CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh
"Row over Duke of Buccleuch’s £20 charge for walking your dog in his park"
(24 posts)-
Posted 10 years ago #
-
Do the estate really niavely believe that a £1 charge at the main gate is going to keep either poachers/livestock criminals and hoodlums out of the park?
Please, give the proles a little bit of credit your Grace.
Chdot and I have proved in the past that it's perfectly easy (and entirely legal) to get into the estate through the rather ropey perimeter wall which is full of man-carrying-bike-size holes.
Posted 10 years ago # -
On the rare occasion that I have cycled through the park on the way home from work I have never paid. Admittedly you need a bit of a brass neck to breeze through the main gate but no-one has ever challenged me so I'll keep on doing that.
Posted 10 years ago # -
The last couple of times I've tried to go through the main gate just south of Sheriffhall it has been firmly locked. A dog walker on the other side the last time also tried all the gates for me from that side, but nothing doing. It could and would be such a lovely route cutting of the main road. Rode it once to go to a cross event and couldn't believe I never had before.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"Access'"(under the law) still seems to have 'grey areas', from link -
"
However, Midlothian Council suggested that Buccleuch might be complying with land reform legislation because the estate had previously charged for access in the summer months between about 10am and 4pm. Most residents knew they could walk for free outwith those times, the council said.
"
Posted 10 years ago # -
The last couple of times I've tried to go through the main gate just south of Sheriffhall it has been firmly locked.
I think that's the King's Gate, and yes has always been locked out of use in my experience. Which was a real shame when the cycle path ran under the road there as it would have been a great cut-through and a nice ride.
The estate should take a leaf out of Dalmeny's book regards access and entrance.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I'm not sure they did previously charge for 'access'. In the past they charged for use of the 'facilities', a small subset within the grounds.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"In the past they charged for use of the 'facilities', a small subset within the grounds."
I think that is sort of true, but they didn't go out of their way to say 'if you're not here for the adventure playground you don't have to pay'.
The 'best' way in is the Home Farm entrance near Whitecraig. The gate used to be open, but last couple of times I've been (not this year) it's been locked with a very narrow 'bypass' gap next to an electric fence.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I think Gosford has managed to exclude bikes because they previously charged for some access - presumably near the house.
This is at the east end near Aberlady. Doesn't mention bikes, and implies you need a permit just for the Gardens(?)
Posted 10 years ago # -
personally I don`t see the problem if your a regular user of the park as I am , I've paid my £20 and either my wife or I are in virtually every day at some point.
What annoys me is Lilian who man's the gate every day usually just ignores all the cyclists and joggers running in the gate and accosts the dog walkers for their £1 , it`s like one rule for one and...........
The estate has been plagued with vandalism recently in the evening hence one of the reasons their trying to restrict access
Posted 10 years ago # -
@Grahamn you have a legal right of free access in a responsible manner and you have the right to take your dog (in the manner set out in the Scottish Outdoor Access Code). The Duke / the Estate have no legal right to prevent or deter this.
There are of course numerous exceptions for land in a variety of specific uses.
The real nitty-gritty of this will require the lawyers to get to the bottom of, as when the act came into force there were some exceptions made for "places you have to pay to go in", specifically; Footnote 10 of the SOAC - Section 6 (1)(f) of the Land Reform Scotland) Act 2003 states that these are places where the public were admitted only on payment on at least 90 days in the year to 31 January 2001 and on at least 90 days in each year thereafter.
So the estate I think would have to prove that you could only get into the park by paying for the 90 days prior to and after 31/01/01. They're not allowed to re-jig what you do and don't pay to do and change the terms of what activities require payment to cover more groups of people. I also think that they would have to have been enforcing that charge - they can't just say "well we were charging in theory but we weren't actively trying to collect the money so nobody was paying".
So, basically, if you could walk your dog for free for any of the 90 days before and after that date - you have the legal right to continue to do so now.
While I understand the estate may be suffering vandalism and antisocial behavior, personally I think that is a complete red herring. No vandals / miscreants / poachers will pay and they won't be put off by paying or a few gates here and there. The only people who will pay are the law-abiding and the law-abiding who won't pay can either exercise their rights legally or will be put off.
I don't think the estate wants to actually put people off visiting, I think they're looking to commercialise the place more and make money from the visitors by tightening up the access before they make investment in new facilities, cafes etc. Those new facilities will attract more people and that means more money for the estate. Trouble for them is that they probably aren't allowed to do this.
There's something pretty fundamental if this is allowed to continue as it would set a precedent that landowners of estates can begin locking gates, putting up fences, inventing access fees and keeping people out from where they're legally allowed to go.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Last time I travelled through Dalkeith Park there was a huge gate across the Sustrans-recommended route. A workman helped me lift bike and panniers over gate (above head height) while I squeezed through the gap.
Posted 10 years ago # -
There is currently building work going around the old stables. That's good in the sense that there will be a new cafe (cafes are always good). Last time I went through a few weeks ago the road was closed because of this but it was possible to take a diversion via the pedestrian bridge. That could be a bit mucky if it's wet.
I usually going through the park after hours and often from the east end. I agree that when the charge was higher they didn't make much effort to charge walkers - just the people staying for the day or using the adventure playground.
I wouldn't let any of this stop people from going in. It's a wonderful place with attractions such as
- ancient oaks (>1000 years allegedly)
- confluence of rivers
- interesting architecture and bridges
- extensive paths through woodland
- wildlife - otters, deer, ...Just wish the A720 was quieter!
Posted 10 years ago # -
You could use alot of words to describe a £1 fee to visit an extensive and beautiful park: "Extortionate" is not one of them.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Unlawful :)
Posted 10 years ago # -
"the thin end of the wedge" :)
Posted 10 years ago # -
Exactly what wishicould and edd1e_h said.
My problem with this is that a man who is not short of a bob is charging the public for something that they have the right to do for free.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"Just wish the A720 was quieter!"
Only just realised that's the bypass!
Thought you mean the road to the Park which isn't great for cycling.
Yeah noise from the bypass is a blight that rarely gets mentioned.
I suppose if you live nearby 'you get used to it' - like living near an airport.
Posted 10 years ago # -
(I vaguely recall that) the Netherlands has for decades been (a) resurfacing its roads with materials which considerably damp down the noise, and (b) putting noise barrier fences between motorways and houses.
The latter is purely a personal observation - when wandering a quiet lane in Delft one evening I came across a mysterious wall at the end of the lane, and when I peered over it I was amazed to find a busy motorway right on the other side. I hadn't heard it, particularly.
I also remember seeing plenty of noise barriers beside motorways in Spain and Italy. I've never seen one in the UK.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Traffic noise was noticeable living on the Pleasance, though we only had single/secondary glazing.
A couple of stretches of the few motorways I regularly travel along have big fences in places but they mostly look like they're primarily for preventing nasty wind making poor drivers have to concentrate.
Posted 10 years ago # -
There has been a bit of an increase in motorway noise barriers in this country in the last few years. Possibly not to the same size or scale as Dutch ones.
Places I can think of:
- Missing M6/M74 link down Gretna way - I'm sure that has some barriers.
- New M74 in Glasgow has quite a bit.
- M9 at the Kelpies has some barriers. Quite low these ones but they probably help deaden the noise a bit for people milling around the feet (?) of the Kelpies.
- M9 as it approaches Newbridge. some new high-ish fencing was put up alongside the housing on the east side.I never considered that any of these could be for wind prevention?
Posted 10 years ago # -
Slightly OT, but relevant to the dealings and scale of the Buccleuch Estates who are proposing turning a former open-cast on some of the land they own into a pumped hydro storage scheme;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-33527826
They're not a wee cash-strapped country estate trying to scrape together the pennies to put a new roof on the house or buy a new differential for the rusty estate Land Rover. They're the biggest private landowner in both Scotland and (if the Torygraph is to be believed) Europe with their fingers in a huge number of business pies across the continent.
According to land reform journalist and writer Andy Wightman, the 270,000 acre Buccleuch Estates pay no business rates, despite the Duke speaking of them as a business. While the Duke is the chair of the Buccleuch Estates Ltd., the umbrella company for their pan-European business interests, the actual shareholding is held entirely by a nominee company with the declared share holding of a whopping £4 (yes, FOUR pounds!). I'm sure this is a very financially convenient way to arrange the massive inherited land-holding of the
family, sorry, "group of companies".Posted 10 years ago # -
Wow.
Maybe if we club together we could raise £4 and buy the whole lot?
Posted 10 years ago # -
The personal wealth of the Duke of Buccleuch is considerable - in the hundreds of millions. However, this is mainly comprised of moveable items - paintings, furniture, jewellery etc.
The real wealth - including the historic properties is held elsewhere.
Posted 10 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
