We do not know the position of the hotel and sports club, but access to them has rarely if ever been denied by the estate over several decades.
The ban mentions only the individual, not the individual if the individual has a dog with them.
At present, the individual seeks to challenge the ban.
Thank you. I should have made it clear that the Association grants permits to individuals to access its land.
The estate's land accessible by permit includes a beach. If the individual wishes to access the beach but not the hotel/sports club, can the Association maintain its ban on issuing a permit on the grounds cited if it believes danger could be caused in future, notwithstanding that it has not provided evidence of danger caused on its land to date?
So the ban cannot be challenged even if its cited basis is not backed by substantiated evidence?