Right to roam v right to resort: Scottish Borders Council approves draft byelaw for Center Parcs development

Scottish Borders Council has formally approved a draft byelaw that would restrict responsible access to the proposed Center Parcs development site near Hawick and has submitted it to the Scottish Ministers for statutory consultation. This decision marks a significant moment in the evolving relationship between Scotland’s statutory access rights and the demands of large-scale commercial development.

At issue is the right of responsible access, commonly known as the “right to roam”, which is enshrined in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. It grants the public access to most land and inland water across Scotland for recreational, educational, and certain other purposes, provided that access is taken responsibly. This right is a defining feature of Scotland’s cultural identity and is viewed as being more progressive than in other parts of the UK.

The proposed byelaw, however, introduces a new tension: can a privately-operated, enclosed holiday village justify the exclusion of public access on grounds of safety, operational control, and legal compliance? And if so, what precedent might that set for future developments? The Council’s decision to advance the proposal to consultation invites not only legal scrutiny, but a broader public conversation about the boundaries of access, the meaning of “exceptional cases,” and the future of Scotland’s open landscape ethos.

Center Parcs, Scotland

Center Parcs submitted plans for a £400 million holiday village on land at Huntlaw and Muirfield Farm, three miles north of Hawick. The development will include approximately 700 lodges, a swimming pool, spa facilities, restaurants, retail outlets, and a wide range of indoor and outdoor activities, all designed to replicate the successful model used in Center Parcs’ existing sites across England and Ireland.

Central to this model is the concept of a safe, secure, and self-contained environment. Access to the village is carefully controlled, with entry limited to guests and staff. The Supporting Statement prepared by the Director of Corporate Governance and submitted to Scottish Borders Council as part of an official Report, emphasises that this enclosed design is critical for operational integrity and guest experience. It also cites legal obligations under Martyn’s Law, a forthcoming obligation requiring enhanced security at publicly accessible venues introduced by the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025, as a key justification for restricting public access. Under the legislation, the site qualifies as an “enhanced duty premises” since its capacity exceeds 800 individuals, therefore triggering more stringent requirements. Center Parcs argues that a single controlled access point that is monitored by security staff is essential for ensuring compliance with this new UK-wide duty.

Legal Framework

At the heart of this debate lies a legal paradox: the 2003 Act, which is praised for establishing the public’s right to responsible access, also contains the very provisions that allow that right to be curtailed. This interplay between Section 12, which allows local authorities to make byelaws in relation to land over which access rights are exercisable, and Section 13, which obliges those same authorities to uphold access rights, creates a delicate legal balancing act.

Section 12 permits byelaws for three broad purposes:

To promote responsible conduct by those exercising access rights
To exclude land from access rights
To protect public order, safety, prevent damage or nuisance, and conserve natural or cultural heritage

However, the 2003 Act does not grant unrestricted power to exclude access. Any proposed byelaw must be proportionate, justified, and consistent with Scottish Government guidance issued under Section 27 of the 2003 Act. Among the guidance issued under Section 27 is the “Part 1 Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003: Guidance for Local Authorities and National Park Authorities”, which reminds authorities that the statutory provisions of the 2003 Act take precedence in cases of doubt, and that exclusions must be carefully balanced against the public interest in maintaining open access.

Council Endorsement

The Council’s backing of the £400 million Center Parcs development reflects a considered judgement that the benefits of restricted access are outweighed by the scale of economic opportunity. With the prospect of 1,200 permanent new jobs at the site, 750 – 800 during the construction period, and an estimated £8.8 million annual boost to the local economy, members were ultimately persuaded that the exemption sought by Center Parcs, Scotland constituted an exceptional case.

Councillor Scott Hamilton, deputy leader of the Council, described the development as a unique opportunity for the Borders, highlighting the significance of attracting a major leisure brand to invest in the area for the first time. In his remarks, Hamilton emphasised that the Council’s support for the byelaw stems from a desire to facilitate meaningful investment, not to undermine public access rights:

“This is not about taking away any right or destroying the countryside for anyone’s pleasure. It is simply about ensuring that we can get this investment into the Scottish Borders.”

The next step is for a consultation period for the Scottish Government and all interested parties to consider the proposal itself and the wider implications for the 2003 Act.

If you would like to discuss the right to roam, please get in touch with a member of our specialist rural disputes team.

This article was co-authored by Trainee Eva Curran.

Contributors: