 

A/0655/X/d, A/0098/X, A/0320/X/d, 

A/0825/X, A/0927/X, A/0997/X, 

A/0958/X, A/0471/X/d, A/0786/X/d, 

B/0015/, B/0060/X, B/0142/X, 

B/0342/X, B/0347/X, B/0376/X, 

B/0377/X, B/0378/X, B/0396/X/d, 

B/0626/X, B/0628/X, B/0638/X/d, 

B/0107/X, B/0116/X/d, B/0117/X, 

B/0081/X, B/0181/X, B/0183/X, 

B/0186/X, B/0525/X/d, B/0340/X, 

B/0275/X, B/0298/X, B/0306/X, 

B/0312/X, B/0313/X, B/0322/X, 

B/0326/X, B/0329/X, B/0331/X, 

B/0332/X, B/0336/X, B/0280/X, 

B/0141/X, B/1181/X, B/1186/X, 

B/1187/X, B/0563/X, B/0672/X, 

B/0673/X, B/1017/X, B/1022/X, 

B/1027/X, B/1350/X, B/0238/X, 

B/0242/X, B/0244/X, B/0257/X, 

B/0258/X, B/0456/X, B/0462/X, 

B/0956/X, B/0443/X, B/0446/X, 

B/0623/X, B/0982/X, B/1207/X, 

B/1208/X, B/1210/X, B/1216/X, 

B/1236/X, B/1248/X, B/1261/X, 

B/1269/X, B/1281/X, B/1288/X, 

B/1293/X, B/1295/X, B/1002/X, 

Night-time access is a basic human right and is a right within the Act. Starting <strong>of</strong>f before 

dawn and returning after dusk is a frequent, safe and extremely enjoyable feature <strong>of</strong> 

walking, climbing and mountaineering during the winter period; enjoying sunrise or 

sunset from hill or mountain summits, coastal headlands and many other places; 

observing and listening to nocturnal wildlife; these and many other activities are entirely 

legitimate. It is crucial, therefore, that the Code does not diminish this right either 

explicitly or implicitly. (A/0927/X) 

I am particularly concerned about ramblers walking in the dark through fields with calving 

cows and lambing ewes…I strongly recommend that night time access be excluded on 

low ground. On mountains I do not think this problem will arise to the same extent. 

(B/0060/X) 

Nocturnal access in the lowlands is a thief's charter. (B/0186/X) 

I do not believe night time access should be prevented, but there should be a 

requirement for people taking such access to clear this with the land manager and let 

him know roughly where they intend to be. This can also be important from a safety point 

<strong>of</strong> view. (B/1186/X) 

We remain constant in our view that a 24 hour Right <strong>of</strong> Access is detrimental to many 

who live and work in the countryside, to stock and wildlife, and while possibly wellmeaning 

in its intention to ease access restrictions still further - will provide cover, ease 

and encouragement for rural crime. (J/1058/X) 

We would generally be in support <strong>of</strong> night time access, as various groups could be 

carrying out legitimate activities e.g. farmers, foresters, dog walkers, hill walkers, 

ornithologists etc. (P/1272/X) 

55

B/1240/X, B/0801/X, B/0826/X/d, 

B/0834/X, B/0842/X, B/0895/X, 

B/0909/X, B/0913/X, B/0929/X, 

B/1160/X, B/1164/X, B/1173/X, 

B/1177/X, B/0936/X, B/0943/X, 

B/0969/X, B/0970/X, B/1063/C/, 

B/1083/X/d, B/1091/X, B/1101/X, 

B/1121/X, B/0588/X, B/0592/X, 

B/0593/X, B/0608/X, B/0608/X, 

B/0127/X, B/0227/X/d, B/0406/X, 

B/0409/X, B/0418/X, B/0413/X, 

B/0428/X/d, B/0510/X, B/0404/X, 

B/0465/X, B/0466/X/d, B/0480/X, 

B/0488/X/d, B/0473/X/d, B/0485/X, 

B/0681/X, B/0683/X, B/0704/X, 

B/1267/X/d, B/0711/X, B/0754/X, 

B/0761/X, B/0783/X/d, B/0787/X/d, 

B/0798/X, B/0964/X, B/1049/X, 

B/1033/X, B/1142/X, B/1127/X/d, 

B/0294/X, E/0514/X, E/0523/X, 

E/0536/X, E/1246/X, E/1257/X, 

E/0902/X, E/0921/X, E/1113/X, 

F/0998/X, G/0580/X, G/0854/X, 

G/0920/Y, H/0370/X, H/1196/X, 

H/1222/X, H/1103/X, H/0807/X, 

H/0904/X, H/0915/X, H/1179/X, 

H/0941/X, H/0959/X, H/0220/X, 

H/0460/X, H/0515/X, J/1058/X, 

K/0714/X, K/0722/X, M/0852/X, 

N/1268/X, N/0716/X, P/0115/, 

P/1218/X, P/1247/X, P/1272/X, 

P/0889/X, P/0890/X, P/0899/X, 

P/0717/X, Q/0091/X, Q/0499/X, 

Q/0501/X, Q/1252/X, Q/1299/X, 

Q/1346/X, Q/0866/X/d, Q/1178/X, 

Q/0224/X, V/0245/X, W/0079/X, 

W/0143/X, W/0381/X, W/0616/X, 

W/0618/X, W/0629/X, W/0641/X, 

W/0100/d, W/0159/X, W/0276/X, 

W/0277/X, W/0283/X, W/0295/X, 

56

Comments about use <strong>of</strong> 

land / facilities by 

commercial groups 

W/0857/X, W/1024/X, W/1342/X, 

W/1315/, W/1324/, W/1263/X, 

W/1287/X, W/1289/X, W/0926/X, 

W/1235/X, W/0822/X, W/0836/X, 

W/0873/X, W/0880/X/d, 

W/0901/X/d, W/1153/Z/d, 

W/0991/X, W/0951/X, W/0957/X, 

W/0962/X/d, W/0963/X, W/1088/X, 

W/1119/X, W/1224/X, W/0589/X, 

W/0589/X, W/0130/X/d, W/0217/X, 

W/0229/X, W/0402/X, W/0417/X, 

W/0412/X, W/0483/X, W/0693/X, 

W/0699/X, W/0729/X, W/0735/X, 

W/0750/X, W/0766/X, W/0770/X/d, 

W/0776/X, W/0799/X, W/1014/X, 

W/1034/X, W/1227/X/d, X/0149/X, 

X/0639/X, X/0652/X, X/0192/X/d, 

X/0193/X/d, X/0543/X, X/0664/X, 

X/1385/X, X/0937/X, X/0122/X, 

X/0495/X, X/0426/X. 

A/0838/X, A/0968/X, A/0706/X, 

A/0786/X/d, B/0028/X, B/0142/X, 

B/0152/X, B/0371/X, B/0375/X, 

B/0628/X, B/0634/X, B/0638/X/d, 

B/0660/X, B/0117/X, B/0081/X, 

B/0181/X, B/0186/X, B/0525/X/d, 

B/0270/X, B/0288/X/d, B/0280/X, 

B/0845/X, B/0860/X, B/1187/X, 

B/0540/X, B/0545/X, B/0563/X, 

B/0569/X, B/0679/X, B/1030/X, 

B/0238/X, B/0252/X, B/0254/X, 

B/0258/X, B/0211/X, B/0215/X, 

B/1301/X, B/1309/X, B/0443/X, 

B/0446/X, B/1210/X, B/1234/X, 

B/1250/X, B/1262/X, B/1288/X, 

B/1295/X, B/1005/X, B/1240/X, 

B/0801/X, B/0819/X, B/0834/X, 

B/0835/X, B/0840/X, B/0842/X, 

B/0883/X, B/0909/X, B/0925/X, 

B/1152/X, B/1168/X, B/0935/X, 

In cases where the landlord has created diversification with full approval and support <strong>of</strong> 

the authorities, and <strong>made</strong> corresponding investments, it is surely inappropriate, if not 

against his statutory Human Rights, to put the exclusivity <strong>of</strong> these perfectly legitimate 

contracts for the water and land use in jeopardy by allowing third parties to cash in on 

the same water and land assets. And how will the landlord stand if the operator sues on 

the grounds that the contractual exlusivity he has paid for is breached? (B/0081/X) 

The use <strong>of</strong> other people's property for pr<strong>of</strong>it is allowed by the Act, but should not 

according to any basic morals. It is simply BLATANT THEFT on a grander scale than 

most other government theft so far perpetrated. (B/0270/X) 

My concern is that as a Commercial Landrover Safari Company, we pay rents to Private 

Estates for vehicle access onto their land. This is only right and proper. Why then should 

a canyoning/canoe/climbing business not pay a rent for their access. The Landowner 

has to put up with the commercial company using his land for free. This is morally not 

right. (F/1213/X) 

I acknowledge that some activities undertaken on private land by third parties for 

commercial gain are acceptable - mountain guides, canoe instructors, climbing 

instructors for example - there is a danger that the spirit <strong>of</strong> the Land Reform (Scotland) 

Act and <strong>of</strong> the code might be exploited by others seeking commercial gain. (F/1134/X) 

The Code should state that activity by commercial groups should not be undertaken 

within fields on enclosed farmland, except by permission. (H/0310/X) 

57

B/0943/X, B/0946/X, B/0964/X, 

B/0966/X, B/0969/X, B/1125/X, 

B/1126/X, B/0574/X, B/0583/X, 

B/0593/X, B/0606/X, B/0049/X/2nd, 

B/0406/X, B/0406/X, B/0461/X, 

B/0404/X, B/0481/X, B/0704/X, 

B/1267/X/d, B/0715/X, B/0731/X, 

B/0738/X, B/0738/X, B/0741/X, 

B/0754/X, B/0761/X, B/0787/X/d, 

B/0793/X, B/0794/X, B/1049/X, 

B/1039/X/d, B/1146/X, B/1117/X, 

B/0294/X, E/0351/X, E/0616/X, 

E/0523/X, E/0208/X, E/0984/X, 

E/1246/Y, E/1257/X, E/0921/X, 

E/0924/X, E/1097/X, E/0516/X, 

E/0765/X, E/1113/X, F/1213/X, 

F/1124/X, F/1134/X, H/0370/X, 

H/1196/X, H/1348/X, H/310/X, 

H/1103/X, H/0807/X, H/0915/X, 

H/1179/X, H/0941/X, H/0959/X, 

H/0220/X, H/0460/X, H/0515/X, 

H/1042/X, H/1042/X, L/0504/X, 

L/0513/X, L/0985/X, L/0747/X, 

N/0861/X, P/1219/X, P/1247/X, 

P/0890/X, P/0492/X, P/0491/X, 

Q/0499/X, Q/0517/X, Q/1178/X, 

R/0868/X, R/1090/X, W/0143/X, 

W/0381/X, W/0635/X, W/0190/X, 

W/0173/X, W/0354/X/d, W/0857/X, 

W/1016/X, W/1315/, W/1324/, 

W/1227/X/d, W/1280/X, W/1282/X, 

W/0836/X, W/0873/X, W/0901/X/d, 

W/0903/X, W/0999/X, W/0950/X/d, 

W/0955/X, W/0951/X, W/0957/X, 

W/0963/X, W/0971/X, W/1088/X, 

W/1102/X/d, W/0579/X, W/0589/X, 

W/0602/X, W/0614/X, W/0130/X/d, 

W/0217/X, W/0435/X, W/0708/X/d, 

W/0709/X/d, W/0735/X, 

W/0770/X/d, W/0776/X, W/0780/X, 

Horse businesses are pleased that access rights for the individual are similar for riding 

schools and trekking centres. (P/0890/X) 

58

W/0799/X, W/1035/X, W/1141/X, 

W/1109/X, W/1110/X, W/1112/X, 

W/1112/X, X/0656/X, X/0192/X/d, 

X/0196/X, X/0543/X, X/0664/X, 

X/0939/X, X/0495/X, X/0426/X, 

X/0405/X/d. 

Other issues raised: 

Concerns about breadth 

<strong>of</strong> users or activities 

encompassed by rights 

Concerns about loss <strong>of</strong> 

privacy and criminal or 

antisocial behaviour 

As a working farmer I wish to register my strong disapproval to the proposed access 

legislation . I do most strongly object to any suggestion that they should exercise dogs, 

ride horses or bicycles on my property. (B/0336/X) 

There are golf courses where there are established rights <strong>of</strong> way (St. Andrews). These 

are historical and should not be used as a guide for all golf clubs to follow. With regards 

to winter activities, this should be left to individual golf clubs. We do not believe that 

Governments should legislate that every golf club should have to open its land to the 

public. (B/0012/X) 

Regardless <strong>of</strong> the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Land Reform (Scotland) Act, the (Code) should 

recognise the special cases associated with golf courses and introduce specific rules 

which would help to protect our courses and our members from unwanted, unreasonable 

and discourteous acts <strong>of</strong> access by non-golf club members. (B/0547/X) 

Other water-based recreationalists now have the right <strong>of</strong> unlimited access to both still 

waters and to rivers, irrespective <strong>of</strong> whether or not any legitimate angler is present. 

(J/1255/X) 

'The draft gives equal rights to pedestrians, horses and cyclists (apart from golf courses). 

While we recognise that this may be the letter <strong>of</strong> the law there are real difficulties where 

these three groups have the expectation that they will be able to use popular routes 

which have only limited capacity'. (Q/0206/X) 

Surely burn fishing (wild fishing) should be allowed in the hills. This has been accepted 

in many places in the Highlands. (W/0057/X) 

There must be thought given to genuine cases such as hotels, rural businesses 

promoting privacy, homes with policies, where it is reasonable to more flexible with the 

definition <strong>of</strong> curtilage. …. This subject has not been looked into carefully enough. The 

political 'they've got it I want it' has not helped. Of course estate and land owners must 

work with communities and the public, but would it not be sensible to try and work things 

out at a local level first and have a big stick in the background for those who are 

obstructive. (B/1167/X) 

It is our experience that most walkers have no wish to intrude on other people's privacy, 

and are prepared to respect notices where these are placed at what most people would 

consider to be a 'reasonable' distance from a house...It would, indeed, be regrettable if 

59

Concerns about risk <strong>of</strong> 

accidents 

the new legislation were seen to create a problem where little or none has existed up til 

now. (L/0650/X) 

I quite accept that a grouse moor should be accessible in general, however when driving 

or walking up is taking place I think it is not unreasonable to exclude access to the area 

over which the activity is taking place. Apart from anything else the casual walker could 

be in some danger during such activity. (B/0181/X) 

I express my and my company's concerns over the danger to people's safety posed by 

the possibility <strong>of</strong> unrestricted access by members <strong>of</strong> the public through our work sites as 

a result <strong>of</strong> the Land Reform (Scotland) Act. (E/0172/X) 

It remains <strong>of</strong> concern that Section 6 <strong>of</strong> the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 did not 

clearly identify forestry harvesting operations along with building and civil engineering 

works under the definitions <strong>of</strong> land where access rights are not exercisable. It therefore 

falls to Section 6 (1) (d) to cover any relevant health and safety issues. (R/0549/X) 

60

Summary – 


Although a large number <strong>of</strong> <strong>representations</strong> felt that the draft Code provided an accurate summary <strong>of</strong> access rights, a similar number disagreed and felt that 

the explanation <strong>of</strong> the access legislation could be improved. 


A number <strong>of</strong> <strong>representations</strong> questioned the interpretation <strong>of</strong> the legislation regarding access at night and access for commercial purposes. Other 

examples <strong>of</strong> where further clarity in the interpretation <strong>of</strong> the Act is sought included: 

• the tradition <strong>of</strong> picking wild berries - some comments expressed support for this, whilst others interpreted this as theft <strong>of</strong> some else’s property; 

• the extent to which access rights apply to golf courses; 

• the extent to which access rights extend to gardens and in relation to peace and privacy and garden open days; 

• the definition <strong>of</strong> curtilage and confusion over whether some built structures, such as dams, were within access rights; 

• responsibilities in relation to damage or disturbance to plants and wildlife; 

• whether education establishments included outdoor centres; and 

• whether the Code was applicable to young people. 


The legislation is clear that access rights can be exercised at night and that access rights extend to certain commercial purposes. However, Part 2 <strong>of</strong> the 

Proposed Code has been expanded to provide an accurate interpretation <strong>of</strong> the legislation and there is greater use <strong>of</strong> footnotes to make links between the 

guidance and the words used in statute. It is, however, not possible for the Proposed Code to adjudicate on all the areas where uncertainty remains and 

some aspects <strong>of</strong> interpretation may yet be subject to determination by the Sheriff Courts. 

61


6 - A key role <strong>of</strong> the Code is to show the point at which behaviour is or is not 

responsible. Is the test <strong>of</strong> responsible behaviour – unreasonable interference in the 

form <strong>of</strong> damage or disturbance causing harm or loss – set too low or too high, or is it 

about right? 


6a. the test <strong>of</strong> responsible 

behaviour is set about 

right 

A/0009/X, A/0425/X, A/0469/X, 

A/0471/X/d, A/0518/X, A/0821/X/d, 

A/0825/X, A/0838/X, A/0719/X/d, 

A/0997/X, A/0958/X, B/0028/X, 

B/0466/X/d, B/1039/X/d, B/1152/X, 

B/1114/X/d, B/0300/X/d, 

B/0338/X/d, D/0022/X, E/1246/X, 

G/0043/X, G/0189/X, G/0920/Y, 

G/0114/X, G/0806/X, G/0785/X, 

G/0698/X, G/1291/X, G/0379/X, 

H/0808/X, K/0714/X, L/0439/X, 

P/0640/X, P/0899/X, P/0646/X, 

P/0643/X, P/1066/X, P/1247/X, 

P/1219/X, P/1272/X, P/1273/X, 

P/1275/X, Q/0232/X, Q/0893/X, 

Q/0264/X, Q/0445/X, Q/0686/X, 

Q/0697/X/d, R/0868/X, U/0922/X, 

V/0207/X, W/0003/X, W/0017/X, 

W/0021/X, W/0056/X/d, W/0194/X, 

W/0182/X, W/0214/X, W/0255/X, 

W/0108/X/d, W/0095/X, W/0112/X, 

W/0511/X, W/0625/X, W/0789/X, 

W/0644/X, W/1032/X, W/1052/X/d, 

W/1158/X, W/1130/X, W/0972/X, 

W/1310/X/d, W/1007/X, W/1367/, 

W/0940/X/d, W/0944/X, W/0391/X, 

W/0403/X, X/0896/X, X/1067/X. 



About right, though there is a difficulty with the possibility <strong>of</strong> cumulative damage. 

(A/0838/X) 

...the majority <strong>of</strong> walkers, mountaineers and others who access the outdoors are on the 

whole extremely responsible. This was evidenced during the recent foot and mouth 

outbreak (A/0997/X) 

This section does appear to be about right in showing what is and what is not 

responsible. If it tried to be more specific, it might be inaccurate in some circumstances. 

(W/0003/X) 

389 

6b. the test <strong>of</strong> responsible 

behaviour is set too high 

and places too many 

responsibilities on users 

A/0927/X, A/0437/X, A/0111/X, 

A/0908/X, B/0772/X, G/0854/X, 

G/1099/X, G/1044/X, J/1284/X, 

Q/0930/X, W/0034/X, W/0792/X, 

W/0781/X, W/1040/X, W/1018/X, 

W/1370/. 

It is important that these paragraphs are clear, accurate, coherent and open to as little 

variety <strong>of</strong> interpretation as possible. Although this question uses the phrase "causing 

harm or loss" this terminology is not included within the text… yet… is a useful concept if 

prefaced by quantifiable... There should be greater clarity on "normal wear and tear" 

which is a component <strong>of</strong> any activity, including land management... For both "damage" 

and "disturbance" the word "significant" could be a useful precursor. (A/0927/X) 

.. The Code would appear to be unduly restrictive in relation to the rights <strong>of</strong> dog owners 

62

6c. the test <strong>of</strong> responsible 

behaviour is set too low 

with not enough 

obligations placed on 

users 

A/0422/X, A/0163/X, A/0871/X, 

A/0320/X/d, A/0320/X/d, A/0346/X, 

B/0226/X, B/0085/X, B/0058/X, 

B/0918/X, B/0116/X/d, B/0446/X, 

B/0462/X, B/0512/X/d, B/0628/X, 

B/0801/X, B/0839/X, B/0858/X, 

B/0874/X, B/0798/X, B/0788/X, 

B/0671/X, B/0755/X, B/1125/X, 

B/1117/X, B/1117/X, B/1096/X, 

B/1094/X, B/1093/X, B/1083/X/d, 

B/1078/X, B/0970/X, B/1017/X, 

B/0685/X, B/0741/X, B/0565/X, 

B/1347/X, B/1231/X, B/0995/X, 

B/0996/X, B/0288/X/d, B/0305/X, 

B/0345/X, E/0086/X, E/0921/X, 

E/0616/X, E/1038/X, E/0351/X, 

F/1050/X, G/0040/X, G/0831/X, 

H/0220/X, H/0615/X, H/0310/X, 

H/0988/X, H/0534/X, H/0941/X, 

H/0959/X, J/1051/X, J/1058/X, 

J/1058/X, L/0125/X, L/0527/X, 

P/0928/X, P/0890/X, P/0384/X, 

P/1275/X, Q/0157/X, Q/1286/X, 

Q/1346/X, V/0245/X, V/0245/X, 

V/0245/X, V/0245/X, W/0052/X, 

W/0173/X, W/0881/X, W/0130/X/d, 

W/0100/d, W/0812/Y, W/0780/X, 

W/0770/X/d, W/1170/X, W/1139/X, 

W/1119/X, W/1112/X, W/1085/X, 

W/0708/X/d, W/1289/X, W/0566/X, 

W/1318/X, W/1223/X, W/0990/X/d, 

W/1001/X/d, W/1023/X, W/1024/X, 

W/1373/, X/0122/X, X/0149/X, 

X/0939/X. 

and this would seem to be in contradiction with the tenor <strong>of</strong> the Act. (G/1044/X) 

I think it is set too high. … People should use their common sense and not have to look 

up in a legal document whether they can walk along a path in the rain and not be liable 

for the slight damage they may cause to the path. (1370) 

Not emphasised enough that repeating damage and disturbance to stock and wildlife 

has a cumulative effect. (A/0320/X/d). 

Overall I consider that the draft Code's test <strong>of</strong> responsible behaviour is set too low. 

Although it recognises that different types or volume <strong>of</strong> usage will cause varying levels <strong>of</strong> 

damage this requires greater emphasis. Horses or cyclists will cause greater levels <strong>of</strong> 

damage than a single walker. The Code recognises this but fails to explain that this can 

occur on relatively firm ground for example by a horse cantering. .... It would be helpful if 

the Code explicitly stated that where access would cause damage or disturbance the 

responsible course <strong>of</strong> action would be to seek an alternative route or refrain from 

exercising access rights. (A/0346/X) 

3.6 is far too woolly and gives no protection to the land or the land manager's interests. 

…… Successive disturbance by different individuals or groups to land management 

activities is unreasonable and should be avoided by the first ones waiting. (B/1094/X) 

The test is set far too low, and the land manager has to be given the benefit <strong>of</strong> the doubt 

in order to allow whatever activity on the land he is supervising to continue, whilst the 

public have access. (B/1083/X/d) 

The Code should require responsible use <strong>of</strong> the countryside to include giving ones true 

name and address to a land manager if so required, preferably supported by some I.D 

and vice versa the land manager should give his name and address to an access taker. 

(E/0086/X) 

...it is important to emphasise that the expectation <strong>of</strong> responsible behaviour does not 

lapse because a user is on land not covered by the statutory right. (G/0831/X) 

There should be a presumption written into the Code that where paths are available or 

signposted, they should be used. (P/0890/X) 

Exercising access rights responsibly. It must be <strong>made</strong> clear in the code that 

irresponsible behaviour means the loss <strong>of</strong> access rights and paragraphs 3.2 & 3.3 

should be tightened up to reflect this. (W/1139/X) 

The code must make it clear that any form <strong>of</strong> irresponsible, discourteous or 

inconsiderate behaviour on the part <strong>of</strong> individuals or groups automatically disqualifies 

them from the right <strong>of</strong> access and that they can be required to leave or denied further 

access. (W/0566/X) 

63

6d. the test <strong>of</strong> responsible 

behaviour is unclear 

6e. the test <strong>of</strong> responsible 

behaviour should be 

different 

A/0253/X/d, A/0253/X/d, A/0437/X, 

A/0442/X, A/0163/X, A/0796/X/d, 

A/0319/X, A/0362/X, B/0181/X, 

B/0455/X, B/0459/X, B/0481/X, 

B/0167/X, B/0510/X, B/0622/X, 

B/0660/X, B/0794/X, B/0783/X/d, 

B/0754/X, B/1075/X, B/1072/X, 

B/1072/X, B/1173/X, B/1094/X, 

B/1078/X, B/0980/X, B/0663/X, 

B/1267/X/d, B/1250/X, B/0545/X, 

B/1309/X, B/1306/X/d, B/1240/X, 

B/0404/X, B/0288/X/d, B/0409/X, 

B/1267/X/d, B/0294/X, B/1375/, 

D/1340/X, E/0523/X, E/0516/X, 

E/1038/X, E/1113/X, G/0082/X/d, 

G/0917/X, G/0132/X, G/0441/X, 

G/1192/X, G/0960/X, G/0973/X, 

G/1254/X, H/0460/X, H/0515/X, 

H/0497/X, H/0808/X, H/1103/X, 

H/1179/X, H/1327/X, J/1255/X, 

J/1203/X, K/0444/X, K/1302/X, 

K/1241/X, L/0513/X, P/0804/X /, 

P/0640/X, P/0869/X, P/1060/X, 

P/0717/X, P/0287/X, P/0576/X, 

Q/0526/X, Q/1178/X, Q/0974/X, 

Q/1308/X, Q/0309/X, V/1071/X, 

W/0221/X, W/0246/X, W/0880/X/d, 

W/0423/X, W/0457/X, W/0926/X, 

W/0529/X, W/0641/X, W/0857/X, 

W/0771/X, W/0649/X, W/1163/X, 

W/1153/Z/d, W/1112/X, W/1109/X, 

W/0735/X, W/0708/X/d, W/1287/X, 

W/1337/, W/1227/X/d, W/1001/X/d, 

W/0359/X, W/1235/X, X/1171/X, 

X/1188/X, X/0727/X, X/1212/X. 

A/0155/X, A/1070/X/d, A/0719/X/d, 

A/0933/X, B/0054/X, B/0218/X, 

B/0218/X, B/0218/X, B/0436/X, 

B/0270/X, B/0772/X, B/1288/X, 

B/0574/X, B/1347/X, E/0523/X, 

We believe this should include the use <strong>of</strong> defined paths where marked. Responsible 

behaviour requires to be more clearly defined, specifically with regards golf and sport in 

general. (B/0459/X) 

…there is no mention at all in the draft <strong>of</strong> children ….. There should be guidance for 

parents and guidance on what the Land Manager can do if unaccompanied or badly 

supervised children are doing damage or going into danger. (B/1094/X) 

Too low. ….. level <strong>of</strong> knowledge <strong>of</strong> crop or animal husbandry insufficient for them to 

make judgements about their own safety or the level <strong>of</strong> damage they may cause 

(B/0404/X). 

"Damage" is clear,……."Disturbance" less so…….This is much more open to 

interpretation and hence conflict, so some firmer and clearer examples would help. 

(G/0960/X) 

We do not feel that the test <strong>of</strong> responsible behaviour is sufficiently defined….There must 

be a presumption that the access taker must avoid all situations whereby his or her 

presence causes, or is likely to cause disturbance, alarm or damage. (Q/1178/X) 

Here it is stated that a person's behaviour is acceptable if one "does not interfere 

unreasonably with the rights <strong>of</strong> other people". It seems to me that individual people may 

each put a different interpretation on the word "unreasonably"…. I wonder whether the 

general public are sufficiently knowledgeable to know exactly what sort <strong>of</strong> "extra care" 

they require to take not to damage, say, the High Cairngorms? (W/1163/X) 

This is not acceptable as it really gives a green flag to disturbances to wildlife and 

animals. It is so vague as to render it useless practically to protect wildlife and animals. 

(W/0735/X) 

...the definition <strong>of</strong> responsible behaviour is too heavily weighted towards those who 

make their living in the countryside and should be broadened to include conservation 

interests. (L/0659/X) 

The test for unreasonable behaviour is surely quite specific. Behaviour is not 

responsible if it is not in compliance with the recommendations <strong>of</strong> the Access Code 

64

E/7065/X, E/0703/X, G/0759/X, 

G/1099/X, H/1348/X, J/1203/X, 

L/0659/X, N/0694/X, P/0287/X, 

P/0548/X, P/1218/X, P/1237/X, 

Q/0501/X/d, Q/0707/X, R/1278/X, 

V/0245/X, W/0434/X, W/0457/X, 

W/0848/X, W/0699/X, W/1315/, 

X/0405/X/d. 

which are comprehensive and understandable. (Q/0501/X/d) 

6f. other A/0919/X, A/0397/X/d, B/0925/X, 

B/0120/X, B/0525/X/d, B/0254/X, 

B/0826/X/d, B/0613/X, B/1049/X, 

B/1150/X/d, B/0574/X, B/0347/X, 

B/1271/X, B/0937/X, G/0917/X, 

G/0920/Y, G/1098/X, G/1251/X, 

G/1291/X, G/1229/X, G/1214/X, 

H/0915/X, H/0310/X, J/1058/X, 

J/1284/X, K/1241/X, L/0113/X, 

L/1055/X, L/1026/X, P/0928/X, 

P/0642/X, P/0899/X, P/0287/X, 

Q/0501/X, Q/1122/X, Q/0707/X, 

Q/0707/X, R/0868/X, R/1278/X, 

V/0975/X, V/1228/X, W/0119/X, 

W/0414/X, W/0619/X, W/0143/X, 

W/0143/X, W/1085/X, W/1287/X, 

W/1217/X, X/1174/X, X/0099/X. 

Exercising rights responsibly seems to concentrate on behaviour as between users… 

and land managers. This emphasis is probably reasonable but not to the extent <strong>of</strong> 

ignoring the needs <strong>of</strong> other users. Difficulties <strong>of</strong>ten occur between mountain bikers and 

walkers and between horse riders and other users but no advice on responsible 

behaviour as it affects these users seems to have been <strong>of</strong>fered. (G/0917/X) 

Commercial groups <strong>of</strong> canoeists or horse-riders regularly using the same stretch <strong>of</strong> river 

or path will create more disturbance and possible damage and so this needs to be 

reflected in terms <strong>of</strong> responsible acccess. Also highlight that responsible access will 

vary with seasons and weather conditions. (P/0899/X) 

The examples given <strong>of</strong> responsible behaviour in relation to disturbance appear 

somewhat trivial. Better examples should be selected for example involving specific 

agricultural and forestry activities. (V/0975/X) 

65

Summary – 


There was a range <strong>of</strong> comments on the test <strong>of</strong> responsible behaviour for those exercising access rights. Although a number <strong>of</strong> <strong>representations</strong> said the test 

was set about right, others, particularly from land managing interests, said it was too low, and sought amendments, whilst a few respondents thought that 

the test was set too high. However, a large proportion <strong>of</strong> comments also indicated that the test was unclear and that better examples should be given <strong>of</strong> 

situations in which it was critical that users behaved responsibly. 


Strengthening <strong>of</strong> the test was sought in relation to matters such as: 

• making people aware that they could be contributing to cumulative damage; 

• improving definitions <strong>of</strong> "disturbance" and "wear and tear"; and 

• placing more emphasis on paths being used, particularly in enclosed land. 

At the same time, a few respondents thought that the draft Code was unduly restrictive on dog walkers. These comments advanced a preference for more 

reliance on common sense as opposed to detailed guidance. 


Although the Proposed Code reflects many <strong>of</strong> these comments, the temptation to overburden this section <strong>of</strong> the Code with too much detail has been 

resisted because the overall test <strong>of</strong> responsible behaviour is derived from responsibilities described in Part 3. 

Key changes to the draft Code include highlighting: 

• that people fall outwith access rights if they do not behave responsibly; 

• the benefits <strong>of</strong> using paths where they exist, both for users and for land managers; and 

• examples <strong>of</strong> what constitutes unreasonable interference in the exercise <strong>of</strong> access rights such as dogs worrying livestock, damage to fences or walls, 

blocking field gates with vehicles, and hindering harvesting or crop spraying. 

In making these changes, the Proposed Code strives to maintain its balance by indicating that: 

• access rights in most places will apply <strong>of</strong>f paths just as much as on paths; and 

• some disturbance will be inevitable but explaining better the point at which this might become unreasonable. 

66

Question 7 - Does the guidance emphasise enough that the outdoors cannot be hazard-free, 

and that people should be responsible for their own actions? 


7a. Yes – the emphasis is 

correct 

A/0009/X, A/0442/X, A/0471/X/d, 

A/0477/X, A/0518/X, A/0825/X, 

A/1037/X, A/1037/X, A/1070/X/d, 

A/0319/X, B/0028/X, B/0462/X, 

B/0525/X/d, B/0842/X, B/0772/X, 

B/1350/X, B/0288/X/d, D/0521/X, 

D/1340/X, E/0703/X, E/1246/X, 

G/0043/X, G/0917/X, G/0920/Y/, 

G/0114/X, G/0468/X, G/0806/X, 

G/0785/X, G/1330/X/d, K/0714/X, 

L/0439/X, P/0890/X, P/0869/X, 

P/0646/X, P/0576/X, P/0384/X, 

Q/0232/X, Q/0264/X, Q/0501/X/d, 

Q/0707/X, Q/0697/X/d, Q/1308/X, 

R/0868/X, U/0922/X, V/1071/X, 

V/1228/X, W/0003/X, W/0021/X, 

W/0194/X, W/0246/X, W/0095/X, 

W/0644/X, W/1032/X, W/1153/Z/d, 

W/0675/X, W/1310/X/d, W/0359/X, 

W/0944/X, W/0391/X, W/1370/, 

X/1174/X, X/1385/X, X/1339/X, 

X/0405/X/d. 



The code correctly emphasises that people should be responsible for their own actions 

in the countryside. (A/0471/X/d) 

People must be responsible for their own safety. (B/0842/X) 

We are pleased to see that the guidance does emphasise that the countryside cannot be 

<strong>made</strong> a hazard free area. (E/0703/X) 

The wording in SOAC and the Act should be sufficient to guide the courts. (P/0890/X) 

Yes, the guidance does adequately emphasise that the countryside cannot be <strong>made</strong> 

hazard free etc. (W/0003/X) 

Yes and an important section (W/0021/X) 

432 

7b. No B/0054/X, B/0226/X, B/0446/X, 

B/0755/X, B/0565/X, B/0406/X, 

E/0616/X, G/1099/X, H/0310/X, 

M/0438/X, P/0642/X, P/0643/X, 

Q/0526/X, Q/0686/X, V/0207/X, 

W/0130/X/d, W/0100/d, W/0529/X, 

W/0812/Y, W/0143/X, W/1235/X, 

W/1373/, X/0495/X. 

Paragraph 3.9 includes guidance that access users should take responsibility for their 

own actions… However, it is felt that this should be expanded. (P/0642/X) 

No - this section is lightweight. (Q/0526/X) 

No, this needs to be heavily stressed. (W/0529/X) 

7c. No - needs less 

emphasis 

B/218/X, G/0917/X, G/1099/X, 

W/182/X. 

It is not possible to erect sufficient signs to warn people <strong>of</strong> the dangers that occur in the 

countryside. One <strong>of</strong> the joys <strong>of</strong> walking in the countryside is that one is not continuously 

confronted by signage which only leads one to feel that we are part <strong>of</strong> a "Nanny State"! 

(B/1126/X) 

What is to be avoided is any tendency to make the outdoors 'dangerous'. A simple 

67

7d. No - needs more 

emphasis 

A/0219/X, A/0927/X, A/0437/X, 

A/0425/X, A/0469/X, A/0163/X, 

A/0636/X, A/0658/X/d, A/0796/X/d, 

A/1194/X, A/0723/X, A/0719/X/d, 

A/0537/X, A/0320/X/d, A/0346/X, 

A/0362/X, A/0958/X, A/0320/X/d, 

B/0012/X, B/0178/X, B/0238/X, 

B/0254/X, B/0260/X, B/0049/X, 

B/0058/X, B/0131/X, B/0120/X, 

B/0275/X, B/0282/X, B/0459/X, 

B/0461/X, B/0466/X/d, B/0467/X, 

B/0470/X, B/0476/X, B/0481/X, 

B/0512/X/d, B/0634/X, B/0631/X, 

B/0738/X, B/0782/X, B/0801/X, 

B/0834/X, B/0839/X, B/0840/X, 

B/0859/X, B/0860/X, B/0861/X, 

B/0876/X, B/0794/X, B/0754/X, 

B/0613/X, B/0613/X, B/1017/X, 

B/1033/X, B/1049/X, B/1075/X, 

B/1072/X, B/1173/X, B/1152/X, 

B/1150/X/d, B/1145/X, B/1144/X, 

B/1142/X, B/1126/X, B/1125/X, 

B/1117/X, B/1114/X/d, B/1108/X, 

B/1104/X, B/1094/X, B/1093/X, 

B/1083/X/d, B/1078/X, B/1129/X, 

B/1197/X, B/1195/X, B/1190/X, 

B/1181/X, B/1019/X, B/0663/X, 

B/0662/X, B/1267/X/d, B/0704/X, 

B/1295/X, B/1288/X, B/0574/X, 

B/0538/X, B/1347/X, B/1328/X, 

B/1309/X, B/1240/X, B/0994/X, 

B/1027/X, B/0300/X/d, B/0306/X, 

B/0326/X, B/0338/X/d, B/0376/X, 

B/0404/X, B/0409/X, B/1267/X/d, 

B/0935/X, B/0937/X, B/0942/X/d, 

D/0022/X, D/0248/X, E/0921/X, 

E/0923/X, E/0514/X, E/0516/X, 

E/0616/X, G/0132/X, G/0146/X, 

statement, 'Some recreational activities are inheritantly risky' would be adequate. 

(G/0917/X) 

While accepting that the countryside cannot and should not be risk free, there may be an 

exception in the case <strong>of</strong> hidden man <strong>made</strong> hazards, eg a narrow aqueduct overgrown by 

heather, which could be a serious hazard. Such exception would not include obvious 

man <strong>made</strong> features eg bridges, where the access taker should make a judgement as to 

their soundness. (A/0098/X) 

This is a key concern to us as land managers: it should have a greater emphasis, both in 

its location and in its expression. (B/1288/X) 

It is important to make the point that the countryside is not risk-free. This is one section 

that should be expanded … and must include reference to children, young people and 

information for parents/guardians etc. who are responsible for children and young 

people. (B/0574/X) 

The Code must be more forceful in advising those that take access to do so at their own 

risk and while the land owner may have a reasonable duty <strong>of</strong> care, he is not bound by 

any greater liability than before the new legislation. (B/0481/X) 

... there should be stronger emphasis in the Code on the fact that people take access at 

their own risk. The guiding principles currently make reference to taking responsibility 

for your own actions, which is re-emphasised in paragraph 3.9. Neither <strong>of</strong> these 

sections make explicit reference, however, to the fact that those taking access do so at 

their own risk. (G/1226/X) 

...there should be a clear statement in the Code that the extent <strong>of</strong> the duty <strong>of</strong> care owed 

by an occupier <strong>of</strong> land to another person (as laid down in previous legislation) is not 

affected by this Act. … land managers should be discouraged from being overly 

protective <strong>of</strong> the public in respect <strong>of</strong> natural hazards that the public may well choose to 

engage with if they are undertaking risky activities on an owner's land or water. 

(G/1291/X) 

The potential hazards listed should be extended beyond natural features such as cliffs 

and rivers to man-<strong>made</strong> structures, even though these are the responsibility <strong>of</strong> the land 

manager, from the premise that avoidance <strong>of</strong> injury is more important than questions <strong>of</strong> 

culpability. Potential dangers from livestock should also be <strong>made</strong> explicit. (P/1239/X). 

3.9 This section could be strengthened to make it quite clear that there can be no case 

for a land manager/owner being sued if eg a gate breaks when being climbed and the 

person breaks a leg. Access must be at your own risk. (Q/0499/X) 

….the code document needs to state explicitly that people take access at their own 

risk…… ..if the code document states explicitly that people take access at their own risk, 

or alternatively quotes Section 5 <strong>of</strong> the Act, this will help to alleviate concerns land 

managers have with liability and the subsequent concern that land managers will limit 

access because <strong>of</strong> these concerns....... ..reference to taking access at your own risk in 

the code document will also be <strong>of</strong> benefit to users who are generally unlikely to be aware 

68

G/1098/X, G/1099/X, G/0960/X, 

G/0973/X, G/0698/X, G/1254/X, 

G/1251/X, G/1291/X, G/1226/X, 

G/0379/X, H/0220/X, H/0894/X, 

H/0515/X, H/0615/X, H/0807/X, 

H/0808/X, H/1103/X, H/1042/X, 

H/0988/X, H/0674/X, H/1348/X, 

H/0941/X, H/0949/X, H/1196/X, 

J/1051/X, J/1058/X, J/1058/X, 

J/1203/X, K/0444/X, L/0410/X, 

L/0527/X, L/0659/X, M/0454/X, 

M/0687/X, P/0491/X, P/0928/X, 

P/0804/X, P/0642/X, P/0640/X, 

P/0899/X, P/1060/X, P/1066/X, 

P/0717/X, P/1247/X, P/1219/X, 

P/0316/X, P/1237/X, P/1239/X, 

P/1272/X, P/1273/X, P/1275/X, 

P/1275/X, Q/0251/X, Q/0073/X, 

Q/0930/X, Q/0893/X, Q/0445/X, 

Q/0517/X, Q/0499/X, Q/1122/X, 

Q/1346/X, R/1278/X, R/0549/X, 

U/1172/X, V/0245/X, V/0851/X, 

V/0914/X, V/0398/X/d, W/0017/X, 

W/0034/X, W/0056/X/d, W/0182/X, 

W/0214/X, W/0217/X, W/0255/X, 

W/0083/X, W/0071/X, W/0434/X, 

W/0490/X, W/0880/X/d, W/0124/X, 

W/0108/X/d, W/0261/X, W/0277/X, 

W/0278/X, W/0411/X, W/0412/X, 

W/0423/X, W/0112/X, W/0511/X, 

W/0708/X/d, W/0780/X, W/0843/X, 

W/0855/X, W/0901/X/d, W/0898/X, 

W/0780/X, W/0770/X/d, W/0614/X, 

W/1031/X, W/1052/X/d, W/1053/X, 

W/1170/X, W/1189/X, W/1159/X/d, 

W/1158/X, W/1151/X, W/1141/X, 

W/1130/X, W/1112/X, W/1110/X, 

W/1109/X, W/1102/X/d, W/0972/X, 

W/0979/X, W/1016/X, W/0669/X/d, 

W/0720/X, W/0699/X, W/1289/X, 

that they are taking access at their own risk. (R/1278/X) 

In taking responsibility for one's own actions while seeking access, the code should state 

that land managers are not liable for an individual's well being, the existing duty <strong>of</strong> care 

not being affected by the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. 

(W/1109/X) 

There should be stronger emphasis on the access taker considering the nature <strong>of</strong> man 

<strong>made</strong> hazards eg using an old bridge, expect to encounter farm machinery on a farm 

track and therefore reduce cycling speed etc. There should be an expectation that 

hazards can be met anywhere and that access is taken subject to the normal workings 

<strong>of</strong> the countryside. Without this very clearly stated the land manager’s liability will 

increase. (W/1112/X) 

The code does not emphasise sufficiently the dangers and should require that people 

take responsibility for their own actions. If they fall into natural hazards, over cliffs, into 

lochs etc, they should be responsible and not the land manager. It should be explicitly 

stated that land managers should not erect signs, such as "Danger Slippery Grass, Peat 

Hags, Deep Water, Friable Rock", or the countryside will be ruined. (W/1110/X) 

The public should use the countryside but they should do so entirely at their own risk 

and this needs to be more clearly emphasised in your code and backed up by law. If 

this is not done it will be hard to expect land occupiers to be welcoming. (W/0297/X). 

69

W/1287/X, W/1264/X, W/1329/X, 

W/1325/X, W/1324/, W/1318/X, 

W/1315/, W/1227/X/d, W/1217/X, 

W/0991/X, W/1000/X, W/1007/X, 

W/0297/X, W/0318/X, W/0348/X/d, 

W/0950/X/d, W/0955/X, W/0957/X, 

W/0403/X, W/1367/, W/1360/, 

W/1359/X, X/0896/X, X/0122/X, 

X/0639/X, X/0784/X, X/0811/X, 

X/1067/X, X/0099/X, X/0664/X, 

X/1298/X, X/1298/X, X/1212/X, 

X/0939/X. 

7e. No - needs more 

guidance on responsibility 

for damage 

A/0133/X, A/0740/X, B/0238/X, 

B/0260/X, B/0085/X, B/0891/X, 

B/0885/X, B/0879/X, B/0127/X, 

B/0142/X, B/0624/X, B/0834/X, 

B/0837/X, B/1072/X, B/1146/X, 

B/1096/X, B/1195/X, B/0970/X, 

B/0980/X, B/1240/X, B/1009/X, 

B/1234/X, B/0937/X, E/0924/X, 

E/0351/X, H/1179/X, J/1058/X, 

J/1255/X, M/0852/X, P/0804/X, 

P/1300/X, Q/1122/X, Q/1178/X, 

W/0001/X, W/0173/X, W/0080/X, 

W/0277/X, W/0962/X/d, W/0971/X, 

W/0986/X, W/1014/X, W/0947/X/d, 

X/0128/X, X/0637/X. 

Must make more emphasis on the dangers in the countryside especially with livestock <strong>of</strong> 

all types in enclosed farmland .... As well as the land owners having public liability 

insurance, walkers should do likewise. (A/0320/X/d). 

Paragraph 3.9 ought to be strengthened accordingly to emphasize that responsibility for 

an access taker's own actions extends (perhaps especially) to responsibility to others, 

whether access takers or providers. (B/1195/X) 

If animals take flight jumping and/or damaging fences and/or sustaining injury when 

someone is in or by a field, I believe that they are responsible for immediately notifying 

the owner or caretaker <strong>of</strong> the animals. (B/1146/X) 

It is not sufficient simply to say that access users accept that the countryside is a 

hazardous place and use their Rights under this Act at their own risk. A clear statement, 

with legislative force, is required to the effect that the liability <strong>of</strong> any land manager for 

negligence in respect <strong>of</strong> any road or structure eg bridges or stiles, which may be used 

for public access should be limited only to the purposes for which such structures were 

created, ie for land management purposes only in most cases. (H/1179/X) 

No. We consider that very early in the Code, if not at its very start, it must be 

emphatically stated that those taking access are (not should be) totally responsible for 

their own actions, and that under Scot's Law they have a duty <strong>of</strong> care to themselves and 

to other people. (J/1058/X) 

People who would like to take responsible access must be encouraged to take insurance 

cover for all eventualities. (M/0852/X) 

Clarification is required in detail, for access takers indicating what their legal liability is for 

anything that may befall them as a result <strong>of</strong> their own negligence or recklessness. 

(P/1300/X) 

No ……. The Code should put maximum emphasis on the need for people to be 

responsible not only for their actions but also for the safety <strong>of</strong> themselves and others. 

70

7f. Other A/0098/X, A/0821/X/d, A/0838/X, 

A/1084/X, A/0740/X, A/0726/X, 

B/0167/X, B/0819/X, B/0966/X, 

B/0672/X, B/0305/X, B/0937/X, 

G/0920/Y, G/0189/X, G/0759/X, 

G/1099/X, G/1057/X, G/1214/X, 

K/0722/X, P/0548/X, P/1218/X, 

P/1275/X, Q/0024/X, Q/1286/X, 

W/0789/X, W/0780/X, W/1023/X, 

W/1119/X, W/0708/X/d. 

(Q/1122/X) 

The public should use the countryside entirely at their own risk and, in the case <strong>of</strong> 

mountaineers particularly, there is no reason why they should not carry their own 

insurance, perhaps through their household policies. (W/0962/X/d) 

The last sentence <strong>of</strong> this paragraph is not appropriate in this section and should be 

removed. (B/0937/X). 

3.9 Recommend that the words in bold be replaced by '…and remember that you alone 

are responsible for your own actions.' … delete the final sentence; as drafted , it leaves 

SNH wide open to criticism for failing to set out almost anything not in the Code. 

(W/1023/X) 

71

Supplementary Comments – Issues raised on Liability 


Issues raised: 

A/0373/X, A/0105/X, A/0320/X/d, 

A/1194/X, A/0537/X, A/0927/X, 

Land managers should 

A/0636/X, A/0219/X, A/0719/X/d, 

not be liable / recreational 

A/0726/X, B/0005/X, B/0032/X, 

users should accept 

B/0038/X, B/0068/X, B/0069/X, 

responsibility 

B/0076/X, B/0045/Z, B/0051/X, 

B/0054/X, B/0058/X, B/0136/X, 

B/0152/X, B/0342/X, B/0343/X, 

B/0353/X, B/0355/X, B/0356/X, 

B/0366/X, B/0371/X, B/0375/X, 

B/0376/X, B/0385/X/d, B/0396/X/d, 

B/0626/X, B/0628/X, B/0631/X, 

B/0638/X/d, B/0653/X, B/0648/X, 

B/0654/X, B/0117/X, B/0081/X, 

B/0085/X, B/0184/X, B/0186/X, 

B/0519/X, B/0528/X, B/0338/X/d, 

B/0275/X, B/0288/X/d, B/0280/X, 

B/0284/X, B/0285/X, B/0293/X, 

B/0303/X, B/0322/X, B/0326/X, 

B/0331/X, B/0845/X, B/0859/X, 

B/0861/X, B/1181/X, B/1187/X, 

B/1190/X, B/1195/X, B/1197/X, 

B/1200/X, B/0535/X, B/0545/X, 

B/0564/X, B/0662/X, B/0672/X, 

B/0678/X, B/0680/X, B/1009/X, 

B/1017/X, B/1019/X, B/1027/X, 

Recreational users should B/1341/Z/d, B/0238/X, B/0249/X/d, 

be insured, and related B/0254/X, B/0257/X, B/0258/X, 

views 

B/0260/X, B/0211/X, B/0215/X, 

B/1368/X/d, B/0462/X, B/0956/X, 

B/1301/X, B/1309/X, B/1313/X, 

B/1328/X, B/0443/X, B/0446/X, 

B/1207/X, B/1208/X, B/1210/X, 

B/1216/X, B/1236/X, B/1238/X, 

B/1244/X, B/1253/X, B/1262/X, 

B/1269/X, B/1271/X, B/1288/X, 

B/1292/X, B/1295/X, B/0801/X, 



I would consider that we are responsible for our own safety and the development <strong>of</strong> a 

culture <strong>of</strong> litigation is avoided. (A/0219/X) 

I am quite happy with the bill, and access, provided that it is clear that people enter 

agricultural land at their own risk, and we are not responsible for their actions. 

(B/0005/X). 

It is our contention that the responsibility for spelling out the danger <strong>of</strong> exercising the 

right <strong>of</strong> access on particular types <strong>of</strong> ground e.g. farms and golf courses falls on those 

who make the Access Code law i.e. the Government. If that is not done we can forsee, 

in the event <strong>of</strong> injury or death, a legal basis for counter claims. (B/0519/X). 

I feel the Scottish Parliament should accept liability for any injury caused to the public. 

(B/1200/X). 

Litigation will be brought over cases <strong>of</strong> accident, injury and death which will generally 

place intolerable burdens <strong>of</strong> care on land owners and managers, with no comeback 

financially. (B/0970/X) 

Safety and public liability are major concerns for land managers as a result <strong>of</strong> this 

legislation. (B/0613/X) 

Unless negligence on the part <strong>of</strong> a third party is involved and can be proven, responsible 

access should include acceptance <strong>of</strong> the inherent risks, especially in today's litigious 

society. (H/0674/X) 

While there is emphasis on people having to accept responsibility for their own actions it 

is surprising that no commensurate emphasis nor even mention is <strong>made</strong> <strong>of</strong> people being 

held liable for the consequences <strong>of</strong> these actions. SANA considers that equal emphasis 

should be given to the liability <strong>of</strong> those using access. (J/1255/X) 

The Bill states that there will be no additional liability on landowners. The Code does not 

put enough emphasis on people taking access AT THEIR OWN RISK. (P/0890/X) 

I would suggest that the Code should advise access takers to have personal liability 

insurance cover. This would correspond with land managers' public liability cover and 

could resolve loss or damage claims. (B/0338/X/d). 

People entering the countryside should be aware that it is at their own risk with the onus 

for insurance being placed with them. (B/1328/X). 

People should have to identify themselves before they embark on walks, cycle runs or 

horse rides so that damage done is accountable. (B/1101/X) 

I currently run a quad bike trail enterprise and I use my woodland as part <strong>of</strong> the track. 

How would I stand if I came across a horse rider taking access through my woods and 

the horse bolted or kicked one <strong>of</strong> my clients on the quad bikes?...I think anybody taking 

access should have his own insurance. (F/1124/X) 

72 

411


not be responsible for 

maintaining infrastructure 

or informing the public <strong>of</strong> 

hazards 

Perception that duty <strong>of</strong> 

care upon land managers 

is increased 

B/0816/X, B/0827/X, B/0834/X, 

B/0837/X, B/0876/X, B/0883/X, 

B/0885/X, B/0891/X, B/0909/X, 

B/0925/X, B/0929/X, B/0938/X/d, 

B/1161/X, B/1164/X, B/1168/X, 

B/1173/X, B/1176/X, B/0983/X, 

B/0994/X, B/0933/X, B/0936/X, 

B/0938/X/d, B/0942/X/d, B/0953/X, 

B/0954/X, B/0964/X, B/0965/X/d, 

B/0969/X, B/0970/X, B/1063/X, 

B/1068/X, B/1075/X, B/1101/X, 

B/1107/X, B/1126/X, B/0574/X, 

B/0585/X, B/0592/X, B/0599/X/d, 

B/0606/X, B/0608/X, B/0613/X, 

B/0613/X, B/0049/X, B/0127/X, 

B/0131/X, B/0226/X, B/0332/X, 

B/0406/X, B/0418/X, B/0413/X, 

B/0510/X, B/0506/X, B/0294/X 

B/0461/X, B/0404/X, B/0465/X, 

B/0466/X/d, B/0476/X, B/0480/X, 

B/0473/X/d, B/0683/X, B/0695/X, 

B/0704/X, B/1267/X/d, B/0711/X, 

B/0745/X, B/0754/X, B/0756/X, 

B/1365/X, B/0761/X, B/0794/X, 

B/1046/X/d, B/1033/X, B/1133/X, 

B/1142/X, B/1144/X, B/1145/X, 

B/1147/X, B/1108/X, B/1114/X/d, 

B/1117/X, B/1127/X/d, D/0521/X, 

D/0248/X, E/0616/X, E/0514/X, 

Landowners should not be responsible for stiles, bridges etc and should not be liable if 

someone injures himself whilst crossing a poorly maintained bridge, stile etc. 

(A/0105/X). 

If access, paths, gates and other access facilities become a liability to the land manager 

this will be a disincentive to encourage more access or maintain existing access facilities 

(B/0443/X). 

We have concern about liability for gates and other structures. If people can go 

anywhere and climb over any gates, fences etc. this potentially puts a huge burden on 

the estate to replace hundreds <strong>of</strong> gates and other structures. It should be <strong>made</strong> clear 

that people should assess the safety <strong>of</strong> a route for themselves, particularly when away 

from CPNs and RoWs. (B/1173/X). 

It is unreasonable to expect land managers to inform the public about every operation 

and its relative risks. It assumes the land manager may be liable in some way if he does 

not. (B/0371/X) 

..'provide paths'... Who is going to fund this and who takes responsibility in the event <strong>of</strong> 

an accident occurring if the sign is or is not in place? (X/0664/X). 

Our concern is that the Scottish Outdoor Access Code is going to significantly increase 

our exposure to Public Liability claims once the public has the Right to access our land 

(B/0045/Z) 

The extra weight <strong>of</strong> duty <strong>of</strong> care imposed on land managers by the introduction <strong>of</strong> 

pleasure seekers into their place <strong>of</strong> work is mammoth and totally out <strong>of</strong> balance with the 

meagre responsibilities and massive rights handed out to the accessors. (B/0058/X). 

It is also disingenuous to indicate that there is no change in farmer's liability on the basis 

that the same duty <strong>of</strong> care remains with regard to the public. By way <strong>of</strong> promoting much 

greater access both by day and by night the magnitude <strong>of</strong> that liability clearly increases. 

(B/0956/X). 

We understand land owners’ concerns about liability and insurance issues particularly if 

people are exercising their access rights on land where previously only limited access 

occurred. (P/0646/X) 

73

Concern about increased 

insurance premiums 

Specific concerns about 

accidents due to livestock 


accidents due to faulty 

infrastructure 

E/0523/X, E/1243/X, E/1246/Y, 

E/1257/X, E/1074/X, E/0590/X, 

E/0590/X, E/0516/X, E/0703/X, 

E/0765/X, E/1113/X, F/0360/X, 

F/1124/X, F/1134/X, G/0040/X, 

G/0146/X, G/0657/X, G/1192/X, 

G/1099/X, G/1291/X, G/1254/X, 

G/0960/X, G/0580/X, H/0370/X, 

H/0497/X, H/1196/X, H/0674/X, 

H/1276/X, H/0310/X, H/0808/X, 

H/1179/X, H/0941/X, H/1118/X, 

H/0615/X, H/0220/X, H/0460/X, 

H/1042/X, H/1140/X, H/1128/X, 

J/1058/X, J/1255/X, K/0444/X, 

K/0714/X, L/0065/X, L/0647/X, 

L/0513/X, L/0747/X, M/0101/X, 

M/0852/X, M/0454/X, M/0687/X, 

M/0948/X, M/0438/X, M/0687/X, 

M/0734/X, P/0642/X, P/0646/X, 

P/0316/X, P/0384/X, P/1219/X, 

P/1239/X, P/1296/X, P/1300/X, 

P/0890/X, P/0899/X, P/1066/X, 

P/0577/X, P/0492/X, Q/0364/X, 

Q/0091/X, Q/0177/X, Q/0499/X, 

Q/0501/X, Q/0517/X, Q/0304/X, 

Q/1184/X, Q/1185/X, Q/0251/X, 

Q/0256/X, Q/1252/X, Q/1275/X, 

Q/1286/X, Q/1299/X, Q/1178/X, 

Q/1061/X, Q/0479/X, Q/0697/X/d, 

Q/0790/X, R/1221/X, R/1278/X, 

R/0763/X, U/1172/X, V/0398/X, 

V/0851/X, W/0001/X, W/0061/X, 

W/0064/X, W/0071/X, W/0080/X, 

W/0040/X, W/0056/X, W/0348/X/d, 

W/0367/X, W/0632/X, W/0635/X, 

W/0108/X, W/0083/X, W/0084/X, 

W/0180/X, W/0190/X, W/0159/X, 

We are also worried about the insurance issues. We are insured but the premiums have 

more than doubled in the last year alone, with multiple conditions and disclaimers. This 

situation is likely to get worse. (B/0068/X) 

It is not yet clear how this will affect insurance premiums but if the effect is adverse, we 

should be interested to know if landowners will be compensated. (B/0342/X) 

Whatever is finally decided should include some form <strong>of</strong> national insurance to protect 

farmers from claims <strong>made</strong> which are outside the scope <strong>of</strong> reasonable third party cover. 

(B/1164/X). 

That the Scottish Executive have failed to address the issue <strong>of</strong> potentially greater 

insurance premiums has created bad will and has done nothing to assist good relations 

between visitors and land managers. (E/1257/X). 

"Take responsibility for your own actions" is a plain statement, but neither this nor the 

legislation itself is sufficient to prevent insurance companies taking a precautionary 

approach and increasing the cost <strong>of</strong> land managers’ insurance policies with respect to 

third party claims. (H/0808/X) 

Cows are very protective <strong>of</strong> their calves and if threatened by a dog could turn quite 

nasty. Who would be to blame in such a scenario? (B/0396/X/d). 

It is simply not safe to wander through a field <strong>of</strong> suckler cows and calves with a dog, and 

anyone who does so must do it at their own risk. (B/0535/X) 

We put up sign posts 'Beware <strong>of</strong> the Bull' and asked people to stay out <strong>of</strong> the fields 

where the bull was but again they did not listen, what happens if anyone gets hurt. 

(B/0953/X). 

If a dog scares a field <strong>of</strong> young cattle and they break through one or two fences on 

neighbouring properties who is liable for the repair? ……It would appear that there will 

be cases where the owner/occupier is going to be involved in some rather large 

insurance claims. (H/1042/X) 

The bridges in particular should not be crossed by more than a few persons at a time 

and if the public are not supervised then our Insurance company are unlikely to be 

willing to continue cover as at present. (B/0343/X). 

Land Managers cannot be <strong>made</strong> liable for accidents concerning natural features or 

commonplace items (such as barbed wire fences, ditches and bridges, livestock, 

manure, stacked timber or bales) which will be found on any foray into the countryside. 

(B/1271/X) 

...further clarification on liability should be included to cover risk associated with access 

infrastructure, for example bridges or gates that may have been designed for land 

management purposes and not for multi-access use. (P/1219/X). 

74


accidents due to natural 

hazards 

W/0168/, W/0529/X, W/0262/X, 

W/0276/X, W/0277/X, W/0278/X, 

W/0297/X, W/0354/X/d, W/0855/X, 

W/0857/X, W/0554/X, W/0561/X, 

W/0566/X, W/0605/X, W/0669/X/d, 

W/0962/X/d, W/1008/X, W/1010/X, 

W/1012/X, W/1014/X, W/1020/X, 

W/1031/X, W/0212/X, W/1315/, 

W/1324/, W/0977/X/d, W/0979/X, 

W/0981/X, W/1224/X, W/1227/X/d, 

W/1264/X, W/1265/X, W/1280/X, 

W/1287/X, W/1289/X, W/0242/X, 

W/0261/X, W/1235/X, W/0817/X, 

W/0822/X, W/0836/X, W/0843/X, 

W/0880/X/d, W/0881/X, W/0898/X, 

W/0903/X, W/1153/Z/d, W/1158/X, 

W/1159/X/d, W/1162/X, W/0991/X, 

W/0950/X/d, W/0957/X, W/1367/, 

W/0962/X/d, W/0971/X, W/1360/, 

W/1102/X/d, W/1119/X, W/0578/X, 

W/0579/X, W/0591/X, W/0612/X, 

W/0614/X, W/0124/X, W/0217/X, 

W/0402/X, W/0417/X, W/0412/X, 

W/0411/X, W/0435/X, W/0483/X, 

W/0464/X, W/0702/Y, W/0720/X, 

W/0735/X, W/0767/X, W/0778/X, 

W/0789/X, W/1048/X, W/1053/X, 

W/1135/X, W/1109/X, W/1110/X, 

W/1112/X, X/0639/X, X/0193/X/d, 

X/0196/X, X/0543/X, X/0664/X, 

X/1212/X, X/1298/X, X/0099/X, 

X/0888/X, X/1174/X, X/1067/X, 

X/1092/X, X/0122/X, X/0128/X, 

X/0495/X, X/0727/X, X/1115/X. 

I am worried about children in the burn. It is easily deep enough for them to drown. 

Would I then be responsible? (B/0284/X). 

On a large estate, you cannot possibly know all the trees that might be dangerous to 

climb or tracks that may have ankle-wrenching potholes in them. Never mind where 

there may be natural lochs, ponds, rivers and burns. Not a single one <strong>of</strong> these would 

normally be enclosed or fenced <strong>of</strong>f. I strongly urge for the issue <strong>of</strong> liability to be properly 

clarified. (B/0876/X) 

75

Summary – 


The vast majority <strong>of</strong> <strong>representations</strong>, particularly from land management interests, felt that the draft Code did not adequately emphasise the need for users 

to take care and be responsible for their actions. In contrast, some comments did support the line taken in the draft Code, and a few others requested less 

emphasis on this issue, raising concerns that the outdoors might be portrayed as being dangerous and thereby discouraging people from exercising access 

rights, and possibly leading to a proliferation <strong>of</strong> signs reflecting an overcautious approach. 


The issue <strong>of</strong> taking responsibility for your own actions was one <strong>of</strong> the key issues raised in the consultation on the draft Code. This was reinforced by the 

large number <strong>of</strong> comments, particularly from land management interests, seeking further explanation on liability and insurance requirements. These 

<strong>representations</strong> were seeking: 

• more attention to be given to personal safety with “at your own risk” used instead <strong>of</strong> “taking responsibility for your own actions”; 

• the Code to restate the statutory position on liability, duty <strong>of</strong> care and health and safety obligations; 

• the inclusion <strong>of</strong> examples <strong>of</strong> dangerous places, man-<strong>made</strong> hazards and dangerous livestock as well as natural hazards; 

• more emphasis on those exercising access rights being liable for losses and damages resulting from their own actions; and 

• greater clarity on when users and managers can be sued for their actions. 


Opportunities for amendments in the Proposed Code were limited by the following factors: 

• "taking responsibility for your own actions" is already one <strong>of</strong> the key principles presented at the start <strong>of</strong> the Proposed Code; 

• the Proposed Code cannot change the law on liability; 

• the use <strong>of</strong> the term "at your own risk" would require a change in the law and Parliament has already rejected this; and 

• the liability <strong>of</strong> users for losses and damages depends on the circumstances <strong>of</strong> each case and so the Code cannot <strong>of</strong>fer guidance on what the legal 

outcomes might be for different types <strong>of</strong> cases. 

These concerns have been addressed in part in the Proposed Code by providing more explanation <strong>of</strong> this issue and emphasising that the outdoors cannot 

be <strong>made</strong> risk free and that there is a duty <strong>of</strong> care on both land managers and users. The Proposed Code now includes: 

• a quote <strong>of</strong> the relevant section <strong>of</strong> the Act, i.e. S5(2); 

• more reference to the Occupier's Liability (Scotland) Act, 1960 and the Health & Safety At Work Act, 1974; 

• reference to the duty <strong>of</strong> care which the public have for others; 

• a reference to children; 

76

• the issue <strong>of</strong> dangerous and unpredictable livestock has been explained better; 

• more examples <strong>of</strong> non-natural hazards, e.g., riding a bike or horse too fast and creating danger for other users; and 

• more emphasis and encouragement to follow signs and notices. 

In addition, SNH will also work with the Scottish Executive to provide further clarity on these issues. 

77

Question 8 - Does the Code strike a sensible balance over giving people reasonable privacy 

and peace in their own home? 


8a. Yes – the Code 

strikes a sensible balance 

A/0009/X, A/0927/X, A/0437/X, 

A/0133/X, A/0425/X, A/0442/X, 

A/0469/X, A/0477/X, A/0821/X/d, 

A/0825/X, A/1037/X, A/1070/X/d, 

A/1084/X, A/0968/X, A/0740/X, 

A/0723/X, A/0719/X/d, A/0319/X, 

A/0369/X/d, A/0958/X, B/0826/X/d, 

B/0772/X, B/1114/X/d, B/0565/X, 

B/0288/X/d, B/0409/X, B/0937/X, 

D/0022/X, D/0093/X, E/0703/X, 

G/0189/X, G/0917/X, G/0114/X, 

G/0806/X, G/0785/X, G/0759/X, 

G/1057/X, G/1098/X, G/0960/X, 

G/0698/X, G/1254/X, G/1251/X, 

G/1226/X, G/1214/X, G/0379/X, 

H/0808/X, K/0444/X, K/1241/X, 

K/0714/X, L/0439/X, L/0410/X, 

P/0928/X, P/0869/X, P/0899/X, 

P/0643/X, P/1066/X, P/1247/X, 

P/1237/X, P/1272/X, P/1273/X, 

P/1275/X, P/1275/X, P/1275/X, 

Q/0264/X, Q/0526/X, Q/1122/X, 

Q/0697/X/d, R/1278/X, U/1172/X, 

V/0207/X, W/0003/X, W/0017/X, 

W/0021/X, W/0196/X, W/0182/X, 

W/0214/X, W/0246/X, W/0255/X, 

W/0490/X, W/0108/X/d, W/0095/X, 

W/0423/X, W/0112/X, W/0140/X, 

W/0625/X, W/0843/X, W/0789/X, 

W/0780/X, W/0778/X, W/1032/X, 

W/1158/X, W/1130/X, W/0708/X/d, 

W/1217/X, W/1007/X, W/0359/X, 

W/0391/X, W/1367/, W/1359/X, 

X/0896/X, X/0784/X, X/1067/X, 

X/1174/X, X/1212/X. 



In regard to measures <strong>of</strong> privacy and peace for people living in the countryside I feel that 

the Code does strike a sensible balance. (A/0369/X/d). 

Provides a sensible balance… Access in relation to curtilage should not be <strong>made</strong> more 

restrictive than that stated. (A/0927/X) 

493 

78

8b. No – the balance is 

not right 

B/0211/X, B/0167/X, B/0505/X, 

B/0510/X, B/0755/X, B/0782/X, 

B/0613/X, B/0731/X, B/0545/X, 

B/1306/X/d, B/1267/X/d, B/1356/, 

E/0616/X, H/0220/X, H/0941/X, 

E/0923/X, L/0747/X, P/0804/X, 

P/0646/X, P/0576/X, P/0384/X, 

Q/0445/X, Q/0501/X/d, Q/0499/X, 

Q/0856/X, Q/1312/X, Q/1308/X, 

V/0851/X, W/0057/X, W/0429/X, 

W/0130/X/d, W/0926/X, W/0641/X, 

W/0780/X, W/0649/X, W/0720/X, 

W/1316/, W/1235/X, W/1373/, 

X/0099/X, X/1092/X, X/0727/X. 

More clarity is needed. (B/0613/X) 

How long is a piece <strong>of</strong> string? You may have a large garden, it may not be hedged or 

fenced and you may perceive you have less privacy if a member <strong>of</strong> the public walks 

through your curtilage. (B/1267/X/d). 

3.11 This is too vague, particularly as regards woodland near a house. (Q/0499/X) 

Privacy and peace sections appear vague and lack definition. (V/0851/X) 

The answer is obviously NO. The reason for this is that people are not on paths - as I 

said earlier, many paths should be provided. Having people wandering anywhere on 

private land is not a sensible balance. (W/0130/X/d) 

Access is excluded under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act (6 (1) (a) (ii))… to boats on 

canal and excludes moorings from access rights. This should be explicitly 

acknowledged in the guidance. (X/0896/X) 

8c. No – the balance is 

wrong, residents’ privacy 

is not adequately 

protected 

A/0518/X, A/0838/X, A/0796/X/d, 

B/0028/X, B/0033/X, B/0171/X, 

B/0226/X, B/0258/X, B/0049/X, 

B/0058/X, B/0428/X/d, B/0673/X, 

B/0895/X, B/0446/X, B/0462/X, 

B/0481/X, B/0842/X, B/0654/X, 

B/0648/X, B/1033/X, B/1047/X, 

B/1049/X, B/0956/X, B/1072/X, 

B/1072/X, B/1062/X, B/1173/X, 

B/1126/X, B/1117/X, B/1100/X, 

B/1083/X/d, B/1083/X/d, B/1183/X, 

B/1181/X, B/0970/X, B/0980/X, 

B/0982/X, B/0680/X, B/0677/X, 

B/0741/X, B/0695/X, B/1288/X, 

B/1244/X, B/0568/X, B/0538/X, 

B/1306/X/d, B/1303/X/d, B/1027/X, 

B/0288/X/d, B/0300/X/d, B/0329/X, 

B/0404/X, B/0406/X, B/1269/X, 

B/0938/X/d, B/0943/X, D/1206/X, 

E/0924/X, E/1215/X, F/1134/X, 

G/1330/X/d, H/0460/X, H/0515/X, 

H/1179/X, H/0534/X, J/1058/X, 

J/1058/X, L/0513/X, L/0992/X, 

P/0491/X, P/0492/X, P/0642/X, 

...re-word the text to make it clear that lingering, or even worse scrutinising, are 

unacceptable at any time. (A/0838/X) 

For anyone who has purchased their property prior to the Act they are now in danger <strong>of</strong> 

losing the valuable privacy that they had prior to the passing <strong>of</strong> the Act. (B/1062/X) 

People who live in the country can become alarmed by the presence <strong>of</strong> strangers and 

may feel threatened and unsafe to see people passing close to their homes. 

(B/0938/X/d). 

The Code does not strike a sensible balance. Coming too near houses effects privacy, 

security and causes alarm. Persons living in the country are not used to people coming 

about and would feel insecure. (B/0300/X/d). 

The code should give more examples <strong>of</strong> what is and is not acceptable ie. Walking on 

paths alongside a garden is acceptable but stopping to look in the garden is not, it is an 

invasion <strong>of</strong> privacy. (B/0446/X) 

Access takers should endeavour to keep far enough away from dwelling houses as not 

to be visible if at all possible. The code should emphasise the need not to loiter or take 

rests anywhere near dwellings and farmyards (B/0404/X). 

Further guidance needs to be developed for this section for example providing a 

measure by which a reasonable distance can be maintained. An example <strong>of</strong> this may be 

whether the access user can see into a property's windows and or whether the noise 

level is detrimental to the occupiers. (P/0642/X) 

The code should be much more prescriptive in protecting the rights and privacy <strong>of</strong> those 

who live in the countryside… Access takers should remain out <strong>of</strong> earshot at the very 

least unless they are using a recognised pathway for passage. (Q/0157/X) 

Reasonable measures <strong>of</strong> privacy will not be afforded to residents in the country while the 

79

8d. No – the balance is 

wrong, residents’ privacy 

over protected 

P/1060/X, P/1272/X, P/1272/X, 

Q/0157/X, Q/0499/X, Q/0866/X/d, 

Q/0905/X, Q/0686/X, Q/1252/X, 

V/0398/X/d, W/0003/X, W/0025/X, 

W/0483/X, W/0278/X, W/0411/X, 

W/0530/X, W/0770/X/d, W/0812/, 

W/0818/X, W/0857/X, W/0766/X, 

W/0143/X, W/0143/X, W/1159/X/d, 

W/1151/X, W/1123/X, W/1112/X, 

W/1110/X, W/1085/X, W/0531/X, 

W/1223/X, W/0991/X, W/1001/X/d, 

W/1024/X, W/0354/X/d, 

W/0354/X/d, W/1011/X, W/1318/X, 

W/0950/X/d, X/0896/X, X/1059/X, 

X/1188/X, X/0405/X/d. 

A/0133/X, A/0308/X, A/0291/X, 

G/1291/X, G/0043/X, G/0730/X, 

M/0463/X, P/0642/X, R/1278/X, 

W/0644/X, W/0887/X. 

guidance is entirely the opinion <strong>of</strong> people exercising access rights. It is entirely 

subjective and open to abuse. (W/0354/X/d). 

...the Scottish Executive confirmed that the public would not be able to exercise access 

rights on caravan park land except in situations where a right <strong>of</strong> way is in existence …. 

The Code requires to be altered to highlight the fact that caravan parks are excluded 

rather than only make reference to protecting the individual caravanner's privacy in his 

touring caravan or caravan holiday home as it does at the moment in points 2.15 and 

3.10. (X/1059/X) 

... The Code should justify why the Act does not distinguish between day-time and nighttime 

access. It needs to be <strong>made</strong> clear that people may have many legitimate reasons 

for being out after dark. These include watching the sunset/sunrise from a hilltop, 

viewing the night sky away from artificial light or starting/finishing a long walk or climb in 

the dark, to make the most <strong>of</strong> limited winter daylight. (A/0958/X). 

Unhindered access to the outdoors at night is a very important part <strong>of</strong> the access right 

granted under the Act. Much climbing and mountaineering activity relies on it, e.g winter 

climbing when daylight hours are short. It is likely to come under threat from some 

sectors, and should be expressed as positively as possible. (G/0920/Y) 

The balance is about right… but some disabled people may need to follow a path near a 

dwelling in order to gain access at all. (M/0463/X) 

...paragraph 3.11 needs to recognise that where a house is next to a river, it is not as 

easy to avoid passing close to a house or garden and potentially affecting peace and 

privacy. …in such cases it is reasonable to expect people to be able to pass a house or 

garden in closer proximity to it than might be considered reasonable on land. .....there is 

a need for some specific advice on privacy and peace next to estate gatehouses. Such 

houses are <strong>of</strong>ten immediately next to the road and also <strong>of</strong>ten provide the main means <strong>of</strong> 

access into an estate......important that access to estates is not allowed to be restricted 

because <strong>of</strong> claims from residents <strong>of</strong> gatehouses that their privacy is being impinged 

upon. (R/1278/X) 

A frequently encountered situation… is that where a "Private Road" sign is exhibited, or 

a "Private" sign either on land or on a road is exhibited. The failure to clarify the rights <strong>of</strong> 

all parties in these situations is a most significant failure in the present draft <strong>of</strong> the Code. 

(W/0887/X) 

80

8 e. advice on access at 

night needs to give 

residents more privacy 

A/0655/X/d, A/0471/X/d, A/0997/X, 

A/0927/X, A/0958/X, B/0015/, 

B/0183/X, B/0466/X/d, B/0473/X/d, 

B/0181/X, B/0488/X/d, B/0443/X, 

B/0142/X, B/0456/X, B/0510/X, 

B/0638/X/d, B/0801/X, B/0834/X, 

B/0842/X, B/0909/X, B/0798/X, 

B/0783/X/d, B/0782/X, B/0760/X, 

B/0764/X, B/0956/X, B/1068/X, 

B/1063/X, B/1160/X, B/1152/X, 

B/1142/X, B/1121/X, B/1177/X, 

B/1094/X, B/1091/X, B/1093/X, 

B/1083/X/d, B/1186/X, B/1181/X, 

B/0964/X, B/0969/X, B/0980/X, 

B/1017/X, B/0683/X, B/0681/X, 

B/0672/X, B/0711/X, B/0704/X, 

B/0738/X, B/1033/X, B/1236/X, 

B/1295/X, B/1293/X, B/1261/X, 

B/1248/X, B/1350/X, B/1240/X, 

B/1216/X, B/1210/X, B/1208/X, 

B/1022/X, B/0322/X, B/0371/X, 

B/1207/X, B/1269/X, E/0523/X, 

E/0514/X, E/1038/X, E/1074/X, 

E/1113/X, E/1246/X, E/0536/X, 

F/1134/X, F/0998/X, G/1099/X, 

G/0920/Y, G/0831/X, G/0854/X, 

H/1196/X, H/0959/X, J/1058/X, 

K/0722/X, M/0852/X, N/0716/X, 

N/1268/X, P/0889/X, P/0640/X, 

P/0717/X, P/1218/X, P/0287/X, 

Q/0232/X, Q/1346/X, V/0245/X, 

W/0191/X, W/0100/d, W/0412/X, 

W/0641/X, W/0693/X, W/0822/X, 

W/0857/X, W/0873/X, W/0799/X, 

W/0776/X, W/0770/X/d, W/1034/X, 

W/1153/Z/d, W/1110/X, W/1088/X, 

W/0962/X/d, W/0963/X, W/0972/X, 

W/0750/X, W/0735/X, W/0699/X, 

W/1289/X, W/1287/X, W/1263/X, 

W/0555/X, W/1318/X, W/1315/, 

No I do not think access rights should be exercised near houses or in stocked fields at 

all after dark. (B/0466/X/d) 

Why would any responsible person wish to have access to a farmer's land in the hours 

<strong>of</strong> darkness? (B/0683/X) 

In remote rural areas or in areas very close to cities nocturnal access is rarely benign. It 

is <strong>of</strong>ten only exercised by those intent on mischief and this code is a vandals charter and 

can be very threatening to those living alone. (B/0371/X). 

In rural districts night-time access is particularly worrying and in many cases the rural 

dweller is only aware because the dog becomes alert and starts barking. (B/0672/X) 

The public should not take access to private property at night. (E/0514/X) 

Night access - this creates a hazard and is a safety issue. Farmers may contact the 

police/mountain rescue if walkers have not returned to their cars by nightfall - 

inappropriate night access is not considered to be responsible access and is best dealt 

with via permission and advice. (H/0959/X). 

People should be required, wherever practical, to notify the land manager if they are 

entering enclosed land at night, for their own safety and for the peace <strong>of</strong> mind <strong>of</strong> those 

living on the land. (N/0716/X) 

Access rights at night. This is a recipe for disaster - Land managers must be notified 

before night access is undertaken, or may be taken by people returning late after normal 

daylight access. (W/0770/X/d) 

Access at any time <strong>of</strong> day or night. Surely this should be curtailed to a Dawn to Dusk 

right, with a right <strong>of</strong> access at night only by prior arrangement with/notification <strong>of</strong> the 

relevant Land Manager. Recognition by strangers accessing new ground in total 

darkness <strong>of</strong> crops or livestock to avoid is totally impractical and does not sit in any way 

with the Code. (W/0991/X) 

81

8f. large gardens should 

be excluded from public 

access 

W/1227/X/d, W/1224/X, W/0991/X, 

W/1001/X/d, W/1014/X, W/1024/X, 

W/0951/X, W/0957/X, X/0192/X/d, 

X/0495/X, X/0652/X, X/1385/X. 

A/0098/X, B/0041/X, B/0054/X, 

B/0123/X, B/0211/X, B/0270/X, 

B/0281/X, B/0284/X, B/0286/X, 

B/0458/X, B/0472/X, B/0482/X, 

B/0676/X, B/0830/X, B/0835/X, 

B/0875/X, B/0909/X, B/0964/X, 

B/0982/X, B/0673/X, B/0752/X, 

B/0935/X, B/0909/X, B/1267/X/d, 

B/1350/X, B/1306/X/d, B/1005/X, 

B/1013/X, B/0298/X, B/0299/X, 

B/0303/X, B/0332/X, B/0338/X/d, 

B/0339/X, B/0343/X, B/0353/X, 

B/0371/X, B/0371/X, B/0372/X, 

B/0377/X, B/0378/X, B/0380/X, 

B/0406/X, B/1078/X, E/0516/X, 

E/0984/X, H/1103/X, H/1042/X, 

J/1058/X, L/0985/X, Q/0707/X, 

W/0767/X, W/0341/X, W/0901/X/d, 

W/1085/X, X/0099/X, X/0358/X, 

X/0888/X. 

Many country houses, <strong>of</strong> all sizes, incorporate land that is not maintained as a formal 

garden, yet is maintained for the peaceful and private amenity <strong>of</strong> the householders. .... 

there should be provision for some means <strong>of</strong> delineating, at the homeowners discretion, 

where people cannot exercise access rights. .... It cannot be left up to the visitor to 

determine. (B/0935/X). 

To avoid confusion the definition <strong>of</strong> "reasonable" should be at the garden 

owner's/manager's discretion. "Intensity <strong>of</strong> Management" is a suitable defintion <strong>of</strong> a 

garden footpath. If it looks like a garden then it probably is one! (B/1350/X) 

For many houses, the attraction is that they are set in among trees or a relatively wild 

location, and are not hemmed in by fences or walls. It does not seem reasonable to be 

able to picnic or camp in an area simply because the owner has chosen to allow part <strong>of</strong> 

their "policies" to have a "wild" look and feel. (B/1306/X/d) 

The Code should indicate that access rights do not apply in gardens, policies and 

associated managed woodland… The larger the house, the greater is the area <strong>of</strong> land 

required to give reasonable privacy and quiet enjoyment. (B/0458/X) 

.... we are very concerned how the Scottish Outdoor Access Code is going to affect the 

donations arising from our periodic Garden Openings ..... There is some doubt whether 

people might refuse to pay entry money to view the garden when they come in free. We 

do not know the definition <strong>of</strong> "curtilage" .... The access code also brings up the question 

<strong>of</strong> possible increased insurance premiums, also burglary and damage to plants etc. 

(B/0332/X) 

We are concerned about: ~ unsupervised access to our garden, ~ theft and security <strong>of</strong> 

our statues and plants, ~ wilful damage, ~ injuries caused to persons on our property .... 

(B/0372/X) 

a well-maintained park extending to 30 acres. ….. Also now that The Wild Camping Act 

has been withdrawn, it will be impossible to stop people camping on the Park in full view 

<strong>of</strong> the house (B/0406/X) 

...there are specific areas where the public, if unsupervised, could come to harm, e.g. 

whilst tree felling is in progress, slippery bridges and paths, a small pond (B/1013/X) 

I would say that rights <strong>of</strong> access should not apply to such land at any times and this 

includes all policies <strong>of</strong> a house (including deer parks etc) and not just the immediate 

curtilage <strong>of</strong> the property, which would principally be the gardens. (E/0984/X) 

…gardens adjoining the owner's house or a walled garden which may be some distance 

from the house in addition to woodland gardens…… It appears …..that the general 

public may access these properties which are beyond the curtilage <strong>of</strong> the owner's house 

82

8g. Other A/0719/X/d, B/0285/X, B/0876/X, 

B/1167/X, B/1150/X/d, B/1096/X/ , 

B/1093/X, B/1199/X, B/1017/X, 

B/0668/X, B/0943/X, E/0536/X, 

G/0657/X, G/0795/X, H/0310/X, 

K/1241/X, M/1043/X, P/0640/X, 

P/0717/X, R/1221/X, U/0922/X, 

U/0922/X, W/0641/X, W/0800/X, 

W/1052/X/d, W/1085/X, 

W/0977/X/d, W/0944/X, X/0421/X, 

X/1056/X, X/0939/X. 

365 days <strong>of</strong> the year and 24 hours day and night. It also seems that commercial tour 

guides can bring paying clients to view these gardens without the garden owner or 

charity benefiting. (L/0985/X) 

...we have our own commercial nursery. .... The famous garden is well known for its 

collection <strong>of</strong> rare .... plants ....If people come here at any time whenever they like, how 

can we avoid accidents from nursery and garden operations .... How can we protect our 

plants being stolen, trampled on and gates left open? (X/0358/X) 

Our garden, as many Scottish gardens, does not adjoin the house; it is a separate entity. 

It should be part <strong>of</strong> the house’s curtilage but being separate I do not believe that the 

Code adequately reflects the situation. (X/0888/X) 

The Code does not take into account the use <strong>of</strong> the property ... e.g. civil wedding 

ceremonies in both the garden and the Castle itself and clearly this could cause conflict, 

particularly with regard to photography. (B/0943/X) 

There must be thought given to genuine cases such as hotels, rural businesses 

promoting privacy, homes with policies, where it is reasonable to be more flexible with 

the definition <strong>of</strong> curtilage…… This subject has not been looked into carefully enough. 

(B/1167/X) 

I therefore think a generic symbol or wording should be agreed upon which can be used 

by those with private gardens in this situation to make people aware that there are areas 

over which they have no right <strong>of</strong> access. By using a generic symbol or wording it could 

be more easily communicated as part <strong>of</strong> the Code. (W/1085/X) 

Curtilage and privacy are very difficult issues involving distance from the house, day or 

night, numbers <strong>of</strong> walkers, and above all, their behaviour. Clearly defined signs and 

paths could avoid problems. (W/0944/X) 

83

Supplementary Comments - Does the Code provide adequate guidance on the interpretation <strong>of</strong> Number <strong>of</strong> 

64 

curtilage and related issues? 



Yes 

B/0738/X, G/0698/X, K/0722/X, 

P/1066/X, X/1067/X. 

the definition <strong>of</strong> curtilage is satisfactory as it stands (B/0738/X) 

'Curtilage', with its large variety in Scotland, is admirably covered in this paragraph. 

(K/0722/X) 

The section about curtilage is good though (P/1066/X) 

No – the guiodance is 

inadequate on safety and 

security issues relating to 

non-residential buildings 

B/0488/X/d, B/0863/X, B/1267/X/d, 

B/1368/X/d, H/1179/X, H/0684/X, 

J/1058/X, N/0987/X, M/0852/X, 

P/1247/X, Q/0016/X, Q/0866/X/d, 

W/0321/X, W/1265/X, W/0767/X, 

W/0864/X, W/0903/X, W/0702/Y, 

W/1110/X, X/0656/X. 

The term "curtilage" is ill defined and the Access Code must give clearer guidance. A 

Farm Steading operates as an integrated workplace and should be seen as a "works 

compound". (B/0488/X/d) 

As noted above a much more prescriptive definition <strong>of</strong> curtilage is required. (H/1179/X) 

Point out the dangers <strong>of</strong> a working farm. Be very clear with the definition <strong>of</strong> curtilage 

surrounding property in order to safeguard privacy as certain types <strong>of</strong> landscape and 

areas will require different curtilage. (M/0852/X) 

..derelict cr<strong>of</strong>t buildings which is part <strong>of</strong> the Orkney scenery can be very dangerous to 

the people/visitors … the old ro<strong>of</strong>s may hold many tons <strong>of</strong> stone on them. (Q/0016/X) 

I suggest that you define the word curtilage because it is not in common parlance. 

(W/0702/Y) 

Curtilage - the lack <strong>of</strong> a positive definition <strong>of</strong> Curtilage is a serious omission in the Act 

which, although difficult to state with any degree <strong>of</strong> precision in view <strong>of</strong> the different 

situations to which it might refer is, nevertheless, <strong>of</strong> such seriousness that it cannot be 

left undefined - or for endless costly litigation to resolve over time. (W/0767/X) 

More guidance needed on 

schools (including outdoor 

centres) and contiguous 

land. 

A/1076/X, D/1206/X, G/0795/X, 

M/1043/X, M/0667/X, P/0548/X, 

V/0035/X, W/0990/X/d, X/1188/X, 

X/0010/X, X/1188/X, X/1345/X. 

2. The statement (2.4) that access rights do not apply "on land next to a school and 

used by the school" does not cover all situations. Most school playing fields in Scotland 

are owned by local authorities and many authorities allow or encourage access outside 

school hours and during school holidays. I would suggest "while being used by the 

school" instead <strong>of</strong> "used by the school". (A/1076/X) 

Explicitly we seek an exemption from a right <strong>of</strong> access to cover Scout Camp Sites and 

Outdoor Activity Centres, to facilitate in particular the application <strong>of</strong> necessary Child 

Protectoin Policies and Procedures. Scout camp sites and Outdoor Activity Centres, 

and indeed similar facilities operated by other National Youth Organisations as 

resources integral to programmes <strong>of</strong> non-formal education <strong>of</strong> young people, should be 

accorded the same status as 'land immediately next to any school and used by that 

school (such as playing fields)'. (M/1043/X) 

I would suggest that another category be added to the section where access rights do 

not apply. This should be Outdoor Activity Centres, as they are at a number <strong>of</strong> locations 

around the country, and access rights should not apply when they are in use. These 

centres should be considered as schools, because it is predominantly young people who 

use such centres. (M/0667/X) 

School playing fields - reword to make it clear that it is not any land next to a school that 

84

More guidance needed on 

other non-residential 

buildings / compounds & 

enclosures 

A/0666/X, B/0160/X, B/0909/X, 

B/0798/X, B/0783/X/d, B/1168/X, 

B/1094/X, B/1187/X, B/0676/X, 

B/0673/X, B/0672/X, B/0569/X, 

B/0558/X, B/0368/X, E/1079/X, 

E/1246/X, E/0536/X, F/1134/X, 

H/1196/X, P/1060/X, P/1247/X, 

Q/0424/X, W/0511/X, W/0926/X, 

W/1111/X, X/0888/X, X/0656/X. 

is used by the school which is excluded from the rights. Some community greenspace 

land such as parks and woodlands are used by the school but are not closed to public 

access because <strong>of</strong> this. (P/0548/X) 

..there should be a broader definition <strong>of</strong> the word "school" to include Outdoor Activity 

Centres, Adventure Schools, Field Study and Educational Centres, and Youth Group 

Camps where children are being accommodated and instructed. The "land …being 

used by that school" should apply clearly to places such as canoe launching spots where 

children may be changing, and an extensive area surrounding children's overnight 

camps. In "Wild Country", these areas are usually unfenced and are usually not clearly 

defined by anything on the ground. It is important that protective recognition be given to 

them in the sections referring to schools and playing fields, rather than maybe scattered 

more obscurely elsewhere in the Code, or in separate (such as common law) legislation. 

(X/1188/X) 

3.17 There is reference to farmyards when there are all sorts <strong>of</strong> groups <strong>of</strong> non-residential 

biuildings in the countryside. There are stables, kennels, sawmills, forestry yards as 

well. (B/0558/X) 

3.17, 3.18 & 3.19 Steadings. The act does not mention Farm, Farmer or Steading. 

Instead it mentions 'forms the curtilage <strong>of</strong> a buiding which is not a house or <strong>of</strong> a group <strong>of</strong> 

buidings none <strong>of</strong> which is a house'. As well as a steadings this must include all buildings 

used by Land Managers and many used by others. Examples would include Estate or 

Forestry workshops and maintenance depots, Riding Stables, Keepers or commercial 

kennels, activities centres and old steadings converted to commercial use. It should be 

<strong>made</strong> clear that these paragraphs apply to many groups <strong>of</strong> buildings, not only 

steadings...... I would suggest that the paragraph should say 'the occupier can withdraw 

permission and is likely to do so if he has problems with access takers'. (B/1094/X) 

I feel that the curtilage rules should apply to any building including any open-fronted hay 

sheds. (B/0569/X) 

fishing huts and bothies should be included in the list <strong>of</strong> places to which access rights do 

not apply. (H/0684/X) 

Burial grounds… appear to receive no specific mention in the draft Code. Small 

grounds should be readily skirted. I see no reasonable objection to access to larger 

burial grounds for the purpose <strong>of</strong> crossing them, but responsible access should be by 

use <strong>of</strong> existing paths or, where there are no obvious paths, by passing between rows <strong>of</strong> 

graves rather than across them. (W/0511/X) 

85

Summary – 


Almost a third <strong>of</strong> written <strong>representations</strong> <strong>made</strong> comment on this issue, with a roughly equal number supporting or disagreeing with the draft Code. A few 

respondents thought that it was not possible for the Code to provide detailed guidance on the privacy and peace issue as it is difficult to satisfy the full 

range <strong>of</strong> situations relating to the variety <strong>of</strong> properties existing in different urban and rural locations, along with the varied perceptions <strong>of</strong> their residents and 

the recreational users who may pass close to them. 


The main concerns related to: 

• exercising access rights at night close to people's homes – and a feeling that the Act goes too far and infringes people’s liberties, raising fears over 

security and invasion <strong>of</strong> privacy; and 

• the extent to which access rights can apply to people's gardens and provide access close to sheds, greenhouses, summer-houses and gazebos. 

Other specific fears raised by land managers were about livestock and wildlife disturbance, and disruption to night time "lamping" operations and resulting 

injuries to the public. Related to this was confusion as to why people needed access at night, and a fear that as written the Code could provide cover for 

criminal activity. 

The definition <strong>of</strong>, and applicability <strong>of</strong> the rights to, gardens and "sufficient" adjacent land were also highlighted as requiring clarification (many concerns 

came from members <strong>of</strong> Scotland's Gardens Scheme). This was particularly in relation to: large properties with extensive lawns and surrounding 

woodlands; gardens that are separated from a house; and walled gardens separated from the main house. 

Whilst this question dealt specifically with peace and privacy for domestic residences, a number <strong>of</strong> respondents expressed concerns regarding nonresidential 

buildings and their curtilages, and other ground where access rights may be restricted, for example in relation to school activities. 


The Proposed Code reflects these concerns by providing more interpretation <strong>of</strong> "sufficient adjacent land", "reasonable measures <strong>of</strong> privacy" and "the 

location and characteristics <strong>of</strong> the house or other place". The proposed access education programme will reinforce this by encouraging users to act 

sensitively and courteously in the proximity <strong>of</strong> buildings, particularly at night, and will consider options for signage. The Proposed Code also provides 

additional guidance which encourages people to look for pointers which will help them to make a useful judgment about the existence <strong>of</strong> access rights, e.g. 

the existence <strong>of</strong> clear boundaries, managed grass, flower beds and fruit and vegetable patches, and sheds and summer houses. 

For larger properties, the guidance in the Proposed Code reflects that access rights will not extend to those intensively managed parts <strong>of</strong> the property, 

obviously intended for domestic enjoyment, but that less-managed grounds, e.g. policy woodlands, will normally be subject to access rights. 

86

The Proposed Code also includes a specific section on access at night, which highlights the main issues involved and the need to take extra care. It also 

includes a short section on taking access close to buildings which are not houses. 

It is agreed that further clarification is required on curtilage and the draft Code indicates that land contiguous to a school must also be “used for the 

purposes <strong>of</strong> a school” for access rights exemptions to apply, but that this would not reasonably include other contiguous land which is occasionally used for 

outdoor lessons alongside other uses. 

87

Question 9 - If you think that reasonable needs for privacy can only be respected by keeping a 

certain distance from any house, what distance would you recommend and why? 


9a. A specific distance 

would work, and 

suggested distance is …. 

A/0009/X, A/0518/X, A/0500/Y/d, 

A/0838/X, A/0658/X/d, A/0723/X, 

A/0320/X/d, B/0885/X, B/0879/X, 

B/0116/X/d, B/0446/X, B/0481/X, 

B/0826/X/d, B/0755/X, B/0613/X, 

B/1075/X, B/1173/X, B/1366/X, 

B/0211/X, B/1101/X, B/0980/X, 

B/0672/X, B/1288/X, B/0571/X, 

B/0570/X/d, B/1216/X, B/1027/X, 

B/0288/X/d, B/0300/X/d, B/0306/X, 

B/0313/X, B/0371/X, B/0931/X/d, 

E/1215/X, G/0082/X/d, G/0785/X, 

H/0220/X, H/0460/X, H/1179/X, 

H/0941/X, J/1058/X, K/0714/X, 

L/0439/X, P/0890/X, P/1273/X, 

P/1275/X, Q/0024/X, Q/0232/X, 

Q/0357/X, Q/0501/X/d, V/0398/X/d, 

W/0025/X, W/0057/X, W/0182/X, 

W/0483/X, W/0489/X, W/0100/d, 

W/0095/X, W/0411/X, W/0423/X, 

W/0529/X, W/0812/Y, W/0901/X/d, 

W/0789/X, W/0143/X, W/1162/X, 

W/1159/X/d, W/1153/Z/d, W/1373/, 

W/1151/X, W/0977/X/d, W/0675/X, 

W/1289/X, W/0567/X, W/0566/X, 

W/0561/X, W/0554/X, W/1318/X, 

W/0999/X, W/1024/X, W/0324/X/d, 

W/0403/X, X/0405/X/d, X/1188/X. 



I would consider 'close' to be close enough for facial features to be recognisable 

(perhaps 50 m?) (A/0838/X) 

I see no reason why privacy in the countryside need require keeping much further away 

than would be normal in a town - people walk along the street just 5m or so from my 

front door. (A/0723/X) 

As a suggestion, an area <strong>of</strong> at least 20 times the footprint <strong>of</strong> the building should be 

regarded as curtilage. (B/0879/X) 

The idea <strong>of</strong> agreeing to the exclusion <strong>of</strong> a 'reasonable' distance from a house appeals to 

me and I would suggest that a minimum <strong>of</strong> 500 metres would be appropriate. 

(B/0116/X/d) 

Nobody must have access to within 250 metres <strong>of</strong> houses or farm buildings. (B/1101/X) 

Where there is no path or track, suggest 50 metres day, and 100 metres in evening. It 

would need to be further at night to stop dogs barking, wildlife upset, and upset in life. 

(B/0300/X/d). 

A minimum distance <strong>of</strong> not less than one hundred metres should be imposed for any 

inhabited dwelling, night or day. (H/0460/X) 

Could use 100 m from a country house, closer if there is a defined track or path. 

Impossible to set a distance in urban settings, e.g. routes pass between houses, along 

towpaths, etc. (P/1273/X). 

In Norway 150 metres is the guideline - this seems a sensible distance particularly for 

overnight camping. (W/0095/X) 

272 

9b. A specific distance 

would not work. 

A/0437/X, A/0133/X, A/0098/X, 

A/0442/X, A/0469/X, A/0471/X/d, 

A/0719/X/d, A/0825/X, A/1070/X/d, 

A/1084/X, A/0740/X, A/0319/X, 

A/0362/X, A/0369/X/d, A/0958/X, 

B/0054/X, B/0116/X/d, B/0462/X, 

B/0160/X, B/0167/X, B/0525/X/d, 

... Distances are irrelevant, e.g. many old houses are on old drove roads, bridle paths 

and footpaths. .... (A/0362/X) 

This suggestion is not practical ... It is very difficult to judge distances on the ground and 

...… would be very hard to enforce and police. (B/0937/X) 

It is not practical or flexible to use a fixed distance … The current wording…is very 

helpful as it gives a list <strong>of</strong> factors that should be considered when judging 'intrusiveness'. 

(G/1291/X) 

88

B/0837/X, B/0794/X, B/0782/X, 

B/1049/X, B/1152/X, B/1150/X/d, 

B/1117/X, B/1114/X/d, B/1093/X, 

B/1083/X/d, B/1267/X/d, B/0569/X, 

B/1240/X, B/0288/X/d, B/0305/X, 

B/0305/X, B/0347/X, B/0409/X, 

B/0772/X, B/1267/X/d, B/0935/X, 

B/0937/X, D/0022/X, D/0093/X, 

E/0924/X, E/0516/X, E/0616/X, 

E/0703/X, E/1246/X, G/0043/X, 

G/0379/X, G/0917/X, G/0920/Y, 

G/0806/X, G/0900/X, G/0759/X, 

G/1099/X, G/1057/X, G/1098/X, 

G/0960/X, G/0973/X, G/0698/X, 

G/1254/X, G/1251/X, G/1291/X, 

G/1330/X/d, G/1226/X, G/1214/X, 

H/0310/X, H/0808/X, K/0444/X, 

K/1241/X, L/0410/X, L/0650/X, 

M/0463/X, P/0287/X, P/0804/X, 

P/0642/X, P/0640/X, P/0869/X, 

P/0899/X, P/0646/X, P/0643/X, 

P/1060/X, P/1066/X, P/0717/X, 

P/1300/X, P/0287/X, P/0576/X, 

P/1218/X, P/1237/X, P/1239/X, 

P/1272/X, Q/0893/X, Q/0445/X, 

Q/0526/X, Q/0707/X, Q/0790/X, 

Q/0651/X, Q/0686/X, Q/1122/X, 

Q/1178/X, Q/0697/X/d, Q/1346/X, 

R/1278/X, U/0922/X, V/0207/X, 

W/0003/X, W/0017/X, W/0021/X, 

W/0194/X, W/0235/X, W/0255/X, 

W/0071/X, W/0435/X, W/0880/X/d, 

W/0108/X/d, W/0457/X, W/0112/X, 

W/0140/X, W/0511/X, W/0625/X, 

W/0822/X, W/0843/X, W/0898/X, 

W/0644/X, W/1158/X, W/1130/X, 

W/1085/X, W/0962/X/d, W/0675/X, 

W/1329/X, W/1310/X/d, 

W/1227/X/d, W/0334/X, W/0341/X, 

W/0359/X, W/0407/X, W/0708/X/d, 

It is not possible to prescribe a minimum distance to be kept from any house due to the 

infinitely variable circumstances. (G/0806/X) 

89

W/0955/X, W/0391/X, W/1367/, 

W/1378/, W/1359/X, X/0896/X, 

X/0495/X, X/0784/X, X/1067/X, 

X/1174/X, X/1092/X, X/0099/X, 

X/0727/X, X/1212/X, X/0939/X, 

X/1385/X. 

9c. Other views A/0425/X, A/0825/X, B/0428/X/d, 

B/0461/X, B/0466/X/d, B/0827/X, 

B/0876/X, B/1062/X, B/1078/X, 

B/0574/X, B/0404/X, E/0616/X, 

G/0189/X, H/0515/X, P/0928/X, 

P/0889/X, P/1219/X, P/0384/X, 

P/1275/X, U/1172/X, W/0278/X, 

W/0511/X, W/0770/X/d, W/0644/X, 

W/0669/X/d, W/0818/X, W/0972/X, 

W/0979/X, W/1287/X, W/1217/X, 

W/0307/X, W/1235/X. 

My own house has a right <strong>of</strong> way in front <strong>of</strong> my siting room called a pavement. I don't 

see why people in rural areas should have a big problem with this if people in urban 

areas don't. (A/0425/X) 

Dependant on the immediate environment. A definitive distance measure would sit 

uneasily with the underlying principles <strong>of</strong> sensitive and reasonable behaviour and could 

be applied in an unreasonable manner. (P/0384/X) 

Not distance, but activity. (W/1235/X) 

Summary – 


In contrast to question 8, few respondents commented on the idea <strong>of</strong> a specific distance for ensuring reasonable privacy. Of the comments received, there 

were mixed responses, although the majority <strong>of</strong> responses from local authorities felt that specifying a certain distance or range <strong>of</strong> distances to respect 

privacy needs would not be workable. 

Key issues / concerns raised. 

It is clear that an enormous variety <strong>of</strong> circumstances would have to be covered in any detailed guidance on a specific distance for ensuring reasonable 

privacy. Some <strong>of</strong> the respondents proposed distances ranging from 10m to 200m with quite a number suggesting that 50 – 100 meters might suffice - with 

the distance at night being double that for during the day. 


On balance, SNH considers that it would be impractical to implement a set distance for privacy, with access closer to houses being inevitable in many 

settings, for example, when in urban fringe areas or when following paths. As such, and in accordance with the analysis for Q8, the Proposed Code 

provides more qualitative guidance for users and residents to inform judgments about appropriate distances for ensuring reasonable privacy. 

90

Question 10 - Does the guidance strike a sensible and workable balance between the interests 

<strong>of</strong> those exercising access rights and those working in farmyards? 


10a. the guidance is 

sensible and workable 

A/0009/X, A/0927/X, A/0098/X, 

A/0469/X, A/0518/X, A/1070/X/d, 

A/0958/X, B/0142/X, B/1114/X/d, 

B/0565/X, B/0347/X, B/0409/X, 

G/0043/X, G/0189/X, G/0920/Y, 

G/0114/X, G/0806/X, G/0785/X, 

G/1057/X, G/0960/X, G/0973/X, 

G/0698/X, K/0444/X, K/0714/X, 

L/0439/X, P/0642/X, P/0643/X, 

P/0287/X, P/1218/X, P/1275/X, 

Q/0264/X, Q/0157/X, Q/0526/X, 

Q/1122/X, Q/0686/X, Q/0707/X, 

R/0549/X, W/0003/X, W/0017/X, 

W/0021/X, W/0194/X, W/0182/X, 

W/0214/X, W/0246/X, W/0108/X/d, 

W/0095/X, W/0112/X, W/0641/X, 

W/0625/X, W/0644/X, W/1052/X/d, 

W/1158/X, W/1151/X, W/1130/X, 

W/1110/X, W/1329/X, W/1007/X, 

X/1385/X, W/1367/, W/1377//d. 



It is very helpful to have advice about farmyards even though they are not in the 

legislation, and the advice is well balanced. (A/1070/X/d) 

On paper - yes! (B/1114/X/d) 

A reasonable balance has been struck. (G/0114/X) 

The current guidance does allow the flexibility necessary to deal with the different 

situations that can occur. (P/0643/X) 

Although not perfect, I think this is probably the best that can be achieved. …where 

farmers do not wish access to be taken through a farmyard .. they will direct them 

around the outside. If this access is hindered or difficult, their directions will simply be 

ignored. (W/0194/X) 

346 

10b. the guidance is not 


10c. the balance is 

wrong, the public should 

have better access 

A/0437/X, A/0471/X/d, A/0658/X/d, 

B/0028/X, B/0436/X, B/0466/X/d, 

B/0167/X, B/0510/X, B/0510/X, 

B/0558/X, B/1267/X/d, G/1330/X/d, 

H/0310/X, J/1058/X, P/0804/X, 

P/1060/X, Q/0232/X, Q/0790/X, 

V/0398/X, W/0880/X/d, W/0423/X, 

W/0619/X, W/1321/, W/1310/X/d, 

W/1235/X, X/0639/X, X/1092/X, 

X/1188/X. 

A/0821/X/d, A/0133/X, A/0425/X, 

A/0838/X, A/0740/X, G/0917/X, 

G/1291/X, M/0463/X, P/0890/X, 

When a horse is present it is <strong>of</strong>ten completely impractical to find the farmer if he should 

be in a building or on a piece <strong>of</strong> machinery. As it is written I don't think the Code makes 

negotiating a farmyard sufficiently practical for horse riders. (G/1330/X/d) 

We find the solution to the farmyard problem unsatisfactory. By nature every path on a 

farm leads to the farmyard. Walkers cannot count on finding the farmer to ask for 

permission to walk through, and farmers will get tired <strong>of</strong> being asked. (Q/0790/X) 

No because <strong>of</strong> the following:~ The code suggests farmers are likely to be around the 

farm steadings to give permission or suggest alternative routes. This is highly unlikely in 

practice as farmers are so busy they could be anywhere.~ Biosecurity, security and 

health and safety issues need to be addressed. There is too much occasional activity 

that cannot be anticipated. (V/0398/X) 

The guidance flies in the face <strong>of</strong> all guides to HEALTH and SAFETY, BIOSECURITY 

and best practice for the welfare <strong>of</strong> farm animals. (W/1289/X) 

... Going around the farmyard and buildings is also not as simple as it sounds. There is 

by no means always a clearly perceived route which would avoid disturbing livestock, 

damaging crops, climbing over fences or locked gates, or at best, tramping through 

91

through farmyards W/0972/X, W/0675/X, W/1370/. muddy fields which have been churned up by cattle. (A/0133/X) 

Accessibility in farmyards will tend to be better for some disabled people than alternative 

routes across surrounding fields. (M/0463/X) 

The guidance is in the style <strong>of</strong> the old culture - find the manager and ask permission. 

That is quite unsatisfactory. (P/0890/X) 

...farmyards … are <strong>of</strong>ten important gateways onto or <strong>of</strong>f the hill land and are <strong>of</strong> crucial 

importance in taking access through lowland areas, … Although there is no statutory 

right <strong>of</strong> access through farmyards the public will still expect to be able to take access 

through farmyards under common law or custom, including the use <strong>of</strong> rights <strong>of</strong> way, 

unless alternative arrangements have been <strong>made</strong>. ... taking an alternative access 

around a farmyard may be more hazardous, damaging or altogether unfeasible than 

continuing through it. In such a case, it may be more responsible to take access through 

the farmyard, but outwith statutory access rights, than around the farmyard under 

statutory access rights. The Code must explain this properly (G/1291/X) 

10d. the guidance needs 

to be tighter on public 

access through farmyards 

A/0163/X, A/0320/X/d, A/0320/X/d, 

A/0346/X, B/0054/X, B/0171/X, 

B/0257/X, B/0226/X, B/0058/X, 

B/0925/X, B/0428/X/d, B/0879/X, 

B/0118/X, B/0446/X, B/0456/X, 

B/0462/X, B/0465/X, B/0473/X/d, 

B/0481/X, B/0141/X, B/0525/X/d, 

B/0512/X/d, B/0826/X/d, B/0798/X, 

B/0794/X, B/0755/X, B/1039/X/d, 

B/1049/X, B/0956/X, B/1075/X, 

B/1161/X, B/1152/X, B/1150/X/d, 

B/1125/X, B/1093/X, B/1083/X/d, 

B/0970/X, B/0980/X, B/0681/X, 

B/0677/X, B/0676/X, B/0672/X, 

B/0670/X, B/0733/X, B/0715/X, 

B/1250/X, B/0545/X, B/1347/X, 

B/1208/X, B/0288/X/d, B/0300/X/d, 

B/0306/X, B/0404/X, B/1205/X, 

B/1269/X, B/0938/X/d, B/0954/X, 

E/0921/X, E/0516/X, E/0616/X, 

E/1038/X, E/1246/X, G/0132/X, 

H/0515/X, H/1103/X, H/1179/X, 

H/0941/X, L/0513/X, P/0640/X, 

P/0899/X, P/0375/X, P/1272/X, 

Q/0445/X, Q/0517/X, Q/0501/X/d, 

Q/0790/X, Q/1061/X, Q/1178/X, 

No - its confusing… Farmyards are rarely dangerous, most <strong>of</strong> the time they are empty 

and <strong>of</strong>ten a farmyard connects 2 roads or tracks… The main safety hazard I have 

encountered in farmyards is uncontrolled farm dogs. Most access users would wait or 

use an alternative route if they could see they would be in the way if they went through a 

farmyard at a particular time. (A/0425/X) 

On balance the Code should discourage visits to farms and farmyards. DON'T'S should 

include: No entry to buildings, No smoking and KEEP clear <strong>of</strong> equipment and animals. 

(B/0462/X) 

I think your code should state that cyclists (and horses, if necessary) when going on 

farm tracks that are adjacent to farm houses and buildings should have the courtesy to 

slow right down to a walking pace. (B/0473/X/d) 

Access through farmyards should only be exercised where a solidly proven public right 

<strong>of</strong> way exists. (B/0428/X/d) 

The code is not strict enough in terms <strong>of</strong> access through farmyards… unless there is a 

core path or right <strong>of</strong> way, access through farmyards should be assumed not to be 

possible… (B/0118/X) 

…it should be absolutely clear that unless there is a right <strong>of</strong> way or a core path through a 

farmyard, then Section 3.1.8 should state that you may not go through a farmyard 

(B/1347/X) 

Farm dogs can be an issue for all users. Users’ dogs should always be on a lead when 

passing through or near farmyards. (U/0922/X) 

In many <strong>of</strong> the smaller Scottish farms, farm buildings and farm house formed an 

architectural empty, .... An automatic right <strong>of</strong> way through the farmyard would be a 

considerable intrusion and interference with the proper management <strong>of</strong> the farm. It 

could also lead to serious security problems and should only be exercised with the 

resident's permission. (W/0321/X). 

92

10e. there should be 

more emphasis on 

providing alternative 

routes around farmyards 

W/0217/X, W/0457/X, W/0140/X, 

W/0812/Y, W/0836/X, W/0873/X, 

W/0770/X/d, W/0614/X, W/0143/X, 

W/1153/Z/d, W/1141/X, W/1123/X, 

W/1112/X, W/0669/X/d, W/1289/X, 

W/1324/, W/1227/X/d, W/0321/X, 

W/0348/X/d, X/0122/X, X/0495/X, 

X/0652/X, X/1174/X, X/0727/X, 

X/1212/X, X/0405/X/d, B/1375/, 

W/1373/. 

A/0219/X, A/0126/X, A/0098/X, 

A/0422/X, A/0477/X, A/0820/X, 

A/0825/X, A/0908/X, A/01037/X, 

A/0968/X, A/0723/X, A/0291/X, 

A/0319/X, A/0373/X, B/0241/X, 

B/0257/X, B/0885/X, B/0446/X, 

B/0505/X, B/0819/X, B/0772/X, 

B/0613/X, B/1146/X, B/1017/X, 

B/1240/X, B/0371/X, X/0937/X, 

B/0294/X, D/0093/X, E/0924/X, 

E/1113/X, G/0806/X, G/0854/X, 

G/0759/X, G/1044/X, G/1251/X, 

G/1291/X, G/1214/X, G/0379/X, 

H/0808/X, H/0310/X, H/1042/X, 

H/0552/X, L/0185/X, L/0791/X, 

L/1026/X, M/0463/X, N/1138/X, 

N/1268/X, P/0928/X, P/0869/X, 

P/0899/X, P/0646/X, P/1247/X, 

P/1219/X, P/1237/X, Q/0232/X, 

Q/0930/X, Q/1346/X, Q/1308/X, 

R/1278/X, U/1172/X, V/0207/X, 

W/0034/X, W/0056/X/d, W/0239/, 

W/0255/X, W/0079/X, W/0278/X, 

W/0140/X, W/0817/X, W/0833/X, 

W/0901/X/d, W/0792/X, W/0143/X, 

W/1149/X, W/1123/X, W/1109/X, 

W/0700/X, W/1287/X, W/0328/X, 

X/1092/X, X/0099/X. 

The Code should make explicit that signed alternatives should be sought to access 

through farmyards. (A/0126/X) 

Where, for reasons <strong>of</strong> health and safety and/ or privacy, access is denied through a 

farmyard which is on a recognised or reasonable route to a hill, there should be an 

obligation to provide a reasonable alternative access around the farmyard. This 

obligation should lie with both the land owner/ manager and the local authority. 

(A/0098/X) 

Access through/around farmyards. If access in these areas is to be restricted then there 

should be greater expectation on land managers to provide alternative routes. This 

would be in everyone's interest, and would avoid problems. (A/0820/X) 

The Code should pay a greater emphasis on land managers to provide alternative routes 

where they would prefer that access avoided the farmyard. (A/0477/X) 

It would be good if action was taken to liaise with land managers and financial resources 

<strong>made</strong> available to divert existing access routes away from such places. Lingering in the 

vicinity <strong>of</strong> farm yards should be highlighted as being irresponsible. The definition <strong>of</strong> 

farmyard should be broadened to include areas where plant and machinery are left 

overnight. (W/0901/X/d) 

93

10f. other A/0919/X, A/0477/X, A/0769/X/d, 

A/1084/X, A/1076/X, A/0743/X, 

A/0726/X, A/0719/X/d, A/0362/X, 

B/0257/X, B/0512/X/d, B/1146/X, 

B/0711/X, B/1267/X/d, B/1295/X, 

B/1288/X, B/0574/X, B/0538/X, 

G/0164/X, G/1099/X, G/1098/X, 

G/0730/X, G/1254/X, H/0988/X, 

N/1138/X, P/0890/X, P/0643/X, 

P/1066/X, P/0889/X, P/0717/X, 

P/0576/X, P/0548/X, P/0384/X, 

P/1273/X, P/1275/X, Q/1122/X, 

Q/0697/X/d, Q/1286/X, U/0922/X, 

W/0848/X, W/0789/X, W/0780/X, 

W/0777/X, W/1032/X, W/0709/X/d, 

W/0708/X/d, W/1287/X, 

W/1227/X/d, W/0359/X, W/1202/X, 

W/0391/X, X/0784/X, X/1067/X, 

X/1188/X, X/0939/X. 

In the absence <strong>of</strong> a right <strong>of</strong> way or core path, if a reasonable, passable alternative has 

been provided and sign posted it should be used. In the absence <strong>of</strong> such an alternative 

being provided there should be a presumption that the farmer is content to allow access 

through the farmyard. (A/0919/X) 

It is sometimes very difficult to find out who the land manager is. (A/0477/X) 

Dogs should also be put on a lead before passing through a farmyard as there may be 

loose stock or farm dogs present. (B/1295/X) 

However there is still the problem <strong>of</strong> what someone should do who finds no alternative 

marked, no advice from a land manager and no presence in the farmyard. In this case, 

people should be encouraged to take the course <strong>of</strong> action they judge to be most 

appropriate and responsible... (G/1099/X) 

...there are many situations when it may be more responsible to go through a farmyard 

than round the outside (less disturbance for livestock, less risk <strong>of</strong> damage to fences etc) 

and more advice should be given here to land managers as to how to provide for access 

users in these circumstances. (G/1098/X) 

The legislation states that farmyards are outwith access rights, therefore this section is 

rather misleading. In all cases where there is not right <strong>of</strong> way or core path access, users 

should take an alternative route around a farmyard, unless they can ask permission <strong>of</strong> 

the land manager to go through the farmyard. (P/0717/X) 

Land managers have a history <strong>of</strong> always being eager to erect signs that restrict or even 

prohibit access but <strong>of</strong> being negligent in attending to their subsequent removal when this 

becomes appropriate. The Code needs to emphasise that such practice cannot be 

construed as diplaying a positive attitude and if it persists it will inevitably lead to 

confrontation. (Q/1122/X) 

94

Summary – 


There was considerable comment on this question with a large number <strong>of</strong> responses (particularly from land management interests) seeking tighter 

guidance for recreational users. Some <strong>representations</strong> did feel that the guidance in the draft Code was already sensible and workable, while a few (largely 

recreational users) expressed concern that there was a danger that the guidance would introduce new restrictions on access to the countryside. 


Overall, there was polarised comment on this question with: 

• land management interests arguing that statutory access rights do not extend to farmyards so, in the absence <strong>of</strong> a right <strong>of</strong> way or a core path, 

people should exercise access rights in ways to avoid going through the farmyard and buildings; and 

• recreational interests accepted that the statutory rights do not extend to farmyards but argued that custom and tradition means that people can still 

take access through a farmyard unless an alternative route has been provided - arguing that access through farmyards might cause fewer problems 

for users and land managers. 

There were also concerns from some land managers that the guidance in the draft Code contradicted health and safety regulations, and would result in the 

exposure <strong>of</strong> livestock to contamination by disease and would expose users to dangerous animals, chemicals and farm machinery and vehicles. As such, 

comments sought more specific “do’s” and “don’ts” for users in farmyards. 

In addition, there were requests for clear guidance to land managers and local authorities on how to create and sign alternative routes around farmyards, 

and calls for funding to be <strong>made</strong> available to support this. 


Access through farmyards is a sensitive and complex issue. It is clear that the statutory access rights do not extend to farmyards but, equally, the 

Proposed Code encourages people to follow paths and tracks where they exist (and land managers have encouraged this in their responses). However, 

many paths and tracks go through farmyards and it might not be reasonably practicable, or safe, for people to exercise access rights to get around the 

farmyard and buildings. In these situations it is suggested in the Proposed Code that people might be able to go through the farmyard under certain 

circumstances. 

The Proposed Code also encourages alternative routes around farmyards to be provided. In saying this, SNH recognise that practical advice and financial 

support is required to help farmers to provide alternative routes around farmyards, e.g. on short sections <strong>of</strong> path construction and signage. 

95


11 - Do you think that the guidance provided on access over land where land 

management work is underway is sensible and workable on the ground? If you don’t, 

please explain why. 


11a. the guidance is 


A/1070/X/d, A/0009/X, A/0098/X, 

A/0425/X, A/0442/X, A/0469/X, 

A/0518/X, A/0719/X/d, A/0825/X, 

A/0958/X, B/1152/X, B/0058/X, 

B/0288/X/d, B/0300/X/d, B/0409/X, 

B/0565/X, B/0741/X, B/0772/X, 

E/1038/X, G/1291/X, G/0189/X, 

G/0379/X, G/0759/X, G/0785/X, 

G/0806/X, G/0917/X, G/0973/X, 

G/1251/X, L/0439/X, P/1060/X, 

P/1239/X, P/1275/X, P/0576/X, 

P/0717/X, P/0869/X, P/1218/X, 

Q/0157/X, Q/0232/X, Q/0686/X, 

Q/0707/X, Q/0893/X, U/0922/X, 

V/0245/X, W/1007/X, W/1052/X/d, 

W/1130/X, W/1151/X, W/1158/X, 

W/0003/X, W/0017/X, W/0021/X, 

W/0056/X/d, W/0112/X, W/0182/X, 

W/0194/X, W/0214/X, W/0246/X, 

W/0391/X, W/0423/X, W/0625/X, 

W/0644/X, W/0789/X, W/0972/X, 

W/1032/X, W/1367/, W/1377//d. 



This advice is sensible and stated in a reasonable way which will encourage people to 

comply with it. (A/1070/X/d) 

This section generally satisfactory and clear. (B/0288/X/d) 

reasonably workable advice (E/1038/X) 

The section is well worded in that it <strong>of</strong>fers useful, but not mandatory, guidance to follow 

(G/1291/X) 

Yes (L/0439/X) 

The current wording is adequate and the arrangements will work if powers are not 

abused. (P/1218/X) 

The proposed code seems reasonable. (Q/0157/X) 

The guidance is reasonably well balanced…the guidance on page 48 in respect <strong>of</strong> 

access to fields with livestock could usefully be repeated here. (V/0245/X) 

284 

11b. the guidance is not 


A/0320/X/d, A/0927/X, B/0054/X, 

B/0167/X, B/0419/X, B/0480/X, 

B/0510/X, B/0634/X, H/0515/X, 

J/1058/X, Q/0501/X/d, V/0851/X, 

W/0880/X/d, X/1174/X, X/0405/X/d, 

W/1373/ . 

No. They will cause distraction to workmen and may cause injury to either party. 

(A/0320/X/d) 

I do not think that the guidance strikes a balance between the interests <strong>of</strong> those 

exercising access rights and those working in farmyards/forestry sites. Under Codes <strong>of</strong> 

Practice relative to the Health and Safety legislation, we are very actively encouraged to 

stress the need to keep the public away from such areas when operations are taking 

place and it can only be in the public's best interest to adopt the same position. 

(B/0510/X) 

No. The guidance leaves too much to the interpretation <strong>of</strong> the access taker who may be 

completely inexperienced in assessing a) the risk, b) a safe distance. (B/0167/X) 

No, the guidance given in the Code is neither sensible nor sufficient. It focuses entirely 

on the safety <strong>of</strong> and risk to the access taker, who as the Code is currently drafted, does 

not need to accept the advice <strong>of</strong> the land manager. There is little or no assurance for 

96

11c. the guidance overly 

restricts public access 

11d. the guidance needs 

to be tighter to prevent 

disturbance to land 

management operations 

A/0290/X, A/0740/X, A/0821/X/d, 

B/0937/X, G/0920/Y, R/1278/X, 

W/0095/X, W/0221/X. 

A/0658/X/d, B/1002/X, B/1033/X, 

B/1049/X, B/1072/X, B/1093/X, 

B/1094/X, B/1094/X, B/1096/X, 

B/1133/X, B/1150/X/d, B/1168/X, 

B/1173/X, B/1197/X, B/1261/X, 

B/1269/X, B/1271/X, B/1288/X, 

B/0028/X, B/0141/X, B/0178/X, 

B/0215/X, B/0257/X, B/0305/X, 

B/0347/X, B/0371/X, B/0404/X, 

B/0428/X, B/0462/X, B/0481/X, 

B/0558/X, B/0613/X, B/0628/X, 

B/0668/X, B/0672/X, B/0681/X, 

B/0738/X, B/0754/X, B/0754/X, 

B/0782/X, B/0794/X, B/0798/X, 

B/0819/X, B/0839/X, B/0925/X, 

B/0956/X, B/1017/X, B/1030/X, 

B/1236/X, E/1243/X, E/0616/X, 

E/0923/X, F/1050/X, G/1098/X, 

G/0960/X, H/1042/X, H/1179/X, 

the land manager who is providing such advice . (J/1058/X) 

...not sure concerns regarding safety are emphasised enough……. Arable areas in the 

spring/early summer may have spray operations going on somewhere within a group <strong>of</strong> 

fields whenever weather is suitable. One might as well put a semi-permanent warning 

on every field in some areas during this period. Either way the countryside would be full 

<strong>of</strong> signs. (V/0851/X) 

Section 3.23, the first sentence <strong>of</strong> which suggests that the land manager has to prove he 

is justified in closing an area and is one <strong>of</strong> the many examples <strong>of</strong> the code being 

weighted in favour <strong>of</strong> the access taker. (X/0405/X/d) 

No. There is scope for confusion and conflict due to the use <strong>of</strong> terms like "unsown 

ground" which is hard to define, recognise and enforce. (X/1174/X) 

Closure <strong>of</strong> a particular route must be for the minimum time and not allowed to drag on 

indefinitely. This must be seen as an absolute last resort. (A/0821/X/d) 

Points covered are all reasonable but somewhat laboured on the actions to be taken by 

those exercising their statutory rights whilst giving little guidance to land managers who 

might needlessly or recklessly interfere with those rights - this material is elsewhere - the 

divisiveness continues to the detriment <strong>of</strong> the document. (A/0740/X) 

3.15 suggests that the whole <strong>of</strong> the outdoors is a working environment. While this is 

undoubtedly true for some areas, it is not true everywhere, and this paragraph should be 

amended to reflect this and avoid the impression that the whole <strong>of</strong> the outdoors is some 

form <strong>of</strong> business. (G/0920/Y) 

The Code must recognise the right <strong>of</strong> the land manager to control vermin by shooting, 

including the night time practice <strong>of</strong> "lamping." (B/0215/X) 

To say 'you must not hinder land management operations' is an understatement… It is 

imperative that deer management is included in the list <strong>of</strong> land management activities - 

which may not always be visible (but may be audible)… Where information is given on a 

hazard, the Code must state that such advice should be followed. (B/0481/X) 

This guidance is fine for activities clearly visible. For activities like shooting, more 

detailed guidance is required, including advice that disturbance prior to the shooting <strong>of</strong> 

woodland or moorland can cause material loss. .... (B/0347/X) 

There needs to be a balance struck between the duty <strong>of</strong> care on the part <strong>of</strong> operators <strong>of</strong> 

machinery in areas where access taking is a frequent and regular occurrence (eg fields 

crossed by existing public footpaths) and simple common sense required by the random 

access taker who is on land unexpectedly and without any prior notification. (B/0628/X) 

There is a requirement under Section 3 <strong>of</strong> the H & S Act for the public to obey signs, this 

should be emphasised in the Code (H/1182/X) 

It is totally irresponsible to suggest that a single interruption by an individual …..might 

not be unreasonable. Surely any interrruption is unreasonable? There is a danger that 

if one interruption is regarded as reasonable it will be repeated, or may indeed be 

repeated by different people over the course <strong>of</strong> a whole day, constituting continuous 

97

11e. land managers need 

standard signage to help 

manage access during / 

after work 

H/1182/X, H/0154/X, H/0220/X, 

H/0310/X, H/0460/X, H/0615/X, 

H/0807/X, H/0915/X, H/0941/X, 

H/0988/X, H/1103/X, J/1058/X, 

J/1058/X, L/0410/X, M/0852/X, 

N/0716/X, P/1237/X, P/0384/X, 

P/0642/X, P/0928/X, Q/1122/X, 

Q/1122/X, Q/1178/X, Q/0526/X, 

Q/1346/X, R/0549/X, V/0207/X, 

W/1112/X, W/1141/X, W/1153/Z/d, 

W/1227/X/d, W/1289/X, W/1337/, 

W/0108/X/d, W/0124/X, W/0143/X, 

W/0231/X, W/0554/X, W/0669/X/d, 

W/0770/X/d, W/0812/Y, W/0822/X, 

W/0853/X, W/0872/X, W/0880/X/d, 

W/0947/X/d, W/0999/X, X/0099/X, 

X/0196/X, X/0664/X, X/0896/X, 

W/1359/X, W/1370/. 

B/1173/X, B/1267/X/d, B/0240/X, 

B/0288/X/d, B/1267/X/d, E/0156/X, 

G/1192/X, G/0043/X, H/1140/X, 

P/1218/X, P/1247/X, P/1272/X, 

P/0287/X, P/0287/X, P/1060/X, 

V/0245/X, W/1109/X, W/1220/X, 

W/0702/Y, W/0746/X, W/1288/X, 

X/1212/X, X/0495/X, X/0939/X. 

interruption. (J/1058/X) 

Many land management operations are slow and subtle changes (a developing 

conservation headland) or not immediately obvious (rearing grouse). Guidance on the 

less obvious operations and what to be aware <strong>of</strong> needs to be included. (P/0928/X) 

I feel the guidance is not strong enough. What about, for example, forestry operations 

which can last for months, and for which current HSE guidelines mean that people 

MUST be excluded from a 90m radius <strong>of</strong> an operating harvester, and that the public 

MUST NOT share the use <strong>of</strong> a forest track with operating forwarders? (W/0108/X/d) 

The draft Code provides guidance primarily on… agricultural land management 

operations. Land management operations regarding… the canal system may be <strong>of</strong> a 

different order involving the operation <strong>of</strong> heavy plant in tightly circumscribed spaces… It 

is not appropriate for the public to determine what is a safe distance or what constitutes 

proceeding carefully - it is highly unlikely that many are competent to make such a 

judgement... In many cases a contractor will... be responsible for determining who may 

or may not enter. (X/0896/X) 

3.17 I would like to see a farmer being consulted wherever possible as to what is an 

acceptable route if there is doubt, especially in growing crops including grass. I certainly 

am very happy to <strong>of</strong>fer alternative solutions for the access taker. (X/0664/X) 

There must be an accepted form <strong>of</strong> standardised signage that all land managers and 

authorities such as SNH and local councils can use which will alleviate any safety 

problems or areas <strong>of</strong> conflict. (B/1267/X/d) 

We currently operate a prohibition sign system in the immediate vicinity <strong>of</strong> our (forestry) 

work sites and would urge you to consider the importance <strong>of</strong> continuing this practice in 

the interest <strong>of</strong> public safety… I am sure that if this is presented in an acceptable manner 

stressing the dangers and the temporary nature <strong>of</strong> the restriction on access then most 

reasonable persons wuld accept that it was quite necessary. (E/0156/X) 

Guidance within the Code on taking access over land where land management work is 

underway is sensible and workable. However, we feel that one <strong>of</strong> the main stays <strong>of</strong> 

ensuring this guidance remains workable is to ensure that both mandatory Health and 

Safety signs and advisory signs e.g. diversions, are erected promptly, are maintained 

and contain current information. (P/1272/X) 

A national standard to any signage would be welcomed and it would be important that 

such sugns have full details on them, e.g. start and finish dates, nature <strong>of</strong> work, 

alternative route(s), contact numbers <strong>of</strong> responsible person to enable further information 

to be obtained etc. (P/0287/X) 

They could demonstrate by discreet signage/special symbol that they accord with the 

Scottish Access Code, thereby creating a respect and desire to act responsibly and 

reasonably in the walker. (W/0746/X) 

How is the access seeker <strong>made</strong> aware <strong>of</strong> residual hazards once work is complete? 

What level <strong>of</strong> signage, if any, would be deemed reasonable? … In several cases, 

98

11f. others A/1084/X, A/0319/X, A/0346/X, 

B/1063/X, B/1114/X/d, B/1129/X, 

B/1240/X, B/0288/X/d, B/0329/X, 

B/0329/X, B/0512/X/d, B/0574/X, 

B/0678/X, B/0711/X, B/0755/X, 

B/0801/X, B/0801/X, B/0826/X/d, 

B/0909/X, C/0070/X, E/1246/X, 

E/0516/X, E/0703/X, F/0748/X, 

G/0698/X, G/0920/Y, G/1099/X, 

G/1254/X, H/0808/X, J/1058/X, 

J/1203/X, K/0714/X, N/0694/X, 

N/0773/X, P/1066/X, P/1239/X, 

P/1275/X, P/1275/X, P/0640/X, 

P/1273/X, Q/0264/X, Q/0697/X/d, 

Q/0707/X, Q/0930/X, U/1172/X, 

W/1227/X/d, W/1310/X/d, 

W/0078/X, W/0242/X, W/0359/X, 

W/0403/X, W/0555/X, W/0700/X, 

W/0702/Y, W/0708/X/d, 

W/0709/X/d, W/0770/X/d, 

W/0780/X, W/0800/X, W/1329/X, 

X/1067/X, X/0122/X. 

reference is <strong>made</strong> to sign-posting. For these to be effective and consistent, a national 

standard should be developed and adopted. Interfaces between the various groups <strong>of</strong> 

access seekers need to be addressed. (X/1212/X) 

As most land management activities are visible the advice seems sensible. It would be 

preferable if silage bales were also mentioned in the last sentence in paragraph 3.21. 

(A/0346/X) 

SUBMITTED that preferably Section 3 should have a paragraph dealing with Fisheries 

or there should be a stronger statement than in the present para 3.15 to emphasise the 

importance <strong>of</strong> rural businesses and naming businesses, such as farming, forestry, 

fishing and shooting. (B/1129/X) 

It appears to place additional burdens on land managers re informing the public on their 

activities. May be workable in areas owned/managed by the Local Authorities, Forestry 

activities etc but less workable on small farms where such procedures are not common 

practice at present. (B/1114/X/d) 

There is plenty about responsible behaviour on land, but virtually nothing about water. 

There should at least be some reference to fishing, and not disturbing anglers and the 

water they have paid to fish…Better still would be the addition to this section <strong>of</strong> another 

sub-heading devoted to access to water, and it should include advice on respecting 

anglers’ activities and the fact they pay good money for their sport... If people are 

advised to avoid walking through crops, it is surely equally right that they should avoid 

damaging the crop expected from the river. Guidance <strong>of</strong> some sort is required here. 

(C/0070/X) 

Page 33. Para 3.21 Land management activity can be both visible and audible, but at 

night may only be audible. Reference should be <strong>made</strong> to this. (J/1058/X) 

This section gives insufficient recognition to the fact that 'conservation' and 'recreation' 

management should also be considered land management activities - it is very 

agriculture orientated. A rare species or habitat requiring protection could, if vulnerable 

to disturbance at certain times <strong>of</strong> year, be considered in the same way as a growing 

crop. Without this provision, it will be difficult to protect areas <strong>of</strong> habitat/sites supporting 

important species that are especially vulnerable. (K/0714/X) 

Users should simply be expected to be vigilant and avoid coming in contact with 

(disturbing) any land management operations. (W/0780/X) 

3.17 "Practical guidance on….'open hill' activities…" maybe? … 3.21 Include nature 

conservation, archeological digs, survery activities if necessary. (W/1310/X/d) 

99

Supplementary Comments - Does the Code provide adequate guidance on responsible car 

parking? 


There should be more 

guidance on responsible 

car parking 

A/1037/X, A/0098/X, A/0163/X, 

A/0658/X/d, A/0958/X, B/1094/X, 

B/1146/X, B/1147/X, B/1173/X, 

B/1195/X, B/1261/X, B/0211/X, 

B/0215/X, B/0260/X, B/0288/X/d, 

B/0455/X, B/0472/X, B/0481/X, 

B/0510/X, B/0512/X/d, B/0525/X/d, 

B/0558/X, B/0704/X, B/0845/X, 

B/0969/X, B/1281/X, B/1049/X, 

E/1113/X, G/0806/X, H/0915/X, 

H/1103/X, J/1058/X, P/0640/X, 

P/0642/X, P/0804/X, P/0889/X, 

P/0928/X, P/1239/X, Q/1153/Z/d, 

Q/0499/X, W/1000/X, W/1111/X, 

W/1123/X, W/0095/X, W/0221/X, 

W/0359/X, W/0542/X, W/0566/X, 

W/0822/X, W/0836/X, W/0999/X, 

W/1265/X, X/0495/X. 



Within the section on 'What is responsible behaviour' para 3.3 refers to parking in front <strong>of</strong> 

a gate when a farmer is working in a field. Surely, it is inconsiderate to park in front <strong>of</strong> 

any gate at any time, not just when there is someone working in the field concerned? 

(A/0658/X/d) 

Car parking (P50) - the reference is vague and unclear. There should be a separate 

section on car parking. (A/1037/X) 

The Code should specifically point out that there should be no parking in farm gateways. 

(B/0215/X) 

It should be highlighted that you must not park cars in entrances and gateways at any 

time. It should also be pointed out that farm machinery can be very large and that cars 

should not be parked on narrow country roads. (B/0704/X) 

Blocked accesses can have serious consequences for forestry operators. Unfettered 

access must be available for the emergency services to deal with fire or accidents to 

people (not usually at work), for access to watercourses, and to reach breakdowns <strong>of</strong> 

fixed and mobile machinery. No gate should ever be blocked. Paragraph 3.3 wrongly 

implies that it is OK to park in a field gateway unless there is a visible farmer in the field 

or forester in the wood - the latter will probably be out <strong>of</strong> sight anyway. It should be 

emphasised that access may be required for large or awkward equipment so parking 

close to a gateway or access point may still effectively block it. (H/0915/X) 

It is important to highlight that car parking facilities should always be used where 

available and to ensure that access users do not park in a haphazard fashion and that 

any parking does not cause rural verge damage. (P/0642/X) 

I have heard <strong>of</strong> cases <strong>of</strong> horse riders wanting to ride their horses over Forestry 

Commission trails and being told by the FC that they cannot leave their trailer in the car 

park - the car is ok but not the trailer! Could there be some guidance on this? 

(W/0095/X) 

I am also concerned about the proposals to allow access takers to park cars in gateways 

and on any field within 15 m <strong>of</strong> the road should they wish (W/0836/X) 

Other B/1157/X, B/0181/X, J/1058/X. The reference parking sensibly should not be included in the Code. Parking is not 

relevant to the right <strong>of</strong> access and is governed by the Highways Act. (J/1058/X) 

55 

100

Summary – 


The majority <strong>of</strong> respondents to this question felt strongly that the guidance in the draft Code should be tightened to help prevent disturbance to land 

management. However, a number <strong>of</strong> respondents did feel that the draft Code was clear, sensible and workable and presented in a reasonable way, with a 

few respondents expressing concerns that the guidance would result in new restrictions, e.g. unnecessarily long closures for tree felling or shooting, or 

using potential hazards as a reason for restricting access. 


Concerns raised included: 

• confusion over provisions in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 and those in Health and Safety legislation which appear to allow access to be 

restricted on health and safety grounds; 

• a belief that statements encouraging users to follow advice on signs and from land managers is not strong enough; 

• a concern that users are not sufficiently experienced to be able to identify hazards and land management issues, and to judge safe distances; 

• a recommendation that users should be prepared to give way to land management operations, allow work to progress unhindered, and stay out <strong>of</strong> 

fields while work is ongoing; and 

• that there should be stronger guidance to keep <strong>of</strong>f straw and hay bales and stacked timber. 

In addition, there was a strong call in responses for standard signage to help land managers with the practicalities <strong>of</strong> managing for access. This should 

take account <strong>of</strong> the perceived problems <strong>of</strong> night access and stressed the need to get the message across to children. In general, there was more comment 

on low ground land management operations such as tree felling and crop spraying, as opposed to land uses such as deer stalking and grouse shooting. 

A number <strong>of</strong> specific concerns was raised by land managers, local authorities and individuals about irresponsible car parking. These concerns included 

blocking access to fields and forestry by parked cars, blocking narrow roads, damage to grass verges, horse trailers not being allowed in Forestry 

Commission car parks, and concerns over legislation allowing parking on land up to 15m from pubic roads. 

Concern was also raised that the emphasis on the outdoors as a working environment in the draft Code was over-emphasised. 


Clearly, the relationship between the advice in the Code and the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 is key to addressing many <strong>of</strong> these issues. The 

Proposed Code has therefore <strong>made</strong> greater reference to health and safety and liability law, whilst at the same time retaining the basic approach <strong>of</strong> 

promoting common sense for both users and land managers. However, for some situations, the advice recognises that additional precautions, such as 

clear signage, will be required and that in the interests <strong>of</strong> health and safety, precautionary advice should be respected. Section 5 <strong>of</strong> the Proposed Code 

has also been revised to provide more detailed advice on specific situations and ensure that it accords with Health and Safety legislation. SNH has 

worked closely with the Health & Safety Executive on the wording <strong>of</strong> this part <strong>of</strong> the Code. 

101

SNH acknowledges that supporting advice on signs will be required to ensure that there is consistency across the range <strong>of</strong> situations which users may 

encounter. 

Although not within access rights, many people use their cars to travel to the outdoors. The Proposed Code includes some guidance on car parking. This 

takes into account the need to advise people not to block field gates, regardless <strong>of</strong> whether the farmer is in the field or not. However, the concern about the 

prohibition <strong>of</strong> horse trailers from Forestry Commission car parks is an example <strong>of</strong> where the Proposed Code has to be supported by wider practical action 

by recreation managers and local authorities. 

102


12 - Do you think that the Code strikes the right balance between people being able 

to exercise access rights responsibly and ensuring that any risks to animal health are 

minimised? If you don’t, please explain why. 


12a. the Code strikes the 

right balance 

A/1084/X, A/0009/X, A/0319/X, 

A/0425/X, A/0437/X, A/0442/X, 

A/0469/X, A/0471/X/d, A/0500/Y/d, 

A/0719/X/d, A/0723/X, A/0821/X/d, 

A/0825/X, B/1114/X/d, B/1152/X, 

B/0058/X, B/0288/X/d, B/0300/X/d, 

B/0525/X/d, B/0772/X, E/1246/X, 

E/0703/X, G/0043/X, G/0189/X, 

G/0379/X, G/0785/X, G/0806/X, 

G/0917/X, G/0973/X, L/0439/X, 

P/1275/X, P/0287/X, P/0548/X, 

P/0576/X, P/0646/X, P/0928/X, 

P/1218/X, P/1275/X, Q/1122/X, 

Q/0232/X, Q/0445/X, Q/0526/X, 

Q/0686/X, U/0922/X, V/0207/X, 

W/1007/X, W/1023/X, W/1052/X/d, 

W/1158/X, W/0003/X, W/0017/X, 

W/0021/X, W/0056/X/d, W/0095/X, 

W/0182/X, W/0194/X, W/0214/X, 

W/0246/X, W/0255/X, W/0391/X, 

W/0423/X, W/0625/X, W/0644/X, 

W/0789/X, W/0972/X, W/1032/X, 

W/1377//d, X/0896/X. 



The Code has the correct balance with regard to animal health and passing through 

fields. (A/0471/X/d) 

Yes, especially in the light <strong>of</strong> the public response to the 2001 FMD outbreak. 

(A/0500/Y/d) 

OK (B/1152/X) 

We believe the balance is right. (E/0703/X) 

Code adequate but leaflet to explain detail will be needed. (G/0973/X) 

We think that the right balance is struck between responsibility and risk here. (P/0646/X) 

By and large the Code does strike the right balance between people being able to 

exercise access rights responsibly and ensuring that any risks to animal health are 

minimised. (Q/1122/X) 

Yes, the guidance seems to strike a reasonable balance here. (W/0003/X) 

423 

12b. no, the Code does 

not strike the right balance 

B/0054/X, H/0515/X, H/0988/X, 

Q/0501/X/d, V/0398/X/d, W/1315/, 

W/1316/, X/1174/X. 

No. (B/0054/X) 

As we were unable to identify which section <strong>of</strong> the Code dealt specifically with risks to 

animal health, we would suggest that this aspect has not been adequately addressed. 

(H/0988/X) 

No. In any field being grazed by farm animals it it inevitable that droppings will be 

present and widely scattered. Children and others should avoid contact with such 

droppings because <strong>of</strong> the presence <strong>of</strong> E-coli in the faeces. (Q/0501/X/d) 

No because <strong>of</strong> the following ~ Dogs may also get ticks/ring worm etc. ....~ Disposing <strong>of</strong> 

dog dirt. .....~ Crop identification will be almost impossible for many accessing land. ..~ 

Include reference to the impact on human health. ....~ Often gates are left open. .....~ 

Animals can be stampeded by people with or without dogs .....~ Rubbish and litter can 

be harmful to livestock. .....(V/0398/X/d) 

103

12c. the guidance overly 


12d. tighter 

responsibilities are 

required on the public 

A/0740/X, G/1044/X, G/1044/X, 

R/1278/X, W/0661/X. 

A/0133/X, A/0346/X, B/1041/X, 

B/1083/X/d, B/1093/X, B/1125/X, 

B/1150/X/d, B/1176/X, B/1177/X, 

B/1288/X, B/0085/X, B/0312/X, 

B/0340/X, B/0347/X, B/0366/X, 

B/0409/X, B/0512/X/d, B/0565/X, 

B/0574/X, B/0613/X, B/0681/X, 

B/0715/X, B/0794/X, B/0863/X, 

B/0938/X/d, B/0970/X, B/0980/X, 

B/1039/X/d, B/1240/X, E/0923/X, 

E/0924/X, G/1098/X, G/0114/X, 

G/0960/X, G/1099/X, H/0310/X, 

H/0460/X, H/0552/X, H/0808/X, 

K/0444/X, N/1352/X, P/0384/X, 

P/1273/X, Q/1178/X, Q/0157/X, 

W/1112/X, W/1139/X, W/1141/X, 

W/1151/X, W/1280/X, W/1287/X, 

W/0112/X, W/0143/X, W/0457/X, 

W/0555/X, W/0614/X, W/0812/Y, 

W/0864/X, W/0947/X/d, W/0986/X, 

W/1289/X, W/1373/, X/0099/X, 

X/0405/X/d, X/0727/X. 

It is regretted that undue reference is <strong>made</strong> to the incidence <strong>of</strong> disease in dogs. The risk 

is extremely minimal and, unless adequate receptacles are provided, it is unreasonable 

to expect dog owners to lift dog fouling in circumstances where they may be unable to 

dispose <strong>of</strong> it more or less immediately. (G/1044/X) 

3.25 is necessary but it could be framed in a more positive way. Patting and feeding 

animals, such as inquisitive cows at a field gate, can be an enjoyable part <strong>of</strong> people's 

access to the countryside, especially for children, and to define this as irresponsible 

behaviour seems a bit extreme......advise that there are issues involved in feeding and 

touching animals but that it will not necessarily be irresponsible to do in every 

circumstance. (R/1278/X) 

Under the Act it would be legitimate to picnic in a field with animals. This should be 

specifically discouraged on safety grounds in this section as well as section 5. .... The 

advice would apply equally to fields with horses. .... One issue that is inadequately 

covered is the feeding <strong>of</strong> livestock including horses. .... It requires greater prominence 

and should be covered in its own right in section 3. Many people like feeding horses but 

it can be dangerous and horses can be injured if there is a squabble for food. 

(A/0346/X) 

... ill-informed innocent people are going to be killed by domesticated animals behaving 

in a manner that is normal practice in a domesticated animal's environment. For 

example - at the mating season for both sheep and cattle and at the protective time 

when calves and lambs are on the ground. (B/1041/X) 

The balance here is not right. Animal health must be considered, including pigs, poultry 

and game. The Code must be strengthened and tied in with the Farm Assurance 

Schemes and the advice <strong>of</strong> SEERAD. (E/0924/X) 

… this section is wrong to refer just to farm animals. Horses should also be covered by 

the text and some <strong>of</strong> the points might be relevant to wild animals. There are dangers 

when taking access through fields containing certain types <strong>of</strong> animals and the Code 

should provide more detailed guidance than it does at present. Horses have sometimes 

attacked walkers, ..... we also think that the Code should give general advice like looking 

into a field before entering, and assessing whether you can see the whole <strong>of</strong> the field; 

and whether the field is stock-pro<strong>of</strong>ed, which is an indication that there are likely to be 

animals in there. (G/1099/X) 

...guidance should be more explicit and state that those exercising access rights should, 

whenever possible, avoid fields containing livestock. This is particularly pertinent when 

accompanied by dogs, and when children are present. (H/0808/X) 

The Code points out the problems that animals can cause for people - not the problems 

people cause animals. There should be a balance here. (P/1273/X) 

We would like to see this section strengthened to dissuade access takers from going 

close to livestock. (Q/1178/X) 

...it probably needs to be <strong>made</strong> clear that animals includes not only sheep, pigs and 

104

12e. the Code should add 

reference to the dangers 

<strong>of</strong> litter and waste to 

animals 

12f. Biosecurity 

Regulations need to be 

better reflected in the 

Code 

B/1027/X, B/0300/X/d, B/0413/X, 

B/0456/X, B/0943/X, B/1125/X, 

F/0998/X, P/0890/X, P/0890/X, 

P/0899/X, P/1272/X, Q/0016/X, 

Q/0264/X, W/0100/d, W/0182/X, 

W/0533/X, W/0770/X/d, 

W/0990/X/d. 

A/0320/X/d, A/0671/X, B/1017/X, 

B/1049/X, B/1083/X/d, B/1096/X, 

B/1101/X, B/1104/X, B/1108/X, 

B/1126/X, B/1142/X, B/1143/X, 

B/1176/X, B/1177/X, B/1205/X, 

B/1208/X, B/1244/X, B/1262/X, 

B/1267/X/d, B/1269/X, B/1281/X, 

B/1293/X, B/1328/X, B/0141/X, 

B/0152/X, B/0167/X, B/0215/X, 

B/0227/X/d, B/0240/X, B/0257/X, 

B/0257/X, B/0275/X, B/0313/X, 

cattle, but also horses, deer, poultry etc. (W/0986/X) 

Insufficient advice is given regarding the control <strong>of</strong> dogs. It would be useful to point out 

that dogs not under control and caught in the act <strong>of</strong> worrying stock can be shot. No 

proper account is given <strong>of</strong> the problems inherent in taking access through fields 

containing stock with particular needs, or possessing uncertain behaviour.This sections 

needs clear advice that any such field containing easily disturbed animals or excitable 

animals must be avoided. There is more to visiting fields containing animals than the 

health considerations summarised in the Code. The right balance has not been struck. 

(X/0099/X) 

I have experienced the agony <strong>of</strong> an animal dying because it had eaten a sandwich 

thrown into a field. The sandwich was not to blame, it was the plastic wrapper which 

could not be digested. Empty cans, broken bottles, and plastic rings holding cans are 

also a danger to both animals and birds. (B/0456/X) 

...extremely concerned about the potential for litter to be left by those taking access. Not 

only is this unsightly but also dangerous and polluting. It is recognised that litter poses a 

threat to livestock and formalised access rights enhance that risk entirely at the farmer's 

cost. (B/0943/X) 

...concern..that lessons from foot and mouth…have been heeded….about the 

transmission <strong>of</strong> the disease from say discarded sandwich contents such as meat 

imported from a country that is infected. (F/0998/X) 

The dangers posed by litter to both livestock and wildlife should be highlighted within the 

code, choking hazards, lacerations etc. (P/1272/X) 

Bar-B-Q fires on the beach with the drift wood, who will control this activity, the people 

don't understand the risk this can cause to sheep & other animals that use the shore. 

(Q/0016/X) 

many animals are known to have been injured by litter … the code should clearly 

indicate that anyone found smoking without prior permission from those living and 

working in an area, or leaving litter, immediately thereby waives their access rights and 

are required to leave if asked (W/0990/X/d) 

People crossing intensively farmed areas can affect the accreditation <strong>of</strong> the herds. 

(A/0320/X/d) 

Quality Assurance: Farmers have been encouraged to enter quality assurance schemes, 

which have numerous rules and yet the code directly encourages access to areas or 

through areas which may jeopardise the farmer's qualifications to stay in or enter such a 

scheme. (B/1017/X) 

Bio security code tells us to keep visitors to a minimum/keep a record <strong>of</strong> who visits/allow 

visits only by appointment and most importantly keep them away from your livestock. 

Outdoor access code would allow NONE <strong>of</strong> these measures to take place. (B/1142/X) 

…the general public are unable to differentiate between bullocks, bulls, heifers and 

cows. Disturbance in such fields by walkers and in particular those with a dog create a 

105

12g. the dangers <strong>of</strong> 

disease and faeces need 

to be recognised in the 

Code 

B/0342/X/d, B/0366/X, B/0376/X, 

B/0404/X, B/0404/X, B/0443/X, 

B/0446/X, B/0481/X, B/0488/X/d, 

B/0535/X, B/0538/X, B/0568/X, 

B/0571/X, B/0574/X, B/0613/X, 

B/0628/X, B/0704/X, B/0733/X, 

B/0802/X, B/0814/X, B/0816/X, 

B/0826/X/d, B/0837/X, B/0858/X, 

B/0879/X, B/0970/X, B/0983/X, 

B/0994/X, B/1009/X, B/1207/X, 

B/0294/X, E/1201/X, E/0523/X, 

E/0616/X, G/1192/X, H/1140/X, 

H/1196/X, H/1276/X, H/0220/X, 

H/0941/X, H/1103/X, H/0310/X, 

J/1058/X, L/0513/X, L/0647/X, 

N/0716/X, P/1060/X, P/1066/X, 

P/1219/X, P/1237/X, P/1272/X, 

P/1273/X, P/1300/X, P/0375/X, 

P/0575/X, P/0643/X, P/0717/X, 

P/0804/X, P/0869/X, Q/1184/X, 

Q/1346/X, Q/0739/X, W/1012/X, 

W/1102/X/d, W/1227/X/d, 

W/1263/X, W/1287/X, W/1289/X, 

W/1315/, W/1318/, W/0002/X, 

W/0064/X, W/0217/X, W/0402/X, 

W/0402/X, W/0407/X, W/0417/X, 

W/0524/X, W/0541/X, W/0709/X/d, 

W/0767/X, W/0836/X, W/0880/X/d, 

W/0990/X/d, X/1067/X, X/1115/X, 

X/1188/X, X/1212/X, X/1298/X, 

X/0495/X, X/0639/X, X/0652/X, 

X/0664/X, X/0784/X, X/1385/X. 

A/1070/X/d, A/0658/X/d, A/0671/X, 

B/1022/X, B/1093/X, B/1094/X, 

B/1104/X, B/1236/X, B/1281/X, 

B/1322/d, B/0085/X, B/0160/X, 

B/0171/X, B/0215/X, B/0317/X, 

B/0331/X, B/0366/X, B/0404/X, 

B/0406/X, B/0428/X/d, B/0465/X, 

risk <strong>of</strong> biosecurity (B/1177/X) 

The next point is horses. I can't stand them anyway. We are not supposed to allow 

animals to move from one farm to another without notifying SEERAD for bio-security 

reasons. If there is a movement onto my farm I can't sell animals for 21 days. 

(B/1262/X) 

There is insufficient evidence on the issue <strong>of</strong> bio-security. Guidance should be given 

with reference to animal health regarding vaccination for those exercising dogs and 

horses. Members <strong>of</strong> Farm Assurance Schemes are obliged to worm dogs at six monthly 

intervals. Access takers should comply with this also and be prepared to provide pro<strong>of</strong> 

when required. (B/1281/X) 

Biosecurity and organic status: If gates are left open and stock from neighbouring farms 

mix, there will be an automatic thirteen-day standstill. Similarly, we have full organic 

status, and if our stock stray onto non-organic ground or non-organic stock stray onto 

our ground and mix with our stock, we lose our organic status. If forestry gates are left 

open and feral sheep stray onto farmland, they are very likely to spread sheep scab. 

(B/0342/X/d) 

We believe there are serious flaws in the Code with regard to access to land containing 

animals, particularly in the light <strong>of</strong> the biosecurity issues… The right <strong>of</strong> access to land 

containing livestock therefore jeopardises such security measures imposed by another 

Government Department and highlights the imbalances contained in the new legislation. 

(E/0616/X) 

No. The Code pays scant regard to Biosecurity, the dangers to human health, animal 

health and to the commercial requirements ... <strong>of</strong> quality assurance schemes. (H/0941/X) 

It should be noted that the 13-day movement rule is operated against a background <strong>of</strong> 

Separation Agreements negotiated between stockholders and SEERAD AGOs. The 

conditions <strong>of</strong> use require that farmer to prevent any access to the Separation Area by 

people, vehicles and livestock other than those authorised by the stockholder and 

obeying proper due to Bio security requirements. Clearly the access code at present 

does not provide for this situation. The farmer will have no control over the movement <strong>of</strong> 

people, horses, dogs and mountain bikes through these areas. Will he/she be in defualt 

<strong>of</strong> the legally binding agreement with SEERAD? (X/1298/X) 

The Code demands in para 3.37 that dogs should not go into fields <strong>of</strong> vegetables or fruit, 

nor on to play and sports areas because <strong>of</strong> the diseases that they may transmit. Yet in 

para 3.38 the Code advises dog owners to dispose <strong>of</strong> dog dirt safely in these and similar 

places, ….. Some clarity here would be welcomed. (A/0658/X/d) 

No. There is no mention <strong>of</strong> horses and the diseases they can spread to other horses. 

What is the position about horse dung and the diseases it may carry? Dog excrement 

should be removed in the same way as is required in many parks etc. (B/1093/X) 

106

B/0466/X/d, B/0473/X/d, B/0568/X, 

B/0569/X, B/0677/X, B/0681/X, 

B/0738/X, B/0745/X, B/0801/X, 

B/0819/X, B/0830/X, B/0834/X, 

B/0839/X, B/0842/X, B/0862/X, 

B/0885/X, B/0909/X, B/0938/X/d, 

B/0942/X/d, B/0954/X, B/0964/X, 

B/0965/X/d, B/0970/X, B/1216/X, 

B/1267/X/d, B/1292/X, B/0826/X/d, 

E/1215/X, G/0132/X, G/1099/X, 

H/1327/X, H/0959/X, J/1051/X, 

J/1058/X, M/0438/X, M/0454/X, 

M/0852/X, P/1272/X, P/1275/X, 

P/0492/X, P/0899/X, Q/1184/X, 

Q/0177/X, W/1011/X, W/1014/X, 

W/1153/Z/d, W/1170/X, W/1209/X, 

W/0002/X, W/0109/X, W/0529/X, 

W/0555/X, W/0618/X, W/0693/X, 

W/0735/X, W/0770/X/d, W/0817/X, 

W/0817/X, W/0903/X, W/0947/X/d, 

W/1235/X, X/1212/X, X/0122/X, 

X/0748/X, X/0784/X. 

12h. other A/0098/X, A/0362/X, A/0927/X, 

A/0958/X, B/1240/X, B/0257/X, 

B/0306/X, B/0312/X, B/0574/X, 

B/0683/X, B/0913/X, B/0937/X, 

B/0946/X, B/1267/X/d, G/0759/X, 

G/1099/X, G/1251/X, G/1330/X/d, 

H/1179/X, L/1026/X, P/1060/X, 

P/1247/X, P/0642/X, P/0804/X, 

Q/0697/X/d, Q/0707/X, W/1111/X, 

W/1130/X, W/1153/Z/d, W/1189/X, 

W/1235/X, W/1310/X/d, W/1337/, 

W/0140/X, W/0168/, W/0255/X, 

W/0359/X, W/0708/X/d, W/0744/X, 

As a member <strong>of</strong> Specially Selected Scotch Farm Assurance, I am concerned that the 

strict codes I have to adhere to with my own stock and farm dogs (veterinary records 

including worming) would be breached by people with dogs and horses which I would 

have no veterinary details <strong>of</strong>. (B/1322/ /d) 

E coli. We note the attitude <strong>of</strong> health authorities to protecting the public from 

contamination with animal dung, leading to E coli outbreaks. Current regulations limit 

Agricultural Shows to using land which has had no livestock on it for a period <strong>of</strong> 21 days. 

The new access rights will allow, even encourage, the public to move among fresh 

animal droppings and urine, with possibility <strong>of</strong> contamination for adults, children and 

pets. This is in our view a further argument for directing the public along fenced rights <strong>of</strong> 

way, as noted above. (E/1215/X) 

...why it is advised that dogs carry diseases and should not therefore be allowed onto 

sports pitches etc but are allowed onto golf courses! This is inconsistent and needs to 

be addressed. (J/1051/X) 

Walkers and dogs going from a non accredited to an accredited herd/flock could be a 

means <strong>of</strong> spreading disease, for example BVD in cattle and Scrapie in sheep. 

(M/0438/X) 

If there is a serious problem, not just anecdotal, <strong>of</strong> dogs infecting livestock then there is 

a case to be <strong>made</strong> for dogs carrying a 'health passport' recording immunisation and 

ownership. A 'credit card' attached to the collar would identify at a glance which dogs 

are properly vaccinated etc. (P/1275/X) 

Dog excrement…<strong>of</strong>ten contains round and tape worms and bacteria which can be 

passed on to grazing sheep infecting them, with disastrous consequences. The effect is 

much worse with organic livestock because only a limited range <strong>of</strong> drugs can be 

administered to them compared to conventional livestock. (W/1011/X) 

Danger <strong>of</strong> transfer <strong>of</strong> disease. The Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 and the Dog 

Fouling (Scotland) Act 2003 do not apply to agricultural land - why? (X/0122/X) 

Yes, but this applies to all animals, cattle, sheep, horses, pigs, poultry, etc. (A/0362/X) 

Other livestock, such llamas, ostriches and horses, can be hostile to people. More 

thought needs to be given to this section, to provide the public with a better 

understanding <strong>of</strong> the potential risks <strong>of</strong> taking access where there is livestock, and the 

need to take responsibility for the consequences <strong>of</strong> their actions if they go through a field 

with livestock. (B/0574/X) 

...concerns about various pests and diseases being spread by people….. We got 

Raspberry Root Rot from infected raspberry canes, the plantation had to be removed but 

the virus is still in the soil. We know where it is and operate strict hygiene practices to 

avoid this being spread to the other plantations. If someone walked over this bit <strong>of</strong> 

infected ground then walked along .. our fruiting plantation the plantation would be 

infected. (B/0913/X) 

Do members <strong>of</strong> the public all know what a safe distance is - should a minimum distance 

107

W/0780/X, W/0780/X, W/0873/X, 

W/0901/X/d, W/0986/X, W/1367/. 

be suggested or a more categorical - keep away from all animals. More information is 

required on how to behave near livestock. The public need to know what impact their 

activities can have on livestock .. (P/1060/X) 

This section needs to make it clear that farm animals don't just live in fields. (para 3 <strong>of</strong> 

covering letter.) (Q/0707/X) 

Somewhere in the Code the danger from Lymes' Disease should be stressed. 

(W/0744/X) 

108

Summary – 


A majority <strong>of</strong> respondents sought tighter guidance on a range <strong>of</strong> issues associated with animal health, with only a minority <strong>of</strong> respondents feeling that this 

section <strong>of</strong> the draft Code was reasonably well balanced. A few respondents thought that the guidance in the draft Code was too restrictive and laboured, 

e.g. in relation to dogs. 


Concerns raised included: 

• littering; 

• diseases carried by dog and horse faeces; 

• the need for dog worming; 

• impacts on quality assurance <strong>of</strong> fruit and vegetables; 

• effects <strong>of</strong> visitors feeding farm animals; 

• keeping a safe distance from livestock (the possibility <strong>of</strong> users becoming infected by livestock as well spreading disease themselves); and 

• responding to disease outbreaks, e.g. foot and mouth, 

Overall, these comments, and particularly those from land management interests, sought the Proposed Code to better reflect the Biosecurity Code issued 

by the Scottish Executive. 

Main changes <strong>made</strong> 

Guidance in the draft Code already covered some <strong>of</strong> the issues raised, for example, requesting users not to drop litter and not to feed animals, but the 

Proposed Code reflects the wider concerns raised by providing more advice on: 

• considering alternative routes before entering a field <strong>of</strong> livestock; 

• what to do in the event <strong>of</strong> a notifiable contagious disease breaking out; 

• removing faeces if your dog defecates in public open places; 

• take away all litter, including food and associated packaging; and 

• not parking a vehicle in a field where there is livestock 

The Proposed Code also reflects the advice in the Animal Biosecurity Code which is aimed at recreational users. SNH has also worked closely with the 

Scottish Executive on the wording <strong>of</strong> this part <strong>of</strong> the Proposed Code. 

The guidance in the Proposed Code on gates (leaving them as you find them) reflects the solution favoured by NFU Scotland. SNH has, however, retained 

the advice on picnicking. Points raised about not lighting fires on beaches and not smoking on farmland without the owner's permission were rejected. 

109


13 - Do you think that the guidance in the Code strikes a reasonable balance 

between people exercising access rights through fields and the interests <strong>of</strong> land 

managers? If you don’t, please explain why. 


13a. the Code strikes the 

right balance 

A/1084/X, A/0009/X, A/0319/X, 

A/0425/X, A/0442/X, A/0518/X, 

A/0621/Y, A/0719/X/d, A/0821/X/d, 

A/0825/X, B/1152/X, B/0300/X/d, 

B/0525/X/d, B/0565/X, B/0937/X, 

G/1251/X, G/1254/X, G/0043/X, 

G/0189/X, G/0379/X, G/0759/X, 

G/0785/X, G/0806/X, G/0917/X, 

G/0960/X, G/0973/X, K/0714/X, 

L/0439/X, P/1218/X, P/1247/X, 

P/1275/X, P/0287/X, P/0576/X, 

P/0643/X, P/0646/X, Q/0232/X, 

Q/0264/X, Q/0686/X, V/0922/X, 

W/1130/X, W/0003/X, W/0017/X, 

W/0021/X, W/0056/X/d, W/0095/X, 

W/0108/X/d, W/0112/X, W/0182/X, 

W/0194/X, W/0214/X, W/0246/X, 

W/0359/X, W/0391/X, W/0423/X, 

W/0625/X, W/0644/X, W/1052/X/d, 

W/1310/X/d, W/1373/, W/1377//d, 

X/0099/X, X/0196/X, X/0405/X/d. 



I particularly like the rights <strong>of</strong> people to enjoy farmland and the common sense code <strong>of</strong> 

behaviour expected to go with it. (A/0621/Y) 

Yes, if heeded. (B/0300/X/d) 

The section is well balanced and the right is important. (G/1254/X) 

The appropriate balance has been found in this area. (P/1218/X) 

In general yes. (U/0922/X) 

Although there will be many grey areas, I think the code does set out a reasonable 

balance. (W/0214/X) 

The Code is here not unreasonable. (X/0099/X) 

529 

13b. no the Code doesn’t 

strike the right balance 

B/0054/X, B/0282/X, B/0406/X, 

B/0443/X, B/0510/X, B/0510/X, 

B/0754/X, B/0755/X, H/0460/X, 

P/0643/X, W/1235/X, W/0100/d, 

W/0143/X, W/0641/X, W/0669/X/d, 

W/0880/X/d. 

The main problem appears to result from a failure to clearly differentiate between access 

being taken in open versus enclosed areas. (B/0282/X) 

"You can exercise access rights through fields where there are farm animals". (3.24). 

We feel this statement requires further qualification and guidance to both the access 

taker and provider. Someone walking a dog through a field <strong>of</strong> cows and calves is in 

danger <strong>of</strong> being attacked if they get between a cow and its calf. Stags in deer farms can 

lose their fear <strong>of</strong> humans and attack particularly during rutting season... Walking through 

a flock <strong>of</strong> newly lambed ewes can result in lambs being abandoned, disturbing heavily 

pregnant ewes can cause ewes to abort. Guidance should be given to access takers on 

how to avoid such situations. (B/0443/X) 

Most members <strong>of</strong> the public cannot identify the difference between wheat, barley and 

grass. In view <strong>of</strong> the different rights applying thereto the Code must give clear guidance 

on this and what to do if there is doubt. (B/0754/X) 

No. To many farmers and landowners GRASS - AT ANY STAGE OF GROWTH OR 

110

13c. No - the balance is 

wrong: the Code overly 


13d. No - the balance is 

wrong: the Code should 

place tighter 

responsibilities on the 

public 

A/0126/X, A/0740/X, G/1291/X, 

Q/1308/X, W/0789/X, W/0833/X, 

W/1370/, X/0727/X. 

A/0320/X/d, A/0346/X, A/0469/X, 

A/0796/X/d, B/1002/X, B/1093/X, 

B/1094/X, B/1131/X, B/1144/X, 

B/1145/X, B/1150/X/d, B/1164/X, 

B/1176/X, B/1195/X, B/1210/X, 

B/1216/X, B/1244/X, B/1248/X, 

B/1253/X, B/1269/X, B/1303/X/d, 

B/1334/X, B/1335/, B/0058/X, 

B/0069/X, B/0209/X, B/0226/X, 

B/0227/X/d, B/0257/X, B/0275/X, 

B/0282/X, B/0288/X/d, B/0313/X, 

B/0329/X, B/0376/X, B/0396/X/d, 

B/0406/X, B/0413/X, B/0428/X/d, 

B/0456/X, B/0462/X, B/0472/X, 

B/0488/X/d, B/0512/X/d, B/0538/X, 

B/0558/X, B/0568/X, B/0628/X, 

B/0633/X, B/0677/X, B/0741/X, 

LENGTH - IS A CROP. A very important crop for grazing animals, and even a horse on 

a wet field can make a terrible mess. (W/0100/d) 

Points covered are all reasonable but somewhat laboured on the actions to be taken by 

those exercising their statutory rights whilst giving little guidance to land managers who 

might needlessly or recklessly interfere with those rights - this material is elsewhere - the 

divisiveness continues to the detriment <strong>of</strong> the document. (A/0740/X) 

The advice in paragraphs 3.27 and 3.28 is incorrect in that it implies that the access 

cannot be taken where crops have been sown or where damage might be caused. In 

fact the Act and Parliamentary discussion <strong>made</strong> clear that there are some circumstances 

where this is acceptable. ... Acces can be taken on field margins, headrigs and endrigs 

even if this results in some damage to the crop. The Parliament clearly accepted this 

situation when the term "unsown field margins" was amended to "field margins" in the 

stage 3 debate as a result <strong>of</strong> a Government amendment. ... The Code implies, in the 

second bullet point <strong>of</strong> 3.28 that if a path or track is present in a field then the field margin 

should not be used. This is wrong. There is nothing in the Act ... to suggest that there 

should be a preference for access to be taken along a path or track in a field rather than 

along a field margin. It needs to be clear from the Code that if a crop could be damaged 

by taking access in the general area <strong>of</strong> the field then paths or tracks should be used to 

cross the field and field margins used to go round the edge <strong>of</strong> the field. ... (G/1291/X) 

There is no obvious reason why access in cultivated fields should not also be permitted 

eg along vehicle tracks (caused by eg spraying tractors) and between drills <strong>of</strong> 

vegetables - in addition to field margins. In all instances, single-file access might be 

emphasised. (W/0789/X) 

You are placing the public in possible danger by encouraging them into fields with stock. 

(A/0320/X/d) 

No. Walking in unsown areas might be feasible but riding and cycling would not. 

(B/1093/X) 

Unattended equipment. It is <strong>of</strong>ten necessary for good reason to leave machines or 

equipment unattended in fields, forests or on other land…… There should be strong 

guidance in the code not to approach them or allow children to approach them, certainly 

not to climb on them or tamper with them and if it is necessary to pass closely, to do so 

without loitering. (B/1094/X) 

3.29 Passing through fields. 3.29 suggests, by using the term "unsown ground" that it 

would be perfectly feasible to cross a growing crop by unsing a tramline by arguingthat 

this is unsown ground. I think this is unsatisactory and requires clarification. I once 

encountered two people pushing bicycles up tramlines in one <strong>of</strong> my crops. This 

essentially turns our growing crops into a free for all, creating all sorts <strong>of</strong> problems, and I 

do not think it represents the spirit <strong>of</strong> what is intended. (B/1216/X) 

Regarding crops it is overlooked that Grass is our most important and <strong>of</strong>ten only crop. .... 

And can be damaged by parties <strong>of</strong> walkers to say nothing <strong>of</strong> bikers and horse riders. 

111

13e. more guidance is 

needed on access around 

field margins 

B/0760/X, B/0797/X, B/0801/X, 

B/0802/X, B/0814/X, B/0816/X, 

B/0850/X, B/0862/X, B/0879/X, 

B/0895/X, B/0909/X, B/0925/X, 

B/0946/X, B/0956/X, B/0964/X, 

B/0965/X/d, B/0966/X, B/0294/X, 

B/1365/X, D/1206/X, D/0093/X, 

E/1074/X, H/1103/X, H/1327/X, 

H/1349/X, H/0310/X, H/0515/X, 

H/0988/X, J/1058/X, J/1058/X, 

L/0513/X, M/0438/X, M/0454/X, 

M/0687/X, M/0734/X, N/1352/X, 

P/1237/X, P/1275/X, P/0317/X, 

P/0375/X, P/0384/X, P/0717/X, 

P/0804/X, P/0899/X, Q/1178/X, 

Q/0157/X, Q/0499/X, Q/0526/X, 

Q/0824/X, V/0398/X/d, W/1007/X, 

W/1010/X, W/1011/X, W/1012/X, 

W/1014/X, W/1021/X, W/1088/X, 

W/1109/X, W/1139/X, W/1227/X/d, 

W/1315/, W/1321/, W/0083/X, 

W/0159/X, W/0193/X/d, W/0222/X, 

W/0261/X, W/0277/X, W/0297/X, 

W/0407/X, W/0435/X, W/0447/X, 

W/0448/X, W/0464/X, W/0554/X, 

W/0614/X, W/0635/X, W/0669/X/d, 

W/0770/X/d, W/0853/X, 

W/0901/X/d, W/0955/X, W/0971/X, 

W/0990/X/d, W/1287/X, X/1174/X, 

X/0122/X, X/0149/X, X/0639/X, 

X/0652/X, X/0652/X, X/0652/X, 

X/0664/X, X/0896/X. 

A/1070/X/d, A/0706/X, A/0796/X/d, 

B/1075/X, B/1083/X/d, B/1091/X, 

B/1093/X, B/1101/X, B/1107/X, 

B/1108/X, B/1114/X/d, B/1121/X, 

B/1125/X, B/1126/X, B/1164/X, 

B/1167/X, B/1216/X, B/1236/X, 

B/1240/X, B/1250/X, B/1261/X, 

B/1267/X/d, B/1281/X, B/1328/X, 

(B/0376/X) 

The Code produces muddled and conflicting advice, completely devoid <strong>of</strong> common 

sense… The common sense approach would be to state simply that, as a general rule, 

it is undesirable and inappropriate to enter fields <strong>of</strong> livestock, particularly with a dog. 

(B/0628/X) 

The code is weak on the responsibilities <strong>of</strong> people taking access rights to fields that are 

used for e.g grazing. (D/0093/X) 

3.24 - 3.26 - This section - especially 3.24 - needs to be enhanced. Livestock and 

people do not mix, and the dangers to the public from cows & calves have been 

seriously underplayed. In addition, the problems for ewes & young lambs in terms <strong>of</strong> 

disturbance and mis-mothering have also been understated. The particular problems for 

public safety associated with cattle should be spelt out. .....More thought needs to be 

given to this section, to provide the public with a better understanding <strong>of</strong> the potential 

risks <strong>of</strong> taking access where there is livestock, and that they must take responsibility for 

the consequences <strong>of</strong> their actions if they go through a field with livestock. (H/1103/X) 

The Code should be re-written very specifically to prohibit people with dogs from 

entering any field enclosures where livestock are present, regardless <strong>of</strong> the time <strong>of</strong> year 

or the length <strong>of</strong> the dog lead! (N/1352/X) 

No. It is weighted in favour <strong>of</strong> the access taker who only has to act "responsibly" 

whereas the land owner has to implement strategies, <strong>of</strong>ten at some expense, to 

manage/allow access. Responsibilities <strong>of</strong> access takers could be more strongly stated. 

(P/0384/X) 

3.27 It is not always apparent when a newly cultivated field has been sown with a crop 

and damage could occur to the crop prior to germination. (W/1109/X) 

Field edges - how wide will the field edges be? Twelve inches may be sufficient for a 

cyclist or a walker but not for a horse and rider. (A/0706/X) 

With reference to field margins where environmental schemes are in place the 

agreement does not permit access by the farmer for any purpose for the preservation <strong>of</strong> 

the wildlife…… The rules <strong>of</strong> these schemes does not permit riding along the strip as this 

would adversely affect the conservation benefit <strong>of</strong> the field margins. In the code p47 it 

says you can cycle and horse ride around the field margins but this is not allowed under 

such schemes as the RSS. (B/1121/X) 

112

13f. more guidance is 

needed on crossing field 

boundaries without stiles / 

gates 

B/0211/X, B/0270/X, B/0300/X/d, 

B/0329/X, B/0368/X, B/0396/X/d, 

B/0406/X, B/0409/X, B/0446/X, 

B/0462/X, B/0465/X, B/0493/X, 

B/0512/X/d, B/0563/X, B/0574/X, 

B/0613/X, B/0672/X, B/0711/X, 

B/0715/X, B/0756/X, B/0787/X/d, 

B/0794/X, B/0980/X, B/1267/X/d, 

B/0294/X, B/1374/X, E/0616/X, 

E/0923/X, E/1382//d, H/1196/X, 

H/1103/X, J/1058/X, N/1138/X, 

N/1352/X, P/1273/X, P/0492/X, 

P/0575/X, P/0642/X, P/0804/X, 

P/0928/X, Q/1061/X, Q/1122/X, 

Q/1178/X, Q/1286/X, Q/1346/X, 

Q/0479/X, R/1278/X, V/1172/X, 

W/1088/X, W/1102/X/d, W/1109/X, 

W/1110/X, W/1112/X, W/1123/X, 

W/1153/Z/d, W/1153/Z/d, 

W/1163/X, W/1170/X, W/1202/X, 

W/1227/X/d, W/1264/X, W/1280/X, 

W/1289/X, W/1315/, W/0140/X, 

W/0143/X, W/0217/X, W/0276/X, 

W/0359/X, W/0407/X, W/0508/X, 

W/0541/X, W/0629/X, W/0661/X, 

W/0702/Y, W/0709/X/d, W/0812/Y, 

X/1092/X, X/1212/X, X/1298/X, 

X/0196/X, X/0784/X, X/1385/X. 

B/1078/X, B/1205/X, B/1244/X, 

B/1303/X/d, B/0288/X/d, B/0326/X, 

B/0340/X, E/0351/X, E/0924/X, 

G/1098/X, H/1196/X, J/1058/X, 

L/0513/X, N/0716/X, P/1219/X, 

P/1273/X, P/0575/X, P/0643/X, 

P/0804/X, Q/1061/X, Q/1308/X, 

V/1172/X, W/1163/X, W/0348/X/d, 

W/0407/X, X/1212/X, X/0664/X, 

X/0784/X. 

There is a requirement for clarity <strong>of</strong> information and guidance as there is still confusion 

as to whether people taking access along conservation headlands or field margins that 

are funded through the rural stewardship scheme or other agri-environmental schemes 

will not affect payments......it is wrong that access users should be encouraged to walk 

along field margins where either a crop may be damaged or wildlife disturbed. 

(B/0980/X) 

More encouragement should be given to follow paths where these exist. It should be 

recognised that field margins may need to be protected for wildlife. (E/0923/X) 

Directing access takers (on foot, bike and horse riders) to take access around field 

margins will cause wildlife habitat destruction and jeopardise wild bird breeding success. 

Although you state that there is little evidence to suggest that public access along field 

margins results in the loss <strong>of</strong> wildlife, this is because no conclusive research has been 

undertaken, and the converse may well be the case. (J/1058/X) 

There was concern in the forum regarding riding horses around field margins, this could 

well be problematic and requires more guidance on where and when this is an 

acceptable access right. (P/0492/X) 

It would be beneficial to make clear that if fields are sown right up to the edge, that 

access users are still entitled to go round the edge <strong>of</strong> fields, if necessary over crops 

growing therein. (P/0642/X) 

In respect <strong>of</strong> the eventual practical application <strong>of</strong> the Code, it is presumed that a field 

margin used for access can be considered to be as wide as it needs to be to provide 

access. A walker could manage with 450 mm. A rider with horse would require rather 

more... Can we treat a set-aside field as a recreation park or is it not quite so simple? 

(Q/0479/X) 

Fences, hedges and walls (dykes) cost money to erect and are not designed for the 

public to scramble over, causing damage every time one crosses a boundary. 

(B/1244/X) 

The question <strong>of</strong> access to fields other than by gates or other access points should be 

dealt with specifically in the Code. (B/1078/X) 

No, the guidance is not reasonable… The Code almost seems to encourage fence 

climbing where there is no alternative. If a fence post breaks as a result <strong>of</strong> the fence 

being climbed, would this be the personal risk <strong>of</strong> the access taker or the responsibility <strong>of</strong> 

the Land Manager? The solution is through a properly funded core path network. 

(E/0924/X) 

A locked gate impeding access by cycles, horses, pushchairs, etc. - there may be a stile 

or kissing gate nearby but this only allows a proportion <strong>of</strong> those wishing to take access 

113

13g. the guidance on the 

length <strong>of</strong> hay / silage is 

inadequate 

A/0320/X/d, A/0346/X, B/1093/X, 

B/1108/X, B/1114/X/d, B/1148/X/d, 

B/1183/X, B/1190/X, B/1199/X, 

B/1210/X, B/1240/X, B/1250/X, 

B/1253/X, B/1281/X, B/1288/X, 

B/1292/X, B/1347/X, B/0171/X, 

B/0183/X, B/0226/X, B/0227/X/d, 

B/0270/X, B/0300/X/d, B/0419/X, 

B/0461/X, B/0462/X, B/0466/X/d, 

B/0512/X/d, B/0538/X, B/0633/X, 

B/0802/X, B/0830/X, B/0956/X, 

B/1375/, E/1113/X, E/1211/X, 

G/1099/X, H/1140/X, H/1196/X, 

H/1327/X, H/0310/X, H/0552/X, 

J/1058/X, L/0513/X, L/0647/X, 

P/1219/X, P/1273/X, P/0642/X, 

P/0646/X, P/0804/X, Q/1061/X, 

Q/1122/X, Q/1230/X, Q/1252/X, 

Q/1286/X, Q/1346/X, Q/0177/X, 

Q/0206/X, Q/0499/X, Q/0707/X, 

V/1172/X, W/1109/X, W/1123/X, 

W/1158/X, W/1170/X, W/1289/X, 

W/1316/, W/1321/, W/0056/X/d, 

W/0143/X, W/0221/X, W/0348/X/d, 

W/0354/X/d, W/0556/X, W/0567/X, 

W/0641/X, W/0649/X, X/1212/X, 

X/1298/X, X/1345/X, X/0784/X. 

to do so. Where there is a field gate across a path it should be unlocked and easily 

unfastened unless there is a good reason for doing so - e.g. the first gate <strong>of</strong>f a road 

should be locked, with alternative self closing pedestrian (horse/cycle/pram friendly) gate 

provided. (P/1273/X) 

If a fence is blocking access to a well used path can walkers climb over and possibly 

damage the fence if no other access provision is <strong>made</strong>? (Q/1308/X) 

'Use gates and other access where these have been provided'. Implies that it is alright 

to climb fences and other barriers if the gate is on the other side <strong>of</strong> a field. In an 

increasingly litigious society there will, no doubt, be occasions where individuals seek 

compensation for some injury which they consider to be caused by negligence on the 

part <strong>of</strong> the Land Manager; or the Land Manager seeks to recover consequential loss due 

to damage caused by access seekers (X/1212/X) 

It fails for example to differentiate between crops where established grass has been 

allowed to grow and where fields have been newly sown. In a newly sown field 

significant damage can be done if it is crossed before the root systems become 

established. This would particularly be the case with access by horses or cyclists. It 

would therefore be preferable if the Code strongly advised those seeking access always 

to keep to field margins in newly sown fields or to seek an alternative route. It is also 

important to avoid contamination <strong>of</strong> the crop. While this is mentioned in section 5 it is 

absent from section 3. It would be better if this section also emphasised that leaving 

litter in fields is not responsible access. (A/0346/X) 

As grass is a crop especially here in the West <strong>of</strong> Scotland it should be treated as such 

with access only across a path or round field margins. It is unreasonable to expect the 

public to assess damage, ie 7 inches OK, 8 inches NOT (B/1183/X) 

Grass that has been sown for silage can also be damaged at an earlier stage than 8 

inches in height… Horses or cyclists will cause greater damage than a solitary walker. 

(B/0512/X/d) 

Why is grass not a crop? It costs the same as barley to get established, about £120 an 

acre… I am 6 feet tall and my ankle bone is 3.5 inches from the ground… Why should 

horses be allowed to walk on this land when it has been rolled for cutting? (B/0802/X) 

Most occasional visitors to the countryside would not recognise the difference between 

fields growing grass for cutting as hay or silage and those with crops until the crop was 

ripening. The differentiation <strong>of</strong> access rights between the two is therefore pointless. 

(H/1327/X) 

The rules and details on grass given in the code are complicated. I suggest that most 

non-specialist countryside users would find the regulations difficult to remember. 

(W/0221/X) 

How can the access seeker be sure which crops are destined for human consumption? 

How do they discriminate between immature cereal crops and grass? (X/0784/X) 

114

13h. more guidance is 

needed for horse riders 

and cyclists passing 

through fields 

A/0228/X, B/1025/X, B/1176/X, 

B/1311/X, B/1335/, B/0314/X, 

B/0329/X, B/0329/X, B/0465/X, 

B/0568/X, B/0571/X, B/0628/X, 

B/0634/X, B/0956/X, H/0959/X, 

P/1272/X, Q/0016/X, Q/0256/X, 

W/0242/X, W/0267/X, W/0301/X, 

W/0402/X, W/0641/X, W/0901/X/d, 

W/0979/X, W/0986/X. 

13i. other A/1070/X/d, A/0098/X, A/0253/X/d, 

A/0369/X/d, A/0437/X, A/0958/X, 

B/1125/X, B/1177/X, B/1311/X, 

B/0142/X, B/0178/X, B/0218/X, 

B/0254/X, B/0340/C/, B/0446/X, 

B/0493/X, B/0538/X, B/0731/X, 

B/0772/X, B/0839/X, B/0937/X, 

B/300/X/d, G/1099/X, G/0698/X, 

G/0831/X, G/0917/X, H/0220/X, 

H/0497/X, H/0941/X, H/0959/X, 

J/1051/X, J/1058/X, P/1066/X, 

P/1239/X, Q/0707/X, V/1172/X, 

V/0207/X, W/1000/X, W/1102/X/d, 

W/1151/X, W/1217/X, W/1287/X, 

W/1319/, W/0096/X, W/0194/X, 

W/0217/X, W/0239/, W/0255/X, 

W/0297/X, W/0708/X/d, 

W/0770/X/d, W/0817/X, W/1289/X, 

X/1067/X, X/0784/X. 

One over-riding concern … is the apprently equal status it accords to those seking 

access on foot, by bicycle and on horseback. … Given the potential for causing damage 

to fragile areas particularly from horses, but also from cycles, these classes <strong>of</strong> users 

need to be subject to a far more robust approach. (B/1025/X) 

Does that mean that horse riders can go through our fields making huge divots when in 

actual fact we take our cattle out so not to poach the land and what is to stop people 

from letting their horses graze the grass when going through saving them from feeding 

costs. (B/0314/X) 

Horses and cycles can damage grazing land if they take access when it is s<strong>of</strong>t after 

rainfall, and although this is touched on in paragaraph 3.6, the lack <strong>of</strong> emphasis on how 

serious it could become is unacceptable. (B/0465/X) 

Cycling and horse riding round margins could have a damaging effect on the rearing <strong>of</strong> 

game species. (W/0641/X) 

Observations such as "cycling and horse riding can have more severe impacts on s<strong>of</strong>t or 

wet ground than walking" are wholly inadequate. Given the widespread ignorance 

amongst the general public, it is vital that clear examples are given <strong>of</strong> unreasonable 

interference (W/0986/X) 

Where there are references to 'limiting' access, the code should clearly state that Act 

does not allow landowners to fully close their land. (A/0958/X) 

The code may give adequate advice for most farm field operations but not where stock is 

being moved. More advice is needed on this point. (B/0446/X) 

The Code to make greater reference to the 'open hill' or to 'fields and open land'. Needs 

to be more balanced. Open hills references need to be expanded - guidance needs to 

be provided on responsibilities on all and where livestock, especially pregnant ewes, 

ewes and young lambs and cows and calves are present . ... statements should refer to 

land where livestock - not fields. (H/0959/X) 

Under ….the section referring to 'Passing through fields' …..suggest that golf courses 

are specifically included in the same advice to clearly outline both the restrictions and 

options for access. (J/1051/X) 

Maybe those exercising their access rights should have to pass an exam in responsible 

behaviour in the countryside and be certificated. (W/1151/X) 

…the commercial growing <strong>of</strong> lawn turf … presents a situation which might be covered in 

the table. It is a particularly valuable crop and easily damaged, especially when recently 

sown or wet. I think it should be treated like other, non-grass crops and not walked over. 

(W/0194/X) 

115

Summary – 


The vast majority <strong>of</strong> <strong>representations</strong> expressed strong concerns that the draft Code needed considerable improvements to the advice on exercising rights 

through fields, with only a minority <strong>of</strong> respondents feeling that the guidance was sensible and well balanced, or was over-restrictive. 


In considering these issues, the assessment covers livestock and crops separately. 

Livestock - The key issues raised were related to concerns about: 

• the potential injuries to users, e.g. from suckler cows; 

• injuries to livestock, e.g. from disturbance before and at lambing time; 

• risks associated with other livestock, such as deer (stags and hinds) and horses (including aggression between grazing and visiting animals); and 

• disturbance to livestock on open land. 

Many land managers echoed the line taken by NFU Scotland that people should be physically separated from livestock. Those who expressed these 

concerns preferred to have users restricted to paths, particularly when accompanied by dogs, at crucial times <strong>of</strong> the year. From land managing interests, 

there was a strong wish for people and livestock to be separated as they are felt to be incompatible. There was a particular concern that cattle can react 

aggressively in certain circumstances, especially in the presence <strong>of</strong> dogs, with the potential for injuries or even death to users highlighted. 

Fields <strong>of</strong> crops - The key issues raised included: 

• the damage that walkers, cyclists and horse riders could do to crops where these crops are planted right up to the edge <strong>of</strong> fields or if attempting to 

use tramlines or other spaces between crops (even though crops are exempt from the right <strong>of</strong> access); 

• the damage that walkers, cyclists and horse riders could do to grass crops grown for hay and silage during all stages <strong>of</strong> growth, i.e. from newly 

sown to that rolled for cutting and not just at late growth stage; 

• concerns that many people are unable to discriminate between grass types and that the proposed "ankle height" measure is impractical due to 

physical differences between people and different crop heights at cutting times around the country; 

• cumulative horse damage to fields during very wet weather, especially where land managers have removed livestock to protect grass and soil; and 

• damage and disturbance to wildlife in field margins, particularly from cyclists and horse riders. 

In general, many land managers wished people and crops to be separated, with more encouragement to use paths for taking access. 

116


Livestock - The starting point for addressing the concerns is that access rights will extend to fields where there is livestock. This reflects that under the 

present access arrangements, there is already access through such fields with relatively few incidents. However, changes to the Proposed Code do reflect 

many <strong>of</strong> the wider issues raised, including: 

• spelling out the issues, especially hazards and risks more clearly, with more advice on when and why cattle (and other stock) might react 

aggressively; 

• mentioning <strong>of</strong> other animals, such as deer and horses; 

• that dog owners should look at alternative routes before entering fields <strong>of</strong> livestock, and that when in such a field, dogs should be kept under close 

control and let go if cattle become threatening; and 

• stressing that for livestock on open land, disturbance can be avoided by giving them a wide birth and keeping dogs under control. 

Fields <strong>of</strong> crops - Advice has been added to the Proposed Code to reflect comments by advancing: 

• avoiding crop damage by encouraging people to use paths where they exist; and 

• keeping to the field margins if no paths exist but minimising damage where the field margin is narrow. 

Section 5 <strong>of</strong> the Proposed Code has also been strengthened to provide further practical advice on these issues. In making these changes, SNH considers 

that the balance between the interests <strong>of</strong> those exercising access rights and <strong>of</strong> the land manager has been maintained in the Proposed Code. Concerns 

raised in a few <strong>representations</strong> that the advice in the draft Code was overly restrictive have been rejected (i.e. that there was too much emphasis on 

keeping to paths; and that there should be more emphasis on access in fields where crops are not growing). 

Clearly, the access education programme will also play an important role in supporting this section <strong>of</strong> the Code through action on appropriate signage and 

provision <strong>of</strong> information, and encouraging farmers to devise farm access plans. A good core path network will also help to integrate access and land 

management. 

117


14 - The Code stresses the need to take care whilst enjoying the natural and cultural 

heritage. Do you think the guidance strikes a fair balance between protecting this 

resource and encouraging people to enjoy and appreciate it? If you don’t think that 

the balance is fair, please explain why. 


14a. the guidance strikes 

the right balance 

14b. No – the balance is 

wrong, the Code puts too 

many restrictions on 

public access 

A/0009/X, A/0425/X, A/0442/X, 

A/0471/X/d, A/0518/X, A/0821/X/d, 

A/0825/X, A/1084/X, A/0740/X, 

A/0719/X/d, A/0319/X, B/0794/X, 

B/0772/X, B/1114/X/d, B/0565/X, 

B/0300/X/d, E/0616/X, E/1246/X, 

G/0189/X, G/0806/X, G/0785/X, 

H/0460/X, H/1179/X, L/0439/X, 

P/0642/X, P/0646/X, P/0643/X, 

P/1060/X, P/0576/X, P/1219/X, 

P/0384/X, P/1275/X, P/1275/X, 

Q/0232/X, Q/0264/X, Q/0445/X, 

Q/1122/X, Q/1178/X, Q/0686/X, 

Q/0697/X/d, U/0922/X, V/0207/X, 

W/0003/X, W/0017/X, W/0021/X, 

W/0056/X/d, W/0194/X, W/0182/X, 

W/0246/X, W/0108/X/d, W/0100/d, 

W/0095/X, W/0423/X, W/0112/X, 

W/0143/X, W/0644/X, W/1032/X, 

W/1151/X, W/0972/X, W/0669/X/d, 

W/1007/X, W/0359/X, W/1235/X, 

W/0391/X, W/1373/. 

A/0927/X, G/0917/X, G/1044/X, 

G/1291/X, G/1330/X/d, G/1214/X, 

L/0153/, R/1278/X. 



The Code does strike a fair balance between protection <strong>of</strong> the environment and 

responsible access. (A/0471/X/d) 

The guidance on Cultural & Natural Heritage is basic but good (A/0740/X) 

Yes, if heeded. (B/0300/X/d). 

The code appears satisfactory in this matter. (E/0616/X) 

This part seems to be clear and has been promoted for many years through 

mechanisms such as the old country code. (P/1219/X) 

These matters are fairly put and explained; it may be considered too lenient, but I accept 

the statements. (W/0143/X) 

The guidance is not clear and does not strike a balance… written in a negative way and 

gives very little encouragement for people to enjoy and appreciate their natural 

heritage… It could be argued that by simply walking across vegetation those plants that 

are actually trodden upon are being "damaged" and wildlife along or adjacent to the 

route taken may be "alarmed". Surely this is not intended... To encourage people to 

enjoy, appreciate and respect wildlife... is best achieved in a positive manner. (A/0927/X) 

If 3.2 is taken literally one would not dare to walk in the countryside at all, so sweeping is 

the wording. We would like a more realistic statement and reference <strong>made</strong> to the 

Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. (G/0917/X) 

Code further restricts dog owners with reference to the disturbance <strong>of</strong> nesting birds and 

the period April to July. The wording <strong>of</strong> this section effectively bans dogs <strong>of</strong>f lead from 

wide areas for a significant part <strong>of</strong> the year…… It is further probable that birds are just 

as prone to disturbance at other times <strong>of</strong> the year and there is therefore a danger <strong>of</strong> this 

118 

366

14c. No – the balance is 

wrong, the Code should 

place tighter 

responsibilities on the 

public 

14d. more guidance is 

needed on protecting the 

natural heritage 

A/0477/X, A/0163/X, A/0362/X, 

B/0028/X, B/0054/X, B/0186/X, 

B/0171/X, B/0254/X, B/0257/X, 

B/0436/X, B/0470/X, B/0472/X, 

B/0480/X, B/0152/X, B/0167/X, 

B/0496/X, B/0633/X, B/0801/X, 

B/0754/X, B/1049/X, B/1199/X, 

B/0672/X, B/1267/X/d, B/1309/X, 

B/1240/X, B/1208/X, B/0288/X/d, 

B/0404/X, B/1267/X/d, E/0523/X, 

E/0516/X, E/0616/X, G/0043/X, 

H/0158/X, H/0515/X, H/0497/X, 

H/1103/X, H/0310/X, H/1348/X, 

L/0125/X, L/0507/X, P/0717/X, 

P/0375/X, P/1272/X, Q/0157/X, 

Q/0517/X, Q/0499/X, U/1172/X, 

V/0398/X/d, W/0641/X, W/0007/X, 

W/0021/X, W/0199/X, W/0173/X, 

W/0435/X, W/0271/X, W/0524/X, 

W/0524/X, W/0635/X, W/0812/, 

W/0770/X/d, W/1112/X, W/0979/X, 

W/1315/, W/0950/X/d, W/1355/X, 

X/0196/X, X/0495/X, X/0784/X, 

X/1174/X, X/0405/X/d. 

A/0098/X, A/0469/X, A/0838/X, 

A/1070/X/d, A/1082/X, A/0671/X, 

A/0291/X, A/0958/X, B/0058/X, 

B/0436/X, B/0488/X/d, B/0118/X, 

B/0275/X, B/0443/X, B/0446/X, 

B/0481/X, B/0139/X, B/0141/X, 

restriction being extended. (G/1044/X) 

...it is important to recognise that natural heritage is robust and that damage caused by 

access is in most cases localised and limited……..any recommendations on restriction 

should be based on sound evidence for its need and should be appropriate….. Some 

impact on the environment is inevitable and unavoidable and should be accepted as 

such. It is important to appreciate that impact on natural heritage from access is in most 

cases unintentional and non-malicious. (R/1278/X) 

…there is little evidence to suggest public access along field margins results in the loss 

<strong>of</strong> wildlife. This is a sweeping statement that utterly lacks credibility. Perhaps there has 

been no attempt to discover evidence. What is quite certain is that horses, at least, will 

damage wild flowers and plant life and they should not be permitted to do so. (B/0171/X) 

We disagree most strongly with SNH that access has little impact on wildlife havens 

such as headlands and field margins <strong>of</strong>ten deliberately left as part <strong>of</strong> agri-environment 

schemes to provide suitable habitat for wildlife. (E/0516/X) 

The Rural Stewardship Scheme (RSS) has as one <strong>of</strong> it's rules a requirement to prevent 

access by the general public to areas allocated to Water Margins etc. The code must 

cover this point to try to protect sites that are <strong>of</strong> specific interest to wildlife. (B/0257/X) 

Insufficient emphasis is placed on the dropping <strong>of</strong> litter and permitting dogs to foul the 

countryside. (B/0801/X) 

3.35 - It would be helpful to remind people that it is not only dangerous but it is an 

<strong>of</strong>fence to leave litter behind. This section could emphasise the point that litter-bins are 

generally not provided and so people must take litter away with them. (H/1103/X) 

More emphasis on pollution in 3.35. (L/0125/X) 

The point is relevant to swimming... and on areas designated as SSSI's, SPA's, 

Ramsar's, SAC's would a seasonal limit be appropriate on these water bodies? This 

would help prevent unnecessary disturbance to wildlife using the water during the 

breeding season. (L/0507/X) 

Much good work is being undertaken following scientific research to correct the neglect 

<strong>of</strong> previous decades including the fencing <strong>of</strong> river banks to restore riparian habitat and 

spawning beds from excess erosion <strong>of</strong> traffic, be it sheep, deer or human. The new 

code has to be specific in recognising such works as areas <strong>of</strong> exclusion for access. 

(W/0524/X) 

Souvenir hunters and users <strong>of</strong> metal detectors must be discouraged…..Human waste 

should be treated no less vigorously than dog waste. (W/0812/) 

There should also be general advice about treading lightly, leaving no traces <strong>of</strong> one's 

visit and treading quietly, respectful <strong>of</strong> the environment. (A/0098/X) 

...worth mentioning that both orange peel and paper, even toilet paper, do not degrade 

readily and should either be removed or buried. (A/0838/X) 

…aspect that requires re-emphasising is the effect <strong>of</strong> disturbance on breeding birds in 

the spring and that access users should remain on paths at all times from April to July. 

119

B/0141/X, B/0525/X/d, B/0510/X, 

B/0510/X, B/0628/X, B/0826/X/d, 

B/0794/X, B/0788/X, B/0760/X, 

B/0613/X, B/1072/X, B/1063/X, 

B/1173/X, B/1167/X, B/1152/X, 

B/1150/X/d, B/1131/X, B/1121/X, 

B/1096/X, B/1093/X, B/1187/X, 

B/0966/X, B/0980/X, B/0980/X, 

B/0681/X, B/0677/X, B/0676/X, 

B/0662/X, B/1295/X, B/1292/X, 

B/1288/X, B/1248/X, B/0574/X, 

B/0538/X, B/1347/X, B/0288/X/d, 

B/0288/X/d, B/0313/X, B/1205/X, 

B/1269/X, B/0937/X, B/1374/X/d, 

E/0921/X, E/0923/X, E/1038/X, 

G/0806/X, G/1099/X, G/0960/X, 

G/0973/X, G/0730/X, G/1254/X, 

G/1251/X, H/0220/X, H/0515/X, 

H/0808/X, H/1103/X, H/1140/X, 

H/1128/X, H/1179/X, H/0988/X, 

H/0674/X, H/1222/X, H/0941/X, 

H/0959/X, J/1284/X, K/0441/X, 

K/1302/X, K/1241/X, K/0722/X, 

K/0714/X, L/0065/X, L/0153/, 

L/0520/X, L/1055/X, M/0852/X, 

N/0137/X, N/0694/X, P/0928/X, 

P/0804/X, P/0642/X, P/1066/X, 

P/1247/X, P/1218/X, Q/0016/X, 

Q/0157/X, Q/0526/X, Q/1111/X, 

Q/1178/X, Q/0739/X, Q/0707/X, 

Q/0707/X, Q/1286/X, Q/0344/X, 

R/1221/X, V/0914/X, V/0975/X, 

W/0014/X, W/0047/X, W/0053/X, 

W/0182/X, W/0214/X, W/0255/X, 

W/0083/X, W/0429/X, W/0886/X, 

W/0880/X/d, W/0130/X/d, 

W/0277/X, W/0457/X, W/0457/X, 

W/0511/X, W/0629/X, W/0625/X, 

W/0800/X, W/0780/X, W/0767/X, 

W/0614/X, W/1052/X/d, W/1166/X, 

(B/0980/X) 

The list <strong>of</strong> areas where ground-nesting birds are likely to be breeding and rearing young 

is far from complete. At a minimum, woodland hedgerows and thickets <strong>of</strong> bushes, 

brambles, scrub etc should be added. (B/0525/X/d) 

There should be reference to the risk <strong>of</strong> disturbing wildlife at night and on places such as 

islands. (E/0923/X) 

Stronger advice is required that disturbance to wildlife should be a concern at all times 

but that, particularly during breeding seasons, recreational visitors should remain on 

footpaths. (H/1179/X) 

It will be imperative, for the protection <strong>of</strong> salmon, otters and freshwater pearl mussels, 

that the integrity and stability <strong>of</strong> riverbanks is not jeopardised unreasonable by intensive 

use or intrusive incursions into riverways. (H/1222/X) 

The information supporting this is not yet adequate and needs to be expanded to enable 

members <strong>of</strong> the public to make decisions. The addition <strong>of</strong> examples relating to animals, 

plants and habitats might be helpful. For example, more emphasis should be placed on 

the potential for damage to fragile vegetation, and that far worse damage is likely to be 

caused by cycling or horse riding that by walking. (K/1241/X) 

The natural heritage section (paras 3.32 and 3.33) is extremely brief. It does not give 

examples <strong>of</strong> the type <strong>of</strong> wildlife that, and/or situations where wildlife, may be adversely 

affected by access. Nature reserves and other areas specifically managed for wildlife 

and the enjoyment <strong>of</strong> wildlife are inadequately addressed. (K/1302/X) 

The Code needs to examine in more detail, and give further advice, on access in relation 

to sites designated for nature conservation interest; and the possible negative effects <strong>of</strong> 

access on wildlife over time. … This should include fish - particularly at spawning times 

in small burns, and to avoid pollution people should be encouraged to take their litter 

away and dispose <strong>of</strong> it responsibly ideally at a recycling point. (P/1247/X) 

...the few individual landowners in the area did however raise concerns which were 

principally about control and protection <strong>of</strong> areas designated as SSSIs and SAC's where 

excessive and free ranging traffic <strong>of</strong> horse and pedestrian could have a devastating 

effect on the flora <strong>of</strong> such areas. (Q/0344/X) 

Include a statement on the collection <strong>of</strong> geological specimens and fossils (para 5 <strong>of</strong> 

covering letter.) (Q/0707/X) 

In paragraphs 3.35 and 3.36, there should be some recognition that in many parts <strong>of</strong> the 

Highlands private domestic water supplies are still taken straight <strong>of</strong>f the hill without 

further purification. Picnickers and campers from more developed regions do not always 

appreciated the pollution risk. (W/1016/X) 

...fire was possibly one <strong>of</strong> the most serious threats to the natural environment, this 

matter should be given more prominence in the code. (X/1385/X) 

However I failed to find reference to not touching or moving wild animals (such as deer 

calves) or wild birds. (X0664/X) 

120


needed on protecting the 

cultural heritage 

W/1162/X, W/1158/X, W/1153/Z/d, 

W/1153/Z/d, W/1139/X, W/1130/X, 

W/1123/X, W/1112/X, W/1102/X/d, 

W/1189/X, W/0962/X/d, W/1016/X, 

W/0735/X, W/0708/X/d, W/1321/, 

W/1315/X/d, W/1227/X/d, 

W/1011/X, W/1014/X, W/1023/X, 

W/0354/X/d, W/1377/ /d, X/0196/X, 

X/0129/X, X/0122/X, X/1067/X, 

X/1115/X, X/0099/X, X/0664/X, 

X/0664/X, X/0664/X, X/1385/X. 

B/0613/X, B/1187/X, B/0672/X, 

G/1099/X, G/0973/X, G/0379/X, 

H/0807/X, H/0988/X, K/0441/X, 

L/0527/X, L/0659/X, P/0491/X, 

P/0575/X, Q/0424/X, Q/1346/X, 

R/1221/X, W/0434/X, W/0789/X, 

W/1112/X, W/1227/X/d, W/0947/X, 

X/0896/X, X/0656/X, X/0099/X. 

14f. other A/0844/X, A/0719/X/d, B/0085/X, 

B/0160/X, B/0634/X, B/0801/X, 

B/0840/X, B/0755/X, B/0731/X, 

B/1267/X/d, B/0558/X, B/0288/X/d, 

H/0615/X, M/0463/X, P/0899/X, 

P/0287/X, P/548/X, P/1237/X, 

‘you can do this by not' this sounds as if care for our cultural heritage is 

optional…….Please make it clear that the activities mentioned in this section are 

irresponsible and incompatible with any rights <strong>of</strong> access. (B/0672/X) 

Many Estates across Scotland have a rich variety <strong>of</strong> historic sites including buildings, 

designed landscapes and ancient monuments, …access to these sensitive sites for rider 

and cyclists should only be on defined paths. (H/0807/X) 

Cultural heritage is not just about bricks and mortar - it is also about a traditional way <strong>of</strong> 

life such as cr<strong>of</strong>ting - the Code does not attempt to deal with any potential impacts <strong>of</strong> 

increased access on this way <strong>of</strong> life. (H/0988/X) 

Less than 1% <strong>of</strong> archaeological sites are protected as Scheduled Ancient Monuments. It 

should be emphasised here that archaeological sites are fragile. (L/0659/X) 

There is also a case for advice to be given out about curtailing the excessive use <strong>of</strong> 

geological hammers… The advice given in the paragraphs on the Cultural Heritage 

about archaeological sites and the use <strong>of</strong> metal detectors needs to be included in 

Paragraph 3.33. (Q/0424/X) 

Cultural Heritage involving ruined buildings .... is a particularly attractive target for 

youngsters. There are huge dangers involved in buildings such as these though .... The 

landowner is still apparently liable to be sued if a lump <strong>of</strong> masonry falls <strong>of</strong>f and injures or 

kills someone or if they fall. This situation flies in the face <strong>of</strong> encouraging plublic access 

because <strong>of</strong> the risk that irresponsible members <strong>of</strong> the public (particularly children) will 

abuse it and be hurt or worse. (W/0957/X) 

...the vast majority ….. <strong>of</strong> historic houses are privately owned, this fact should be <strong>made</strong> 

clear. (X/0656/X) 

The "natural or cultural heritage" is too vague a term and could be very widely 

interpreted. (B/0558/X) 

No mention <strong>of</strong> metal detecting or collecting stones such as agates which are not, <strong>of</strong> 

course, a renewable resource. (B/0755/X) 

In my opinion all reference to human waste should be removed from para 3.36 as it 

implies that carrying out such conduct is acceptable. (B/0634/X) 

121

R/1221/X, T/0911/X, W/0011/X, 

W/0078/X, W/0191/X, W/0901/X/d, 

W/0780/X, W/0708/X/d, W/1337/, 

X/0727/X, X/0939/X. 

There is very little in this section, or indeed the whole Code, which says to people "enjoy 

the countryside". (M/0463/X) 

...emphasise the hygiene situation around bothies. Also in fragile mountain "honeypots" 

(yet digging up turf would damage the fragile habitat, and is anyway impossible in winter) 

(P/0899/X) 

Although mention is <strong>made</strong> <strong>of</strong> natural history sites, no mention is <strong>made</strong> <strong>of</strong> veteran trees 

which are also ancient monuments. (W/0191/X) 

What can be done under the legislation perhaps needs some more examples <strong>of</strong> 

activities that would be considered responsible - "food for free". (X/0727/X) 

122

Summary – 


About a quarter <strong>of</strong> the <strong>representations</strong> submitted raised concerns about the guidance in the draft Code in relation to the natural and cultural heritage. The 

general view was that the guidance was insufficiently clear, <strong>of</strong> little practical use, and did not do justice to the importance <strong>of</strong> the natural and cultural 

heritage. However, a reasonable number <strong>of</strong> <strong>representations</strong> did feel that the guidance was sensible and balanced and there were also a few concerns that 

the guidance in the draft Code was too restrictive and that, for the most part, the natural environment is resilient to access and there is a danger that 

recreational impacts are overstressed. 

Overall, more concerns were raised about the natural heritage than the cultural heritage. 


Some <strong>of</strong> the key issues raised included the need for: 

• guidance on access along field margins and, related to this, acknowledgement <strong>of</strong> the potential adverse impacts on Rural Stewardship Schemes; 

• more emphasis on keeping to paths and controlling dogs during bird breeding seasons; 

• stronger statements on not causing pollution or leaving litter or dog faeces; 

• more detail on potential impacts on flora, fauna and habitats, particularly on designated sites and on loch shores and river banks; 

• more reference to potential damage by horses and cyclists, and on the impact <strong>of</strong> water-based pursuits on fragile places, habitats and species; 

• improvements to the guidance on cultural heritage, for example, potential damage to archaeological sites; 

• requests for more references to the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Bill and the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act; and 

• more guidance on the collection <strong>of</strong> fossils. 


Although caring for the environment is one <strong>of</strong> the four key principles and one <strong>of</strong> the six key responsibilities in the draft Code, SNH accepts that more clarity 

and detail are needed to help people make informed judgements about exercising access rights where the natural heritage is sensitive, and to emphasise 

the value <strong>of</strong> the environment to people's enjoyment <strong>of</strong> the outdoors. Accordingly, the Proposed Code has more emphasis on: 

• field margins as sometimes being important for wildlife; 

• the need for people to not intentionally or recklessly disturb wildlife (this providing a link to the Nature Conservation Bill); 

• taking special care not to cause erosion or damage on sensitive sites, including areas <strong>of</strong> historic or archaeological importance; 

• taking special care not to disturb sensitive species during the breeding season; 

• following advice to keep to particular routes in sensitive areas in some nature reserves, and for members <strong>of</strong> recreation bodies to respect voluntary 

agreements between their bodies and land managers; and 

• ensuring that people take their litter away with them. 

123

The Proposed Code also indicates that for particularly sensitive sites, there may be a need for further advice to avoid some areas, e.g. a climbing crag 

during the bird breeding season, and that Scottish Natural Heritage may erect signs under section 29 <strong>of</strong> the Act for the protection <strong>of</strong> the natural heritage, 

and Scottish Ministers may respond similarly for the cultural heritage. The Proposed Code also contains more detail on the types <strong>of</strong> species and habitats 

that are most likely to be vulnerable to access. In saying this, SNH recognises that there is no strong evidence to suggest that low levels <strong>of</strong> open-air 

recreation are likely to cause significant disturbance or damage to the natural heritage. Indeed SNH should foster greater engagement between people’s 

Clearer policy guidance is however also required under rural stewardship schemes to avoid conflicting advice about access rights and access restrictions 

enjoyment <strong>of</strong> the outdoors and their concern for its conservation. and the potential for agricultural support payments to be cut in respect <strong>of</strong> land taken out 

<strong>of</strong> agriculture to accommodate paths. Our understanding is that informal access along field margins should not affect agricultural support payments, but 

taking <strong>of</strong> land for path provision may do. 

124


15 - Dogs can be an emotive issue. The Code defines “under proper control” in 

several ways, including not taking dogs into some types <strong>of</strong> field. Do you think that the 

responsibilities placed on dog owners are about right? It would help us if you could 

let us know in your response if you own a dog. 


15a. Yes - guidance for 

dog owners is about right 

A/0009/X, A/0037/X, A/0838/X, 

A/0762/X, A/0319/X, B/0116/X/d, 

B/0772/X, B/0288/X/d, G/0189/X, 

G/0806/X, G/0785/X, G/0973/X, 

G/1214/X, K/1241/X, L/0439/X, 

P/0287/X, P/1247/X, P/1272/X, 

P/1275/X, P/1275/X, Q/0024/X, 

Q/0232/X, Q/0828/X, Q/0686/X, 

Q/0697/X/d, V/0207/X, W/0003/X, 

W/0017/X, W/0194/X, W/0246/X, 

W/0130/X/d, W/0095/X, W/0423/X, 

W/0625/X, W/0800/X, W/0789/X, 

W/0644/X, W/1032/X, W/0977/X/d, 

W/1227/X/d, W/1007/X, W/0359/X, 

W/0391/X, X/0129/X, X/0405/X/d, 

X/1380/. 

15b. No A/0253/X/d, A/0253/X/d, 

A/0202/X/d, A/0430/X/d, 

A/0478/X/d, B/0472/X, B/0141/X, 

B/0167/X, B/0623/X, B/0755/X, 

B/0613/X, B/1068/X, B/1131/X, 

B/0563/X, B/1309/X, B/0406/X, 

G/0657/X, G/1307/X, K/0444/X, 

L/0527/X, P/0643/X, W/0064/X, 

W/0140/X. 



Keeping dogs under control is a most important aspect <strong>of</strong> enjoying the countryside 

(Page 36: 3.37 and 3.38). I agree with all the advice given. (A/0762/X) 

I have three dogs and agree that the responsibilities placed on dog owners is about 

right. (B/0116/X/d) 

Dogs, oh dear! The responsibilities placed on dog owners are perfectly fair but many will 

ignore it since "my dog is alright". (W/1227/X/d) 

There is no definition <strong>of</strong> 'proper control'. Unless the dog is on a lead, or highly trained, it 

will not be under control. (B/0472/X) 

Dogs should always be on a lead where livestock are around. The owners should walk 

along the field boundary and be prepared to leg it over/under a fence or wire should 

cattle/horses/sheep show undue interest or concern. It is preferable therefore not to 

have dogs in fields where there are livestock. It all depends upon the situation and area. 

In a particularly densely populated urban area, the above comments may be valid. In a 

rural area, people may possibly be more relied upon to be aware <strong>of</strong> situations... They 

can be a problem to ground nesting birds and animals and therefore should be on a lead 

during the breeding season. (W/0140/X) 

615 

125

15c. No - there are not 

enough responsibilities 

placed on dog owners 

A/0440/X/d, A/0425/X, A/0469/X, 

A/0163/X, A/0518/X, A/0825/X, 

A/0796/X/d, A/0786/X/d, 

A/1070/X/d, A/0724/X, A/0719/X/d, 

A/0291/X, A/0320/X/d, A/0320/X/d, 

A/0346/X, A/0958/X, B/0020/X, 

B/0028/X, B/0041/X, B/0054/X, 

B/0211/X, B/0257/X, B/0488/X/d, 

B/0884/X, B/0883/X, B/0120/X, 

B/0275/X, B/0413/X, B/0459/X, 

B/0466/X/d, B/0467/X, B/0481/X, 

B/0167/X, B/0525/X/d, B/0512/X/d, 

B/0510/X, B/0638/X/d, B/0633/X, 

B/0826/X/d, B/0858/X, B/0863/X, 

B/0798/X, B/0797/X, B/0794/X, 

B/0787/X/d, B/0783/X/d, B/0754/X, 

B/0754/X, B/0654/X, B/0653/X, 

B/0648/X, B/1033/X, B/1047/X, 

B/1049/X, B/1075/X, B/1072/X, 

B/1161/X, B/1152/X, B/1145/X, 

B/1144/X, B/1131/X, B/1126/X, 

B/1125/X, B/1096/X, B/1083/X/d, 

B/1191/X, B/1176/X, B/0964/X, 

B/0969/X, B/0681/X, B/0672/X, 

B/0668/X, B/0741/X, B/0695/X, 

B/1295/X, B/1288/X, B/1281/X, 

B/1253/X, B/1244/X, B/0569/X, 

B/0535/X, B/1350/X, B/1306/X/d, 

B/1303/X/d, B/1240/X, B/1216/X, 

B/1208/X, B/1002/X, B/0300/X/d, 

B/0306/X, B/0345/X, B/0347/X, 

B/0371/X, B/0409/X, B/1205/X, 

B/0931/X/d, B/0943/X, C/0234/X, 

E/0921/X, E/0523/X, E/0616/X, 

E/0351/X, G/0043/X, G/0114/X, 

G/0166/X, G/1098/X, G/0698/X, 

H/0460/X, H/0462/X, H/0158/X, 

H/0515/X, H/0807/X, H/0808/X, 

H/0915/X, H/0904/X, H/1103/X, 

H/0310/X, H/1140/X, H/1118/X, 

Horse owners would like it included in the code that dogs should not be allowed in fields 

where there are horses grazing unless they are under proper control. (A/0440/X/d) 

As a dog owner I think there should be more emphasis on responsible dog ownership. 

(A/0719/X/d) 

A dog should be kept on a lead in all circumstances in open country or in fields with 

livestock, while not overlooking the danger to persons with dogs on leads <strong>of</strong> entering 

land with stock. I believe that it should be deemed not to be responsible to have no 

insurance for the dog. (B/0794/X) 

Dogs should not be allowed in farm yards or on any field. Farmers who have their own 

working dogs require certificates confirming that their dogs have been vaccinated 

against various diseases, yet this will not be the case with the general public. Dogs 

should only be allowed along farm roads or where there is an established path and 

should be kept on leads at all times. (B/1126/X) 

Dogs should be kept under control at all times and should always be kept on a lead 

when in areas <strong>of</strong> unfenced livestock. This also includes keeping dogs on leads at 

sensitive times <strong>of</strong> the year for ground nesting birds and young deer etc. (B/0969/X) 

Section 3.37 should be added to, I think, to remind dog-owners that from June onwards 

young birds being reared for sport are vulnerable particularly in forests and in field crops 

specially grown to shelter them. (B0668/X) 

dogs can be a major factor <strong>of</strong> disturbance before and during shoot days. Dogs should 

not be exercised unless on a short lead, at any time on land managed for game shooting 

and rough shooting. (H0808/X) 

More emphasis should be put on keeping dogs under proper control in busy places. 

Owners do not seem to be aware <strong>of</strong> some people's fear <strong>of</strong> dogs. More emphasis should 

be put on dog owners clearing up after their dogs... places like car parks and close to 

paths. (P/0928/X) 

There is also a need to make clear that their pets' behaviour can be alarming to fellow 

walkers and possibly dangerous to cyclists and horse riders if the dog is not under 

control. (P/1300/X) 

Allowing dogs to run free on a field margin or in an upland area will have a major 

detrimental impact on ground nesting birds. Ground nesting birds require peace and 

quiet and the introduction <strong>of</strong> dogs to these areas will cause birds to abandon their nests. 

This suggested practice is also directly in conflict wiht some agri-environment schemes. 

Dog owners should be encouraged to keep a dog on a lead in any well used area or 

where there is a potential threat to livestock and wildlife. (U/1172/X) 

To me, 'close control' means in sight <strong>of</strong> the controller AND sufficiently well trained to 

come to the owner when called, every time (W/0182/X) 

Dog owners need to keep their dogs under control and ensure they do not cause 

damage or disturbance - full stop - it’s a simple concept don't complicate it! I am a dog 

owner and I can understand the principle. (W/0708/X/d) 

126

15d. No - there are too 

many responsibilities 

placed on dog owners 

J/1058/X, L/0520/X, L/0647/X, 

L/0992/X, N/0694/X, P/0928/X, 

P/0642/X, P/0646/X, P/0889/X, 

P/0717/X, P/1300/X, P/1296/X, 

P/1219/X, P/0316/X, P/0317/X, 

P/1272/X, P/1273/X, P/1275/X, 

Q/0224/X, Q/0445/X, Q/0501/X/d, 

Q/0499/X, Q/0790/X, Q/1061/X, 

Q/1122/X, Q/1184/X, Q/1178/X, 

Q/1346/X, Q/0357/X, R/0868/X, 

T/0911/X, U/1172/X, V/0398/X/d, 

V/0398/X/d, W/0017/X, W/0190/X, 

W/0182/X, W/0221/X, W/0109/X, 

W/0262/X, W/0457/X, W/0457/X, 

W/0112/X, W/0242/X, W/0530/X, 

W/0511/X, W/0641/X, W/0635/X, 

W/0629/X, W/0857/X, W/0864/X, 

W/0903/X, W/0901/X/d, W/0780/X, 

W/0778/X, W/0770/X/d, W/0767/X, 

W/0143/X, W/0143/X, W/0649/X, 

W/1163/X, W/1162/X, W/1153/Z/d, 

W/1153/Z/d, W/1139/X, W/1123/X, 

W/1111/X, W/1109/X, W/0962/X/d, 

W/0972/X, W/0661/X, W/0746/X, 

W/0708/X/d, W/0703/X, 

W/1260/X/d, W/1325/X, W/1321/, 

W/1225/X, W/1001/X/d, W/1024/X, 

W/0321/X, W/0324/X/d, 

W/0348/X/d, W/0354/X/d, 

W/1235/X, W/1265/X, W/0940/X/d, 

W/0957/X, W/1373/, X/0193/X/d, 

X/0896/X, X/0888/X, X/0122/X, 

X/0495/X, X/0652/X, X/1171/X, 

X/0727/X, X/1298/X, X/1385/X, 

X/1345/X, X/0939/X, X/1380/ . 

A/1136/X/d, A/0369/X/d, 

A/0369/X/d, B/1148/X/d, R/1278/X, 

V/0398/X/d, W/1159/X/d, 

W/1336/d, W/1158/X, W/1080/X/d, 

W/1080/X/d, W/0751/Y. 

In my experience .... the perceived fear <strong>of</strong> infection from dogs and possible worrying <strong>of</strong> 

livestock has always been very much overemphasised by land managers and the 

problem is not as bad as <strong>made</strong> out by them. Any problems caused by dogs is for 99% <strong>of</strong> 

the time caused by unaccompanied dogs and land managers already have legal 

remedies for dealing with such animals. (A/0369/X/d) 

127


needed on the provision 

<strong>of</strong> areas where dogs can 

be <strong>of</strong>f-lead 

15f. guidance regarding 

dogs on lead in livestock 

fields is wrong 

15g. dogs should never 

be taken into livestock 

fields 

A/0440/X/d, A/1082/X, A/0572/Y/d, 

B/0107/X, G/0973/X, L/1026/X, 

W/0056/X/d, W/0990/X/d, 

X/0129/X, X/0099/X. 

A/0259/Y/d, A/0105/X, A/0471/X/d, 

A/1136/X/d, A/0346/X, B/0171/X, 

B/0428/X/d, B/0282/X, B/0443/X, 

B/0446/X, B/1190/X, B/0980/X, 

B/1303/X/d, B/1231/X, B/0288/X/d, 

B/0368/X, G/0917/X, G/0166/X, 

G/0854/X, G/1099/X, G/1291/X, 

G/1330/X/d, H/1179/X, K/1241/X, 

L/0659/X, P/0889/X, P/0492/X, 

P/0899/X, P/1060/X, P/0575/X, 

P/0548/X, R/0549/X, U/0922/X, 

W/0108/X/d, W/0267/X, W/0283/X, 

W/0822/X, W/0872/X, W/0770/X/d, 

W/1111/X, W/1110/X, W/0720/X, 

W/0709/X/d, W/0556/X, 

W/1310/X/d, W/0940/X/d, 

X/0122/X, X/0748/X, X/1212/X. 

B/0171/X, B/0211/X, B/0240/X, 

B/0242/X, B/0085/X, B/0428/X/d, 

B/0638/X/d, B/0830/X, B/0834/X, 

B/0835/X, B/0845/X, B/0859/X, 

B/0862/X, B/0794/X, B/0613/X, 

B/0613/X, B/1039/X/d, B/0956/X, 

B/1160/X, B/1126/X, B/1125/X, 

B/1104/X, B/1093/X, B/1083/X/d, 

B/1181/X, B/0965/X/d, B/0980/X, 

B/0677/X, B/0704/X, B/1295/X, 

I do feel that responsible dog owners are being penalised and will curtail their walking 

which is presumably against the spirit <strong>of</strong> the legislation. (W/1159/X/d) 

Dogs: Evidence indicates that dog ownership tends to promote a more healthy lifestyle, 

though clearly it can bring problems. The guidance relating to dogs is mostly reasonable 

and fair although there is more here by way <strong>of</strong> prohibition (which relies on enforcement) 

than encouragement, which lends an "anti-dog" feeling to this section. (W/1080/X/d) 

Dogs need free running exercise <strong>of</strong>f the lead some <strong>of</strong> the time, where restrictions apply 

could areas be set aside where this can happen. (A/0440/X/d) 

The guidance on dogs is overly restrictive. … many areas <strong>of</strong> open ground are suitable to 

exercise a dog. In some urban areas the only open ground available may be the local 

park, including playing fields and sports pitches not in use. It is far more sensible to 

control the health and safety aspects <strong>of</strong> dog fouling by use <strong>of</strong> tougher penalties ... than it 

is to ban dogs from popular open spaces. (L/1026/X) 

Keeping a dog on a lead in a field where livestock could be aggressive will prevent the 

dog taking evasive action and is dangerous to the dog handler. (A/0471/X/d) 

Keeping a dog on a short lead (less than 2 metres) is positively dangerous advice to give 

in respect <strong>of</strong> cattle, at any time <strong>of</strong> year. (B/0428/X/d) 

For anyone to enter a field containing suckler cows with a dog would be an act <strong>of</strong> gross 

stupidity… The dog owner's only hope… would be to release the dog… and… to retreat 

to the nearest fence or gate. (B/0282/X) 

... what is not mentioned is cattle and horses chasing dogs which in turn can cause 

injury to walkers. (B/0288/X/d) 

However, many sheep are lambed on the open hill, and I can see farmers using this to 

prevent responsible people from giving their dog a run <strong>of</strong>f the lead on moorland or 

uncultivated land. So I think you will have to define what you mean by a "field", or make 

it clear that dogs do not have to be on the lead, except in the circumstances mentioned 

in the code. (provided they are under "proper control") (A/0701/X/d) 

Dogs even kept on a short lead can cause serious problems in hill flocks. (B/0631/X) 

Grouse moors can be sensitive places in August and September and drives can be 

ruined on a shoot day if disturbed by a dog out <strong>of</strong> control. (B/1240/X) 

We would like to see the Code state firmly that dogs should not be taken into fields with 

livestock at any time. (B/1125/X) 

128

15h. more guidance is 

needed about dogs on the 

open hill / uncultivated 

land 

B/1293/X, B/0538/X, B/1328/X, 

B/1240/X, B/0338/X/d, B/0340/X, 

B/0366/X, B/1205/X, B/1267/X/d, 

E/0924/X, E/0616/X, E/1246/X, 

G/0166/X, G/1330/X/d, H/0220/X, 

H/1179/X, H/0988/X, H/0552/X, 

H/1349/X, H/0941/X, H/0959/X, 

L/0527/X, L/1026/X, M/0692/X, 

M/0691/X, M/0690/X, M/0689/X, 

M/0688/X, M/0687/X, M/0852/X, 

N/1138/X, N/1268/X, P/0642/X, 

P/0640/X, P/0643/X, P/0374/X, 

P/1237/X, Q/0091/X, Q/0930/X, 

Q/0157/X, Q/0866/X/d, Q/1178/X, 

Q/1299/X, W/0434/X, W/0483/X, 

W/0880/X/d, W/0108/X/d, 

W/0100/d, W/0277/X, W/0812/, 

W/0903/X, W/0901/X/d, W/0766/X, 

W/1170/X, W/1151/X, W/1123/X, 

W/1112/X, W/0669/X/d, 

W/0709/X/d, W/1289/X, W/0567/X, 

W/0542/X, W/1324/, W/1321/, 

W/1318/, W/1010/X, W/1012/X, 

W/1014/X, W/1023/X, W/0947/X/d, 

X/0639/X, X/1036/X, X/1092/X, 

X/0939/X. 

A/0134/X/d, A/0098/X, A/0098/X, 

A/0821/X/d, A/0701/X/d, B/0032/X, 

B/0049/X, B/0058/X, B/0433/X/d, 

B/0118/X, B/0446/X, 

B/0451/0452/X/d, B/0638/X/d, 

B/0631/X, B/1096/X, B/1186/X, 

B/0670/X, B/0565/X, B/1240/X, 

B/0342/X/d, E/0086/X, G/0082/X/d, 

G/1044/X, H/1042/X, H/1179/X, 

H/0959/X, K/0722/X, P/0804/X, 

P/0548/X, P/0374/X, Q/0707/X, 

Q/0707/X, U/0922/X, W/0021/X, 

W/0025/X, W/0062/X, W/0110/X, 

W/0096/X, W/0823/X, W/0853/X, 

It should be <strong>made</strong> explicit that taking dogs into fields with livestock is dangerous and 

should NOT be done (there is a good argument that short leads increase the danger for 

the owner). This is especially important in Orkney where there is a high density <strong>of</strong> 

livestock and with beefstock, the bull runs with the herd. (L/0527/X) 

I AM A DOG OWNER. I believe that dogs should NOT be allowed in any fields with 

livestock. Even the sight <strong>of</strong> a strange dog can, and will, upset pregnant ewes and cattle 

and horses and those with young at foot even more so. Even the sight <strong>of</strong> a strange 

person can cause upset or attack. NO DOGS SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN ANY FIELD 

WITH LIVESTOCK UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. (W/0100/d) 

it may not be possible to avoid lambs if they are on the open hillside as opposed to being 

in enclosed fields. What is the position regarding areas where they have a blanket ban 

on dogs all year round? (A/0821/X/d) 

Dogs even kept on a short lead can cause serious problems in hill flocks. (B/0631/X) 

Grouse moors can be sensitive places in August and September and drives can be 

ruined on a shoot day if disturbed by a dog out <strong>of</strong> control. (B/1240/X) 

We believe that a dog should be kept on a lead in all circumstances in open country or in 

fields with livestock. (H/1179/X) 

Also there is the problem <strong>of</strong> young deer calves/kids lying hidden in heather and 

woodland vegetation. These can be very enticing to dogs. You don't mention that dogs 

caught worrying sheep can be shot. (W/1102/X/d) 

129

W/1102/X/d, W/1080/X/d, 

W/1189/X, W/0311/X, X/1036/X, 

X/1174/X. 

15i. other A/0202/X/d, A/0259/Y/d, 

A/1136/X/d, A/0753/X, A/0743/X, 

A/0740/X, A/0712/X/d, A/0701/X/d, 

A/0560/X, A/0362/X, B/0027/X, 

B/0178/X, B/0218/X, B/0242/X, 

B/0254/X, B/0918/X, B/0142/X, 

B/0512/X/d, B/0633/X, B/0874/X, 

B/0764/X, B/0613/X, B/1173/X, 

B/1150/X/d, B/1129/X, B/1114/X/d, 

B/1107/X, B/1078/X, B/0752/X, 

B/0738/X, B/0731/X, B/1267/X/d, 

B/1293/X, B/0565/X, B/0288/X/d, 

B/0366/X, B/0937/X, D/0022/X, 

E/0924/X, F/0360/X, G/0166/X, 

G/0759/X, G/1099/X, G/1106/X, 

G/0960/X, G/0736/X/d, G/1251/X, 

G/1307/X, G/0379/X, H/0220/X, 

H/1140/X, H/0552/X, J/1203/X, 

K/1241/X, K/0722/X, K/0714/X, 

P/0274/X, P/0642/X, P/0640/X, 

P/1060/X, P/1066/X, P/0576/X, 

P/0575/X, P/1218/X, P/1239/X, 

Q/0264/X, Q/0526/X, Q/1105/X, 

Q/1299/X, R/1278/X, V/0914/X, 

V/1285/X, W/0021/X, W/0221/X, 

W/0255/X, W/0214/X, W/0641/X, 

W/0780/X, W/0766/X, W/1052/X/d, 

W/1112/X, W/1110/X, W/1102/X/d, 

W/1102/X/d, W/1080/X/d, 

W/1080/X/d, W/0661/X, W/0750/X, 

W/0708/X/d, W/0702/Y, W/1289/X, 

W/1287/X, W/1280/X, W/0561/X, 

W/1319/, W/1023/X, W/1377//d, 

W/1359/X, X/0192/X/d, X/0637/X, 

X/1036/X, X/1067/X, X/1290/X, 

X/0939/X. 

I find the general advice that dogs should be "under proper control" on all occasions, 

ambiguous. If this means on the lead at all times, then that should be stated. 

Ambiguous advice leads to misunderstanding and controversy. I would find a total ban 

on my dog's freedom unacceptable. (A/0202/X/d) 

"Control" is the issue - not how it is achieved - a leash can be an aide or a danger 

depending on the circumstances. Overly prescriptive guidance must be avoided. 

(A/0740/X) 

The various quality assured schemes I have to subscribe to, allow me to market my 

grain and livestock as quality assured. All my dogs are wormed on a regular basis or I 

will lose accessibility to the market place. This does not square up with allowing dogs 

free access to enclosed fields. (B/0633/X) 

I do own a dog and I believe that what you have is about right but it ignores the fact that 

hedgerows and field margins are important places for birds nesting and feeding. They 

should be mentioned in bullet point three. ………it should be mentioned that it is a 

criminal <strong>of</strong>fence not to have a dog under control in a field <strong>of</strong> sheep. (B/1150/X/d) 

Dog Fouling. The dog owner should be responsible for removing the dog dirt and taking 

it to a safe place. This does not include adjacent farmland and it is entirely unacceptable 

to bag the dog dirt and discard the bag in the bushes. (E/0924/X) 

This section could include more educational information on the potential adverse 

impacts to wildlife <strong>of</strong> uncontrolled dogs. (G/0960/X) 

~ No - this is not realistic. Most dog owners do not keep their dogs on leashes over 

open moorland, on beaches or in woodland, as these are some <strong>of</strong> the only remaining 

areas where dogs can run free. The Code should not make recommendations where 

non-compliance is almost guaranteed. 

~ Specifying a particular lead length is probably counterproductive. (G/0379/X) 

There is confusion over the issue <strong>of</strong> dogs and sports pitches. Clearly dogs must not be 

allowed onto sports pitches when these are in use. However the code suggests in 3.37 

that they should not be allowed on to sports pitches at any time on disease prevention 

grounds and then in 3.38 suggests (reasonably) that dog faeces should be removed by 

owners from sports pitches. (W/1080/X/d) 

The advice given about dogs on short leads with sheep is correct. However the advice 

for dogs and cattle is that the two should never meet. What about grassland as a habitat 

for breeding birds as well. It must be remembered that having a dog is the biggest 

reason for taking access; safety issues and health benefits <strong>of</strong> getting out and about. 

(X/1067/X) 

The Dog Fouling Act comes into play in October 2003 and it will be an <strong>of</strong>fence for 

owners not to clear-up after their dogs in all public places. For some reason agricultural 

130

fields are exempt from this requirement but with health and safety concerns, the Code 

should encourage owners to "clean-up" in all public places. This Act should be 

highlighted. (X/0939/X) 

131

Summary – 


Close on half <strong>of</strong> the responses to the consultation – across the range <strong>of</strong> respondent types - commented on this issue. Although there were some concerns 

that there were too many restrictions on dogs (and that there was a need for the Code to explain the importance <strong>of</strong> dogs to people’s mental and physical 

health, and the need for space to exercise them), in general, the overwhelming message in responses was that not enough responsibilities were placed on 

dog owners. 


Concerns on responsibilities placed on dog owners included the need for: 

• clear references to other statutes, for example, the Dog Fouling (Scotland) Act, 2003 and the Dogs (Protection <strong>of</strong> Livestock) Act, 1953; 

• more guidance to protect wildlife, particularly along some field margins, and more emphasis on possible disturbance to ground nesting birds in the 

breeding season; 

• more guidance on dog control in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> crops, particularly grass for hay and silage, and for fruit and vegetables; 

• more guidance on dogs and livestock, with specific requests that dogs and livestock should be kept separate, but also the need for better guidance 

on what to do to avoid attention or injury by cattle; and 

• detail on controlling dogs, including in relation to enjoyment <strong>of</strong> other activities, e.g. walking, cycling, horse riding, fishing, golf, shooting, and in 

relation to pheasant rearing. 

In contrast to these needs, there were also concerns that access to urban green spaces, open pasture land and upland and moorland would be denied to 

dog walkers, with no useful alternatives provided. 


In assessing these comments, our starting point is that access rights extend to people with dogs provided that the dogs are under proper control and it must 

be remembered that up to 20% <strong>of</strong> all walks in the countryside are by people with dogs. Being accompanied by their dog is part <strong>of</strong> people’s enjoyment, it 

may be the reason for them being in the outdoors and is <strong>of</strong>ten a means <strong>of</strong> helping people feel secure in taking recreational exercise. Also, these visits 

generally do not cause problems and the draft Code is already strong on this matter. However, the Proposed Code has addressed some concerns by 

providing: 

• clarification <strong>of</strong> “under close control” e.g. responding to its owners commands to ensure it will return on call and will walk to heel; 

• a reference to the need to worm dogs regularly; 

• more detailed guidance for being with a dog in certain situations e.g. in areas where there is livestock; and 

• more advice on the importance <strong>of</strong> faeces removal in the minimising <strong>of</strong> disease, particularly in public open spaces. 

132

In making this advice in the Proposed Code, it is acknowledged that there are few incidents even where existing paths run through fields <strong>of</strong> livestock and 

that complete avoidance <strong>of</strong> such fields will not always be possible nor necessary. Whilst the Proposed Code has, as far as possible, reflected the 

concerns raised, SNH also recognises the need for specific action under the access education programme - particularly on dog training and on promoting 

better awareness <strong>of</strong> the impact <strong>of</strong> dogs on livestock, wildlife, food crops, and other users. 

133


16 - Do you think that the guidance for the organisers <strong>of</strong> groups and events, 

particularly the distinction between when to talk to land managers and when to obtain 

their permission, is reasonable? If you don’t, please explain why. 


16a. Yes – the guidance 

on groups and events is 

about right 

16b. No – the guidance 

on groups and events 

needs to be stronger 

A/0009/X, A/0319/X, A/0518/X, 

A/1363/X, A/0825/X, B/1114/X/d, 

B/0028/X, B/0120/X, B/0300/X/d, 

B/0409/X, D/0022/X, D/0521/X, 

E/1246/X, E/0703/X, G/0043/X, 

G/0114/X, G/0189/X, G/0379/X, 

G/0698/X, G/0785/X, G/0920/Y, 

G/0960/X, G/0973/X, H/0460/X, 

K/0714/X, L/0439/X, P/1247/X, 

P/1272/X, P/1273/X, P/1275/X, 

P/0576/X, P/0646/X, P/0804/X, 

P/0869/X, Q/1178/X, Q/0232/X, 

Q/0264/X, Q/0686/X, R/0868/X, 

U/0922/X, W/1130/X, W/1153/Z/d, 

W/1158/X, W/1235/X, W/1287/X, 

W/1289/X, W/0003/X, W/0017/X, 

W/0021/X, W/0056/X/d, W/0095/X, 

W/0108/X/d, W/0112/X, W/0119/X, 

W/0140/X, W/0194/X, W/0391/X, 

W/0625/X, W/0644/X, W/0972/X, 

W/1007/X, W/1032/X, W/1367/. 

A/0098/X, A/0320/X/d, A/0500/Y/d, 

A/0658/X/d, A/0740/X, A/0838/X, 

B/1039/X/d, B/1049/X, B/1093/X, 

B/1152/X, B/1187/X, B/1187/X, 

B/1240/X, B/1288/X, B/1295/X, 

B/1309/X, B/0054/X, B/0058/X, 

B/0142/X, B/0167/X, B/0288/X/d, 

B/0338/X/d, B/0371/X, B/0404/X, 

B/0419/X, B/0462/X, B/0462/X, 

B/0466/X/d, B/0481/X, B/0525/X/d, 

B/0525/X/d, B/0538/X, B/0558/X, 

B/0563/X, B/0571/X, B/0574/X, 

B/0574/X, B/0613/X, B/0634/X, 

B/0672/X, B/0704/X, B/0711/X, 

B/0772/X, B/0885/X, B/0937/X, 



Yes. Only fair a landowner should be consulted about organised parties <strong>of</strong> countryside 

users crossing their land. (A/0518/X) 

It is sensible for all organised groups to advise landowners/managers <strong>of</strong> their intentions 

(B/0409/X) 

From time to time the Association may organise group activities based at its hostels. 

Where this happens we would find no difficulty in following the guidance set out in 

paragaraph 3.46 <strong>of</strong> the code. (D/0521/X) 

Our experience has been that group organisers have tended to be considerate land 

users. (E/0703/X) 

Groups should always liaise with land managers and the advice given in the draft Code 

is sound. (H/0460/X) 

The guidance given in this section is good. It is perfectly reasonable to expect 

organisers <strong>of</strong> events to at the very least advise land managers <strong>of</strong> their plans. (P/0804/X) 

Our view is that groups should, as is presently customary, always seek the permission <strong>of</strong> 

the landowner. (Q/1178/X) 

Yes. Whenever you take groups onto land it is common courtesy, manners and 

politeness to liaise with and consult the landowners, farmers etc beforehand. 

(W/0140/X) 

Organisers <strong>of</strong> groups and events should be urged to be mindful <strong>of</strong> their responsibilities to 

other (non-participating) recreationalists, as well as to land managers. (A/0500/Y/d) 

...on the point <strong>of</strong> the public liaising or contacting land managers I think the code is too 

relaxed and that in many situations the access taker MUST be responsible for asking 

first. For example - surely any event on someone else's land should have permission no 

matter the scale <strong>of</strong> it? .. safety dictates that any such activity should be risk assessed 

and the business must contact the land manager in advance to gain all necessary 

information. (B/1039/X/d) 

It is not simply the size <strong>of</strong> the group that is important as the frequency <strong>of</strong> visits will 

determine impact. An individual group leader does not know if s/he is the first or the 

51st group to visit a particular site: the land manager may know. So it is important that 

all groups should contact the land manager prior to arranging a visit. (B/1288/X) 

The underlying intention is reasonable but it is sometimes expressed in such wishywashy 

language as to make it pointless. For instance, in 3.44 ".. you CAN do this by " 

leaves the event organiser with no obligation to do anything. (B/0058/X) 

134 

454

B/0956/X, B/1002/X, B/1033/X, 

B/1047/X, B/1269/X, B/1292/X, 

E/1038/X, E/0616/X, E/0616/X, 

G/1098/X, G/1291/X, G/1330/X/d, 

G/0132/X, G/0759/X, G/0806/X, 

G/0806/X, G/0960/X, H/1348/X, 

H/0220/X, H/0515/X, H/0552/X, 

H/0615/X, H/0807/X, H/0915/X, 

H/0941/X, H/0988/X, H/1348/X, 

J/1058/X, K/0444/X, K/0444/X, 

L/0065/X, L/0125/X, L/0513/X, 

L/0747/X, P/1066/X, P/1237/X, 

P/0316/X, P/0375/X, P/0375/X, 

P/0575/X, P/0640/X, P/0642/X, 

P/0643/X, P/0717/X, P/0899/X, 

P/0899/X, Q/1061/X, Q/1122/X, 

Q/1286/X, Q/1308/X, Q/1346/X, 

Q/0157/X, Q/0256/X, Q/0499/X, 

Q/0501/X/d, Q/0526/X, Q/0697/X/d, 

Q/0739/X, Q/0739/X, Q/0856/X, 

U/1172/X, U/1172/X, V/0245/X, 

V/0245/X, W/1048/X, W/1102/X/d, 

W/1111/X, W/1112/X, W/1139/X, 

W/1189/X, W/1227/X/d, 

W/1310/X/d, W/1316/, W/1321/, 

W/1329/X, W/0021/X, W/0080/X, 

W/0124/X, W/0143/X, W/0214/X, 

W/0217/X, W/0246/X, W/0246/X, 

W/0354/X/d, W/0354/X/d, 

W/0359/X, W/0411/X, W/0423/X, 

W/0457/X, W/0555/X, W/0566/X, 

W/0669/X/d, W/0709/X/d, 

W/0766/X, W/0766/X, W/0770/X/d, 

W/0817/X, W/0822/X, W/0848/X, 

W/0873/X, W/0880/X/d, W/1373/, 

W/0950/X/d, W/0991/X, X/1067/X, 

X/1174/X, X/1212/X, X/1290/X, 

X/1385/X, X/0405/X/d, X/0637/X, 

X/0664/X, X/0727/X, X/0784/X, 

X/0939/X. 

We believe that the Code should require permission be sought for groups and events in 

all circumstances. (E/0616/X) 

...in 3.39 it refers to "canoeists on a club outing will normally create no problems". That 

is really only true if it is occasional and the only canoes. Likewise the Code fails to 

mention in 3.39 that small groups can also cause disturbance or damage if they have a 

high frequency. In 3.40 again it should include frequency <strong>of</strong> events. The cumulative 

impact is also missing from 3.43. (H/1348/X) 

We believe that the Code needs to give examples <strong>of</strong> the kind <strong>of</strong> commercial activities 

which are not acceptable under the Act and Code, such as retail ventures, and that there 

might be a numbers limit imposed on those taking access for what might be deemed 

"acceptable" commercial purposes. (L/0747/X) 

Land managers should be consulted and if the land is showing visible signs <strong>of</strong> 

deterioration, or if land management operations are being seriously impacted, due to 

high levels <strong>of</strong> usage, then there should be some recourse to limit access until the land 

has recovered and/or alternative solutions found. This should not give rights to land 

managers to manage access but equally groups needs to ensure that they are not being 

irresponsible collectively. There should be an emphasis on mutual co-operation. The 

term "sponsored walks" should be included. (P/0899/X) 

Events - stresses liaison before events, but also include reference to liaison after events 

so that organisers can make any necessary improvements in the future. (W/1189/X) 

16. No. I feel that for groups over 8-10 in number permission should always be asked 

well in advance - large groups imply more noise, litter, disruption and general 

disturbance. (W/0770/X/d) 

135

16c. No – the guidance 

on groups and events is 

too restrictive 

16d. there is a need for 

more clarity regarding 

talking to land managers / 

seeking permission 

A/0425/X, B/0118/X, B/0937/X, 

D/1340/X, D/1340/X, V/1071/X, 

V/1228/X, W/1370/, X/1339/X, 

X/1339/X. 

A/1037/X, A/1326/X, A/0162/X, 

A/0437/X, A/0442/X, B/1072/X, 

B/1146/X, B/1150/X/d, B/1164/X, 

B/1240/X, B/0142/X, B/0347/X, 

B/0443/X, B/0510/X, B/0668/X, 

B/0733/X, B/0738/X, B/0741/X, 

B/0754/X, B/0755/X, B/0834/X, 

B/0980/X, E/0086/X, G/1098/X, 

I think contacting land managers in 3.42 is unnecessarily bureaucratic. (A/0425/X) 

3.4: The wording, "turn up unannounced" has negative connotations and is therefore 

inappropriate). ..…. In paragraph 3.42 it does not seem necessary to distinguish Duke <strong>of</strong> 

Edinburgh from other similar groups. Paragraph 3.43 When organising an event, 

permission should be obtained from the relevant landowners only. 3.45 and 3.46 .... Are 

these business / centres significantly distinct in their purpose and should the advice be 

merged? (B/0937/X) 

...this section would make more sense if the advice is to: - group organisers <strong>of</strong> whatever 

type - event organisers <strong>of</strong> whatever type, rather than the current layout which 

unnecessarily spotlights certain types <strong>of</strong> groups. For example: There is no need for 

distinguishing between groups be they school, Duke <strong>of</strong> Edinburgh, adventure activities, 

etc. It is the impact on the land that is important. (D/1340/X) 

Adventure Sports Groups, etc. There are a number <strong>of</strong> implications which need to be 

dealt with here. The exhortation to undertake a risk assessment is outwith the scope <strong>of</strong> 

the Land Reform (Scotland) Act and is indeed covered in existing Health & Safety 

legislation and in particular the Activity Centres (Young Person's Safety) Act. Any such 

statements should be removed from the Code. Anyone leading school groups should be 

appropriately trained and qualified to do so and should not need to follow the 'advice' <strong>of</strong> 

a land manager.Indeed to do so diminishes the general right <strong>of</strong> access enjoyed by all 

other citizens. This is clearly inequitable and contravenes the Act. Furthermore the 

irony in stating that groups such as those on the Duke <strong>of</strong> Edinburgh's Award Scheme 

(which generally travel without a qualified adult leader present) should be subject to less 

rigid requirements to consult with land managers, etc, is astonishing! All safety issues 

are the responsibility <strong>of</strong> group organisers and outwith the scope <strong>of</strong> the Land Reform Act. 

All such references, and specific mention <strong>of</strong> groups such as the Duke <strong>of</strong> Edinburgh's 

Award should be removed. Concerns about the size <strong>of</strong> groups or impact on natural or 

cultural heritage are addressed elsewhere in the Code and do not need to be restated 

here specifically for school and other groups. Section 3.47 suggests that surveys for an 

educational purpose may 'alarm' those living nearby. This seems to be an 

overstatement <strong>of</strong> any likely reaction to such activities and this statement should be 

removed or modified. Informing a land manager about such activities is <strong>of</strong> course a 

matter <strong>of</strong> courtesy and mention <strong>of</strong> this is <strong>made</strong> elsewhere in the Code. (V/1228/X) 

There seem to be four possible actions required namely (I) listening to advice, (ii) 

following advice, (iii) listening to concerns and (iv) obtaining permission. This may lead 

to confusion and it strikes me the first three could be rationalised. It is unclear with 

respect to school trips what is to happen if consensus cannot be reached. (A/0437/X) 

The guidance for commercial and group activities is too general and in many instances 

leaves it at the discretion <strong>of</strong> the access taker as to whether to seek approval for access. 

…… it implies that a commercial operator could pr<strong>of</strong>it from causing damage through 

regular use on paths/roads and be under no obligation to seek permission for access or 

136

16e. commercial 

operators must seek 

G/1251/X, G/1254/X, G/1291/X, 

G/0393/X, G/0759/X, G/0920/Y, 

G/1099/X, H/1103/X, H/0130/X, 

H/0220/X, H/0674/X, H/0808/X, 

J/1058/X, K/1241/X, L/0513/X, 

N/0694/X, P/1219/X, P/1275/X, 

P/0548/X, Q/0157/X, Q/0707/X, 

R/1278/X, T/0911/X, U/0922/X, 

V/0207/X, W/1112/X, W/1141/X, 

W/1280/X, W/1329/X, W/0182/X, 

W/0573/X, W/0947/X, X/0099/X, 

X/0149/X, X/0946/X/d. 

A/0838/X, B/1005/X, B/1144/X, 

B/1210/X, B/1309/X, B/0211/X, 

contribute to maintenance..... For instance there is a major conflict between salmon 

fishing, which is a major source <strong>of</strong> income to most estates, and the introduction <strong>of</strong> 

canoeing particularly on rivers where there was previously no right <strong>of</strong> navigation. 

(B/0754/X) 

It should be <strong>made</strong> much clearer when permission has to be sought for an event. In the 

event <strong>of</strong> permission being refused for no good reason, there should be an appeal facility. 

(G/1251/X) 

It seems that the advice in this paragraph is aimed at groups visiting estates or farms as 

an end, rather than simply passing through en route, and this should be clarified. 

(G/0920/Y) 

What should happen if an organiser <strong>of</strong> a group or event discusses this with the land 

manager, and the land manager refuses to allow the group access or the event to take 

place? This outcome sould be explained in some detail. (H/0808/X) 

A definite structure/guideline needs to be incorporated for access by groups. For 

instance, for groups <strong>of</strong> 10 persons or above the land manager must be informed. For 

groups <strong>of</strong> 20 persons or above the land manager and ranger service must be informed. 

Clarity is essential for access takers and providers alike. ..... Page 36. Para 3.43 What 

does talk to the land manager mean? Does this mean inform the land manager, or does 

it mean consult the land manager? How soon in advance should this action be 

taken?...... Page 38. Para 3.45 Is it <strong>of</strong> consequence whether an enterprise which 

instructs or guides people in open-air recreation is a commercial business or not? It 

should not be a case that you can show extra care by talking to land managers - rather 

land managers ought to be consulted for all group activities, and their permission sought. 

A system also needs to be in place for compensation, making good damage including 

damage to wildlife and game interests, and undertaking a thorough risk assessment. 

(J/1058/X) 

The guidance for the organised group is not clear enough, nor are the differences 

between access for passage, education, training programmes or recreational activities 

properly appreciated… Access for passage for larger groups representing organisations 

such as military units, schools, colleges, universities, scout/guide movement, Duke <strong>of</strong> 

Edinburgh's Award etc. <strong>of</strong>ten requires consultation and negotiation. (Q/0157/X) 

The area <strong>of</strong> concern here is in relation to small outdoor training groups… Asking 

permission is not always practical and locating the person to ask permission can be 

difficult…It is felt that the code could do with further development in this area to make 

the position clearer. (V/0207/X) 

The code is far from clear as to whether simple "talk" or "liaise" is sufficient or whether 

firm permission is required. The Code should make quite clear that the organisers have 

the responsibility …. (W/1141/X) 

Where activities are commercial, then it is reasonable for permission to be required 

whatever the scale <strong>of</strong> activity. (A/0838/X) 

137

permission 

B/0258/X, B/0404/X, B/0481/X, 

B/0545/X, B/0574/X, B/0613/X, 

B/0787/X/d, B/0801/X, B/0819/X, 

B/0839/X, B/0845/X, B/0879/X, 

B/0969/X, B/1145/X, B/1267/X/d, 

B/1267/X/d, E/0923/X, E/0924/X, 

H/1103/X, H/0310/X, H/0807/X, 

L/0513/X, P/0375/X, P/0491/X, 

P/0492/X, R/0868/X, W/1088/X, 

W/1139/X, W/1163/X, W/1315/, 

W/0567/X, W/0679/X, W/0735/X, 

W/0799/X, W/0951/X, W/0955/X, 

W/0957/X, W/0999/X, W/1324/, 

X/0099/X, X/0405/X/d, X/0495/X. 

16f. other A/1070/X/d, A/1194/X, A/1194/X, 

A/0362/X, A/0469/X, A/0719/X/d, 

A/0732/X, A/0927/X, A/0958/X, 

A/0967/X, B/1096/X, B/1125/X, 

B/1150/X/d, B/1240/X, B/1267/X/d, 

B/1309/X, B/0085/X, B/0288/X/d, 

B/0406/X, B/0443/X, B/0446/X, 

B/0461/X, B/0470/X, B/0633/X, 

B/0695/X, B/0704/X, B/0731/X, 

B/0741/X, B/0761/X, B/0794/X, 

It is quite inappropriate and inequitable that commercial operators should be entitled to 

use the land <strong>of</strong> others for financial gain, without having to consult the land manager and 

without having to contribute anything to the creation or upkeep <strong>of</strong> paths, bridges, etc. 

(B/1210/X) 

It is fundamentally wrong that people should have a right to use other people's property 

to run a business or otherwise make a pr<strong>of</strong>it. If people wish to use land to run a 

business then they can always do so with the express permission <strong>of</strong> the land manager. 

(B/0840/X) 

Businesses organising access as part <strong>of</strong> a money making venture must contact the land 

manager prior to a visit. The Code is unclear on this area. (H/0807/X) 

The potential impacts <strong>of</strong> commercial horse trekking are great enough to require better 

guidance, including inserting into 3.39 new guidance that deals with repeat visits not just 

large numbers, ie if a group is going to repeatedly exercise access rights across land 

then there should be an expectation that they will discuss this with the landowner. This 

should be backed up with a new section in table 5 specifically covering commercial 

activity. (P/0491/X) 

To add insult to injury any increased maintenance costs through wear and tear <strong>of</strong> paths, 

fences etc will also be met by us. This seems to me to be a criminal abuse <strong>of</strong> what is 

meant as a spirit <strong>of</strong> free access <strong>of</strong> individuals. Those wishing to carry out commercial 

activities on privately owned land should be required to obtain prior consent from the 

landowner or manager. (W/0735/X) 

It frankly beggars belief that businesses can operate such activities on other peoples' 

property, causing variable degrees <strong>of</strong> damage, yet the owner or manager <strong>of</strong> the property 

is powerless to take the initiative. The advice given at this section is much too bland. 

Advise the two parties to reach an agreed position before any activity takes place.It is 

perhaps unhelpful to lump education centres together with activity holiday centres 

(Section 3.16). Education centers are seldom an imposition: Activity holiday centres can 

feature at the other end <strong>of</strong> the acceptability scale. Here, the clear advice should be reach 

an accommodation with the land manager before you presume to make free with his 

land assets. (X/0099/X) 

Events. Organisers would find very useful a clear record <strong>of</strong> who owns/works in the 

countryside and clear maps <strong>of</strong> rights <strong>of</strong> way, especially the potentially disputable ones 

near towns and villages. (A/1194/X) 

Commercial Activities - it seems unfair that certain people or groups carrying on 

commercial activities can exercise their access rights as normal, with no requirement to 

bear any <strong>of</strong> the expenditure which might arise as a result <strong>of</strong> this access provision. We 

recognise that dealing with this issue in practical terms may be difficult but we feel that, 

as a minimum, some recognition <strong>of</strong> the potential need to share costs should be included 

in the Code. (B/1125/X) 

Re groups & events - I feel commercial users should pay a percentage <strong>of</strong> their takings 

138

B/0826/X/d, B/0842/X, B/0925/X, 

B/0925/X, B/0935/X, B/0937/X, 

B/0946/X, B/0956/X, B/0956/X, 

B/0966/X, B/0970/X, B/1271/X, 

B/0294/X, D/1340/X, E/0523/X, 

E/0765/X, E/0923/X, E/0984/X, 

F/1124/X, F/1134/X, G/1226/X, 

G/1251/X, G/1254/X, G/0082/X/d, 

G/0831/X, G/0854/X, G/0900/X, 

G/0900/X, G/0917/X, G/0920/Y, 

G/1099/X, H/1042/X, H/0959/X, 

J/1058/X, J/1284/X, K/0722/X, 

K/1302/X, L/0504/X, L/0520/X, 

L/0976/X, M/1043/X, M/0852/X, 

P/1218/X, P/1272/X, P/0287/X, 

P/0384/X, P/0576/X, P/0899/X, 

P/0928/X, Q/1122/X, Q/0445/X, 

Q/0526/X, Q/0707/X, Q/0707/X, 

U/0922/X, W/1110/X, W/1111/X, 

W/1151/X, W/1153/Z/d, W/1217/X, 

W/1227/X/d, W/0140/X, W/0190/X, 

W/0246/X, W/0255/X, W/0632/X, 

W/0641/X, W/0708/X/d, W/1359/X, 

W/0770/X/d, W/0778/X, W/0780/X, 

W/0781/X, W/0812/Y, W/0963/X, 

W/0971/X, W/1018/X, X/1339/X, 

X/0122/X, X/0656/X, X/0664/X, 

X/0896/X, X/0939/X, X/1290/X. 

towards the maintenance <strong>of</strong> the land, or fences & stiles. (B/0741/X) 

From our experience it is very difficult to talk to Land Managers. We suggest that 

Groups contact Land Managers outlining their proposed activity, requesting any 

guidance that will minimise impact on the commercial land use. Only when there may 

be an issue will the Land Manager respond, allowing groups the opportunity to adjust the 

plan. (G/0082/X/d) 

The Code does not acknowledge that commercial harvesting is allowable with the 

permission <strong>of</strong> the landowner. The Code should emphasise the concepts <strong>of</strong> permission 

and courtesy. The Code should also refer to the existing Scottish Wild Mushroom Code, 

which was put together in co-operation between landowners, harvesters and 

conservation bodies. (L/0504/X) 

Why should Education Centre and Activity Holiday Centres have to take "extra" care, is 

there an implication that such groups cause adverse effect on others? If you have to say 

this we would urge that "normal" care is the wording used. (P/0287/X) 

It may be appropriate to advise people to contact the local authority for further advice on 

these issues. (P/0576/X) 

For such groups and events it is important to stress to both organisers and participants 

their responsibilities for the prevention <strong>of</strong> pollution, the removal <strong>of</strong> litter and the repair <strong>of</strong> 

any damage caused. (Q/1122/X) 

Group leaders should be certificated in rural knowledge. (W/1151/X) 

The landowner/farmer may not always have the time to take out <strong>of</strong> a busy schedule, to 

consult with you. (W/0140/X) 

139

Summary – 


The majority <strong>of</strong> <strong>representations</strong> on this point felt that the draft Code could be stronger and clearer on how groups and businesses utilise access rights, and 

on organising events responsibly. A number <strong>of</strong> respondents did consider that the guidance was about right. 


Key concerns raised were related to: 

• insufficient practical guidance on what leaders <strong>of</strong> groups need to do, for example, when to contact land managers if leading a certain size <strong>of</strong> group; 

• clearer guidance on when to seek advice from land managers and when to request permission in relation to different activities and locations; 

• the need for greater clarity on which commercial activities are within access rights, e.g. for commercial horse-riding groups and photographers; 

• disturbance to land management through obstructions by parked cars, e.g. at farm gates; 

• frustrations, particularly expressed by land managers, that businesses could pr<strong>of</strong>it from the exercising <strong>of</strong> access rights by groups on private land; 

and 

• a preference, particularly by recreation groups, that no distinction is <strong>made</strong> between the types <strong>of</strong> groups and events, and that the emphasis in the 

guidance is on the factors to be considered during organisation <strong>of</strong> an event. 


The starting point in considering these comments is that access rights do apply to people in groups and events for recreational purposes and for some 

commercial and educational activities. However, the Proposed Code has an improved presentation <strong>of</strong> the general approach for group leaders, reflecting 

that: 

• larger groups will tend to have more effects on land management and the environment; and 

• permission has to be sought for the provision <strong>of</strong> facilities and services for events, or where disruption is likely. 

The Proposed Code also recognises that guidance on commercial activities needs to take account <strong>of</strong> the impact <strong>of</strong> regular or intensive use, for example, by 

horse riding groups. 

In addition, advice to group and event organisers is included in the Proposed Code on what to do in particular situations, for example in: 

• thinking about group size, its activity and potential impact on land management, environment, other users and local residents, including likely 

pressure points and times; 

• how to influence responsible behaviour by participants and plan for heath and safety; and 

• liaison with land managers, local authorities, agencies and other interest groups, e.g. for conservation. 

140

SNH also recognises that the Proposed Code has to be underpinned by action in the access education programme to influence the range <strong>of</strong> organisers, 

membership groups, educational establishments and businesses affected by the Act and the Code. 

141


17 – A key role <strong>of</strong> the Code is to show the point at which behaviour is or is not 

responsible. Is the test <strong>of</strong> responsible behaviour for land managers - people being 

prevented or discouraged from exercising access rights, or whether actions are 

unreasonable - set too low or too high, or is it about right? 


17a. the test <strong>of</strong> 

responsible behaviour is 

set about right 

A/1084/X, A/0009/X, A/0135/X, 

A/0425/X, A/0437/X, A/0469/X, 

A/0719/X/d, A/0821/X/d, A/0825/X, 

A/0958/X, A/1070/X/D, B/1093/X, 

B/1288/X, B/0028/X, B/0288/X/d, 

B/0300/X/d, B/0347/X, B/0538/X, 

B/0599/X/d, B/0741/X, B/0772/X, 

B/0794/X, B/0874/X, B/0980/X, 

E/1246/Y, E/0590/X, E/0703/X, 

G/1214/X, G/1251/X, G/1291/X, 

G/1330/X/d, G/0043/X, G/0189/X, 

G/0379/X, G/0580/X, G/0759/X, 

G/0785/X, G/0806/X, H/0220/X, 

H/0515/X, K/1241/X, K/0444/X, 

K/0714/X, L/1026/X, L/0113/X, 

L/0439/X, L/0527/X, M/1043/X, 

P/1060/X, P/1218/X, P/1247/X, 

P/0287/X, P/1272/X, P/1273/X, 

P/0384/X, P/0384/X, P/0493/X, 

P/0548/X, P/0576/X, P/0640/X, 

P/0642/X, P/0643/X, P/0646/X, 

P/0717/X, P/0804/X, P/0869/X, 

P/0889/X, P/0899/X, Q/1178/X, 

Q/1275/X, Q/1346/X, Q/0264/X, 

Q/0445/X, Q/0686/X, Q/0697/X/d, 

Q/0707/X, R/1278/X, R/0869/X, 

U/1172/X, V/0207/X/d, W/1052/X/d, 

W/1130/X, W/1151/X, W/1153/Z/d, 

W/1158/X, W/1217/X, W/1227/X/d, 

W/1287/X, W/1310/X/d, W/0003/X, 

W/0017/X, W/0021/X/d, 

W/0056/X/d, W/0095/X, W/0112/X, 

W/0179/X, W/0182/X, W/0194/X, 

W/0214/X, W/0246/X, W/0255/X, 

W/0334/X, W/0359/X, W/0388/X, 

142 



Whilst I would hope that land managers would go one step further from merely 

permitting access by positively facilitating and encouraging access I would agree that 

this should be left to best practice rather than a test <strong>of</strong> responsible behaviour. 

(A/0437/X) 

Probably the test <strong>of</strong> responsible behaviour is set about right (B/0538/X) 

I am comfortable with the definition <strong>of</strong> responsible behaviour by land users. Access 

takers must be encouraged to use paths, and it must be accepted by them that access 

to certain areas should be discouraged on safety grounds. (B/0794/X) 

Yes, this seems reasonable, but the land manager should have the right to direct 

members <strong>of</strong> the public away if their access interferes with the land manager's 

commercial activities. (E/0590/X) 

The test seems to be set at about the right level but its interpretation will hinge on the 

word 'reasonable'. Whether it is perceived to be reasonable will depend on how people 

assess the need for the management pactice in question. (K/1241/X) 

About right. ........ A locked gate impeding access by cycles, horses, pushchairs, etc. - 

there may be a stile or kissing gate nearby but this only allows a proportion <strong>of</strong> those 

wishing to take access to do so. Where there is a field gate across a path it should be 

unlocked and easily unfastened unless there is a good reason for doing so - e.g. the first 

gate <strong>of</strong>f a road should be locked with alternative self closing pedestrian 

(horse/cycle/pram friendly) gate provided. Further away from the road the field gates 

should be unlocked. (P/1273/X) 

This section is set about right. The Code should, however, remind land and water 

managers <strong>of</strong> their duty to give signage guidelines on land/water which lies outwith the 

right <strong>of</strong> access e.g. around farm steadings. (P/1218/X) 

This section is good but 4.7 is fundamental to the success <strong>of</strong> the new access rights and 

in avoiding potential conflicts. Therefore this point should be given much greater 

emphasis throughout the Code. (W/1287/X) 

269

17b. the test <strong>of</strong> 


set too high with too many 

responsibilities placed on 

land managers 

17c. the test <strong>of</strong> 


set too low with not 

enough obligations placed 

on land managers. 

W/0423/X, W/0589/X, W/0625/X, 

W/0644/X, W/0675/X, W/0770/X/d, 

W/0789/X, W/0972/X, W/1007/X, 

W/1367/, W/1377//d, X/1385/X, 

X/0405/X/d. 

A/0320/X/d, B/1049/X, B/1078/X, 

B/1083/X/d, B/1133/X, B/1142/X, 

B/0127/X, B/0226/X/d, B/0288/X/d, 

B/0303/X, B/0339/X, B/0385/X/d, 

B/0404/X, B/0420/X/d, B/0446/X, 

B/0466/X/d, B/0473/X/d, B/0481/X, 

B/0510/X, B/0525/X/d, B/0608/X, 

B/0628/X, B/0631/X, B/0677/X, 

B/0683/X, B/0685/X, B/1267/X/d, 

B/0755/X, B/0760/X, B/0761/X, 

B/0801/X, B/0834/X, B/0835/X, 

B/0895/X, B/0925/X, , B/1375/, 

E/0923/X, E/0924/X, H/1179/X, 

H/0310/X, H/0460/X, H/0808/X, 

H/0916/X, Q/1061/X, Q/1185/X, 

Q/0526/X, W/1052/X/d, W/1110/X, 

W/1170/X, W/0262/X, W/0533/X, 

W/0556/X, W/0708/X/d, W/0812/, 

W/0848/X, W/0853/X, W/0857/X, 

W/0881/X, W/0901/X/d, X/1174/X, 

X/0495/X, X/0639/X, X/0664/X, 

X/0888/X, X/0939/X. 

A/0290/X, A/0330/X, A/0477/X, 

A/0927/X, D/1065/X, D/0022/X, 

G/1098/X, G/1291/X, G/0736/X/d, 

M/0463/X, P/0274/X, Q/1122/X, 

Q/0232/X, Q/0415/X, V/0245/X, 

W/1329/X, W/0198/X, W/0457/X, 

W/0490/X, W/0494/X, W/0498/, 

W/0562/X, X/0937/X, W/1373/. 

To point out so frequently and clearly throughout the Code that interference by the 

access taker with the legitimate activities <strong>of</strong> the land manager is fine, so long as that 

interference is reasonable, yet the land manager cannot interfere even reasonably within 

the rights <strong>of</strong> the access taker? So the recreational access taker's "needs" take 

precedence <strong>of</strong> the livelihood needs <strong>of</strong> the land manager. (A/0927/X) 

It would seem under this new access code that we have no right to ask anyone to leave 

or to prevent any damage being done to the fragile natural environment. … We also earn 

much needed revenue for the estate by shooting over that area through the winter. I 

wonder how this can be achieved safely with any passer-by wandering through the 

undergrowth. If it turns out that we cannot continue to shoot here due to safety reasons, 

then our livelihood disappears along with 4 full and 5 part time jobs. (B/0339/X) 

Too high. … No consideration <strong>of</strong> this question can dodge the difference between the 

situation facing someone farming near a large conurbation and that <strong>of</strong> someone farming 

an open hill farm. ....there is a world <strong>of</strong> difference for the farmer and for his 

responsibilities to access-takers. (B/0404/X) 

…the Code, perhaps unintentionally, favours the access taker, the recreationalist … For 

example, it lists irresponsible behaviour on the part <strong>of</strong> the manager, but not on the part 

<strong>of</strong> the access taker; it states that the manager must 'show courtesy and consideration on 

a personal level' but does not place an equivalent demand on the access taker ... The 

achieve a degree <strong>of</strong> balance, either some <strong>of</strong> the constraining references placed on 

managers should be removed, or similar limitations placed on users. (B/0481/X) 

Too high. If access takers are not behaving responsibly in a context familiar to the 

farmer concerned, he/she should have authority to say so. (H/0310/X) 

I have serious concerns about the act and the code being biased towards the access 

taker. The managing authority has several duties towards ensuring that the access 

taker can take their access. There should be a corresponding duty to ensure that land 

managers can continue managing their land (W/0853/X) 

The Public Access Code always leaves a feeling that the land owners / managers 

always have the upper hand in disputes with the public over access. It is presumed that 

land owners / managers always act responsibly and that the pubic are always 

irresponsible in disputes which is not always the case. (A/0330/X) 

Finally, we felt that some reciprocal responsibility should lie with land owners to indicate 

a reason for restricting access or requiring dogs to be on a lead. (G/0736/X/d) 

Clearly the intention <strong>of</strong> the Act and Code is not to exclude disabled people from this 

provision but the Code certainly does not adopt an inclusive approach. ..… Unless there 

143

17d. the test <strong>of</strong> 


unclear. 

17e. the test <strong>of</strong> 

responsible behaviour 

should be different 

A/1084/X, A/0319/X, A/0537/X, 

B/1096/X, B/1114/X/D, B/1150/X/d, 

B/1267/X/d, B/0167/X, B/0226/X/d, 

B/0409/X, B/0505/X, B/0648/X, 

B/0654/X, E/0616/X, G/1099/X, 

G/0920/Y, J/1058/X, P/0642/X, 

W/1112/X, W/0457/X, W/0708/X/d, 

W/0780/X, X/0727/X. 

A/1084/X, A/0442/X, B/0455/X, 

B/0506/X, B/1164/X, E/0616/X, 

H/1179/X, P/0640/X, Q/0501/X, 

Q/0526/X, W/0457/X, W/0669/X/d, 

W/1370/ , X/1353/X,. 

17f. other A/1326/X, A/0740/X, A/0933/X, 

B/1009/X, B/1347/X, B/0142/X, 

B/0461/X, B/0879/X, G/832/X, 

G/0960/X, M/852/X, P/1219/X, 

P/1304/X, Q/0526/X, Q/0790/X, 

V/0398/X, W/1032/X, W/1235/X, 

W/0018/X, W/0100//d, W/0108/X, 

W/0746/X, W/0789/X, X/0099/X, 

X/0727/X, X/0784/X. 

is specific mention <strong>of</strong> the rights <strong>of</strong> disabled people the Code might be construed as 

sanctioning the continuation <strong>of</strong> current access practices no matter how discriminatory 

they might be. (M/0463/X) 

Under paragraph 4.3 it would be useful if land managers have a responsibility to 

facilitate access by whatever means they have available e.g. by providing signage or 

alternative routes wherever possible. (W/1329/X) 

17(p40) The problem here is the land managers' interpretation <strong>of</strong> what is reasonable .. 

who decides and how? (A/0319/X) 

I fear that hostile land managers may choose to interpret anything they wish as 

'irresponsible behaviour' in an attempt to deny access to their land. (A/0537/X) 

Responsible management <strong>of</strong> land for ground nesting birds would be to discourage 

access near them yet this action is cited in 4.4 as being irresponsible behaviour by land 

managers for access. (B/0167/X) 

I feel especially confused and alarmed by the last paragraph: "modifying your work 

where this is reasonable and practicable". Surely my work as a farmer or land manager 

will come first. (B/0226/X/d) 

I must retain the right to manage the access and ask people to leave (B/0506/X) 

There should generally be more distinction between free access to path networks and 

more qualified free access to working farmland. (B/1164/X) 

... the lack <strong>of</strong> a ready remedy to land managers faced with irresponsible behaviour is a 

real weakness in achieving an appropriate balance between the relative Rights <strong>of</strong> 

access providers and users (H/1179/X) 

...the key test is not whether an obstruction is "deliberate or unreasonable" as drafted but 

whether the obstruction has a "purpose or main purpose <strong>of</strong> deterring the exercise <strong>of</strong> 

access rights", which is a reflection <strong>of</strong> the wording used in section 14 <strong>of</strong> the Act. 

(X/1353/X) 

For the required changes to come about there requires to be a fundamental cutural shift 

within land management circles - for most this will be subtle or negligible but for others it 

may be massive and quite difficult. (A/0740/X) 

... the Access Code comes over as trying to put access rights above all other existing 

rights and unless more balance is put into it, I fear that you will find that while Land 

Manager will for the most part abide by the law, they may not be willing to enter into the 

spirit <strong>of</strong> the Act and the Code and make access work without acrimony. (B/11347/X) 

It is impractical and unworkable for farmers to be around to give advice at all times. 

However it should be stated that NOT taking a farmer's advice particularly regarding a 

potential hazard should be deemed as acting irresponsibly. (B/0879/X) 

There is some concern that the code may encourage land managers to farm closer to 

the field edges therefore taking them outside the access legislation. (X/0727/X) 

144

Supplementary Comments - Does Section 4 adequately describe responsibilities for land 


71 

managers? 



Yes 

A/0163/X, A/0518/X, B/0839/X, 

E/1246/Y, G/0082/X/d, P/0491/X, 

P/0576/X, V/0975/X, W/1001/X/d, 

W/1158/X, W/1337/X, W/0359/X, 

W/0589/X, W/0644/X. 

I found this section to be well written and balanced; the examples given strike me as 

appropriate. (A/0163/X) 

The general responsibilities and guidance set out in section 4 … believe to be both 

comprehensive and balanced. (E/1246/Y) 

In terms <strong>of</strong> content, this is possibly the most contentious section <strong>of</strong> the code. However, 

it is clearly set out, covers numerous areas <strong>of</strong> access and gives a very comprehensive 

list <strong>of</strong> rights and responsibilities. (P/0491/X) 

No 

A/0077/X, A/0098/X, A/0400/X, 

A/0658/X/d, A/0919/X, B/1240/X, 

B/0054/X, B/0085/X, B/0826/X/d, 

C/0070/X, D/1340/X, E/0616/X, 

G/1254/X, G/1291/X, G/0386/X, 

G/0831/X, G/0900/X, H/1103/X, 

H/0988/X, M/0263/X, P/0899/X, 

P/0928/X, Q/0526/X, Q/1232/X, 

R/1278/X, W/1342/X, W/0235/X, 

W/0579/X, W/0587/X, X/1353/X. 

Clauses 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 are too vague to comment. This appears to be a very weak 

part <strong>of</strong> the Code. (A/0098/X) 

I was unable to find a single reference to the rights <strong>of</strong> land managers. (B/0085/X) 

Again, section 4 dwells on land access despite its heading concerning managing land 

and water, and there is really little here about water let alone fishing. It should not be 

forgotten that some managers gain their livelihood from letting fishings, and the last thing 

they want is the public causing problems through unannounced passage close to or on 

the water. If people are advised to avoid walking through crops, it is surely equally right 

that they should avoid damaging the crop expected from the river. Guidance <strong>of</strong> some 

sort is required here. (C/0070/X) 

This section and particularly Access during land management operations refers 

repeatedly to "limiting" access. The Act makes it clear that Land Managers may make 

requests or give advice in relation to those taking access during land management 

operations but not limit. To limit access requires application to the Local Authority. 

When this is discussed within the Code it gives the appearance that land managers can 

remove access rights for a period as a consequence <strong>of</strong> land management operations. 

The guide for land manager action is unreasonable interference in access rights, "using 

or managing you land or water you should not interfere unreasonably with people 

exercising or seeking to exercise their access rights" and "conduct the ownership <strong>of</strong> land 

in a way which is lawful and reasonable". This section should be redrafted to better 

show this balance. (G/1254/X) 

Scottish Disabled Ramblers would like the code to encourage all land managers 

(including local authority Core Paths) to take into consideration the particular needs <strong>of</strong> 

less mobile persons who are reliant on wheelchair or scooter vehicles in order to 

exercise their access rights in the Scottish outdoors. This may include the removal <strong>of</strong> 

man-<strong>made</strong> barriers on suitable paths and to avoid the erection <strong>of</strong> styles or inaccessible 

gates without providing an accessible alternative. If paths are due for upgrading the 

code should encourage land managers to make them suitable to wheelchairs at a 

minimum to class 3 vehicle standards. (G/0386/X) 

Mention should be <strong>made</strong> here that Parliament expected land managers to continue to 

145

other 

A/0290/X, A/0557/X, A/0796/X/d, 

B/1094/X, B/1271/X, B/1295/X, 

B/1306/X/d, B/1347/X, B/0058/X, 

B/0218/X, B/0929/X, D/0350/Y, 

E/0867/X, E/0921/X, G/1251/X, 

G/0900/X, G/0917/X, G/0960/X, 

H/0915/X, L/0865/X, P/1304/X, 

P/1066/X, U/0922/X, W/0812/Y, 

X/1067/X, X/0937/X, X/0122/X. 

support access over land outwith statutory access rights such as farmyards and 

steadings where that access did not interfere with management operations, privacy or 

safety. Encouragement to provide alternative routes would also be appropriate here 

(G/0831/X) 

There needs to be a section added to ensure that land managers and users are aware <strong>of</strong> 

the duties and powers given to local authorities and how this affects land managers and 

users. (P/0899/X) 

I think it is important that land owners / managers' right to stop any access (section 4) 

must be 'watertight' as otherwise it will be open to abuse. (A/0557/X) 

there is a tendency to refer to the occupier and land manager as the farmer. It should be 

<strong>made</strong> clear that forestry and other non-farming rural ventures are equally valid 

(B/1094/X). 

the code concentrates too much on Land Managers as people who are operating the 

land commercially. I do not think it properly addresses the concerns <strong>of</strong> people who own 

land and regard it as part <strong>of</strong> their home. (B/1306/X/d) 

Field Sports - We do not feel that the importance <strong>of</strong> sporting activities to the rural 

economy <strong>of</strong> Scotland is recognised by limiting the comments to these activities to 

section 5. A separate section to the code should deal specifically and in more detail with 

these potentially dangerous activities. (E/0921/X) 

this Council along with most local authorities are a significant landowner and as such 

may have benefited from independent guidance in terms <strong>of</strong> its ownership reponsibilities. 

In particular more detailed guidance on the role <strong>of</strong> the local authority as landowner may 

have been <strong>of</strong> assistance in seeking finance and securing budgets for Public Access 

Projects. (P/1304/X) 

A general point when referring to advice for land managers would be to include "national 

recreational bodies" as a group to consult with as there may not be a local identifiable 

group, or the interest in a site may be much wider than a local one. (X/0937/X) 

146

Summary - 


Many respondents considered that the test <strong>of</strong> responsible behaviour for land managers was set at about the right level in the draft Code. However, a 

number <strong>of</strong> others, particularly land managers, indicated that the test was too high, whilst some thought it was too low, or unclear. The latter point was 

reaffirmed by the mixed views on whether Section 4 adequately described land manager responsibilities. 


Some land managers felt that the test <strong>of</strong> responsibility was set too high and they were concerned that: 

• access would take precedence over the land manager’s commercial activities; 

• the test would compromise their ability to manage land and water and meet responsibilities under other legislation; and 

• catering for all types <strong>of</strong> recreational users would be difficult. 

Respondents also questioned the balance <strong>of</strong> responsibilities on land managers and users and sought greater links between the responsibilities <strong>of</strong> both 

groups. It was noted that those managing land accessible to larger population centres tended to shoulder greater responsibilities than land managers in 

more remote and less visited areas. 

Some recreational interests felt the test <strong>of</strong> responsible behaviour was too low and feared that the Code might be used to deny or discourage access. 

Recreational users also hoped that land managers would take positive steps to facilitate and manage access, and should be encouraged to do so through 

the provision <strong>of</strong> complementary good-practice guidance. 


The Proposed Code has been changed to provide greater clarity on responsibilities for land managers. It clarifies the need for land managers to take 

access rights into account as they plan and undertake their work. Collectively, the whole <strong>of</strong> section 4 <strong>of</strong> the Proposed Code defines responsible behaviour 

by land managers and should provide reassurance that land managers will be acting responsibly if they follow the guidance. 

The need for clarity also emphasises the role that local authorities will play in helping land mangers respond to issues and to facilitate access through the 

provision <strong>of</strong> more paths 

147

Question 18 - Do you think the list <strong>of</strong> examples <strong>of</strong> what might be deemed an unreasonable 

obstruction is reasonable, or too long, or would you like to suggest other examples? 


18a. the list <strong>of</strong> examples 

is too short 

A/0009/X, A/0162/X, A/0228/X, 

A/0253/X/d, A/0290/X, A/0319/X, 

A/0330/X, A/0425/X, A/0437/X, 

A/0471/X/d, A/0598/X/d, 

A/0769/X/d, A/0927/X, B/0733/X, 

B/0966/X, D/0022/X, D/0093/X, 

G/1099/X, G/1214/X, G/1254/X, 

G/0043/X, G/0114/X, G/0698/X, 

G/0759/X, L/0185/X, M/0463/X, 

P/1237/X, P/1247/X, P/1272/X, 

P/0384/X, P/0548/X, P/0642/X, 

P/0717/X, P/0869/X, P/0869/X, 

P/0899/X, P/0928/X, Q/1122/X, 

Q/0232/X, Q/0686/X, Q/0790/X, 

V/0245/X, W/1149/X, W/1151/X, 

W/1202/X, W/1329/X, W/0017/X, 

W/0034/X, W/0053/X, W/0056/X/d, 

W/0095/X, W/0112/X, W/0198/X, 

W/0235/X, W/0388/X, W/0508/X, 

W/0530/X, W/0581/X, W/0610/X, 

W/0746/X, W/0758/X, W/0800/X, 

W/0947/X/d, W/1370/, W/1373/, 

X/1092/X, X/0099/X. 

148 



I would like to see more clearly in your code the intention to remove such established 

obstructions, so as to allow allowing unrestricted access in accordance with your code. 

… a) Extension <strong>of</strong> garden areas so as to exclude access, and perhaps prohibit linear 

continuance b) Nominally charging for access into estates for the sake <strong>of</strong> prohibiting 

access c) Hastily putting fences and other obstructions across open areas in such a 

way as to prevent reasonable access, perhaps in an advantageous direction to the 

walker, or cyclist d) Landowners hastily setting aside areas (such as bypassed sections 

<strong>of</strong> old roads) to use as storage areas thus negating access rights (A/0253/X/d) 

SNH does not, in this Code, even mention shooting and heather burning as examples <strong>of</strong> 

unreasonable obstructions. But many walkers certainly would! (A/0290/X) 

...seeking to reduce or eliminate points <strong>of</strong> access to open country (A/0319/X) 

(Additional bullet) Use <strong>of</strong> barbed wire, electric fencing, or any material in a manner 

dangerous for the public, alongside or too near a path for instance. (A/0769/X/d) 

Warning notices regarding the use <strong>of</strong> high velocity rifles should be removed during the 

non-shooting season. (A/0598/X/d) 

The list is reasonable and cannot be shortened and still be useful. It needs the attention 

<strong>of</strong> untethered dogs being an example <strong>of</strong> deliberate or unreasonable obstruction <strong>of</strong> 

access. Keeping dogs on a leash is responsible behaviour for people taking access 

rights; the same should apply to land managers. This does not refer to working dogs 

under supervision but loose dogs roaming at will that can intimidate access takers. 

(D/0093/X) 

I would like the list <strong>of</strong> unreasonable actions in section 4.6 expanded to include use <strong>of</strong> 

verbal approaches or gesticulation with intent to deter. (G/698/X) 

The ploughing up <strong>of</strong> field margins used by access takers is not included in Section 4.6 in 

the list <strong>of</strong> obstructions and impediments (P/0869/X) 

Under point 2 bullet point 4 - alternatives must be adequately signed and and promoted 

and should be passable (within reason) for the same group that could use the original 

route - e.g. elderly, disabled, young children … You should include barriers that limit the 

elderly, disabled and young children who would otherwise normally be able to use the 

route. NB - Disability Discrimination Act comes into force in 2004 - how does it apply in 

relation to the code? (P/1247/X) 

Other examples would be: 1. The addition or removal <strong>of</strong> a bridge to the section 

"removing a path or a gate, or an access point <strong>of</strong> a river or loch." 2. The non-removal <strong>of</strong> 

fallen trees from recognised routes. 3. We would also suggest that planting crops right 

up to field boundaries would be an example <strong>of</strong> obstructing or hindering public access. 

(P/0642/X) 

435

18b. the list <strong>of</strong> examples 

is about right 

A/1084/X, A/0098/X, A/0437/X, 

A/0469/X, A/0477/X, A/0719/X/d, 

A/0825/X, A/0958/X, B/1049/X, 

B/1240/X, B/0028/X, B/0058/X, 

B/0288/X/d, B/0406/X, B/0525/X/d, 

B/0613/X, B/0755/X, B/0826/X/d, 

E/1246/Y, E/0590/X, E/0616/X, 

G/0189/X, G/0580/X, G/0785/X, 

G/0806/X, H/0515/X, H/0941/X, 

K/0444/X, K/0714/X, L/0439/X, 

P/1060/X, P/1219/X, P/1247/X, 

P/0384/X, P/0577/X, P/0640/X, 

P/0643/X, P/0646/X, P/0889/X, 

P/1066/X, Q/1275/X, Q/1346/X, 

Q/0264/X, Q/0501/X, Q/0697/X, 

Q/0707/X, Q/0893/X, Q/1057/X, 

U/1172/X, V/0207/X/d, W/1007/X, 

W/1032/X, W/1052/X/d, W/1158/X, 

W/1235/X, W/1287/X, W/0003/X, 

W/0018/X, W/0021/X/d, W/0182/X, 

W/0214/X, W/0246/X, W/0255/X, 

W/0334/X, W/0359/X, W/0411/X, 

W/0423/X, W/0457/X, W/0589/X, 

The list <strong>of</strong> examples is very helpful. A useful addition to the list would be examples 

concerning coastal access. Coastal access is very important in many areas and coastal 

walks are very popular. An example <strong>of</strong> unreasonable obstruction would be to erect a 

fence very close to a cliff edge, thereby making it dangerous for the public to walk along 

the coast. A second, related example would be to close <strong>of</strong>f a roadside parking area or 

entry point to the shore, especially to a beach. (P/0717/X) 

There are examples <strong>of</strong> gates, stiles and other means <strong>of</strong> access being desigened or 

constructed - deliberately, or unwittingly - in ways which obstruct access (e.g. ladder 

stiles which are very difficult to use, gates designed to prevent access by cyclists, rider s 

or canoeists). s.4.6 should be revised to ensure that access provisions are suitable for 

all uses, which will be available under the access legislation. (V/0245/X) 

...barbed on top <strong>of</strong> gates, or shooting beside or over a right <strong>of</strong> way, or farm dogs loose in 

the farmyard and not under restraint or control. (W/1149/X) 

As well as the "No Access" signs, is there any chance <strong>of</strong> requiring people not to erect 

"Private" or "Private Road" signs unless the place has a legal reason to be private? (i.e 

the sign should be at the edge <strong>of</strong> the garden and not at the road-end; or the sign should 

specify "no vehicles" rather than just saying "no access". (W/0947/X) 

Reasonable - other exampes may become apparent in time and can be incorporated in 

revised editions <strong>of</strong> the code as part <strong>of</strong> the review process. (A/0469/X) 

Reasonable: yes. Clear and complete: No and it could not be. (B/0406/X) 

I think the list is OK, it could end up very long if you try to cover all issues. .. We have to 

keep all roadside gates locked or we get fly dumping and burned out cars! (B/0826/X/d) 

We believe the list is reasonable but not exhaustive. (E/0616/X) 

All these examples are needed. (G/0189/X) 

The list <strong>of</strong> examples <strong>of</strong> what might be deemed to be an unreasonable obstruction is fairly 

comprehensive and should not be reduced (G/0806/X) 

The list is reasonable in length and gives a broad list <strong>of</strong> examples. (P/1060/X) 

This list is about right … more examples ... will become more obvious after the code is 

implemented and the results examined. (Q/1346/X) 

149

18c. the list <strong>of</strong> examples 

is too long 

18d. some items on the 

list need clarification 

W/0625/X, W/0641/X, W/0669/X/d, 

W/0789/X, W/0972/X, W/1367/, 

X/1067/X, X/1174/X, X/1212/X, 

X/0099/X, X/0405/X/d, X/0639/X, 

X/0896/X. 

A/0362/X, A/0740/X, B/1093/X, 

B/0303/X/d, B/0385/X/d, B/1375/, 

B/0466/X/d, B/0599/X/d, B/0685/X, 

G/0960/X, H/1042/X, H/0220/X, 

H/0941/X, P/1304/X, P/0491/X, 

Q/0526/X, W/1112/X, W/1170/X, 

W/0780/X, W/0812/. 

A/1070/X/d, A/1320/, A/0098/X, 

A/0253/X/d, A/0397/X/d, A/0425/X, 

A/0437/X, A/0442/X, A/0518/X, 

A/0557/X, A/0719/X/d, A/0723/X, 

A/0732/X, A/0820/X, A/0927/X, 

A/0967/X, B/1133/X, B/1142/X, 

B/1147/X, B/1195/X, B/1267/X/d, 

B/1269/X, B/1288/X, B/1303/X/d, 

B/1309/X, B/0042/X, B/0142/X, 

B/0167/X, B/0171/X, B/0178/X, 

B/0181/X, B/0218/X, B/0288/X/d, 

B/0342/X, B/0345/X, B/0347/X, 

B/0385/X/d, B/0385/X/d, B/0406/X, 

Especially on land close to urban areas it is vital that field gates on to public roads be 

locked otherwise fly-tipping is a frequent hazard. Even if such gates lead to paths, land 

managers should be allowed to lock gates although the provision <strong>of</strong> a stile could be a 

requirement. (B/0094/X) 

The "list <strong>of</strong> examples <strong>of</strong> what might be deemed and unreasonable obstruction" appears 

to us lengthy and threatening (B/0685/X) 

I do not agree with suggestion that erecting a sign which deters the public from land to 

which they do not have access rights is unreasonable. … Similarly many gates are 

locked to hinder the theft <strong>of</strong> machinery and equipment. Land managers should not be 

expected to unlock these gates and leave themselves vulnerable. (B/0935/X) 

I do not agree with the suggestion that erecting a sign which deters the public is 

unreasonable and it is essential for the avoidance <strong>of</strong> confrontation that suitable signs are 

<strong>made</strong> available to landowners and managers so that members <strong>of</strong> the public can be 

<strong>made</strong> aware <strong>of</strong> where they cannot go. (B/0116/X/d) 

It is not acceptable that land managers are not allowed to leave an animal which is 

known to be dangerous in a field or where there is core path or public right <strong>of</strong> way or 

other well used route. The proper rotation <strong>of</strong> fields on a farm may require a bull to be 

with cows and although dairy bulls (the most vicious) are seldom in the open it cannot be 

right that the normal agricultural practices <strong>of</strong> an area are restricted. (H/1042/X) 

Unbelievable! this sounds like the outline for a police state where no landmanager could 

ever be sure that someone was not about to prosecute him for some oversight or other 

(W/0812/) 

The list should make some reference to cycling, horse riding and disabled access so 

land managers realise it is more than just walking. However, the range <strong>of</strong> examples is 

good (A/1070/X/d) 

'Navigable' needs to be expanded. Does it mean average conditions? A river that is 

navigable in spate may be impassable when low. (A/0719/X/d) 

Circumstances may arise where it is necessary to remove a path, gate or access point 

without providing a reasonable alternative, for the better management <strong>of</strong> visitors, the 

landscape, or a specific piece <strong>of</strong> land. This should be permittd where SNH and/or the 

Local Authority agree that it is a good idea. (B/1271/X) 

…farmers must be free to put animals where necessary for good husbandry … 

Permanent signs or notices are quite different from temporary ones, which have a clear 

role in deterring access for specific reasons for specific periods. (B/0347/X) 

No, because unless there are actual examples, it is difficult to know what is and is not 

150

B/0443/X, B/0446/X, B/0510/X, 

B/0599/X/d, B/0613/X, B/0663/X, 

B/0672/X, B/0756/X, B/0772/X, 

B/0782/X, B/0891/X, B/0912/X, 

B/1267/X/d, B/1368/X/d, B/1374/X, 

B/0839/X, C/1384/X, D/1206/X, 

D/1340/X, D/0350/Y, E/1038/X, 

E/0616/X, E/0703/X, E/0867/X, 

G/1099/X, G/1192/X, G/1251/X, 

G/1254/X, G/1291/X, G/1330/X/d, 

G/0040/X, G/0189/X, G/0441/X, 

G/0759/X, G/0917/X, G/0920/X, 

G/1057/X, H/0220/X, H/0220/X, 

H/0310/X, H/0808/X, H/0941/X, 

J/1051/X, J/1058/X, J/1203/X, 

K/0722/X, M/0463/X, M/0852/X, 

N/1268/X, N/0773/X, P/1060/X, 

P/1218/X, P/1247/X, P/1273/X, 

P/0287/X, P/0548/X, P/0576/X, 

P/0643/X, P/0804/X, P/0890/X, 

P/0928/X, Q/1122/X, Q/1308/X, 

Q/0232/X, Q/0445/X, Q/0517/X, 

Q/0707/X, R/1278/X, R/0549/X, 

R/0868/X, U/0922/X, V/0207/X/d, 

V/0398/X, W/1048/X, W/1111/X, 

W/1130/X, W/1153/Z/d, 

W/1227/X/d, W/1310/X/d, W/1319/, 

W/0044/X, W/0057/X, W/0108/X, 

W/0191/X, W/0194/X, W/0217/X, 

W/0221/X, W/0255/X, W/0292/X, 

W/0334/X, W/0457/X, W/0529/X, 

W/0573/X, W/0632/X, W/0641/X, 

W/0770/X/d, W/0812/, W/0901/X/d, 

W/0986/X, W/1377/d/, W/1357/, 

W/1359/X, X/1056/X, X/1353/X, 

X/1385/X, X/0099/X, X/0426/X, 

X/0896/X, X/0937/X. 

possible. Concern is raised about the clause (b) permit to grow any tree, hedge or other 

vegetation. In some areas, Conservation areas, etc, it may not be allowed to cut trees 

and hedges. With other vegetation, it would appear that the farmer may be required to 

keep the path clear <strong>of</strong> normal countryside vegetation such as brambles or gorse. If he 

does not, then the local authority can and recover the costs. The key test <strong>of</strong> whether the 

obstruction/impediment is deliberate or unreasonable is not clear cut. (B/0446/X) 

The list <strong>of</strong> examples is reasonable but these should not apply to "well-used routes" only. 

Locking a gate, storing slurry and leaving an animal known to be dangerous in a field 

should be regarded as deliberate or unreasonable on all routes and not just on well-used 

ones. (P/0804/X) 

...in general, the examples given are reasonable. The issue <strong>of</strong> closure <strong>of</strong> roadside 

parking may be beyond the scope <strong>of</strong> the Act as it referes to motorized access. 

(P/1219/X) 

Bullet 10 should refer to a specific or individual animal known to be dangerous. As it 

reads currently, it implies that cattle (which are known to be dangerous particularly in 

certain circumstances) can no longer be in the countryside. (P/1060/X) 

Do necessary stock water gates across a river constitute an obstruction on a navigable 

river? Section 4.6 (W/1048/X) 

Bullet 2: insert after "locking a gate", "without reasonable cause". Remove the words 

"well-used", (also in bullets 6 and 10 <strong>of</strong> this paragraph). … Bullet 3 add "unless specific 

safety concerns exist". Bullet 4 remove navigable (interpretation may differ). Bullet 8 

add that the local authority must have a duty to consult shareholders. Bullet 9 change to 

"...in a way which unjustifiably or unduly intimidates or deters the public". Insert new 

bullet (taken from 4.19 in following section): "avoiding the use <strong>of</strong> "no access" signs or 

obstructing access by locking gates or other similar measures. There was also a 

suggestion that paragraph 4.7 is amended to read "Many people prefer to use paths...". 

(X/0937/X) 

151

18e. other A/1037/X, A/1136/X/d, A/0039/X, 

A/0097/X, A/0290/X, A/0319/X, 

A/0425/X, A/0440/X/d, A/0471/X/d, 

A/0477/X, A/0487/X, A/0518/X, 

A/0522/X, A/0522/X, A/0598/X/d, 

A/0732/X, A/0753/X, A/0838/X, 

A/0871/X, B/1114/X/d, B/1152/X, 

B/1271/X, B/0058/X, B/0094/X, 

B/0116/X/d, B/0118/X, B/0141/X, 

B/0167/X, B/0314/X, B/0366/X, 

B/0396/X/d, B/0404/X, B/0409/X, 

B/0446/X, B/0456/X, B/0462/X, 

B/0466/X/d, B/0525/X/d, B/0538/X, 

B/0558/X, B/0565/X, B/0574/X, 

B/0594/X, B/0704/X, B/0794/X, 

B/0845/X, B/0913/X, B/0935/X, 

B/0956/X, B/0980/X, E/0516/X, 

E/0523/X, E/0906/X, E/0921/X, 

E/0923/X, E/0984/X, F/0748/X, 

G/0043/X, G/0082/X/d, G/0114/X, 

G/0189/X, G/0379/X, G/0584/X/d, 

G/0698/X, G/0736/X/d, H/1103/X, 

H/1179/X, H/0460/X, H/0534/X, 

H/0615/X, J/1051/X, L/0513/X, 

N/0716/X, P/0928/X, Q/1178/X, 

Q/0445/X, U/0922/X, V/0851/X, 

W/1112/X, W/1139/X, W/1151/X, 

W/1166/X, W/1170/X, W/1198/X, 

W/1209/X, W/1289/X, W/1318/, 

W/1343/X, W/0034/X, W/0071/X, 

W/0095/X, W/0100/d, W/0124/X, 

W/0179/X, W/0278/X, W/0279/X, 

W/0292/X, W/0489/X, W/0566/X, 

W/0610/X, W/0696/X, W/0708/X/d, 

W/0775/X, W/0780/X, W/0817/X, 

W/0848/X, W/0886/X, W/0907/X, 

W/1378/, W/0348/X/d, X/1174/X, 

X/0149/X, X/0664/X, X/0727/X, 

X/0784/X, X/0888/X, X/0939/X. 

...can I ask that blocking <strong>of</strong> paths by stealth is given a mention. Paths <strong>of</strong>ten disappear or 

become less used due to lack <strong>of</strong> maintainence, frequently a Local Authority is the land 

manager. (A/0487/X) 

In reality the impediment may have been put in place to serve the operational needs <strong>of</strong> 

the land manager. It should be remembered that the land manager has no advanced 

warning <strong>of</strong> when a member <strong>of</strong> the public wishes to take access to the land. It is unlikely 

that many <strong>of</strong> the examples quoted would occur unless the land manager has previously 

suffered a bad experience. (B/0462/X) 

Why is there a long list <strong>of</strong> examples by land users but no comparable list for access 

takers? Whilst this guidance is satisfactory, it does imply that there is a major problem 

with obstruction. (B/0794/X) 

152

Summary – 


Many respondents sought clarification on aspects <strong>of</strong> the list <strong>of</strong> examples <strong>of</strong> what might be deemed an unreasonable obstruction, whilst a number <strong>of</strong> others 

felt that the list <strong>of</strong> examples <strong>of</strong> unreasonable behaviour was about the right length. In saying this, many <strong>representations</strong> highlighted that the list was not 

exhaustive, but recognised that it would become very long if it sought to cover every situation. A proportion <strong>of</strong> <strong>representations</strong>, particularly from recreation 

users, wished to see the list <strong>of</strong> examples lengthened, while a number <strong>of</strong> respondents, principally from land management interests, considered the list to be 

too long. 


There was no consensus on this question but some <strong>of</strong> the specific issues raised related to: 

• the need for examples <strong>of</strong> when and where there might be a justifiable reason for locking a gate, such as responding to incidents <strong>of</strong> fly tipping and 

theft.; 

• erecting deer fencing without provision for people to cross over or to get through; 

• use <strong>of</strong> electric fencing or barbed wire without warning or protection for users; 

• failure to consider the full range <strong>of</strong> recreation users; 

• uncontrolled working dogs; 

• failure to take account <strong>of</strong> access when planning major land use changes or operations; and 

• including examples <strong>of</strong> additional obstructions, including those to be found on water. 


In addressing these concerns, the Proposed Code has included a clearer link between land manager responsibilities and the legislation (in relation to 

obstructions). It also has some additional examples <strong>of</strong> unreasonable actions, whilst at the same time recognising that the list cannot be exhaustive. In 

addition, examples are included in the Proposed Code to clarify why some actions might amount to deliberate obstruction (and conversely why the action 

may be reasonable in other circumstances). 

153


19 - Do you think that the guidance strikes the right balance between the obligations 

that land managers have under other laws, the obligations that they have under the 

Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 and the needs <strong>of</strong> people exercising access rights? 

If not, it would help us if you could explain where the balance is wrong, and why. 


19a. Yes, the Code 

strikes the right balance 

between land managers' 

responsibilites and the 

needs <strong>of</strong> access 

A/0009/X, A/0362/X, A/0425/X, 

A/0469/X, A/0518/X, A/0719/X/d, 

A/1084/X, B/1093/X, B/1152/X, 

B/0058/X, B/0303/X/d, B/0409/X, 

B/0599/X/d, B/0772/X, B/0819/X, 

D/0022/X, E/1246/Y, E/0590/X, 

E/0703/X, G/1251/X, G/0043/X, 

G/0114/X, G/0189/X, G/0379/X, 

G/0759/X, G/0785/X, G/0806/X, 

H/0460/X, H/0807/X, J/1284/X, 

K/0714/X, L/0439/X, P/1060/X, 

P/1237/X, P/1247/X, P/1272/X, 

P/1273/X, P/0384/X, P/0384/X, 

P/0576/X, P/0577/X, P/0646/X, 

P/0717/X, P/0804/X, P/0869/X, 

P/0899/X, Q/1122/X, Q/1275/X, 

Q/1346/X, Q/0232/X, Q/0445/X, 

Q/0501/X, Q/0526/X, Q/0686/X, 

Q/0697/X, Q/0707/X, U/0922/X, 

V/0207/X/d, W/1130/X, W/1158/X, 

W/1287/X, W/1310/X/d, W/0003/X, 

W/0017/X, W/0021/X/d, 

W/0056/X/d, W/0095/X, W/0112/X, 

W/0182/X, W/0246/X, W/0334/X, 

W/0359/X, W/0388/X, W/0423/X, 

W/0589/X, W/0644/X, W/0972/X, 

W/1007/X, W/1373/, W/1377/d, 

X/1385/X. 

19b. No. B/1041/X, B/1049/X, B/1094/X, 

B/1117/X, B/1262/X, B/1281/X, 

B/1292/X, B/1293/X, B/1306/X/d, 

B/1328/X, B/0167/X, B/0171/X, 

B/0215/X, B/0299/X, B/0380/X, 

B/0385/X/d, B/0406/X, B/0480/X, 

B/0510/X, B/0512/X/d, B/0525/X/d, 



The spirit <strong>of</strong> the code is fair to both sides (A/0518/X) 

The guidance to land managers when carrying out land management operations is 

reasonable and acceptable (B/0819/X). 

The guidance strikes the right balance. (G/0114/X) 

We feel that the draft Code makes a good first attempt at balancing access rights and 

land management activity. (P/1272/X) 

...the guidance generally balances the differing obligations well. ..there is a need to 

ensure that guidance and working practices undertaken as a result <strong>of</strong> other legislation 

and grant schemes does not conflict with this legislation. (W/1287/X) 

The guidance is very unbalanced. The sanctions against land managers resulting from 

the sweeping enforcement powers granted to local authorities in chapter 5 <strong>of</strong> the Act are 

not matched by a comparable level <strong>of</strong> measures in respect <strong>of</strong> breaches <strong>of</strong> access rights. 

(B/0525/X/d) 

The Tenancy Agreement on this farm states "The Tenant shall not, without the 

Landlord's consent in writing permit any person to enter the Holding … for the purpose <strong>of</strong> 

camping …picnicking... (B/1281/X) 

154 

640

B/0540/X, B/0551/X, B/0558/X, 

B/0565/X, B/0585/X, B/0628/X, 

B/0660/X, B/0677/X, B/0715/X, 

B/0741/X, B/0745/X, B/0749/X, 

B/0754/X, B/0794/X, B/0834/X, 

B/0925/X, B/0943/X, B/0956/X, 

B/0980/X, B/0294/X, B/0294/X, 

E/0616/X, G/1254/X, G/1291/X, 

G/0580/X, G/0960/X, H/1103/X, 

H/1140/X, H/1179/X, H/1179/X, 

H/0220/X, H/0310/X, H/0460/X, 

H/0515/X, H/0915/X, J/1058/X, 

M/1043/X, P/1060/X, P/0804/X, 

P/0899/X, Q/0517/X, Q/0526/X, 

Q/0707/X, Q/0739/X, R/1256/X, 

R/1278/X, U/1172/X, V/0398/X, 

V/0398/X, V/0851/X, W/1032/X, 

W/1112/X, W/1263/X, W/1289/X, 

W/1318/, W/0108/X, W/0194/X, 

W/0199/X, W/0255/X, W/0464/X, 

W/0483/X, W/0618/X, W/0641/X, 

W/0669/X/d, W/0735/X, 

W/0770/X/d, W/0780/X, W/0789/X, 

W/0792/X, W/0800/X, W/0907/X, 

W/0963/X, X/1115/X, X/1174/X, 

X/0196/X, X/0405/X/d, X/0495/X, 

X/0639/X, X/0896/X, X/1385/X. 

In section 4 reference is <strong>made</strong> to land managers giving advice to people about land 

management operations. It might be relevant in this section to add that if advice is not 

followed then the activity is irresponsible and that the individual is responsible for the 

consequences <strong>of</strong> their actions. (B/0512/X/d) 

It is wrong to simply exclude the crossing <strong>of</strong> greens which really gives entirely the wrong 

impression. It is the dangers associated with crossing golf courses that needs to be 

addressed in the Access Code. (B/0660/X) 

The Code … is rather quiet on practical guidance on how landmanagers can continue to 

carry out their land management activites safely and economically. The whole emphasis 

is on land management being displaced by recreational needs - this is not practical. 

(H/1103/X) 

The Code pays scant regard to Biosecurity, the dangers to human health, animal health 

and to the commercial requirements with which farmers must comply to maintain their 

membership <strong>of</strong> quality assurance schemes. (H/0220/X) 

A total physical separation <strong>of</strong> the access-taking public from farm animals, from crops and 

from farming operations is the ideal…….Arable and grass field margins, safety issue <strong>of</strong> 

unwitting exposure to agricultural chemicals, such places do not always have well 

defined edges to crops. There is a real danger that access takes could unwittingly cause 

damage to the production area. .......Many farmers have increased obligations for 

conservation <strong>of</strong> field margins and headlands under environmental management 

agreements with SEERAD and with SNH. (H/0310/X) 

The should be noification in the land managers' guidance about where H&S legislation 

takes precedence over access rights. The use <strong>of</strong> appropriate Health and Safety 

Executive (HSE) signage should be encouraged and appropriate wording/symbols 

carried through into access signage where relevant. (P/0899/X) 

Many farmers are members <strong>of</strong> food quality assurance schemes which stipulate 

significant levels <strong>of</strong> disease prevention and control measures. (P/0804/X) 

I suggest that more safeguards for rural dwellers be built into you proposals, to ensure 

biosecurity and privacy, and to prevent damage to crops and disturbance to livestock. 

(W/1263/X) 

The tone <strong>of</strong> the Code comes over as insufficiently helpful to land management activities - 

both the legislation and the Code have left land managers seriously concerned that they 

are being ignored. (W/0907/X) 

...the draft Code pays insufficient cognisance both to the requirements for British 

Waterways to undertake such management and the legislative framework that defines its 

powers and duties. … the Code must make clear reference to British Waterways' right to 

exclude access at times under Section 6 (1) (g) (i) and (ii) <strong>of</strong> the Land Reform (Scotland) 

Act 2003 - i.e. for the undertaking <strong>of</strong> building, civil engineering and demolition works or 

as works being carried out by a statutory undertaker for the purposes <strong>of</strong> the undertaking 

- the Code should note British Waterways as a statutory undertaker. British Waterways 

155

19c. No - there are too 

many obligations on land 

managers 

A/0560/X, B/1009/X, B/1017/X, 

B/1046/X, B/1049/X, B/1068/X, 

B/1075/X, B/1083/X, B/1101/X, 

B/1104/X, B/1108/X, B/1114/X/d, 

B/1114/X/d, B/1126/X, B/1143/X, 

B/1152/X, B/1175/X, B/1190/X, 

B/1199/X, B/1207/X, B/1240/X, 

B/1248/X, B/1271/X, B/1292/X, 

B/1293/X, B/1295/X, B/0028/X, 

B/0049/X, B/0054/X, B/0069/X, 

B/0075/X, B/0085/X, B/0127/X, 

B/0141/X, B/0186/X, B/0203/Y, 

B/0211/X, B/0218/X, B/0227/X/d, 

B/0288/X/d, B/0293/X, B/0322/X, 

B/0326/X, B/0329/X, B/0366/X, 

B/0368/X, B/0371/X, B/0385/X/d, 

B/0419/X, B/0428/X/d, B/0443/X, 

B/0446/X, B/0465/X, B/0466/X/d, 

B/0535/X, B/0538/X, B/0545/X, 

B/0558/X, B/0563/X, B/0564/X, 

B/0568/X, B/0569/X, B/0571/X, 

B/0574/X, B/0585/X, B/0593/X, 

B/0606/X, B/0613/X, B/0628/X, 

B/0633/X, B/0634/X, B/0638/X/d, 

B/0645/X, B/0677/X, B/0685/X, 

B/1267/X/d, B/0755/X, B/0798/X, 

B/0802/X, B/0840/X, B/0925/X, 

B/0929/X, B/0936/X, B/0953/X, 

B/0954/X, B/0956/X, B/0994/X, 

B/1335//, B/0294/X, D/0233/X, 

E/1074/X, E/1211/X, E/1245/X, 

E/0156/X, E/0208/X, E/0616/X, 

E/0809/X, E/0809/X, E/0924/X, 

H/1042/X, H/1179/X, H/1182/X, 

H/1196/X, H/1327/X, H/0220/X, 

H/0808/X, H/0941/X, J/1058/X, 

would not unreasonably exclude access in the execution <strong>of</strong> its duties. ... the right 

balance has not been struck. Unlike most landowners British Waterways has obligations 

under a variety <strong>of</strong> Acts including the Transport Acts, the British Waterways Acts and the 

Harbours Acts. (X/0896/X) 

Safety - both for the public and for those working in the countryside is a worry, especially 

with society becoming more litigious and the concern over liability. Working farmyards 

should be excluded from the right <strong>of</strong> access - on health & safety grounds. (B/0186/X). 

I am also concerned that walkers may enter a field soon after it has been sprayed with 

pesticides. As the spraying operative has several to cover in a day, it is unlikely that any 

walker could be approached at all let alone before they have entered the field. 

(B/0329/X) 

Increased access may lead to biosecurity being compromised if gates are left open. a) 

livestock from different farms and differing health status/organic status will be mixed. b) 

an automatic thirteen-day standstill results for farms where stock has strayed/been 

returned. c) Forestry gates left open will result in feral sheep straying onto farmland with 

the risk <strong>of</strong> spreading sheep scab. (B/1207/X) 

Code <strong>of</strong> Recommendations for the Welfare <strong>of</strong> Livestock: Animal Health and Biosecurity 

… With the Access Code in its present form, such measures would be impossible … 

There must be better coordination between advice in the Access Code and advice 

issued by the Scottish Executive to farmers (B/0585/X) 

Since the protection <strong>of</strong> SSSIs, pSACs, NNRs, and National Parks, is the responsibility <strong>of</strong> 

the Land Manager, he should be given the right to restrict access at times <strong>of</strong> the year 

when disturbance might damage the designated interest in the site. (B/1295/X) 

The Scottish Executive has stated clearly and publicly that the Act should not impose 

any new burden <strong>of</strong> liability on land managers. The Code directly contradicts this 

statement by explicitly imposing on land managers new reponsibilities to inform, direct 

and advise access takers. ... At the very least, those wishing to wander through livestock 

areas at will should be subject to the same rules and conditions as those who work in 

the livestock industry. (B/0628/X) 

It concerns me that walkers, including those using the Great Glen Way, may feel 

tempted to 'wild camp' on the shores <strong>of</strong> Loch Ness (Urquart Bay) and deny me the 

income which I would have derived from my campsite, while also inevitably causing 

pollution and disturbance. (D/0233/X) 

Many reservoirs and catchments are small and feed untreated supplies. There should 

be the power to exclude small reservoirs and catchments. (W/0641/X) 

This sounds so easy on paper but in fact managing this information can be costly. 

Where free access has been enjoyed historically, like Finland, I understand the onus is 

on the user to be aware and assess the hazards for themselves. The price <strong>of</strong> free 

access should be borne by the user not the owner. (W/0708/X/d) 

If I am to provide access to the general public, then suitable parking and visitor facilities 

156

19d. No - there should be 

more obligations on land 

managers to ensure 

people can gain access 

19e. the obligations on 

the land manager are not 

clear 

M/0687/X, P/0869/X, Q/1061/X, 

Q/1178/X, Q/1184/X, Q/1061/X, 

R/1256/X, V/0851/X, W/1007/X, 

W/1020/X, W/1110/X, W/1153/Z/d, 

W/1170/X, W/1198/X, W/1227/X/d, 

W/1235/X, W/1289/X, W/1324/, 

W/0084/X, W/0109/X, W/0182/X, 

W/0222/X, W/0271/X, W/0277/X, 

W/0295/X, W/0412/X, W/0417/X, 

W/0483/X, W/0541/X, W/0542/X, 

W/0554/X, W/0555/X, W/0566/X, 

W/0581/X, W/0591/X, W/0625/X, 

W/0641/X, W/0669/X/d, 

W/0708/X/d, W/0812/, W/0822/X, 

W/0880/X/d, W/0901/X/d, 

W/0907/X, X/1115/X, X/1174/X, 

X/0002/X, X/0099/X, X/0193/X/d, 

X/0196/X, X/0405/X/d, X/0639/X, 

X/0664/X, X/0939/X. 

A/0820/X, A/0838/X, A/0162/X, 

A/0290/X, A/0437/X, A/0442/X, 

A/0666/X, A/0774/X, B/0826/X/d, 

D/0022/X, G/0831/X, G/0854/X, 

G/0854/X, G/1098/X, G/0164/X, 

G/0441/X, L/0791/X, M/0463/X, 

P/0889/X, P/0890/X, Q/0157/X, 

Q/0264/X, Q/0930/X, W/833/X, 

W/1111/X, W/1111/X, W/0057/X, 

W/0268/, W/0489/X, W/0573/X, 

W/0579/X, W/0702/Y, W/0792/X, 

W/0800/X, W/0887/X, W/1329/X, 

X/0937/X. 

A/846/X, A/1070/X/d, A/1073/X, 

A/1077/X, A/1082/X, A/0098/X, 

A/0362/X, A/0437/X, A/0471/X/d, 

A/0557/X, A/0560/X, A/0658/X/d, 

A/0933/X, A/0958/X, B/1015/X, 

B/1063/X, B/1089/X, B/1094/X, 

B/1094/X, B/1094/X, B/1104/X, 

B/1117/X, B/1197/X, B/1207/X, 

together with maintained paths and signage should be provided and maintained at public 

expense. (X/0196/X) 

Use <strong>of</strong> the term "limiting" here could be taken to imply that land managers have the 

power to reduce or remove access rights when in fact only a local authority can do this. 

(G/0831/X) 

I see problems where access is through farmyards and would ask that the Code 

emphasises that Land Managers should provide alternative routes where the Land 

Managers prefer that the farmyard be avoided (W/0833/X) 

The code for land managers is less satisfactory, peppered as it is with permitted 

exceptions. This needs tightening up. (W/0268) 

Stalking/shooting seasons are always among the most contentious access issues so it is 

surprising they have such a very low pr<strong>of</strong>ile in the code. It strikes me the problems 

associated with stalking/shooting are so similar to those associated with land 

management operations (LMOs) that logically they should be dealt with together in 

sections 3 and 4. If the definition <strong>of</strong> LMO is already meant to include stalking/shooting 

then this must be <strong>made</strong> much clearer. (A/0437/X) 

…need more guidance from the code on how to continue managing "responsibly" … The 

draft code is good at telling me what I must not do, but useless on telling me what I 

157

B/1208/X, B/1210/X, B/1236/X, 

B/1240/X, B/1244/X, B/1250/X, 

B/1267/X/d, B/1271/X, B/1281/X, 

B/1288/X, B/1295/X, B/1309/X, 

B/1322//d, B/1347/X, B/0005/X, 

B/0038/X, B/0045/Z, B/0051/X, 

B/0055/X, B/0076/X, B/0136/X, 

B/0152/X, B/0178/X, B/0184/X, 

B/0322/X, B/0404/X, B/0406/X, 

B/0436/X, B/0443/X, B/0443/X, 

B/0462/X, B/0496/X, B/0547/X, 

B/0565/X, B/0574/X, B/0593/X, 

B/0594/X, B/0628/X, B/0756/X, 

B/0794/X, B/0802/X, B/0936/X, 

B/1365/X, B/1368/X/d, B/1376/, 

B/0446/X, B/0938/X/d, B/0964/X, 

B/0965/X/d, B/0969/X, B/0980/X, 

B/0994/X, D/1206/X, D/0521/X, 

E/1113/X, E/1113/X, E/1257/X, 

E/0172/X, E/0590/X, E/0616/X, 

G/1099/X, G/1330/X/d, G/0960/X, 

H/1103/X, H/1118/X, H/1140/X, 

H/1276/X, H/0959/X, J/1058/X, 

J/1203/X, J/1284/X, K/1241/X, 

K/0444/X, L/0065/X, N/0137/X, 

P/1066/X, P/1066/X, P/1219/X, 

P/0287/X, P/1273/X, P/1296/X, 

P/1300/X, P/0548/X, P/0577/X, 

P/0642/X, P/0643/X, P/0889/X, 

P/0890/X, Q/1061/X, Q/1308/X, 

Q/0073/X, R/868/X, R/1221/X, 

R/1256/X, R/1278/X, R/0549/X, 

V/0398/X, W/848/X, W/1102/X/d, 

W/1111/X, W/1112/X, W/1112/X, 

W/1280/X, W/1315/, W/1318/, 

W/0044/X, W/0064/X, W/0108/X, 

W/0124/X, W/0140/X, W/0159/X, 

W/0190/X, W/0242/X, W/0402/X, 

W/0435/X, W/0489/X, W/0581/X, 

W/0614/X, W/0641/X, W/0708/X/d, 

should do. (B/0436/X) 

With respect to health and safety issues … there are serious concerns regarding the 

responsiblities <strong>of</strong> … the Golf Club towards members <strong>of</strong> the public who might exercise 

their right <strong>of</strong> access onto our course whether reasonably or otherwise. (B/0547/X) 

I am also most concerned about notices. I farm wild boar (with SNH encouragement). 

Under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, I am obliged to put up a big sign telling 

people to keep out. Under the new legislation, it is illegal to. This is seriously worrying, 

not only for safety, but also liability insurance. .. All animals, including Tups, can be very 

dangerous, especially if the visitor has a dog. (B/0055/X) 

If other horses from other yards are allowed access to ride in fields, our worming 

programme will be ruined and there will be no way <strong>of</strong> controlling worm infestation <strong>of</strong> our 

grazing. (B/0965/X/d) 

...we have grave concerns for the safety <strong>of</strong> young people in line with our responsibilities 

as carers and providers under the Children Act. … We note that the draft code requires 

land managers to ensure the safety <strong>of</strong> those who access the area - to balance this there 

must surely be a requirement to ensure the safety <strong>of</strong> people who are using the site for its 

advertised purpose. (D/1206/X) 

The code is also unclear about the requirements <strong>of</strong> land managers and owners to 

maintain and repair structures to a standard beyond that fit for their own requirement and 

for the satisfaction <strong>of</strong> Health and Safety and occupier's liability legislation. ... The Code 

must include more accurate guidance to avoid such conflicts between legislation ... 

There is also an argument for loss <strong>of</strong> amenity through signage, which can be visually 

detrimental, and signs are also classified as development in terms <strong>of</strong> the Town and 

Country Planning (Control <strong>of</strong> Advertisements) (Scotland) Regulations 1984, albeit with 

the allowance for deemed planning consent when falling within certain criteria. 

(E/0616/X) 

It will be very difficult for land managers to indicate the extent <strong>of</strong> danger from e.g. crop 

spraying where countryside users are not on defined paths. Also the length <strong>of</strong> time <strong>of</strong> 

residual danger from crop spraying presumably depends on weather conditions and on 

what the users are doing. (P/1273/X) 

4.7 … this point should be given much greater emphasis throughout the Code. Core 

Path Networks will provide a key management tool in providing and managing 

responsible access. (P/0577/X) 

There does not appear to be any reference to land managers' responsibilities for water 

and ice rescue. It would not be practicable for Scottish Water to provide such a service 

and it would be helpful if the code <strong>made</strong> some reference to this (R/0868/X) 

It is very unlikely that monies will stretch far enough to put in paths as envisioned in the 

act. Paths may well be formed naturally, but who will maintain these paths and stop 

them becoming dangerous and therefore the landowner liable. (W/0242/X) 

Land managers have a duty <strong>of</strong> care to recreational users. Increasingly, for woodland 

158

19f. there should be 

different obligations on the 

land manager 

W/0780/X, W/0789/X, W/0977/X/d, 

W/1011/X, X/1036/X, X/1067/X, 

X/1067/X, X/1171/X, X/1212/X, 

X/1298/X, X/0784/X. 

A/0825/X, A/1095/X, A/0098/X, 

A/0430/X/d, A/0442/X, A/0560/X, 

A/0655/X/d, B/0801/X, B/0826/X/d, 

B/1094/X, B/1167/X, B/1187/X, 

B/1216/X, B/1271/X, B/0409/X, 

B/0462/X, B/0462/X, B/0465/X, 

B/0466/X/d, B/0467/X, B/0470/X, 

B/0472/X, B/0480/X, B/0481/X, 

B/0488/X/d, B/0505/X, B/0506/X, 

B/0569/X, B/0571/X, B/0574/X, 

B/0594/X, B/0624/X, B/0628/X, 

B/0760/X, B/1142/X, B/0294/X, 

B/1375/, E/0867/X, E/1201/X, 

E/0523/X, G/1099/X, G/1192/X, 

H/0220/X, H/0515/X, H/0552/X, 

K/0722/X, P/0548/X, P/0642/X, 

P/0928/X, Q/1178/X, Q/0415/X, 

Q/0445/X, R/0549/X, W/1189/X, 

W/1321/, W/0217/X, W/0246/X, 

W/0402/X, W/0541/X, W/0641/X, 

W/0770/X/d, X/1174/X, X/0495/X. 

19g. other A/0471/X/d, A/0478/X/d, A/0740/X, 

A/0796/X/d, A/0927/X, B/0347/X, 

B/0481/X, B/0505/X, B/0634/X, 

B/0672/X, B/0913/X, B/0946/X, 

B/1039/X/d, B/1049/X, B/1195/X, 

B/1094/X, E/0516/X, E/0877/X, 

E/0923/X, G/0917/X, G/0920/X, 

G/1099/X, H/0674/X, H/1103/X, 

managers, this has to be taken to include zoning to avoid conflict between various 

categories <strong>of</strong> users, e.g. as discussed in the FC Woodland Design Guidelines. Under 

the code it appears that such zoning will be irrelevant, if not illegal. Will woodland 

managers be considered to have failed in their duty <strong>of</strong> care in the event <strong>of</strong> conflict 

between different user groups? (W/0044/X) 

The Act does not give the land manager the right to suspend access rights but the Draft 

Code implies this to be the case (p53 6.3). (W/0489/X) 

These questions arise from the Park's operation <strong>of</strong> land and water based activities 

utilising council owned land and loch. The loss <strong>of</strong> managing control, apart from financial 

implications is likely to result in health and safety issues, inappropriate use <strong>of</strong> facilities 

and conflict between users. (X/1036/X) 

It does not address the responsibilty farmers have under the Scottish Executive's own 

biosecurity guidelines. (B/0466/X/d) 

"Access around margins <strong>of</strong> fields where crops are growing". How does this affect grant 

aided habitat areas? (B/0467/X) 

Land managers should have the right to block or suspend access in situations where 

rights <strong>of</strong> access are being blantantly and consistently abused. (B/0628/X) 

Many land management operations are slow and subtle changes … Guidance on the 

less obvious operations and what to be aware <strong>of</strong> needs to be included. (P/0928/X) 

It is imperative that deer management is placed on the list <strong>of</strong> land management activities 

- which may not always be visible (but may be audible). Deer managers in particular 

must be able to advise, using signs or other means, that stalking is in progress. 

(B/0481/X) 

Local consultation suggests that people will be concerned if large numbers <strong>of</strong> land 

management signs start appearing all over the countryside. (P/0646/X) 

Encouraging land owners to make contact with the local authority prior to undertaking an 

operation that would be constrained by or would constrain access rights should be 

159

H/0310/X, P/0316/X, P/0646/X, 

P/0899/X, P/0928/X, P/869/X, 

R/0549/X, R/1278/X, W/0100//d, 

W/0483/X, W/0705/X, W/0708/X/d, 

W/0770/X/d, W/0901/X/d, 

W/1151/X, X/0122/X, X/0388/X. 

promoted. (P/0928/X) 

160

Summary – 


This question generated a large number <strong>of</strong> <strong>representations</strong>. Whilst many indicated that the draft Code did achieve the right balance in its guidance, the 

majority <strong>of</strong> respondents either disagreed and felt that there were too many obligations on land managers or they sought further clarification on the guidance 

provided. 


A wide range <strong>of</strong> issues was raised in response to this question, including: 

• a continuing concern, particularly among land managers, about the relationship between the access legislation and health and safety legislation; 

• a need for guidance to clarify if one piece <strong>of</strong> legislation took precedence over the other; 

• uncertainty over a land manager’s future ability to comply with regulations or conditions under a range <strong>of</strong> schemes, initiatives, codes <strong>of</strong> practice and 

agreements, (including the forestry support mechanisms, agri-environment schemes, farm assurance schemes and the Biosecurity Code <strong>of</strong> 

practice); 

• continuing uncertainty about the steps and actions that land managers could reasonably take to manage access to help them undertake routine 

land management operations safely, effectively and efficiently, particularly for those operations undertaken at short notice to take advantage <strong>of</strong> 

favourable conditions; and 

• the limited protection available to land managers when faced by irresponsible behaviour by users which had effects on their work, or where users 

did not heed their advice. 


The Proposed Code confirms the requirements on land managers under the access legislation and also points to the range <strong>of</strong> responsibilities placed on 

users in Section 3, including the need to follow advice or reasonable requests from land managers. This provides greater context and balance for the 

advice to land managers. The Proposed Code is consistent with the Biosecurity Code and the Health & Safety At Work Act 1974. For the latter, the 

Proposed Code outlines what precautions land managers can take to alert or keep people away from a site where a hazardous operation is being 

undertaken without contravening the obligations in respect <strong>of</strong> access rights. 

In helping land managers to manage every day situations, the Proposed Code clarifies the scope <strong>of</strong> informal actions that land managers can take, if 

necessary, to manage access during land management operations - drawing a distinction between these informal actions and formal mechanisms for 

limiting access rights which rest with the local authorities. Advice on specific land management operations or activities have also been covered in changes 

to Section 5 <strong>of</strong> the Proposed Code, although it is accepted that the development <strong>of</strong> detailed good practice advice for specific operations would be useful to 

support the implementation <strong>of</strong> access rights. 

SNH also recognises that concerns about the relationship between access rights and the rules <strong>of</strong> other incentives schemes/initiatives, hinge on a 

perception that the actions <strong>of</strong> recreation users may invalidate the purpose <strong>of</strong> the scheme and result in payments being withheld. SNH does not consider 

that this is a major issue, but there is a need to clarify, or where necessary to seek changes to, existing rules or conditions for various agri-environment 

support schemes and initiatives to take account <strong>of</strong> the legislative change. 

161

Question 20 - Do you think the guidance provides sufficient encouragement and guidance for 

action by land managers to help people exercise rights responsibly? 


20a. Yes - the guidance 

seeks sufficient action by 

land managers 

20b. No – there should 

be greater 

encouragement for land 

managers to act to enable 

access 

A/1070/X/d, A/1084/X, A/0009/X, 

A/0362/X, A/0477/X, A/0518/X, 

A/0719/X/d, B/1093/X, B/1114/X/d, 

B/1152/X, B/0058/X, B/0178/X, 

B/0218/X, B/0303/X/d, B/0599/X/d, 

B/0772/X, B/0794/X, B/0826/X/d, 

B/0980/X, D/0022/X, E/1246/Y, 

G/1251/X, G/0189/X, G/0379/X, 

G/0759/X, G/0785/X, G/0806/X, 

G/0917/X, G/0960/X, G/0973/X, 

H/0515/X, J/1051/X, K/1241/X, 

K/0714/X, P/1218/X, P/1237/X, 

P/0287/X, P/1272/X, P/1273/X, 

P/0384/X, P/0576/X, P/0642/X, 

P/0643/X, P/0646/X, P/0717/X, 

P/0889/X, P/0899/X, P/1066/X, 

Q/1122/X, Q/1178/X, Q/1275/X, 

Q/0264/X, Q/0445/X, Q/0697/X, 

Q/0707/X, U/0922/X, V/0207/X/d, 

V/0398/X, W/1007/X, W/1158/X, 

W/0003/X, W/0021/X/d, W/0095/X, 

W/0112/X, W/0182/X, W/0194/X, 

W/0246/X, W/0334/X, W/0589/X, 

W/0644/X, W/0972/X, W/1367/, 

W/1377/d/, X/1056/X, X/1067/X. 

A/0133/X, A/0134/X/d, A/0397/X/d, 

A/0437/X, A/0469/X, A/0477/X, 

A/0518/X, A/0553/X, A/0825/X, 

A/0967/X, A/1037/X, B/1049/X, 

B/1072/X, B/1117/X, B/1175/X, 

B/1309/X, B/1347/X, B/0306/X, 

B/0404/X, B/0404/X, B/0409/X, 

B/0446/X, B/0473/X/d, B/0481/X, 

B/0512/X/d, B/0525/X/d, B/0565/X, 

B/0574/X, B/0593/X, B/0599/X/d, 

B/0613/X, E/0616/X, G/1098/X, 

G/1214/X, G/1330/X/d, G/0043/X, 



"provides sufficient encouragement and guidance for action by land managers" - 

possibly, but will land managers pay heed? (A/0477/X) 

..landowners are more than helpful if they know an organised event is taking place. 

They advise on the safest terrain and <strong>of</strong>ten agree to leave gates open and move animals 

out <strong>of</strong> fields. (A/0518/X) 

OK, but again the landholder is landed with extra expense and the access taker pays 

nothing. (B/1152/X) 

As far as it goes I am happy with the guidance, but reiterate that there must be a 

presumption that paths must be used and that there must be an immediate remedy for 

irresponsible behaviour. (B/0794/X) 

The Code provides adequate guidance and encouragement for action by land managers 

to help people exercise access rights responsibly. (G/0806/X). 

I think that the draft code provides an excellent balance between land managers and 

people exercising access rights responsibly. (W/0334/X) 

I feel more emphasis must be placed on guidance to land managers to make their land 

more accessible to users. … The Code should lay a greater emphasis on land managers 

to provide alternative routes where they would prefer that access avoided the farmyard. 

(A/0477/X) 

Yes - though personally I believe that emphasis should be on preventing managers from 

discouraging or obstructing access rather than necessarily taking active steps to 

promote it. (A/0469/X) 

Even those land managers sympathetic to open access will require funding e.g. for 

stiles, path maintenance, user-friendly gate closures, etc. This might also be a "carrot" 

for those who are less sympathetic. (A/1037/X) 

At present there is no financial incentive or assistance in maintainance <strong>of</strong> paths or the 

repair <strong>of</strong> gates and styles. It all seems very one-sided and confrontational. (B/0613/X) 

162 

444

G/0580/X, G/0900/X, G/1057/X/, 

J/1203/X, K/0444/X, L/0113/X, 

L/0650/X, L/0992/X, M/0101/X, 

M/0463/X, P/1060/X, P/1237/X, 

P/1247/X, P/0643/X, P/0804/X, 

Q/1122/X, Q/1275/X, Q/1346/X, 

Q/0157/X, Q/0526/X, Q/0930/X, 

Q/0932/X, V/1285/X, W/1102/X/d, 

W/1112/X, W/1130/X, W/1227/X/d, 

W/1287/X, W/1342/X, W/0017/X, 

W/0034/X, W/0457/X, W/0511/X, 

W/0529/X, W/0556/X, W/0581/X, 

W/0641/X, W/0708/X/d, W/0789/X, 

W/0799/X, W/0977/X/d, W/0986/X, 

W/1373/, X/1212/X, X/1298/X, 

X/0405/X/d, X/0495/X, X/0543/X, 

X/0637/X, X/0937/X, X/0939/X, 

X/1385/X. 

The point should be <strong>made</strong> that dealing with access requests, liasing with other activities, 

giving permissions, etc is very time-consuming in an area which is used heavily for 

public access. (B/1309/X) 

There is no mention in section 4 about the Local Authority providing assistance to 

Landowners, even if it's only advice. (B/1347/X) 

Here more could be said about core paths and the role they will play in access 

provisions. (G/1214/X) 

Sections 4.17 and 4.18 are helpful but we believe they could be given more emphasis 

and prominence. … This is weak and open to interpretation by a reluctant land manager 

as an invitation to generate 'concerns' founded on partial or ill-founded knowledge <strong>of</strong> 

orienteering and its supposed impact on land management and environment. 

(G/0900/X) 

It gives some good advice but we would like to see more. Our specific issues include: 

Horses and Cyclists. WTS owns and owns and manages more then one site where we 

have had to control or prevent horse and cycle access because <strong>of</strong> the unsuitability <strong>of</strong> the 

paths to sustain such activity. We would appreciate more guidance on this. Health and 

Safety. WTS owns and manages two sites where we either prevent or do not encourage 

access for safety reasons. We would appreciate advice in the Code on how to address 

this. Signage. We would appreciate fuller advice in the Code on the wording <strong>of</strong> signs. 

Particularly for forestry operations, horses, livestock, etc. Liability - We would appreciate 

a clearer statement in the Code regarding land managers' liability and further advice on 

what is reasonable behaviour to prevent legal action being taken by people exercising 

their rights <strong>of</strong> access. (K/0444/X) 

...new housing developments … There should be guidelines & specific requirements 

pertaining to all block development to ensure routes through the building plots or 

between them, allowing continued access from top to bottom - e.g. every 50, or 100 

yards. (L/0992/X) 

It might be suggested that more emphasis should be placed on the need for land owners 

to be constructive in agreeing designated paths. … It will enable the land owners to steer 

people away from areas <strong>of</strong> potential danger, and therefore from possible personal 

liability actions. It will also provide a basis for directing walkers away from sensitive 

areas, such as fields where silage is being grown. Clearly designated paths will also 

have the advantage that they will obviate the need for walkers to make complex legal 

and technical decisions for themselves. (M/0101/X) 

…there is nothing in the Code which requires the land manager to acknowledge the 

diversity <strong>of</strong> people exercising the right <strong>of</strong> access across his/her land (M/0463/X) 

One thing that would be very encouraging to landmanagers would be for organisations 

such as SEERAD that provide support for land management activities to ensure that 

their policies are modified to take account <strong>of</strong> the Act. (P/0643/X) 

If the proposed code were able to be more specific about those aspects which might 

163

20c. No – there is too 

much onus placed on land 

managers to act to enable 

access 

A/0046/X, A/0163/X, A/0320/X/d, 

B/1017/X, B/1216/X, B/1240/X, 

B/1250/X, B/1341/Z/d, B/0038/X, 

B/0051/X, B/0127/X, B/0167/X, 

B/0288/X/d, B/0377/X, B/0385/X/d, 

B/0406/X, B/0465/X, B/0466/X/d, 

B/0558/X, B/0628/X, B/0672/X, 

B/0935/X, B/0980/X, B/1096/X, 

E/1113/X, E/0616/X, F/0360/X, 

G/0580/X, H/1222/X, H/0220/X, 

H/0807/X, H/0941/X, J/1058/X, 

Q/0091/X, R/1221/X, W/1153/Z/d, 

W/1170/X, W/1189/X, W/1235/X, 

W/0388/X, W/0581/X, W/0618/X, 

W/0625/X, W/0641/X, W/0700/X, 

W/0770/X/d, W/0812/, W/0880/X/d, 

W/0901/X/d, W/0950/X/d, 

X/0099/X. 

give protection to the natural and cultural heritage, the land managers and all 

countryside dwellers, from the nebulous wording <strong>of</strong> the Act, then perhaps land 

managers/owners might be encouraged to facilitate access. (Q/0157/X) 

Where land managers are developing access routes through their land (e.g. through or 

around farmyards), they should be encouraged to consider the importance <strong>of</strong> even 

surfaces for paths and appropriate widths for paths and gateways so as not to create 

barriers for disabled users. (V/1285/X) 

...additional grants must be <strong>made</strong> available (either through SEERAD or SNH) to land 

managers to enable them to provide adequate access provision, where conflict occurs or 

where a demand can be demonstrated, e.g. installation <strong>of</strong> stiles, gates, fences, car 

parks, picnic areas and footpaths. The rate <strong>of</strong> grant should be compatible with the 90% 

grant rate that can be accessed under the new Scottish Foretry Grant Scheme for 

Woodland Recreation. (X/1298/X) 

The Code details the obligations and expectations placed on land managers but fails to 

recognise that the burden is without any benefit and that at times there will be a cost, 

whether directly, e.g. the erection <strong>of</strong> information signs, or indirectly, e.g. in terms <strong>of</strong> 

additional management time. The Code should highlight what assistance, whether 

physical or financial, will be provided to allow land managers to fulfil their responsbilities. 

... we do not think that the guidance provides sufficient encouragement. (B/1240/X) 

Each one metre width along a margin represents approximately 1% <strong>of</strong> our production 

area in a bid to maintain the viability <strong>of</strong> our farm. … it is imperative that growing crop 

close to a field margin is treated as such and is not allowed to be damaged by access 

takers. Again level <strong>of</strong> use comes into this, and again the code does not make enough 

reference to this, along with prevailing soil/weather conditions. Wider field margins could 

be restricted to strategic points, but should not be expected everywhere. (B/1216/X) 

It is emphasised that land managers are expected to help, welcome, advise the 

members <strong>of</strong> the public who wish to use their land. Bearing in mind that this will most 

likely be evenings and weekends how many hours is the Governemnt expecting land 

managers to work? I am not referring to large estates where staff could be employed 

but rather small farmers like my husband and I who cannot afford to pay someone to 

provide this service. (B/1341/Z/d) 

No. Land managers have no time to spare to help educate the public. (B/0385/X/d) 

No. It does the opposite. It prescribes more or less what has to be done by law. Land 

managers will now do the minimum they feel they can get away with, whereas before 

most land managers strove to improve access and were largely sympathetic and helpful 

to members <strong>of</strong> the public who wished to enjoy themselves. (B/0406/X) 

Having imposed a right <strong>of</strong> access on land managers it is a bit much expecting them to 

accept as a key responsibility that they must help people enjoy the outdoors responsibly; 

this should be reworded to remind land managers that their key responsibility is to avoid 

actions that would deny people the opportunity to exercise their rights. (B/0672/X) 

164

20d. different action is 

required by land 

managers 

20e. action suggested for 

land managers requires 

clarification 

A/1136/X/d, A/0133/X, A/0291/X, 

A/0400/X, A/0425/X, A/0442/X, 

A/0478/X/d, A/0500/Y/d, 

A/0658/X/d, A/0838/X, B/1133/X, 

B/1150/X/d, B/0462/X, B/0480/X, 

B/0525/X/d, B/0628/X, B/1078/X, 

B/0294/X, E/0590/X, F/1134/X, 

G/1099/X, G/1192/X, G/1291/X, 

G/0441/X, G/0580/X, G/0604/X, 

H/1103/X, L/0410/X, L/0650/X, 

P/0642/X, P/0869/X, Q/1122/X, 

Q/0501/X, Q/0686/X, W/1111/X, 

W/0271/X, W/0335/X, W/0402/X, 

W/0566/X, W/0573/X, W/0991/X, 

X/1171/X, X/0495/X, X/0639/X. 

A/0098/X, A/0253/X/d, A/0740/X, 

B/1062/X, B/1078/X, B/1126/X, 

B/1183/X, B/1250/X, B/1261/X, 

…the Code is surely not insisting that everyone has to be proactively supporting access? 

(F/0360/X) 

The guidance seems slightly biased against the interest <strong>of</strong> land managers. … It should 

be … <strong>made</strong> clear that the "extent <strong>of</strong> the duty <strong>of</strong> care owned by a land manager" is not 

affected by the legislation. (W/0388/X) 

The AC does not give "encouragement" in any way to land managers with regards 

making areas safe and excluding the general public when land management involves 

activities not conducive with recreational access. The means to limiting access look very 

limited and the practical hope <strong>of</strong> enforcing it looks hopeless because the methods are 

just too long, time-consuming and burdensome to make it practical. (W/0901/X/d) 

...there are circumstances where land managers can help dog owners to exercise their 

rights responsibly. For example, placing sheep close to lambing, lambs or calves in a 

field through which a core path runs, would be unhelpful to to dog owners, especially if 

they returning by a different route from that on which they had set out. If such a stocking 

scenario were unavoidable, the land manager could take reasonable steps to provide a 

suitable diversionary route for dog owners. (A/0500/Y/d) 

Provide the public with information at key access points - the public can co-operate with 

you only if they know what you want! (A/0838/X) 

If land is excluded from access rights the owners <strong>of</strong> that land are entitled to refuse 

access if they so wish and 4.19 does not recognise that. (B/1150/X/d) 

Land managers should be active in cooperating with their Local Access Forum to devise 

a local access strategy. (B/0462/X) 

Cycling and horse riding: as well as identifying paths or routes which are suitable for 

cycling or horse-riding, in popular areas it might in some cases be responsible for land 

owners to identify paths which are unsuitable for these activities eg because <strong>of</strong> erosion 

and/or narrowness, and to provide information about these to potential users, who would 

then be able to plan a route which avoided using them. (L/0410/X) 

Where there is a perceived problem <strong>of</strong> gates being left open if they are not locked the 

land manager should provide alternative access provision before locking gates 

(W/1111/X) 

The code having stressed the right <strong>of</strong> access, and the illegality <strong>of</strong> locking gates for purely 

obstructive reasons, needs to allow the land owner the right to lock gates responsibly 

and give anyone who feels treated unfairly the right to complain through the Local 

Access Forum but not the right to force open the gate. (W/0566/X) 

While the draft Code refers to the responsibilities <strong>of</strong> landowners and land managers, it 

does not refer to the position and responsibilities <strong>of</strong> community groups like ours, who 

manage paths on a third party's properties. (X/1171/X) 

I think this is a major issue, and feel that there is quite an imbalance in your report here. 

Recommendations concerning dogs belonging to visitors consume 2/3 pages, whilst the 

dogs <strong>of</strong> land managers 1 line. … Perhaps stating that any dog trained to be aggressive 

165

20f. land managers need 

standard signage to help 

manage access during / 

after land management 

operations 

B/1288/X, B/1313/X, B/0048/X, 

B/0085/X, B/0406/X, B/0461/X, 

B/0488/X/d, B/0493/X, B/0510/X, 

B/0569/X, B/0574/X, B/1267/X/d, 

E/1113/X, F/0360/X, G/1044/X, 

G/1099/X, G/1214/X, G/1254/X, 

G/0393/X, G/0580/X, H/1118/X, 

H/0988/X, L/0439/X, L/0513/X, 

M/0463/X, P/1219/X, P/0575/X, 

P/0577/X, P/0640/X, P/0643/X, 

P/0899/X, Q/0016/X, U/1172/X, 

V/0245/X, V/0398/X, W/1102/X/d, 

W/1123/X, W/1151/X, W/1310/X/d, 

W/0388/X, W/0423/X, W/0474/X, 

W/0489/X, W/0530/X, W/0579/X, 

W/0780/X, W/0781/X, X/1092/X, 

X/1174/X, X/1290/X, X/0122/X, 

X/0426/X, X/0495/X, X/0664/X, 

X/1036/X. 

A/1194/X, A/0155/X, A/0560/X, 

A/0658/X/d, A/0927/X, A/0958/X, 

A/0967/X, A/0997/X, B/1150/X/d, 

B/1173/X, B/1267/X/d, B/1313/X, 

B/1347/X, B/0116/X/d, B/0443/X, 

or to ward <strong>of</strong>f strangers in a way which would be tantamount to alarming the stranger 

should be either securely tied up, or kept in a secure area when not under supervision. 

(A/0253/X/d) 

The Code should omit any suggestion that non-accessible land adjacent to accessible 

land should be regarded as accessible; and landowners should be encouraged to 

indicate to countryside users where non-accessible land exists, so that users can 

exercise responsibility by avoiding it (B/1078/X). 

Managers 'must': visitors 'should' - this is unbalanced and inaccurate. 'Must' ought to be 

restricted to a legal requirement. It is not clear what happens when the wishful thinking 

<strong>of</strong> 'should' fails. (B/1288/X) 

What steps does the code require a farmer to take to ensure that the public does not 

enter a large field, say <strong>of</strong> 30-40 acres, which has recently been sprayed with a 

substance which may be harmful? Are signs to be erected every 50 yards around the 

edge <strong>of</strong> the field and will they be required to be removed once the effects <strong>of</strong> the spray 

have gone? (B/0406/X) 

The principle must be that the more intesively used for commercial purposes the land or 

water asset is, the more consultation and planned access is necessary. (B/0461/X) 

It is not clear from the Code whether the land manager has a responsibility to maintain 

any paths and accessible areas on land which he owns/manages. This is important with 

regard to the potential for liability claims against the landowner. (F/0360/X) 

There seemed to us to be a conflict between Section 3.43 (P.37) … and Section 4.17 

(P.44) … What happenes if, in spite <strong>of</strong> being advised to do so, and in spite <strong>of</strong> their 

concerns being properly addressed, the land managers do not give consent (or 

permisson; the same word should really be used in both sections)? Who would be the 

arbiter <strong>of</strong> such disputes, and would there be any cost implications for either party? 

(G/0393/X) 

The use <strong>of</strong> exemptions and exclusion, as well as full guidance on managing under the 

new access code, is unclear and will need further separate advice to local authorities 

and land managers. (P/0575/X) 

Do the landowners have to install gates or stiles for access from the highway into fields 

and footbridges over ditches and waterways … Will the farmer be allowed to keep his 

bulls in the field in the summer time as is the practice in Orkney. (Q/0016/X) 

I feel that 4.17 should be expanded to emphasise the obligation on land managers to 

facilitate responsible access for events. Permission should not be unreasonably 

withheld. (W/0781/X) 

Signage is going to be increasingly important for both land managers and access takers. 

I would suggest that a separate section on all aspects <strong>of</strong> signage would be helpful both 

to the access taker and the land manager. (A/0658/X/d) 

More detailed guidance on signage would be appropriate, particularly in reference to the 

nature and extent <strong>of</strong> land management activities affecting access, and contact details for 

166

B/0462/X, B/0466/X/d, B/0470/X, 

B/0488/X/d, B/0505/X, B/0613/X, 

B/1267/X/d, B/0733/X, B/0764/X, 

B/0879/X, B/0935/X, B/1072/X, 

E/0208/X, E/0616/X, G/1099/X, 

G/1254/X, G/1291/X, G/1307/X, 

G/0580/X, G/0604/X, G/0831/X, 

H/0534/X, H/0808/X, H/0808/X, 

H/1042/X, J/1203/X, K/1241/X, 

K/0444/X, L/0513/X, P/1218/X, 

P/1219/X, P/1237/X, P/0287/X, 

P/1273/X, P/0575/X, P/0577/X, 

P/0642/X, P/0869/X, P/0928/X, 

R/1256/X, V/1285/X, V/0245/X, 

W/1109/X, W/1220/X, W/1287/X, 

W/1329/X, W/1342/X, W/0108/X, 

W/0124/X, W/0335/X, W/0641/X, 

W/0675/X, W/0700/X, W/0702/Y, 

W/0709/X/d, X/1212/X, X/1298/X, 

X/0122/X, X/0784/X. 

the land manager. (A/0958/X) 

The design <strong>of</strong> signs should not be left to individual owners <strong>of</strong> property. They should be 

<strong>of</strong>ficial and publicised and I believe that they would be indispensable in any attempt to 

clarify where access is not available. I do not wish to erect signs <strong>of</strong> my own design, only 

to have them torn down by people who believe that they are not legal. ... Some means 

must be available to a landowner to demonstate where access is not available. A 

suitable sign should suffice. (B/0116/X/d) 

Landowners and land managers should work with SNH, local authorities and 

Government Departments for good quality nationally accepted standard signage for 

farmyards and work sites, e.g. sawmills etc. The signage is imperative for health and 

safety as well as liability. This will have to be redressed by the Government. ... There 

must be an accepted form <strong>of</strong> standardised signage that all land managers and 

authorities such as SNH and local councils can use which will alleviate any safety 

problems or areas <strong>of</strong> conflict. (B/1267/X/d) 

...landowners should make much more readily available their contact information. 

Prominent signposting at common access points to a property giving telephone numbers 

and instructions would be helpful and should be encouraged. .. Perhaps a standard 

notice board could be designed to be used countrywide and which visitors could 

recognise easily. (B/0488/X/d) 

A national standard to any signage wouold be welcomed and it would be important that 

such signs have full details on them, e.g. start and finish dates, nature <strong>of</strong> work, 



Other types <strong>of</strong> signs should contain the following information: *What is happening *By 

whom on behalf <strong>of</strong> which owners/managers *When it will start and finish *Alternative 

routes *Name and contact number for further information *If a section 11 order, the 

name <strong>of</strong> the authorising person within the Local Authority. (P/1218/X) 

Para 4.6, Bullet 9 - there may be a need to deter public away from particular areas, e.g. 

muddy paths, breeding bird sites or rare plants. Again the best way to achieve this 

would be to have standard national signs with an <strong>of</strong>ficial corporate appearance which 

people would respect. These would be available from Access Forum, local authorities or 

Rangers Service. Bullet 10 - again there seems to be an overall consensus that land 

managers requiring advice should consult their local Access Forum or the Countryside 

Ranger service. (P/1273/X) 

...some concerns about the potential proliferation <strong>of</strong> unnecessary and inappropriate 

signs if the implementation <strong>of</strong> the new access code is not managed carefully. 

(R/1256/X) 

Would not the quickest way to inform and educate people re. Use <strong>of</strong> Access Rights in a 

Trouble-free way be the drawing up <strong>of</strong> a list <strong>of</strong> symbols. … Inexpensive notices bearing 

167

20g. other A/0290/X, A/0825/X, B/1187/X, 

B/1323/X, B/0272/X, B/0288/X/d, 

B/0347/X, B/0371/X, B/0755/X, 

B/0772/X, B/0798/X, B/0816/X, 

B/0819/X, B/0879/X, B/0909/X, 

D/0248/X, E/1038/X, E/0703/X, 

G/1099/X, G/1291/X, G/0132/X, 

G/0604/X, G/0698/X, G/0831/X, 

G/1098/X, H/0310/X, H/0370/X, 

H/0460/X, H/0808/X, K/0722/X, 

L/0504/X, P/0384/X, P/0928/X, 

Q/1275/X, Q/1286/X, Q/0232/X, 

Q/0364/X, T/0911/X, V/0398/X, 

W/1032/X, W/1264/X, W/0071/X, 

W/0100//d, W/0679/X, W/0702/Y, 

W/0944/X, X/0099/X, X/0784/X. 

these symbols could be distributed to land managers through their lead organisations. 

(W/0335/X) 

Secondly, the provision <strong>of</strong> standard discreet movable signs may help land manager and 

user alike. Clip-on signs could become part <strong>of</strong> the standard arsenal <strong>of</strong> a land manager, 

putting them on field gates, eg where silage grass is high, after spraying, or where a bull 

is in residence. I do not want the countryside littered with new signs, but I think that 

small symbolic signs would be useful. (W/0702/Y) 

With good management the public can in general be guided along acceptable paths. 

The few who wish to wander <strong>of</strong>f the beaten track have not caused problems in the past. 

(B/1187/X) 

would not regard the introduction <strong>of</strong> wider access before the introduction <strong>of</strong> additional 

rangering … and assurance that Strathclyde Police has in place the necessary additional 

resources to respond to incidents involving irresponsible access. We would also 

welcome closer involvement from Glasgow City Council and the Local Access Forum in 

assisting to deal with issues arisiing from access. (B/1323/X) 

You cannot always have multiple use and the principle should be incorporated into the 

Code whereby areas that are managed for wildlife should not be subject to 

disturbing/damaging recreational activities (even including walkers during certain times 

<strong>of</strong> the year) (W/0816/X). 

Good communication and relations between land managers and local authority will help 

to allay fears. (G/132/X) 

Page 44 - 4.17 Not sure how this would be delivered with respect to riparian intersts. 

Many do not live locally nor indeed in the country. (T/0911/X) 

No amount <strong>of</strong> encouragement, other than financial, will alleviate the concerns among 

land managers that they are likely to have to bear significant costs to achieve the aims <strong>of</strong> 

the Code. (X/0784/X) 

168

Summary – 


There was a range <strong>of</strong> comment, from a variety <strong>of</strong> respondent types, on whether the draft Code provides sufficient encouragement and guidance for action 

by land managers to help people exercise access rights responsibly. 


Comments by respondents included: 

• the draft Code places too strong an onus in encouraging land managers to take positive steps to facilitate and provide for access and fails to 

recognise the time and resources needed to take action beyond the minimum required to meet the obligations set out in the Act; 

• clarification was sought on the text relating to land outwith access rights and what was meant by “contiguous land or water”; 

• the need to streamline funding available for access work from public agencies; 

• the development <strong>of</strong> good signage, with standard wording, as an important way <strong>of</strong> supporting land mangers to provide helpful advice to users; 

• the need for greater encouragement for land managers to use paths as a mechanism to manage access over their land; 

• the need to accommodate land managers’ views in the planning, provision and management <strong>of</strong> access, particularly core paths; and 

• the need to give greater recognition <strong>of</strong> the role <strong>of</strong> local authorities and local access forums in managing access issues, and to acknowledge the 

benefits <strong>of</strong> encouraging land manager involvement. 


Changes to this section in the Proposed Code emphasise a more participative and supportive role for the land manager in working with the local authority 

to facilitate and manage access on their land. The Proposed Code qualifies the encouragement for land managers to take positive steps by saying that 

they should do this “where possible”. The Proposed code also includes a short section on the responsibilities <strong>of</strong> owners <strong>of</strong> contiguous land. In doing this, 

the Proposed Code highlights that longstanding access has occurred over many areas and encourages land managers to respect this, even though it is 

outwith the new statutory rights. 

The Proposed Code also makes stronger links to the role and responsibilities <strong>of</strong> local authorities in planning and managing access, and it outlines the ways 

in which land managers can assist the local authority, to the benefit <strong>of</strong> both users and themselves. Greater emphasis has also been placed on the role <strong>of</strong> 

paths in helping to facilitate and manage for access and the benefits for land managers in helping identify routes which would bring benefit to users and 

land managers. 

SNH accepts the importance <strong>of</strong> the issues raised on funding. Although they are beyond the scope <strong>of</strong> the Proposed Code, it is recognised that they need to 

be taken into consideration in the wider implementation programme to support access rights. 

169

Question 21 - Do you think that section 5 provides clear , sensible, practical guidance to those 

excercising access rights and to land managers? If you think it could be improved 

please tell us in what way. 

For selected quotations from the detailed comments <strong>made</strong> in response to Question 21 - see end <strong>of</strong> 

this report 

170 

Number <strong>of</strong> General 


Number <strong>of</strong> Detailed 


Answer Category Main Respondents Selected Quotations – General Responses 

21a. Yes A/0009/X, A/0346/X, A/0163/X, 

A/0518/X, A/0442/X, A/0958/X, 

A/1070/X/d, A/0469/X, A/0477/X, 

B/0028/X, B/0385/X/d, B/0300/X/d, 

B/0565/X, B/0668/X, B/0247/X, 

B/0443/X, B/0512/X/d, B/1250/X, 

B/1295/X, B/0826/X/d, B/1152/X, 

B/0574/X, B/0613/X, B/0409/X, 

B/0470/X, B/0755/X, B/0772/X, 

B/1114/X/d, D/0022/X, E/1246/Y, 

E/0590/X, E/0516/X, E/0703/X, 

G/0114/X, G/0082/X, G/0189/X, 

G/1214/X, G/1254/X, G/0806/X, 

G/0960/X, G/1098/X, G/0698/X, 

G/0785/X, H/1348/X, H/1103/X, 

H/1179/X, H/0941/X, K/1241/X, 

K/0714/X, K/0722/X, L/0444/X, 

L/0439/X, M/1043/X, P/0643/X, 

P/0646/X, P/0491/X, P/0384/X/d, 

P/0548/X, P/1219/X, P/1237/X, 

P/1239/X, P/1272/X, P/0804/X, 

P/0869/X, P/0576/X, P/0577/X, 

P/0717/X, P/0889/X, Q/0264/X, 

Q/1275/X, Q/0893/X, Q/0526/X, 

Q/0686/X, R/1221/X, R/0868/X, 

U/0922/X, V/0207/X, W/0056/X, 

W/0143/X, W/0388/X, W/0391/X, 

W/0625/X, W/0644/X, W/0095/X, 

W/0194/X, W/0511/X, W/1007/X, 

W/1227/X/d, W/1287/X, W/0112/X, 

W/1151/X, W/0972/X, W/0581/X, 

W/0589/X, W/0589/X, W/0221/X, 

W/0770/X/d, W/0780/X, W/0789/X, 

W/1111/X, W/1130/X, W/1367/, 

195 

2,254 

This is a useful summary , which might be read by those who do not read the code fully 

(A/0985/X) 

In particular, Section 5 seems to provide a comprehensive cover <strong>of</strong> practical and helpful 

guidance on access rights and responsibilities. (B/0247/X) 

Section 5 provides clear guidance to those excercising access rights and to land 

mangers. We think it is particularly helpful to have the rights and responsibilities <strong>of</strong> both 

shown side by side. (G/0806/X) 

I agree that it is a useful starting point, as long as it is <strong>made</strong> clear that this is what it is - a 

starting point and not a definitive list-particularly if abstracted from for derivative 

documents (G/0960/X) 

The format is a much more user-friendly approach for the Code and indeed is a good 

starter point for the special interest codes (which should be referred to in the appropriate 

locations)…… The "practical guide" may well be the first thing users go to so it should 

reiterate that certain areas and facilities have local byelaws and management rules 

which must be adherred to. It should be a summary <strong>of</strong> what has gone before and should 

not introduce new ideas or concepts. (X/0939/X)

W/1373/d, X/0811/X, X/0939/X, 

X/1092/X. 

21b. No A/0658/X/d, A/0319/X, B/0167/X, 

B/0288/X/d, B/0859/X, B/0599/X/d, 

B/0225/X, E/0924/X, G/1291/X, 

H/0310/X, H/0615/X, P/0287/X, 

Q/0445/X, V/0975/X, W/0273/X, 

W/1032/X, W/0457/X, W/0880/X/d, 

W/1112/X, X/1188/X. 

21c. other A/0362/X, B/0347/X, B/1240/X, 

B/0594/X, D/0093/X, G/0379/X, 

G/1099/X, G/1291/X, G/0900/X, 

H/0154/X, H/0808/X, H/0916/X, 

H/0220/X, J/0023/X, P/0384/X, 

P/0274/X, Q/0697/X/d, Q/0707/X, 

V/0398/X, W/0021/X, W/0214/X, 

W/0901/X/d, X/1339/X, E/0616/X, 

A/0740/X, B/0054/X, B/0446/X, 

B/1295/X, B/0816/X, B/0879/X, 

B/0574/X, B/0594/X, B/0404/X, 

B/1267/X/d, E/0616/X, G/0920/Y, 

G/0604/X, H/1103/X, H/0460/X, 

H/0515/X, L/0865/X, M/0463/X, 

P/0642/X, P/0899/X, P/1066/X, 

P/0492/X, P/0491/X, Q/0856/X, 

Q/1275/X, Q/1178/X, Q/1122/X, 

R/1221/X, U/1172/X, W/0003/X, 

W/0108/X, W/1342/X, W/1310/X, 

W/1153/Z/d, W/0947/X/d, 

W/0579/X, W/0423/X, W/0708/X/d, 

W/0709/X/d, X/0664/X, X/0099/X, 

X/0896/X, X/1067/X, X/0495/X. 

Some clearer cross-referencing between sections 1 to 4 and in section 5 would help 

when referring between introductory guidance and the summaries. (P/1219/X) 

'Following such advice can greatly help to reduce the risks to safety' provides no firm 

direction. It should simply say,'It is responsible to follow such advice'. This approach 

should be taken throughout the document - to provide clarity. (H/1103/X) 

I found this section confusing , I suggest that the examples be combined with the 

relevant sections <strong>of</strong> the main text. This would avoid some repetition. (W/1032/X) 

The sections…where statutory rights do not apply(or may not apply)should be re-written 

to make it clear that access is currently taken in these places under existing customary 

freedoms, and should be expected to continue as long as it is taken responsibly. 

(G/1099/X) 

It would be sensible to have a matrix structure or simply three separate lists with access 

being on foot, on horse or bicycle. (W/0901/X/d) 

The absence <strong>of</strong> any referrence to or example <strong>of</strong> disability issues is a missed opportunity 

to reflect the intentions <strong>of</strong> the Scottish Parliament in specifically including provisions for 

disabled people. (M/0463/X) 

This should be backed up with a new table in section 5 specifically covering commercial 

activity. (P/0492/X) 

In addition to the need to avoid damage, users should be instructed to attempt to repair 

any damage accidentally caused. If this proves not to be possible then to report the 

damage to the land manager in order to be seen to be acting responsibly. (Q/1122/X) 

…it assumes a knowledge <strong>of</strong> the countryside and farming practices that is unlikely to be 

part <strong>of</strong> the 'average persons' experience today. (H/0460/X) 

This section is well laid out and very quick and clear to read. The columns should be 

headed on each page instead <strong>of</strong> just on the first page. Section 5 needs to be checked for 

consistency with sections 3 and 4. This section needs to decide if it is to be a summary 

or a detailed expansion <strong>of</strong> section 3 and 4. At present it <strong>of</strong>ten <strong>of</strong>fers expanded detail 

instead (e.g. low ground shooting (pg 50)....Earlier comments on section 3 and 4 are not 

repeated here but should be carried across to section 5 where appropriate. (P/0899/X) 

171


22. - Do you think that section 5 provides clear , sensible, practical guidance to 

those excercising access rights and to land managers? If you think it could be 

improved please tell us in what way. 



630 

For selected quotations from the detailed comments <strong>made</strong> in response to Question 22 - see end <strong>of</strong> this report 

Summary – Questions 21 & 22 


The vast majority <strong>of</strong> <strong>representations</strong> supported the inclusion <strong>of</strong> Section 5 and felt that it provided clear, sensible and practicable guidance to those 

exercising access rights and to land managers. At the same time, many <strong>representations</strong> outlined a large number <strong>of</strong> additional examples for inclusion, albeit 

that they also accepted that this Section could not be an exhaustive list. 

A few respondents felt that this Section was vague and therefore not particularly helpful. 


The main land uses where further advice was sought were in relation to: 

• golf courses 

• field margins 

• fields being ploughed 

• fields with calves/lambs 

• fields with livestock 

• gates & fences 

The main recreational uses where further advice was sought were: 

• horse riding 

• wild camping 

• cycling 


The Proposed Code has a substantially amended Section 5 in order to reflect many <strong>of</strong> the comments <strong>made</strong> and provide further advice on every day 

situations. Key additional topics included in this part <strong>of</strong> the Proposed Code are for fires, litter, personal hygiene, car parking, dogs, houses and privacy and 

access by people with disabilities. 

172

Question 23 - Do you find the advice in Section 6 useful? Number <strong>of</strong> 

170 



23a. Yes A/0009/X, A/0518/X, A/0437/X, 

A/0821/X/d, A/0469/X, B/0565/X, 

B/0772/X, B/1114/X/d, D/0022/X, 

E/0616/X, E/1246/Y, E/0590/X, 

E/0703/X, G/0043/X, G/0379/X, 

G/0082/X, G/0189/X, G/0806/X, 

G/0960/X, G/0973/X, G/0698/X, 

G/0785/X, H/0808/X, K/0714/X, 

P/0642/X, P/0646/X, P/0384/X/d, 

P/1218/X, P/1247/X, P/0287/X, 

P/1272/X, P/0804/X, P/0869/X, 

P/0576/X, P/0577/X, P/0889/X, 

Q/0501/X, Q/0445/X, Q/1275/X, 

Q/1122/X, Q/0526/X, Q/0697/X/d, 

R/1221/X, V/0207/X, W/0003/X, 

W/0017/X, W/0021/X, W/0359/X, 

W/0388/X, W/0391/X, W/0625/X, 

W/0644/X, W/0100/d, W/0095/X, 

W/0182/X, W/0194/X, W/0853/X, 

W/1007/X, W/1227/X/d, W/1287/X, 

W/0112/X, W/0972/X, W/0589/X, 

W/0423/X, W/0789/X, W/1111/X, 

W/1367/, W/1373/, W/1377//d, 

X/1385/X, X/1174/X. 

This section represents a balanced attempt at defining and dealing with irresponsible 

behaviour. However, ultimately, success will depend on good will and courtesy - as it 

does at the moment. (E/1246/Y) 

The advice given and, in particular, the "at a glance" page is very useful. The step-bystep 

procedure for dealing with irresponsible behaviour and the outline <strong>of</strong> the duties and 

powers <strong>of</strong> local authorities are particularly helpful. (P/0804/X) 

The 'at a glance' page is useful for the Council and other agencies, recreational and land 

management interests (W/1287/X) 

This section <strong>of</strong> the code deals with the subject adequately (W/0359/X) 

23b. No A/0098/X, B/0371/X, B/0525/X/d, 

B/0879/X, B/0466/X/d, B/0783/X/d, 

G/1098/X, H/0310/X, K/1241/X, 

M/0463/X, P/0717/X, Q/0264/X, 

Q/1346/X, V/0398/X, W/0056/X, 

W/1329/X, W/0812/, W/0880/X/d, 

W/0708/X/d, W/0735/X, 

W/0770/X/d, W/0780/X, W/1112/X, 

X/1188/X. 

Overall section 6 is the weakest in the Code. Previous versions <strong>of</strong> the Code included 

more detail <strong>of</strong> what the local authority's role would be and this should be covered in 

more detail again , so that those exercising access rights and land managers have a 

clear idea <strong>of</strong> what they expect local authorities to do. (K/1241/X) 

There is nothing in section 6 for disabled people. There is not even a mention <strong>of</strong> the 

Act's requirements for local authorities have regard for the needs <strong>of</strong> disabled people 

(M/0463/X) 

This advice is felt to be weak and assumes that the land manager is correct in his 

judgement <strong>of</strong> someone taking their access rights irresponsibly (W/1329/X) 

The advice is useful but mostly unworkable, it appears to be very one sided in favour <strong>of</strong> 

access users. Most access users know their rights but may not understand their 

responsibilities (Q/1346/X) 

173

23c. other A/0098/X, A/0319/X, A/0825/X, 

A/0098/X, A/0320/X/d, A/0442/X, 

A/0958/X, A/1037/X, B/1295/X, 

B/0613/X, B/1267/X/d, B/0028/X, 

B/0167/X, B/0668/X, B/0446/X, 

B/1288/X, B/0819/X, B/1094/X, 

B/0574/X, B/0738/X, E/1074/X, 

G/1291/X, G/1214/X, G/0917/X, 

G/1099/X, G/0759/X, G/1057/X, 

G/1251/X, H/0310/X, H/0220/X, 

J/1284/X, K/0444/X, K/1302/X, 

K/1241/X, L/1055/X, L/0439/X, 

P/0643/X, P/1273/X, P/0899/X, 

P/0928/X, P/1066/X, P/0316/X, 

Q/1122/X, Q/0232/X, Q/0686/X, 

Q/0707/X, Q/0790/X, R/1278/X, 

R/0868/X, T/0911/X, W/0063/X, 

W/1189/X, W/1016/X, W/1032/X, 

W/0457/X, W/1052/X/d, 

W/0901/X/d, W/1170/X, W/0581/X, 

W/0581/X, W/0700/X, W/0770/X/d, 

W/1149/X, W/1130/X, W/0669/X/d, 

W/0246/X, X/1353/X, X/1290/X, 

X/0099/X, X/0937/X, X/1067/X, 

X/0727/X, , X/0727/X. 

Point 1 on the 'At a glance' page should mention contacting relevant Ranger Services to 

help resolve access issues. (B/1295/X) 

If an individual gives up their access right under the Act, the code should clarify how long 

that is for . Is it all access rights or only at that location (E/1074/X) 

This does not go far enough. It would be helpful to specify which departments or <strong>of</strong>ficers 

in a local authority should be approached for help and information. The role <strong>of</strong> access 

<strong>of</strong>ficers and local access forums could be expanded considerably (G/0759/X) 

In paragraph 6.8, the last bullet point actually contains a lot <strong>of</strong> important issues that 

should be included in this list. For example, one <strong>of</strong> the benefits <strong>of</strong> the new system…. Is 

that local authorities will be empowered to resolve access disputes throughout their area 

and not just on ROW. Section 6 appears to be the logical place to describe the existing 

means <strong>of</strong> dealing with irresponsible and criminal behaviour on land (G/1099/X) 

Yes, but we feel that this section does not go quite far enough. It should also point out 

that unless a person is behaving responsibly, they have not access rights under the 

Land Reform (Scotland) Act. (J/1284/X) 

...the code should specify to readers that SNH has a power under s29 , to erect advisory 

signs in relation to the natural heritage, and that ignoring such advice would be 

considered irresponsible [S2].At present this is not mentioned at all in the Code 

(K/1302/X) 

In dealing with irresponsible behaviour; everyone will look to the local authority. This 

puts countryside rangers in a concerning position. Procedures need to be set out to deal 

with irresponsible behaviour. What will be the role <strong>of</strong> the Countryside Ranger? 

(X/1067/X) 

174

Question 24 - Is the guidance for dealing with irresponsible behaviour sensible and realistic? 

If not, please say why 


24a. Yes A/0518/X, A/0469/X, B/0565/X, 

E/0616/X, E/0590/X, G/0189/X, 

G/0806/X, G/0960/X, G/0785/X, 

K/0714/X, L/0439/X, P/0646/X, 

P/0287/X, P/0577/X, Q/0445/X, 

Q/0526/X, W/0021/X, W/0359/X, 

W/0388/X, W/0391/X, W/0100/d, 

W/0194/X, W/1007/X, W/0112/X, 

W/1052/X/d, W/0589/X, W/0589/X, 

W/0789/X, W/1130/X. 



Yes - though it may be useful to mention to both the public and managers that if an 

individual persistently breaches the code an interdict may be sought against that person. 

(A/0469/X) 

The step by step process outlined for land managers to follow when dealing with 

irresponsible behaviour will be useful. (P/0577/X) 

6. This is a balanced attempt at defining and dealing with irresponsible behaviour. 

Ultimately its success depends on good will, natural courtesy and good manners. 

(W/0589/X) 

547 

24b. No A/0009/X, A/0098/X, A/0871/X, 

A/0927/X, B/0028/X, B/0152/X, 

B/0375/X, B/0184/X, B/0167/X, 

B/0254/X, B/1306/X/d, B/1309/X, 

B/0834/X, B/0599/X, B/0466/X/d, 

D/1340/X, G/0043/X, G/0379/X, 

G/1099/X, G/1307/X, H/0220/X, 

K/0444/X, K/1241/X, L/0992/X, 

P/0642/X, P/0643/X, P/0287/X, 

P/1304/X, P/1219/X, Q/0264/X, 

Q/0232/X, U/0363/X, W/0619/X, 

W/0173/X, W/1018/X, W/1024/X, 

W/0817/X, W/0579/X, W/0235/X, 

W/1367/ , X/0099/X, X/0727/X. 

6.3 This does not cover the likely situation where parties disagree about whether 

behaviour is responsible or not; a discussion about actions taken or desired is not 

recommended. This paragraph assumes that the land manager correctly assessed that 

someone has behaved irresponsibly, yet this may not be the case.(A/0927/X) 

Help is not at hand in rural areas ( B/0028/X) 

I have no doubt that this procedure is set out with the best <strong>of</strong> intentions, but it is very 

unlikely that anyone will take it seriously. In reality the Act <strong>of</strong>fers no practicable way <strong>of</strong> 

dealing with irresponsible behaviour and it would be more honest and better if the Code 

were simply silent on this point. (B/0375/X) 

Dispute Resolution- The code is 'idealistic'. Disputes will be difficult/costly to resolve. 

'Damage' may have been done for some time before being noticed. Difficult to identify 

culprits or corroborate evidence (H/0220/X) 

Sensible and accurate guidance from the Scottish Executive to guide access Authorities 

in establishing procedures to deal with irresponsible behaviour is essential. The 

statement (6.3) that encourages land owners to contact the access Authority if a person 

is acting irresponsibly and will not leave the land is unrealistic. The LL & TT National 

Park Authority for example, has insufficient resources to respond quickly and no powers 

to remove people from the land. In fact, the landowner themselves have a greater power 

against repeat <strong>of</strong>fenders through seeking an interdict. Our concern is that the Code 

raises false expectations with the land manager, that the Access Authority will deal with 

irresponsible behaviour, when involving the police is really the only means possible. 

(P/1219/X) 

In Section 6, where a land manager can seemingly decide with automatic correctness 

whether behaviour has been irresponsible; and thus imply the access right <strong>of</strong> anyone 

committing such behaviour is void. (W/1018/X) 

175

24c. Section 6 shows that 

there are no adequate 

means to act against 

irresponsible behaviour by 

users 

A/0719/X/d, A/0786/X/d, 

A/0796/X/d, B/0025/X, B/0038/X, 

B/0068/X, B/0042/X, B/0049/X, 

B/0054/X, B/0058/X, B/0347/X, 

B/0620/Y, B/0631/X, B/0633/X, 

B/0638/X/d, B/0645/X, B/0648/X, 

B/0654/X, B/0085/X, B/0183/X, 

B/0525/X/d, B/0270/X, B/0272/X, 

B/0288/X/d, B/0858/X, B/0863/X, 

B/1181/X, B/1190/X, B/1199/X, 

B/1200/X, B/0558/X, B/0672/X, 

B/1015/X, B/1017/X, B/1019/X, 

B/1030/X, B/0215/X, B/1306/X/d, 

B/0443/X, B/0446/X, B/0982/X, 

B/1207/X, B/1208/X, B/1210/X, 

B/1250/X, B/1269/X, B/1281/X, 

B/1288/X, B/1240/X, B/0801/X, 

B/0826/X/d, B/0834/X, B/0879/X, 

B/0884/X, B/0895/X, B/0913/X, 

B/0925/X, B/0929/X, B/1152/X, 

B/1164/X, B/1173/X, B/1176/X, 

B/0983/X, B/0995/X, B/0996/X, 

B/1004/X, B/0935/X, B/0938/X/d, 

B/0942/X/d, B/0945/X, B/0964/X, 

B/0970/X, B/1062/X, B/1063/X, 

B/1072/X, B/1104/X, B/1125/X, 

B/0574/X, B/0613/X, B/0049/X, 

B/0123/X, B/0420/X/d, B/0436/X, 

B/0510/X, B/0506/X, B/0506/X, 

B/0404/X, B/0404/X, B/0466/X/d, 

B/0467/X, B/0476/X, B/0480/X, 

B/0481/X, B/0481/X, B/0473/X/d, 

B/0681/X, B/0695/X, B/1267/X/d, 

B/0754/X, B/0755/X, B/0760/X, 

B/0761/X, B/0783/X/d, B/0787/X/d, 

B/0798/X, B/1047/X, B/1049/X, 

B/1033/X, B/1142/X, B/1108/X, 

B/1117/X, B/1365/X, B/1375/, 

C/0070/X, D/0550/X, E/0616/X, 

E/0523/X, E/1243/X, E/1246/Y, 

For people wanting to report the actions <strong>of</strong> a land manager the question <strong>of</strong> identification 

is relatively easy, given the registration <strong>of</strong> ownership. For land managers wishing to 

protect themselves against unreasonable behaviour it will be virtually impossible to 

identify the culprits (B/1306/X/d) 

The farmer will seldom be able to identify the culprits and thus no means <strong>of</strong> redress, so 

will be left to bear the costs (B/1207/X) 

the legislation has provided no remedies for land mangers who find people acting 

irresponsibly. Relying on Court action <strong>of</strong> interdict or expecting support from the 

overstretched Police force is quite insufficient. (B/0480/X) 

The sanctions against walkers / riders is very unclear. They need to be thought out, 

clarified and included in both the Act (as an amendment) and within the Code (B/1049/X) 

From past experience it is extremely difficult to deal with such (irresponsible) behaviour 

and this should be noted since the Police are fully stretched and have no wish to be 

involved. People can become quite violent and put the farmer at physical risk. 

(B/1047/X) 

What does giving up access rights really mean? (E/1246/X) 

It is not clear to me that the code and/or legislation provides enough defence for land 

managers against the irresponsible actions <strong>of</strong> the idiot brigade. (G/0960/X) 

In Section 6 there was recognition that the local authority would be unable to respond to 

irresponsible behaviour, to assist land managers, and therefore paragraph 6.3 provided 

a support mechanism which did not reflect the true position. (P/0115/ X) 

Many land managers would feel intimidated by some people acting irresponsibly, 

particularly in groups (X/0405/x/d) 

The code seems to leave landowners with no practical sanctions against unreasonable 

behaviour, especially in the short term. This could be a big problem in areas near to 

towns (W/0979/X) 

176

E/1257/X, E/0877/X, E/0921/X, 

E/0923/X, E/0924/X, E/0516/X, 

E/0703/X, E/1113/X, F/0748/X, 

G/1192/X, G/0960/X, G/0973/X, 

G/0736/X/d, H/1196/X, H/0674/X, 

H/1348/X, H/1103/X, H/0807/X, 

H/0916/X, H/1179/X, H/0988/X, 

H/0941/X, H/0959/X, H/0220/X, 

H/0460/X, H/0460/X, J/1058/X, 

L/0513/X, L/0865/X, M/1327/X, 

N/1187/X, N/0773/X, P/0643/X, 

P/0115/, P/1300/X, P/0890/X, 

P/0577/X, P/0577/X, P/0717/X, 

Q/0024/X, Q/0501/X, Q/1312/X, 

Q/1232/X, Q/1275/X, Q/1346/X, 

Q/1178/X, Q/1122/X, Q/0707/X, 

R/0059/X, V/0398/X, W/0003/X, 

W/0056/X, W/0632/X, W/0641/X, 

W/0649/X, W/0108/X, W/0084/X, 

W/0511/X, W/0276/X, W/0277/X, 

W/0278/X, W/0296/X, W/0321/X, 

W/0337/X, W/0541/X, W/0556/X, 

W/0566/X, W/0669/X/d, W/0255/X, 

W/0212/X, W/1316/, W/0457/X, 

W/0979/X, W/1224/X, W/1227/X/d, 

W/1287/X, W/0242/X, W/0986/X, 

W/0990/X/d, W/1235/X, W/0812/Y, 

W/0817/X, W/0822/X, W/0880/X/d, 

W/0907/X, W/1151/X, W/1153/Z/d, 

W/1162/X, W/0999/X, W/0955/X, 

W/0963/X, W/1102/X/d, W/1119/X, 

W/1123/X, W/0581/X, W/0589/X, 

W/0612/X, W/0124/X, W/0417/X, 

W/0435/X, W/0708/X/d, 

W/0709/X/d, W/0735/X, W/0779/X, 

W/1110/X, W/1111/X, W/1112/X, 

W/1112/X, X/0543/X, X/0664/X, 

X/0099/X, X/0888/X, X/1174/X, 

X/0495/X, X/0426/X, X/0405/X/d, 

X/1115/X, X/1380/ . 

177

24d. Section 6 shows that 

there are no adequate 

means to act against 

irresponsible behaviour by 

land managers 

24e. local authorities 

need greater resources to 

be able to fulfil their duties 

and powers 

A/0009/X, A/0046/X, A/0500/Y/d, 

A/0319/X, A/0537/X, A/0666/X, 

A/0442/X, A/0821/X/d, A/0740/X, 

A/0743/X, B/0141/X, B/0361/X/d, 

B/0956/X, B/1234/X, B/0794/X, 

D/0022/X, G/0040/X, G/0146/X, 

G/0900/X, G/0698/X, Q/0415/X, 

V/0398/X, W/0063/X, W/0328/X, 

W/1342/X, W/0255/X, W/0489/X, 

W/0777/X. 

A/0846/X, A/0442/X, A/0425/X, 

A/0477/X, B/0152/X, B/0167/X, 

B/0525/X/d, B/0288/X/d, B/0331/X, 

B/1341/Z/d, B/0462/X, B/1309/X, 

B/0883/X, B/0409/X, B/0738/X, 

B/0782/X, B/0772/X, B/1114/X/d, 

D/0248/X, E/0523/X, E/0921/X, 

E/1074/X, G/0146/X, G/1291/X, 

G/0806/X, G/1098/X, G/0759/X, 

H/0915/X, H/0615/X, H/0515/X, 

P/0384/X, P/0642/X, P/0646/X, 

P/0384/X/d, P/1219/X, P/0889/X, 

P/0899/X, Q/0501/X, Q/0739/X, 

Q/0790/X, V/0207/X, W/0143/X, 

W/0625/X, W/0511/X, W/0525/X, 

W/0324/X/d, W/0328/X, W/0334/X, 

W/0843/X, W/1080/X/d, W/1373/, 

W/1102/X/d, W/1119/X, W/0579/X, 

W/0423/X, W/0614/X, W/0423/X, 

W/0770/X/d, W/1111/X, X/0099/X, 

X/0811/X. 

It is also significantly unbalanced in that it reads though presuming that most improper 

behaviour will be by those exercising their access rights (A/0949/X) 

In section 6.4, is there a reason why land users are not encouraged to raise any 

problems with the landowner first (where appropriate)? (D/0022/X) 

If a land manager believes that someone is acting irresponsibly they can ask them to 

change their behaviour, and if they don't then they give up their access rights. The issue 

is too important to hinge on someone's belief.. The first course <strong>of</strong> action should be to ask 

someone to explain their behaviour (G0698/X) 

The context in which a member <strong>of</strong> the public is deemed to have given up right <strong>of</strong> access 

if they choose to ignore a request from a land manager to change their behaviour is 

highly problematic - No one loses any legal right in Scotland unless a court, not a land 

manager (however justified), takes it from him or her. (G/0854/X) 

The code suggests that the access rights <strong>of</strong> the individual can be lost. This is when 

definitions matter. Who decides in real time if it is the land manager who is 

unreasonable. What practical recourse does the person seeking access have? 

(W/0489/X) 

s6 . Point 5 " Local authorities have powers to" - I am concerned local authorities will not 

remove obstructions, acquire land, provide facilities etc. because <strong>of</strong> cost (A/0477X) 

I also very much hope that you will lend SNH's weight to trying to get the Executive to 

provide the Local Authorities with funds to make Access work smoothly and effectively 

for the benefit <strong>of</strong> all the parties. (B/0152/X) 

Seeking help from a local authority is only to be useful to land managers if it is provided 

promptly at all times, including out <strong>of</strong> hours, at weekends or at night when it is most likely 

to be needed . If such help is not available , land managers are likely to contact the 

Police...if they can cite one <strong>of</strong> the <strong>of</strong>fences listed in Annex1 (B/0525X/d) 

The role <strong>of</strong> the LA in supporting the Act must be emphasised strongly. Looking to the 

future we trust those responsible for creating core paths and establishing access to the 

countryside will be properly provided with resources (G/0146/X) 

There will be increasing demands on local authorities to allocate resources to access. 

Resources will be required for physical projects, for ongoing maintenance, for ranger 

services and for education. West Dunbartonshire recognises that it has a major part to 

play in delivering responsible access within this area and hopes that the appropriate 

resources can be <strong>made</strong> available to deliver the vision. (P/0646/X) 

My only area <strong>of</strong> doubt relates to the ability <strong>of</strong> local authorities to cope properly with the 

many responsibilities placed on them. Will they be adequately resourced for their key 

role in making the access legislation work in practice? (W/0423/X) 

178

24f. the promotion and 

education programme 

needs to be adequately 

resourced 

A/0871/X, B/0033/X, B/0254/X, 

H/0807/X, P/0890/X, Q/0232/X, 

W/0169/X, X/0811/X. 

24g. other A/0097/X, A/0500/Y/d, A/0671/X, 

A/0437/X, A/0825/X, A/0933/X, 

A/0958/X, A/1070/X/d, A/1084/X, 

A/0469/X, A/0471/X/d, A/0740/X, 

A/0796/X/d, B/0525/X/d, B/0558/X, 

B/0565/X, B/0569/X, B/0443/X, 

B/1295/X, B/0677/X, B/1005/X, 

B/0945/X, B/0949/X, B/1093/X, 

B/1094/X, B/1096/X, B/0593/X, 

B/0613/X, B/0461/X, B/0783/X/d, 

B/1108/X, B/1117/X, C/0234/X, 

D/1340/X, E/0086/X, E/0536/X, 

E/1211/X, E/1257/X, F/0998/X, 

G/0067/X, G/0854/X, G/1291/X, 

G/1330/X/d, G/1214/X, G/1251/X, 

G/1254/X, G/0831/X, G/0917/X, 

G/0920/X, G/1098/X, G/0604/X, 

G/0730/X, H/1182/X, H/0310/X, 

H/1103/X, H/0808/X, H/0615/X, 

K/0722/X, L/0113/X, M/0463/X, 

M/1043/X, N/0716/X, P/0642/X, 

P/0643/X, P/0548/X, P/1218/X, 

P/1237/X, P/1239/X, P/1247/X, 

P/1272/X, P/1273/X, P/1296/X, 

P/1300/X, P/0804/X, P/0869/X, 

P/0890/X, P/0899/X, P/0928/X, 

P/1066/X, P/0576/X, P/0577/X, 

P/0889/X, Q/0501/X, Q/0256/X, 

Q/1230/X, Q/0893/X, Q/0932/X, 

Q/0224/X, Q/0697/X/d, Q/0739/X, 

R/1221/X, R/1278/X, U/1172/X, 

V/0245/X, V/0975/X, W/0017/X, 

Although it doesn't concern the code we would like to see a budget provided for 

education. This should be directed at all age groups not only in schools. (B/0254/X) 

There was consensus... that education is required for all parties- this also extends to 

training <strong>of</strong> employees who find themselves interfaced with Access problems - who 

should pay for this? (P/0890/X) 

As Rangers, we will inevitably be the first point <strong>of</strong> contact in the event <strong>of</strong> conflict. .. Need 

more training and funding <strong>made</strong> available to meet these increased manpower and 

administrative demands (X/0811/X) 

There is one user group not mentioned at all by the code. The writers <strong>of</strong> the Code 

assume that all children and teenagers who visit the countryside do so as part <strong>of</strong> a family 

group. Most children and teenagers…on the urban fringe do so without adults, in large 

and <strong>of</strong>ten intimidating posses (A/0871/X) 

6.6 there is no safeguards for access rights from an over -zealous local authority…there 

should be at least a provision for some form <strong>of</strong> appeals process A/0500/Y/d 

What help does the Code give to land - owners to prevent some sort <strong>of</strong> mass access for 

any reason which would undoubtedly be even more troublesome than access by one 

person (B/0677/X) 

Codes are all very well but are totally useless in the case <strong>of</strong> the irresponsible minority, 

and some form <strong>of</strong> redress needs to be put in place for the protection <strong>of</strong> the agricultural 

community. (E/1211/X) 

The existence <strong>of</strong> dispute procedures is not sufficiently emphasised here. The wording 

suggests that irresponsible behaviour is associated only with person exercising access 

rights and not with land managers. The history <strong>of</strong> access disputes does not support this 

view. (G/0831/X) 

...paragraph 6.3 should emphasise more strongly the benefits <strong>of</strong> encouraging parties to 

try and resolve differences before asking a person to leave (R/1278/X) 

I note that disputes can be taken to the local sheriffs, but it is not clear, if it is a grievance 

against land managers, who should tale the dispute to the Sheriff - the LA on behalf <strong>of</strong> 

the public good ,or the member <strong>of</strong> public who pointed out the problem.. who pays for 

this? (W/0063/X) 

179

W/0034/X, W/0066/X, W/0078/X, 

W/0080/X, W/0044/X, W/0056/X, 

W/0388/X, W/0629/X, W/0644/X, 

W/0649/X, W/0095/X, W/0182/X, 

W/1189/X, W/1342/X, W/0214/X, 

W/1310/X/d, W/1329/X, W/0981/X, 

W/1202/X, W/1217/X, W/1227/X/d, 

W/1265/X, W/0242/X, W/0901/X/d, 

W/1151/X, W/1153/Z/d, 

W/0950/X/d, W/0944/X, W/0972/X, 

W/0579/X, W/0581/X, W/0489/X, 

W/0708/X/d, W/0780/X, W/0789/X, 

W/1109/X, W/1109/X, W/1116/X, 

X/0193/X/d, X/1212/X, X/0896/X, 

X/1385/X, X/0937/X, X/1067/X, 

X/0122/X, X/0784/X. 

180

Summary – Questions 23 & 24 


Many <strong>representations</strong> highlighted that Section 6 <strong>of</strong> the draft Code was useful. However, in contradiction to this, a significant number <strong>of</strong> <strong>representations</strong> 

highlighted that there is no adequate means to act against irresponsible behaviour by recreational users. 


Underlying comments <strong>made</strong> on Section 6 were real concerns, particularly from land management interests, that no real enforcement against irresponsible 

behaviour is available. In this respect there are: 

• misunderstandings <strong>of</strong> the expectation that local authorities will provide cover 24 hours a day and 7 days a week; 

• concerns and doubts about the ability <strong>of</strong> the police or local authority to act quickly; 

• a need for clarity about what “being outwith access rights” actually means on the ground; 

• a need for further advice on what to do when there is a disagreement over behaviour; and 

• concerns about the inability to identify users who may be acting with criminal intent. 

In making these comments, <strong>representations</strong> highlighted the need for additional resources, local authorities to implement their duties and powers, core paths 

and educational guidance. 


In light <strong>of</strong> these comments, the Proposed Code has significantly changed from the draft Code. It now: 

• emphasises the need for people to act courteously and considerately; 

• notes that the Proposed Code provides, for the first time, a framework for assessing if someone is not being responsible; 

• states, simply, what options or steps are available to people when they come across actions they consider to be irresponsible; 

• refers to the range <strong>of</strong> duties and powers available to manage situations where there are regular or long-term problems to address; and 

• refers to relevant sources and bodies for further assistance. 

181

OTHER ISSUES COMMENTED ON BY RESPONDENTS TO THE CONSULTATION ON THE DRAFT SCOTTISH OUTDOOR ACCESS CODE 

Issue Resources Number <strong>of</strong> 



A/0077/X, A/0362/X, A/0658/X/d, 

General concerns about 

overall cost <strong>of</strong> 

implementing access 

rights and source from 

which this will be met 

A/0289/X, A/1194/X, A/1338/X, 

A/0437/X, A/0219/X, A/0477/X, 

A/0726/X, A/0762/X, A/0774/X, 

A/1037/X, B/0038/X, B/0048/X, 

B/0054/X, B/0151/X, B/0152/X, 

B/0345/X, B/0353/X, B/0356/X, 

B/0368/X, B/0376/X, B/0377/X, 

B/0385/X/d, B/0620/Y, B/0638/X/d, 

B/0171/X/d, B/0317/X, B/0326/X, 

B/0331/X, B/0859/X, B/1183/X, 

B/1187/X, B/1190/X, B/0563/X, 

B/0565/X, B/0569/X, B/0672/X, 

B/1015/X, B/1017/X, B/1301/X, 

B/1323/X, B/0443/X, B/0982/X, 

B/1208/X, B/1236/X, B/1231/X, 

Specific calls for Scottish B/1244/X, B/1250/X, B/1253/X, 

Executive / Scottish B/1261/X, B/1262/X, B/1269/X, 

Natural Heritage to meet B/1292/X, B/1295/X, B/1240/X, 

cost 

B/0842/X, B/0879/X, B/0929/X, 

B/1152/X, B/0995/X, B/0996/X, 

B/0954/X, B/0964/X, B/0969/X, 

B/0970/X, B/1072/X, B/1089/X, 

B/0574/X, B/0592/X, B/0593/X, 

B/0594/X, B/0599/X/d, B/0613/X, 

It seems far from clear whether enough resources will be <strong>made</strong> available, either for 

educating the public, or for providing properly maintained and signed paths. (B/0152/X) 

How can Scotland afford nationalised access? (B/1301/X) 

Access should not be introduced until after the necessary additional resources are in 

place to support responsible access and responsible land managers. To do otherwise 

will simply lose credibility with a significant proportion <strong>of</strong> the general public. (B/1323/X) 

The SLF has very grave concerns about funding for the right <strong>of</strong> access, and believe that 

unless the right is well funded then the public will be let down and landowners and 

managers will be blamed for any lack <strong>of</strong> access facilities. (H/1103/X) 

It is vital to emphasise the need for adequate resourcing to ensure the success <strong>of</strong> the 

Code and the Act in general. (P/1219/X) 

Who is going to pay for the maintenance <strong>of</strong> paths and tracks used by bikers and horse 

riders? (V/0398/X) 

In giving the public "freedom to roam" more damage is going to happen. Who is going to 

pay for that? (W/1024/X) 

The question <strong>of</strong> FUNDING must be addressed by the Scottish Executive so that Local 

Authorities and other agencies have money to spend on the CORE PATH NETWORK, 

RANGERS, ACCESS FORUMS, EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS, ETC. (W/0766/X) 

Additional grants must be <strong>made</strong> available (either through SEERAD or SNH) to land 

managers to enable them to provide adequate access provision, where conflict occurs or 

where a demand can be demonstrated, e.g installation <strong>of</strong> stiles, gates, fences, car parks, 

picnic areas and footpaths. The rate <strong>of</strong> grant should be compatible with the 90% grant 

rate that can be accessed under the new Scottish Forestry Grant Scheme for Woodland 

Recreation. (X/1298/X) 

229 

182


not bear the cost / require 

additional resources 

Local authorities should 

bear cost / require 

adequate resources 

Police require more 

resources 

B/0127/X, B/0127/X, B/0409/X, 

B/0428/X/d, B/0510/X, B/0506/X, 

B/0461/X, B/0404/X, B/0466/X/d, 

B/0470/X, B/0470/X, B/0480/X, 

B/0481/X, B/0683/X, B/1267/X/d, 

B/0745/X, B/0782/X, B/0794/X, 

B/1049/X, B/1108/X, B/1117/X, 

B/1127/X/d, B/0294/X, D/0248/X, 

E/0616/X, E/0523/X, E/0536/X, 

E/1246/Y, E/1257/X, E/0590/X, 

E/0590/X, E/0703/X, E/0703/X, 

E/0703/X, E/1113/X, F/1124/X, 

G/1192/X, G/1291/X, G/0973/X, 

G/1098/X, G/1106/X, H/0352/X, 

H/0370/X, H/1222/X, H/0310/X, 

H/1103/X, H/1179/X, H/0988/X, 

H/0615/X, H/0460/X, H/1042/X, 

L/0113/X, L/0992/X, N/0716/X, 

N/0773/X, P/0646/X, P/1219/X, 

P/1273/X, P/1273/X, P/1296/X, 

P/1300/X, P/0890/X, P/0575/X, 

P/0575/X, P/0575/X, Q/0364/X, 

Q/0501/X, Q/0304/X, Q/0206/X, 

Q/1286/X, Q/1346/X, Q/0824/X, 

Q/0930/X, Q/1165/X, Q/1178/X, 

Q/1105/X, Q/0479/X, Q/0739/X, 

R/1256/X, R/0763/X, U/1172/X, 

V/0398/X, W/0140/X, W/0143/X, 

W/0359/X, W/0381/X, W/0641/X, 

W/0102/X, W/0108/X, W/0503/X, 

W/0529/X, W/0524/X, W/0278/X, 

W/0283/X, W/0669/X/d, W/1014/X, 

W/1021/X, W/1024/X, W/1202/X, 

W/1227/X/d, W/1264/X, W/1266/X, 

W/0242/X, W/0986/X, W/0812/Y, 

The landowner should not have to foot the bill alone; the tax paying "user" should expect 

to bear most <strong>of</strong> the cost....Why should landowners provide this extraordinary public 

service free <strong>of</strong> charge? (B/0620/Y) 

It is widely recognised that the burden <strong>of</strong> access provision falls on owners and managers 

and that existing and proposed support mechanisms fall short <strong>of</strong> actual costs. Why is 

this being allowed to continue? (E/1257/X) 

It would make the issue <strong>of</strong> access easier for landowners/managers to deal with if 

agricultural grant and subsidy schemes included measures for access, in the same way 

that they do for conservation measures - making access an integral part <strong>of</strong> farm and land 

management, not an optional extra. (P/0890/X) 

Land managers should not be put to additional expense in maintaining or in any way 

overseeing the condition <strong>of</strong> such structures beyond their own requirement. We doubt 

that sufficient public funds can be <strong>made</strong> available to meet all extra costs...to the extent 

that no additional expense falls on land managers. (Q/1178/X) 

I feel that Local Authorities should be provided with resources to supply core paths and 

to clear blocked routes. (A/0219/X) 

...adequate funding to develop a paths network by Local Authorities is <strong>of</strong> the essence if 

there is to be access to enclosed countryside which benefits both locals and visitors 

alike. (B/0368/X) 

I also suspect that many local authorities will claim or find the don't have the funding to 

carry out their responsibilities to an effective level. (B/0672/X) 

The legal position is that resources, once allocated to local authorities, can be spent at 

local discretion. To ensure that paths are properly resourced without any doubt <strong>of</strong> the 

outcome, we recommend a contractual relationship between central and local 

government for this purpose. (H/0310/X) 

Key to the success <strong>of</strong> the Code will be appropriate resourcing <strong>of</strong> local authorities to 

support delivery <strong>of</strong> well planned and managed access…… Argyll & Bute Council 

therefore request that extensive guidance, training opportunities and significant and 

representative allocations <strong>of</strong> resources are <strong>made</strong> available to local authorities in respect 

<strong>of</strong> their duties under the access legislation and Code. (P/1296/X) 

Provision must be <strong>made</strong> for the prevention, detection and elemination <strong>of</strong> anti-social 

behaviour, vandalism and theft. Significant costs may be incurred together with police 

time. (E/0536/X) 

Additional rural police should be recruited to deal with access problems especially near 

urban areas. (W/1088/X) 

183

Importance <strong>of</strong> funding for 

necessary infrastructure 


ranger services / access 

<strong>of</strong>ficers 


education programme 

W/0843/X, W/0870/X, W/1153/Z/d, 

W/1159/X/d, W/0950/X/d, 

W/0955/X, W/0957/X, W/0962/X/d, 

W/1088/X, W/1102/X/d, W/1123/X, 

W/0581/X, W/0581/X, W/0581/X, 

W/0589/X, W/0589/X, W/0589/X, 

W/0591/X, W/0591/X, W/0591/X, 

W/0612/X, W/0612/X, W/0435/X, 

W/0708/X/d, W/0735/X, W/0746/X, 

W/0766/X, W/0778/X, W/0780/X, 

W/0780/X, W/0789/X, W/0789/X, 

W/1035/X, W/1110/X, W/1112/X, 

X/0637/X, X/639/X, X/0196/X, 

X/0543/X, X/0664/X, X/1212/X, 

X/1298/X, X/0099/X, X/1385/X, 

X/1036/X, X/0939/X, X/0495/X, 

X/0784/X, W/1373/. 

Paths: Constructed and maintained. Who will pay for them? Often the areas with the 

greatest need for constructed paths are those with the lowest budgets. An argument for 

central funding? (A/1194/X) 

Funding must be provided on a long term basis both for the construction <strong>of</strong> the facilities: 

paths, way markers, interpretation boards, stiles, footbridges, rubbish bins etc etc and 

also for the maintenance <strong>of</strong> the same. (B/0969/X) 

The importance <strong>of</strong> education and awareness raising is constantly emphasised. There is 

an overall feeling that this will only be achieved by the employment <strong>of</strong> more 

Countryside/Access Rangers. (P/1273/X) 

Will SNH be revising the ranger guidelines and levels <strong>of</strong> grant to reflect new access 

responsibilities? (P/0575/X) 

The demands on Countryside staff which will stem from the implementation <strong>of</strong> the Act 

and the Code stamp an indelible subliminal message on every page <strong>of</strong> the document viz. 

WE NEED MORE RANGERS! (W/0108/X) 

What is required is nothing short <strong>of</strong> a culture change on all sides. This will require 

educational and promotional activity <strong>of</strong> the highest quality and a considerable period <strong>of</strong> 

time to achieve. Substantial investment will also be necessary. (H/1179/X) 

Informing the public about assorted activities will cost a considerable amount <strong>of</strong> money 

and the erection <strong>of</strong> signs, information boards, publishing leaflets etc should be supported 

by grant assistance from Scottish Natural Heritage. (H/1042/X) 

184

Issue Does the Code provide adequate guidance on how the public can put something 

back? 




25 

No - there should be more 

guidance on how to put 

something back into the 

outdoors 

A/0844/X, B/0181/X, B/0826/X/d, 

B/0672/X, B/1295/X, B/1250/X, 

B/0574/X, B/0558/X, B/288/X/d, 

E/0924/X, E/0086/X, E/0616/X, 

F/1213/X, H/1103/X, H/1179/X, 

J/1058/X, Q/1178/X, Q/1286/X, 

Q/0264/X, W/0781/X, W/1111/X, 

W/1111/X, W/1110/X, W/1110/X, 

W/0789/X. 

I welcome the encouragement for walkers, climbers, cyclists etc to contribute to the 

economy <strong>of</strong> the rural areas where they enjoy access by using local business, shops, 

catering, accommodation, etc. I would ask that this encouragement be widened to 

specify local public transport. Visitors to the countryside can make a valuable 

contribution to the retention and development <strong>of</strong> services that benefit local people by 

using them....It is also better for the environment. (A/0844/X) 

I don’t quite understand how buying goods and services in the locality can necessarily 

help the farmers over whose land access is taken. This paragraph is patronising and 

fluffy. (B/0181/X) 

Putting something back into the outdoors is a good idea, should SNH/SEERAD lead by 

example so that land managers have incentives to act positively on a piece <strong>of</strong> legislation 

heavily balanced against their financial and other interests. (B/0672/X) 

If, for example, horse riders or <strong>of</strong>f-road cyclists are encouraged or enabled to take 

access to paths or tracks by commercial businesses earning income from the hire or 

provision <strong>of</strong> horses or bikes from instruction, then those businesses should be obliged to 

contribute towards the cost <strong>of</strong> managing and maintaining the paths or tracks. Canoe 

hire or instruction should be associated with the costs <strong>of</strong> providing river-bank access 

points. ... The code should encourage them to make some financial contribution to the 

local economy for their use <strong>of</strong> the land. ... So that land managers can be encouraged to 

assist and advise there should be a mechanism to encourage the event or business 

organiser to recompense the land manager for the time and skill spent in providing such 

advice or assistance. (B/1295/X) 

...this section should suggest that commercial operators should look for opportunities to 

contribute to the maintenance and upkeep <strong>of</strong> paths and other facilities, for example 

through Access Trusts. (B/0574/X) 

The Code raises the issues <strong>of</strong> putting something back into the countryside. It is our 

opinion that an annual access permit should be required by all persons seeking access 

to the open countryside, the revenues raised by such a licence covering the 

administrative cost and funding the provision <strong>of</strong> access facilities and signage. 

(E/0616/X) 

Another way <strong>of</strong> supporting the new arrangements is actively to promote setting up <strong>of</strong> 

"adopt a path" schemes, possibly under the auspices <strong>of</strong> the Local Access Forums. This 

has been very successful in other countries. (W/0781/X) 

185

Issue Duties and powers <strong>of</strong> local authorities Number <strong>of</strong> 

164 



Arbitration / conflict 

resolution 

A/0390/X, A/0098/X, A/0289/X, 

A/1194/X, A/0437/X, A/0442/X, 

A/1283/X, A/0290/X, A/0825/X, 

A/0871/X, A/0919/X, A/0927/X, 

A/1073/X, A/1077/X, A/1082/X, 

A/1095/X, A/0487/X, A/0719/X/d, 

A/0796/X/d, A/1037/X, B/0054/X, 

B/0058/X, B/0355/X, B/0368/X, 

B/0638/X/d, B/0116/X/d, 

B/0288/X/d, B/0280/X, B/1187/X, 

B/0558/X, B/0672/X, B/0679/X, 

B/1017/X, B/1306/X/d, B/0443/X, 

B/0446/X, B/1269/X, B/1271/X, 

B/1005/X, B/1347/X, B/0827/X, 

B/0929/X, B/1152/X, B/1157/X, 

B/1094/X, B/1096/X, B/0574/X, 

B/0127/X, B/0461/X, B/0681/X, 

B/0704/X, B/0738/X, B/0787/X/d, 

B/0294/X, E/0616/X, E/0921/X, 

Dispute resolution. Will standardised procedures be developed nationally to allow LA's to 

address these issues in an effective administrative manner across Scotland? When an 

Access Forum is involved in dispute resolution will guidance be issued and training to 

the Forum given. How will decisions be taken by Forums, which, although constituted, 

<strong>of</strong>ten have little or no elective representation, by many members. Where does the whole 

statutory provision <strong>of</strong> local authority elected members and the reporting procedure for 

Committee decisions on issues sit with this reconciliation/judgement process? What 

recourse will be available, should this informal Access Forum route fail. What is the 

appeal process? What will constitute evidence <strong>of</strong> irresponsible behaviour? Further 

guidance is required to assist administrative duties <strong>of</strong> both the Police and LAs. Is the 

ever expanding role <strong>of</strong> Police Community Liaison being considered as a first line <strong>of</strong> 

contact when there is a breach <strong>of</strong> behaviour? (P/1273/X) 

However, as local public representatives, they (local authorities) may be somewhat 

biased in favour <strong>of</strong> public access users as against land managers, and their decisions 

should be open to appeal. How? Where? SNH? (B/1096/X) 

Page 52, Item 1, bullet point 6. There are doubts about the ability <strong>of</strong> an access forum as 

presently managed to resolve any dispute. The low frequency/attendance <strong>of</strong> meetings as 

at present would not facilitate the resolution <strong>of</strong> any such dispute......X/1290/X) 

186

Resources 

Power to exclude land 

E/0924/X, E/1079/X, E/1113/X, 

F/0360/X, G/0067/X, G/0067/X, 

G/0067/X, G/0657/X, G/0082/X, 

G/1155/X, G/0132/X, G/0795/X, 

G/1057/X, H/1182/X, H/0310/X, 

H/0807/X, H/1128/X, J/0544/X, 

J/1284/X, K/0444/X, K/1241/X, 

L/0650/X, L/0992/X, L/0125/X, 

M/0463/X, M/1327/X, P/0384/X, 

P/0642/X, P/0643/X, P/0646/X, 

P/1304/X, P/1219/X, P/1239/X, 

P/1247/X, P/1273/X, P/1273/X, 

P/1296/X, P/0878/X, P/0899/X, 

P/1066/X, P/0575/X, P/0575/X, 

P/0577/X, P/0491/X, Q/0091/X, 

Q/0501/X, Q/0323/X, Q/1252/X, 

Q/1275/X, Q/0932/X, Q/0424/X, 

Q/0697/X/d, R/0059/X, R/1090/X, 

R/0121/X, U/0363/X, U/1172/X, 

W/0008/X, W/0063/X, W/0071/X, 

W/0079/X, W/0056/X, W/0143/X, 

W/0348/X/d, W/0637/X, W/0644/X, 

W/0649/X, W/0102/X, W/0108/X, 

W/0110/X, W/0119/X, W/0174/X, 

W/0277/X, W/0292/X, W/0296/X, 

W/1198/X, W/0533/X, W/0212/X, 

W/1227/X/d, W/1225/X, W/1277/X, 

W/0812/Y, W/1158/X, W/1102/X, 

W/0579/X, W/0581/X, W/0581/X, 

W/1377//d, W/0589/X, W/0702/Y, 

W/0705/X, W/0705/X, W/0720/X, 

W/1132/X, W/1135/X, W/1148/X/d, 

W/1149/X, W/1112/X, X/0192/X/d, 

X/0664/X, X/1290/X, X/1171/X, 

X/1174/X, X/0989/X, X/0937/X, 

X/0939/X, X/1067/X, X/1069/X. 

Whilst the code recommends that local authorities make full use <strong>of</strong> their duties and 

powers I am very concerned that few will have the resources to do so adequately. Local 

authorities may be reluctant to act due to inadequate staff numbers especially where 

they only have a power to act rather than do a duty, or where only a few complaints have 

been <strong>made</strong> about an access problem. This will be especially critical in local authorities 

with large areas <strong>of</strong> popular countryside. (A/0437/X) 

If a road or path is categorised by the local authority as a core path, the pressure on it, 

and gates and stiles acrossi it, will be multiplied a thousand fold. That is not normal wear 

and tear, so whose responsibility is it to maintain it? It should be the accessors under the 

eminently fair, balance and reasonable maxim <strong>of</strong> "USER PAYS", but as that will never 

happen, it leaves the local authority as the user's representative. The Code should 

therefore make it clear that the local authority does indeed have such responsibilities. 

(B/0058/X) 

Local authorities should be prepared to acquire additional land if it's recreational value 

for the public is demonstratable. (B/0127/X) 

More detailed guidance on the role <strong>of</strong> the local authority as landowner may have been <strong>of</strong> 

assistance in seeking finance and securing budgets for Public Access Projects. 

(P/1304/X) 

The first impression <strong>of</strong> the Code is that it should not impact on policing to any significant 

degree beyond attending to investigate the relatively few statutory or common-law 

<strong>of</strong>fences already resulting from access. However the lack <strong>of</strong> perceived powers <strong>of</strong> Local 

Authority representatives may result in such frustration that calls will be directed to the 

police instead. (U/0363/X) 

6.6 "A Local Authority could also use their power to exempt particular land or exclude 

particular conduct from the access rights". This would appear to be a dangerous catchall 

which should be omitted. (A/0442/X) 

The Access Code should state that Local Authorities are under an obligation to deal with 

requests to exclude land or water from access rights quickly. If they refuse consent 

reasons should be stated and there should be an appeals procedure perhaps to the 

Local Access Forum. There should be an assumption that if no response has been 

received from the Council within 14 days the land manager has the right to exempt the 

land for the event taking place. (B/0558/X) 

Section 2.18 we feel that there will be problems <strong>of</strong> communicating temporary land 

closures by local authorities. We have been unable to produce any suggestions on how 

to overcome this, bearing in mind how poor the existing lines <strong>of</strong> communication tend to 

be. (G/0082/X) 

There will be issues regarding closure <strong>of</strong> paths or areas for maintenance, and health and 

safety reasons. In some instances there may have to be an exemption on access rights 

for more than five days, but there does not appear to be recognition <strong>of</strong> this in the Code. 

(P/0491/X) 

187

Local Access Forums In the wider area <strong>of</strong> Local Area Fora we believe that Fora should be <strong>made</strong> up <strong>of</strong> 

Community Representatives. Both SNH and Local Authorities have Statutory Duties and 

must advise service LAF's. Lobbying groups such as the Ramblers Association, NFU, 

RSPB, BHS and the numerous similar bodies must not be allowed to dominate the 

agenda to the detriment <strong>of</strong> local communities. Also, all meetings must be publicly 

advertised and open to the public to demostrate transparency and fairness. (H/1182/X) 

Local Accuss Forum. Having just one Access Forum per local authority make it too easy 

to enforce central control and ignore the views <strong>of</strong> the local community. (X/0637/X) 

Removal <strong>of</strong> obstructions P61, Removal <strong>of</strong> obstruction and Upholding <strong>of</strong> access rights. The wording <strong>of</strong> these 

paragraphs doesn't seem to match, i.e. 'A local authority can remove any prohibiting 

sign….' compared with 'Each local authority has a duty to assert, protect and keep 

open…' Surely, if the local authority has a duty to assert....it should also 'have a duty to 

remove any prohibiting sign.....' (A/0719 /X/d) 

4.5 Obstruction. The Act empowers Local Authorities to remove obstructions where 

appropriate. We are concerned about how Local Authorities will interpret these powers 

for instance in seeking the opening or removal <strong>of</strong> existing locked gates etc. and the 

Code does not adequately address this. (E/0616/X) 

Planning All planning applications should have a written section regarding access to properties. 

(B/0679/X) 

Spokes would like to see a link between the S.O.A.C. and the 'Green Transport Plans' 

that are a feature associated with the granting <strong>of</strong> planning permission when high schools 

(plus their sports facilities) are built or extended. (G/0067/X) 

There should be guidelines and specific requirements pertaining to all block 

development to ensure routes through the building plots or between them, allowing 

continued access from top to bottom - eg every 50, or 100 yards. (L/0992/X) 

Byelaws With different bye laws brought in by different local authorities access takers are going to 

still find it difficult to know their rights. (B/1187/X) 

Perhaps as a protection, against byelaws being slipped through on the quiet, all access 

related byelaws should be referred to the proposed new National Access Forum for 

clearance before enactment. (X/0989/X) 

General points It is not reasonable to allow the access rights to come into effect before local authorities 

have put in place the measures to deal with problems arising from such actions. 

(B/1306/X/d) 

In Annex 3 the Code sets out the duties and powers <strong>of</strong> Local Authorities. An obvious 

omission is the duty to assist Land Managers where access rights are being abused or 

are detrimental to the land. (B/1271/X) 

There are specific requirements in the Act for local authorities to take into account the 

needs <strong>of</strong> disabled people when planning, developing and managing access. The 

Scottish Parliament specifically included this provision in the Act but again the Code 

does not even mention it let alone develop it. (M/0463/X) 

188

Argyll & Bute Council would require clarification on whether claimed rights <strong>of</strong> way will 

still be required to be asserted by the Council as a duty and in order to clarify the implied 

informal status associated with them....…(P/1296/X) 

...the proposed three year period for the local authorities to prepare a path plan is 

excessively long. This is already resulting in out local authority saying that there is not 

rush since they have three years before things need to change! (X/1069/X) 

The role <strong>of</strong> the National Park Authorities as the Access Authorities within National Parks, 

needs to be <strong>made</strong> clearer throughout the Code. (P/1247/X) 

Path Agreements and orders. Provision <strong>of</strong> Paths etc. Proper consultation should take 

place and the views <strong>of</strong> the land manager on the siting <strong>of</strong> a path for sensible land 

management reasons should prevail over someone in an <strong>of</strong>fice drawing a line on a map 

and then setting it is stone. (W/1102/X/d) 

189

Issue Paths and Tracks Number <strong>of</strong> 

295 



Resources 

A/0105/X, A/0098/X, A/0518/X, 

A/0289/X, A/0320/X/d, A/1194/X, 

A/0553/, A/0290/X, A/0997/X, 

A/0933/X, A/0598/X/d, A/0636/X, 

A/0440/X/d, A/0471/X/d, A/0762/X, 

A/0769/X/d, A/0796/X/d, 

A/0796/X/d, B/0366/X, B/0628/X, 

B/0633/X, B/0638/X/d, B/0653/X, 

B/0107/X, B/0118/X, B/0505/X, 

B/0275/X, B/0280/X, B/0862/X, 

B/1181/X, B/1183/X, B/1200/X, 

B/0563/X, B/0564/X, B/1019/X, 

L A's to produce plan for core paths but no date set for implementing the plans or details 

<strong>of</strong> funding. (B/0446/X) 

We stress that the core network requires regular maintenance to keep up a high 

standard to encourage people to make use <strong>of</strong> them. (B/1244/X) 

There will be significant resource implications for the Council in the preparation <strong>of</strong> a core 

path plan, in its implementation and in subsequent arrangements for it management, all 

<strong>of</strong> which will require the development <strong>of</strong> a fully operational computerised path record. 

(P/1329/X) 

Paragraph 2.20 Are such paths and tracks to be maintained at the landowner's 

expense? Would a lack <strong>of</strong> maintenance leave the owner in breach <strong>of</strong> the Act? 

(B/0943/X) 

General points 

B/1350/X, B/0238/X, B/0244/X, 

B/0254/X, B/0211/X, B/0956/X, 

B/1309/X, B/1322/d, B/1328/X, 

B/0443/X, B/0446/X, B/1231/X, 

B/1244/X, B/1248/X, B/1253/X, 

B/1269/X, B/1271/X, B/1281/X, 

B/1293/X, B/1295/X, B/1002/X, 

B/1240/X, B/1347/X, B/0819/X, 

B/0826/X/d, B/0895/X, B/0929/X, 

B/1164/X, B/1176/X, B/0931/X/d, 

B/0938/X/d, B/0943/X, B/0954/X, 

B/0964/X, B/0969/X, B/1094/X, 

B/0585/X, B/0593/X, B/0594/X, 

B/0609/X, B/0613/X, B/0127/X, 

B/0406/X, B/0413/X, B/0506/X, 

B/0506/X, B/0461/X, B/0404/X, 

B/0466/X/d, B/0467/X, B/0470/X, 

B/0470/X, B/0472/X, B/0488/X/d, 

B/0681/X, B/0704/X, B/0711/X, 

B/0760/X, B/1049/X, B/1049/X, 

B/1131/X, B/1142/X, B/1146/X, 

B/1148/X/d, B/0294/X, B/0294/X, 

B/0294/X, B/1375/, D/0550/X, 

Pg 23, 2/2 

"On all other paths and tracks" 

Many hundreds <strong>of</strong> paths and tracks have been ploughed up and planted over. The 

Code gives no guidance on the rights <strong>of</strong> access the public have to reinstate these 

routes. (A/0769/X/d) 

(Windfarm Development) In accordance to Section 7 (1) <strong>of</strong> the Act, access rights can still 

be exercised on 'core paths' in the above areas; this is <strong>of</strong> concern specifically during the 

construction phase <strong>of</strong> a windfarm development. Due to the scale <strong>of</strong> works involved, the 

safety <strong>of</strong> any user exercising their access rights along any 'core path' in close proximity 

to such works would be jeopardised. (E/0867/X) 

It is felt that there is a contradiction with regard to managed access by means <strong>of</strong> the path 

network and that this path network may dilute what is at the heart <strong>of</strong> the legislation "the 

freedom to roam". In Shetland there is a traditional freedom <strong>of</strong> responsible access to the 

countryside and this tradition will be eroded by the development <strong>of</strong> a path network where 

managed access is the norm................ (W/1287/X) 

Paths are important for facilitating access to the countryside particularly where people 

are nervous <strong>of</strong> confrontations or unclear where they may go ……..paths are not an 

alternative to access to the open countryside, the mountains or water. Provision <strong>of</strong> 

paths must not be seen as a mechanism for controlling or restricting access (W/0489/X) 

Page 44, side note. The side note on page 44 states that local authorities must obtain 

the permission <strong>of</strong> a Land Manager to provide core paths and any additional facilities. 

However, local authorities have a compulsory purchase power under section 16 <strong>of</strong> the 

Act, therefore this statement is not strictly accurate. (X/1353/X) 

190

Core Paths Network 

E/0351/X, E/0523/X, E/1246/Y, 

E/1257/X, E/0867/X, E/0902/X, 

E/0921/X, E/0942/X, E/0590/X, 

E/0590/X, E/0590/X, E/0765/X, 

G/0327/X, G/1192/X, G/1214/X, 

G/1254/X, G/0132/X, G/0132/X, 

G/0759/X, H/1196/X, H/0534/X, 

H/1348/X, H/0310/X, H/1103/X, 

H/1179/X, H/0941/X, H/0959/X, 

H/0220/X, H/0515/X, H/1042/X, 

H/1140/X, J/1051/X, K/0444/X, 

K/1241/X, L/0513/X, L/0507/X, 

L/1026/X, L/0865/X, L/0791/X, 

M/0101/X, M/0852/X, M/1383/X, 

M/0463/X, N/1352/X, N/1268/X, 

N/1297/X, P/0642/X, P/0643/X, 

P/0646/X, P/0316/X, P/1218/X, 

P/1219/X, P/1237/X, P/1239/X, 

P/0287/X, P/1272/X, P/0804/X, 

P/0889/X, P/0890/X, P/0899/X, 

P/1066/X, P/0577/X, P/0492/X, 

P/0491/X, Q/0091/X, Q/0177/X, 

Q/0157/X, Q/0517/X, Q/0333/X, 

Q/0856/X, Q/0206/X, Q/0210/X, 

Q/1232/X, Q/1252/X, Q/0824/X, 

There is no indication as to how the local authority will publicise the list <strong>of</strong> core paths, nor 

what the criteria they will use to establish these. (A/0098/X) 

The idea <strong>of</strong> a core path network is sound but I can foresee a number <strong>of</strong> problems. They 

would really have to be fenced on both sides to remove any claims for liability from the 

land manager. (B/0280/X) 

Enclosed land around cities, towns and villages will be most affected by these proposals, 

yet these are the areas where access takers will be most at risk <strong>of</strong> injury. Therefore in 

my opinion the only responsible access to such land should be by the core path network, 

set up and maintained by the local authority who should also accept liability for people 

using these paths. (B/0704/X) 

The document does not give enough information on the future <strong>of</strong> the core paths network. 

Particularly in relation to who has ultimate responsibility for: How landowners will be able 

to input to the development <strong>of</strong> the core path network. The provision <strong>of</strong> paths. The 

maintenance <strong>of</strong> paths. Who sets the standards for the core path network. Responsibility 

for any accidents on the paths. Where the financial burdens will lie for developmen, 

upkeep, legal action etc. (E/1246/X) 

Land managers must not be penalised by loss <strong>of</strong> subsidies if land is donated to the core 

path network. A reward would be more appropriate. (G/1192/X) 

The rate <strong>of</strong> development <strong>of</strong> core path networks will vary across Scotland and the position 

is likely to change fairly rapidly during the implementation phase. There is a danger that 

this situation will cause confusion particularly for visitors and consideration should be 

given to establishing some form <strong>of</strong> national information system which will reflect the 

changing position quickly and effectively. (P/0889/X) 

Core Paths are first mentioned within Parangraph 2.2 and no definition is provided for 

these, it would be benficial to do so. (P/0642/X) 

191

Signage 

Rights <strong>of</strong> Way / traditional 

Access 

Q/1232/X, Q/1252/X, Q/0824/X, 

Q/0866/X/d, Q/1178/X, Q/1061/X, 

Q/0424/X, Q/0517/X, Q/0479/X, 

Q/0697/X/d, R/1221/X, R/1256/X, 

R/1276/X, R/0910/X, V/0245/X, 

V/1285/X, W/0071/X, W/0080/X, 

W/0052/X, W/0056/X, W/0143/X, 

W/0348/X/d, W/0367/X, W/0618/X, 

W/0635/X, W/0641/X, W/0644/X, 

W/0108/X, W/0173/X, W/0503/X, 

W/0276/X, W/0278/X, W/0328/X, 

W/0334/X, W/0853/X, W/0855/X, 

W/0539/X, W/0541/X, W/0561/X, 

W/0669/X/d, W/1014/X, W/1021/X, 

W/1342/X, W/1343/X, W/0198/X, 

W/1315/, W/1319/X, W/1202/X, 

W/1217/X, W/1220/X, W/1227/X/d, 

W/1260/X/d, W/1263/X, W/1264/X, 

W/1287/X, W/1289/X, W/1052/X/d, 

W/1235/X, W/0812/Y, W/0815/X, 

W/0822/X, W/0836/X, W/0870/X, 

W/0880/X/d, W/0881/X, W/0887/X, 

W/1166/X, W/1171/X, W/0991/X, 

W/1000/X, W/0955/X, W/0944/X, 

W/0951/X, W/0962/X/d, W/1123/X, 

W/0581/X, W/0614/X, W/0130/X/d, 

W/0229/X, W/0231/X, W/0429/X, 

W/0432/X, W/0435/X, W/0489/X, 

W/0489/X, W/0489/X, W/0693/X, 

W/0702/Y, W/0705/X, W/0766/X, 

W/0770/X/d, W/0781/X, W/0792/X, 

W/0799/X, W/1034/X, W/1139/X, 

W/1149/X, W/1357/, X/0637/X, 

X/0639/X, X/0640/X, X/0652/X, 

the emphasis <strong>of</strong> guidance to land managers focuses on the provision <strong>of</strong> information 

through signage. We are concerned that the development <strong>of</strong> a 'sign culture' will lead to 

widespread apathy and subsequently reduce effectiveness. (E/0616/X) 

It is important that Farmers and Landowners are aware that signs can be used 

legitimately and most <strong>of</strong> us are looking for assistance from Local Authorities and SNH on 

standard signs in order to help and inform. B/1347/X) 

Paragraph 4.18 appears to ignore Scottish Office advice on preventing rural crime. 

"Cultivating Crime Prevention in Rural Scotland" recommends warning signs such as 

"Beware Guard Dogs". Perhaps SNH could suggest suitable notices which would protect 

remote and vulnerable premises without intimidating access takers. (L/0513/X) 

A national standard to any signage would be welcomed and it would be important that 

such signs have full details on them, e.g. start and finish dates, nature <strong>of</strong> work, 



A field identification system should be introduced whereby the Land Manager can "label" 

a field thus identifying the crops therein. ( /1375/ ) 

Where a public right <strong>of</strong> way passes through a farmyard, under the access legislation 

horse riders would not be able to pass through, unless the route was part <strong>of</strong> the core 

path network. This will affect quite a few well used horse routes in my areas, as all the 

rights <strong>of</strong> way are asserted as pedestrian only. (A/0440/X/d) 

I certainly would not want the fact that people use the farm road to access the 

countryside to eventually establish a right <strong>of</strong> way or core path. Unless this can be easily 

clarified I will probably request that people go around the farmyard, which is not the most 

practical solution. (B/1146/X) 

Clause 2.20 - With all the additional rights <strong>of</strong> access that the Act and code will create, 

and the creation <strong>of</strong> a core path networks, would it not be more balanced if it was also 

possible to formally apply to discontinue an old Right <strong>of</strong> Way. (E/0921/X) 

S. 2.19 ad 2.20 refer to …public rights <strong>of</strong> way …; however, the Code does not explain 

whether this refers solely to the small proportion <strong>of</strong> public rights <strong>of</strong> way which have been 

vindicated or asserted, or to the wider network, including claimed rights <strong>of</strong> way. Clarity 

on this aspect would be helpful. (V/0245/X) 

S.2.20: "All public rights <strong>of</strong> way will continue to exist." It would be helpful to define the 

circumstances under which new rights <strong>of</strong> way may be constituted in the future. 

(W/0887/X) 

192

Shared use 

X/0664/X, X/1353/X, X/1212/X, 

X/1385/X, X/1036/X, X/0811/X, 

X/0888/X, X/1174/X, X/0937/X, 

X/0939/X, X/1067/X, X/0495/X, 

X/0495/X, X/0495/X, X/0784/X, 

X/1056/X, X/1380/ . 

There is no advice specifically for the managers <strong>of</strong> land specifically for public access - 

LDRs, Country Parks, footpath networks etc - who by their very nature are encouraging 

and promoting public access but who in a variety <strong>of</strong> circumstances may have very sound 

reasons for wishing to modify (or indeed restrict) the actions <strong>of</strong> the access takers in the 

interests <strong>of</strong> other users, or the condition <strong>of</strong> resource itself.(W/0108/X) 

There are many situations where very narrow paths, which have been designed purely 

for walking, will now attract cyclists who will endanger pedestrians. I am concerned that 

the proliferation <strong>of</strong> mountain biking will not only cause danger to such pedestrians but 

severe damage to paths and there should be some distinction in terms <strong>of</strong> routes which 

are suitable for cycling and horse riding and those which are pedestrian only. (B/0118/X) 

It would therefore appear it would be reasonable for a land manager to exclude riders on 

the grounds that a track was not suitable with the result that damage would occur but 

this has not yet been <strong>made</strong> clear in the Code. It should be. (E/1257/X) 

The rights <strong>of</strong> horse-riders. As far as possible paths should be seen as multi-use; Will 

SUSTRANS and landowners prevent horse-riders using certain paths/land for access? 

………… P.41 (2nd point) deals with this issue and it would be helpful to clarify that the 

statement relates to horse riders and also what is meant by 'other well-used routes'. 

(N/1268/X) 

Will any stile, for example, be considered to be a barrier to horse or cycle access, and 

thus have to be replaced by something else. Even when in the view <strong>of</strong> the land manager 

or Ranger the land or path beyond is unsuitable for cycle or horse use? (W/0108/X) 

What specifications will apply to "core paths"? Will they fall under the Disability 

Discrimination Act? These points have arisen from consideration <strong>of</strong> the scenarios <strong>of</strong> 

Motability cars (e.g. modified Ford Escorts) seeking access along moorland or lochside 

tracks to attractive recreational destinations.(X/1036/X) 

Tracks / roads In terms <strong>of</strong> vehicular access there is no clear definition as to what constitutes 

established vehicular rights <strong>of</strong> way. Does this include all internal roads and tracks 

throughout an Estate? If these tracks and roads are utilised by the public who is 

responsible for the wear and tear and who pays for the work required to maintain them? 

(B/0964/X) 

On Page 23 paragraph 2.2. …… there should be a better definition <strong>of</strong> the word "track", 

particularly as there are access rights given on tracks but not on roads as listed in 

paragraph 2.15. The difference between the two should be explained e.g. are roads 

defined as those adopted by the Local Authorities, or is the difference the surfacing i.e. 

tracks are unsurpassed while roads have a hard finish. A definition is required because 

private roads that are surfaced are frequently used for gaining access to the countryside, 

but the Code could rule these <strong>of</strong>f limits to access rights. (P/0491/X) 

Planning It should not be permissible to object to a development on the grounds that the land 

required will be removed from that available for access. There must be a diversion 

process for Core Paths. (B/1271/X) 

193

Developers bringing people into the countryside should be forced to contribute to funds 

for core paths to serve local residents(B/0931/X/d) 

...if land is now affected by access rights will this affect the ability to get planning 

permission for activities which involve restrictions on access (e.g. golf courses, etc or 

can we open an arboretum and charge for access)? Landowner would need permission 

to restrict access rights in order to do a new activity.(H/0959/X) 

In general, the Code seems to provide no guidance on how the public can respond to 

changes in land use and rights <strong>of</strong> way etc., as new developments take place, especially 

housing schemes. Perhaps the issue here is the question <strong>of</strong> how the Access Code 

engages with planning processes. (Q/0424/X) 

Commercial publications Code should include guidance on un<strong>of</strong>ficial guide books - i.e. guidance on what should 

and should not be produced. This should also apply to web sites. There is an issue with 

the increasing number <strong>of</strong> walking books/guides which appear to be written without 

consulting with the landowner(H/0959/X) 

194

Issue Education Number <strong>of</strong> 

273 



General points – positive 

A/0400/X, A/0111/X, A/0097/X, 

A/0289/X, A/1194/X, A/0661/X, 

A/0442/X, A/0290/X, A/0825/X, 

A/0838/X, A/0841/Y, A/0871/X, 

A/1070/X/d, A/0724/X, A/0762/X, 

A/0796/X/d, A/1037/X, B/0032/X, 

B/0033/X, B/0142/X, B/0361/X/d, 

B/0631/X, B/0638/X/d, B/0645/X, 

B/0085/X, B/0167/X, B/0505/X, 

B/0338/X/d, B/0270/X, B/0288/X/d, 

B/0306/X, B/0312/X, B/0322/X, 

B/0859/X, B/1187/X, B/0565/X, 

B/0672/X, B/0680/X, B/1017/X, 

B/1019/X, B/1341/Z/d, B/0257/X, 

B/0215/X, B/0462/X, B/0956/X, 

The successful implementation <strong>of</strong> the code hinges on this interpretation <strong>of</strong> 'rights and 

responsibilities'. A wide spread programme <strong>of</strong> publicity and education need to be 

promoted so that both users and land managers are aware <strong>of</strong> each other's role in this 

area. (A/0289/X) 

The appropriate level <strong>of</strong> understanding which should go hand in hand with access rights 

to farm land and wild areas cannot be learnt from a leaflet or a display board, but rather 

is developed through experience and observation over a period <strong>of</strong> time. (B/0760/X) 

Very simply, people would apply for a licence to access rather like a driving licence. ….. 

The licence they obtain would be needed to be carried when enjoying access over other 

people's land and they would be asked to produce it if asked by a land manager. People 

who broke the code, ......would have their licences removed.... (B/1049/X) 

A major thrust <strong>of</strong> the publicity will be to explain the complexity and evolving nature <strong>of</strong> the 

Code. As the Code's purpose is to define 'responsible', we must be prepared to review, 

change or re-define those parts that do not work in practice. (P/1219/X) 

General points – negative B/1303/X/d, B/1309/X, B/1313/X, 

B/1328/X, B/0446/X, B/0512/X/d, 

B/1205/X, B/1250/X, B/1266/X, 

B/1269/X, B/1281/X, B/1288/X, 

B/1292/X, B/0801/X, B/0819/X, 

B/0834/X, B/0875/X, B/0884/X, 

B/1161/X, B/1168/X, B/1173/X, 

B/1176/X, B/0995/X, B/0996/X, 

B/1004/X, B/0942/X/d, B/0943/X, 

B/0945/X, B/0946/X, B/0969/X, 

B/1062/X, B/1083/X/d, B/1089/X, 

B/1096/X, B/1101/X, B/0574/X, 

B/0574/X, B/0594/X, B/0599/X/d, 

B/0049/X, B/0127/X, B/0127/X, 

B/0223/X, B/0236/X, B/0409/X, 

B/0419/X, B/0436/X, B/0510/X, 

B/0404/X, B/0481/X, B/0481/X, 

B/0683/X, B/0741/X, B/0754/X, 

B/0755/X, B/0756/X, B/0760/X, 

B/0760/X, B/1045/X, B/1049/X, 

B/1142/X, B/1147/X, B/1108/X, 

As the Code states, on page 60, something must be done to 'promote recreation'. I see 

no signs <strong>of</strong> real will and urgency on this matter though. (A/0290/X) 

The usual old chestnut beloved <strong>of</strong> lazy thinkers is "education". Get the teachers to teach 

pupils to teach the countryside with respect, and all will be well - no more vandals. The 

reality is, <strong>of</strong> course, that the teachers can't dot it all - many indeed know little <strong>of</strong> the 

countryside themselves, and care less; (A/0871/X) 

It is understood there is to be a significant educational programme surrounding the 

launch <strong>of</strong> the Code for which we have not been provided with a modus operandii. 

(B/1019/X) 

The draft Code is founded on the assumption that individuals will be able to take 

informed decisions as to their actions. This may not always be the case, a recent press 

report suggested that many individuals knowledge <strong>of</strong> agriculture is extremely limited. If 

informed decisions are not possible then responsible access is also not possible. 

(B/0512/X/d) 

I notice in para 3.7 that you expect land mangers and/or their rangers to promote 

understanding <strong>of</strong> the code. I find this presumptuous in the extreme. (B/1250/X) 

It is the duty <strong>of</strong> the SNH and LAs to promote an understanding <strong>of</strong> the code. What is 

going to happen if you FAIL to promote an understanding <strong>of</strong> the code? Can we as 

landowners sue you for loss <strong>of</strong> earnings? (B/1266/X) 

Education on behaviour in the countryside will only be heard by those who want to hear 

and who already behave responsibly. (X/0128/X) 

195

Timing 

Resources 

Support 

B/1114/X/d, B/1127/X/d, D/0521/X, 

D/1340/X, D/0978/X, D/1206/X, 

D/1065/X, E/0616/X, E/0536/X, 

E/0208/X, E/1201/X, E/1245/X, 

E/1257/X, E/0877/X, G/1099/X, 

G/0806/X, G/0973/X, G/0584/X/d, 

G/0584/X, G/0132/X, G/0132/X, 

H/0154/X, H/0552/X, H/1222/X, 

H/1276/X, H/0310/X, H/1103/X, 

H/1103/X, H/0915/X, H/1179/X, 

H/0988/X, H/0941/X, H/0959/X, 

H/0615/X, H/0615/X, H/0220/X, 

H/0460/X, H/0515/X, H/1042/X, 

H/1140/X, K/1302/X, K/0714/X, 

L/0527/X, L/0507/X, M/0852/X, 

M/0463/X, P/0640/X, P/0643/X, 

P/0646/X, P/0115/, P/0274/X, 

P/0287/X, P/0384/X/d, P/1219/X, 

P/0287/X, P/1273/X, P/1273/X, 

P/1296/X, P/0890/X, P/0575/X, 

P/0575/X, P/0575/X, P/0577/X, 

P/0492/X, Q/0016/X, Q/0517/X, 

Q/0304/X, Q/0309/X, Q/0256/X, 

Q/1270/X, Q/1286/X, Q/1346/X, 

Q/1165/X, Q/0932/X, Q/0232/X, 

Q/0517/X, Q/0517/X, Q/0790/X, 

R/1221/X, R/1256/X, R/1278/X, 

R/0868/X, R/1090/X, T/0911/X, 

What is required is nothing short <strong>of</strong> a culture change on all sides. This will require 

educational and promotional activity <strong>of</strong> the highest quality and a considerable period <strong>of</strong> 

time to achieve. Substantial investment will also be necessary. (H/1179/X) 

It is likely that only the long-term education programme will actually make a difference 

here. (P/0643/X) 

The introduction <strong>of</strong> rangers and guides to help promote responsible behaviour and an 

appreciation <strong>of</strong> the countryside, is vital. (B/0760/X) 

It will therefore be in the best interests <strong>of</strong> everyone involved - access takers, land 

managers and not least, the Scottish Exevutive, if there is an adequately funded national 

publicity campaign which helps people in the expanding walking market to understand 

their responsibilities to the countryside and land managers how their rights and 

responsibilities are affected by the Access Bill. (H/0552/X) 

...it is essential that SNH provide sufficient funding for the education programme and the 

extension <strong>of</strong> the hill phone system. (H/1042/X) 

It may be that we could assist in the dissemination <strong>of</strong> the document to our members and 

visitors from overseas by having copies available at our hostels. (D/0521/X) 

Snowsport Scotland has a key role in education <strong>of</strong> coaches and young people and is 

keen to play our part in the forthcoming education and awareness process. (D/0978/X) 

SSE suggest that SNH address the issue <strong>of</strong> public education and responsible behaviour 

and in relation to access to water adjacent to our works, SSE would welcome input into 

defining the issues and being involved in identifying suitable solutions. (E/1245/X) 

As an executive <strong>of</strong> the Scottish Youth Parliament, can we be <strong>of</strong> any help to the process 

<strong>of</strong> publicising the code, particularly to young people? (L/0507/X) 

[Page] 64 3.7 Again no mention <strong>of</strong> the wider role <strong>of</strong> LA's in terms <strong>of</strong> Corporate 

Communication Strategy departments (marketing/media/press/education) - the only 

reference is to Ranger Services & Access Officers. This is too narrow a focus to reach 

the widest possible audience. (P/1273/X) 

196

Methods 

U/0363/X, U/0922/X, U/1172/X, 

V/1285/X, W/0034/X, W/0066/X, 

W/0071/X, W/0080/X, W/0047/X, 

W/0056/X, W/0140/X, W/0147/X, 

W/0641/X, W/0644/X, W/0108/X, 

W/0168/, W/0529/X, W/0271/X, 

W/0318/X, W/0857/X, W/0669/X/d, 

W/1010/X, W/1012/X, W/1315/, 

W/1202/X, W/1224/X, W/1227/X/d, 

W/1264/X, W/1265/X, W/1282/X, 

W/1287/X, W/0242/X, W/1235/X, 

W/0836/X, W/0882/X, W/0886/X, 

W/1151/X, W/0991/X, W/0999/X, 

W/1001/X/d, W/0955/X, W/0957/X, 

W/1085/X, W/1102/X/d, W/1123/X, 

W/0581/X, W/0581/X, W/0581/X, 

W/0614/X, W/0124/X, W/0217/X, 

W/0231/X, W/0464/X, W/0700/X, 

W/0705/X, W/0720/X, W/0767/X, 

W/0770/X/d, W/0776/X, W/0789/X, 

W/1149/X, W/1109/X, W/1111/X, 

W/1116/X, W/1373/, X/0002/X, 

X/0196/X, X/0664/X, X/1339/X, 

X/1212/X, X/1298/X, X/0099/X, 

X/1385/X, X/1036/X, X/1171/X, 

X/0939/X, X/0495/X, X/0727/X, 

X/0784/X, X/1056/X, X/1115/X. 

Include schools in publicising Access Code - can it be included in National Curriculum 

(eg in Personal Development, Civics, PE or wherever there is an appropriate link 

depending on the Curriculum <strong>of</strong> the day?) (A/0825/X) 

Provide the public with information at key access points - the public can co-operate with 

you only if they know what you want!. (A/0838/X) 

A full, well-funded and long-lasting campaign <strong>of</strong> public education is required on 

television, radio, cinema and press. (B/0167/X) 

By using the Internet as a notice board it would be possible to allow land managers to 

post warnings and to outline specific areas, paths or fields which were to be avoided and 

give reasons. Members <strong>of</strong> the public wishing to go on private land could, and should be 

encouraged by you, to check the area they intend to be in for any warnings or exclusions 

and, indeed, could thereby obtain the manager's co-ordinates in case <strong>of</strong> emergencies or 

to pr<strong>of</strong>fer the simple courtesy <strong>of</strong> warning that they intended to camp on the land or to 

come through it with a number <strong>of</strong> horses..(B/0270/X) 

Adults are most difficult. TV advertising? Countryside problems aired in soaps. The 

cost <strong>of</strong> litter collection <strong>made</strong> clear to the rate payer. The consequence <strong>of</strong> these being 

cut down, fences cut, gates left open. (B/1127/X/d) 

Awareness <strong>of</strong> the access code will only be achieved through education. Outdoor 

Education Centres can play a key role in educating young people in this area. 

(D/1065/X) 

197

Specific education / 

training for target groups 

Could more dog-wardens be appointed please? I would like to know that they would 

give Talks to school-children and groups <strong>of</strong> adults………dog owner and dog-walkers 

could be encouraged to be much more responsible than they are at present. (A/0762/X) 

There is a need for land manager led training programmes for access <strong>of</strong>ficers and 

rangers for access takers. SNH and Local Authorities need this practical hands on 

training up at the sharp end to understand land manager's points <strong>of</strong> view before they can 

be considered competent to guide and advise others (B/0142/X) 

The SLF and its members would be pleased to assist in any training that can help to 

raise awareness and understanding <strong>of</strong> land management amongst those who work in 

access. We are concerned at a lack <strong>of</strong> understading <strong>of</strong> basic land management activities 

among some access <strong>of</strong>ficers, and that this lack <strong>of</strong> knowledge can lead to poor decision 

making (H/1103/X) 

An awareness raising campaign focussing on the issues <strong>of</strong> dog ownership would be very 

useful. (K/0714/X) 

Historic Scotland, the Council for Scottish Archaeology, Local Council and local 

archaeologists have an important educational role to play here. (L/0527/X) 

There is no substantive mention <strong>of</strong> the needs <strong>of</strong> disabled people, either to make the 

disabled community aware <strong>of</strong> the potential <strong>of</strong> the new law to increase their opportunities. 

(M/0463/X) 

198

Issue Monitoring responsible behaviour / reviewing the Code Number <strong>of</strong> 

27 



Need to review Code / 

comments on review 

process 

A/0825/X, A/0469/X, A/0796/X/d, 

A/1037/X, B/1301/X, B/1269/X, 

B/1083/X/d, E/0616/X, H/1103/X, 

H/1128/X, M/0852/X, P/1296/X, 

P/0640/X, P/0889/X, Q/0501/X, 

Q/0445/X, Q/1286/X, R/1278/X, 

W/0641/X, W/0857/X, W/1010/X, 

W/1315/, W/0614/X, W/0789/X, 

W/1130/X, X/1298/X, X/0099/X. 

(The review) process should also be open to public consultation with any proposed 

changes widely publicised. Otherwise there is a strong possibility that interests inimical 

to the spirit <strong>of</strong> the legislation may try to unduly influence the review process to impose 

restrictions by the back door, so to speak. (A/0469/X) 

The Code must be kept under review, in order to assess how effective its messages are 

and how effective the education programme is. It would be useful to have a major review 

<strong>of</strong> the Code's effect in 3-4 years time. (H/1103/X) 

Argyll & Bute Council would therefore like to suggest that the Code be reviewed after a 

period <strong>of</strong> 4/5 years following approval and implementation. (P/1296/X) 

The supplementary information currently included in the consultation document, if not 

part <strong>of</strong> the Code, would not require such approval procedures and would be much easier 

to amend and revise in light or experience. sportscotland considers, however, that the 

supplementary guidance, explanation and information that would be included in a code 

document would require the approval <strong>of</strong> SNH's main board, in consultation with the 

Access Forum, as would any subsequent amendments to it. (R/1278/X) 

I note that the Code must be reviewed from time to time. I approve <strong>of</strong> this: experience 

will show up weaknesses and I hope that these will be sorted out before precedents 

become established practices. It is most important to get things as right as possible from 

Need to monitor 

effectiveness <strong>of</strong> education 

programme / impacts <strong>of</strong> 

access 

the outset. (W/0641/X) 

The Outdoor Access Code will provide an acceptable reference point provided the 

appropriate arrangements are set up by the Local Authorities to monitor what is actually 

taking place once it comes into force. (A/0796/X/d) 

...it will be important to gather information about experience <strong>of</strong> the operation <strong>of</strong> the new 

access rights and procedures for dealing with the (inevitable) cases <strong>of</strong> misuse which will 

arise; and if it seems that procedures need strengthening, to be ready to amend the 

Code (or even the Law) appropriately. (Q/0445/X) 

The SCA recommends a full review <strong>of</strong> the social and economic impact <strong>of</strong> this new 

access code on the communities and environment two years after implementation. 

(M/0852/X) 

Ideally, the legislation should make allowance, say, two/three years after being passed, 

for a comprehensive review <strong>of</strong> the impact <strong>of</strong> the access code from all perspectives, with 

the benefit <strong>of</strong> hindsight, if only to iron out anomalies. (W/0857/X) 

If this legislation is to go through there should be at least a two year running in period to 

allow for modification in the light <strong>of</strong> experience. It must not be "cast in stone". (W/1010/X) 

199

Issue Respondents commending the points <strong>made</strong> by other organisations Number <strong>of</strong> 

44 



A/0369/X/d, A/0846/X, A/0601/X, 

A/0723/X, A/0753/X, B/0148/X, 

B/0361/X/d, B/0383/X, B/0060/X, 

B/0117/X, B/0860/X, B/1022/X, 

B/1323/X, B/0839/X, B/1160/X, 

B/1064/X, B/1094/X, B/0596/X, 

B/0218/X, B/0493/X, B/0757/X, 

B/0760/X, D/1340/X, G/0854/X, 

G/0665/X, G/1155/X, G/1386/Y, 

G/0759/X, H/0552/X, J/0004/X, 

J/1259/X, J/1051/X, M/1258/X, 

N/1120/X, Q/0930/X, Q/0526/X, 

R/0763/X, W/0307/X, W/0999/X, 

W/0427/X, W/0776/X, W/1116/X, 

X/0509/Y, X/0813/X. 

I would commend the comments <strong>of</strong> the Mountaineering Council <strong>of</strong> Scotland. (A/0723/X) 

We concur with the views expressed to you already by Scottish Golf Ltd. (B/0660/X) 

As a land manager I support the responses <strong>of</strong> the organisations with which I am involved 

- SLF, ADMG, SWRoss DMG. (B/0361/X/d) 

would like to add my personal support to the submission put in by the NFUS. I agree 

with every point they <strong>made</strong>. (W/0999/X) 

200

Detailed comments <strong>made</strong> in response to Questions 21 and 22 

Section 5 : Interpreting the rights and responsibilities: a practical guide 

Table showing Places / Sporting / Other Recreational Activities. 

21. Do you think that Section 5 provides clear sensible, practicable guidance for those exercising access rights and to land managers? If 

you think it could be improved, please tell us in what way. 

Places: 

Canals 

agree with draft 

Code: 

changes/additions 

suggested: 

Dams 


Code: 


suggested: 

Selected Quotations – comments on the guidance for 

those exercising access rights. 

Specific advice on the effect and issues <strong>of</strong> access to water 

by different user groups should be provided as part <strong>of</strong> the 

detailed development <strong>of</strong> further access information. 

Special considertation should be given to the operation <strong>of</strong> 

inland waterways such as the Caledonian Canal 

(P/1300/X) 

Advises users to give way to motorised craft… this is 

exactly the opposite to the usual rule that the powered 

craft gives way to sail or paddle driven craft. (W/0641/X) 

Many reservoirs have open access on dams, so how do 

you know which can be used? (B/0409/X) 

There are a number <strong>of</strong> inconsistencies in the code in that 

Selected Quotations – comments on the guidance for land 

managers. 

Horses have safely ridden many parts <strong>of</strong> the towpath system for 

over 30 years. BW should be more proactive in their attitude to 

public access and work with local authorities to use towpaths as 

links in the Core Path Network. There are many place where this 

is possible. (G/1251/X) 

As it currently reads, the advice to land managers implies that 

you cannot exercise access rights in some areas on canals 

…..the advice should be revised to read information on how 

people can best exercise access rights. (R/1278/X) 

The less intensively managed <strong>of</strong>fside banks <strong>of</strong> canals are 

considered to be important wildlife corridors, particularly in the 

Central Belt. Regular and formalised access to the <strong>of</strong>fside could 

compromise this function. (X/0896/X) 

A useful summary, which should be adhered to by managers <strong>of</strong> 

dams - this should hopefully put an end to barbed wire fences 

across perfectly safe footpaths over dams. (A/0098/X) 

Dams. I find this confusing - if access rights do not apply then 

the definition <strong>of</strong> responsible behaviour by land managers is 

incorrect. Land managers should be encouraged to permit 

201

Farmyards 


Code: 


suggested: 

lands such as farmyards and dams, which are specifically 

excluded from access rights, are nevertheless included in 

the code as routes that can be taken in certain 

circumstances. (B/1199/X) 

If the access rights do not apply to dams then the 

summary guide should not confuse the issue. Accordingly 

access is not permitted unless the land manager's consent 

has been obtained. (B/1240/X) 

The sections on dams and other locations where statutory 

access rights do not apply should make it clear that access 

is commonly taken there under existing customary 

freedoms and this will continue subject to being exercised 

responsibly. (G/0831/X) 

This section should make it clear that it refers to the 

statutory access rights granted under the Act, especially 

where the guidance suggests that no access rights exist in 

some situations (e.g Dams). (G/0920/Y) 

The phrase 'a safe distance’ is used again for 'Access 

where there are farm animals': what is a safe distance? 

(A/0658/X/d) 

Feel that the section on farmyards could lead to some 

confusion ie "Access rights do not extend to farmyards" 

….then list <strong>of</strong> ways <strong>of</strong> taking access through farmyard. 

The paragraphs "In going ….those living on the farm" 

should be in bold. (B/1093/X) 

The sections on farmyards and other locations where 

statutory access rights do not apply should make it clear 

that access is commonly taken there under existing 

curtomary freedoms and this will continue subject to being 

exercised responsibly. (G/0831/X) 

access providing there aren't any specific safety issues. 

(B/0672/X) 

Dams - … we believe that the exclusion <strong>of</strong> rights <strong>of</strong> access to 

dams is appropriate in most cases and should be extended to 

their associated structures. However, we accept that in some 

cases, safety issues can be looked at. Bearing in mind that the 

access legislation refers to water, advice should be given on 

avoiding areas where turbulence can occur. (E/1246/Y) 

Access to valves and sluices may require to be restricted if there 

is a high risk <strong>of</strong> vandalism or a terrorist threat. (X/0896/X) 

Unless with the permission <strong>of</strong> the farmer no access to farmyards 

should be allowed. (B/1161/X) 

The code should clearly state that being in or close to a farmyard 

or dwelling, without good reason or permission, or the existence 

<strong>of</strong> an existing right <strong>of</strong> way, would be regarded as giving rise to 

the suspicion that a crime was being either committed or 

planned. (B/0404/X) 

Access through farmyards, even on rights <strong>of</strong> way, should be 

stopped. (B/0446/X) 

The encouragement to land managers to "continue to allow 

access" should be deleted. (B/0525/X/d) 

Rambling Associations, Government agencies etc could fund 

paths etc, around farmyards and utilise current farm roads where 

appropriate with agreement <strong>of</strong> the farmer or landowner. This 

gives the benefit <strong>of</strong> a rural partnership creating better access 

which benefits everyone rather than the government legislation 

taking a stick to reluctant land managers. (B/0593/X) 

Mention should also be <strong>made</strong> <strong>of</strong> the dangers outside the strict 

202

Field margins 


Code: 


suggested: 

Mention should be <strong>made</strong> that dogs be kept on short leads 

to avoid wildlife disturbance (B/0409/X) 

Set aside fields, strips, end rigs and beetlebanks should 

have restricted access. (B/0638/X/d) 

For those like ourselves, close to livery yards and riding 

schools with no amount <strong>of</strong> land attached, it is likely that 

field margins will become heavily trafficked. ….. It would 

be greatly beneficial to both landowners and pedestrians if 

a variety <strong>of</strong> limitations are included to prevent unnecessary 

damage, e.g. limited access according to weather and field 

conditions, limited speeds (for the safety <strong>of</strong> other access 

users as well as preserving the condition <strong>of</strong> the margin). 

(B/0845/X). 

What is <strong>of</strong> much greater concern is that the business will 

be able to charge its customers to take them for a nice 

hack on my farm - 6 or 8 at a time? - including all over my 

field margins. I have some very attractive field margins 

namely 6 metre wide beetlebanks and lovely grass riparian 

areas, all under the aegis <strong>of</strong> the Rural Stewardship 

Scheme. When these are damaged... by the steel shod 

hooves <strong>of</strong> the horses, from whom my neighbour is making 

money but I am not… not only will the wildlife suffer but 

SEERAD might very well take the view that I am in breach 

<strong>of</strong> my obligations under the RSS. (B/0925/X) 

...insufficient guidance is given as to what constitutes a 

field margin and what is responsible in such 

confines <strong>of</strong> steadings e.g. some animal handling facilities, silage 

pits, muck middens, stacks <strong>of</strong> bales, etc. (H/1196/X) 

There should be mention <strong>made</strong> <strong>of</strong> cr<strong>of</strong>ts and cr<strong>of</strong>tland 

(P/1247/X) 

A practical point ……a stream <strong>of</strong> people asking permission may 

in itself be disruptive and invasive <strong>of</strong> privacy……has 

consideration been given to the provision <strong>of</strong> standard signage? 

(X/1056/X) 

more <strong>of</strong>ten than not fields are sown/planted right up to the field 

boundary with no possibility <strong>of</strong> access without potential damage 

to crops….. suitable margins should be provided. (A/0820/X) 

Access round field margins - This should only be necessary 

when there is no suitable alternative. ….. The width <strong>of</strong> this 

margin … should certainly not exceed 2 metres (B1091/X). 

No. There are direct contradictions - e.g. page 47 - Field 

Margins: Responsible behaviour by land managers - leave a field 

margin … to support wildlife: Responsible behaviour by public: 

exercise access rights around field margins. These two are 

incompatible. (B/0167/X) 

There should be provision for restricting general access to field 

margins at certain times <strong>of</strong> year. (B/1164/X) 

...it is incompetent to advise people to take access around field 

margins when the same margin may be receiving SEERAD 

funding as a managed conservation feature under a contractual 

oligation, where damage to the feature may give rise to penalties 

against the landowner. (E/0616/X) 

where field margins are managed for wildlife there should be an 

opportunity to protect these areas from disturbance. There is no 

reference to what is an acceptable width for a field margin. This 

will cause confusion and conflict if consideration is not given to 

this and guidance provided. (H/1103/X) 

It must be clear in the code that a field margin is the area 

between the crop and the field boundary and does not include 

any <strong>of</strong> the crop. (W/1139/X) 

203

Fields <strong>of</strong> grass etc 


Code: 


suggested: 

circumstances. For instance does the field margin include 

the crop or merely the area between crop and boundary? 

In many situations the field margin is a prime wildlife site. 

(B/0834/X) 

Field Margins: The advice for 'extra care' particularly for 

cyclists …. .should be removed. (G/1098/X) 

Neither the Act nor the Code indicate how wide a field 

margin is expected to be. We recommend that the Code 

recommends that, from a public access point <strong>of</strong> view, this 

can be considered to be up to 5 metres in width. This 

would be the area within which, if damage were to occur to 

a crop during the taking <strong>of</strong> access, it would not be deemed 

"irresponsible". ... A width <strong>of</strong> 5 metres for margins would 

be comparable to the width <strong>of</strong> headrigs and endrigs and 

the width <strong>of</strong> conservation headlands and other existing 

special management schemes for field margins. 

(G/1291/X) 

It seems strange that there is no way <strong>of</strong> protecting some <strong>of</strong> 

these habitats against the disturbance caused, even 

unintentionally, by people walking, riding or cycling through 

them. The code should emphasise more that paths should 

always be used in preference to wildlife corridors and field 

margins for this reason. (W/0822/X) 

...the code should state whether or not walking on planted 

land is or is not responsible in a case where a) the walker 

remains as close as possible to the margin <strong>of</strong> that planted 

land and b) the margin is not sufficiently wide for one 

person to walk along it without contact with a bounding 

hedge or wall or without risk <strong>of</strong> slipping into a bounding 

drain or burn or <strong>of</strong> causing material to fall into the drain 

etc. (W/0977/X/d) 

The length <strong>of</strong> silage that requires respect is too long. In 

clause 3.29 200 mm should be reduced to 100 mm or at 

the very most 150 mm. Regular passage <strong>of</strong> people will 

Page 47 - "Places" - "Fields" (3 entries). There seems to be no 

appreciation that leaving any width <strong>of</strong> field margin involves a 

potential financial penalty for farmers in terms <strong>of</strong> lost production. 

Therefore, rather than a direction, "Wherever possible, leave a 

field margin ..." it might be more reasonable to say “ Consider 

leaving a field margin..” (W/0848/X) 

To allow access to hay and silage fields except when it is at a 

late stage <strong>of</strong> growth is subjective and penalises the farmer's 

margin. I defy any layman to tell me what is late stage <strong>of</strong> growth. 

204

stop grass ever growing as high as 200 mm. (B/0840/X) 

...there should be a reference here to newly sown grass, 

and this should be excluded from the right <strong>of</strong> access, as it 

is very susceptible to damage in the early stages <strong>of</strong> 

growth. (B/0574/X) 

Being a tiny seed, crops <strong>of</strong> newly sown grass are very 

susceptible to damage. These crops should not be open 

to access. (B/0879/X) 

The Code should emphasise that access users should 

take all litter home. It is correct to point out that rubbish 

could cause injury to farm animals but it is also worth 

highlighting that it can damage farm machinery resulting in 

expensive repairs. (B/1240/X) 

Access rights should also not apply to newly cut hay or 

silage. …a newly cut field … immediately entered by dog 

walkers who think nothing <strong>of</strong> allowing fouling which ends 

up baled (B/1303/X/d) 

I know a number <strong>of</strong> farmers who will not allow horses to 

graze silage fields after the silage has been cut, due to the 

high incidence <strong>of</strong> horse shoes becoming detached, only to 

be picked up in the next year's cut silage. A horse shoe 

going through a forage harvester can cause a very 

expensive repair. It is just as likely that horses riding 

across a silage field can lose the occasional shoe. ... It 

would surely be reasonable to suggest in the Access 

Code, that whilst walkers are welcome to use silage fields, 

after the crop is taken, horses should refrain from doing 

so. (E/0765/X) 

Grass grown for hay or silage is a crop, it should be 

treated as a crop and access not permitted. (H/0552/X) 

The guidance ….. is clear and helpful. A similar issue 

concerns grass grown for turf…… guidance on avoiding 

damaging this crop …. should be included in the Code. 

(P/0869/X) 

Fields <strong>of</strong> grass for hay and silage - Horses need to be 

excluded at an earlier stage than walkers, as their hooves 

can raise divots which may allow soil to be introduced to 

the final silage crop, with subsequent serious disease risks 

Consequently I suggest that it should be treated as crops and 

access limited to the margins. (B/0183/X) 

Is it ever possible not to ‘leave a field margin’? It should perhaps 

say: "leave an accessible field margin". (U/0922/X) 

Newly sown and young grass is a very tender crop which is 

easily damaged particularly in wet conditions. ….. Why do you 

suppose these fields are shut <strong>of</strong>f in the first place? It is to give 

the crop the best chance to grow and regrow in what in the 

highlands is a short and problematical season (W/1102/X/d). 

We would endorse the view <strong>of</strong> the Scottish Cr<strong>of</strong>ting Foundation, 

that the automatic right <strong>of</strong> access over cr<strong>of</strong>ting in-bye should be 

removed and the in-bye should be treated in the Code in a similar 

way to a farmyard. (X/1298/X) 

205

Fields <strong>of</strong> growing 

crops 


Code: 


suggested: 

to animals eating the silage. (U/0922/X) 

An additional criterion for whether a grass field is in fact for 

hay or silage should be added. Because modern farm 

mowing equipment shaves the ground very closely, hay 

and silage fields are always rolled at an early stage <strong>of</strong> 

growth to flatten out divots, wheel tracks and push down 

stones, making in the process what the public can easily 

recognise as 'stripey grass'. The public should be asked 

to avoid such fields, even if the grass has not yet reached 

ankle height. (A walker entering such a field may not do 

much harm, but cyclists and horses could potentially undo 

some <strong>of</strong> the work <strong>of</strong> the roller, thus making more likely the 

contamination <strong>of</strong> the cut grass with earth, with the 

consequent development <strong>of</strong> Listeria in the silage - fatal to 

sheep and horses, and causing 'silage eye' in cattle.) 

(W/0108/X/d) 

I would agree with 'ankle height' for avoiding damage to 

silage - but not with the 8 inches; more like six for most 

ankles. (W/1023/X) 

…access to something like a standing stone in the middle 

<strong>of</strong> a field <strong>of</strong>ten requires walking up tractor ruts or along 

other gaps where crops are not growing. This should be 

included in the Code. (A/0968/X) 

...extremely concerned about the granting <strong>of</strong> rights <strong>of</strong> 

access across crops. Most members <strong>of</strong> the public cannot 

identify the difference between wheat, barley and grass. 

The Code must give clear guidance on this and what to do 

if there is doubt. (B/0801/X) 

3.28 makes clear that crops must not be damaged. It is 

however impossible to tell what lies beneath a few inches 

<strong>of</strong> snow and winter sown crops are frequently thus hidden. 

Considerable damage will be caused to crops under snow 

by the use <strong>of</strong> sloping fields for sledging or skiing by 

perfectly well intentioned, responsible but ignorant people. 

Better to exclude all land reserved for crops. (B/0563/X) 

.. birds are reared by ourselves in specific areas. There are 

serious safety implications with regard to disease, fire and 

explosion (artificial heat is provided by Propane Gas). We 

believe, therefore, that access rights should not apply to these 

areas and this should be set out clearly ... Once the game birds 

have been reared to a specific age, typically six weeks or more, 

they are gradually acclimatised to the wild. Initially they are kept 

in fairly large fenced areas, either in woods or more open 

country, and are gradually given their freedom. Disturbance at 

this stage could have serious consequences for the wellbeing <strong>of</strong> 

the birds, and could result in many deaths, and therefore we 

again feel that access rights should not apply to these particular 

areas. ... in game cover plots where crops have been planted 

specifically to provide suitable habitat. It is assumed that these 

206

Fields where crops 

are being sprayed 


Code: 


suggested: 

(B/0925/X) 

...the Code should clearly state that crop tramlines or 

other similar areas left unplanted for access do not 

constitute a path or track. (B/1125/X) 

"For human consumption" is not quite what the issue is 

about. It is the immediacy <strong>of</strong> the consumption and the 

requirement for the fruit or vegetable to be consumed in an 

unaltered state. A grain from a cereal crop might 

ultimately be for human consumption in the form <strong>of</strong> a 

biscuit or beer, but it will be subjected to a long process <strong>of</strong> 

refinement, whereas a cabbage or strawberry could be in a 

shop within a few days. Once again, this gradation <strong>of</strong> 

types <strong>of</strong> crops could be better explained. (G/1099/X) 

... The Code should explain that it is not responsible to 

take access along tramlines. Tramlines do not provide 

convenient access opportunities, and in particular they 

may serve to 'lure' people into irresponsible access - if 

someone starts to follow a tramline, thinking it will lead 

them across the field, they may decide (as the tramline 

sweeps round) to cut across the crop to the fence, rather 

than follow the tramline to its end. (H/1103/X) 

Sown crops will be difficult to see if not through the 

ground. Horses could prove to be damaging but again 

difficult to see a sown crop before it is through the ground. 

(W/0972/X) 

An independent scientific adviser should suggest how long 

people need to avoid areas after particular chemicals have 

been applied - bearing in mind most users just walk quickly 

through a field and don't roll around in it. (A/0425/X) 

A field spread with slurry may be safe to walk thro' but not 

to picnic in, but when is it safe?… Where in the code does 

it warn not to chew on a piece <strong>of</strong> grass in case it has been 

sprayed or have slurry on it? (B/0446/X) 

For example, in the issue <strong>of</strong> fields where crops are being 

areas would be classified as "growing crops" and excluded under 

Section 2.15, but it would be helpful if they were directly referred 

to. (F/0748/X) 

Picnics - It's not just lime and slurry that ruin the sandwiches. 

Fertilizers, sprays, dung also curl up the cucumber. We have to 

assume that the public are pr<strong>of</strong>oundly ignorant <strong>of</strong> what we get up 

to and it is quite dangerous to single out a couple <strong>of</strong> hazards. 

Almost safer not to mention any. (B/0142/X) 

More advice should be given on crop spraying, however the 

issue <strong>of</strong> signage is conflicting as land managers are being told 

not to put up signs restricting access. (B/0613/X) 

Fields where crops are being sprayed - in the majority <strong>of</strong> cases it 

207

Fields which are 

being ploughed etc 


Code: 


suggested: 

Fields with calves 

or lambs present 


Code: 

sprayed and advice from land managers to avoid such 

areas, to say 'Following such advice can greatly minimise 

risks to safety', provides no firm direction. It should simply 

say - 'It is responsible to follow such advice'. (B/0574/X) 

If one sees spraying going on, even neighbouring fields 

may not be far enough away, depending on wind speed, 

and especially if there is a sudden change in wind. I think 

a distance from the field edge is required, probably 

>100m. (V/0851/X) 

The spray used may pose a health risk to a dog drinking 

rainwater after warning notices have been removed. 

Access can be over fence or dyke out <strong>of</strong> visibility <strong>of</strong> 

notices. (W/1235/X) 

Fields being sprayed: putting on the notice the material 

being used will mean nothing to 99% <strong>of</strong> the public. A more 

general statement, say pesticide, herbicide, fertilizer may 

be more readily understood - but I suspect by a minority. 

The term fertilizer may scare some. The simple term 

'treated' and keep away for so long may be better. But ..... 

A potato crop may be treated weekly for weeks! 

(V/0851/X) 

"Fields ….being ploughed …." …. The onus should be on 

the access user (or local authority) to seek guidance from 

the land manager. (B/1096/X) 

We suggest that there will be confusion over when it is a 

crop and when it is not. To avoid this situation and, given 

that in most cases access users will be able to follow an 

alternative route or a field margin, reference to access to 

newly sown crops and to crops in the process <strong>of</strong> being 

harvested should be deleted. (B/1240/X) 

Calves & lambs - (calves and lambs should be considered 

separately). It is unnecessary to have a wholesale 

would be unreasonable to expect land managers to provide 

information on materials used and the risk period. Who decides 

where it is reponsible to display the information? Who pays for 

staff to be available to inform access users? We suggest the 

summary guide states that in most cases it will be impracticable 

to provide information. (B/1240/X) 

..in large fields the provision <strong>of</strong> information is a major additional 

burden to the farmer. The principal difficulty is identifying the 

potential sources <strong>of</strong> entry to the field by the access taker. … It 

may ..be construed that providing information relating to what has 

been sprayed and with what only at field entrances is insufficient, 

given that for large enclosures where a gate or access point may 

not be immediately visible to an access taker, access may be 

taken over any part <strong>of</strong> the field enclosure. (E/0516/X) 

Fields where crops are being sprayed - this type <strong>of</strong> closure 

should ideally be negotiated to agree an appropriate period <strong>of</strong> 

closure, or alternatively be given a maximum time period <strong>of</strong>, say, 

3 days, to minimise disruption to those exercising responsible 

access. (P/1239/X) 

The wording <strong>of</strong> the advice about ploughing, sowing etc, at the top 

<strong>of</strong> p48 seems to suggest that land managers have a duty to 

plough etc as little as possible and as fast as possible! This is 

presumably just unfortunate wording and needs amending. 

(W/0614/X) 

The "minimum required" should be the farmer's decision. 

(W/1170/X) 

208


suggested: 

restriction on access where there are (calves &) lambs. It 

should be possible for there to be temporary restrictions 

during the first few weeks after the young animals are 

born, but thereafter, access should be open to responsible 

people. .....a blanket ban on dogs is unreasonable and 

unnecessary........... However there does need to be better 

recognition <strong>of</strong> the increasing danger <strong>of</strong> taking access 

through fields with cattle. (A/1136/X/d) 

By general consent, cows with young calves at foot are 

unpredictable, likewise cows "at the drop." A cow in this 

state can kill! It must be mentioned that cows do not 

always distinguish between dogs and small children - and 

the result could be serious. (B/0209/X) 

The dates for lambing are misleading. Even in the central 

belt <strong>of</strong> Scotland lambing well into May and lambs are very 

vulnerable to harassment from dogs up until June. 

(B/0840/X) 

A calving field or one that contains cows and calves is just 

not a safe place for the inexperienced. (B/1334/X) 

The dangers <strong>of</strong> cows with calves need more explanation 

and access-takers should be advised never to walk 

through fields containing cows and young calves (even 

without dogs) (H/1196/X) 

Fields with calves or lambs - need to define field, as some 

large but nevertheless enclosed areas have lambs or 

calves and it would be unreasonable to ask dog walkers to 

stay out <strong>of</strong> the whole area. (P/0548/X) 

When is a lamb not a lamb? The code needs to clearly 

define this so there are fewer misunderstandings. I think it 

is important to distinguish when is the 'close to lambing' 

time period. Is this period to be just before lambs are born 

and just after? Lambs in our area are now about two 

months old - can I assume it is now fine to cross a field 

with lambs? (W/0110/X) 

Heavily pregnant female animals <strong>of</strong> any species. e.g. 

mares, goats, sows etc. should never be disturbed for any 

needless reason. Neither should free range poultry, e.g. 

hens, turkeys, geese, ducks. Also, it should be noted that 

...no provision in the code for brood mares and foals eg in 3.37 

(lambs, calves or sheep close to lambing). (B/0965/X/d) 

How are people going to know if sheep are in lamb, or how near 

they are to lambing? … You therefore need a closed season for 

walking through fields with sheep from October to April, and this 

should be clearly stated. (B/1190/X) 

We recommend that for a limited time (3 weeks?) at lambing 

landowners / managers can put up a sign to say that no dog 

access will be considered responsible at this time <strong>of</strong> year. There 

needs to be a specific amendment to sections talking about fields 

(which should state 'land') where lambs and calves are present. 

(H/0959/X) 

Lambs and calves are <strong>of</strong>ten present on common grazings and 

open hill grazing (W/1111/X). 

209

Fields with other 

livestock 


Code: 


suggested: 

any animal defending young can be dangerous and how 

do you know when? Even a gander or cockerel can cause 

considerable damage (W/0812/). 

Guidance should be to walkers, with or without dogs, to 

avoid enclosed fields with livestock at all times but, should 

it be necessary to be in the same field, walkers should 

have in their mind an emergency 'exit strategy'. Livestock 

can be dangerous animals. (A/0658/X/d) 

The code gives no guidelines for those exercising access 

near horses and ponies in fields. (B/0241/X) 

The common sense approach would be to state simply 

that, as a general rule, it is undesirable and inappropriate 

to enter fields <strong>of</strong> livestock, particularly with a dog. Such 

guidance could then be accompanied by information on 

how to hold to account any land manager who was thought 

to be using livestock unfairly to divert access takers from a 

habitual route. (B/0628/X) 

It is my belief that the Code should recommend that 

access across fields with young stock and bulls is 

irresponsible (particularly with a dog), to avoid the potential 

conflicts that could ensue (B/0801/X). 

Deer farms. These should surely be out <strong>of</strong> bounds for 

walkers and dogs. Stag are dangerous at rutting time. If 

deer are frightened they could charge their enclosure 

fence and break out. (B/0830/X) 

Fields with other Livestock. Do not ride a horse through a 

field containing grazing horses. (G/1251/X) 

Helpful if the code included guidance in relation to horses, 

particularly for walkers, cyclists and horse riders passing 

through fields with horses in them. (P/0889/X) 

There is no mention <strong>of</strong> other livestock such as pigs, which 

are very dangerous, as well as the serious health 

implications if people go near or through fields <strong>of</strong> pigs… 

What about all the others eg. deer, ostrich, wild boar? 

Farmed deer can be highly dangerous……Contact local access 

forum for by-pass paths. (H/0310/X) 

210

Forests and woods 


Code: 


suggested: 

Requires broadening public thinking away from just cattle 

and sheep. (U/0922/X) 

Anybody entering a field after dark containing livestock, 

but particularly for example cows with calves or a bull, is 

taking a very foolish and unnecessary risk. (W/0618/X) 

Add "You must accept the risk <strong>of</strong> going through a field with 

livestock, which under certain circumstances, is 

considerable". (X/0122/X) 

..extra guidance should be provided on the issue. "Cattle 

can attack small children as well as dogs, therefore, care 

should be taken to avoid taking children into fields with 

cattle and calves". This should be added to the final code. 

A dog on a short lead in a field <strong>of</strong> cattle still presents a 

danger; it should be further stressed that cattle without 

calves and outwith the period mentioned in the code can 

still attack dogs. (P/0492/X) 

I approve <strong>of</strong> the statement that horses and cycles keep to 

suitable paths. (W/0641/X) 

Unlimited access should not be allowed in woodlands. It 

must always be by prior agreement. (B/0638/X/d) 

In relation to woods near urban settlements, dogs should 

be kept on leads and persons and dogs should keep to the 

paths if the wildlife purpose is to be maintained (B/0956/X) 

There should be restrictions on access where a substantial 

proportion <strong>of</strong> the trees are thinner or shorter than walking 

sticks. If a complete ban is not feasible there should be a 

recommendation to go very carefully if crossing recently 

planted areas, and if possible to go round the edge. 

Running or riding should count as vandalism. (B/1094/X) 

Access takers are told not to hinder operations and follow 

any signs or alternative routes provided. However it 

makes no reference to whether they would be 

irresponsible not to do so. (E/0516/X) 

...there needs to be greater reference to forestry in SOAC 

for example mention <strong>of</strong> keeping away from sawmills (which 

come in all manner <strong>of</strong> shapes and sizes), leaving 

machinery and equipment (anything from a timber 

Forestry should constitute a growing crop to which permissible 

access does not apply (B/1089/X). 

SNH's interpretation <strong>of</strong> section 6 (10) that a forestry crop only 

applied to trees in a nursery is clearly incorrect. Nor is it 

acceptable as it fails to give protection to young trees planted out 

from such a nursery and facing tougher conditions in the forest. 

We are concerned that such vulnerable property as trees <strong>of</strong> up to 

two metres in height should be properly protected. (E/1257/X) 

A number <strong>of</strong> our clients in particular forest owners have indicated 

alarm at the potential for horse riders making use <strong>of</strong> forest paths 

and causing damage thereby. ..... (E/0351/X) 

Where possible, provide paths and other facilities to help people 

to exercise access rights responsibly. - Who Pays? 

(W/0708/X/d) 

211

Gate, fences etc 


Code: 


suggested: 

harvester to fire beaters) untouched or being aware that 

woodland deer stalking <strong>of</strong>ten takes place in the early 

morning <strong>of</strong> late evening.(E1257/X) 

We would recommend horses do not access areas with 

unsurfaced paths without permission <strong>of</strong> the land manager. 

(K/0444/X) 

Forests and woods with deer management operations - 

Deer control takes place within forests all year round (see 

annex 2) <strong>of</strong>ten at dawn and dusk. Generally there are no 

special provisions required by those taking responsible 

access. Follow any signs and notices which may be 

provided. (R/1256/X) 

Other users such as walkers, cyclists and horse riders 

need to be aware and understand that they must anticipate 

multiple usage on forest roads and behave accordingly. 

(R/1256/X) 

Forest and woods - wildlife not so visible but probably 

more <strong>of</strong> it and so important to watch your dog particularly 

in the breeding season. (W/0629/X) 

Forests and woods - to ensure health & safety compliance, 

guidance should be that access takers must follow local 

guidance on alternative routes. (W/1112/X) 

The access taker should utilise styles/gates where 

possible to avoid damaging walls and fences. (H/0515/X) 

yes emphasises the need to leave gates as they are 

found. (Q/0828/X) 

I feel you are wrong in suggesting that crossing fences is 

acceptable behaviour when there is no other alternative. 

Fences are expensive devices that have been constructed 

by farmers and landowners to either keep stock enclosed 

or to exclude wild animals that can damage crops. These 

fences have never been designed to withstand humans 

crossing them. You have suggested in your forum that 

perhaps it could be re-worded to suggest crossing at 

strainer posts. This too is wrong as walkers would still 

have to climb on the wires, which would loosen the post, 

loosen the staples, stretch the wires and butterfly 

Provided an electric fence is signed, and the live wire is on the 

field side <strong>of</strong> the fence, there is surely no problem. Similarly, if 

barbed wire is used next to a path, it should be on the field side 

<strong>of</strong> the fence. .. There is, however, a problem with electric fencing 

and barbed wire where they are used on a deer fence or high 

(locked) gate, and no stile is provided. (A/0098/X) 

At present there are miles <strong>of</strong> barbed wire and electric fences 

beside paths. Mostly this is not a problem. (A/1037/X) 

The type <strong>of</strong> fencing used on a farm needs to be appropriate to 

controlling the livestock kept. Hill cows, and in particular stock 

bulls, <strong>of</strong>ten necessitate the use <strong>of</strong> both barbed wire and electric 

212

tensioners, and risk holing rabbit nets... There is no 

alternative other than ramblers contacting their Local 

Council and asking for funding for a gate or style to be 

inserted in the fence... Farmers can not and will not 

tolerate damage and inconvenience to the fence first, as 

an indication to its need for a gate... If gates are needed 

then they should be funded by the public purse. 

(B/0069/X) 

Fences are not designed for access to and from but are for 

keeping things in or out. Continued crossing over fences 

will damage them at the farmer's cost and also it reduces 

the chance for the public to see notices <strong>of</strong> warning at key 

location e.g the gate. (B/0141/X) 

The new code should make people aware that locked 

gates are not necessarily to keep people out, but 

principally to keep stock in. (B/0257/X) 

I would like to see an addition here recommending that 

walkers search for the nearest gate or style which may be 

several hundred yards along the fence (you could define 

the maximum acceptable distance between gates and 

styles). If they have to climb a fence they should do so 

next to a straining post and should be liable for any 

damage they do. (B/0260/X) 

Access takers should never climb over fences, dykes or 

hedges. Particularly with walls and hedges it is inevitably 

going to cause damage, and with fences if regularly used. 

(B/0288/X/d) 

Rabbit and Deer Fences -These are very critical for 

forestry and horticultural areas. People should be warned 

not to damage them. If there is a rabbit pro<strong>of</strong> gate, shutting 

it properly requires care. Paths with stiles should be used. 

Fenced areas within woods are likely to contain young 

trees. … Closing Gates - Anyone taking groups should 

consider how to get gates left as you find them This can 

best be done by the person opening the gate waiting to 

close it (he will know how it is fastened) (B/1094/X) 

I believe that it is clearly the reponsibility <strong>of</strong> all people to 

leave gates closed unless they are clearly signposted to 

fencing to control them. I believe there is nothing in the 

legislation which allows for the code to involve itself in the 

running <strong>of</strong> agricultural enterprises as long as suitable access 

points are included in the fence line. As such I consider that this 

suggestion should be removed completely from the code. 

(B/0670/X) 

213

Golf courses 


Code: 


suggested: 

be left open. That is the policy on this farm. (B/1146/X) 

I would like to see a reference here saying that if a fence 

or dyke is accidentally damaged, it is a responsibility <strong>of</strong> the 

access taker to take every effort to find and inform the land 

manager, so that the fault can be rectified as soon as 

possible. (X/0664/X) 

It should be explained that many stone dykes are 

comparatively fragile, and that if they are climbed over, 

they can quite easily collapse, which can cause injury to 

he who climbs over them, and the gaps thus created can 

cause havoc to the farmer, and the gap is not always easy 

to repair. It is therefore better not to climb over dykes but 

to find a gate, and on hill farms gates are <strong>of</strong>ten fairly 

delicate, so that care has to be taken and if holes are 

<strong>made</strong> in stone dykes or gates fall to pieces, the damage 

should be reported to the farmer. (E/0086/E) 

Hedges are plants. It is not possible to "climb over" a 

hedge, and to breach one would be nothing short <strong>of</strong> 

vandalism. Hedges should be excluded from this section. 

(W/0777/X) 

It is important that the Code acknowledges that a 

responsible land manager will erect a barrier for a reason. 

Fences, hedges and dykes can be used to protect public 

from unsafe areas… The Code should also advise that 

members <strong>of</strong> the public must make themselves aware <strong>of</strong> 

the risks associated with climbing over an obstacle prior to 

becoming fully commited to landing on the other side. 

(X/0896/X) 

Generally acceptable to fair-minded people but some 

detail development needed e.g.fences and walls are not 

generally intended to facilitiate access. (X/1212/X) 

Section on golf seems OK (I am a golf club member). 

(A/0723/X) 

The limitation is to golf greens. We would suggest that 

fairways, tees and bunkers are also "prepared for a 

particular recreational use". … With regard to winter 

activities, this should be left to individual golf clubs. 

..it is unclear when reading parts <strong>of</strong> the Code that access rights 

on golf courses are restricted to crossing from one point to 

another and DO NOT include the right to undertake any other 

form <strong>of</strong> recreation. ... In the advice to both the public and land 

214

(B/0012/X) 

Fairways on golf courses, particularly when they are s<strong>of</strong>t, 

should not be subjected to traffic from narrow wheels. 

(Cycles, prams) (B/0012/X) 

The Code is also not generally strong enough in advising 

that best practice in crossing over or passing around a golf 

course is to follow defined paths wherever possible. … In 

subsection 3.3 .. "a single interruption by an individual or a 

group, such as <strong>of</strong> a golf game” ..... we find this example to 

be unhelpful in clarifying responsible behaviour. It ignores 

the cumulative impact <strong>of</strong> such interruptions to the playing 

and enjoyment <strong>of</strong> the game <strong>of</strong> golf ... We would suggest a 

more appropriate way to proceed is to outline that it is 

recognised that people exercising their access rights will at 

times unwittingly interfere with those using land "set out for 

recreational purposes" ... In these cases it is beholden 

upon these people to ensure that they do not repeat the 

interference. This can also be reinforced .. including a 

section on golf courses outlining the appropriate etiquette 

i.e. wait until players have played through until crossing. 

(B/0178/X) 

The code does not appear to be strong enough in advising 

that defined paths should be used in crossing courses, in 

restricting other recreational pursuits or that there should 

be no interference with play. We believe that Section 5 

should be better reflected in the rest <strong>of</strong> the Code. This 

seems to be only mention <strong>of</strong> recreation on golf courses 

being outwith the access rights. We believe that, as well 

as greens, tees and bunkers should also be no go areas. 

As well as taking dog dirt away with them, owners should 

be required to keep their dogs under control at all times. 

(B/0195/X) 

Greater emphasis needs to be <strong>made</strong> <strong>of</strong> the safety reasons 

for using paths. (B/0218/X) 

The activities <strong>of</strong> sledging/cross country skiing do cause 

damage to the course and this will be greatly increased if 

the general public are allowed to determine that there is 

"sufficient snow cover" to carry out these activities. 

managers, there is specific reference to other recreational 

pursuits on golf courses. This is <strong>of</strong> great concern to us as this 

Code is designed to provide guidance to enact the Land Reform 

Bill. The Bill limits access rights on golf courses to crossing from 

one place to another. This advice/commentary contradicts the Bill 

and in doing so the Code risks overstepping its remit and risks 

legitimising behaviour that is covered by the primary legislation. 

We strongly object to this wording remaining in the Code. 

(B/0178./X) 

… where a golf club can provide a route around the perimeter <strong>of</strong> 

their course, such a route should be preferable to a route 

crossing the course. (B/0345/X) 

A siginificant part <strong>of</strong> golf etiquette is to promote best practice for 

safety. Perhaps that part should be incorporated in the Code in a 

clause specifically about golf courses? If we were to put up 

Warning Notices that could be construed as so strong that they 

discourage the public from entering we can foresee legal 

difficulties. (B/0519/X) 

215

(B/0225/X) 

...it should also be pointed out that many golf courses have 

adjoining or separate practise grounds. There are areas <strong>of</strong> 

high intensity usage and therefore significantly increase 

the risk <strong>of</strong> injury to potential accessees. The same criteria 

should at least apply for these areas. (B/0609/X) 

There should be a sub-section relating specifically to golf 

courses giving guidance as to how and when to cross 

fairways ie. letting matches play through before crossing, 

keeping noise levels to a minimum and dogs to be kept on 

a leash at all times. This kind <strong>of</strong> advice would go a long 

way to minimising the risk <strong>of</strong> interruption and possible 

conflict ... The section on golf courses would be improved 

by making specific reference to safety reasons for using 

paths and also advise on the need to check where golfers 

are playing before crossing the course... It would be 

beneficial to add to the statement regarding keeping <strong>of</strong>f 

greens, that it is good practice to keep <strong>of</strong>f tees and out <strong>of</strong> 

bunkers. It should be re-emphasised in this section that 

the public has no rights to exercise access for recreational 

purposes on golf courses. (B/0918/X) 

.... If dogs are not permitted on sports pitches etc. for 

health reasons they should not be permitted on golf 

courses. .... The advice is also deficient as it fails to 

mention the need to keep your dog under control which is 

a requirement <strong>of</strong> the Act. This is important for player 

safety and to prevent the dog from chasing or being hit by 

golf balls. (J/1203/X) 

..suggest that one way <strong>of</strong> avoiding this situation is to 

include a specific section on golf courses outlining 

appropriate etiquette ie. wait until players have played 

through before crossing. (J/1203/X) 

golf courses should include golf practice grounds which 

are usually adjacent to golf courses. (P/1247/X) 

The Act only gives the right to cross a golf course, with the 

conduct set out in S1(3) being specifically excluded under 

S9(g). However, the Code seems to suggest that golf 

courses can (or land managers should allow) activities 

216

Hills, mountains 

and moorlands 

agree draft Code: 


suggested: 

such as sledging and cross country skiing - surely these 

are the recreational activities the legislation is seeking to 

exclude? (W/0815/X) 

We suggest accordingly that the Code should contain 

provision which would require the public:- 

a) not to leave defined paths or sign posted routes 

b) to stand still while golfers play shots 

c) subject to (b), not to dally or spectate 

d) to keep noise to a minimum 

e) to have children and dogs fulfil these requirements 

Any rights should extend to crossing only - not walking 

about on, or picnicking etc. What constitutes interruption 

<strong>of</strong> a game? (W/0882/X) 

Crossing over golf courses - fair enough on foot but a lot 

<strong>of</strong> feet could do a lot <strong>of</strong> damage in the winter months when 

members are <strong>of</strong>ten banned. Cycling and horse riding 

across golf courses should surely be confined to special 

roadways. Incidentally golf teeing <strong>of</strong>f places are just as 

worthy <strong>of</strong> protection as are the greens. They are almost 

always elevated structures requiring as much looking after 

as the greens. (W/1102/X/d) 

Presumably the advice to avoid wet, boggy or s<strong>of</strong>t ground 

is aimed mainly at cyclists and horseriders not walkers. 

This should be <strong>made</strong> clearer. (A/0437/X) 

It is most important for upland bio-diversity that extreme 

care is taken during the nesting and chick season (April to 

July) and deer calving (May/June) when hard paths and 

tracks only should be used. (J/1058/X) 

Full guidance about access rights and responsibilities in 

the different shooting seasons and in relation to particular 

shoots should be <strong>made</strong> clear. We suggest that this 

guidance should be in a separate appendix. (Q/0445/X) 

Rewrite the relevant section to read...newborn lambs are 

particularly sensitive to disturbance so special care should 

be taken at lambing time. … (W/0273/X) 

The section on hills, mountain, moorland is very inadequate. 

There is frequent confrontation and conflict <strong>of</strong> interests between 

walkers and shooting groups. This may be due to:.... failure to 

provide accurate information; .... failure to provide alternative 

walking routes; failure <strong>of</strong> walkers to obtain information. .... The 

code itself pays insufficient attention to this area. Are you aware 

that some estates act to prevent cycling along vehicle tracks? 

(A/0319/X). 

Hill lambing mid April to mid May is a particular problem. … I 

would have thought that any sensible body would have prohibited 

access to ground carrying sheep during the lambing season. 

(B/1030/X) 

217

Historic sites 


Code: 


suggested: 

Open pasture 


Code: 


suggested: 

Paths and tracks 


Code: 


suggested: 

Surely access rights do not apply to historic buildings 

whether charged entry exists or not. I am concerned that 

this implies it is permitted to climb on historical ruins. 

(B/0672/X) 

It would be helpful if the word 'ruins' were used, as many 

people will presume that the phrase 'archeological sites' 

refers to material below ground. This could be mirrored by 

including mention <strong>of</strong> ruins in paragraph 3.34. (K/1241/X) 

Sensible distance needs to be defined. Guidance should 

be given to avoid startling pregnant ewes on open pasture 

(between February and May). (J/1058/X) 

Open pasture - extend this section to provide specific 

advice to dog owners, even at the risk <strong>of</strong> repeating 

sections. (P/0548/X) 

Open pasture land with livestock should include that 

wildlife such as curlew and lapwing may be disturbed 

March to July (V/0398/X/D) 

There should be advice for cyclists and horse riders that 

they should give due consideration to, and give way to, 

those on foot, at all times. (A/0098/X) 

It would be more helpful if the section for the public also 

contained advice to follow a signposted route where that is 

indicated. (B/0512/X/d) 

Where there is a path there should be a presumption to 

use it rather than go "wild-walking". (B/0879/X) 

The Code should state that it is irresponsible not to use 

Ice Houses: Many old houses have 17th or 18th century ice 

houses, <strong>of</strong>ten situated - as in mine - some way from the existing 

house in the middle <strong>of</strong> pasture. Despite efforts to restrict 

unauthorised access, these can be dangerous places and should 

receive specific mention in the code. (B/0673/X) 

It should be noted that many archeological and historical sites 

are not obvious to the general public … Historic Scotland, the 

Council for Scottish Archeology, local councils and local 

archeologists have an important educational role to play here. 

(L/0659/X) 

..there should be a compulsory right for all landowners to be able 

to 'demand' (rather than suggest) that alternative routes be 

followed when they had a reasonable concern. In incidences 

such as sheep gathering this may result in large areas <strong>of</strong> 

exclusion. (B/0139/X) 

Land manager should be able to close hill ground <strong>of</strong>f when 

necessary, eg at hill lambing. (B/1253/X) 

No mention <strong>of</strong> common grazings or hill apportionments 

(B/0565/X) 

Whatever body is to be responsible for the enforcement <strong>of</strong> the 

Code should have the responsibility for designating the suitability 

<strong>of</strong> paths. In association with the land owner it should be required 

to erect signs stating "Suitable for Walkers Only" or "Suitable for 

Walkers and Horses Only", or "Suitable for Walkers, Horses and 

Bicycles Only". (B/1295/X) 

Prevention <strong>of</strong> damage to paths. SNH appear to consider that 

horse riding or cycling that caused damage to paths or property 

would not be regarded as responsible access. It would therefore 

218

paths when they are provided in the context <strong>of</strong> livestock/ 

arable farms next to urban settlements (B/0956/X) 

There is clearly potential for conflict in relation to the use 

and the maintenance <strong>of</strong> paths. First the Code should 

positively encourage members <strong>of</strong> the public to remain on 

designated paths. Secondly …..There is a need for 

separation <strong>of</strong> use by walkers, by horse riders and by 

cyclists....above all a recognition that ....there may be a 

need for landowners to use tracks for farm and estate 

purposes such as timber extraction that ....will inevitably on 

occasions lead to damage to paths. The prospect <strong>of</strong> this 

use <strong>of</strong> paths and the consequent damage should be 

acknowledged in the Code. (B/0982/X) 

...<strong>of</strong>fer far more specific advice to cyclists and particularly 

horse riders … Failure to do this will not only lead to 

unacceptable damage but also runs the risk <strong>of</strong> prejudicing 

the enjoyment <strong>of</strong> less intrusive users who are seeking 

access on foot. (B/1025/X) 

Hill-walking. There is little mention <strong>of</strong> the impact <strong>of</strong> the 

millions <strong>of</strong> walkers visiting Scotland every year have on the 

paths and ground they are using. There is no advice on 

how this impact could be reduced e.g. not running down 

scree slopes, walking inside erosion scars, walking in 

single file on narrow paths, avoiding s<strong>of</strong>t ground, wearing 

the lightest footwear suitable for the terrain. This section 

needs expansion. (B/1295/X) 

The whole question <strong>of</strong> the conflicts between recreational 

user groups, e.g anglers / canoeists, riders / mountain 

bikers / walkers and the resolution <strong>of</strong> these disputes and 

indeed who has the priority <strong>of</strong> access needs further 

discussion. (E/0924/X) 

Here is an opportunity to encourage a responsible 

approach in that there should be a presumption to follow a 

path, where one exists. This section should be enhanced - 

after all for both the public and land managers paths are 

an ideal way to integrate countryside access with land 

management. The use <strong>of</strong> paths provides good quality 

access for the public, while minimising any disturbance to 

appear that it would be reasonable for a land manager to exclude 

riders on the grounds that a track was not suitable with the result 

that damage would occur but this has not yet been <strong>made</strong> clear in 

the Code. It should be. (E/1257/X) 

Defined routes - It was felt that defined and waymarked routes 

may help to guide people away from sensitive agricultural or 

wildlife areas but concern was also voiced that marking paths 

results in a loss <strong>of</strong> freedom. (H/1140/X) 

Expand on the idea <strong>of</strong> wear and tear and to include some 

information about Core Path Networks and how they should 

provide for all user groups including disabled people. The lack <strong>of</strong> 

detail about Core Path Networks has generated some uncertainty 

about their likely extent and to what degree routes must be 

accessible and suitable for all user groups. (K/1241/X) 

Paths and tracks - need guidance (a national recognised symbol) 

at gateways on which a track is a driveway into a 

garden/curtilage area and when it <strong>of</strong>fers access to land with 

access rights? (P/1273/X) 

Local authorities, in particular, may be considered service 

providers (in partnership with landowners/managers) … but the 

Code should mention the desirability, if not the requirement, for 

access provisions on core paths to be inclusive and for the 

removal <strong>of</strong> barriers to access for disabled people. ... there is an 

opportunity to promote the idea <strong>of</strong> least restrictive access here 

and to encourage a positive and proactive approach on the part 

<strong>of</strong> land managers. (V/1285/X) 

The single most important factor in access to the countryside 

should be the creation, labelling and upkeep <strong>of</strong> attractive 

footpaths .... This is what the great majority <strong>of</strong> visitors want. 

(W/0951/X) 

Particular areas <strong>of</strong> concern regarding access over my own 

property are when there is a conflict <strong>of</strong> interest between walkers, 

horse riders and cyclists. We would have to widen the existing 

paths considerably and sub-divide them to ensure that walkers' 

paths are not wrecked (in bad weather) by horses or bikers as 

well as to ensure the safety <strong>of</strong> all concerned. The cost <strong>of</strong> this 

would be prohibitive. (W/0957/X) 

A system <strong>of</strong> designation by approved use can be stipulated for all 

219

Reservoirs 


Code: 


suggested: 

land management activities. (H/1103/X) 

Cycling and horse riding can only be regarded as 

responsible if carried out on suitable surfaces. … The 

potential for damage to the soil structure in wet ground or 

on fragile sandy ground such as machairs by cycle wheels 

and horses’ hooves is very large. ... This has particular 

relevance to areas such SSSIs and other designated 

areas. (H/1327/X) 

Cyclists and horse riders should keep only to suitable 

(designated) paths and tracks. (J/1058/X) 

...there should always be a presumption in favour <strong>of</strong> multiuse 

and this should be encouraged. By making clear, the 

rights and responsibilities <strong>of</strong> different users, more 

encouragement can be given to promoting all uses and the 

potential for conflict between users will be reduced. 

(L/0865/X) 

Emphasise the need for dog owners to clean up after their 

pets. Explain the health and social implications <strong>of</strong> dirty 

paths for wheelchair users. (P/0890/X) 

…recognition is needed in this section that some paths 

and tracks by design have a presumption <strong>of</strong> particular use 

for cyclists or horse riders eg Glentress. On such paths it 

should be the other types <strong>of</strong> user who gives way to avoid 

causing problems for the user whom the path was 

designed for. (R/1278/X) 

Provision must be <strong>made</strong> on public health grounds in the 

code to exclude areas around private water supplies from 

open access. (B/0257/X) 

The Code must be amended to stop all access to man<strong>made</strong> 

ponds & reservoirs/lagoons so as to safeguard the 

quality <strong>of</strong> water. (B/0294/X) 

It has been suggested that some activities, especially 

swimming, may be prohibited in reservoirs by existing 

legislation. If so (or not so) this should be noted for the 

avoidance <strong>of</strong> doubt (X/1036/X) 

sections and components <strong>of</strong> a local CPN - viz: Class 1. 

Footpaths - for pedestrian and wheelchair use only. Class 2. 

Cycle ways - for cyclist use only. Class 3. Bridleways - for 

equestrian use only. (W/0143/X) 

Emergencies can occur at any time, day or night, and it would be 

sensible if the Code recognised that British Waterways has the 

authority to close the towpath and other land in its control. 

(X/0896/X) 

Responsible behaviour by land managers - Public bodies should 

take steps to promote the use <strong>of</strong> reservoirs where such access 

would not conflict with water quality or public safety (R/0868/X). 

Promotion <strong>of</strong> swimming is very likely to result in additional 

incidents, possibly fatalities. We would not wish to be associated 

with this type <strong>of</strong> promotion (R/0868/X). 

On some reservoirs this would be asking for trouble because <strong>of</strong> 

the way the water is used. Not all water is treated. (W/0641/X) 

Under "Reservoirs" local management rules should be included 

as well as local byelaws. (X/0939/X) 

220

River banks & loch 

shores 


Code: 


suggested: 

Rivers & lochs 


Code: 

it is important to consider the needs <strong>of</strong> other users, anglers 

shouldn't be singled out as having special needs. All 

users should consider the rights <strong>of</strong> all other legitimate 

users. (A/0908/X) 

Why, for golf courses must horses and cyclists keep to 

paths and never go on to any other part <strong>of</strong> a golf course - 

when this does not apply equally to river banks… The 

table is very weak on giving advice as to how to avoid 

disturbance to conservation and economic interests... The 

Code should be amended to advise that diving in rivers is 

not responsible behaviour. (B/0167/X) 

What is a 'public slipway', if 'launching sites' are within the 

right? Slipways, piers etc should all be included. 

(W/1310/X/d) 

I am considerably concerned over rights <strong>of</strong> access onto groins 

and boulder weirs .... I think we shall suffer considerable damage 

to them .... I also have considerable worries over bridges .... 

which are designed to get anglers across a river. (B/0305/X) 

Add - "Have a regard to navigation when undertaking 

management operations and improvements that could pose a 

hazard to navigation - such as placing cleeks on river beds;or 

constructing low-level fishing walkways and fences across 

moving water". (G/1291/X) 

…. areas, e.g. water margins, where livestock are excluded for 

part or all <strong>of</strong> a year under CPS or RSS specifically to protect 

birds, plants, etc. (H/1196/X) 

Equally it is considered irresponsible to permit unlimited numbers 

<strong>of</strong> people congregating and proceeding together close along 

river-banks and shores. (J/1255/X) 

Can a person take a canoe onto water which is managed by a 

fishing club or sailing club whose club members pay? … clarity is 

required in the Code on those areas such as recreational water 

where access rights are allowable when not in use, but other 

users pay to use the water. (P/0491/X) 

Water access: substantially more detailed guidance is needed on 

anchoring, beaching and launching reponsibilities (The National 

Park has a great deal <strong>of</strong> experience in this area and would 

welcome the opportunity to share this). (P/1219/X) 

Why no coast? (W/0056/X/d) 

... access along the river. As an attractive place for a walk ..is 

understandable ... The cumulative effect is significant. With the 

decline in fish numbers, the one solace for fishermen is the 

peace and quiet afforded. I have already received comments 

from some that if the level <strong>of</strong> disturbance should rise then they 

will not return. (W/0926/X) 

221


suggested: 

School Playing 

Fields 


Code: 


suggested: 

I would question why the code raises the issue <strong>of</strong> the size 

<strong>of</strong> river or loch which may be navigated. Some very small 

upland rivers are navigable by canoes raising no 

environmental concerns. (A/0919/X) 

3 - In section Five: Rivers and Lochs: Public: I feel that the 

emphasis should be upon the need for the river or loch to 

be appropriate for the activity planned or the numbers 

likely to take part, rather than having any specific 

reference to the appropriate "size" <strong>of</strong> groups. I wish this to 

be amended in the final code. (A/1095/X) 

Guidelines for access on water, and the interaction 

between fishermen and other users <strong>of</strong> the water may work 

on bigger lochs and rivers. But on small fast flowing water 

the two uses are simply incompatible. (B/0481/X) 

In respect <strong>of</strong> the section on 'rivers and lochs', the Trust 

wishes to repeat its previously expressed concern that 

there is no mention <strong>of</strong> the need to avoid disturbance <strong>of</strong> 

fish. The particular need to avoid damage to spawning 

gravels is probably best covered in appropriate local 

guidance, especially in upland streams, but the general 

guidance in the box on Page 49 should at least make 

specific mention <strong>of</strong> fish as well as 'birds and other wildlife'. 

(J/1259/X) 

Particular care should be exercised on small lochs and 

ponds (say 10 acres or less), where any boating or 

excessive tramping <strong>of</strong> the shore, can upset habitat and 

widlife. (W/0951/X). 

School playing fields - reword to make it clear that it is not 

any land next to a school that is used by the school which 

is excluded from the rights. Some community greenspace 

land such as parks and woodlands are used by the school 

but are not closed to public access because <strong>of</strong> this. 

... what about small private lochs ('stanks'), created and stocked 

purely for fishing purposes? Are the public entitled to picnic and 

swim at/in these locations, to the detriment <strong>of</strong> those who have 

paid for the loch, or to be there? (B/0472/X) 

Where water bodies <strong>of</strong> this kind (reserves) are concerned it is 

impossible to engage in active pursuits such as canoeing or 

swimming without disturbing the natural heritage. (H/1128/X) 

The Code should further advise land/water managers to ask the 

Local Authority for help and/or advice when they are managing 

access over land/water which falls outwith statutory access 

rights. (P/1218/X) 

Access to rivers can be a contentious issue and needs further 

development within this section to arrive at a workable 

arrangement. (V/0207/X/d) 

... the Code should make everyone, such as canoeists, hillwalkers 

and others, aware that they must not carry any 

equipment <strong>of</strong> instruments capable <strong>of</strong> catching salmon or sea trout 

when in or on rivers or their banks. It should also be <strong>made</strong> clear 

that section 7 <strong>of</strong> the "Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries 

(Protection) [Scotland] Act 1951 relating to this applies. 

(W/0533/X) 

... rivers and lochs are well covered in the various clauses. 

Canals are mentioned but seem to have a lower pr<strong>of</strong>ile. Similarly 

access to the shore to allow for sea trips also seems to be low 

key. Both canals and shore access could do with more 

prominence. (W/1054/X) 

...should be widened to include ponds and burns. (X/0939/X) 

...open access conflicts with the terms <strong>of</strong> the Management 

Agreement .. for Loch Spynie. (X/0495/X) 

There should be a broader definition <strong>of</strong> the word "school" to 

include Outdoor Activity Centres, Adventure Schools, Field Study 

and Educational Centres, and Youth Group Camps where 

children are being accommodated and instructed. … The Land 

Manager in these cases would be the person in charge <strong>of</strong> looking 

222

Sports pitches 


Code: 


suggested: 

Tree felling & 

extraction 


Code: 


suggested: 

(P/0548/X) 

The Code refers to the availability <strong>of</strong> access rights to 

sports pitches and playing fields, when not in use. 

However, section 3.37 denies this access to dog owners 

for reasons <strong>of</strong> disease transmission. This is an 

unreasonable restriction and, indeed, many such facilities 

are currently <strong>made</strong> available for canine activities at 

present, without difficulty. Green areas in an urban setting 

are already limited without the need for further restrictions. 

(G/1044/X) 

Sports pitches ….. 'horse riders and cyclists must not go 

across sports pitches'……… is this stance actually 

supported by the Act and thus enforceable ? (P/0643/X) 

Community members have expressed reservations about 

access across golf courses, sports or playing fields in the 

hours before use (Q/1230/X) 

It would in my view be responsible for those exercising 

their access rights to make their way, wherever 

practicable, around the perimetres <strong>of</strong> marked pitches, even 

when not in use. (W/0511/X) 

Rather than "you must not" this guidance could state 

"avoid hindering these operations by following any signs or 

alternative routes provided". (A/0927/X) 

Tree felling - take care <strong>of</strong> stacked timber. No climbing. 

after the children at that site, and he/she therefore needs the 

power to protect the privacy <strong>of</strong> his group by having these 

circumstances included in the Code. (X/1188/X) 

Access Rights should not apply to any area <strong>of</strong> land that is 

specifically used as a training or teaching area by any 

establishment that works with children and young people. 

(X/1188/X) 

it appears to be unreasonable that the public can use our 

facilities without in any way contributing to their upkeep, repair 

and maintenance. Is it priviledge without responsibility? 

(D/1206/X) 

Stricter controls should be applied to those woodlands close to 

urban areas regarding their maintainance, felling and re-planting. 

(A/0598/X/d) 

..the practical difficulties, compliance with Health & safety etc, are 

223

Visitor attractions 


Code: 


suggested: 

(B0288X) 

Tree felling operations can be hazardous and should be 

avoided. Trees and branches can become entangled in 

neighbouring trees and fall to the ground sometime after 

felling operations have taken place. Look out and avoid 

such hazards. (B/0443/X) 

Access takers are told not to hinder operations and follow 

any signs or alternative routes provided. However it 

makes no reference to whether they would be 

irresponsible not to do so. (E/0516/X) 

Rather than "you must not" this guidance could be stated 

"avoid hindering these operations by following any signs or 

alternative routes provided". (K/0722/X) 

…this section should indicate that it will not be 

irresponsible to take access when operations have 

stopped for the day or at the weekend provided safe to do 

so. (R/1278/X) 

Require further qualification. There is no mention in the 

information for those exercising access rights <strong>of</strong> the rules 

relating to when charging is acceptable. (K/1241/X) 

If access rights do not extend to visitor attractions where 

an entry charge is <strong>made</strong> there needs to be some very 

careful definition <strong>of</strong> such sites. There could be great 

potential for abuse and denial <strong>of</strong> rights unless there is a 

clear definition....... Could access be denied to 

surrounding areas if a charge is <strong>made</strong> for parking or 

refreshments available somewhere on the same estate? 

(W/0489/X) 

not helped by encouraging access in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> such 

operations. (B/0510/X) 

The Access code as it stands does not give sufficient guidance 

on the landowners right to close <strong>of</strong>f specific areas or access 

routes during times when forestry operations would come into 

conflict with public access. (B/0969/X) 

The guide to responsible behaviour by land managers is 

unreasonable. Trees are a growing crop and felling will be 

subject to commercial realities. Land managers will arrange 

felling when market conditions dictate and should not be 

expected to delay or postpone in favour <strong>of</strong> access rights. 

(B/1240/X) 

It should be <strong>made</strong> clear that the Health and Safety at Work Act 

comes into force where forestry operations are taking place e.g. 

access is precluded within 90m <strong>of</strong> a forwarder. Therefore, it is 

both reasonable and responsible for foresters to close sections <strong>of</strong> 

the forest at these times. (B/1295/X) 

... the sanction open to the landowner where people do ignore 

warning signs etc, is pretty toothless. (E/0516/X) 

We open the wild garden and the walled garden for a month each 

year and on other days by appointment, and charge £2. … Under 

the access are we wrong now to charge admission <strong>of</strong> £2? We 

think this must be <strong>made</strong> clear, so we know where we stand. 

(B/0484/X) 

The former Draft Access Code (Section 2.13) specified places 

which were 'managed attractions' where the public paid for 

access. Our lochs would have come under this category and we 

strongly suggest, in all fariness, that the new Code should 

continue to incorporate this provision. (J/0544/X) 

The way the Act is presently worded would appear to allow any 

land manager to restrict the right <strong>of</strong> access simply by charging for 

admission to an area <strong>of</strong> land. The Code should clarify the 

situation and if possible prevent attempts to restrict access by 

this method. (L/0410/X) 

... it would be appropriate for Caravan Parks to appear as a 

224

Wildlife sites 


Code: 


suggested: 

Wildlife sites. How can these be identified by the general 

public? (B/1150/X/d) 

Could it be <strong>made</strong> mandatory that dogs are kept on leads in 

areas where birds are being actively encouraged - again 

could the code suggest the wording <strong>of</strong> suitable notices 

which would explain the position to dog owners. 

(B/1002/X) 

Wildlife Sites. What is the definition <strong>of</strong> a wildlife site? The 

whole <strong>of</strong> Balmoral Estate is a wildlife site. Such sites are 

at present subject to no more protection than other areas 

<strong>of</strong> countryside. However, if it intended to give greater 

protection to designated sites such as SSSIs, cSACs, 

SPAs, NNRs, etc, then this should be stated in the Code 

and reference <strong>made</strong> to an obligation on access-takers to 

follow local management rules which may restrict access 

at cetain times <strong>of</strong> the year. (B/1295/X) 

Access takers should keep to hard paths. The reference 

to local guidance and management rules to be followed 

will come with a cost. This must be recognised. 

(J/1058/X) 

category in Section 5 … where it could be highlighted that access 

is only available where a Right <strong>of</strong> Way exists. (X/1059/X) 

..prefer all Wildlife / Conservation areas to be <strong>of</strong>fered the highest 

level <strong>of</strong> protection in the first instance by declaring that they are 

generally exempt from access rights unless otherwise stated. 

(B/0551/X) 

to agree with the land manager <strong>of</strong> each one a footpath which 

people would be required to stick to (B/1049/X) 

... specific sections should be set aside for SSSIs and special 

conservation areas. This requires an individual section on its 

own and in the condensed version <strong>of</strong> the Code giving specific 

information on designated sites and how to behave in them … 

SNH must consult all land holders with designations on their 

ground to develop a specific section <strong>of</strong> the Code for these 

designations. (B/1267/X/d) 

Whether it is rare birds, fragile habitat or dangerous ground there 

has to be discretion for sensitive exclusion. … I do not believe 

this element has been properly addressed in the code. 

(B/1167/X) 

Many <strong>of</strong> my fields through the Coutryside Premium Scheme and 

Rural Stewardship Scheme have been sown out to beetle banks 

and unharvested crops etc. I am under strict instructions not to 

trample or use these areas for any farm activity. (B/0633/X) 

Game cover plots also provide a very attractive environment for 

small birds and ideally access should be denied to them 

completely between the months <strong>of</strong> August and January. 

(F/0748/X) 

Wildlife sites: add "geological sites" (L/0659/X) 

The Code appears to have done little to limit the impact <strong>of</strong> access 

on conservation areas. There is no mention <strong>of</strong> the protection <strong>of</strong> 

habitat areas, in particular SSSIs and SACs. (U/1172/X) 

225

Sporting Activities: 

Deer stalking in 

forests and woods 


Code: 


suggested: 

Deer stalking on 

the open hill 


Code: 


suggested: 



My experience is that most walkers are unaware, that in 

this area, most deer stalking takes place in woodlands and 

we have had the occasional potential hazard as a result. 

((B/0338/X/d). 

For roe deer stalking seasons extend throughout the year 

(Annex 2: bucks 01 April to 20 October, and does 21 

October to 30 April). By using the words "during the 

stalking season (see annex 2)" the public are being asked 

to take "extra care at dawn and dusk" throughout the year 

irrespective <strong>of</strong> whether anything is happening. (A/0927/X) 

It is a major shortcoming <strong>of</strong> the Code that advice and 

guidance on avoiding conflict with shooting or hunting 

activities is omitted from the main body <strong>of</strong> the document. 

(B/0628/X) 

Shooting - These instruction are vague, ambiguous and 

not practical. If followed, they could incur a major shooting 

accident. To act responsibly the public must avoid close 

proximity to the shooting. Where does the liability lie? 

(B/0695/X) 

It should be emphasised that taking access through land 

when shooting is taking place is irresponsible. (B/0801/X). 

you ignore the fact that on enclosed ground eg in forestry 

deer are killed all round the year legally. Regrettably too 

quite a lot <strong>of</strong> woodland stalking occurs on a Sunday. 

(W/1102/X/d) 

By using the wording "during the stalking season (see 

Annex 2)" the Code is stating that the public should take 

steps for 7.5 months <strong>of</strong> the year. This is a very 

considerable negative departure from current practice with 


managers. 

With red, roe and sika present, we really have no close season. 

(B/1168/X) 

We currently ask people to keep to paths when woodland 

stalking is taking place by use <strong>of</strong> a dated sign. These make it 

predictable where people will be seen, otherwise the woodland 

stalker's job becomes very difficult in well-used areas. 

(B/1173/X) 

"To further enable hill-walkers to make their plans before arriving 

in an area, consider provision <strong>of</strong> advanced stalking information 

on the internet." (W/0021/X/d) 

While this deals with "Sporting Activities" e.g. deer stalking, there 

is no provision where this takes place all year round. There also 

does not appear to be any provision where deer culling (again all 

year round under licence) occurs to preserve natural 

regeneration under Approved Schemes, for which the heading 

"Sporting Activities" would appear inappropriate. (W/0768/X) 

Putting up signs and notices in relation to woodland stalking is 

unlikely to be practicable, given that the activity is <strong>of</strong>ten 

peripatetic over wide areas and involves not disturbing the areas 

in which you stalk before you do so.(W/0848/X) 

Deer stalking. The Hillphones scheme should be mentioned here 

as an example <strong>of</strong> good practice helpful to land managers and 

access takers. (A/0560/X) 

Deer control is compulsory through the Deer Commission for 

226

Fishing 


Code: 


suggested: 

significant restrictive implications. (A/0927/X) 

Under Health and Safety regulations the Estate is obliged 

to ensure that shooting is carried out safely. We believe 

this will be impossible to do with members <strong>of</strong> the public 

allowed to walk anywhere they choose… Therefore there 

must be some form <strong>of</strong> prevention under "Reasonable 

Behaviour" to prevent unlimited access. (B/0203/y) 

The wearing <strong>of</strong> brightly coloured clothing should be 

considered unreasonable behaviour, as it will have the 

effect <strong>of</strong> scaring <strong>of</strong>f wild game. (B/0895/X) 

"Tell people where stalking is taking place using a 

Hillphones service or use signs and information boards (in 

accordance with this Code) to give day-to-day information 

at recognised access points rather than to indicate the 

length <strong>of</strong> the stalking season, and by ensuring that estate 

contact details are published in 'Heading for the Scottish 

Hills' and area Deer Management Group leaflets." 

(G/1099/X) 

Many visitors, foreigners and locals alike are unlikely to be 

aware <strong>of</strong> the timing <strong>of</strong> the stalking season….But timely and 

daily updates in the car parks or at popular access points 

should ensure an equally responsible response from hillwalkers. 

(Q/0415/X) 

The code should strike a better balance between the 

needs <strong>of</strong> anglers and other river users. Both angling and 

canoeing are recreational activities and the code should be 

written in such a way as to place them on an equal footing. 

If the code asks canoeists to "wait for a signal before 

passing quietly by anglers" it should also advise anglers 

not to "commence fishing near where canoeists are 

paddling or practising manoeuvres". (A/0919/X) 

...fishing and other sport activities should have their 

responsibilities listed too. For example fishing - When 

paddling down a river I see a lot <strong>of</strong> fishing lines, floats, 

waders etc. Like canoeists they should have a 

Scotland - an instrument <strong>of</strong> government. .. I believe it will be 

necessary, and entirely reasonable, to prohibit or control, where 

that is possible, public access to deer forests in season. 

(B/0622/X) 

People and wild deer do not mix - i.e. if the ground over which 

deer management is dependant is disturbed the deer will become 

distressed and move elsewhere or become nocturnal in their 

feeding habits. Night stalking (which the Deer Commission for 

Scotland are trying to discourage) would then become more 

common place. (B/0942/X/d) 

Hill phones are a good idea for big estates but do not help much 

for small estates where the same ground may be used every day. 

(B/1152/X) 

Pre-visit guidance can be helpful if extensive activities e.g. deer 

management are imminent. The visitor can be encouraged to 

check beforehand, and managers can be encouraged to prepare 

and provide information. (B/1288/X) 

..fishing should be classified in the same way as 

canoeing/kayaking ("other recreational activities"), as much 

fishing takes place as a recreation without any land manager 

supervision. (A/0557/X) 

Further, if fishing is in the 'sporting activities section' then a 

section should be added asking fishermen to 'take care when 

casting, indicating to kayakers when and where to pass, ensuring 

that the desired route is safe and making efforts to ensure 

smooth relations'. It should be <strong>made</strong> clear that no outdoor user 

has overall precedence over another and all must respect the 

activities <strong>of</strong> the other. (A/0732/X) 

there is too much emphasis on avoiding troubling anglers and not 

227

esponsibility to look after the area <strong>of</strong> bank they use 

etc...... .bags <strong>of</strong> rubbish left in popular fishing/camping 

spots. Parked cars are also a danger. (A/0967/X) 

...no distinction is <strong>made</strong> between the land managers who 

run fishing beats and the anglers themselves. … an 

angler, no matter how much he/she may have paid or what 

level <strong>of</strong> exclusivity he/she may have been promised, is a 

recreational user taking access to the water on the same 

level and with the same rights as myself. The code, sadly 

seems to have a less symmetric view. (A/1344/X) 

It is a fact that many activities which will be allowed while 

the river/loch is in use by anglers, have the potential to 

interfere with an angler's enjoyment <strong>of</strong> his sport, eg 

canoeing and rafting, paddling and swimming, throwing 

stones into the water, allowing dogs to swim in the water, 

simply walking along the bank <strong>of</strong> a river. The fact that fish 

can be disturbed by such activities is given …anglers 

should also be advised to be careful when casting and not 

to cause a threat to those exercising access rights on a 

path next to inland water……the advice is unbalanced 

suggesting that angling interest should take priority in the 

outdoors. (R/1278/X) 

Due to proximity <strong>of</strong> the towpath to the canal, it is virtually 

impossible for towpath users to 'keep a safe distance from 

an angler and avoid casting lines'… Towpath users must 

warn coarse fishermen <strong>of</strong> their approach and then slow 

down or stop... On their part, the fishermen must 

endeavour not to obstruct the towpath. (X/0896/X) 

an equivalent for anglers troubling canoeists. … When canoeing I 

will <strong>of</strong>ten stop at one place to practice manoeuvres such as 

eskimo rolls or when climbing I will spend time trying to climb one 

section <strong>of</strong> the crag and I feel that the code should recognise this 

as being a legitimate form <strong>of</strong> access rather than as irresponsible 

behaviour. (A/0908/X) 

It would be helpful if the code asked land managers to have 

regard to the need <strong>of</strong> other river users when they manage fishing. 

For example; briefing clients about the legitimate access which 

others may take and the signalling system used with canoeists, 

ensuring that alterations to the river environment do not pose a 

hazard or otherwise impact on the ability <strong>of</strong> others to enjoy their 

sport and managing any regulation <strong>of</strong> water flow responsibly. 

(A/0919/X) 

Why is it that it is seen to be reasonable to ban people from 

games pitches when they are in use but not fishing beats when 

they are in use? Both are grounds that are maintained for 

sporting activities. (B/0167/X) 

Salmon and Sea Trout .. Brown Trout … The fish are at their 

most vulnerable in the Autumn when they are on the Spawning 

Redds to lay their eggs. They are very susceptible to 

disturbance and it is more important that the Estate is able to 

restrict access to certain parts <strong>of</strong> the river and burns where the 

fish congregate. (B/0203/Y) 

It would surely be appreciated if inland waters with established 

clubs, having rights, were to be categorised as "no-go" areas for 

further intrusion. (J/1028/X) 

'Land or water that has been developed or set aside for a 

recreational purpose' must include stocked fisheries. Certain 

lochs have been developed specifically for this purpose, either 

using existing features or lochans and ponds created for 

commercial fishery purposes. (J/1058/X) 

... there really is a potential risk from fishers casting their lines. A 

greater awareness <strong>of</strong> the hazard should be included to the effect 

that before walking close to a fisherman who is casting his line, 

you should make your presence known to the fisherman, who 

should, in turn, momentarily cease his activity to allow you to 

pass, this need not interrupt the fishing unduly and could prevent 

228

Grouse shooting 


Code: 


suggested: 

Not nearly enough prominence is given to the importance 

<strong>of</strong> not disturbing these activities. ie Grouse shooting, Deer 

stalking, fishing. (B/0538/X) 

It is, therefore, a major shortcoming <strong>of</strong> the Code that 

advice and guidance on avoiding conflict with shooting or 

hunting activities is omitted from the main body <strong>of</strong> the 

document. (B/0628/X) 

Reference should be <strong>made</strong> to times outwith the shooting 

season when disturbance is most unwanted i.e. in the 

nesting/breeding season from April to July. The summary 

should identify that disturbance will be minimised if access 

users follow tracks and paths. (B/1240/X) 

Grouse Shooting - As in the case <strong>of</strong> deer stalking I feel it 

would be difficult for hill walkers to know exactly what area 

is being shot (or about to be shot) without enquiring 

specifically beforehand. (W/1163/X) 

nasty accidents. (W/0578/X) 

Surely it isn't legal to fish for brown trout in river or loch anywhere 

not covered by a 'Protection Order'? If so, there will very soon be 

a scarcity <strong>of</strong> trout to fish since managers will apply for a 

Protection Order or, failing to obtain one, give up bothering to 

maintain fish stocks. In the summer, bus loads <strong>of</strong> from them 

central belt descend on Highland rivers and fish them out using 

dried prawns and worms. If they now have a right to be there, 

you won't ever be able to move them on! In particular, what 

provision is there to protect a loch stocked with brown trout? You 

haven't covered this. (W/0212/X) 

Fishing. Does the angling fraternity know a wave <strong>of</strong> a hand (or 

whatever) is the signal to allow water borne craft to pass - it does 

not appear in the land managers' brief. (X/1290/X) 

I think it is not unreasonable to exclude access to the area over 

which the activity is taking place … If you accept my point I think 

you should also make it incumbent on the land manager to put up 

proper signage <strong>of</strong> the activity. (B/0181/X) 

Red Grouse… To be able to protect these birds the nesting 

areas must not be disturbed. This will be impossible if members 

<strong>of</strong> the public are allowed to have unlimited access to these 

specific areas. Some form <strong>of</strong> control must be allowed. 

(B/0203/Y) 

Under grouse shooting, moorland management such as muirburn 

can affect access on hill tracks. Again the health and safety 

issue. (B/1288/X) 

Grouse shooting, there should be means <strong>of</strong> informing people 

where moor burning is taking place close to well-used tracks. 

(P/1247/X) 

Could I suggest that red flag be flown at the hill road gate on 

days when the moor is in use to warn hikers for their own safety. 

(W/0212/X) 

Under sporting activities the user must help to minimise, while 

the land manager must always respect the needs <strong>of</strong> people etc. 

A bit one-sided really. (W/1153/Z/d) 

229

Low-ground 

shooting 


Code: 


suggested: 

It should be emphasised that taking access through land 

when shooting is taking place is irresponsible. (B/0801/X) 

A winter shoot in the policies etc can mean a line <strong>of</strong> guns 

covering the whole area. The guidance in section 5 to 

"change your route if asked to do so" is inadequate. 

(B/0782/X) 

These instructions are vague, ambiguous and not 

practical. If followed, they could incur a major shooting 

accident. To act responsibly the public must avoid close 

proximity to the shooting. (B/0695/X/d) 

There should be advice to keep away from pheasant pens 

and pheasant rearing areas and also to put dogs on short 

leads where pheasants and other ground-nesting birds are 

present. (B/1295/X) 

Sporting/conservation … safety is all important and at 

times we have to put up notices to warn that shooting is in 

progress … the code could contain some guidelines to the 

type <strong>of</strong> notices which would warn walkers to avoid the area 

on particular days. The code could then advise walkers 

not to pass such notices. (B/1002/X) 

The BHS and BASC have developed a code <strong>of</strong> 

responsibility, since there have been a number <strong>of</strong> 

accidents to riders unaware <strong>of</strong> shooting near bridleways. 

To refer to that in the Access Code may be relevant. 

(G/1192/X) 

...the only reason to be especially careful at dawn and 

dusk relate to roe deer stalking, and this is covered more 

appropriately under "Deer stalking in forests and woods". 

(H/0808/X) 

Game crops: although access is exempt under the 

standing crop clause, as wide a berth as is practical should 

be advised; disturbance is <strong>of</strong> great concern during the 

month leading up to and throughout the shooting season. 

As these are mostly only small areas, the impact on 

Low ground shooting - this is an accident waiting to happen. 

(B/0633/X) 

We would interpret reasonable management as ensuring 

adequate warning signs at main access points and responsible 

access as heeding these and not entering or doing so with 

extreme caution, accepting risk. Can Section 5 reflect this? 

(B/0782/X) 

As a keen clay pigeon shooter we had to laugh at the complete 

vagueness <strong>of</strong> these instructions. They are not practical and 

indeed somewhat ambiguous. If followed there could arise a 

serious shooting accident. (B/0884/X) 

More thought needs to be given to exclusion areas or times, so 

that businesses can continue and safely. (B/1167/X) 

... disturbance on days prior to a shoot can be just as damaging. 

Customers who pay for shooting are purchasing as much an 

exclusive right to access, as the game to be killed - this should 

be explained in the code. (E/0906/X) 

..gives the impression that shooting only takes place in woods 

and forests. It also takes place in more open areas, including 

cultivated fields themselves. (F/0748/X) 

Similarly to fishing, shooting is only covered as a land 

management sporting activity. Shooters are involved in a 

recreational or commercial activity, <strong>of</strong>ten without direct land 

manager involvement. It would be useful to have outline advice 

and guidance in relation to this. (G/1254/X) 

A significant omission from Section 4 is any guidance to land 

managers on how to run low-ground shooting in a responsible 

way in terms <strong>of</strong> the LRSA. (P/0899/X) 

The coverage on sporting activities, especially shooting, is not 

practicable and does not take account <strong>of</strong> the seasons or the 

impact <strong>of</strong> changes in the weather on the duration <strong>of</strong> the activity. 

(X/1174/X) 

230

Sporting & other 

events 


Code: 


suggested: 

access rights would be minimal. (H/0904/X) 

There is a need for care at all times as lamping at night for 

foxes and rabbits is a common activity throughout much <strong>of</strong> 

Scotland not just low ground. (T/0911/X) 

The Code is wrong to give the impression that low ground 

shooting just takes place in woods and forests. A more 

accurate representation should be included (V/0398/X/D) 

Low ground shooting - should be specific mention <strong>of</strong> 

avoiding disturbance to game release pens, feeding and 

roosting sites. (W/1112/X) 

… There is no suggestion that land managers should obtain 

permission (from the police, perhaps) when organizing events 

which involve the use <strong>of</strong> firearms in open country by large 

numbers <strong>of</strong> civilians. (A/0290/X) 

Car parking (p50) - … It is not unreasonable for land managers to 

expect some public funding to provide e.g. proper laybys for 

parking, rather than having churned up verges, but then they 

should not be able to charge. (A/1037/X) 

The Act does not allow for charging for entry to access land. If a 

charge were to be <strong>made</strong> then the land would need to be subject 

to a section 11 order. The examples given under 'sporting and 

other activities' surely require this permission from the managing 

Authority and this should be clearly stated. (P/1219/X) 

Sporting and other events - emphasise that land managers are 

required to have exclusion orders granted by the local authority. 

(P/1239/X) 

The section should give a greater range <strong>of</strong> guidance for the 

public and managers (land and event managers) to minimise 

disturbance to all, and to clarify that land may be closed 

temporarily following application to the Local Authority. 

(W/0573/X) 

231

Other Recreational 

Activities covered 

under access 

rights: 

Canoeing, rafting, 

rowing & sailing 


Code: 


suggested: 



...canoeing and rafting need to take account <strong>of</strong> angling 

(W/0021/X) 

Kayakers may not have complete control <strong>of</strong> their craft at all 

times - there will be occasions where improving paddlers, 

while still under close supervision and instruction, may not 

be totally in control and may find it difficult to avoid a 

certain section <strong>of</strong> river. It may also be the case that a 

particular route on a river is unfeasible and while paddlers 

should look for and welcome indications from anglers as to 

the best route past, the final decision on how to proceed is 

down to paddlers and the angler should respect this. 

(A/1344/X) 

In a salmon or sea trout river, all canoeists should abide by 

a code <strong>of</strong> practice which did not interfere with, or damage 

the fishery. This would involve three things. The first is 

that entry and exit points should be carefully organised 

along the river. The second is that a code <strong>of</strong> practice 

should be promoted by the Access Code which kept 

canoes steadily on the move and away from fishers, and 

which did not allow stopping or circling within a pool, 

except in a case <strong>of</strong> emergencey. Thirdly, the use <strong>of</strong> a 

fishing river by canoes should be on the same basis as the 

control <strong>of</strong> a golf course. Canoeists would have to report 

their entry points, times and approximate plans to a River 

Board central point, which would then warn all relevant 

beats <strong>of</strong> their expected approach... This proposal too 

would mean that canoeing parties could be monitored, and 

could work with the fisheries rather than despite them. 

(B/0461/X) 

Canoeists and anglers… can be tolerably compatible when 

their practitioners are prepared to be flexible, however, 


managers. 

I think it must be <strong>made</strong> clear that Land Managers must only be 

able to SUGGEST "preferred access points" to rivers and water 

bodies. ….. For example, when issues <strong>of</strong> personal safety or the 

stretch <strong>of</strong> river available for use by canoeists is compromised by 

the "suggested" prefered access point the wider right <strong>of</strong> access 

should be available to canoeists to achieve more appropriate 

access (A/1095/X). 

... the idea <strong>of</strong> passing through quietly is a concern, as <strong>of</strong>ten 

kayakers will remain at one location to practise 'eskimo rolling' or 

'rodeo activities'. On the whole, kayakers and fishermen get on 

well, kayakers pass by quietly and without fuss. However, the 

comments in the code do perhaps raise expectations. 

(A/0732/X) 

A party <strong>of</strong> canoeists can effectively ruin any prospect <strong>of</strong> success 

for a fisherman after they have passed … At the very least, there 

should be a duty <strong>of</strong> care on the part <strong>of</strong> canoeists and other water 

sports enthusiasts to negotiate access with riparian owners and 

fishing interests in advance <strong>of</strong> their activities in order to minimise 

disturbance. (B/0628/X) 

…a permit is issued to the user whether it be canoeists, rafters or 

fishermen for that day by the local Post Office and depending on 

how high or low the river is depends on how many permits are 

issued. This has the effect <strong>of</strong> controlling numbers using the river 

to an acceptable level and allows pleasure to all including the 

fishermen. I would like to see the wording in the document 

altered to help the Land Managers/Riparian Owners manage 

their part <strong>of</strong> the river effectively and efficiently. …I realise that 

SNH is totally against any restrictions on the numbers <strong>of</strong> persons 

using the river, but without some sort <strong>of</strong> control few users <strong>of</strong> the 

232

each has a significant minority whose conduct is <strong>of</strong>ten less 

than responsible… With access to water prohibited south 

<strong>of</strong> the Border I anticipate more canoeists will travel to 

Scotland and exacerbate the situation, it is therefore 

imperative for angling concerns to be reflected in any 

"targeted advice" directed at other water users such as 

canoeists, rafters etc. (C/0070/X) 

Much canoeing is not just about travelling from A to B but 

about spending quality time on the river, playing on 

features such as waves or stoppers or simply enjoying the 

surrounding environment. I would like the code to 

recognise this as being a legitimate part <strong>of</strong> going 

canoeing...... to practise "eskimo rolls" and other 

manoeuvres is an important aspect in the development <strong>of</strong> 

skills. It ensures that members are competent, confident 

and safe on the water. I would ask that the code does not 

regard this as being irresponsible. Perhaps it would be 

better if the code suggested that canoeists should avoid 

doing so near where anglers are fishing. ....Both angling 

and canoeing are recreational activities and the code 

should be written in such a way as to place them on an 

equal footing...... landowners could brief clients about the 

legitimate access which others may take. Canoeists have 

a signalling system which could be adopted by anglers. 

(G/0832/X 

The majority <strong>of</strong> riparian owners… are relaxed about 

canoeists using the river so long as they approach anglers 

in a friendly and positive manner, following any request by 

an angler… and that they do not linger too long… There is 

one section on the River Dee where access was agreed 

for canoeists on a Wednesday and Sunday. Sadly other 

canoeists have decided to use this area on other days, 

resulting in growing animosity between fishermen and the 

canoeists... It is situations such as this that the Code 

needs to have precise and clear guidance on, so that all 

river users may benefit from the water. (H/0916/X) 

We also feel that organised canoe parties should be 

encouraged to participate on Sundays, when angling is 

river, whatever their sport may be, will enjoy the natural resource. 

(B/0029/X) 

At Stanley and on the river there has been a significant and 

growing crisis on the overuse and disturbance <strong>of</strong> the amenities 

where the code and its application are urgently required to create 

a reasonable and sustainable balance between the various 

parties. Excessive use <strong>of</strong> the river by commercial rafting and 

canoeing parties not only clashes directly with fishing, and 

therefore the livelihood <strong>of</strong> the ghillies, but also greatly disturbs 

the natural environment for wildlife, when fish are running or 

water levels are low. (B/1157/X) 

233

Cycling 


Code: 


suggested: 

reduced. (Q/1178/X) 

Advice is needed about the need for canoeists etc to stay 

away from fresh-water fish farm sites (damage, disease 

transfers, etc) (Q/1312/X) 

…this section concentrates too much on interaction with 

fishing interests while failing to provide advice on 

interaction between canoeing, rafting, rowing and sailing 

and other water sports. How, for example, should a canoe 

pass a yacht or a rower approach a jet ski? .....advice on 

fishing should be contained in the fishing section. 

(R/1278/X) 

Swimming and boating should be specifically excluded 

from ponds stocked specifically as commercial fisheries. 

(U/1172/X) 

The title should be expanded to include all unpowered 

boats. The canals are man<strong>made</strong> structures incorporating 

bridges, tunnels, locks, aqueducts, weirs and other water 

control mechanisms. In the interests <strong>of</strong> boater safety, 

British Waterways applies International Navigational Rules 

to all craft, powered or unpowered on the canal system... 

Unpowered craft are required to have permits. These 

permits are issued free <strong>of</strong> charge and enable British 

Waterways to distribute canal information to canal users... 

the Code include reference to these two documents. 

(X/0896/X) 

Cycling <strong>of</strong>f road or track on unsuitable high mountain 

terrain is not responsible behaviour and should be strongly 

discouraged, due to the disturbance caused to wildlife and 

potentially livestock, and those taking genuinely 

responsible access. (A/0098/X) 

Cyclists should be confined to solid paths or tracks - the 

damage they do to s<strong>of</strong>t ground is horrific. (A/0291/X) 

Most cyclists seem to get their main enjoyment through 

travelling at speed downwhill and disturbing livestock and 

putting young lambs at risk. I think that they should be 

New Subject; "Mountain Bikes" … Will SNH be including or 

recommending some code <strong>of</strong> responsibility or control for 

mountain bikers? I would like to see them confined to forest or 

LRTs, and leave stalkers tracks to foot soldiers. (A/0308/X) 

Cycling/Horse riding - Both can cause significant damage where 

undertaken in appropriate areas there is a need, as a minimum, 

to establish advisory routes to ensure that damage is minimised. 

(X/1212/X) 

234

estricted to cycle tracks. (B/0681/X) 

Add "Keep to suitable paths through enclosed arable 

land." (B/0733/X) 

I cannot accept that access for horse riding and cycling 

should be allowed on general grazing land without prior 

agreement with the landowner. (B/1147/X) 

The code should state that bikers should use existing 

tracks when crossing heather moorland (especially on 

SSSI's) (B/1181/X) 

Mountain Bikes. If paths are narrow and easily eroded 

cyclists should keep <strong>of</strong>f the path altogether. Being advised 

to cycle slowly and "take extra care" is not acceptable. 

Cyclists should cycle on paths that are suitable for cycling, 

in practice this will mainly be on Landrover tracks. They 

should keep <strong>of</strong>f aggregate and pitched mountain footpaths 

that have been built or repaired. Mountain biking on these 

paths damages water bars and drains. Constantly braking 

whilst going downhill rips up the aggregate surface leading 

to accelerated rates <strong>of</strong> erosion. Mountain bikers should 

also be told to avoid Landrover tracks whilst the substrate 

is thawing after winter, and frost heave is settling. 

(B/1295/X) 

Leave your dog at home unless you are wholly confident <strong>of</strong> 

keeping it under complete control in all situations. This 

should also apply to cyclists. (G/0759/X) 

Cycling: add - Ride at a reasonable speed commensurate 

with user types, numbers and situation. Use a bell to warn 

others. (G/1214/X) 

Contact local access forum for by-pass paths that are built 

and maintained to a suitable standard. (H/0310/X) 

There is no mention <strong>of</strong> avoiding livestock or wild animals 

(only walkers and horse riders). It is difficult to see the 

logic in this omission. Cyclists should be advised not to 

cycle at speed round blind corners and so avoid disturbing 

other access takers as well as wild and domesticated 

animals. ... Rewrite Section 5 and para 5.2 table heading 

Cycling to read (W/0273/X) 

...there should be different and more stringent provisions 

235

Horse Riding 


Code: 


suggested: 

<strong>made</strong> for access on horseback and on bicycle. To allow 

access …. regardless <strong>of</strong> ground conditions makes a 

mockery <strong>of</strong> the many management procedures which 

farmers have to put into operation. (W/0836/X) 

Cycling: Suggesting that cyclists have to give way to 

walkers and horse riders gives the impression that there is 

a 'hierarchy', and that cyclists are at the bottom <strong>of</strong> it! 

(G/1098/X) 

Cycling: add - Ride at a reasonable speed commensurate 

with user types, numbers and situation. Use a bell to warn 

others. (G/1214/X) 

...add avoid causing alarm to walkers etc especially when 

approaching from behind; use a bell! (P/0899/X) 

…the advice should recognise that some routes have been 

designed for cycling or horse riding and that it should be 

other users that should give way to cyclists or horse riders 

on such routes. (R/1278/X) 

.... Bicycle .... Users should be advised where there could 

be horses, and <strong>made</strong> aware that they could scare the 

horses. .... (W/0367/X) 

We believe that cycling should be restricted to existing … 

paths able to bear the erosion that goes with mountain 

bikes in particular. (X/0193/X/d) 

I would like to raise the issue <strong>of</strong> droppings from horses 

which, as well as being unsightly on a path used by horse 

riders, walkers and cyclists, impacts particularly on walkers 

who may have no alternative but to walk through it. 

(A/0162/X) 

Horse riding <strong>of</strong>f track should be strongly discouraged. 

(A/0098/X) 

Horses, while there is nothing intrinsically against horses, 

they can do significant damage especially when ridden 

faster rather than slower, particularly at certain times <strong>of</strong> 

year. Could their access be limited to paths or tracks 

leading directly from one public road to another, unless by 

The livery yards should provide access areas for their livery 

horses and also provide information on bridleways in their area. 

(B/1176/X) 

We are not supposed to allow animals to move from one farm to 

another without notifying SEERAD for bio-security reasons. If 

there is a movement onto my farm I can't sell animals for 21 

days. (B/1262/X) 

.. it cannot be responsible to take horses on our well prepared 

foot and cycle paths in the forest without contributing in a big way 

to the management <strong>of</strong> the path. We could have a lot <strong>of</strong> 

disappointed long established walking customers upset by a 

sudden use <strong>of</strong> the paths by horses. (B/0738/X) 

236

prior mutual agreement? (B/0107/X) 

Horses, possibly accompanied by the riders' dogs, are 

liable to damage ground nesting birds and other forms <strong>of</strong> 

wildlife in field margins. Horses eat grass so why should 

the farmer provide free meals for someone else's horses? 

Horse riders may well spook farm livestock. In relation to 

farms next urban settlements, it should be considered 

irresponsible for people and their horses to enter enclosed 

farmland without the permission <strong>of</strong> the land manager. 

(B/0956/X) 

This section should advise all users, particularly cyclists 

and horse riders, to slow down when they meet or pass 

others. This is an example <strong>of</strong> courtesy. On narrow 

stretches <strong>of</strong> path those approaching should wait and give 

way to those already on the path. (G/0759/X) 

Horses, and to a lesser extent mountain bikes, will cause 

possibly serious damage to the turf, and should be 

excluded from these areas (playing fields and golf 

courses). Mountain bikes and horses also cause damage 

when being ridden over fragile land, and should be 

restricted to core paths and other robust tracks. 

(N/0773/X) 

Mention should be <strong>made</strong> <strong>of</strong> having horses regularly 

wormed if they are to ride on other peoples land. Mention 

could be <strong>made</strong> <strong>of</strong> the horse passport scheme being 

introduced at the end <strong>of</strong> the year… The advice given to 

dismount and lead the horse when causing problems for 

other users should be reconsidered, given it is easier to 

control a horse while on it rather than leading it. 

(P/0492/X) 

Regular use by horses can render a s<strong>of</strong>t surface 

impossible for pedestrians and cycles, and the danger 

caused by riders to pedestrians, and especially to children, 

means that some routes which are at present heavily used 

by young families should be restricted to suitable groups 

only. (Q/0206/X) 

The person drafting the code seems to assume (horses) 

will endanger walkers and cyclists. Actually, it is the other 

It would therefore appear it would be reasonable for a land 

manager to exclude riders on the grounds that a track was not 

suitable with the result that damage would occur but this has not 

yet been <strong>made</strong> clear in the Code. It should be. (E/1257/X) 

If we have charged for use <strong>of</strong> the tracks to horse users in the 

past - will we be able to charge in the future? (Similarly with tent 

campers) (E/0013/X) 

The code should make it quite clear that particular user groups 

should not be discriminated against, either deliberately or by 

omission, and that all gates must be passable by pedestrians and 

equestrians. (G/0040/X) 

Cycling and horse riding - … A common sense approach is 

needed with regard to the use and location <strong>of</strong> potentially 

hazardous fencing. (P/1239/X) 

If you have previously had to buy a permit for horse riding in a 

country park, can a charge still be levied for the permit and if 

people ride without a permit are they outwith their access rights? 

(P/1060/X) 

Horse Riding: because <strong>of</strong> disease risk all horse droppings should 

be removed, as in section 3.38 for dogs. (W/0778/X) 

237

Picknicking, 

including BBQs 


Code: 


suggested: 

way round. The walkers and particularly the cyclists will 

naturally frighten the horse and could cause the best <strong>of</strong> 

riders on the most well behaved horse to lose control <strong>of</strong> 

the horse and fall ... They should stop, stand still, call out 

to advertise their presence to the rider if they have not yet 

been seen by the rider, and follow the instructions <strong>of</strong> the 

person in charge <strong>of</strong> the livestock. Farmers and riders 

should be advised to do this in a clear and pleasant 

manner, and thank people for co-operating! (W/0990/X/d) 

Cyclists and horse riders should be safe to use paths 

across fields with stock - however, the prospect <strong>of</strong> horse 

riders and cyclists in open (ie. not containing a path or 

recognised route) fields containing livestock… should not 

be considered as constituting responsible access. 

(W/0108/X/d) 

..only other access takers are considered, wild life and 

farmed animals are ignored … rewrite Section 5 Para 5.2 

table heading Horse riding. (W/0273/X) 

Horse riders should be aware that it is inadvisable to ride 

through stock, unless the animals concerned are used to 

seeing horses, and permission is granted. (W/0367/X) 

It would be possible for a rider entering such fields to find 

oneself confronted by a full grown stallion, and/or a 

number <strong>of</strong> uncut colts, the results <strong>of</strong> which would be 

catastrophic… Safety advice is woefully lacking in your 

code… riding across land where equines are being kept 

should be discouraged. (W/0483/X) 

Riding horses are included under access rights, but not 

carriage driving horses. This should be corrected. Ridden 

horses should not - as a right - be able to use other 

people's fields for 'schooling'. (W/0750/X) 

Under the Act it would be legitimate to picnic in a field with 

animals. This should be specifically discouraged on safety 

grounds in this section as well as section 5. (A/0346/X). 

Picnicking. We suggest it is unrealistic to expect land managers 

to tell people about areas which have been sprayed, the material 

used and the duration <strong>of</strong> any risks. In agricultural areas spraying 

238

Swimming 


Code: 


suggested: 

There is risk <strong>of</strong> fire in such activities where any cooking 

etc, is undertaken. (W/0025/X) 

I suggest it is bad practice to encourage picnicking in 

enclosed grass fields as such fields are likely to give rise 

to e coli or increase the risk <strong>of</strong> an FMD outbreak if 

contaminated meat is left behind. (B/0672/X) 

The lighting <strong>of</strong> fires or lighting <strong>of</strong> portable BBQs in open 

countryside by anyone without the permission <strong>of</strong> the 

recognised land manager should be illegal and a criminal 

<strong>of</strong>fence. Too much damage to the countryside is done 

annually by fires. (B/1295/X) 

picnicking - <strong>of</strong> all the activities this one could cause the 

most problem to farmers and managers <strong>of</strong> field sports; eg 

if a family picnics in the middle <strong>of</strong> a fishing beat revenue 

could be lost. Picnicking needs more thought and specific 

rules. (W/0907/X) 

Do not swim in water reservoirs. The water may be 

someone's source <strong>of</strong> drinking water. If in doubt assume it 

is. (B/0443/X) 

Swimming - add sentence on dangers from other users. It 

is not clear whether swimming is or is not allowed in 

reservoirs. (P/1060/X) 

Swimming - Add section on obeying local signs in areas 

used by other water users on a commercial basis or which 

might be dangerous to the swimmers e.g. water skiing. 

(P/0548/X) 

The reference to swimming in Section 5 could usefully 

highlight that swimming in reservoirs may be particularly 

dangerous (R/0868/X). 

…it is unclear whether access can be taken for swimming 

purposes in reservoirs and canals? If swimming is 

allowed, this should be stated and if not it should be 

clarified in the section on canals and reservoirs.. ..there is 

an over emphasis on fishing interests in this section with a 

lack <strong>of</strong> advice on interaction with other water users. ..the 

is happening throughout much <strong>of</strong> the year on most <strong>of</strong> the land. 

Without external funding it is unreasonable to expect land 

managers to meet the costs <strong>of</strong> signs and employ the staff to 

travel around erecting them. (B/1240/X) 

Picnicking and wild camping - The possibility <strong>of</strong> a fire is very real 

- again I have had some unhappy expriences which nearly ended 

in serious damage. Can these sections be strengthened? 

(B/0041/X) 

However, as a tenant, my main concern (copy <strong>of</strong> leases 

enclosed) is the prohibition included in these leases regarding 

picnickers or other parties access to the farm. If I, as a tenant, 

fail to abide by the conditions <strong>of</strong> the lease, I could be given a 

notice to quit by my landlord by allowing the type <strong>of</strong> access this 

Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 would allow. (B/1143/X) 

Swimming and boating should be specifically excluded from 

ponds stocked specifically as commercial fisheries. (U/1172/X) 

The issue <strong>of</strong> swimming (page 51) is tricky. Many land managers 

will have particular places for swimming. We would propose that 

members <strong>of</strong> the public should move somewhere else if asked by 

the land manager. Otherwise, it is an unfair constraint on privacy 

and unfettered use <strong>of</strong> their property. (X/0193/X/d) 

239

Wild camping 


Code: 


suggested: 

advice on swimming in pools should be removed unless 

there is clear evidence to show that such swimming will 

detrimentally affect the health <strong>of</strong> fish or fishing interests. 

(R/1278/X) 

Canals and reservoirs are unsafe and unsuitable for 

swimming because <strong>of</strong> boating activities, underwater 

vegetation and debris on the canal bed, unseen currents, 

water control systems including locks, lack <strong>of</strong> supervision 

and water temperature. Deaths have occurred as a result 

<strong>of</strong> these factors... recommend that for clarity, canals are 

specifically excluded from this category. (X/0896/X) 

Wild camping "well away from buildings" - does this 

require definition, or wait until it is tested? Again, Norway 

model? (A/0825/X) 

Wild Camping - guidance should perhaps be given on 

"small numbers", eg. Not more than three small tents. 

Advice should be given that people should leave no trace 

<strong>of</strong> their ever having been there. (A/0098/X) 

Although open fires are not permitted what does this 

include. Cooking equipment could potentially cause as 

much damage as an open fire if not used properly,and on 

remote ground how can we stop people lighting open fires 

….campsites could be adversely affected once people are 

able to camp anywhere for free. This could have a 

detrimental effect on small communities who have camp 

sites which help the local economy. The Code appears to 

have been written with the HIghlands and upland ground in 

mind rather than lowland farmland. Wild camping ... could 

have disastrous effects on lowland agricultural properties. 

It is important that the Code guidelines are <strong>made</strong> very 

clear to deal with the diverse nature <strong>of</strong> the Scottish 

countryside. (B/0909/X) 

The advice in the Practical Guide "Do not use an open fire" 

is based on a criminal <strong>of</strong>fence under the Trespass Act 

(Annex 1 to the Code refers) and should be stated as 

Rather than banning the use <strong>of</strong> fire outright, it might make more 

sense to allow for permission from a landowner. (A/0726/X) 

... the camp area proposed should be agreed with the landlord - it 

is obvious that in many cases a very small variation would avoid 

conflict and disturbance to the following day's legitimate activities 

on the land (B/0081/X) 

Wild Camping: While this should be acceptable if properly 

conducted there seems to be no mechanism to monitor or define 

"wild" camping and the ability <strong>of</strong> land managers to take action 

against those who abuse it - with potentially devastating results is 

negligible. (B/1017/X) 

... with the Code in its present state "No Camping" signs would 

probably be illegal. … To have to wait until an <strong>of</strong>fence is 

committed before trying to move someone on would be wholly 

unsatisfactory because trying to move campers who have 

"settled" is very difficult and getting them to clear up afterwards is 

impossible. (B/0949/X) 

The wide range <strong>of</strong> recreational activities including for camping 

could be <strong>of</strong> concern, unless it is controlled with sufficient control 

allowable to managers. (B/0127/X) 

…can the Land Manager insist they only camp in a certain area 

on the property and charge them accordingly? (B/0249/X/d) 

Advice on wild camping seems contradictory. It should be out <strong>of</strong> 

sight <strong>of</strong> any houses and well away from roads or tracks. To 

240

such. (B/0525/X/d) 

It is essential that campers take away with them all rubbish 

and left-over food and also do not defacate and urinate 

such that evidence remains. I believe that not enough 

emphasis is placed on this in the Code. … we suffer from 

quite a lot <strong>of</strong> loch-side camping by fishermen, <strong>of</strong>ten with 

vehicles in close proximity. It would be helpful if the Code 

could distinguish between this type and the 'lightweight 

and transitory' camping that is envisaged. (B/1334/X) 

What is to stop people camping on land adjacent to the 

holiday park and using the facilities which this company 

provides? Trying to run a business is hard enough without 

inviting people to take advantage <strong>of</strong> our efforts and 

investment free <strong>of</strong> charge. To that end I would ask you 

give serious consideration to clarifying "Wild Camping" on 

the final code. I would suggest that it would not be 

unreasonable to impose a minimum distance from any 

registered Holiday Company or indeed to make Wild 

camping truly wild it should not be allowed witin 1-2 miles 

<strong>of</strong> a public road. (D/0682/X) 

The wild camping section should permit small open fires 

for cooking/warmth (provided they are kept under 

supervision and properly extinguished). Unless camp fires 

are permitted, this represents another area where noncompliance 

with the Code is almost guaranteed. Are 

camp fires more likely to start wildfires than a gas or petrol 

stove that is used inappropriately? (G/0379/X) 

Whilst the code suggests camping on unenclosed land it is 

not clear enough. There are major differences in 

behaviour and impact <strong>of</strong> hill walkers backpacking their way 

across wild country compared to car-borne campers 

seeking to avoid camp-site fees. The latter need to be 

heavily discouraged and classed as irresponsible. 

Pollution problems exist with concentrated wild camping 

(no litter bins and public toilets). If permitted the code 

should be specific about the disposal <strong>of</strong> human faeces and 

removal <strong>of</strong> litter, failure to do these adequately should be 

defined as irresponsible access. (H/0959/X) 

minimise disturbance <strong>of</strong> wildlife and keep movement to minimum 

between 8pm and 8am. Not sure why wild campers should be 

camping along a roadside - surely this is not wild camping. 

Suggest they use a paying campsite. Is the land manager 

supposed to manage these sites at no costs? Is the local 

authority going to manage a lot <strong>of</strong> isolated random camp sites - I 

do not think so. If there is proper wild camping this should not be 

on areas next to roads. These sound more like free un<strong>of</strong>ficial 

campsites. Not sure if there is clear distinction between camping 

and wild camping. One being permitted the other not. Can land 

managers still charge for camping in non-wild location. 

(B/0288/X/d) 

The possibility <strong>of</strong> a fire is very real - again I have had some 

unhappy experiences which nearly ended in serious damage. 

Can these sections be strengthened? (B/0041/X) 

Wild Camping - we would hope that this will be limited to ONE 

night only to minimise problems <strong>of</strong> sanitation. Here SEPA will 

advise you as they have very strict rules for farmers. (B/0419/X) 

Wild camping is possible in the Highlands without any significant 

impact but could have disastrous effects on lowland agricultural 

properties. (B/0909/X) 

Land managers should, for safety reasons, know where people 

are over-nighting on their land (B/1096/X). 

The draft Code makes no mention <strong>of</strong> the availability <strong>of</strong> bothies as 

overnight shelters and we consider that it would be appropriate to 

do so in Section 5, possibly as an addition to the entry on wild 

camping. The following wording is suggested ….. (G/0806/X). 

Changing the word "wild" to either "congregational" or "roadside" 

in the "green box" would clear up this anomaly. (G/1099/X) 

Wild camping should not be permited on enclosed land and 

should be limited to two nights only. Farmers are advised to 

clear stock out <strong>of</strong> fields for a minimum period before allowing 

people to camp because <strong>of</strong> the dangers <strong>of</strong> ecoli, etc. The 

dangers from disease should be emphasised and no camping 

should be allowed in fields where there is livestock. More 

guidance should be given on the removal <strong>of</strong> rubbish including 

human faeces and on the use <strong>of</strong> fires for cooking, etc. 

(N/0716/X) 

241

Wild camping near to archaeological sites should be 

discouraged here as well as later (this has posed real 

problems in some places). Walkers should be 

discouraged from erecting shelters <strong>of</strong> any sort near to 

archaeological remains. (L/0659/X) 

Within the "Wild Camping" section it would be beneficial to 

differentiate between camping purely for holiday purposes 

and wild camping for the purpose <strong>of</strong> recreational passage. 

The latter being when jouneying over a longer distance or 

in remote locations. It would be beneficial to encourage 

the use <strong>of</strong> formal campsites in locations where these are 

available. Problems generally arise where campers have 

vehicles and therefore it would be useful to state that wild 

camping does not include having a vehicle. The issue <strong>of</strong> 

roadside camping could be addressed by providing a 

minimum distance (for example 200 metres) from the road 

that wild camping should take place. (P/0642/X) 

It would be reasonable for prospective campers to seek 

permission from the landowner, so that the catchment 

areas for water supplies can be safeguarded from 

contamination from humans and dogs… Although most 

campers may well act responsibly, there will be an 

increased risk <strong>of</strong> fire in plantations and on moorland. 

(W/0417/X) 

Clarify that it would be irresponsible to go wild camping in 

fields heavily stocked with livestock, for Health and Safety 

as well as Animal Welfare reasons. Sheep and cows can 

destroy tents in the dark (by mistake), and can injure 

themselves as well as the campers. Also, the e-coli and 

biosecurity risks due to food handling next to livestock. 

(W/0947/X/d). 

Will land managers be able to claim against the Council for 

damage done by wild camping? (W/0212/X) 

Specify what 'close to a house' means. Permission to camp to 

be sought if within a radius <strong>of</strong> 200m would seem reasonable 

(W/0789/X) 

How is wild camping going to be regulated near to facilities like 

visitor centres and campsites? What is "well away"? Should a 

distance be specified from these types <strong>of</strong> facilities and from 

public roads? (X/1036/X) 

"Wild camping" needs a better definition and clearer guidelines 

should be available for both users and land managers. The code 

needs to acknowledge the associated problems caused by wild 

camping as well as the scale <strong>of</strong> the issue in particularly sensitive 

areas. These can lead to unacceptable impacts on the natural 

heritage and land management interests. The situation on Arran 

demonstrates that there is both wild camping for passage across 

land and wild camping for access within an area. While the code 

appears to address the former, wild camping for access to 

summits and rock climbs etc. does not seem to be covered. 

(X/1385/X) 

… a good example <strong>of</strong> where local byelaws would be appropriate 

to act in support <strong>of</strong> the local community. (X/0405/X/d) 

242

Section 5 : Interpreting the rights and responsibilities: a practical guide 

Table showing Places / Sporting / Other Recreational Activities. 

22. Can you think <strong>of</strong> any other situations that might be regularly encountered which should be included in the table? 

Responses: 

Other situations 

should be included 

- yes 



Night-time access - a section specifically dealing with 

night-time access is needed. (B/0574/X) 

Can excessive noise be mentioned as a form <strong>of</strong> 

unreasonable behaviour? (B/1187/X) 

Yes - Children. The code <strong>of</strong>fers no guidance about 

children exercising right <strong>of</strong> access. (B/1208/X) 

Walking: An additional section should be added 

encouraging walkers to be aware <strong>of</strong> other users, and to 

make sure their dogs do not interfere with other users 

exercising their access rights. (G/1098/X) 

Yes the Code ….should provide information and guidance 

on access to open spaces in urban areas. (H/1103/X) 

The Code should deal expressly with children as access 

takers particularly without adults. (H/1196/X) 

Nudists ….. Is this something the Code could cover? 

(H/1118/X) 

Addition to places and responsible behaviour table, would 

suggest detailing conduct in relation to crossing railway 

lines, ie at level crossings. (P/0640/X) 

Could include guidance on… sustainable transport 

options. (P/0928/X) 

Guidance should be provided about promotion <strong>of</strong> routes in 

guide books. Problems currently arise where authors 

promote inappropriate routes with minimal regard for land 

management or access management issues. (P/1219/X) 

Night-time access should be given a section (Q/1178/X) 

There is no mention anywhere in the document <strong>of</strong> the right 

<strong>of</strong> access where there are wind farms. In some cases, 

there are padlocked gates with no right <strong>of</strong> entry. 

(Q/1270/X) 

Certain activities missed out - for example, parascending, 

hang gliding, model aeroplane flying, model powerboats, 

243 


managers. 

..there is a wide spectrum <strong>of</strong> miscellaneous land types varying 

from rough sheep grazing and grassland to patches <strong>of</strong> green 

urban areas. The Access Code as it is drafted, seems to treat 

each <strong>of</strong> these types <strong>of</strong> land as one. This is a fundamental 

mistake. ... Pages 46,47,48,49 and 50: The detail here is <strong>of</strong>ten 

unpractical, and sometimes unreasonable. Here again too, the 

Access Code needs to be much simpler, taking into account the 

different types <strong>of</strong> land. (B/0461/X) 

Please, please could an item be included in relation to access 

near all private homes, which surely has to include farmhouses? 

(B/0599/X/d) 

Separate sections are required on 'wildfowling' and 'shooting at 

dusk' with a new section inserted specifically covering 'pest and 

predator control'. (J/1058/X) 

Why is the subject <strong>of</strong> wind farms omitted? (Q/1270/X) 

I think it would be in everyone's interest if it were clarified in the 

code just what is and isn't acceptable behaviour by both 

owners/managers and the public wishing access in or around 

harbour areas. (W/0414/X) 

Fishing is a recreational activity in the same way canoeing is and 

should be in the "other recreational activities" section: 

(W/0573/X)

Other situations 

should be included 

– no 

Carriage driving 

Target shooting 

fossil collecting, beach playing and combing, rock 

climbing, etc. (U/0922/X) 

Fishing is a recreational activity in the same way canoeing 

is and should be in the "other recreational activities" 

section: (W/0573/X) 

A major concern is the use <strong>of</strong> fireworks … Some means <strong>of</strong> 

making this an excluded activity should be included. 

(W/0555/X) 

Yes Should potholing, caving, dog walking and the 

requirements <strong>of</strong> the DDA be mentioned? (W/1310/X/d) 

I am concerned that it makes no reference to horse driving 

… there should be a specific reference to our recreation 

on page 24 and under the table on page 51. (G/0546/X) 

No mention is <strong>made</strong> <strong>of</strong> clay pigeon shooting. This <strong>of</strong>ten 

takes place in a field and access will be affected, and there 

are obvious health and safety issues even for those on 

neighbouring paths or field margins. (A/0346/X) 

...there is … a serious omission in that there is no mention 

<strong>of</strong> Target Sports". Target Sports include Target Rifle; 

Match Rifle; Sporting Rifle; Small-bore Rifle; Target 

Archery and Field Archery; Crossbow; Clay Target, and 

even perhaps Biathlon. … Target sports, by definition, 

release projectiles towards targets at varying distances 

according to the disciplines practiced and it follows that 

there is, therefore, a target danger area involved. ... A 

range danger area is defined as an area <strong>of</strong> ground, water 

or air within which any projectile will safely fall without 

hazard or danger to other users. Safety to other users is 

paramount (J/0023/X) 

244 

No; any such situations should become apparent over time, and 

can be addressed by the review process. (A/0469/X) 

We have been informed quite categorically that, unless carriage 

drivers as a group are mentioned BY NAME in the new 

legislation, we will always be excluded from free access to the 

countryside. As a result drivers as a group can be charged for 

access although riders <strong>of</strong> horses can't. (A/0449/X) 

.. it is noted that no consideration at all has been given for access 

by horse carriage drivers. The opportunities for horse carriage 

driving on suitable routes are particularly limited in many areas, 

with many <strong>of</strong> the limited number <strong>of</strong> bridleways and tracks suitable 

for use by horses, being naturally or deliberately denied to horse 

carriages. (W/0986/X) 

In section 5 under the "Sporting Activities" heading, we suggest 

inserting an extra paragraph to cover rifle and archery ranges 

and the safety cordon around them. (W/0119/X) 

Suggest inserting an extra paragraph to cover rifle and archery 

ranges and the safety cordon around them. This is particularly 

relevant in places such as the Atholl Estate where a rifle club's 

range lies beside an estate road that is used by hill walkers as an 

access track. (W/119/X)

Fires 

Wild Camping states 'do not use an open fire'. What about 

fires in a general sense? eg on the beach, Nov 5 and 

Jubilee Celebrations. I think it is very important to give 

clear advice on safe disposal <strong>of</strong> smoking materials - there 

is nothing in the draft code. (A/0719/X/d) 

Further information on lighting fires and parking cars on 

the edge <strong>of</strong> land where access is exercised should be 

included. (A/0958/X) 

Modern camping equipment is so good and light that there 

should be a formal line <strong>of</strong> the code prohibiting the lighting 

<strong>of</strong> fires in the countryside unless for land management 

purposes. (B/0257/X) 

In our area at least the Forestry Commission prohibits any 

fire for obvious reasons…Casual fires not fully 

extinguished have caused catastrophic damage in 

moorland and forestry in several areas <strong>of</strong> the Highlands 

this spring. (B/0081/X) 

I would … like to see a section on the lighting <strong>of</strong> fires, 

clarifying exactly what the situation with this is. (B/0794/X) 

Fire is devastating to both the environment and the wildlife 

in it, and the Code should make clear that the lighting <strong>of</strong> 

open fires is totally forbidden, except where specifically 

allowed for. (B/1160/X) 

There should be clarification that open fires are not 

acceptable, and that instant barbecues and fit for purpose 

camp-fire cookers may be acceptable, but only in properly 

prepared stances. There should be a warning against 

using them where the container is in contact with 

inflammable material. ... It is essential that people do NOT 

light fire <strong>of</strong> any sort in woodland. (H/0915/X) 

Fires are a great source <strong>of</strong> worry for land managers, not 

just because <strong>of</strong> the dangers, but also because those who 

light them so <strong>of</strong>ten resort to destroying trees, fences and 

gates in order to obtain fuel. They should be dealt with 

much more prominently at Section 3, and it should be 

stated in terms that lighting a fire without the land 

manager's permission is irresponsible behaviour which will 

result in loss <strong>of</strong> the right <strong>of</strong> access. (P/0375/X) 

There does not appear to be any reference to the danger 

<strong>of</strong> dropping lighted cigarettes in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> ripe cereal 

245

Beaches 

Shooting – pest 

control 

crops and other vegetation in dry weather. (Q/0499/X) 

People should not be free to light fires anywhere in the 

countryside… portable barbecues very frequently cause 

damage to places where they are lit. (W/0217/X) 

The seashore seems to be prominent for its omission; 

(D/0022/X) 

Coastal dunes, marshes and bogs. Some sea cliff 

vegetation could also be included as prone to damage 

from rockclimbing. (K/1241/X) 

A note about nesting seabirds, safety and use <strong>of</strong> non 

motorised craft such as kite buggies and land yachts. 

(P/0899/X) 

Water access: substantially more detailed guidance is 

needed on anchoring, beaching and launching 

responsibilities (The National Park has a great deal <strong>of</strong> 

experience in this area and would welcome the opportunity 

to share this). (P/1219/X) 

Coastal areas, especially beaches and dunes, are <strong>of</strong> great 

attraction and are sadly where uncontrolled access has 

had major impact on the natural environment. 

Uncontrolled access has impacted on plant-life, and on 

breeding populations <strong>of</strong> shorebirds. Wintering bird 

populations using these as feeding areas or high tide 

roosts are also seriously affected. .... the environmental 

problem <strong>of</strong> access in this area is not acknowledged in the 

Code. .... this must be redressed urgently. (Q/0932/X) 

...the code could be improved by clearly defining where the 

access rights extend to - high tide line, low tide line? What 

about beaches? I think most people will not be clear about 

the legal definition <strong>of</strong> "foreshore". (W/0979/X) 

Most vermin control is carried on at night … The public 

cannot be aware where shooting is taking place during the 

hours <strong>of</strong> darkness; hence they would be at considerable 

personal risk. (W/1014/X) 

246 

…it would be helpful if the existing rights on the foreshore were 

clarified. (A/0425/X) 

…some beaches and shorelines are grazings and must be 

treated as such. (B/0466/X/d) 

A blanket right to invade foreshores could have a detrimental 

effect on flora and fauna there and the regeneration <strong>of</strong> essential 

vegetation necessary to bind foreshores damaged by flooding. 

(H/0534/X) 

shooting on the foreshore - wildfowling - though the public rights 

to recreation on the foreshore, including shooting, are not 

currently affected by this legislation. Perhaps this could be 

stated (H/0808/X). 

Vermin control was identified as potentially harmful operation but 

no guidance was given to the individual carrying it out. 

(B/1063/X) 

Shooting is also <strong>of</strong>ten done at dusk when visibility is not good. 

This could be very dangerous and some direction from the code 

to <strong>of</strong>fer advice on how to warn the public <strong>of</strong> these activities and 

for the public in how to act. (B/1117/X) 

Keepers carry out predator control at night and in the early 

morning and it is potentially dangerous for folk campng 

(B/1173/X)

Walking with dogs 

A section on dogs, drawing together the points for dog 

owners, and what land managers should expect would be 

useful. (A/1070/X/d) 

Let's build on the positive, involve and include dog 

walkers, encourage responsible access by all and not 

marginalise our canines and their recreational 

companions. (A/1136/X/d) 

Advice should also be <strong>of</strong>fered as to how dogs should be 

controlled when approaching horse riders, how horse 

riders might respond to dogs and how horse riders 

themselves might control their own accompanying dogs. 

(G/0917/X) 

Section 5 <strong>of</strong> the code should include an extra 

"user/activity" category - "dogwalking". In terms <strong>of</strong> personvisits 

per year this is probably the most significant 

recreational activity in the Scottish countryside; and it is 

the number one problem cited by land managers. ... It is 

felt that the code could provide further clarification on this 

issue. (P/0899/X) 

The practice <strong>of</strong> 'Lamping' (shooting rabbits and foxes using car 

headlights) should be mentioned to avoid injury to the public. 

(G/0973/X) 

hunting with hounds may be restricted but it is not banned; 

falconry …; related management activity, such as predation 

control, should also be included. (J/1058/X) 

Litter and personal 

hygiene 

Also for managers and others to be more environmentally friendly 

in the disposal <strong>of</strong> plastic, old fencing, wire and old machinery - 

half-buried wire/old metal can cause serious injury to horses. 

(G/1192/X) 

The matter <strong>of</strong> locking gates that afford access to fields adjacent 

to public roads or tracks along which vehicles can be driven will 

have to be re-addressed and clarified. Since the introduction <strong>of</strong> 

the Landfill Tax the disposal <strong>of</strong> household rubbish, unwanted 

domestic appliances and furniture by fly tipping in rural locations 

has become an escalating problem. ... This action taken by land 

managers in an effort to tackle the problem <strong>of</strong> fly tipping ought to 

be encouraged rather than discouraged. (Q/0112/X) 

Group activities However, bringing groups <strong>of</strong> people on a regular basis, ... is likely 

to cause disturbance or harm. … It seems that the land manager 

247

Above and below Access extends both above and below the ground. 

ground recreation Livestock have stampeded as a result <strong>of</strong> hot air balloons 

and microlights. Gliders and hot air balloons cannot 

always predict where they will land and crops can be 

damaged. Guidance should be given for such activities. 

Is a hot air balloon considered motorised? (B/0443/X) 

Remotely controlled model aircraft, in particular, can be 

intimidating to other land users and dangerous to horse 

riders. (B/1195/X) 

There is no reference to take <strong>of</strong>f and landing sites for 

ballooning, hang gliding or gliding. (H/0807/X) 

... there is no specific reference to air and underground 

activities. There are concerns about activities such as 

hang-gliding and disturbance to farm animals and wildlife. 

(H/1103/X) 

...should be mention <strong>of</strong> caving and activities such as hang 

gliding and paragliding. (P/1060/X) 

Where there are stock in fields, no planes, hang gliders, 

paragliders or balloons should cross over those fields. 

(W/0554/X) 

Microlite aircraft, or model aircraft or kites should not be 

flown over enclosed fields or near to stock <strong>of</strong> any kind as it 

will cause them to panic and <strong>of</strong>ten go berserk. (X/0122/X) 

Pursuits requiring the transport <strong>of</strong> special equipment, and 

involving a risk <strong>of</strong> injury, should have defined take-<strong>of</strong>f and 

landing areas, so that vehicle access and recovery can be 

mutually agreed by authorities and the landowner. 

(X/0192/X/d) 

Burial grounds No specific mention is <strong>made</strong> <strong>of</strong> burial grounds which are 

248 

would have little recourse if leck sites were being disturbed and 

exploited by others for pr<strong>of</strong>it or commercial activity. (B/0583/X) 

...we are a private business. We <strong>made</strong> these investments (paths, 

fencing, regeneration and bridges) in the firm belief that we would 

expand our estate enterprises <strong>of</strong> wildlife tourism, sporting tourism 

and native breed cattle. As with other land owners, we have 

always welcomed the private access-taker but do not agree that 

the capital expenditure incurred ..should be for the benefit <strong>of</strong> 

other businesses without recompense. (E/0208/X) 

Scout and guide camps should have the same protection as land 

next to schools. (W/0641/X) 

Access applying in the air- Ballooning, gliding, gyros and 

parascending etc, all must, at the end <strong>of</strong> the flight, have a 

recovery stage. This normally will involve a vehicle <strong>of</strong> some sort, 

motorised access is not allowed. (B/0446/X) 

Who will be responsible for the safety <strong>of</strong> cavers on private land? 

(E/1113/X)

Parks 

Rock climbing 

sometimes now comparatively inaccessible spots. 

Perhaps a mention under Historic Sites (pp48-9) or in 

Paragraph 3.34 would be appropriate. (Q/0424/X) 

Burial grounds… appear to receive no specific mention in 

the draft Code. Small grounds should be readily skirted. I 

see no reasonable objection to access to larger burial 

grounds for the purpose <strong>of</strong> crossing them, but responsible 

access should be by use <strong>of</strong> existing paths or, where there 

are no obvious paths, by passing between rows <strong>of</strong> graves 

rather than across them. (W/0511/X) 

There is no mention <strong>of</strong> country or urban parks in the 

places section. Given the large numbers <strong>of</strong> people who 

take access in these places, they should be mentioned if 

only to inform the public that access rights apply in such 

places. (P/0493/X) 

There are specific issues associated with crags and cliffs 

where people may wish to climb. These include nesting 

birds and members <strong>of</strong> the public walking below. (A/958/X) 

Climbing… must be included in the code, as well as 

access considerations with regard to bird nesting; issue <strong>of</strong> 

damage relating to drilling bolts and "rock gardening". 

(W/0246/X) 

...add the following categories, I) abseiling which would be 

resisted on canal structures ii) the issue <strong>of</strong> access to 

249 

Parks - access is not <strong>of</strong>ten allowed at night and at other times, 

also walking on the grass may not be allowed. (B/0446/X) 

Are caravan parks, privately or council owned, regarded as 

excluded from the access code, and if so, under what paragraph 

<strong>of</strong> the code? (D/0550/X) 

A large number <strong>of</strong> people take access in country parks, urban 

parks and other green spaces, a section on these areas could be 

included under the "places" section. (P/0491/X) 

… privately owned recreational areas within housing 

developments … several areas within the estate have been set 

aside for the recreational purposes <strong>of</strong> the residents. The areas 

were sold by the developers to a company called The Green Belt 

Co. who levy an annual charge on all residents for the 

maintainance <strong>of</strong> the areas and equipment, eg. swings, etc, 

contained in them. ... it seems fairly clear that these areas are not 

really gardens separated from houses but are more in the nature 

<strong>of</strong> parks. Consequently it seems to me that the access rights 

would apply to such areas. .. I do not think it would be right to 

allow the public to have access to use the recreational equipment 

in such areas, which residents are paying to provide and 

maintain. (W/0414/X)

GM crops 

Removal <strong>of</strong> natural 

items 

frozen and partially frozen inland water. (X/0896/X) 

A notable omission is any mention <strong>of</strong> situations where a 

field may have been planted with genetically modified 

crops. The danger here would be <strong>of</strong> contamination. 

Perhaps such access rights would be excluded from such 

fields by section 2.15 <strong>of</strong> the Code (land or water where 

public access is specifically prohibited). (A/0135/X) 

Does the taking <strong>of</strong> samples for scientific purposes (either 

pr<strong>of</strong>essional, educational or amateur) constitute damage? 

It probably does if the removal <strong>of</strong> samples significantly 

reduces that which remains, or the result <strong>of</strong> sampling is 

<strong>of</strong>fensively obvious (for example coring <strong>of</strong> rock outcrops). 

(A/0838/X) 

Any access taker who removes anything from the land is 

stealing from the landowner's property and in doing that is 

stealing from the land owner himself. The code should 

state that anyone taking access in the countryside should 

not leave farmland with anything removed from the land. 

(B/0569/X) 

Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act uprooting any plant 

is an <strong>of</strong>fence, is this applicable to fungi which under the 

Access Code can be picked for private consumption? 

(B/1187/X) 

Missing from this section is anything on sample collection 

for educational purposes, eg plant, rock (geological) or 

soil samples. (G/0960/X) 

...advise amateur archaeologists and metal detectorists to 

report "finds" to the relevant authority. Also that gem 

hunters can damage not only important rock features but 

splintered rocks can damage vegetation. (P/0899/X) 

There is no mention <strong>made</strong> in the draft Code <strong>of</strong> fossil 

collection. We would suggest that this may have a similar 

status to moss or mushroom picking and therefore would 

suggest it is included in the examples in this section, (pg 

27, 2.17). (P/1247/X) 

I note that respecting geology and carrying away rocks or 

fossils is not mentioned. (W/0221/X) 

...severe concerns about the implied permission the Code 

appears to extend to taking things away from land on a 

non-commercial basis …in the ordinary understanding <strong>of</strong> 

250 

The Code should also refer to the existing Scottish Wild 

Mushroom Code, which was put together in co-operation 

between landowners, harvesters and conservation bodies. …it 

is..difficult to distinguish what constitutes commercial 

harvesting….Permit schemes for harvesting non-timber forest 

products have been discussed for some time, and would provide 

a formal means <strong>of</strong> administering permission and <strong>of</strong> monitoring 

harvesting. (L/0504/X)

Designed 

Landscapes and 

Gardens 

the criminal law a person taking items such as trees, 

plants, minerals, vegetables or fruit from land that does 

not belong to them is committing theft, .....a person coming 

onto land in order, eg to help himself to Christmas trees for 

his family, to a load <strong>of</strong> firewood or to a substantial amount 

<strong>of</strong> rock or gravel for his garden is about to embark on 

criminal activity, and the Code should not suggest that that 

person would have access rights. (W/0848/X) 

On small cr<strong>of</strong>ts and farms the wild mushrooms and berries 

may only be sufficient for that farm or cr<strong>of</strong>t's own needs. 

(And fencing things <strong>of</strong>f is expensive!) (W/0100/d) 

A right <strong>of</strong> access should not give a right to prospect with a 

metal detector without the permission <strong>of</strong> the owner. 

(W/1141/X) 

... the situation regarding houses and gardens should be 

explained again within this section (B/1093/X). 

In practice it is <strong>of</strong>ten difficult to define what is amenity land 

and what is garden in that in many instances the two blend 

seamlessly one into the other. As a result, land managers 

will not be able to determine the extent <strong>of</strong> their privacy and 

users will be equally confused. (B/0041/X) 

...access should not be exercised by the public over the 

grounds and immediate Policies <strong>of</strong> an important planned 

landscape round a mansion house. (X/0656/X) 

251 

Where there is a valuable and movable property in the open, the 

owner should be able to take appropriate measures for its 

security, including locking gates in his absence, he/she woud be 

obliged to make arrangements for access on request. Where an 

owner/manager has invested funds in creating an attraction 

which is not part <strong>of</strong> the natural heritage, other parties should not 

be able to exploit the access provisions <strong>of</strong> the Act for personal 

financial gain on the property without the owner/managers' 

permission and if requested an appropriate contribution to the 

upkeep <strong>of</strong> the project. (B/0252/X) 

I understand that gardens, which are existing "paid entry 

attractions", are exempt from access; however I think access 

should be allowed when such gardens are closed, even when 

they may only be open occasionally. (B/0592/X) 

It appears from a study <strong>of</strong> the Draft Access Code that the general 

public may access these properties which are beyond the 

curtilage <strong>of</strong> the owner's house 365 days <strong>of</strong> the year and 24 hours 

day and night. It also seems that commercial tour guides can 

bring paying clients to view these gardens without the garden 

owner or charity benefiting. If this is the case then there may be 

two results: 1. Owners may no longer be prepared to expend 

time, energy and money maintaining the properties. 2. The 

general public will be unwilling to pay to visit thewse more 

extensive properties which are only open for a limited number <strong>of</strong> 

days in the year. The financial consequences to the charities

Land set out for 

Recreational 

Purposes 

Under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act it would appear that 

a horse riding business could use the facilities <strong>of</strong> another 

horse riding business without the permission <strong>of</strong> the 

business that has set up and maintained the facilities. 

Could such action be considered irresponsible? 

(B/0443/X) 

How will commercial access takers be regulated? Will 

they have to have their own insurance? In the event that a 

land user wants to establish a commercial access 

business on his or her own land, will this take precedence? 

(B/1301/X) 

…equestrian centre cross-country course … what happens 

when a rider wishes to make use <strong>of</strong> the course: has he or 

she to check the entire area (currently seventy acres) to 

verify that there is no-one passing through before setting 

<strong>of</strong>f? And … how can he or she be sure that no-one has 

wandered in since the check was <strong>made</strong>? The dangers are 

obvious and very serious. (B/0250/X) 

Our sports fields are used regularly by our clients - we 

would regard it as unreasonable that these could be used 

as and when others wish, with potential confrontation 

when asking them to leave so that those who have paid for 

it can enjoy them. In addition it appears to be 

unreasonable that the public can use our facilities without 

in any way contributing to their upkeep, repair and 

maintenance. Is it privilege without responsibility? 

(D/1206/X) 

The code also suggests that use <strong>of</strong> public slipways is 

within the rights, but what about pontoons and lochside 

beaches? These may have been put in and are 

maintained by commercial organisations. If these 

structures are all within an area "developed for a 

recreational purpose" is public access not available to 

them whilst in use? A clarification <strong>of</strong> "in use" is required. 

Further clarification <strong>of</strong> the term open-air recreation is 

252 

mentioned above could be disastrous. (L/0985/X) 

... a generic symbol or wording should be agreed upon which can 

be used by those with private gardens ….. to make people aware 

that there are areas over which they have no right <strong>of</strong> access 

(W/1085/X). 

Where a land manager has or can develop a diversification 

enterprise where he charges for allowing access over his ground 

then there should be no right <strong>of</strong> access over that ground to 

pursue that or a similar activity, i.e pony hacking on farm land. 

No person should be allowed to use the right <strong>of</strong> access to land 

for commercial gain where it would conflict with a commercial 

enterprise that is currently run by the land manager. (B/0215/X) 

For example, as horse riding is now permitted, where somone 

brings a group or class <strong>of</strong> cross-country riders onto land, where 

the owner/manager <strong>of</strong> that land already runs a riding school or 

trekking facility in some form, is there any remedy for what may 

seem to be unfair competition? Also erosion <strong>of</strong> the 

paths/bridleways will be <strong>made</strong> worse with no contribution to 

repair and maintainence, other than the possibility <strong>of</strong> a voluntary 

one, from the invading commercial user. (W/0217/X) 

We rent land from an estate on which we have erected a crosscountry 

course. This is only used for club competitions and 

formal training events, for which a charge is <strong>made</strong>. Club 

members are not allowed to use the course informally at other 

times. The course is on land to which the Act allows access and 

there is little to physically prevent walkers from climbing on the 

jumps or horse-riders from jumping them. (Some <strong>of</strong> the jumps 

are logs and it is not immediately obvious that they are a man<strong>made</strong> 

obstacle rather than a natural feature <strong>of</strong> the site). Although 

we have carried out a risk assessment to ensure the site and 

jumps are in a safe condition, we are vulnerable to the 

consequences <strong>of</strong> people acting irresponsibly. The code must 

make it clear that such use is an irresponsible act. (G/0040/X) 

If a reservoir is formally managed for recreational purposes it is 

exempt from access rights. … Country Parks…are visitor 

attractions which include facilities such as fishing reservoir, 

serviced camping site, BBQ areas, golf courses, etc. As 

"managed sites" with "management rules" are they exempt from 

access rights? Could an explanation be provided as to why a 

visitor attraction, which sets an "entry charge", should be exempt

Stud farm/ horse 

breeding 

Game bird rearing 

needed. Is a football match permitted if children place 

their jumpers as goals? (X/1036/X) 

Should a young girl on a mare or filly that is in season get 

anywhere near a stallion, nature will take over and injury or 

even death may follow. Some restrictions must be placed 

on riders in these circumstances. (B/0257/X) 

Stud farms need particular mention, foals, particularly 

thoroughbreds, can be very valuable and vulnerable to 

disturbance by dogs and strange horses. (G/1192/X) 

A sentence should be added prohibiting access to rearing 

fields and release pens either with or without a dog. 

(B/1271/X) 

Disturbance by the general public to crow traps is an 

ongoing problem … The importance <strong>of</strong> these traps as a 

conservation management tool should be explained 

253 

from access rights? ... if a facility is managed for countryside 

recreational purposes then the access legislation should not 

apply. (X/0939/X) 

... a woodchip all-weather gallop … we are concerned that horseriders 

will be able to use this facility … we also have a grass 

gallop which is used by clients … Do we have any control over 

riders using this facility? (X/1137/X) 

There is no reference to 'breeding horses' or 'Stud Farms' in the 

Code. Horses, especially thoroughbreds, are very sensitive to 

strange people and sounds. They are easily spooked and may 

become so disturbed as to gallop over the most secure fencing 

and on to the public highway, may abort a foal, suffer serious 

injury to themselves or to humans. (B/0240/X) 

Highland ponies (at least 4000 in Scotland) are mainland 

Scotland's only native horse breed. The majority <strong>of</strong> Highland 

ponies are produced in studs where stallions usually run outside, 

all year round, with mares and foals. Their primary concern in 

these circumstances is for the herd. ... The herd...a group <strong>of</strong> 

ponies when alarmed...first tend to flee, and depending on the 

field, can injure themselves by running through fences, or a 

pregnant mare abort her foal. Yeld mares. After the initial flight 

urge, the tendency <strong>of</strong> yeld mares...will be...try to drive the threat 

away from the mares with foals. ... In the case <strong>of</strong> dogs the 

reaction is much more serious. The mare will chase a dog, , with 

ears back and teeth bared, and put it through a fence or over a 

dyke, trying to stamp on it with the front hooves or biting. ... 

Stallions. In the case <strong>of</strong> a stallion running with mares and foals, 

the reaction tends to be more aggressive and extreme. ... 

Introducing a ridden horse into a field or area where there are 

other horses, is, self-evidently, asking for trouble, as it will 

immediately induce a mass approach and trigger <strong>of</strong>f expressions 

<strong>of</strong> dominance towards the intruder, such as kicking with the hind 

hooves. (E/1215/X) 

... the status <strong>of</strong> pheasant release pens which are in use from 

June onwards, not merely on the days in November and 

December when shooting is actually taking place. Query include 

game release pens in 2.15 and 3.12? (E/0906/X) 

From both the animal welfare and safety perspectives, rearing 

fields should be exempt in the same way as farm buildings.

Railways 

Other livestock 

somewhere in the code. (B/1295/X) 

The birds are reared by ourselves from day olds in specific 

areas. There are serious safety implications with regard to 

disease, fire and explosion (artificial heat is provided via 

Propane Gas)……… In game cover plots where crops 

have been planted specifically to provide suitable habitat, it 

is assumed that these areas would be classified as 

"growing crops" and excluded. (F/0748/X) 

I was surprised to see no mention <strong>of</strong> game bird rearing, ie. 

Partridges and pheasants… I, therefore, would like to see 

managed game birds treated more as livestock in the code 

as far as recommendations for dogs are concerned. 

(W/0090/X) 

There should be additional guidance on dogs in woodland 

used for rearing game birds. (W/0696/X/d) 

Page 49. Insert a section on crossing railways under 

'Railways'. (P/0316/X) 

..crossing railway lines i.e. at level crossings. (P/0640/X) 

..ask that consideration be given to mentioning the danger 

<strong>of</strong> visitors entering a deer farm. Tame deer as on farms 

can be dangerous - the newly calved hind may attack 

people who accidentally or deliberately approach the calf 

which may be hidden in long grass etc. In the autumn 

stags are at least as dangerous as dairy bulls. (B/0020/X) 

There is no mention <strong>of</strong> what the public should do in the 

case <strong>of</strong> encountering any other animals with young (I.e 

horses, pigs, goats, llamas, geese etc) especially if the 

public have dogs or young children with them. 

(B/0473/X/d) 

Add specific references to fields containing male farm 

stock eg bulls, tups, boars include poultry (geese and 

laying hens) (T/0911/X) 

No mention is <strong>made</strong> <strong>of</strong> pigs - under no circumstances 

should members <strong>of</strong> the public enter a field <strong>of</strong> pigs - these 

animals are EXTREMELY dangerous, and specific 

mention should be <strong>made</strong> <strong>of</strong> this in the code. Also from the 

animal health point <strong>of</strong> view, most pig herds have or aspire 

to have a 'High Health' status - any entry by the public can 

compromise this status. (W/0108/X/d) 

254 

When these birds are released into the wild the pens they go in 

should have a temporary access restriction; if the birds are 

disturbed it can result in heavy losses particularly as the public 

have night-time access. (H/0904/X) 

Access rights should, also, not apply to enclosures and areas 

used for rearing game. (X/0656/X) 

horses … They can be as dangerous to people/dogs if 

threatened especially with foals at foot, and expensive to replace 

or cover vet's bills for. Pigs do not seem to be mentioned either 

and they certainly were agricultural when we lived there and can 

be dangerous. (B/1341/Z/d) 

The livestock listed should included chickens, turkeys and ducks. 

(W/0191/X)

Winter sports and 

recreation 

Extreme / minority 

sports 

The activities <strong>of</strong> sledging/cross country skiing do cause 

damage to the course and this will be greatly increased if 

the general public are allowed to determine that there is 

"sufficient snow cover" to carry out these activities. 

(B/0225/X) 

... cross country skiing which can cause great disturbance 

to deer at times <strong>of</strong> deep snow. (B/0980/X) 

Considerable damage will be caused to crops under snow 

by the use <strong>of</strong> sloping fields for sledging or skiing by 

perfectly well intentioned, responsible but ignorant people. 

(B/0925/X) 

Feel that …sledging should be discouraged in fields where 

there is livestock. (B/1093/X) 

Cross-country/Nordic skiiing/ski touring - avoid 

unnecessary disturbance <strong>of</strong> red deer (vulnerable on low 

ground in conditions <strong>of</strong> deep snow) (P/0899/X) 

In winter, exercising access rights at night is likely to be 

little short <strong>of</strong> reckless. (E/1074/X) 

Make additional reference to activities such as hill running, 

orienteering, air and underground / underwater sports. 

Additional advice to alert people to the specific safety risks 

around archery courses, shooting ranges and horse 

gallops is required. (B/0937/X) 

All principal outdoor activities should be mentioned here, 

as land managers may construe that activities not listed 

here are not recognised or permitted. .... Caving, ski 

touring, walking and running, rock climbing and abseiling, 

diving (snorkelling and sub-aqua). ... - gliding, hanggliding, 

flying, ballooning, parachuting, etc? (G/0379/X) 

Clarify whether the access rights apply to activities such 

as: carrying canoes to a riverbank; setting up and landing 

paragliders and microlights (the latter are presumably 

excluded from access rights by being motorised but would 

motorised hang gliders where the engine is not started 

until after launching be covered?), skateboards (including 

'<strong>of</strong>f-road' models) and launching boats on the seashore. 

Does the driving <strong>of</strong> horsedrawn carriages fall within the 

right? (K/1241/X) 

Gorge Exploring (W/1153/Z/d) 

255 

Page 51: ORIENTEERING Access rights include Orienteering. 

Event organisers should: *liase with land managers *inform land 

managers well in advance about mapping requirements *consult 

SNH area <strong>of</strong>fice for conservation advice when an area is used for 

the first time *seek permission well in advance for larger events 

and discuss any facilitiesor services required *folllow the 

guidelines issued by the Scottish Orienteering Association. 

Orienteers have a good reputation for organisation and care <strong>of</strong> 

the environment. Small club and training sessions should be 

covered by a general agreement. Provided that nature 

conservation concerns as identified by SNH are satisfactorily 

addressed and the event does not disrupt significant land 

management operations, you should grant permission with the 

minimum <strong>of</strong> delay. You may charge for any facilities and 

services provided but not for access. (W/0781/X)

Disused quarries ..clarification whether access rights apply to quarries when they 

are not working (A/0658/X/d) 

The occurrence <strong>of</strong> mineshafts, obvious or hidden, warrant 

mention in the code. Landowners cannot be held responsible for 

people taking ill-considered risks with either natural caves or 

mineworkings although they could be asked to warn <strong>of</strong> such 

hazards where known, with appropriate fencing or taping. I have 

seen sits (subsidence hollows) on collapsed shallow 

mineworkings taped <strong>of</strong>f in a publicly accessible informal nature 

reserve where the landowner was behaving in a sensible fashion. 

Abandoned quarries are also a sensitive issue with landowners. 

Again like natural cliffs, such quarry faces can be dangerous 

through people falling from them, rockfalls and debris flows and 

slides, and also drowning in flooded quarries and sand and 

gravel or clay pits. Partial infills <strong>of</strong> quarry holes can also contain 

hazardous materials with risk <strong>of</strong> injury or poisoning as 

possibilities. ... the landowner should not be held responsible for 

those who take ill-advised risks. However, due warning etc, 

should be given as appropriate. (W/1325/X) 

Disabled access 

Access is available to the disabled driving specially 

adapted vehicles. There is absolutely no guidance 

anywhere in the Code as to responsible behaviour by the 

disabled in vehicles. (B/1150/X/d) 

The question <strong>of</strong> disabled access needs to be clarified. … 

Rightly there are dispensations for disabled people, 

however, a motorised buggy is one thing but somebody 

taking access with a 4x4 vehicle should not be acceptable. 

(B/1347/X) 

I couldn't see a reference to the Disability Discrimination 

Act in the Code. I think it should be included because 

local authorities are beginning to realise that they are 

required to provide better access to the countryside for 

people with disabilities, including wheelchair and other 

mobility vehicle users. (D/0350/Y) 

It is clear that the specific issue <strong>of</strong> access for people 

affected by disability is embraced, but some <strong>of</strong> the pratical 

difficulties, given the diversity <strong>of</strong> people's impairments, 

require further consideration before the Code is 

implemented. In particular we feel the tenets <strong>of</strong> the 

256 

Why are motorised vehicles adapted for disabled permitted 

access? How are land managers supposed to allow this access, 

without allowing all vehicle access? It is not stated that the 

vehicle must be driven by a disabled person. … If a minibus is 

adapted for disabled but no passengers are disabled, can the 

other passengers have access? What if it is a car with a disabled 

sticker but no adaptation? (B/0288/X/d) 

Does this mean that all access points, including those with gates 

preventing vehicular access, within an estate have to be <strong>made</strong> 

available for disabled drivers? (B/0964/X) 

Under the responsible behaviour by the public, this could 

reiterate that disabled people are entitled to use motorised 

scooters etc for access. … Under the responsible behaviour by 

land managers, this could re-emphasise the importance <strong>of</strong> 

removing barriers to access by disabled people, as above. 

(M/0263/X) 

However, many sites are unavailable to us, simply because there 

are stiles and/or kissing gates, through which no wheelchair, or 

person with mobility problems, can pass. We realise, these 

barriers are to prevent cattle, etc, from passing. However, by-

Disability Discrimination Act should be highlighted. To 

omit, or fail to emphasise, this key legislation would be a 

disservice to disabled people, land managers and local 

authorities. The production <strong>of</strong> the Code gives a golden 

opportunity to ensure the needs <strong>of</strong> people with disabilities 

are built into the process, rather than added as an adjunct 

or, worse, subject to remedy by complaint. (M/1258/X) 

...the exemption for powered craft for disabled visitors is <strong>of</strong> 

some concern, on water supply reservoirs…… prefer to 

see an instruction to contact Scottish Water before 

launching such craft. (R/0868/X) 

...the Code should mention the desirability, if not the 

requirement, for access provisions on care paths to be 

inclusive and for the removal <strong>of</strong> barriers to access for 

disabled people. As with other parts <strong>of</strong> the Code, what 

constitutes reasonable in terms <strong>of</strong> barrier removal may 

need to be the subject <strong>of</strong> more detailed guidance but there 

is an opportunity to promote the idea <strong>of</strong> least restrictive 

access here and to encourage a positive and proactive 

approach on the part <strong>of</strong> land managers. Older people who 

have a mobility or sensory impairment are a sub-group 

among disabled people who are likely to be highly 

responsible users <strong>of</strong> the countryside so long as their 

access is not restricted. (V/1285/X) 

Drivers <strong>of</strong> disabled cars should not be given access to 

privately maintained, single track, access roads. Turning 

point is normally within the farm yard at the back <strong>of</strong> the 

farmhouse. Very <strong>of</strong>ten a skilful driver is needed to 

negotiate the turn. (W/0872/X) 

pass gates, which could be opened (and obviously, closed 

behind us), would go a considerable distance towards achieving 

some <strong>of</strong> our goals. (M/1383/X) 

I recognise that the point at which a land owner or manager 

becomes a 'service provider' may not always be clear, although 

...there is an opportunity in the Scottish Outdoor Access Code to 

reinforce the spirit <strong>of</strong> the DDA legislation as well as to 

recommend provisions which are necessary to comply with the 

law. (V/1285/X) 

257

Annex 1 

Extract from Report 1 on the process <strong>of</strong> consultation and analysis <strong>of</strong> 

<strong>representations</strong> on the draft Scottish Outdoor Access Code: 

Stage 3 - <strong>Analysis</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>representations</strong> and responses <strong>made</strong> on the draft Code 

1. The outcome from these stages <strong>of</strong> informing and engaging was the receipt <strong>of</strong> 1,362 

formal responses to the consultation. A breakdown <strong>of</strong> the respondents is set out in 

Annex 4. These responses, along with the many other comments <strong>made</strong> at meetings 

and via other forms, were then analysed and used to generate a draft <strong>of</strong> the Proposed 

Code. 

2. Responses to the consultation varied considerably, both in: their nature (for example, 

including comments on a range <strong>of</strong> matters on and outwith the Code); and length (for 

example, from a few sentences to documents in excess <strong>of</strong> 50 pages). 

3. Given that the consultation process had generated such a wide range <strong>of</strong> comments 

and <strong>representations</strong>, it was important that the analysis process was suitably rigorous. 

To guide this, four ground rules were borne in mind, namely that: 

• the analysis process would be structured to assist preparation <strong>of</strong> a Proposed 

Code that is in accordance with the Act; 

• all <strong>representations</strong> and comments submitted would be considered equally on 

their merit; 

• in view <strong>of</strong> the range and breadth <strong>of</strong> comments received, it was strength <strong>of</strong> 

arguments contained in consultation responses and <strong>representations</strong> that would 

dictate the draft <strong>of</strong> the Proposed Code, as opposed to length or volume <strong>of</strong> 

argument; and 

• the analysis would be an iterative process and would involve a number <strong>of</strong> redrafts 

<strong>of</strong> the analysis outputs before a draft Proposed Code could be considered 

by the Main SNH Board. 

4. The analysis process contained four steps: 

• Step 1: Collation <strong>of</strong> respondents’ comments. After registration and 

categorisation <strong>of</strong> responses, the analysis would build on the questions posed in 

the consultation document on the draft Code. For this, the key comments in 

<strong>representations</strong> were highlighted and collated by a team <strong>of</strong> SNH staff. 

• Step 2: Using the collated comments, issues raised in the <strong>representations</strong> 

were identified and grouped. This generated a number <strong>of</strong> answer categories in 

relation to each <strong>of</strong> the questions. This stage also generated an indication <strong>of</strong> the 

number <strong>of</strong> respondents to a particular question (or issue). This numerical side <strong>of</strong> 

the analysis could only be indicative because <strong>of</strong> the scale and varied nature <strong>of</strong> 

comments <strong>made</strong>. However, it did provide useful background for the following 

stage. 

258

• Step 3: Judgements on the answer categories were then <strong>made</strong> to inform the 

revisions that should be <strong>made</strong> to the draft Code in terms <strong>of</strong>: 

a. Accepted – we concur with this answer category or comment and the 

Proposed Code should take this on board. 

b. Reflected – the text <strong>of</strong> the Proposed Code should be adjusted to reflect, but 

not accept in full, the comments. For these, the points being <strong>made</strong> were 

relevant but could not be built directly into the Proposed Code because <strong>of</strong> the 

need to balance them with other comments <strong>made</strong>. In these cases, the 

comment could only be used in part. 

c. Rejected - the Proposed Code should not be adjusted, possibly because the 

comment would affect the accepted or reflected comments or it might be 

contrary to the Act. 

d. Managed – whilst the Code cannot accept or reflect this comment, we 

recommend that the issue is addressed in consideration <strong>of</strong> wider 

implementation issues. 

• Step 4: Sections <strong>of</strong> the draft Code were re-drafted in accordance with the 

Step 3 judgements. 

5. It was evident from these four steps that consideration <strong>of</strong> the extensive and varied 

comments and <strong>representations</strong> received required careful judgement, balancing the 

nature <strong>of</strong> the comment <strong>made</strong> with the sources <strong>of</strong> that comment, and the number <strong>of</strong> 

respondents taking this view. Primarily the comments needed to be considered against 

the access legislation as passed by Parliament. 

259

Annex 2 

Key to the Coding <strong>of</strong> Respondents 

Individual recreational user 

ie. individuals identifying themselves as such. 

Individual land managers / factors 

Including individuals identifying themselves as farm, estate or golf course 

managers, factors responding on behalf <strong>of</strong> specific estates, Open Gardens 

Individual sporting / outdoor activity 

Including participants in activities outwith access rights eg Golfers, anglers, 

target shooters, jet skiers, participants in other field sports. 

Recreation / tourism businesses 

Including mountain guides, trekking companies, rafting companies, 

outdoor centres, tourism businesses specific to activities under access 

rights. 

Land management businesses 

Including forestry companies, factors responding in a general capacity 

Sporting / other activity businesses 

Businesses outwith access rights – including paintballing, wider tourism 

operations eg camp/caravan sites, 4x4 courses, B&Bs 

Recreation and dog owning interest groups 

Including RAS, SCAC, MC<strong>of</strong>S, individual Clubs, Canine Defence League. 

Land management interest groups 

Including NFUS, DMGs, DSFBs, Gamekeepers, Forest & Timber. 

Sports / outdoor activity organisations / interest groups 

Including recreational activities outwith the access rights eg SANA, LARA, 

Golf Union, football clubs, water ski associations, cricket clubs. 

Natural / cultural heritage groups – land owners 

Including RSPB and other landowning orgs 

Natural / cultural heritage groups 

And non-landowning NGOs, Gaelic groups 

Social and economic groups 

Including disability groups, social inclusion partnerships, local WIs. 

MSPs / MPs / Local Authority Councillors 

Local Authorities – including CoSLA 

Local Access Forums 

Community Councils 

National agencies – public sector. 

All such public bodies should be allocated to this category rather than any 

others which might reflect their particular remits. 

Regional / local public agencies 

As above, but with any geographic coverage that is less than the whole <strong>of</strong> 

Scotland. Including LECs. 

Pr<strong>of</strong>essional bodies including RICS, ACPOS, RTPI, SCRA, Directors 

<strong>of</strong> Planning 

Research / academic organisations / individual academics / 

consultants including Schools, Colleges, Universities. 

Other individuals 

Including individuals expressing an affiliation to multiple interests, or to no 

particular interest. 

Other organisations 

Including businesses or interest groups covering multiple interests (eg. 

diversified farm businesses; SPCA etc). NB: landowning NGOs to be 

coded as K. 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

F 

G 

H 

J 

K 

L 

M 

N 

P 

P/LAF 

Q 

R 

T 

U 

V 

W 

X 

260

Individual Recreation Users: 

A/0821/X/d Mr Colin Abercrombie 

A/0718/X Mr Jim Aitken 

A/1381/ Vic Aitken 

A/0134/X/d Brian D Allingham 

A/0655/X/d Mr David Anderson 

A/0774/X Mr Andrew Baillie 

A/0719/X/d Mr Graham Banks 

A/0253/X/d Gordon W Bell 

A/0308/X Dick Bell 

A/0219/X George Berwick 

A/0841/Y Chris Bolton 

A/0871/X Marion Boyle 

A/1338/X James Brown 

A/0089/Y James Buchanan 

A/0097/X Alan Cameron 

A/1084/X Robin Campbell 

A/1333/X John G Carruthers 

A/0373/X Paul Carter 

A/0401/X Susan Clark 

A/0572/d June Clark 

A/0671/X Confidential Response 

A/1136/X/d Confidential Response 

A/0399/X Eileen Cornish 

A/0431/X Mrs S Coutts 

A/0958/X Gordon Crawford 

A/0967/X Paul Cromey 

A/0319/X Mr M S Cudahy 

A/0753/X Mr W Cuthill 

A/0290/X J D Davies 

A/0518/X Mrs Jane M Dickson 

A/0425/X Dr Angela Dixon 

A/0050/Y Miss Jane Dotchin 

A/0636/X Shona Duncan 

A/0621/Y Peter Edge 

A/0362/X Brian Emmerson 

A/0732/X Mr Neil Farmer 

A/0449/X Dr Joy Faulkner 

A/0382/X Maurice Fleming 

A/0560/X Jonathan Foote 

A/0469/X Mr Robin Forrest 

A/1076/X Fred Forrester 

A/0105/X L W Fortune 

A/0553/ Angela Fotheringham 

A/0706/X Ms Sheila Fraser 

A/0259/Y/d Denis & Lynne Frost 

A/0202/X/d Mary Gardner 

A/0135/X Wallace Gilbraith 

A/0349/X Ms Janet Glendinning 

A/0892/X Mrs Elaine Gordon 

A/0740/X Bren Gormley 

A/0786/X/d Mrs Dora J H Gow 

A/1320/ Mrs Wilma Grant 

A/0037/X Ms Margaret Grant-Beer 

A/0205/X Don Green 

A/0537/X Mrs Susan Grout 

A/0724/X Mr Simon Hart 

261 

A/0009/X 

A/0838/X 

A/0712/X/d 

A/0422/X 

A/0701/X/d 

A/0440/X/d 

A/0133/X 

A/1070/X/d 

A/0919/X 

A/0743/X 

A/0126/X 

A/0039/X 

A/0846/X 

A/0392/X 

A/0557/X 

A/1037/X 

A/0908/X 

A/0726/X 

A/1351/X 

A/0478/X/d 

A/0796/X/d 

A/0471/X/d 

A/1369/ 

A/0968/X 

A/0500/Y/d 

A/1082/X 

A/0450/X 

A/0437/X 

A/0036/X 

A/0390/X 

A/0844/X 

A/0598/X/d 

A/0927/X 

A/0997/X 

A/0162/X 

A/0522/X 

A/0737/ 

A/0330/X 

A/0228/X 

A/0077/X 

A/0933/X 

A/1326/X 

A/0265/X 

A/0408/X 

A/1095/X 

A/1372/ 

A/0155/X 

A/0475/X 

A/0346/X 

A/1194/X 

A/1283/X 

A/0658/X/d 

A/0769/X/d 

A/0320/X/d 

A/0397/X/d 

A/1081/X 

A/0098/X 

A/0477/X 

A/0291/X 

Peter Hawkins 

Mr John Heathcote 

Ms Bessie Hendry 

Mr John Holms 

Mr Ian Hopkins 

Linda Houson 

Alan Howe 

Alison Irvine 

Mr Andy Jackson 

Mr David Jarvie 

Ian Jarvis 

Angela G Killean 

Lisa King 

Mary Kusin 

Dr Peter Kyriakoudis 

Jon Laffan 

Mr Mark Laidlaw 

Mr Nial Leighton 

Charlie Leppard 

V Lil<strong>of</strong> 

Marian MacDougall 

Neil A MacKenzie 

Lindsay Mackinlay 

Felicity Martin 

Ge<strong>of</strong>f Mason 

Wendy Mattingley 

Sue Mattison 

David McCulloch 

Mr Andy McKenna 

Les McLaren 

Mr David McVey 

Robert Miller 

Keith Miller 

Brian F Miller 

Charles Milligan 

Robert Monaghan 

Dr Alistair & Nicola Montgomery 

Dr J P Moochy 

Hilary Moore 

Stella Morris 

Colin Morsley 

Dr Janet Moxley 

Catriona Murray 

John Nisbet 

David R Niven 

Miss Jean Oudney 

Roy Partington 

Mrs Rita Riddell 

Stewart Robertson 

R H Robertson 

Eric Robertson 

Catriona Rogers 

Mr David Rogerson 

W Ronan 

John P Ross 

Dougie Shannon 

Derek G Sime 

Mrs Penelope E A Sinclair 

Mrs Jean F Stevenson

A/0723/X Mr Ken Stewart 

A/0487/X John Stirling 

A/1073/X Bridget Thomas 

A/0666/X Harrold Thomson 

A/0825/X Dr Janet Trythall 

A/0046/X Jim Wallace 

A/0289/X T Ward 

A/0163/X Ric Wardman 

A/1077/X Dr Andy Watt 

A/0111/X Neil Weir 

A/0369/X/d Robert Wilkinson 

A/0400/X A Russel Wills 

A/0762/X Mr & Mrs A E Wilmot 

A/0430/X/d Leslie D Wilson 

A/0601/X Thomas Wilson 

A/1344/X Charlie Wood 

A/0442/X Betty Wright 

A/0820/X Mr Jim Young 

A/0138/ “Hilary” 

A/1363/X “Faye” 

Individual Land Managers / Factors 

B/0218/X Aberfoyle Golf Club 

B/1365/X Joan Alexander 

B/0816/X Mr Douglas Allan 

B/0493/X Mr A G Allison 

B/0195/X Alloa Golf Club 

B/1004/X Ronald A Anderson 

B/1177/X Margaret Anderson 

B/0048/X R H Anderton 

B/0565/X Anonymous 

B/0015/ John Arbuckle 

B/0879/X J K O Arbuthnott 

B/0965/X/d Helen F Archibald 

B/1173/X Atholl Estates Ranger Service 

B/1142/X Messrs R A Austin 

B/0685/X Baberton Golf Club 

B/0042/X Alan Bailey 

B/1117/X Fiona Bain 

B/1347/X Robert Balfour 

B/1375/ Peter Balnave 

B/0467/X A Bangor-Jones 

B/1253/X Gilbert Bannerman 

B/0783/X/d J M Barber 

B/1354/ A W Barclay 

B/0186/X Edward Baxter 

B/0178/X Bearsden Golf Club 

B/1114/X/d Angus Begg 

B/0859/X Mr John Bell-Irving 

B/0788/X Mr William Berry 

B/0211/X Mrs Caroline Best 

B/0076/X Frances A Black 

B/0545/X J S Blackett 

B/0152/X Borthwickshiels Estate Trust 

B/1313/X Robert Boyd 

B/0167/X Andrew Bradford 

B/1075/X Michael Brander 

B/0715/X Mr Martin Bridges 

262 

B/0051/X 

B/0241/X 

B/0131/X 

B/0409/X 

B/0861/X 

B/1288/X 

B/0680/X 

B/0558/X 

B/0049/X 

B/0761/X 

B/0332/X 

B/0630/X 

B/0058/X 

B/0281/X 

B/1063/X 

B/0794/X 

B/0608/X 

B/0574/X 

B/0912/X 

B/0827/X 

B/0752/X 

B/0862/X 

B/0982/X 

B/0446/X 

B/0472/X 

B/1146/X 

B/1190/X 

B/0620/Y 

B/0347/X 

B/1366/X 

B/0041/X 

B/0054/X 

B/0165/X 

B/0345/X 

B/0420/X/d 

B/0525/X/d 

B/0626/X 

B/0936/X 

B/0938/X/d 

B/0938/X/d 

B/1093/X 

B/1147/X 

B/1216/X 

B/1261/X 

B/1267/X/d 

B/1334/X 

B/0480/X 

B/0875/X 

B/0538/X 

B/0272/X 

B/0891/X 

B/0654/X 

B/0496/X 

B/1161/X 

B/0713/X 

B/1002/X 

A Briggs 

Sheila Brooks 

Mrs Catherine A Brown 

Allan W Brown 

Mr Charles R Brown 

Michael Bruce 

Samuel Burnside 

Jonathan W Burrow FRICS 

Lord Burton 

Mr & Mrs S Busby 

Major Sir David Butter, KCVO, 

MC 

Elizabeth Cameron 

Michael D C C Campbell 

Sir James Campbell 

Jamie Campbell 

Mr Hugh A Campbell Adamson 

Sir Hugh Campbell Byatt 

James Carruthers 

Mr & Mrs Carruthers 

Chapleton Wood Residents 

Association 

Sally Christian 

Mr William J Clark 

Sir Robert Clerk 

James H Climie 

Cloan Estate Trust 

P H & R M Close 

Robert Clow 

Peter Cockrell 

David Coltman 

Kaye Conafray 

Confidential Response 
















R M J Cooke 

Margaret Olivia Copeland 

James Corbett 

A G Coulter 

Council <strong>of</strong> Trustees <strong>of</strong> 

Helensburgh Golf Club 

Couston Farm Company 

Charles Cox 

D & M Craib 

Mr Andrew Craig 

John G Craig

B/0223/X Mr J & Mrs M Craig & Son 

B/0802/X Paul R Crane 

B/0247/X Crannach Management Group 

B/0672/X D A S Cranstoun 

B/0458/X His Hon and Mrs W H R Crawford 

B/1083/X/d James Crawford 

B/1127/X/d Mrs C Crawford 

B/0793/X Mr Ian M M Crichton 

B/1019/X Cruden Bay Golf Club 

B/0634/X Mr M W Cumming 

B/1143/X Robert G Cumming 

B/0564/X W G Cuthbertson 

B/0645/X Ronald W Dalglish 

B/0909/X Mr Michael Dalrymple 

B/0338/X/d John Dalrymple Hamilton 

B/0203/Y A R & K R Davidson 

B/0964/X David R Dawson 

B/1152/X I C de Sales La Terriere 

B/0355/X Mrs J Dean 

B/1368/X/d Linda Dick 

B/1017/X Andrew Dingwall-Fordyce 

B/0850/X G H Dinnie 

B/0551/X J L Doerr 

B/0599/X/d Gregor Donald 

B/0353/X J A Donaldson 

B/0842/X Charlotte Donaldson 

B/0250/X N Scott Douglas 

B/1350/X Lord Doune 

B/1131/X Jim Downie 

B/1100/X Mr and Mrs J Doyle 

B/0336/X Thomas Dryfe 

B/0663/X Duddingston Golf Club Ltd 

B/0495/X Alexander Dunbar 

B/1186/X/d Ian A Duncan 

B/1133/X Dunfermline Artisan Angling Club 

B/1107/X Janet Dunn 

B/1281/X Mrs Jo Durno 

B/1281/X Mr Leslie Durno 

B/1281/X Mr Michael Durno 

B/1281/X Mrs Morag Durno 

B/0547/X East Kilbride Golf Club 

B/0286/X Mrs J Eckersall 

B/0433/X/d James B Elliot 

B/0528/X P E Elmy 

B/0371/X Peter Erskine 

B/0055/X J K R Falconer 

B/1046/X/d Jim Farquharson 

B/1030/X Ronald Fergie 

B/0583 /X Ronald Munro Ferguson 

B/0419/X Mrs Jean S G Fergusson 

B/0668/X Charles Fergusson 

B/0929/X C J G Fforde 

B/0798/X Mr David Finlay 

B/0033/X Dr Howard A P Fisher 

B/0662/X Miss Helen Fleming 

B/0020/X Dr John Fletcher 

B/0226/X Damaris Fletcher 

B/0227/X/d Jamie Fletcher 

B/0954/X Mrs Jillian H Fletcher 

B/1175/X 

B/0462/X 

B/0284/X 

B/0270/X 

B/0943/X 

B/1195/X 

B/1271/X 

B/1022/X 

B/0258/X 

B/0826/X/d 

B/0953/X 

B/1049/X 

B/1157/X 

B/1328/X 

B/0313/X 

B/0418/X 

B/0377/X 

B/0366/X 

B/0117/X 

B/1231/X 

B/1183/X 

B/0787/X/d 

B/0757/X 

B/0738/X 

B/0540/X 

B/0148/X 

B/0249/X/d 

B/1306/X/d 

B/0966/X 

B/0588/X 

B/0660/X 

B/1323/X 

B/0285/X 

B/0772/X 

B/0280/X 

B/0300/X/d 

B/1181/X 

B/1096/X 

B/0372/X 

B/1322/d 

B/0628/X 

B/0337/X 

B/0734/X 

B/1078/X 

B/0465/X 

B/0996/X 

B/1208/X 

B/1266/X 

B/1266/X 

B/1376/ 

B/0342/X/d 

B/0317/X 

B/0453/X 

B/0406/X 

B/1015/X 

B/0375/X 

B/0980/X 

M Fletcher 

W F E Forbes 

Mrs Anne Stewart Fotheringham 

Winston Fowler Mackenzie Moll 

Miss Sarah Fuller 

J N Fuller-Shapcott & Co 

A H Garratt 

Major J P O Gibb 

S C Gibbs 

Mr Andy Gibbs 

James Gibson 

J Mark Gibson 

Andrew Gifford 

William Gilchrist 

David J Gill 

P Gilroy 

Mr A M H Gladstone 

Golden Ducat Farming Company 

Ltd 

A D Gordon 

Mhairi Gordon 

John Gourlay 

Mrs Heather Gow 

J Graham 

Mr John Grant 

Sir Patrick Grant <strong>of</strong> Dalvey, 

Bt.LLB 

Grantown-on-Spey Golf Club 

John R Gray 

Nelson C Gray 

Gordon Gray Stephens 

Martyn Gregory 

Gullane Golf Club 

Haggs Castle Golf Club 

The Earl Haig 

Mr Martin Hall 

Graham Hamilton 

John Hamilton 

D F Harbottle 

Clifford Hardy 

Gill M Hart 

Alan Harvie 

Malcolm Hay 

R C Heape 

Ms Cecilia Heddle 

T Hegarty 

A C Henderson 

G S Henderson 

H M Henderson 

Mrs A Henderson 

George Henderson 

Philip R Higginbotham 

Christine Hodge 

Mrs Sheila Hopkin 

Lady Horlick 

Innes Hose 

Robert Hosie 

J D Howe 

Edward Humphrey 

263

B/1160/X Marcus Humphrey 

B/0252/X Sir Peter Hutchison 

B/1041/X Inchmichael Farms 

B/1091/X Sandy Inverarity 

B/0956/X James Irvine 

B/0970/X Henry Irvine-Fortescue 

B/0535 /X Mrs Isabel Jeffrey 

B/1341/Z/d Christina Johnson 

B/0797/X Mary Johnston 

B/0931/X/d Steven B Jolly 

B/0819/X Mr Brian Kaye 

B/1197/X John Kemp-Welch 

B/1089/X Stephen Kennedy 

B/1236/X William King 

B/0230/X John Kinnaird 

B/1317/ Murdoch Laing 

B/0127/X Robert Lamont 

B/0485/X Sir David Landale KCVO 

B/0209/X/d J H M G Lang 

B/1009/X L & G Laughton 

B/0254/X Mr George Lawrie 

B/0476/X Dr Peter A Lawson 

B/0151/X David Leask 

B/0461/X Major General B C Gordon 

Lennox 

B/0116/X/d L Lilburn 

B/0935/X Kevin Lilburn 

B/0029/X William Lindsay 

B/0428/X/d John A T Livitt 

B/0120/X Lochcarron Golf Club 

B/1164/X David J Lockett 

B/0858/X Ali Loder 

B/0404/X Andrew Lorrain-Smith 

B/0837/X B Lowman 

B/0760/X Mrs Lorraine Luescher 

B/0361/X/d Lorna Lumsden 

B/0242/X John Lyon 

B/0633/X S Shaun Macdonald 

B/0885/X A H Macdonald Lockhart 

B/0681/X G Macgregor 

B/0931/X/d Phyllis J Mackay 

B/0925/X John Mackenzie 

B/0676/X Gillian Mackie Campbell 

B/1191/X Mr & Mrs MacKinnon 

B/1072/X Hector MacLean 

B/0741/X Joan MacLean Davidson 

B/1301/X Mrs Kirsty Macleod 

B/0081/X Sir Thomas Macpherson <strong>of</strong> Biallid 

CBE, MC, TD, DL 

B/0613/X Malcolm R S Macrae 

B/0094/X C Maitland Dougall 

B/0883/X Iain Malcolm 

B/1168/X Robin Malcolm 

B/0695/X Kirsteen Manuel 

B/1187/X Mrs Jean Maskell 

B/0340/X Peter Mather 

B/0733/X Mr Andrew M H Matheson 

B/1033/X Jean Matterson 

B/0895/X M and K Maxwell Stuart 

B/0299/X 

B/0376/X 

B/0118/X 

B/0306/X 

B/0505/X 

B/1250/X 

B/1121/X 

B/1234/X 

B/1293/X 

B/0184/X 

B/0631/X 

B/1047/X 

B/0456/X 

B/0860/X 

B/1269/X 

B/0244/X 

B/0835/X 

B/0506/X 

B/1311/X 

B/0670/X 

B/1148/X/d 

B/0470/X 

B/0677/X 

B/0683/X 

B/0596/X 

B/0069/X 

B/0884/X 

B/1303/X/d 

B/0731/X 

B/0756/X 

B/0294/X 

B/1068/X 

B/1013/X 

B/0045/Z 

B/1309/X 

B/1244/X 

B/1207/X 

B/1295/X 

B/1374/X 

B/0711/X 

B/0623/X 

B/1238/X 

B/0236/X 

B/0752/X 

B/0012/X 

B/0141/X 

B/0585/X 

B/0257/X 

B/0027/X 

B/0413/X 

B/0473/X/d 

B/0592/X 

B/0293/X 

B/1125/X 

B/1027/X 

B/1101/X 

B/1176/X 

B/0068/X 

Nicolas McAndrew 

Ewan McArthur Dunbar 

D McConnell 

Jane McCormack 

Duncan D McDiarmid 

Roger McDonald 

R McFarlane 

David E McGill 

Gordon McKilligan 

Peter McLaren 

Ronald McLellan 

Fergus McNair 

Miss E T Menzies 

Elizabeth Miller 

Andrew Douglas Miller 

Gilbert Milne 

Mrs Caroline Milne Home 

Kenneth Mitchell Shade 

David Montgomery 

P L Moore 

Mrs W B Morison 

W G Morrison 

Mrs Ann C Morrison 

Peter L Morrison 

Victor Muir 

Alastair Muirhead 

David & Kirsten Mundell 

Mrs Jean Mundell 

Mr Hector Munro 

Mr Graeme Murray 

Andrew Mylius 

Andrew & Ann Newstead 

David Nichol 

Dr A Murray Nicholson 

Donald Noble 

Messrs J A Norval 

Colin Oldham 

Peter Ord 

Oxnam Estates Ltd 

Mr & Mrs Michael & Elizabeth 

Parlett 

A W Pate 

Rona Paterson 

John M Paton 

John Patty 

Peterculter Golf Club 

C Petrie 

Pr<strong>of</strong>essor John D Pitts 

B H Poett 

Pollok Golf Club 

Tom Pottinger 

A Pretswell 

R A Price 

Queenstonbank Farm Ltd 

R S Kinloch & Co 

William Rae 

William J Ralston 

David A Ralston 

Mrs & Dr Jock Ramsay 

264

B/0622/X 

B/0983/X 

B/0225/X 

B/0326/X 

B/0436/X 

B/0459/X 

B/0060/X 

B/0481/X 

B/1193/X 

B/0282/X 

B/1104/X 

B/0260/X 

B/0466/X/d 

B/0512/X/d 

B/1167/X 

B/1205/X 

B/0942/X/d 

B/0243/X 

B/0455/X 

B/0451/X/d 

B/0452/X/d 

B/1094/X 

B/0969/X 

B/0312/ 

B/0331/X 

B/0606/X 

B/0343/X 

B/0314/X 

B/0840/X 

B/0593/X 

B/0863/X 

B/0913/X 

B/1144/X 

B/1145/X 

B/0755/X 

B/0801/X 

B/0704/X 

B/0028/X 

B/0510/X 

B/0749/X 

B/0339/X 

B/0745/X 

B/0107/X 

B/0638/X/d 

B/0139/X 

B/0123/X 

B/0305/X 

B/0484/X 

B/0005/X 

B/0764/X 

B/1262/X 

B/1200/X 

B/1335/ 

B/0380/X 

B/0814/X 

B/1210/X 

B/0648/X 

B/0648/X 

B/0648/X 

Major General C A Ramsay 

Paul Ramsay 

Ranfurly Golf Club Ltd 

D H S Reid 

David Reid 

Renfrew Golf Club 

I A Rettie 

Mr & Mrs A J Riddell 

James C Riddell 

Dr James Robb 

John Robb 

Angus Robertson 

Liz Robertson 

Elizabeth Robertson 

Gordon Robertson 

Callum Robertson 

Peter Robinson 

Mrs Margaret Rogers 

Duncan H Rogers 

Fulton C & M Ronald 

F Ronald Jnr 

Lord Rosebery 

Margaret Sainsbury 

James Scott 

A A Scott 

J F Seed 

Jonathan Shaw 

Margaret Simpson 

Mr Alan Simpson 

J M Sinclair 

J Sinclair 

Mr John Sinclair 

Mrs Kathleen Sinclair 

Allen Sinclair 

Miss Mary Singleton 

Sluie Estates 

Mr Jamie Smart 

Michael C Smith 

J Murray Smith 

Mr George Soutar 

Caroline Southesk 

Mrs M Sparkes 

Lochie Spearman 

Sir Robert Spencer-Nairn 

Colonel A Sprott 

St Michaels Golf Club 

John Stancer 

J R W Stansfeld 

Mrs Diana Staveley 

Mr Alan Steel 

Sandy Steel 

John Stevenson 

Ann Stevenson 

Mr & Mrs Stewart 

A C Stewart 

A D Stewart 

John Stirling 

Helen D Stirling 

John B Stirling 

B/0648/X 

B/0594/X 

B/0488/X/d 

B/0653/X 

B/1150/X/d 

B/1005/X 

B/0673/X 

B/0038/X 

B/0160/X 

B/1108/X 

B/0519/X 

B/0356/X 

B/0204/X 

B/0383/X 

B/0918/X 

B/0876/X 

B/0315/X 

B/0288/X/d 

B/0595/X 

B/0994/X 

B/0183/X 

B/0609/X 

B/0754/X 

B/0834/X 

B/0486/X 

B/0782/X 

B/0240/X 

B/0032/X 

B/0839/X 

B/0945/X 

B/0215/X 

B/0329/X 

B/0678/X 

B/0385/X/d 

B/0563/X 

B/0949/X 

B/0238/X 

B/0298/X 

B/0995/X 

B/0378/X 

B/0874/X 

B/0303/X 

B/0181/X 

B/0568/X 

B/0569/X 

B/0570/X/d 

B/0571/X 

B/1129/X 

B/1025/X 

B/0171/X 

B/0443/X 

B/1064/Y 

B/1356/ 

B/0075/X 

B/0085/X 

B/0275/X 

Allan B Stirling 

R J Stirling-Aird 

James Storrar 

A D Strachan Millfield Turriff 

Malcolm G Strang Steel 

Charles Struthers 

Major General Sir John Swinton 

KCVO OBE JP 

M Taylor 

Mr Julian Taylor 

Carol Tennant 

The Alyth Golf Club 

The Church <strong>of</strong> Scotland General 

Trustees 

The Right Hon The Earl <strong>of</strong> 

Dundonald 

The Golf House Club 

The Kirriemuir Golf Club Limited 

The Meikleour Trust 

The North Berwick Golf Club 

Patrick H Thompson 

W Allan Thomson 

W & J Thomson 

Alistair Thornley 

Thornton Golf Club 

I S Thornton-Kemsley 

Mr Ian Thornton-Kemsley 

J & M Traquair & Son 

Trustees <strong>of</strong> Neil W Graesser 

Mrs Ailie F Tullie 

J M Turnbull 

Turnhouse Golf Club 

Elizabeth Urie 

Robin Waddell 

Robert Waddell 

Mr Wallace 

DF,W H Walter 

Mr & Mrs Wang 

Nicholas Watson 

Ben Weatherall 

S Weatherall 

A Weir 

Lord Richard Wellesley 

West Linton Golf Club 

C A Weston 

Jack Whitaker 

Jim Wight 

Ian Wight 

Sheila Wight 

James Wight 

John Wightman 

Bill & Margaret Williams 

Michael A Williamson 

Jamie Williamson 

Major M T N H Wills 

Angela Wilson 

Simon N Winton 

Mr Norman R Wisely 

Fergus M Wood 

265

B/1292/X Julian and Carol Wormleighton <strong>of</strong> 

Lismore 

B/1062/X Robert E Wragg FRICS 

B/0845/X E J Wright 

B/0396/X/d Jean S M Wylie 

B/0482/X John M A Yerburgh 

B/0830/X Helen Yonger 

B/1039/X/d James Yool 

B/1240/X Mr Stuart R G Young 

B/0136/X S G Younger 

B/1045/X James H Younger 

B/0322/X The Earl <strong>of</strong> Kintore 

B/0368/X no name 

B/0624/X Wm:John Christie <strong>of</strong> Lochdochart 

OBE 

B/1126/X The Marquess <strong>of</strong> Aberdeen 

B/1199/X Earl <strong>of</strong> Elgin and Kincardine 

B/1248/X The Rt Hon Lord Monro <strong>of</strong> 

Langholm AE DL 

B/0946/X R A Montgomerie 

Individual Sporting / Outdoor Activity 

C/0070/X Alan Ayre 

C/0234/X John J Batty 

C/1384/X I D Kirkpatrick 

C/0721/X Mr William Miller 

Recreation / Tourism Businesses 

D/1065/X Abernethy Trust 

D/0093/X Abernethy Trust Ltd 

D/0233/X Borlum Farm 

D/0509/X British Hospitality Association 

D/0682/X Castle Sween Bay (Holidays) Ltd 

D/0350/Y Centrewire Ltd 

D/1340/X C-N-Do Scotland 

D/0200/X Cuillin Guides 

D/1206/X Faskally Christian Trust 

D/0022/X Simon Herniman 

D/0175/Y HF Holidays Ltd 

D/0248/X Alan Kimber 

D/0550/X Miltonhaven Seaside Caravan 

Park 

D/1274/Y Mountain Training Trust 

D/0521/X Scottish Youth Hostels 


D/0978/X Snowsport Scotland 

Land Management Businesses 

E/0906/X Airds & Hensol Shoots 

E/1246/Y Alcan Smelting and Power UK 

E/0351/X Anderson Beaton Lamond 

Solicitors 

E/0924/X M H T Andrew 

E/1257/X Andrew Nicol Chartered Forester 

E/1097/X Badenoch Land Management Ltd 

E/1038/X Andrew Barton FRICS 

266 

E/0013/X 

E/1113/X 

E/1079/X 

E/0523/X 

E/0921/X 

E/0086/X 

E/0590/X 

E/1215/X 

E/0902/X 

E/0156/X 

E/0172/X 

E/0616/X 

E/1211/X 

E/0809/X 

E/0208/X 

E/1243/X 

E/1074/X 

E/1382/d 

E/0516/X 

E/0984/X 

E/0536/X 

E/0765/X 

E/1201/X 

E/1245/X 

E/0867/X 

E/0923/X 

E/0877/X 

E/0514/X 

E/0703/X 

Brahan Farms Ltd 

Charles Bridgeman 

Brodies Solicitors 

Charles Connell & Company Ltd 

CKD Galbraith LLP 

Craigengillan Estates Co Ltd 

Davis and Bowring 

Denmill Highland Pony Stud 

Mr Angus Dixon 

Eur<strong>of</strong>orest Ltd 

Eur<strong>of</strong>orest Ltd 

FPDSavills Ltd 

G W Soutar (Grain Traders) Ltd 

Kettle Produce Ltd 

Kinloch Damph Ltd 

Kinnaber Fishings 

Lycetts Ltd 

William McEwen 

Moray Estates Development 

Company 

T G Packe 

David R Paton 

Mr Cliff Percival 

Quality Meat Scotland 

Scottish and Southern Energy 

Generation Ltd 

Scottish Power 

Smiths Gore 

Stanley Fishings 

Strathmore Estates (Holding) Ltd 

Tilhill Forestry 

Sporting / Other Activity Businesses 

F/0748/X 

F/1050/X 

F/1124/X 

F/1213/X 

F/0998/X 

F/0237/X 

F/0360/X 

F/0006/X 

F/1134/X 

Eskdale Shooting Services 

Game Fisheries Ltd 

John Graham 

Highland Adventure Safaris 

M L & P A Hopkins 

David Meldrum 

Michael Read 

Taymouth Holiday Centre 

Giles Weaver 

Recreation and Dog Owning Interest 

Groups 

G/1155/X 

G/0132/X 

G/1386/X 

G/0627/X 

G/1251/X 

G/1192/X 

G/0759/X 

G/0920/Y 

G/0379/X 

G/0730/X 

Airyhall Ramblers 

Barrhead Ramblers 

British Canoe Union 

British Driving Society 

British Horse Society Scotland 

British Horse Society - Dumfries 

& Galloway 

British Horse Society - Lothian 

British Mountaineering Council 

Caithness Mountaineering & Ski 

Club 

Mr Donald Cattanach

G/0072/Y 

G/1330/X/d 

G/1098/X 

G/0393/X 

G/0197/X 

G/0665/X 

G/0327/X 

G/1331/X 

G/0584/X/d 

G/1307/X 

G/0725/X 

G/0604/X 

G/0114/X 

G/0854/X 

G/0164/X 

G/0043/X 

G/0806/X 

G/0831/X 

G/0795/X 

G/0580/X 

G/0166/X 

G/1254/X 

G/0441/X 

G/0917/X 

G/0386/X 

G/0468/X 

G/0900/X 

G/1226/X 

G/1057/X 

G/0832/X 

G/0960/X 

G/0040/X 

G/1214/X 

G/1106/X 

G/1229/X 

G/0189/X 

G/0146/X 

G/0067/X 

G/0657/X 

G/1099/X 

G/1291/X 

G/1044/X 

G/0785/X 

G/0082/X/d 

G/0973/X 

CEO Sailability 

Katie Coward 

Cyclists' Touring Club 

Edinburgh Southern Orienteering 

Club 

Falkirk Riders Access Group 

Falkirk Riders Access Group 

Tom Fenton 

Gifford Community Pathways 

Group 

Andy Ince 

Linda Irvine 

Loch Ard Sailing Club 

Lomond Mountaineering Club 

Hugh Lyon 

Carol McKenna 

Cameron McNeish 

Mrs C H Moyes 

Mr Roger Muhl 

North East Mountain Trust 

RYA Scotland 

Scottish Advisory Panel for 

Outdoor Education 

Scottish Canine Consultative 

Council 

Scottish Canoe Association 

Scottish Carriage Driving 


Scottish Countryside Activites 

Council 

Scottish Disabled Ramblers 

Scottish Mountain Leader 

Training Board 

Scottish Orienteering Association 

Scottish Outdoor Recreation 

Network 

ScotWays 

Secretary Nithsdale Canoe Club 

Strachan Paths Group 

Strathisla Riding Club 

Sustrans Scotland 

Tayport Rights <strong>of</strong> Way & Access 

Society 

The Cairngorm Club 

The Dava Way Association 

The Grampian Club 

The Lothian Cycle Campaign 

The Moray Local Access Project 

The Mountaineering Council <strong>of</strong> 

Scotland 

The Ramblers' Association 

Scotland 

The Scottish Kennel Club 

Treking & Riding Society <strong>of</strong> 

Scotland 

Trossachs & Crianlarich Wild 

Country Panel 

Tweeddale Access Heritage 

Group 

267 

G/0559/Y 

G/0698/X 

G/0546/X 

G/0736/X/d 

Tony Wakefield 

Western Tracks Ski Club 

Wigtownshire Driving Club 

A Ann Winning 

Land Management Interest Groups 

H/1179/X 

H/0674/X 

H/0728/X 

H/0808/X 

H/0161/X 

H/1276/X 

H/1222/X 

H/0916/X 

H/1042/X 

H/0497/X 

H/0615/X 

H/0915/X 

H/1118/X 

H/0310/X 

H/0515/X 

H/0894/X 

H/0142/X 

H/0552/X 

H/0220/X 

H/0941/X 

H/1327/X 

H/1196/X 

H/1349/X 

H/0158/X 

H/0684/X 

H/1182/X 

H/0959/X 

H/0988/X 

H/0807/X 

H/1103/X 

H/1140/X 

H/0460/X 

H/0370/X 

H/1348/X 

H/0352/X 

H/0534/X 

Association <strong>of</strong> Deer Management 

Groups 

Association <strong>of</strong> Salmon Fishery 

Boards 

Association <strong>of</strong> Scottish Stillwater 

Fisheries 

BASC Scotland 

Caithness District Salmon Fishery 

Board 

Cr<strong>of</strong>ters Commission 

Dee District Salmon Fishery 

Board 

Dee Salmon Fishing 

Improvement Association 

East Grampian Deer 

Management Group 

Eoligarry Township 

Kyle <strong>of</strong> Sutherland District 

Salmon Fishery Board 

Forestry & Timber Association 

Grazings Clerk 

NFU Scotland 

NFUS - Dumbarton & Kilpatrick 

Branch 

NFUS - Failford Branch 

NFUS - Forth Valley Branch 

NFUS - Islay, Jura and Colonsay 

Branch 

NFUS - Orkney Branch 

NFUS - Stronsay Branch 

NFUS - Tiree Branch 

NFUS - West Berwick Branch 

North Uist Branch <strong>of</strong> the Scottish 

Cr<strong>of</strong>ting Foundation 

Perthshire Farming & Wildlife 

Advisory Group 

River Tweed Commissioners 

Royal Scottish Forestry Society 

SAC Auchincruive 

Scottish Cr<strong>of</strong>ting Foundation 

Scottish Estates Business Group 

Scottish Landowners' Federation 

Shetland Cr<strong>of</strong>ting, Farming & 

Wildlife Advisory Group 

South Ross Deer Management 

Group 

Barry Stewart 

Tay District Salmon Fisheries 

Board 

The Black Mount Partnership 

The Riparian Owners <strong>of</strong> Loch 

Lomond

H/0904/X 

H/0154/X 

H /1128/X 

The Scottish Gamekeepers' 


UK Forest Products Association 

Dr H A P Ingram 

Sports / Outdoor Activity Organisations / 

Interest Groups 

J/1028/X 

J/0544/X 

J/1284/X 

J/1255/X 

J/1203/X 

J/0004/X 

J/0023/X 

J/1259/X 

J/1058/X 

J/1051/X 

Carshphairn Angling Club 

Dunoon & District Angling Club 

Pitlochry Angling Club 

Scottish Anglers National 


Scottish Golf Union 

Scottish Hockey 

Scottish Rifle Association 

The Atlantic Salmon Trust 

The Game Conservancy Trust 

The Lothians Golf Association 

Natural / Cultural Heritage Groups – land 

owners 

K/0722/X 

K/1302/X 

K/0714/X 

K/1241/X 

K/0444/X 

John Muir Trust 

RSPB Scotland 

Scottish Wildlife Trust 

The National Trust for Scotland 

The Woodland Trust Scotland 

Natural / Cultural Heritage Groups 

L/1026/X 

L/0213/Y 

L/0113/X 

L/0976/X 

L/0153/ 

L/0410/X 

L/0985/X 

L/0065/X 

L/0185/X 

L/0439/X 

L/0747/X 

L/0513/X 

L/0659/X 

L/0125/X 

L/0865/X 

L/0504/X 

L/0520/X 

L/0791/X 

L/0507/X 

L/0647/X 

L/0992/X 

L/0527/X 

L/0650/X 

Alyth Environmental Group 

Amateur Entomologists' Society 

Black Environment Network 

BTO Scotland 

Buglife - The Invertebrate 

Conservation Trust 

Central Scotland Forest Trust 

Scotland's Garden Scheme 

Mr Dick Clark 

Edinburgh & Lothians Badger 

Group 

Friends <strong>of</strong> the Ochils 

Historic Houses Association for 

Scotland 

Loch Tay Association 

Orkney Archaeological Trust 

Orkney Field Club 

Paths for All Partnership 

Reforesting Scotland 

Scottish Raptor Study Groups 

Scottish Wild Land Group 

Scottish Youth Parliament 

Shetland Amenity Trust 

Shetland Field Studies Group 

The Friends <strong>of</strong> Orkney 

Archaeological Trust 

The Garden History Society in 

Scotland 

268 

L/1055/X 

The Scottish Ornithologists' Club 

Social and Economic Groups 

M/1383/X 

M/0365/X 

M/1154/X 

M/0263/X 

M/0463/X 

M/0829/X 

M/0454/X 

M/0438/X 

M/0687/X 

M/0687/X 

M/0687/X 

M/0687/X 

M/0687/X 

M/0687/X 

M/0687/X 

M/0687/X 

M/0852/X 

M/1258/X 

M/0734/X 

M/1043/X 

M/0667/X 

Aberdeenshire Disability Advisory 

Group 

D & G Coalition <strong>of</strong> Disabled 

People 

Dalbeattie Forest Community 

Partnership 

ECAS 

Fieldfare Trust 

Glen Derby House Owners 


Harray SWRI 

Orkney Federation SWRI 

Ms Campbell, Orphir SWRI 

Mrs Clouston, Orphir SWRI 

Ms Flett, Orphir SWRI 

Ms Gray, Orphir SWRI 

Ms Groat, Orphir SWRI 

Ms Mathers, Orphir SWRI 

Ms Muir, Orphir SWRI 

Ms Williams, Orphir SWRI 

Scottish Countryside Alliance 

Scottish Disability Equality Forum 

Ms Clipsham, SWRI 

The Scottish Council - The Scout 


The Scout Association - Renfrew 

& Inverclyde Area Scout Council 

MSPs / MPs / Local Authority 

Councillors 

N/0987/X 

N/0773/X 

N/0694/X 

N/0137/X 

N/1120/X 

N/1297/X 

N/1268/X 

N/1138/X 

N/1003/X 

N/0387/X 

N/1352/X 

N/0716/X 

Local Authorities 


Councillor Basil M S Dunlop 

Councillor Bob Ellis 

Fergus Ewing MSP 

Alex Fergusson MSP 

Councillor Kay, Fife Council 

Sylvia Jackson MSP 

Councillor John Lloyd 

John Swinney MSP 

The Rt Hon Jim Wallace QC MSP 

Councillor Colin Young 

Councillor Lord Vaux <strong>of</strong> 

Harrowden 

P/0577/X Aberdeen City Council 

P/0899/X Aberdeenshire Council 

P/0804/X Angus Council 

P/1296/X Argyll & Bute Council 

P/1247/X Cairngorms National Park Board 

P/0576/X Clackmannanshire Council 

P/0889/X Dumfries & Galloway Council - 

Economic Regeneration

P/0384/X East Ayrshire Council 

P/0491/X East Dunbartonshire Council 

P/0928/X East Lothian Council 

P/1272/X East Renfrewshire Council 

P/1273/X Falkirk Council - Planning & 

Environment 

P/0548/X Fife Council 

P/0878/X Glasgow City Council 

P/1219/X Loch Lomond & The Trossachs 

National Park Authority 

P/1218/X Midlothian Council 

P/0642/X North Ayrshire Council 

P/1304/X North Lanarkshire Council - 

Planning & Environment 

P/0717/X Orkney Islands Council 

P/0869/X Perth & Kinross Council 

P/1060/X Renfrewshire Council 

P/1239/X Scottish Borders Council 

P/1066/X South Lanarkshire Council 

P/0643/X Stirling Council 

P/0575/X The City <strong>of</strong> Edinburgh Council - 

Culture & Leisure 

P/1300/X The Highland Council 

P/0646/X West Dunbartonshire Council 

P/0287/X West Lothian Council - 

Development & Regulatory 

Services 

P/LAF/0890/X Dumfries & Galloway Access 

Forum 

P/LAF/0492/X East Dunbartonshire Access 

Forum 

P/LAF/0640/X East Renfrewshire Outdoor 

Access Forum 

P/LAF/0316/X Helensburgh & District Access 

Forum 

P/LAF/0274/X North Lanarkshire Access Forum 

P/LAF/1237/X Orkney Local Access Forum 

P/LAF/0374/X Shetland's Access Strategy 

Working Group 

P/LAF/0115/X West Lothian Outdoor Access 

Forum 

P1/1287/X Shetland Islands Council, 

Planning Officer 

P2/1217/X Confidential Response 

P2/0889/X Dumfries & Galloway Council - 

Education & Community Services 

P2/0384/X East Ayrshire Council - 

Educational & Social Services 

P2/0491/X East Dunbartonshire Council 

P2/1273/X Falkirk Council 

P2/0575/X The City <strong>of</strong> Edinburgh Council - 

City Development 

P2/0287/X West Lothian Council - Outdoor 

Education 

269 


Q/1346/X 

Q/0930/X 

Q/0905/X 

Q/0974/X 

Q/0224/X 

Q/1270/X 

Q/1286/X 

Q/0256/X 

Q/0187/X 

Q/0232/X 

Q/0686/X 

Q/1252/X 

Q/1165/X 

Q/1230/X 

Q/0251/X 

Q/0790/X 

Q/0157/X 

Q/0866/X/d 

Q/0177/X 

Q/1061/X 

Q/0016/X 

Q/0499/X 

Q/1275/X 

Q/0828/X 

Q/0526/X 

Q/0264/X 

Q/0364/X 

Q/0424/X 

Q/1184/X 

Q/0091/X 

Q/1178/X 

Q/1122/X 

Q/0893/X 

Q/1308/X 

Q/0333/X 

Q/1232/X 

Q/0651/X 

Q/0210/X 

Airth Parish Community Council 

Alyth Community Council 

Ardchattan Community Council 

Association <strong>of</strong> Community 

Council <strong>of</strong> Loch Lomond and the 

Trossachs 

Auchencairn Community Council 

Avich & Kilchrenan Community 

Council 

Aviemore & Vicinity Community 

Council 

Ballater and Crathie Community 

Council 

Banchory Community Council 

Blackford Community Council 

Bridgend, Gannochy & Kinnoull 

Community Council 

Buchanan Community Council 

Cairngorms Community Councils 

Group 

Carnock & Gowkhall Community 

Council 

Castletown & District Community 

Council 

Charlestown, Limekilns & 

Pattiesmuir Community Council 

Cree Valley Community Council 

Drymen Community Council 

Dunrossness Community Council 

Dyke Landward Community 

Council 

Eday Community Council 

Edrom, Allanton and Whitsome 


Elderslie Community Council 

Fairmilehead Community Council 

Feughdee West Community 

Council 

Fyvie, Rothienorman & 

Monquhitter Community Council 

Gairloch Community Council 

Garioch Area Forum <strong>of</strong> 


Harray & Stenness Community 

Council 

Hillside, Dun, Logie Pert & Craigo 


Inveresk Community Council 

Inverlochy and Torlundy 


Isle <strong>of</strong> Arran Community Council 

Isle <strong>of</strong> Whithorn Community 

Council 

Kelton Community Council 

Kilmarnock Community Council 

Kiltarlity Community Council 

Kinross Community Council

Q/0019/X 

Q/0304/X 

Q/0309/X 

Q/0932/X 

Q/0357/X 

Q/0517/X 

Q/0707/X 

Q/0445/X 

Q/0344/X 

Q/1299/X 

Q/0697/X/d 

Q/0856/X 

Q/1233/X 

Q/0024/X 

Q/0176/X 

Q/0323/X 

Q/0501/X 

Q/0479/X 

Q/1185/X 

Q/1312/X 

Q/0739/X 

Q/0073/X 

Q/0415/X 

Q/1105/X 

Q/0206/X 

Q/0582/X 

Q/0026/X 

Q/0611/X 

Q/0824/X 

Kirkcaldy West Community 

Council 

Lilliesleaf Ashkirk & Midlem 


Lochwinnoch Community Council 

Lugar & Logan Community 

Council 

Mastrick, Sheddocksley & 

Summerhill Community Council 

Mid Atholl Strathtay & Grandtully 


Minginish Community Council 

Newport, Wormit and Forgan 


North Knapdale Community 

Council 

North Ronaldsay Community 

Council 

Penicuik & District Community 

Council 

Penicuik & District Community 

Council - Environment Committee 

Pitlochry & Moulin Community 

Council 

Portknockie Community Council 

Royal Burgh <strong>of</strong> North Berwick 


Salsburgh Community Council 

Sandford & Upper Avondale 


Scone and District Community 

Council 

Shapinsay Community Council 

Shieldaig Community Council 

Southdean Community Council 

St Andrews & Deerness 


Strathblane Community Council 

Tayport Community Council 

Thornhill & Blairdrummond 


Torphichen Community Council 

Uddingston Community Council 

Uplawmoor Community Council 

West Garioch Community Council 

National Agencies 

R/1221/X Confidential Response 

R/1256/X Confidential Response 

R/0549/X Health & Safety Executive 

R/0763/X Highlands & Islands Enterprise 

R/0847/X Ministry <strong>of</strong> Defence 

R/0910/X Ordnance Survey 

R/0121/X Scottish Enterprise 

R/0868/X Scottish Water 

R/0603/X SEPA 

R/1278/X sportscotland 

R/0395/Y The Countryside Agency 

270 

R/0059/X 

R/1090/X 

The Crown Estate 

visitscotland 

Regional / Local Public Agencies 

T/0911/X 

Pr<strong>of</strong>essional Bodies 

U/0363/X 

U/1242/Y 

U/0922/X 

U/1172/X 

Scottish Borders Tourist Board 

Association <strong>of</strong> Chief Police 

Officers in Scotland 

Mountain Leader Training UK 

Scottish Countryside Rangers 


The Royal Institution <strong>of</strong> Chartered 

Surveyors in Scotland 

Research / Academic Organisations / 

Individual Academics / Consultants 

V/0207/X Aberdeen College 

V/0035/X Dumfries & Galloway College 

V/1305/X Natural Environment Research 

Council 

V/1285/X Openspace 

V/0245/X Peter Scott Planning Services 

V/0851/X Scottish Agricultural College 

V/0398/X Scottish Agricultural College - 

Central Office 

V/0975/X The Macaulay Institute 

V/1071/X University <strong>of</strong> Edinburgh - Outdoor 

& Environmental Education 

V/0914/X University <strong>of</strong> Strathclyde - Estates 

Management 

Other Individuals 

W/1336/d 

W/0447/X 

W/0448/X 

W/0261/X 

W/0334/X 

W/0746/X 

W/0542/X 

W/0502/ 

W/1054/X 

W/0579/X 

W/0124/X 

W/0100/d 

W/0150/ 

W/1119/X 

W/0962/X/d 

W/0641/X 

W/0508/X 

W/0591/X 

W/0179/X 

W/0789/X 

W/0457/X 

"Fido" 

M & Sydney Aim 

Stuart S Aim 

Neill B Aitken 

Mike Allan 

Mr John T H Allen 

J D Allingham 

Jane Anderson 

W Graham Anderson 

David E Andrews 

Mrs A J Angus 

Anonymous 



A J Baillie 

R Bain 

Shiona Baird 

William James Baird 

Mr E J W Baker 

Mr John Baldwin 

Dr Jean Balfour

W/0898/X 

W/0963/X 

W/0610/X 

W/1379/ 

W/0119/X 

W/0429/X 

W/0853/X 

W/1011/X 

W/0269/X 

W/1048/X 

W/1163/X 

W/0110/X 

W/0699/X 

W/0880/X/d 

W/0432/X 

W/0993/X 

W/1325/X 

W/0084/X 

W/1170/X 

W/1223/X 

W/1314/ 

W/0130/X/d 

W/0407/X 

W/0283/X 

W/0074/X 

W/0389/ 

W/0025/X 

W/0417/X 

W/0602/X 

W/0388/X 

W/0702/Y 

W/0792/X 

W/0359/X 

W/1111/X 

W/0307/X 

W/1294/X 

W/0435/X 

W/1035/X 

W/1018/X 

W/1289/X 

W/1116/X 

W/0017/X 

W/0063/X 

W/0103/X 

W/0104/X 

W/0140/X 

W/0297/X 

W/0581/X 

W/0612/X 

W/0768/X 

W/0777/X 

W/0803/X 

W/0972/X 

W/0990/X/d 

W/1000/X 

W/1052/X/d 

W/1085/X 

W/0855/X 

W/0618/X 

N R D Barlow 

Jane Barr 

Ken A Batcher 

S Bateson 

Alastair G Beattie 

David Bell 

Janet Beveridge 

John Birch 

Alison Birkett 

W Roy Black 

H S W Blakeney 

Andrew & Joni Bluefield 

Carolyn Blyth 

A L Brassington 

Myra J Brown 

Mr M Browne 

Michael A E Browne 

The Hon Mrs Jean Bruce 

William Samuel Bruce 

Robin Buchanan 

Buchanan-Jardine 

Angus Pelham Burn 

Nan & John Burnett 

Mrs D Cairns 

Mr A D Callander 

John Calvert 

William D B Cameron 

N G Cameron 

R A Campbell Byatt 

John Candy 

Mr Chris Cant 

Mr Alistair Cant 

Edward J R Carr 

Meryl Carr 

Dr Johanna Carrie 

Robert J Carruth 

A S Chalmers 

F M Clark 

Peter Clinch 

Donald Cochrane 

Muriel Colquhoun MBE 

Fred Conacher 














Neil Cook 

Mrs Louise Copeland 

Mr R B L Cormack 

R F Cosgrove 

W/0273/X 

W/0231/X 

W/1032/X 

W/0145/X 

W/0799/X 

W/1260/X/d 

W/0693/X 

W/0101/X 

W/0766/X 

W/0887/X 

W/1318/ 

W/0198/X 

W/0391/X 

W/0474/X 

W/0578/X 

W/1319/ 

W/0096/X 

W/0857/X 

W/1225/X 

W/1315/ 

W/0034/X 

W/1031/X 

W/0817/X 

W/0053/X 

W/0940/X/d 

W/1135/X 

W/1153/Z/d 

W/0403/X 

W/0296/X 

W/0934/X 

W/0823/X 

W/1224/X 

W/0277/X 

W/0271/X 

W/0018/X 

W/0498/ 

W/0292/X 

W/1209/X 

W/1378/ 

W/0174/X 

W/0381/X 

W/1112/X 

W/0800/X 

W/0779/X 

W/0214/X 

W/0021/X 

W/0751/Y 

W/0278/X 

W/0957/X 

W/0770/X/d 

W/1132/X 

W/0003/X 

W/1264/X 

W/0088/X 

W/1130/X 

W/1189/X 

W/0078/X 

W/0614/X 

Jan Coulter 

R B Cowe 

Robert Craig 

Jonathan Creasey 

Mr & Mrs Ian F Crombie 

R A Croson 

Mr Murray Cross 

Tom Cunningham 

W A F Cunninghame 

Mrs Fiona C Cuthill, B.L 

Andrew Davidson 

J L & B A Davison 

Phillipa Davison 

Mrs J Dawes 

Peter Dawes 

Jo Dawson 

Trevor Dee 

Mr Richard Dickson 

Peter J F Dodge 

J A C Don 

Clive Donovan 

Duncan Dornan 

D Dowling 

Patricia Dugard 

Clare Dumigan 

Barry Dumughn 

Chris Eatough 

Martyn Edelsten 

Mr Jeffrey Edwards 

Peter Elford 

Mr Robert Erskine 

Miss V Fane MBE 

Alexander Fell 

Captain R Duncan Ferguson 

Royal Navy 

Ian Fernie 

John Finch 

Robert Findlay 

Katie Fletcher 

Rosemary Flexney 

Catriona Forbes 

Alistair Forbes 

Dugald Foreman 

Mr John Foster 

Mr A Frame 

Ian Francis 

S C Fraser 

Denis & Lynne Frost 

Dr John R Fryer 

David Fyffe 

Mr John Gall 

Greta L Gall 

Paul Gallagher 

L C Gardiner 

Conrad Garnett 

Ian G D Garvie 

Isobel Gibson 

Bill Gilmour 

Mr & Mrs Glennie 

271

W/0194/X 

W/0607/X 

W/0897/X 

W/0750/X 

W/0302/X 

W/0991/X 

W/1001/X/d 

W/0635/X 

W/0833/X 

W/1373/d 

W/0625/X 

W/0354/X/d 

W/1371/ 

W/1235/X 

W/0979/X 

W/0629/X 

W/1329/ 

W/0229/X 

W/0014/X 

W/0199/X 

W/0541/X 

W/0836/X 

W/1008/X 

W/0335/X 

W/0169/X 

W/0044/X 

W/0031/X 

W/0597/X 

W/0301/X 

W/0001/X 

W/1357/ 

W/0561/X 

W/0907/X 

W/1141/X 

W/1324/ 

W/0562/X 

W/1370/ 

W/0489/X 

W/0494/X 

W/0981/X 

W/1280/X 

W/0064/X 

W/0255/X 

W/0720/X 

W/1227/X/d 

W/0071/X 

W/0168/ 

W/0173/X 

W/0367/X 

W/0903/X 

W/0318/X 

W/0324/X/d 

W/1310/X/d 

W/1012/X 

W/0864/X 

W/1139/X 

W/0781/X 

W/0066/X 

W/0328/X 

Peter R Gordon 

John Gordon 

Colin D Gordon 

Mr Donald Gow 

G Graham 

Andrew Grant 

D J A Grant 

D W I Gray 

Mr Jim Gray 

Natalie Gray 

Robin Greathead 

A M Gregory 

Major M F Guest 

R H 

Ian Hamilton 

J A C Hampton 

Pat Harrow 

R B Harrower 

Mrs E Heath 

Miss J Henderson 

David R Henderson 

Mr Brian Henderson 

V Hill 

Mr Hodge 

Malcolm & Jenny Holder 

Jon Hollingdale 

Sarah Holman 

Mrs M Hooper 

Philip Horsley 

Fiona Howat 

Bernie Hughes 

Dr CP and Mrs CM Humphries 

Mr Simon Ingall 

J M Ingleby 

James Ingleby 

James Irving 

M Irving 

Dr TE Isles 

Dr Flora Isles 

D Jesner 

Rupert Joy 

Mr G Jubb 

David Judd 

Ms Alison Keith 

Mrs D A Kennard 

David Kennedy 

Theresa Kennedy 

William D Kennedy 

Mrs Alice Kennedy 

Mr Roderick Kennedy 

John F Kerr 

David R Kilpatrick 

Cathy Kinnear 

Pat Kirkpatrick 

F Laing 

J M Lamont 

Mr Eric Langmuir 

Mr Alistair Lawson 

J P Lawson 

W/0483/X 

W/0758/X 

W/1006/X 

W/0971/X 

W/0977/X/d 

W/1198/X 

W/0735/X 

W/0649/X 

W/0052/X 

W/0708/X/d 

W/1014/X 

W/1204/X 

W/0276/X 

W/1080/X/d 

W/1377/d 

W/0423/X 

W/1149/X 

W/1202/X 

W/0201/X 

W/1316/ 

W/0047/X 

W/0112/X 

W/0709/X/d 

W/0101/X 

W/0644/X 

W/1162/X 

W/0632/X 

W/0087/X 

W/0011/X 

W/0348/X/d 

W/1088/X 

W/1151/X 

W/0080/X 

W/1016/X 

W/1034/X 

W/1321/ 

W/1361/ 

W/1023/X 

W/0057/X 

W/1040/X 

W/1020/X 

W/1053/X 

W/1024/X 

W/0679/X 

W/0822/X 

W/0212/X 

W/0848/X 

W/0780/X 

W/0235/X 

W/0180/X 

W/0402/X 

W/0999/X 

W/0159/X 

W/0882/X 

W/0083/X 

W/1282/X 

W/0532/X 

W/0775/X 

W/0775/X 

D S Lawson 

Mr Ronnie Leask 

B Leask 

Derek Lewis 

Sam Lewis 

John C Lewis 

Hilary Liebeschuetz 

Lt Col A Lindsay 

G W Linton Smith 

Mr John Little 

Joy S Livitt 

John & Margaret Llewelyn 

James Logan 

Keith Logie 

Rob Loney 

Dr Alan J Low 

Douglas N Lowe 

Douglas N Lowe 

Mrs Laurie Macaskill 

Margaret MacCallum 

Bridget MacCaskill 

Murdo Macdonald 

Mr Peter Macdonald 

Fiona MacDougall 

Robert D MacFarlane 

Mrs J MacKenzie 

Duncan MacKenzie MacNicol 

Mr A D Mackintosh 

Warren G MacLeod 

R N A MacLeod 

A Macmillan 

Ian Macnab 

Angus Macpherson 

A Gordon Macpherson 

Neil Macpherson 

John Mainland 

Edmund Mardon 

T McAndrew MBE 

Mr T McArthur 

J McD Roy 

Barbara McDonald 

Thomas McFarlane 

J McGregor 

Peter McIntee 

Mrs K McKerrow 

Robin McLaren 

Mr Alan McLean 

Mr Tom McLellan 

Colin R McLeod 

Lesley McNaughton 

Mrs E Mead 

Jamie Mellor 

Ms Agnes H Melville 

Bruce G A Mickel 

R Millington 

Peter Minshall 

Mr & Mrs Mitchell 

Dr Kenneth Mitchell 

Mrs Noor Mitchell 

272

W/1110/X 

W/0239/X 

W/0464/X 

W/0776/X 

W/0190/X 

W/0106/X/d 

W/1359/X 

W/0503/X 

W/0955/X 

W/0143/X 

W/1277/X 

W/0700/X 

W/0412/X 

W/0818/X 

W/1010/X 

W/0849/X 

W/1337/ 

W/0511/X 

W/1367/ 

W/0427/X 

W/0090/X 

W/1109/X 

W/0778/X 

W/0617/X 

W/0008/X 

W/0490/X 

W/1362/ 

W/0311/X 

W/0267/X 

W/0771/X 

W/1159/X/d 

W/0539/X 

W/0056/X/d 

W/1263/X 

W/0744/X 

W/0872/X 

W/0873/X 

W/1158/X/d 

W/1358/ 

W/0144/X 

W/0341/X 

W/0573/X 

W/0279/X 

W/0587/X 

W/0589/X 

W/0147/X 

W/0416/X 

W/0767/X 

W/1265/X 

W/0268/X 

W/0554/X 

W/0555/X 

W/0675/X 

W/0815/X 

W/1021/X 

W/1029/X 

W/1343/X 

W/1364/ 

W/0062/X 

Peregrine Moncreiffe 

Alec Murdoch 

J Murdoch 

Mrs A K Frances Murray 

Michael Nairn 

Keith Nelson 

Constance Newbould 

Colonel J W Nicol 

Randall Nicol 

Dr R H M Nisbet 

Roger Oakes 

Mr Philip Oakley 

Charles Ogg 

L H & C M Oldham 

A Pelmy 

Mr Clive Phillips 

David Pickford 

Dr J M Piggins 

Kenneth Pike 

David R Pollock 

Calum Proctor 

Ian H Provan 

Mr D G Rattray 

Mr William Reid 

Norman T Renfrew 

R J Bruce Riddell 

Euan Rigg 

Tom Rix 

R J Robb 

B M Robertson 

Alasdair G Rogers 

Stanley W Round 

Alison Rutherford 

Thomas L Scott 

Myrtle Scott-Park 

Mrs M Scott-Park 

Mr Jock Scott-Park 

R J Searle 

Carolyn Sharp 

David M Shearer 

Dr J C Sheldon 

Ian Sherrington 

Alan Shute 

Kathleen Siddle 

R T Sidgwick 

Dick Sim 

Dave Skett 

P A Slann 

P A Slann 

Malcolm Slesser 

David W Smith 

Mrs Linda M Smith 

Dennis Smith 

Gillian Smith 

Douglas A Smith 

Robert L Smith 

Godfrey W Smith 

J Smith 

Robert Smyley 

W/0947/X/d 

W/0222/X 

W/0926/X 

W/0007/X 

W/0605/X 

W/0109/X 

W/0411/X 

W/0810/X 

W/0533/X 

W/0886/X 

W/0079/X 

W/0108/X/d 

W/1007/X 

W/0619/X 

W/0586/X 

W/0530/X 

W/1355/X 

W/1360/ 

W/0986/X 

W/0321/X 

W/0566/X 

W/0217/X 

W/0414/X 

W/0262/X 

W/0221/X 

W/1342/X 

W/0901/X/d 

W/0182/X 

W/1220/X 

W/0705/X 

W/1102/X/d 

W/0661/X 

W/0870/X 

W/0266/X 

W/0950/X/d 

W/0951/X 

W/0295/X 

W/0843/X 

W/0102/X 

W/0729/X 

W/0556/X 

W/0434/X 

W/0101/X 

W/1332/X 

W/0812/ 

W/0529/X 

W/0191/X 

W/0246/X 

W/0095/X 

W/0531/X 

W/0944/X 

W/1166/X 

W/0961/X 

W/0524/X 

W/0567/X 

W/1123/X 

W/0030/ 

W/0669/X/d 

W/0881/X 

Mary-Ann Smyth 

Julia Soutar 

Earl <strong>of</strong> Southesk 

Hugh R Spencer 

James B Steel 

Alan Stewart 

Mrs K W Stewart 

Dr Hannah Stirling 

T Stitt 

John Stobie 

Clifford Stone 

Jim Strachan 

Mrs M A Strachan 

R A R Stroyan 

Mrs M Maxwell Stuart 

John Suddaby 

Alister M Sutherland 

David Swanson 

Jan T & Faith M Szczuka 

A A H Tait 

William B Tait 

Michael Taylor 

Jim Taylor 

E Thomson 

Ruth M Tittensor 

Chris Townsend 

Mr Henry Trotter 

Ronald Turnbull 

Jay Turner 

Mr Alexander C H Valentine 

W D O Valentine 

Tina Vernon 

J G Vickers 

Mr R L Watson 

Nicholas Watson 

Andrew Watson 

Owen J L Watt 

Mr George A M Watt 

John Webster 

Mr Bill Whitaker 

Patrick Whitworth 

C R Wickham-Jones 

Rosemary Williams 

Mrs Margaret Williams 

Mr A Williamson 

Mrs A J Wilson 

Miss Mary Winsch 

Anne Winther 

Sue and Bill Wiseman 

Lesley Wiseman 

Dr J A T Woodford 

Esther Woodward 

Jean Wren 

N A Wright 

Bryan Wright 

Garry Young 

“Drbulloch” 

The Countess <strong>of</strong> Stair 

R H Bailey 

273

Other Organisations 

X/0784/X Aberdeenshire Environmental 

Forum 

X/1339/X Activity Scotland 

X/0543/X Mrs Tanya Adamson 

X/1298/X Argyll & Bute Agriculture Forum 

X/1385/X Arran Access Trust 

X/0727/X Blairgowrie & District Path 

Network Advisory Group 

X/1059/X British Holiday & Home Parks 

Association Ltd 

X/0896/X British Waterways Scotland 

X/1345/X Camphill Scotland 

X/1036/X Clyde Muirshiel Park Authority 

X/0405/X/d Confidential Response 

X/0652/X R Corser 

X/0888/X Craigie Farm 

X/0639/X Deskie Farm 

X/0421/X Dhanakosa Retreat Centre 

X/0811/X Dundee City Council - Ranger 

Service 

X/0010/X Edinburgh Area Scout Council 

X/0216/X Faculty <strong>of</strong> Advocates 

X/1212/X Formartine Partnership 

X/0149/X Mr J Forrest 

X/0358/X Glendoick Gardens Ltd 

X/1056/X Greenspace Scotland 

X/0600/X Hebridean Pursuits Ltd 

X/0637/X Helensburgh Green Belt Group 

X/1115/X Highland Perthshire Communities 

Partnership 

X/0192/X/d Michael Hone 

X/0656/X James Hunter Blair 

X/0128/X Elizabeth M Lamont 

X/1353/X Law Society <strong>of</strong> Scotland 

X/0664/X J Duncan Millar 

X/0813/X Mugdock Country Park 

X/1171/X Nethy Bridge Interpretive Project 

X/0122/X E S Orr Ewing 

X/1092/X Perth & Kinross Countryside 

Trust 

X/0188/X Roseburn House Residents 


X/0002/X Scottish Branch <strong>of</strong> the British 

Veterinary Association 

X/1067/X Scottish Countryside Access 

Network 

X/0129/X Scottish SPCA 

X/0937/X Scottish Sports Association 

X/1069/X Secretary Five Parishes Path 

Group 

X/1137/X S H & P M Shirley-Beavan 

X/0426/X Chas G Spence 

X/0099/X Stonefield Farms & An Tairbeart 

Trekking 

X/1380/ Sustainability Enquiry Point 

X/1174/X The Esk Valley Trust 

X/0193/X/d 

X/0196/X 

X/1290/X 

X/0939/X 

X/1188/X 

X/0989/X 

The Lynaberack and Ruthven 

Estate Partnership 

F M K Tuck 

Tweed Forum 

West Lothian Council Ranger 

Service 

Wild Island Exploration Ltd 

Duncan R Winning OBE 

274

We are a government organisation set up by Parliament 

in 1992. We are responsible to the Scottish Executive 

and Scottish Parliament. 

Our mission 

‘Working with Scotland’s people to care for our natural 

heritage.’ 

Our aim 

‘Scotland’s natural heritage is a local, national and 

global asset. 

We promote its care and improvement, its responsible 

enjoyment, its greater understanding and appreciation 

and its sustainable use now and for future generations.’ 

Our operating principles 

‘We work in partnership, by co-operation, negotiation 

and consensus, where possible, with all relevant interests 

in Scotland: public, private and voluntary organisations, 

and individuals.’ 

‘We operate in a devolved manner, delegating decisionmaking 

to the local level within the organisation to 

encourage and assist SNH to be accessible, sensitive 

and responsive to local needs and circumstances.’ 

‘We operate in an open and accountable manner in all 

our activities.’ 

Other reports: 

A Proposed Scottish Outdoor Access Code 

Report 1 

The process <strong>of</strong> consultation and analysis <strong>of</strong> <strong>representations</strong> on 

the draft Scottish Outdoor Access Code 

Report 3 

Implementation <strong>of</strong> the Access Legislation: issues raised during the 

consultation on the draft Scottish Outdoor Access Code 

Summary Report 

Summary <strong>of</strong> the Consultaion Process and <strong>Analysis</strong> <strong>of</strong> Responses 

Available from: 

Claire Myles 

Scottish Natural Heritage 

Battleby, Redgorton, Perth PH1 3EW 

Tel 01738 444177 email claire.myles@snh.gov.uk 

All photographs by Lorne Gill/SNH except main image: 

John MacPherson and horse riding: George Logan 

Published January 2004 

© Scottish Natural Heritage 

ISBN: 1 85397 382 3 

IA0.2K0104

Analysis of representations made on the draft Scottish Outdoor ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?