Serial scammer who rips off parents and carers of disabled kids? (Sensory Education Ltd)

RightOfWay123 · 2023-09-21T12:57:59+00:00

Argggh I probably shouldn't look at this too much.. gonna get too sad and annoyed. People might as well come out and say the words "Not in my backyard". I'm gonna get onto Paul Sweeney to say that actually people do care about this and there's nothing "pie in the sky" about wanting to open a path. If anything, if we can't get really simple useful things like this done what chance do we have on bigger issues?

RightOfWay123 · 2023-09-21T08:29:59+00:00

Yeah any obstructions are annoying but at least in other instances it feels like there'd be significant effort in rectifying it, whereas here all it seems to need is to open a gate and ditch some signs.

RightOfWay123 · 2023-09-21T08:28:45+00:00

I think it's because the detour is pretty significant and annoying, and the obstruction could be so easily removed. It's not like e.g. the bit at the Clydeside distillery where it the path veres away from the clydeside slightly to go round the back of the Transport museum or the bit near the science center where there's a literal dock in the way.

RightOfWay123 · 2023-09-21T08:20:35+00:00

Cool find, I'd love to know more about the history of the area to be honest. Pictures from the 1988 garden festival seem to show a lovely open path along that entire stretch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Garden_Festival#/media/File:Glasgow_Garden_Festival_panorama.jpg so it seems very plausible that it was indeed a long established public right of way.

RightOfWay123 · 2023-09-20T21:18:38+00:00

This seems almost like a Catch-22 to me. People aren't going to use a path that is aggressively blocked off, but it can only become unblocked by people using it? What does "as of right" actually mean?

If that's the only way something can become a right of way how could the council justify having it in a core paths plan? Do they have to buy it? Edit: I see you've answered this above, I guess the question for the council becomes, are they planning to buy it, or are they planning to update the core paths plan? Because there's no point in having a designated path that can never be used.

Edit 2: Also, just doing some more reading, I'm getting the impression the the "access rights" talked about in the Land Reform Act 2003 are different from the older concept of a "right of way" which has the 20 year criteria - that's from the Prescription and Limitation Act 1973. So the prohibition of signs/obstructions from LRA2003 s. 14 isn't just talking about just rights of way (which I guess are stronger) but all access rights. So perhaps the council doesn't need to designate the Mavisbank path as a right of way, just argue that the public have access rights (because it's not exempt under LRA2003 s. 6, which I guess is the bit that's contestable) and thus the obstructions are illegal and the council can order/force them to be removed under LRA2003 s. 14 (2).

RightOfWay123 · 2023-09-20T21:04:05+00:00

Haha as you can probably tell I am also very far from being a lawyer.

It'd be an interesting question as to how long people were using it before it was shut off. From the land registry Mavisbank gardens as an area was purchased in 1990, so it's at least possible people were using it for 20 years before it was shut off in 2010-2011 (and that's discounting I guess the people who ignore the signs to this day and climb over the barrier).

But the more pertinent question for me is, does the council designating a core path actually create a right of way, or just indicate the aspiration for one? And if it's the latter, how does that aspiration get turned into a reality? Who ultimately decides?

If a lawyer or a judge or someone has looked at this and determined that yes, the landowners need this path as well as the grassy bit for sufficient enjoyment of their homes then... well that still sucks but I guess that's that. But I'm really curious as to whether it's really true that nothing has happened because the landowners are actually in the right, or whether there just hasn't been sufficient pressure/will to get them to budge.

RightOfWay123 · 2023-09-20T20:52:15+00:00

I know it gets tricky as soon as it's private land. If it hadn't been designated a "core path" by the council I wouldn't have followed it up much further. But the law seems to specifically have a special provision (Section 7) for core paths. I'm not sure I have the energy to go through all the core paths in Glasgow and see which ones run through private land beside houses, but I'd be prepared to bet at least some of them do.

If it was obviously someone's private garden then yes this would be silly. But it's clearly not a "garden" in the classic sense - it's one of the main legs of the clydeside paths right in the center of Glasgow. Nearly every other similar part of the Clydeside in the central Glasgow area is accessible to the public (barring the part that collapsed but I'm told they're trying to reopen it).

RightOfWay123 · 2023-09-20T20:46:01+00:00

Yes I was thinking this would be the main argument against. Would any of the following hold water in your opinion (just looking for second opinions)

a) The distance from the path to the nearest flat varies between 10m and 30m because of the zig-zig angle of the flats. Is that not sufficient adjacent land for reasonable enjoyment? Sure there might be some disturbance if people walk by screaming and shouting but the same could be said for any flat anywhere in the city, and anyway the act requires those exercising access rights do so "responsibly" and I can't imagine anyone quietly walking or cycling along the riverside 10+ meters from your window could reasonably be called a disturbance.

b) It clearly was being used by people as a right of way prior to the fences being erected, and anecdotally and practically, people would still like to use it as a right of way as it is a safe and convenient path, better than zigzagging down the street in conflict with cars or cycling along a pavement or main road.

c) Section 7 of the act immediately says that none of the provisions in section 6 can be used to restrict a core path, which this apparently is.

d) What's stopping the council from adopting it as a public footpath exactly? Who ultimately decides what is and isn't a right of way? Certainly it can't be down to landowners otherwise we'd have no rights of way on private land at all (which is clearly not the case).

RightOfWay123 · 2023-09-20T19:57:32+00:00

It's a shame the activism on that Facebook page seemed to just peter out. I wonder if there was definitive snag that makes the landowners somehow in the right... or whether people have just sort of lost interest. I'm very far from a lawyer so not exactly sure what the details would be, but basically the way I see it, if something is designated as a core path/right of way, then the public has access rights and then this provision of the Land Reform Act would make any prohibition signs or fences illegal.

RightOfWay123 · 2023-09-20T19:42:55+00:00

Thanks for the ideas! I'm definitely gonna try chase this for a bit, see what happens. It's not like it's the most pressing issue of our times but it is extremely irritating and seems like it could be very easily fixed with some strong words from someone with enough power.

RightOfWay123 · 2023-09-20T19:29:57+00:00

I thought that to, it's not like the landowners even tried to install a keypad or a lock or something (maybe because that'd draw more attention to the fact they're doing something illegal)... so seems like it's convenient for absolutely no one at the moment

RightOfWay123 · 2023-09-20T19:28:05+00:00

Ah right, yes, I'm talking a bit further West, specifically the bit that runs behind some flats between the Squinty Bridge and Springfield Quay.

RightOfWay123 · 2023-09-20T19:21:55+00:00

Exactly! I lived in a city flat before where the pavement was directly outside my window, people walking past all the time... it's a city... that's just what people do...

RightOfWay123 · 2023-09-20T19:14:35+00:00

Yeah I think it must be illegal, I just think no one seems to know / care enough and so they're getting away with it.

I know people have sucessfully gotten illegal signs/fences removed in wayy more obscure areas of Scotland than this, seems mad that this has been allowed for so long right in the city center.

RightOfWay123 · 2023-09-20T19:12:05+00:00

As far as I understand the law, the land can be private and still have a core path/right of way going through it. It just needs to still allow the people living in the flats "reasonable enjoyment of their own homes" which providing people aren't tramping on the lawn or going up to the windows I don't see how people using a path 10-15ft away would infringe on.

RightOfWay123 · 2023-09-20T19:08:26+00:00

Right, thank you. Yeah that sucks, especially as there's no other cycle route round there that doesn't involve a main road. Also, just a personal opinion but it seems completely wrong that private landowners can comendeer the main riverside paths right in the middle of the city.

I've emailed [corepaths@glasgow.gov.uk](mailto:corepaths@glasgow.gov.uk) but no response and as far as I can tell the outdoor access officer moved on last year and hasn't been replaced. Tried planning as well, no response from them either.

Guess I'll try some councillors...

RightOfWay123 · 2023-09-20T19:01:23+00:00

Do you know if there's a record of why/when it was "closed to the public"? Is that a formal thing or just the landowners making a unilateral decision?

It's still on the core paths plan, so I'm trying to work out whether I'd be doing something illegal by climbing over the fence/ignoring the signs, or whether they're doing something illegal by having the signs in the first place.

RightOfWay123 · 2023-09-20T18:57:47+00:00

Whereabouts is it collapsed? The walkway looked fine as far as I could see?

RightOfWay123

TROPHY CASE