[arethuza]

I found an interesting here in Scotland not far from Edinburgh - there are some really nice beaches and a large estate with golf courses and high end housing immediately inland from the beaches. Between the beaches and the houses there is a very large green metal fence which stops all access from the properties to the beaches.

My initial reaction was how unreasonable it was for the developers to build such a fence to keep people out of their development. Then I noticed that there are no gaps in the fence and, on doing some research, found out that the fence is there to keep the house owners off of the beach!

I'd be a bit annoyed if I spent £1M on a house overlooking a lovely beach only to find that I'd have to walk/drive 8km or so to the other side of the fence...

[huhtenberg]

But what would be the reasoning for not having gates in this fence?

[arethuza]

The coast there is part of a protected "Site of Special Scientific Interest" (SSSI) and the beaches in question are sufficiently far from normal access points that they are remarkably quiet. A condition of the developer being allowed to build houses was apparently that this didn't improve access to the coastline - hence the fence. You can see it here:

http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/102036

Edit: Keeping up my secret work for Visit Scotland - I can recommend the walk to the beaches from Dirleton:

http://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/lothian/dirleton-fidra.shtml

[logfromblammo]

I would guess that at least a few of the home buyers fully intended to "alter the deal (pray I do not alter it further)" after the developer sold off the last parcel and exited.

[arethuza]

I'd expect there to be conditions in the sale that would enforce this - also the landowner in this case would be appear to be the business that runs the surrounding golf courses and hotel, so they're probably not going anywhere:

http://www.archerfieldhouse.com/

I would also expect the relevant government agency (possibly Scottish National Heritage) to take a rather dim view of anyone breaking the conditions of planning permission.

Edit: I'd expect the people who buy houses directly from the developer to be told about this. However, I can imagine years from now someone buying one of the houses overlooking the beach (NB they are lovely houses) and getting a nasty surprise when they ask about where the gate is in the fence.

[logfromblammo]

Or they don't ask, and buy semi-permanent sea access for the bargain price of one angle grinder, some unassuming hinges, a latch, and a can of matching green paint. I'm assuming that most of the home-buyers would be Scots, after all.

The folks on the other side of the fence are certainly Scots with an interest in public access to Archerfield Woods from the coastal walking trail.

I very much doubt that such a fence would be patrolled or otherwise monitored well enough to prevent rogue gate installation from happening.

If this was in the U.S., the same people cutting holes in the fence would simultaneously be posting signs saying "no public beach access" and blaming the holes on outsiders bent on ruining both beach and neighborhood. The zoning and development board would quietly be enjoying their kickbacks from the developer, and winking every time the fence got mentioned.

They know that fence isn't going to last. It's only there so that no one starts a protest until after it's too late to be effective.

[arethuza]

Actually, as far as I can tell one part of the planning agreement was for the developers to fund a ranger to help monitor the area - probably one of this lot:

https://www.facebook.com/East-Lothian-Countryside-Ranger-Ser...