Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


'Victory for common sense' as appeal judges reverse horse ruling

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 22 April 2009
A COUPLE at the centre of a landmark access case claimed a "victory for common sense" last night after appeal judges overturned a sheriff's ruling.
Graham and Margot Tuley, who have spent four years and "tens of thousands" of pounds fighting the case, say it will have implications across Scotland.

In a test case for access legislation, the Tuleys raised a civil action at Dingwall Sheriff Cour
t in 2007 under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003.

They were appealing against a Highland Council notice two years earlier to remove padlocked barriers on a path in Feddanhill Wood in the Black Isle, preventing use by horses.

Mr Tuley, a retired forester, and his wife bought the 35 acre-woodland from the Forestry Commission, and spent 13 years putting in paths and tracks for mountain bikers and walkers.

They also wanted to allow equestrian access to a different area of the wood, but the planned route was blocked by fallen trees.

The couple claimed that horses could damage a particular path and erected barriers at either end. The council disagreed and asked for the barriers to be removed.

Sheriff Alasdair MacFadyen later ruled the Tuleys acted prematurely in putting the barriers in place before any damage had occurred.

But his judgment has been overturned by appeal judges in the Court of Session. Lord Eassie, sitting with Lords Hardie and Mackay, said: "It was clear from ... the evidence ... that allowing horse traffic would in all probability produce damage.

"It follows, in our view, that the (couple] were acting responsibly in preventing equestrian access to the northern sector which they intended for the enjoyment of their pedestrian visitors ... what they were doing appears to be a responsible exercise of land management."

Mr Tuley said: "What (the judges] are saying is that it's sensible that by promoting access to woodland I should zone it so walkers go in one place, horse riders somewhere else and bikes somewhere else."

He added: "There is no problem when there is not a massive number of people taking access, but there is a problem when you have a lot of people of different interests all wanting to use the same piece of ground."

Highland Council said it was disappointed at the ruling.



RIGHT TO ROAM

RIGHT-to-roam legislation has had mixed fortunes. In 2006, property tycoon Kevin Doyle had an access case settled out of court. Last year, landowner Euan Snowie lost a bid to ban walkers from his estate, while in 2007 Ann Gloag was allowed to stop people entering parts of her estate in Perthshire.



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 21 April 2009 10:04 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

FerryPort,

22/04/2009 01:55:38
Manure

Just have to be careful when it comes to access, theres' always another plan afoot

We have a beautiful public walkway not far from our house. And it’s lovely to see the horse or two from nearby fields clipitty clopping along. No one canters and no one is in any danger. I would hate that anyone would think they could change it.
2

yockel,

22/04/2009 04:45:56
Blocked by fallen trees? Mince!
Never heard of a chain saw?

3

Whopitt,

22/04/2009 07:21:29
No 1

You tried to walk along a path that has been regularly used by horse? - It is soon churned up into a bog.

Or ridden a horse on paths used by mountain bikers? Or people with dogs off leads?

It makes perfect sense to keep them apart so that everyone can enjoy themselves.
4

Kenny A,

22/04/2009 09:34:04
I am afraid the horsey people leave gates open and to be blunt could not care about anyone else.
5

El Franko,

22/04/2009 10:46:21
Quote 'Mr Tuley, a retired forester, and his wife bought the 35 acre-woodland from the Forestry Commission, and spent 13 years putting in paths and tracks for mountain bikers and walkers.'

That's why they were persecuted by the Council - they are private landowners doing much for the public good. Can't have that, can't have the stereotypes weakened. Who knows how that would disrupt our plans?
6

uno.who,

Livingston 22/04/2009 13:25:24
Aye Franko, you're spot on.

Common sense never features in Council diction, and Mr Tuley obviously looked like an easy mark to push around.

... and why is the Council "disappointed at the ruling"? Surely their remit is to achieve their aims within the law and not attempt to crush individuals who might have "ideas above their station" ?
7

Patss,

Rossshire 22/04/2009 20:13:09
Why is this debate only focussing on horses - does anyone realise that these barriers also prevent access to plenty of pedestrian visitors; there is no way I could manouvre my double buggy through the gate and enjoy the forest with my kids; or take my disabled friend on a wander there when he comes to visit (and he's tackled steeper stuff than Feddon hill!). The result is that we go elsewhere for walks. I think it is disgraceful that Mr Tuley is allowed to decide who to allow access to - and even more disgraceful he makes himself out to be access friendly - when by his actions he excludes lots of people. Maybe he reckons that our wheels will do damage to his precious paths?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.