Glen Strathfarrar winter access- code still needed?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 DaveHK 01 Mar 2014

Planning to do a ski tour in this area tomorrow but have neglected to phone the MCofS to get the code for the gate.

Is this still how it works?
Post edited at 19:58
OP DaveHK 01 Mar 2014
In reply to malky_c:

Bugger. Looks like a change of plan unless anyone knows the code and feels like mailing me.
 OMR 03 Mar 2014
In reply to DaveHK:

For information: The Strathfarrar road is a private road, and vehicle access is granted through the good will of the estate under the conditions stated on the MCofS website: ie drivers wishing to use the road must book in via the MCofS, giving names, vehicle reg, contact number and date of visit.
This weekend two vehicles gained access without booking in, causing annoyance to the estate and a warning that abuse of this procedure will lead to vehicular access being withdrawn.
The number on the padlock has now been changed.
No doubt everyone will have their opinions on this but the bottom line is that the estate is under no obligation to allow vehicular access and can perfectly legitimately lock the gate, leaving everyone to make the long walk because of a few selfish people.
 James Edwards 03 Mar 2014
In reply to OMR:

Why did the tax payer pay for a 'private road'. I don't understand the mechanism where such a thing happens? Can someone enlighten me?
James
 ScraggyGoat 03 Mar 2014
In reply to DaveHK:

Obviously too late for yesterday, but on occasions I've done these hills in winter, deciding that I wanted to do them too late to go via the MCofS route, I've mountain biked up the road.

To which under the Land reform act, so long as you are responsible....the estate have to (begrudgingly) accept.
 ScraggyGoat 03 Mar 2014
In reply to James Edwards:

I don't know exactly what happen on Strathfarrar. Was the road ever formally adopted i.e. has it always been private? Was the road handed back, and if so why?

Was the road becoming private (if it was ever 'public') part of the hydro-deal recompensating the estate for flooding large parts of it for the great good in the 60's.

Would be interesting to know....but not particaularly usefull as the road status is quiet clearly not 'public'
 James Edwards 03 Mar 2014
In reply to ScraggyGoat:

"part of the hydro-deal recompensating the estate for flooding large parts of it for the great good in the 60's"

Thanks for that. I kow that the road was paid for as a part of the hydro scheme via the taxpayer, i didn't know that the limitation of access was a part of a compensation scheme to offset a loss of land (if that was the case, and it is plausable). I would imagine that the landowners were also financially compensated also though.
James e
 ScraggyGoat 03 Mar 2014
In reply to James Edwards:

Just guessing... as I say I don't know what the exact history is. Lots of deals (and not just financial) were done with the hydro, to try and sweeten the affected landowners, whom had (have) alot of political clout.

House of Lords got very close to rebelling over the hydro-schemes.....
drmarten 03 Mar 2014
In reply to OMR:
> This weekend two vehicles gained access without booking in, causing annoyance to the estate and a warning that abuse of this procedure will lead to vehicular access being withdrawn.
> The number on the padlock has now been changed.

What happened to cause the annoyance, was there any damage, vandalism, noise or disruption?
OP DaveHK 03 Mar 2014
In reply to OMR:

> > This weekend two vehicles gained access without booking in, causing annoyance to the estate and a warning that abuse of this procedure will lead to vehicular access being withdrawn.


What is your interest in this?
 OMR 03 Mar 2014
In reply to DaveHK:

I'm Communications Officer for the MCofS. Sorry, should have said that in the post.
drmarten 03 Mar 2014
In reply to OMR:

Thanks for that info (I'm a member of the MCofS) could you tell us what the occupants of the two cars got up in the Glen that caused so much annoyance to the Malaysian multi-millionaire owner of Glen Strathfarrar?
OP DaveHK 03 Mar 2014
In reply to drmarten:
I'll be surprised if you get an answer to that never mind one that satisfies you.
Post edited at 19:13
 Gav M 03 Mar 2014
In reply to drmarten:

> Malaysian multi-millionaire owner of Glen Strathfarrar?

There are actually a few different estates in the glen. Not all are as obstructive to outdoor enthusiasts as the Malayan.
 Sean Kelly 03 Mar 2014
In reply to DaveHK:

I feel sorry for the couple at the cottage by the locked gate as they are continually having to open the gate whenever anybody has access to drive up the Glen. I seem to remember that we were all given a pink ticket that had to be produced when we exited. A pity that so many estates in Scotland have private roads so no access for cars, but a bike, as others as mentioned, can be a plausible alternative. As for many of these estates now being bought up by overseas buyers, who have no idea about 'right to roam' and think that as they are owners, then they can do what they like. There are some horror stories out there is all is to be believed. I have even heard of photographers being told not to use cameras on private land, I kid you not!
 Fat Bumbly2 03 Mar 2014
In reply to Sean Kelly:

Is that a mirror to Ledgowan threatening to photograph us?

I have had some pretty positive encounters with one of the glen's landowners. As said, if there is an awkward soda up there, he is not the only owner.
 JJL 03 Mar 2014
In reply to Gav M:

> Not all are as obstructive to outdoor enthusiasts as the Malayan.

'kin hell, we're all doomed.

A private landowner (who already has granted free access over open land) has a desire for people to check in when they use a private road and makes reasonable arrangements for this to happen.

And, with a touch of casual racism, a minority beneficiary of this access calls it obstructive.

To what? Some imagined right to *drive* wherever they want?

I hope they weld it shut if you're coming.

Alternately. Ring the number, check in, get the code, use the road, keep it clean and civil and enjoy the *privilege* of access.
 Siward 04 Mar 2014
In reply to JJL:

There really is no need to drive. It is so easy to reach the end of the glen on a bike carrying as much gear as you're likely to need.
In reply to Siward:

Agreed - and it's a lovely cycle (this from a person who doesn't even like bikes)
OP DaveHK 04 Mar 2014
In reply to OMR:

It's interesting to note that although you say 'For information' the tone of your post (particularly the final 6 words) is one of rebuke. I found this particularly patronising as you initially failed to identify yourself as an MCofS representative.

Is rebuking those who fail to follow access agreements part the role of the MCofS?

I'll put my hand up and say mea culpa, I didn't follow the rules. One reason I was so blasé as to ask for the code online was my previous experience of calling the MCofS. It went a little like this:

'Hi could I have the code for the gate on Glen Strathfarrar'
'Sure its XXXX'
'Do you need any details from me?'
'No that's fine just be out by 7'

Has there been a change in access relations in the last few years that would prompt a tightening up of the procedure?
 OMR 04 Mar 2014
In reply to DaveHK:

Rebuke accepted for not identifying myself as speaking for the MCofS - should probably set up a separate MCofS account to distinguish from my own personal comments.
However, I'm not intending to rebuke anyone or to patronise anyone, just pointing out the fact (whether palatable or not) that the estate is under no obligation to allow vehicles up that road and that (whether reasonable or not) the present arrangements are being put at risk because of some instances of people not abiding by the conditions. On that basis, the MCofS is urging everyone to follow the procedures laid down at http://www.mcofs.org.uk/strathfarrar-access.asp That's all there is to it.
Not sure who you spoke to, or when, with the conversation you quoted, but it sounds like a confusion between summer and winter systems. The link explains the two systems and gives the dates they apply.
OP DaveHK 04 Mar 2014
In reply to OMR:

Fair dos. Thanks for getting back to me.

Whilst I disagree fundamentally with the idea of a road built with public money being private (if this is correct) I recognise the need to toe the line to maintain access.

drmarten 04 Mar 2014
In reply to JJL:
> A private landowner (who already has granted free access over open land) has a desire for people to check in when they use a private road and makes reasonable arrangements for this to happen.

Can you explain what you mean when you say "who already has granted free access over open land"?
 malky_c 04 Mar 2014
In reply to DaveHK:


> Whilst I disagree fundamentally with the idea of a road built with public money being private (if this is correct) I recognise the need to toe the line to maintain access.

Does this apply to all publicly funded infrastructure - eg other hydro access roads (Fannich, Sloy, Orrin, Shira to name a few), forestry tracks, etc? There is a right of access in place, just not a right to drive up it. I suppose you could have the local councils spreading their infrastructure budgets even more thinly by adopting some of these roads and maintaining them, but it doesn't seem like a sensible way to spend money to me.

 JJL 04 Mar 2014
In reply to drmarten:

Right to roam
drmarten 04 Mar 2014
In reply to JJL:
That's why I asked, it's a right (to roam) protected in law - not something which the estate owner can grant or deny.
Post edited at 14:32
 JJL 04 Mar 2014
In reply to drmarten:

Yes. I know. The point is that the landowner already "allows" (albeit to comply with legislation) free access; they are also "allowing" (voluntarily) pretty free access of another form (to drive up a road that they own and may maintain).

drmarten 04 Mar 2014
In reply to JJL:

Good, I think we agree - he has to allow access (with regards to right to roam) as he has no other choice. I thought you were implying that he was a good guy for allowing it.
 Cuthbert 04 Mar 2014
In reply to DaveHK:

I can't remember the exact details but I think that Lord Lovat objected to the Strathfarrar scheme and a public inquiry was held. Often at that time they centred around the effect on fishing and no land owner then was a friend of the walker.

I think the landowners agreed to stop objecting if NOSHEB rebuilt the existing road and the private nature of it was maintained.
jjmacewan 05 Mar 2014
In reply to Saor Alba:

"Now I will give an example which may or may not gladden the hearts of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Some time ago I tried to get details of a heading which appeared in the last report and accounts of the Board. It was called "Compensation". By devious means I managed to discover, and of course, had to disclose, that certain informal objections, which it was denied by a Minister were technically objections at all, had been lodged by Lord Lovat. In the case of one scheme, the Strathfarrar-Kilmorack scheme, the sum involved was £200,000. I could not have got that disclosure from the Minister, or the Hydro-Electric Board. It came from a mysterious but reliable source, and it turned out to be fairly correct.

There was £100,000 involved, and also indirect compensation. There was involved expenditure on new roads, on the reconstruction of roads, and on general improvements on the Lovat estate, a sum of over £102,000. Thus, the total amounted in cash and in other ways to over £200,000 of material advantage to one alone of the objecting landlords in connection with this Strathfarrar—Kilmorack scheme. This is one example of the lack of disclosure and of a lack of frankness when hon. Members of the House are asked to commit themselves, to commit the Treasury, to commit the Government, the nation, the taxpayer and his wife. Shortly afterwards another landlord said that in respect of the same scheme he had received compensation of £50,000. We still do not know what the full Lovat compensation amounted to. Sir John Stirling then disclosed that he too, had received £50,000 in respect of the project."

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1959/jan/20/electricity-borrowin...

Malcolm Macmillan MP for the Western Isles 1935-1970.

Must admit I recognise this description he quotes elsewhere in Hansard in relation to the goings on...

"Does he recognise the description given a long time ago about the type of obstructionists that I am talking about: It is noteworthy that the nobles of the country (Scotland) have maintained quite despicable behaviour from the days of Wallace downwards—a selfish, ferocious, famishing, unprincipled set of hyenas, from whom at no time, and in no way, has the country derived any benefit whatever. If that was true in the days of Thomas Carlyle it certainly is not any less true or expensive to the community today."
 irc 05 Mar 2014
In reply to OMR:

On that MCOFS page there is a dead link.

"Deer Stalking
Please use the Heading for the Scottish Hills website here."

 ScraggyGoat 05 Mar 2014
In reply to jjmacewan:

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1958/jul/31/glen-strathf...

'Glen Strathfarrar (Roads)HC Deb 31 July 1958 vol 592 c204W 204W

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the mileage and estimated cost of road construction at Struy and elsewhere on the Lovat and other estates to be undertaken by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board in connection with its Strathfarrar-Kilmorack Scheme.

Mr. Maclay I am informed that in order to provide access to working sites in Glen Strathfarrar it will be necessary for the North of Scotland-Hydro-Electric Board to construct at an estimated cost of £25,000 two miles of new roads. Of this 1½ miles will be on the Lovat Estates and half a mile on the Struy Estates.

The existing road in Glen Strathfarrar will also have to be strengthened at an estimated cost of £150,000 to carry constructional traffic. This road is 13 miles long, of which half a mile is public road, 4¾ miles is in the Struy Estates, 7¼ miles in the Lovat Estates and half a mile in the Fairburn Estates'.




While the goings on of the Hydro, Minsters, the Upper & Lower Houses and lairds/landowners may be of interest, it doesn't change the fact that the road is private.

Nor that if The MCofS as the representative (but not governing) body for Scottish mountaineering clubs (and by extension other Scottish mountaineers as well), negotiates on our behalf access (particularly winter access) that we should abide by the agreement (or raise our collective concerns with the MCofS)......otherwise we undermine the MCofS ability to negotiate on our behalf elsewhere.

Though I have no problem with a single glen having limited motorised access, its nice its quiet.

 OMR 05 Mar 2014
In reply to irc:

Hi irc, thanks for pointing that out. Link is not fixed.
 OMR 05 Mar 2014
In reply to OMR:

Sorry, that should read link is NOW fixed.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...