"Austin Shackles" <austinNOSPAM@ddol-las.net> wrote in message
> On or around Wed, 7 Dec 2005 23:48:59 -0000, "Andrew Kay"
> <andrew@NOSPAMkay5juniperDOTfsnet.co.uk> enlightened us thusly:
>>"Martyn Asker" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
>>> In article <email@example.com>, Alex
>>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>>Does anybody know if it's still possible to drive the General Wade
>>>>Miitary Road from Garva Bridge to Fort Augustus, across the mountains
>>>>thru the Corrieyairack Pass? (legally possible, not physically)
>>> The road at the Fort Augustus end has a locked gate
>>There is also a fence across it with only a pedestrian size gap in it and
>>you look carefully, the steel poles are still set into the road, behind
>>fence. See: http://www.sorc.org.uk/sorc/outings/...ie/CP19JSP.jpg
> So what's the legal position WRT vehicular right of way on it? None of
> pictures on that site show a track which is going to be damaged by
> reasonable use, I'd say.
1) It is a public right of way of some kind. That isn't in dispute.
2) It is recorded on the Scotways CRoW (Catalogue of Rights of Way), which
is almost a surrogate for the Definitive Maps in England & Wales, as being
of "unknown" status. It is NOT, therefore, proven to be either a footpath
or a bridleway.
3) As it is a *road* (a way with a public right) and is not proven to be a
footpath or a bridleway, I would have thought that a prosecution under s34
of the Road Traffic Act (Scotland) 1988 is unlikely.
4) The Wade road over the Corrieyairack Pass is a scheduled ancient
monument. It is, therefore, an offence to *damage* it. AFAIK
, there is no
case law that would support the notion that merely using the route (e.g.
driving on it) is damaging it. One could argue, probably with some force
that the civil works - installation of a gate, steel posts, a fence and
changes to the height and width of the road at the Fort Augustus end
constitutes damage!!! It is certainly a change to the nature of the road
and would, I think, require approval. Some time, I must try and find out
whether the owner of the Culachy Estate did indeed have approval to make
those changes to this scheduled monument.
To summarise, the legal position is at best a bit grey. You don't have a
*proven* right to drive on it - but many folks do. No one, AFAIK
, has ever
been prosecuted for driving on it - indeed, it isn't obvious what they might
be prosecuted for.