Waterfront Access

[viceroy]

Is anybody else as annoyed as I am by the fact that there is an ugly triple-pointed palisade fence at the western end of the Springfield Quay development which stops you from proceeding further along the riverbank? Whose idea was this? You have to walk round to Mavisbank Gardens [where the General Terminus used to be] and you can then reach the waterfront by going along a path between the first block of flats and a residents' car park. But there are two notices there which state: 'Private - No Access'. Obviously I ignore these. But presumably it does mean that technically you have to trespass on private property in order to reach what should be a public amenity. Don't tell me this section of quay is in fact privately owned and the public isn't allowed to walk along there at all. I know that, at present at least, you can't get any further than the southside Rotunda, but that's not the point. There is already public access to the waterfront wherever this is feasible so why should this right be denied by well-heeled executive flat owners who don't want the view from their picture windows spoiled by the likes of you and I? Or maybe I'm just being my usual paranoid self.

[Captain Brittles]

I don't know the answer but maybe some of the more qualified here can advise, however I sympathise totally.

[Pgcc93]

I was of the assumption that the only places in Scotland where trespassing will get you into any bother is if you are on Crown or Railway property.

With those exceptions you can pretty much go where you please as long as you do not cause any damage and leave an area if requested to do so by the owner.

Just don't argue with the cops or you'll find yourself up against that old catch all clause!! 'breach of the peace'.

[viceroy]

I appreciate I'm unlikely to get frogmarched off to jail. But it's the principle of the thing that annoys me.

[Apollo]

As always, see here for the official documents now in full force.

In summary, provided the land concerned is public, and not residential i.e. somone's garden around their house, then the landowner cannot restrict access by erecting a sign along the 'Private, No Access' lines. In fact, they can be reported for attempting to restrict access if they do.

Crossing public land for access, even if only a small piece, is precisely what the Code is intended to clarify by conferring rights and duties on both walker and landowner.

[viceroy]

Thank you Apollo. I have bookmarked the Access Code and will go through it when I get a chance. Although this clarifies the question of access I am still wondering whether the actual walkway along the river at this point is private property, i.e. in the common ownership of the proprietors of the flats. If the walkway is part of a publicly owned amenity you would think there would be no point fencing it off at the Springfield Quay end.

[Apollo]

Maybe someone else has expereince with waterways and can help. My hunting grounds have always been inland.

I have heard tales of owners laying claim to, and fencing land off between their property and the edge of a waterway, only to find that their deeds only entitle them to approach within a certain distance of it. There might also be some sort of general public boundary on the edge of a waterway too, but I'm really only guessing, after listening to whispers.

We need and expert

(And, I apologise for using the 'e' word)

[ant]

I vaugely recall reading about this a couple of months ago. The main points were:
The owners at Mavisbank may be liable if some-one has an accident on the waterfront.
The landscaping was also an issue. Something about the land immediately behind the path being privately maintained with no public assistance.
The final point related to the Quay entertainment complex, I'm sure there was an issue over security etc. If my memory serves me right I believe talks were to take place with GDC to resolve these problems, as GDC are keen to promote this amenity.

[viceroy]

If the flat owners along the waterfront at Mavisbank Quay are responsible for anything happening to people on the walkway then this implies a duty of care which in turn means, to me anyway, that the walkway forms part of their property. Shouldn't affect right of access though and there would also be a duty of care on the part of the public on the walkway, e.g. not sitting on the railing so you end up going arse over tip into the water.

I wonder if the same situation exists at other residential developments along the waterfront, such as along Windmillcroft Quay and Lancefield Quay on the north bank.

The security issue at Springfield Quay must relate to people getting access to Mavisbank Quay, not the other way round. Springfield is wide open and I don't think there is a security presence there, probably just CCTV. By the way this must surely be just about the most esthetically hideous development ever to have been inflicted on this city. I am probably not going to be around by the time they eventually decide to pull it down, but if I am I will gladly totter along and give the demolition squad a hand.

[martin]

Last time I was at the Quay, I walked down from Sheilds Road - but by the time I came back, the gate at the side of the Odeon was locked, and I had to go around past the Burger King and back -- couldn't fathom any particular reason why they do that, given that it's totally open at the Kingston Bridge end.