Sanda

[Gardenshed]

http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/herit ... -1-2818179

Private property vs right to roam?

[marisca]

That'll be the visitor's moorings away then. Good thing too, they were clogging up the bay. I don't think I've ever noticed the "sandy beaches", better take my bucket and spade for my next visit.

[Nick]

That'll be the visitor's moorings away then. Good thing too, they were clogging up the bay. I don't think I've ever noticed the "sandy beaches", better take my bucket and spade for my next visit.

If the owners want to discourage visitors they may remove the buoys but leave the ground tackle littering the anchorage.

Perhaps the Clyde contingent should organise a 'right to roam' muster there.

[Telo]

Water issues are solvable, so it looks like this is more about the owners' attitudes and intentions. It also looks as though the concerns expressed in an earlier thread were fully justified.

When the Crown Estates allow moorings to be laid, does anyone know if they also stipulate that the ground tackle should be fully removed if the moorings are abandoned?

[cpedw]

When the Crown Estates allow moorings to be laid, does anyone know if they also stipulate that the ground tackle should be fully removed if the moorings are abandoned?

They certainly do and there's a form to be filled in when a mooring is decommissioned, declaring the ground tackle has been cleared. What checking they undertake and what sanctions there are if it's no done, I don't know.

Derek

[sahona]

From the land reform act:


4.8 This essentially means not obstructing or hindering people
from exercising access rights, either by physically obstructing
access or by otherwise discouraging or intimidating them.
Local authorities have a duty to uphold access rights and have
powers to remove prohibition signs, obstructions and
dangerous impediments, and to recover costs from the land
manager responsible for the sign, obstruction or impediment50.

I suppose if we can't get a pint anymore, it would just be a case of anchoring until the tide/weather was right for the Mull, so no need to upset the laird - unless of course you need to count it in your island tally, and need to hit dry land.

[Arghiro]

That'll be the visitor's moorings away then. Good thing too, they were clogging up the bay. I don't think I've ever noticed the "sandy beaches", better take my bucket and spade for my next visit.

Goodness me is your boat so badly equipped as to lack the basic seaside necessities! There must be 3 or 4 sets of buckets & spades, plus kites, rubber rings, frisbees and a cricket set in my aft cabin. Do you not have access to any kids or g-kids? How can anyone cruise without a couple of kids for general entertainment?

[Nick]

.
From a poster on TOP:

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

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

michael meier"

. . . so maybe it is just the press on a slow news day.

[claymore]

Water issues are solvable, so it looks like this is more about the owners' attitudes and intentions. It also looks as though the concerns expressed in an earlier thread were fully justified.

When the Crown Estates allow moorings to be laid, does anyone know if they also stipulate that the ground tackle should be fully removed if the moorings are abandoned?

Did you mean soluble?

[ash]

.

. . . so maybe it is just the press on a slow news day.

I think that it might have been. The headline is a bit more dramatic than could be justified by the content of the article. The same article appeared in the Daily Record on the same day. The author is an Oban based freelance journalist. Have you come across her in any of the local ( to Oban ) press or websites?

Ash

[cpedw]

Only a bit? The last paragraph of the article includes an unequivocal statement in line with right to roam. We are losing the moorings and the pub. I regret one of those.

A Spade user.

[Clyde_Wanderer]

That'll be the visitor's moorings away then. Good thing too, they were clogging up the bay. I don't think I've ever noticed the "sandy beaches", better take my bucket and spade for my next visit.

If the owners want to discourage visitors they may remove the buoys but leave the ground tackle littering the anchorage.

Perhaps the Clyde contingent should organise a 'right to roam' muster there.

I had been in touch with Argyle Council a year or two ago regarding Sanda and access, and had recieved a reassuring email from Jolyon Gritten on the subject, unfortunatly I have deleated this.

As far as I am concerned, when I next go to Sanda I will be anchoring in the bay, and if I decide to, will be going ashore, unless I find myself staring into the darker end of a double barrel under and over fully choked 12 guage pumpaction shotgun!
C_W
ps found one of the emails I recieved from the above council.

Dear Sir

I have received a small number of complaints regarding public rights of access to the island of Sanda, to the South of the Kintyre Peninsula, under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 including one from you. It would appear to me that there is the possibility that there may be an issue with some of the signs being displayed adjacent to the pier as well as the words used on the website.

An initial look at the maps suggests that the majority of the land on Sanda is subject to Access Rights as defined by the Land Reform Scotland Act 2003. If you wish to know more about your rights to responsible non motorised access over land and inland water please visit http://www.outdooraccess-scotland.com/ to learn about the Scottish Outdoor Access Code. Please note that although you have rights, you also have responsibilities to other users of the land including the land owner to make sure that your enjoyment does not affect their ability to use and enjoy the land. Most of this is common sense and could be viewed as a development of the older Countryside Code. You might also wish to note that the public have common law rights of access to the land from the sea, which allow the use of motors i.e. a tender with an outboard, once on the foreshore the Land Reform Scotland Act applies.

I have contacted the landowner and asked him to speak to me regarding public access to the island. I am now awaiting a call from him and I hope that this will be the start of resolving this issue. It may be a few weeks before I have anything concrete to report however if you would like an update please feel free to contact me. Depending upon the landowner’s responses to this issue I may need to contact you again and ask you to complete a form to officially record a complaint.

In the mean time if you have any further questions please feel free to contact me again.

Yours sincerely,


Jolyon Gritten
Access Manager
Development & Infrastructure Services

[Telo]

I must admit, I became a bit hostile when the new owners owners put up their "island closed except for residences", but as someone had suggested in an earlier thread, English is obviously not their first language and so the sign may not have conveyed precisely their intentions.

Given the assurances that the owners are respecting Scottish law in relation to the "right to roam", then perhaps we should let matters rest there. As far the jetty is concerned, I'm quite happy to respect the owners' wishes and regard it as part of their front garden. Landing along the beach poses no difficulty for visiting sailors in a dinghy or tender.

I am pleased that the greater part of the island is still available for visitors; in turn, we should respect the owners' request for privacy in their immediate house and garden area.

[sahona]

Puts Sanda in the same category as Caladh, since they've colonised the boathouse.
'Welcome but not through the garden please....'