Our Funding Partners
Our Funding Partners
Most visitors to Balmaha and beyond this summer will have probably been struck by the new cycle lanes through Milton of Buchanan. I use a bike to get around Glasgow, campaign in the area I live for more cycle lanes and when driving try to be as “cycle friendly” as possible. Coming into Milton of Buchanan therefore I tried to avoid the cycle lane but the space left between the lane and the central line is far too narrow for a car.
Then, just a little further on, the centre road marking disappears completely and the road narrows to one lane, far too narrow to allow two cars to pass. Any car determined to respect the cycle lanes risks would run into cars coming from the other direction head on. The consequence is every car I saw had either to swerve in and out of the cycle lanes or simply ignored the cycle lane completely. This is not the drivers’ fault, its the consequence of extremely poor design and provides ammunition to the petrol heads who believe all cycling provision is a denial of their right to drive their car wherever they want.
The local community and the local police force appear to share this view:
Now I have been aware from the organisational updates given to the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Board meetings that there were plans to create a cycle path between Drymen and Balmaha. I have been unable to find any information about these plans on either the LLTNPA, the Stirling Council or Sustrans websites, but that may because I have searched in the wrong places. Its not clear what consultation has taken place but I suspect that if any meaningful consultation had taken place about Milton of Buchanan, the poor design would have been avoided. Consultation however tends to go by the wayside when people have limited budgets and performance targets to meet.
I happen to have walked along the entire B837 between Balmaha and Drymen – which is marked as a core path on the LLTNPA’s core path plan. While there is a pavement along most of the road, its very narrow in some places and in others disappears completely, sometimes on bends where this a verge less than a foot wide and where its hard for cars to see you. Not a good walking experience, even on the section between Milton and Buchanan and Balmaha which is marked on OS Maps as an official alternative to the main West Highland Way. So much for “destination Scotland”.
The plan for Sustrans to install a cycle path therefore appeared to me a good one in principle which could benefit both cyclists and walkers, both visitors and local residents, and improve current provision.
The challenge however is that the B837 is narrow and bordered by (attractive) hedges, not atypical for a country road. To accommodate cars, cyclists and walkers you either need to widen it, which would require significant investment including the costs of purchasing land bordering the road, or restrict cars. In effect, an attempt to restrict cars has been made at Milton of Buchanan but in a way that is extremely poorly designed and so both ineffective and dangerous. If there were far fewer cars, the road markings at Milton of Buchanan might just about be made to work (if priority was given to cars coming from one way). The only way to make this happen though would be to restrict traffic to Balmaha to local residents and commercial vehicles, introduce a frequent year round bus service for visitors along with new car parking capacity at Drymen. While this could fit with the proposal to close the road to Rowardennan (see here) I cannot see this happening in the near future. The proposed cycle path along the B837 and the section created at Milton of Buchanan therefore needs a re-think.
An alternative to the current road markings at Milton of Buchanan would be to create a segregated path shared by cyclists and pedestrians along one side of the road. In my view that would be better than the current set up. Its easier and safer for cyclists to share a lane with pedestrians than with cars and indeed the first photo in this post shows the assumption is that cyclists should use the pavement outside the village.
In the Dolomites I saw lots of evidence of how to do things differently, ideas we could apply to Scotland. In the Dolomites there appeared to be far more emphasis on segregated cycle routes, ranging from temporary arrangements to dedicated paths.
Great work of course has been done in Scotland on developing dedicated cycle routes through the National Cycle Route network but we appear to be well behind Italy.
It seems to me that if there is not space to create segregated cycle lanes and a decent path along the B837 consideration should be given to following the Italians and developing an alternative route. There is already an extensive and under-promoted path network between the B837 and the River Endrick, some of which have been designated as core paths (see here). The problem is it does not join up to create alternative through routes. It could do.
I am not here trying to provide a definitive answer to how we improve cycle path/lane provision in the National Park or even at Milton of Buchanan, only to illustrate that we need to think more creatively and thoroughly about how existing provision should be improved. In my view that process should be led by the National Park Authority. Unfortunately it appears that rather than co-ordinating new provision and ensuring there is consultation with appropriate bodies, from the local community to the Ramblers Associations and organisations like Go Bike, the LLTNPA are leaving this to others. That partly accounts I think for the daft road markings at Milton of Buchanan.
One of the priorities in the draft National Park Partnership plan, “Visitor Experience 1” is “Ensuring that the National Park Core Paths are reviewed and fit for purpose” while another, Visitor Experience 2 commits the LLTNPA to “Promoting the use and improvement of the National Walking and Cycling Network including new active travel linkages between communities as well as routes facilitating active travel into the Park and better linkages with existing transport hubs and routes.” The cycle lanes at Milton of Buchanan provide a graphic illustration of why this is needed. However, if the LLTNPA is to become an effective public authority which leads on developing good practice for outdoor recreation and active travel it will need to allocate resources to do this. In my view it could do so easily if its Board decided that instead of fruitlessly devoting most of its resources to chasing away campers it re-focussed on how it could provide the infrastructure necessary to support visitors.
On Sunday afternoon, taking advantage of a break in the tropical storms which have been battering Scotland, we went for a walk up Ben Lomond, a hill that everyone from the west of Scotland who is able to do so should walk up at least once in their lifetimes. I walk, run or ski it most years. The drive from Balmaha to Rowardennan required patience because of the volume of traffic. It probably took us twice the time to drive it as it does in winter.
We met all sorts: small groups of middle aged men with strong Glaswegian accents, a couple of Asian families, backpackers taking a diversion from the West Highland Way, students, a person with a learning disability, Dutch tourists, some younger teenagers who must have been still at school, a Sikh……….we heard probably a dozen different languages. The number and diversity of people visiting Rowardennan and walking up Ben Lomond is a great thing. It should be the people’s hill.
The infrastructure though is creaking under the numbers and needs a re-think…………………in fact its needed a re-think ever since the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park was created.
In the Dolomites and indeed in many other valleys in the Alps where small roads finish in a dead-end without much space for parking – as at Rowardennan – they do things differently.
The main access to the Catinaccio group, off the Val di Fassa, is via this valley. The road up to the Gardeccia is closed to private cars. The valley is extremely popular – it leads up the famous Vajolet towers (where we climbed), offers great walking and a number of via ferrata – but people either walk up (rare), get a ski lift and then contour round into the valley or use the shuttle bus service from Pera.
The shuttle bus service operates from 7am to 6pm from the end of May until mid-October. It took about 20 minutes and cost 10 Euros return, including the cost of leaving our car for three days. It was extremely well used – we were concerned when we turned up at 7am whether we would get on the two buses waiting at the bottom – but coming back saw over half a dozen buses taking people up and down the route and waited just five minutes for our bus to fill and set off.
The road closure and shuttle bus service solves the problem of where people would park up the valley, takes the stress out of driving along the narrow road up to Gardeccia, provides jobs and is more environmentally friendly than people taking cars. This is not the only side valley off the Val di Fassa where such services exist (see here for list). So why don’t we do this in Scotland? We could start places like Rowardennan.
In fact, one of the action points of the east Loch Lomond Visitor Management Plan 2014-19 was:
“Consideration to be given to shuttle bus service provision from Drymen to Rowardennan.”
This has not been progressed. Instead, the focus has been on the expensive water bus service and there has been an obsession with trying to control car parking: in particular how to enforce the clearway between Balmaha and Rowardennan.
This has had the unfortunate effect of making much of east Loch Lomond inaccessible for people wanting to do short walks along the West Highland Way. Apart from the public carparks at Milarrochy, Sallochy and Rowardennan, there is nowhere to stop. Fine for fitter walkers, but for lots of people it means many of the joys of east Loch Lomond are now beyond reach.
A shuttle bus service would enable far more people to do shorter walks along east Loch Lomond, letting people walk between points of their choice. It would also make Ben Lomond far more accessible – something like 50% of the adult population of Glasgow do not have access to a car and effectively have no way of reaching, Ben Lomond, what should be the people’s hill.
Unfortunately, not only does the LLTNPA appear to be doing nothing to address this situation, it and Stirling Council appears to be about to make this worse. The issue at stake is the management of the carpark at Balmaha.
There have been calls from people in Balmaha that the community should be able to benefit from the car park there for some time. There is a very interesting record of how the proposal has developed – given by Kevin Lilburn recorded in the minute of the May meeting of the Buchanan Community Council (see here). Basically the proposal had been that money raised from the car park should be split between Stirling Council, the LLTNPA and an organisation called the Buchanan Community Partnership. The plan which was eventually agreed was that Stirling Council would lease the car park which they still own for 3 years to the LLTNPA who would introduce parking charges through their newly procured Automatic Number Plate Recognition charging system. The LLTNPA would take on the burdens of running the carpark and after costs would share income with the community. The vehicle proposed to do this was the Buchanan Community Partnership
The BCP had been set up in 2003 to enable the local community to access and manage funds. It appears responsible for initiating the negotiations that car parking charges should be introduced at Balmaha and part of the money from this used to benefit the local community. The BCP has, according to Kevin Lilburn’s report to the Community Council – information reinforced by its accounts – been in “suspended animation” for a number of years. This is interesting as Kevin Lilburn is a Director of the Buchanan Community Partnership and information obtained under FOI FOI 2015 002 Response – Copy show that he represented that body on the east Loch Lomond Visitor Management stakeholder group, the body which is supposed to co-ordinate the implementation of the east Loch Lomond Visitor Management Plan (which now appears defunct) and indeed that he appears to have chaired meetings. Although in theory open to anyone from the local community to join, there is other information to indicate the BCP was hardly a democratic organisation. Information from companies house (see here) states it is controlled by one person, Joseph Twaddle its Secretary, who had been secretary of the Community Council before he resigned. The May minutes of the Buchanan Community Council record that “The view was expressed that the current BCC membership knew nothing about BCP meetings from the former Secretary”.
All this though now appears about to become history. According to the draft minutes of the Buchanan Community Council meeting in June the Buchanan Community Partnership is about to be wound up and instead there are plans that a new organisation, the East Loch Lomond Community Trust, will receive the funds.
KL advised that the Buchanan Community Partnership (BCP) board had decided to start a process that aimed to wind up the BCP. This had implications for the “community” share of the revenue that might result from the proposed introduction of parking charges at the Balmaha car park. He understood that the recently formed East Loch Lomond Community Trust might now have an involvement.
It was proposed & agreed that the Chair should write to the NP expressing our deep concern at the situation.
Reading between the lines of the minutes, it looks as though one shadowy organisation, the BCP, has been replaced by one that is even more shadowy. Moreover, there has been no communication from the ELLCT and the Community Council, the organisation which represents people locally. Information on the Office of Scottish Charity Regulator’s website shows that the ELLCT was incorporated in October 2016 and sets out it general objectives but does not provide the names of the trustees or say what area it covers. The only other public information that is available about the ELLCT is it appears to have registered for Just Giving. You cannot therefore see who is controlling the organisation let alone what it intends to do. Perhaps the National Park knows?
And for any reader, who thinks I am being too radical, in Italy they are prepared to close to private vehicles not only dead-end roads, but major through routes.
The road over the Sella Pass, between the Val di Fassa and Val Gardena is closed between 9am and 4pm every Wednesday, except to buses and cyclists. Imagine us doing something as radical in Scotland? What the closure does is enable hundred of cyclists to enjoy the challenge without having to think about traffic, which includes not just car but lots of motorbikes. The Rowardennan Rd is a nightmare to cycle at present. A shuttle bus service might make it a pleasure to cycle again with additional recreational benefits – and help promote a circular route on car free routes from Balloch to Rowardennan, across to Tarbert on a ferry and then back down to Balloch along the west Loch Lomond cycle path. That would be a National Park which, like Italy, put outdoor recreation at the centre of how it manages the countryside.
I have just returned from the Dolomites to find extensive media coverage on how Scotland is failing to provide the infrastructure necessary to support visitors. On Skye, there are claims that the island has reached the limit in terms of the number of visitors it can sustain (see here), while in Orkney suggestions of a tourist tax (see here) on luxury cruise liners to fund infrastructure have been predictably dismissed under the neo-liberal mantra that all tax is bad. I suspect most Italians would be astonished by the way these debates are framed in Scotland. The evidence on the ground from the Dolomites is that far more money is being invested in tourism infrastructure than in Scotland and there are far more visitors, with consequent benefits both to people and to the economy. We saw signs saying tourism in the Dolomites is worth £50bn a year and, while this is considerably boosted by downhill skiing, it dwarfs the latest figure for tourism spend in Scotland of £8.9bn. In this post I will consider how investment in footpaths in Scotland compares to the Dolomites.
Back in July, in a very welcome article in the Scotsman (see here) Grant Moir, Chief Executive of the Cairngorms National Park Authority, raised the need to think about how we pay for paths in our National Parks. This in my view is exactly what our National parks should be doing – instead of pretending all is rosy and that they are managing on ever decreasing budgets – they should be articulating a new vision for the future and how this could be funded, which could then incidentally be adopted by other places like Skye and Orkney.
Unfortunately the heading of the article (which was no doubt inserted by a sub-editor) – “freedom to roam is a costly business” – reflects the prevailing negative stance towards access in Scotland by the establishment, which sees everything in terms of cost not opportunity. In fact, the amounts Grant Moir referred to are tiny. So, the CNPA has spent £10m on paths in 15 years – that’s just £666k a year – and requires at least £500k a year to maintain paths. Compare that to the £3bn that the Scottish Government has committed to pay for the dualling of 80 miles of the A9. If just 1% of that – £30m – were spent on paths along the A9 corridor over the next ten years the CNPA and neighbouring local authorities would be awash with money to spend on paths. Instead, the CNPA at present has to rely on Heritage Lottery funding, the £3.2m awarded in 2015 over 5 years for the Mountains and People project which covers both our National Parks.
The path network in the Dolomites is far more extensive than what we have in Scotland and this is partly for historical reasons.
Most people are probably aware that the Dolomites was the setting for major battles in the first world war in which 750,000 Italians died and which saw an extensive network of paths/tracks and via ferrata constructed high up in the mountains. These now form the base for the mountain path network. By contrast our own military roads, with a few notable exceptions such as along the West Highland Way, tend, because of their location along the floors of straths, to have become part of the trunk road network.
The Dolomites also, however, have far more paths lower down. I was based for a time in a lovely small town called Predazzo which is surrounded by forest. I had no map to the area but no need of one. Whatever way I left the town – and I did four runs in four different directions – I came across a multitude of path options. The paths in the woods appear to exist because local people have worked the forests for centuries – the commune that runs Predazzo is 800 years old – a contrast to Scotland where people were cleared from the land and few paths were needed for work purposes, the main exception to this being our fine stalking paths. These are thin on the ground however in comparison to the historic path legacy in the Dolomites.
The Dolomites, and indeed many other places in Europe including England, have had a head start over Scotland in terms of path infrastructure. This was recognised in the discussions which led to our access legislation which identified a need for a more extensive path network: hence the provisions of the Land Reform Act about the creation of core path networks. Unfortunately due to neo-liberal thinking, in which it is held a self-evident truth that nothing should be provided for free, and austerity the aspirations for a comprehensive path network have never been delivered (despite the efforts of many good people). Instead our National Parks and other access authorities are left scrabbling for money. This is quite a contrast to what I saw in the Dolomites.
While in the Dolomites I stayed in the Firenze Hut twice, the first as part of the Alta Via 2 when I walked up this path. On my second visit to climb we found it closed, part of the path had been swept away in a great storm. However, unlike the Cairngorms where – as Grant Moir states – people are still trying to find money to repair the damage from the great floods on Deeside, signs had gone up immediately saying what had happened and there was evidence the path was being repaired. What I think this demonstrates is that path maintenance is a priority in Italy in a way that is unthinkable in Scotland.
So why is this? Part of the explanation I think lies in the power to make decisions and budgets to implement them being far more devolved than in Scotland. In most of the huts we stayed in we paid a small tourism tax which is used to fund infrastructure locally. Behind this though is a general appreciation that people want to experience the fantastic landscape of the Dolomites and what this requires is for people to be able to get out into those landscapes in the way they want.
One of the best ways to do this is by providing paths. This is backed by some interesting research (see here) which shows that satisfaction with the landscape is the biggest single factor influencing tourism spend:
A warning to the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Authority who are allowing much of the landscape of the National Park to be trashed through the creation of unnecessary new and poorly constructed forestry and hydro tracks. What they should be focussing on is the creation of a quality path network.
The contrast between Scotland and the Dolomites is illustrated by these photos from Arrochar, which I received from reader Stephen Pimley, on arriving back in Glasgow. Its only a tiny section of path, funded by multiple agencies, but I believe it tells an important tale.
Here is the problem in Stephen’s own words: “I see tourists standing in a state of puzzlement in front of the overgrown brambles and conifer hedge. They stand at the side of the road and move on………………I have raised a work request on the Argyll and Bute council but previous requests have been ignored. Hopefully the fact that there are multiple ‘partners’ involved won’t lead to one of those desperate “its not my job!” situations”.
The basic problem is that there is almost no money available for basic path maintenance. Most of the paths through dense vegetation like this in the Dolomites are strimmed to keep them clear for walkers. By contrast our public authorities seem to expect that volunteers should do this and, while there is a very active and committed group of volunteers in Arrochar – where the Community Council has been long trying to improve the local amenity of the area and without whom its doubtful whether any of the attempts to clear up the beach at the head of Loch Long would have happened – I have been informed most of these volunteers are now in their seventies. They should not be having to do this.
Is it really too much to aspire for that there should be one part-time footpath maintenance worker available to every community in the National Park? This would help keep young people in the villages, as happens in Italy. It could even provide all the pathwork trainees on the Mountains and People project jobs in the longer term. Instead, what is happening in our National Parks, is that pathwork is funded by one source of temporary funding after another rather than being treated as a core function of National Parks.
This is the fifth in a series of articles about forestry in the National Park near where I live (see here)
The value of the trees relative to the difficulty of extraction and the dangers posed by windblown trees makes harvesting from areas like this problematic. In what seems to an amazing piece of ‘double talk’ these areas are to be retained as ‘amenity’ woodland.
During preceding forestry cycles, clear linear gaps were left between blocks of woodland. They are referred to as ‘rides’. Techniques of felling and extraction have become more mechanized so these no longer seem to be necessary, so current replanting is denser and without any equivalent means of access.
During previous cycles, the forest rides were an important means of informal access, to the open hillside above.
For the purpose of this document a ride is a linear open space within a wood derived from the need for access. Rides may have a hard surfaced track making up part of the width or more commonly are unsurfaced. The ride is usually made up of several zones. Most commonly ride consist of a central grass zone with a mixed herbaceous and shrub zone on one side or both sides.
Sensitive management of open habitats introduces greater habitat diversity.
This encourages a larger range of species, adding diversity and additional interest for all types of recreation and sporting activities. Many species make use of the edge habitats for feeding due to higher herb layer productivity and larger invertebrate populations. A greater number of species inhabit the first 10metres of any woodland edge or ride edge than inhabit the remainder of the woodland’
Rides commonly became invaded by rhododendrons, fallen branches and wind blow, but it was possible to find a way through or around obstructions.
Obstructed water course, in a deep gully, where Rhododendron will reinvade. The debris has accumulated over decades, and demonstrates how little is done to develop the amenity value of the forest estate. Areas like this are not really suitable for modern mechanized clear fell and extraction methods.
I have experience of impenetrable natural woodland, from trying to access open hillside in Canada, Brazil, Japan and Patagonia. This sort of scene seems natural, but it is within 300 m from a public road, and five minutes from my home. In the midst of a State managed forestry plantation, in a National Park, in an area designated as amenity woodland.
“[A woodland managed primarily for amenity rather than for timber, often with public access for outdoor pursuits such as walking, mountain biking and orienteering, or alternatively managed for game.]”
It could be a very scenic, all age and abilities walk, that would economically enhance the visitor experience. Investment in such projects, during the 1980’s, gave employment, if only temporary and seasonal, and restored access to Pucks Glen, now one of the visitor attractions of Cowal.
Created in the 19th Century, completely blocked by accumulating wind blow in the mid 20th Century, cleared and restored, by young local unemployed supervised by foresters during Y.O.P. schemes of the 1980’s
Impenetrable nature of the forest floor, replicated throughout the woodland close to habitation. Nobody, except the fit and determined, are likely to enter the forest, but anybody not used, or unable, to walk off tarmac roads is unlikely to try. Neighbors seldom venture into the forest, if at all, they are too fearful of getting lost or slipping and injuring themselves.
The underfoot conditions and obstructions distorts visitor feed-back, by eliciting from visitors requests for tracks to enable them to enter the woodland. I suspect this does not mean artificial, over engineered circular tracks, with deep boggy side drains and overgrown banks, but ‘brashed’ [side branches removed to above head height] woodland and clear forest floors in the immediate vicinity of parking places and scenic areas. This would allow people to go for a wander through the woods.
Clearing the forest floor and making it more accessible would probably be cheaper, and keep people more permanently employed, than creating circular tracks, which are difficult to get off, and are then not maintained.
It was established in Scandinavia some time ago that acidification of the aquifers draining into lakes and rivers, arising from planting conifers close to the banks of streams, eventually resulted in the decline of fish stocks. The acid flushes resulting from heavy rain washing through foliage and forest floor litter, causes fish eggs to become toughened resulting in failure to hatch.
This has been recognized, but not acted on except at the headwaters of some tributories to major streams and rivers draining into waters popular with anglers. Little has been done locally, so angling seems to be less and less popular as there are so few fish. Migratory fish like salmon and sea trout have disappeared from the River Finart [other factors may have contributed to this such as netting the migratory fish as they swim up the coast].
An attempt to clear historic wind blow, to improve the quality of water contributing to a garden pond, which is so acid nothing seems to live, and toad and frog spawn never hatches. The effort has apparently improved the situation, as this year for the first time in thirty years, mallards visited the pond and found something to eat! Note improved bio diversity along cleared stream edge.
Clearing the stream of debris and obstructions permitting the flow speed to increase, deepening the stream bed, lowering the water table and dried out the surrounding area, which is no longer an acid sphagnum bog. This improved the water quality of the pond, and improved bio diversity of the banks of the stream. It also restored access to the woodland.
The experiment convinced me that the manner in which forestry operations are carried out fundamentally damages the micro environment and degrades the full potential bio diversity. It is not necessary to watch a program about loss of habitat in some equatorial forest, it is happening in the artificial wet desert on our doorstep.
Current forestry practice has abandoned any activity that might encourage informal access within the woodland, between cycles of planting, thinning and clear fell. Access to the actual woodland, and possibilities of finding a way through it to the hillside above, has deteriorated.
Woodland in the immediate vicinity of habitation, or surrounding visitor attractions and facilities, described as ‘amenity’ woodland is virtually inaccessible and uninviting. Little if any attention is paid to the potential for informal active outdoor recreation.
In many localities, the bio diversity is artificially restricted, and access possibilities of any description deteriorating, and in no way compensated for by walking along industrial forestry road infrastructure, from which it is difficult to escape.
The dense forestry is treated as a scenic back drop for visitors, rather than an opportunity to encourage recreational activity!
Apologies to readers but due to problems with internet connectivity I was not able to get this post on (or next on rural development) out last week as intended. The consultation on the National Park Partnership Plan (see here) closes today.
The second section of the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Authority’s National Park Partnership Plan (NPPP) is titled Visitor Experience. I hate the term (it was also used by the Cairngorms National Park Authority) because its being used to change what National Parks should be about. Instead of enabling people to enjoy the landscape for itself, and being free to do so, our National Park Authorities now appear to believe their role is about giving people an experience – often it seems something to be paid for – whether or not that experience has anything to do with outdoors. This is a distortion of our National Park’s statutory objective in respect to visitors which is “to promote understanding and enjoyment, including enjoyment in the form of recreation, of the special qualities of the area by the public”. Note the statutory objective relates to “the special qualities” of the National Park, not to the promotion of developments such as Natural Retreats or Flamingo Land. Many of the failures of the LLTNPA and draft NPPP result from a departure from that statutory objective.
A good example is VE3, which is about the visitor economy:
“Businesses and organisations in the Park have taken great strides in adapting and innovating to better provide for the dynamic and ever changing tourism demand. The accommodation offering has seen many positive investments while the quality of food and drink has improved significantly. We have seen a strong increase in the number of people coming to the National Park for food and drink, up from 15% in 2011 to 44% in 2015. There has also been a rise in visitors using of self-catering, managed campsites and hotels from 2011 to 2015.”
Ignore the fact that there are now fewer places to camp in the National Park than ever before, ignore the failure of the NPPP to consider low pay and precarious jobs in the tourism industry, the LLTNPA appears to see promoting food and drink as important, if not more so, than enabling people to enjoy the Great Outdoors (and is it really credible that the numbers of people visiting the National Park is up from 15% to 44%?). The photo in this section, (left) speakers louder than words.
Tourism, whether appropriate or not, has become a substitute for sustainable economic development (the third statutory objective of the LLTNPA and subject of my last post on the NPPP). This is the wrong starting point. As the NPPP states, the vast majority of visitors to the National Park are day visitors from the Clyde conurbation. Those people – I am one of them – and overnight visitors visit primarily to enjoy the scenery and undertake recreational activities such as walking, cycling, boating or fishing. We may of course spend some money – many hillwalkers for example enjoy a meal or a drink at the end of the day and this helps explain the success of enterprises like Real Foods at Tyndrum, while other people enjoy sitting out in pleasant surroundings (hence the success of the Oak Tree Inn at Balmaha?) – but for most people this is a consequence of their visit, not a reason for it.
What appears to be happening though – and the Visitor Experience framework and the NPPP is an attempt to promote this further – is that the LLTNPA is prioritising the small minority of high spend visitors over the mass of people who visit the National Park:
“Our visitor profile has traditionally been characterised by high numbers of predominantly day visits that coincide with good weather. Historically this has meant a highly seasonal, weather dependent visitor economy that can give us very high volume visitor pressures in some of the most popular areas of the Park. These pressures can affect the quality of environment, visitor experience, economy and community life.”
Note how the LLTNPA claims that the high number of visitors on a few days of the year affects “the Visitor Experience”. This is a version of the same old chestnut that there are too many people on the hill – the presence of other walkers destroys the experience. Its elitist and the solution is obvious: if you don’t like other people go somewhere else when its busy. I am sure I am not the only person who avoids west Loch Lomond on public holidays but the large numbers of visitors at these times is an opportunity for the people who visit (to promote their own physical and mental wellbeing). The LLTNPA however appears to see numbers as a problem rather than a challenge and so is trying to restrict visitors through the camping byelaws (300 places under the permit system instead of maximum counts of 850 tents previously), gating off and reducing the size of car parks (e.g on Loch Venachar) and introducing charges for visiting (car park charges, toilet charges etc). There is no attempt to analyse the implications some of which are touched on the in the Strategic Environemental Assessment:
“the new more stringent visitor management measures may erode certain personal freedoms (population and human health), negatively impacting the image of the National Park.”
Instead of attacking access rights, the LLTNPA should be addressing the shortfall in infrastructure needed to support visitors, at both peak and non-peak periods. This includes addressing the shortfall in basic facilities which parkswatch has covered many times in the last year, particularly litter bins and toilets (no mention in the NPPP that this comes out as top need in all visitor surveys in the National Park), as well as more challenging improvements such as to transport infrastructure as recommended in the LLTNPA’s own Strategic Environment Assessment:
“the vast majority of visitor journeys to the Park continue to be made by car. There remains a need to promote public transport options and encourage visitors to travel by alternative modes. There are also opportunities to make travel to and within the Park “part of the experience” (e.g. linking longer distance cycle routes to public transport, investing in the seasonal waterbus service).”
The only improvement to public transport mentioned in the NPPP is the waterbus. While the CNPA are committed to improving public transport in Glenmore, the LLTNPA has no plans to encourage the provision of public transport to Rowardennan, despite Ben Lomond being completely inaccessible to the large proportion of people who reside in the Clyde conurbation who don’t have a car. This should be a national scandal.
The Visitor Experience section is peppered with parkspin, which is made possible from the lack of evidence in the plan and the failure to review progress in the previous plan (see here). This is a post-truth neo-liberal world full of soundbites and where evidence doesn’t count. Here are a few examples:
Comment: actually, what most visitors want the National Park to do is provide basic facilities such as toilets and ensure litter is picked up. The scenery doesn’t need ambition, it needs practical protection (there is no consideration of how all the new hydro tracks in the National Park contribute to the world class visitor experience).
Comment: this is the same National Park that shut the Milarochy Launching pad without consultation just a few months ago.
Comment: last year (see here) the LLTNPA failed to respond to the reduction in cycle places on trains on the West Highland Line. Perhaps its now seen the light? The West Highland Line though needs more than promotion for people to use it. A timetable that worked for day visitors and a bus link for hillwalkers to the Arrochar Alps would be a start.
Comment: the reality is that there has been some (not much) public investment, much of which has been wasted (for example £150k to date on camping management signs), the toilets the Park operates are closed for much of the year and most of the excellent proposals in the Five Lochs Visitor Management Plan have been dropped (eg for new toilets, camping areas, litter bins and wood piles for people to use) without any public explanation.
Comment: the reality is the LLTNPA has a long history of failing to engage with recreational groups, who have been excluded from decision making processes. There is not a single proposal in the plan about how recreational and landscape interests could be given a real say in how the Park is run.
This heading is misleading, the content is about path provision. There are outdoor recreational opportunities everywhere, the issue is what infrastructure is needed to support this. There are some good practical proposals in this section – unlike most other sections of the plan – which are about what the LLTNPA will do over the next five years to improve the path network. Whether the investment is enough, however, is not considered – its not nearly enough – and all the financing is dependent on other bodies.
In my view what the plan should have done is evaluate the recreational infrastructure – is it sufficient to meet demand, what state is it in? – and then set out a case for what resources are needed. The Mountains for People project is great but it only tackles a small number of paths predominantly on publicly owned land. What is the LLTNPA going to do to address path erosion on other hills? Do the existing state management plans, which the LLTNPA has refused to release under FOI, contain any plans for paths? (see here) The NPPP gives a nod to the problem “finding long term solutions to ensure the existing network is maintained and promoted to a high standard” but contains no ideas let alone any proposals for how this might be addressed. How about a bed night tax as is common in the French National Parks? A small levy on overnight visitors would go a long way, as would car park charges if they were spent on paths rather than on trying to restrict access.
The absence of any context makes it hard to interpret the commitment to review core paths. Does the LLTNPA think these are sufficient or insufficient? We are given no idea. There should be a clear aspiration to increase the core path network.
This section lacks any concrete proposals. The spin, “Ensuring larger lochs are managed to support and facilitate both water craft and other recreational uses while maximising safety for all users” is contradicted by the the reality which includes the Milarrochy slipway on east Loch Lomond has been closed on spurious health and safety grounds (see here), the former access point for canoes at Loch Chon has been blocked off and the Loch Venachar Quay which was gifted to the people of Callander to enjoy boating (and which happens to be adjacent to Venachar House, home of former convener Linda Mackay) has been planted with trees. There is no analysis of why numbers of boats on Loch Lomond have dropped – the water byelaws are asserted to be a success – and no practical proposals to make access to the water easier. Instead the LLTNPA is focussing on supporting high profile mass events, such as swimming, which depend on volunteers from the boating community for stewarding. The Loch Lomond Association, which represents all water users on the Loch, is not included as a stakeholder – that says it all! The development of a meaningful plan should have started with the people who use the lochs (just as plans for camping should have started with the people who camp).
Priority action 1 says it all: “Encouraging and supporting new and established tourism businesses to innovate and collaborate to capitalise on growth markets………………”. The section then goes on to talk about “recreation activity offerings” and “accommodation offerings” and states the LLTNPA wishes to encourage private sector and other investment in facilitiies for motorhomes and lower cost accommodation. Nowhere does the Park set out what provision it sees as being needed or what investment might be required. That is another abdication of responsibility. The LLTNPA however apparently would prefer to leave not just delivery of facilities but also their planning to the market. Why have a NPPP or a National Park Authority if you don’t believe in planning?
This section states its about popular areas and management of visitor pressures but again is not based on any analysis. Its proposals show that the LLTNPA has learned nothing in the last two years from the criticisms of the camping byelaws.
The first priority action, which is the Park’s way of saying that it wants the camping byelaws to continue, is both meaningless and now defunct after the LLTNPA’s decision that it can no longer limit the number of campervans/motorhomes (see here): “Ensuring that the Camping Management Zones (WestLoch Lomond, Trossachs , Trossachs North and East Loch Lomond) support improvements to the environment and visitor experience through providing for sustainable levels of camping and motorhome use alongside other visitor activities.in the camping management zones
The second priority action “Agreeing an approach to ensuring the sustainable and responsible use of the Loch Lomond islands” is code for extending the camping byelaws to the Loch Lomond islands which the Board has already agreed in principle to look at. No evidence is provided to show that there is a problem that needs addressing and the failure of the LLTNPA to be open about this is another indictment of how it operates.
On the third priority action, while its a step forward that the LLTNPA has recognised the litter at the head of Loch Long as a problem that needs addressing (but if this, why not the litter along the A82 or fly tipping?), the inclusion of this action point under a section dealing with visitor management is incomprehensible. The litter at the head of Loch Long is not created by tourists but comes from the Clyde. The Park’s reference to “innovative solutions” is devoid of content and therefore meaningless – what’s needed are resources to clear up the mess.
The fourth priority on developing parking and traffic management measures appears to be “code” for the further introduction of car parking charges. There is nothing in the consultation asking what people think about this – another indication that this is not a proper consultation at all.
The actions in this section are again in my view meaningless. While the LLTNPA recognises that getting outdoors is good for people’s health and also its difficult for many people in the Clyde conurbation to get to the National Park, there is no analysis of how its existing visitor management measures have impacted on this (the camping bylaws hit the poorest most) and not a single proposal for how the LLTNPA could make the National Park more accessible (A contrast to the Cairngorms National Park Authority who, for example, recognised there are issues about who accesses outdoor education). The Park’s plan is to engage with health boards – is this really going to sort out the mess it has created? If the Park really wanted to encourage people it would not have constructed its new campsite at Loch Chon, only accessible by car. The LLTNPA claims the National Park offers a range of quality outdoor learning experiences, again with any analysis. The reality is that outdoor education provision has been hit hard by the cuts while organised groups like Duke of Edinburgh Award and the Scouts (which are working hard to welcome a wider range of young people) now face the bureaucratic rigmarole of having to apply for exemptions to the camping permit system. Judging by the number of such exemptions, most are voting with their feet.
Here, in a nutshell, is an alternative agenda for promoting understanding and recreation which depends on the National Park’s special qualities:
This is the first of a sequence of reports focused on access around Glen Finart in the Argyll Forest Park, which is part of the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park.
The path was a traditional route, and Right of Way, that has existed since at least the 1940’s, but possibly much longer.
An indication of the permanence and investment in the route, possibly dating back to when the bay was a camp used for training Beach Commandos, and subsequently by Forestry Workers recruited from the unemployed of Glasgow.
This can hardly be regarded as a dispensible‘desire line’ that does not need to be preserved if it causes inconvenience to felling operations.
The track is signposted, part of the core path network, and is the route from the bay carpark to Loch Goil, following the shore of Loch Long. It joins two communities.
The pedestrian sections are scenic, and relatively non-strenuous. It is a popular and historically important ‘transhumance’ route, that used to connect farms and holdings, now disappeared due to forestry operations.
The path ascends through pleasant natural woodland, and is well established but not over engineered and badly aligned as is the current practice. It has the gradient of a route that was used for carrying goods and probably used by pack animals.
Then this! Despite years of use and in an area of heavy rain, with almost no maintenance, it shows almost no sign of erosion. The resilience of the path testifies to the poor understanding of those responsible for aligning and constructing recreational paths today.
Leading to this. Over the years, I have cleared the path on a number of occasions of wind blow, minor obstructions arising from the growth of commercial forestry, and encroaching Rhododendron, but clearing this would be a monumental task.
And, to add insult to injury, this!
Needless to remark nothing has been done to clear the path, presumably its open for access, but users will need to clear the route and re-establish a viable track, as if it were merely a ‘desire line’.
There is no indication that the path will be reinstated, just that access will be restored, if one can find one’s way.
The scenic impact of the clearfell, with the progressive degradation of the landscape quality by the patchwork of ‘industrial’ forestry operations, that will continue as the cycle progresses. Scenes like this are very unusual in other Western European National Parks.
The Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Authority, as Access Authority, at the very least needs to ensure Forestry Commission Scotland restores this path.
That campsites can become “political” issues is demonstrated in Strathard where Fergus Wood, the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Authority Board Member, lost his Council seat on 4th May (see here). On 11th May he withdrew his planning application for a new campsite by the shores of Loch Ard on Ledard Farm (see here).
The day before I received a very interesting letter from the LLTNPA EIR 2017-039 Response Ledard farm refusing to disclose correspondence between the National Park and Fergus Wood about this application. The reasons cited for this are “commercial confidentiality” and data protection:
Note how the LLTNPA avoids saying whether the application contains personal information or commercial interests in this case. In fact, if there was personal information such as phone numbers on correspondence, normal practice is simply to redact this. Moreover, the fact there are commercial interests behind most planning applications is not the same as saying this is “commercial” information which might be exempt under our Freedom of Information laws. While the public may not expect every piece of correspondence they have with the National Park or other public authorities to be publicly available, Fergus Wood is not an ordinary member of the public but a Board Member. What should be important in terms of ethical standards in public life is there is complete transparency where Board Members make planning applications. Indeed the Scottish Government and Cosla has issued guidance on this http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0044/00444959.pdf.
While this statement was written about councillors taking the decision, rather than making an application, the principle should apply to both. Its quite clear the LLTNPA does not understand this at all:
“This individual would have had no expectation that correspondence regarding a proposed business development would be released into the public domain.”
The problem is there has been no transparency, Fergus Wood managed to fail to declare he was a Board Member when making the application, failed to engage with people (including neighbours who objected to the application) and he paid for this locally. Local people do not like the way this case has been handled. I am pretty certain the Park’s response to the information request will only make them even more suspicious should Fergus Wood submit a new application once he has stepped down from the LLTNPA Board.
There is a shortage of campsites in the National Park and, as been stated in previous posts, its positive that Fergus Wood, as a Board Member, has been prepared to cater for campers, if not in his backyard at least in view of his front garden.
The unprecedented number objections to this planning application can, I believe, be accounted for by the camping byelaws. The Friends of Loch Lomond and Trossachs, who rightly have long been arguing the need for new campsites across the National Park, in their letter of support for this application said they did so because it would make “a positive contribution to the Your Park Initiative”. The problem in Strathard, however, is “Your Park”, the contorted “vision” the LLTNPA has for camping.
As partial compensation for the camping ban across most of the lochshores in the National Park, the LLTNPA needed to show it was doing something. It therefore promised 300 new places to Scottish Ministers but to help meet this promised decided with Forestry Commission Scotland to develop a campsite on Loch Chon, a little further west along Strathard, where very few people had previous camped. The local community made representations about people being encouraged into the area without suitable infrastructure (the narrow road, supervision of the campsite etc) which the LLTNPA in its usual way said would all be addressed. What’s become clear in the last couple of months is that most of the re-assurances the LLTNPA made about that development are meaningless: the Park has failed to adhere to its own planning conditions and just a couple of weeks ago I found out that the warden appointed to supervise the site had left and a Ranger was driving in each day, a one hour trip, to manage the campsite (and presumably provide the bottled water which was needed because the water supply had failed – as predicted (see here).
So, the context to the large number of planning objections to the Ledard Farm campsite was that local people were worried that large numbers of irresponsible campers – and the LLTNPA has spent the last three years selling a myth to local communities that campers account for all the ills in the National Park – would all end up around Kinlochard at the Loch Chon and Ledard farm campsites. These places being where people could still camp in the National Park and far more attractive for camping than the “permit zones” on Forest Drive (see here). Had Fergus Wood taken up local concerns about the Loch Chon proposal, and used these to inform his own proposals, he might have avoided the backlash. Like other Board Members, however, it appears he had become complacent because all the complaints to the Scottish Government had fallen on deaf ears and he therefore believed the National Park could continue to bulldoze through whatever it liked. He had forgotten about democracy, the unfair consequence of which in this case is only that the Tory Councillor and LLTNPA Board Member Martin Earl, who like Fergus Wood endorsed the ill-thought out Loch Chon campsite, appears to have benefitted at the SNP’s expense.
Despite this context, very few of the objections to the Ledard campsite application (see here) appeared based on NIMBYISM and most in my view were well argued. Here are some of the main points made:
What the objections add up to is that this was a tourist development in the wrong place – I have to say that I tend to agree. While in many ways the planning application was positive (provision for staff to stay on site) it was still a development and would have introduced a high profile building close to the lochshore in a open situation:
There are plenty of better places for campsites in Strathard and if, as is rumoured, Fergus Wood intends to re-submit a planning application for a campsite once he has stood down from the LLTNPA Board, location will be all important. I would hope that both recreational and local interests would welcome a campsite in the right place.
While Fergus Wood’s proposed campsite has created massive controversy, on the other side on Ben Venue, the LLTNPA consented on 3rd May to a small new campsite at Trossachs Pier, at the east end of Loch Katrine, just outside the camping management zone (see here for planning application). There were just two representations against the proposal demonstrating that local communities are not against all developments, but this one is small and located in woodland. It includes water and electric hook ups and an effluent disposal point for campervans in the car park, upgrade of public toilets to include shower/wet room, 8 low cost camping pitches and 8 camping pods.
The trustees of the SS Walter Scott (who include the chair of Friends of Loch Lomond and Trossachs, James Fraser, who like me is on the Committee of the Scottish Campaign for National Parks), who made the application, have developed the proposal from its initial concept in a short period of time and also raised the funds to build it. This puts the LLTNPA to shame and highlights their failure to deliver all the basic campsites they had promised to deliver in the Trossachs as part of the 5 Lochs Management Plan (which now effectively appears to have been dumped) (see here)
There is now the potential to develop a network of small campsites around Loch Katrine and Strathard which would enable people to make more use of the cycling and walking routes there.
The path which was created to connect Inversnaid to Stronachlachar Pier, at the west end of Loch Katrine, is sadly unused and the camping byelaws (which takes in all the land between the path and the Loch despite the small numbers of people who ever camped here – its even more remote than Loch Chon) make it useless for backpackers who don’t want to risk becoming criminals. Meantime while Stronachlachar Pier is just outwith the camping management zone, campers are not welcome:
While this is yet another unlawful no camping sign in the National Park, the request is not unreasonable. What is needed is a sign which directs people to a good camping spot locally.
If there was a small basic campsite at Stronlachar or Loch Arklet, this would create a network of campsites in the west Trossachs (in addition to those at Trossachs Pier, Loch Chon and maybe in future Ledard Farm) which would allow lots of opportunities for short backpacking and cycle tours, for example at weekends. In my view that is what the National Park should be about and I would hope that people in the local community would agree.
The basic problem in Strathard is that the LLTNPA has tried to impose ill-thought out proposals which suit its agend but no-one else. Fergus Wood has paid a price for that. Strathard was never included in the 5 Lochs Management Plan but I believe what is needed first and foremost is a visitor management plan for the whole area. Unfortunately, the LLTNPA instead of building on the work for the rest of the Trossachs started by Grant Moir, now Chief Executive of the Cairngorms National Park Authority, Kevin Findlater, former Chief Inspector with the police and others, has let that go and has nothing to replace it. Visitor Infrastructure and management is therefore a shambles with all resources being diverted to policing the unenforceable camping byelaws.
The way forward therefore is the creation of a stakeholder group for Strathard – which in my view should be independent of the Park Authority who at present cannot be trusted on anything but be supported by it (in terms of staff time and resources) – whose mission should be to develop a plan for Strathard. Such a group needs to consider the infrastructure and other issues identified by local residents as well as wider interests.
I would hope that such a plan included the following as starters:
The Cairngorms National Park announced last week it has won a planning quality award for the extension of the Speyside Way from Aviemore to Kincraig (http://cairngorms.co.uk/planning-award-for-speyside-way-extension/):
“The judges praised the Park Authority for its partnership working, community consultation and sheer determination over a decade to develop the best off road route to connect Aviemore to Kincraig.
This included the first use of a Path Order in Scotland to secure rights to develop the path on the preferred route”
I think the staff involved do need congratulating on their persistence but the time taken to deliver this path and the walking experience demonstrate that our access legislation is still very weak when it comes to creating new paths and that our landowners still have far too much power. The basic problem was that the Kinrara Estate objected to the Speyside Way crossing its land, even under an electricity wayleave, and it required two consultations in 2005 and 2007, approvement in principle by Scottish Ministers in 2009, then a path order which required a public inquiry before being approved in June 2012. Three and a quarter years later the extension opened in September 2015.
No wonder the Ramblers Association cited the Speyside Way extension in its submission to the Land Reform Review Group in 2013 in the part of its submission which dealt with “Failure to expand path networks”:
“While core paths plans are now drawn up, that does not mean they are being
implemented on the ground – and core paths comprise just a small proportion of the
entire path network. As noted above, access authorities seem reluctant to use the
powers they have within the Act, and this includes powers to use compulsory purchase
or path orders. Just one path order has been used in Scotland, to extend the Speyside
Way, and this followed many years of fruitless discussion with the landowner
concerned. Much time is spent on negotiating with landowners across Scotland who
are resistant to public access, with the public becoming increasingly frustrated with
plans for path networks that they have helped to develop but which produce no change
on the ground. It is inconceivable that transport departments would spend so long
negotiating routes for new roads and yet paths do not have the same status despite
potentially being of huge public benefit.”
Now I don’t believe the ten year delay in getting the path off the ground was either the fault of SNH (who had started on plan for the path) or the Cairngorms National Park Authority who took on the work c2009. However, neither highlighted the case to the Land Reform Review Group (indeed from a trawl through the responses the CNPA did not even make a response). I think this is wrong. Our National Parks should be trailblazing when it comes to new paths and if they do not have sufficient powers to do this effectively they should be highlighting the issues to the Scottish Government.
The extension also raises significant issues in relating to the quality of the walking experience which the CNPA has simply not mentioned. Indeed in their news section they claim “we built the path on the best route for both visitors and local communities”. That is a matter of opinion but I think if the CNPA asked the public they would disagree. As one foreign visitor said, the trouble with the Speyside Way is that it avoids the river and this is very true of the new section. Of the c8 kilometres of new path, only c2 km, near Kincraig, are by the Spey.
The problem was and still is that the Kinrara Estate did not want people walking along the river, despite having a right to do so, or Bogach, the loch north of the Duke of Gordon’s monument which is a great place to watch ospreys fishing. Unfortunately our public authorities were not strong enough to stand up to the estate and the result is the Speyside Way avoids all the best things places to visit in the area. A missed opportunity. I would advise anyone who wants to experience the best that Speyside has to offer should find their own route rather than follow the Speyside Way until close to Speybank.
Apart from the route it takes, the path provides a good illustration of a number of access issues.
Our access legislation means that people can walk the Speyside Way extension and all the land around it whether the landowner agrees or not. Unfortunately the CNPA had not for whatever reason managed to get the owner of this wood or the Forestry Commission to remove this sign which is not compliant with the Scottish Outdoor Access Code.
Despite my criticisms, the extension is a new path and that is a plus. I think it is important though the CNPA does not in any way suggest that the Speyside Way is the only or main walking route between Aviemore and Kincraig. I would suggest the CNPA:
I also suspect that if the CNPA had treated organisations representing recreational users, Ramblers, cyclists and horseriders as true partners, many of the problems with this path could have been avoided. The Ramblers, for example, have long campaigned again signage such as is evident on the Speyside Way extension and I believe if they had been involved it would not have been tolerated.
I walked over Morrone from Corriemulizie by Braemar last Monday on a showery day. What I saw got me thinking about what the draft Cairngorms Partnership Plan said about paths and tracks. The public consultation on this ended officially this weekend but people can continue to influence this.
The plan says nothing about the state of hill tracks in the mountains in the National Park, although we know this of concern to the Cairngorms National Park Authority because their planning committee has agreed some (limited) action to ensure new hill tracks meet minimum standards, most recently on the Dinnet Estate. There is nothing however in the Plan about the potential to reduce the visual impact of existing hill tracks. Whereas 20 years ago there was a recognition serious mistakes had been made in constructing tracks into our mountains, which led to the programme of track removal by the National Trust for Scotland on Mar Lodge, the issue now appears to have disappeared from the National Park’s agenda. The arguments for action are I believe as strong now as they were then.
Standards of construction continue to be very poor. Behind the now useless drainage pipe, on the col below Morrone, you can see where material from the tracks has washed out over the moor.
Descending Morrone to Braemar the top section of the hill path has turned into a broad erosion scar whose visual impact is as great as the hill track. Unlike hill tracks though at least there is a programme to improve the condition of hill paths in the National Park through the Mountains and People Project.
There are well tested techniques that can fix this type of erosion scar, which involve creating a better surface for walking, restoration of vegetation and designing the path so people do not walk across the vegetation in future. You can see the outcome of such techniques lower down the hill where path repair work has been undertaken.
Unfortunately, the CNPA draft Partnership Plan, while supportive the Mountains for People project, does not appear to accept that the state of our hills paths should be a core responsibility of the National Park. There is NO analysis of the state of the path network in the hills or of how much investment is needed to bring them up to and maintain them in an acceptable condition. Now, I am delighted that the Cairngorms Outdoor Access Trust has got funds to repair hill paths through the Mountains and People Project but, to take the Morrone example, its unclear if this is part of the programme (I could not find a list of the hills included on the COAT, Mountains for People or CNPA websites).
And that’s the point, the National Park should have an inventory of all the eroded paths in the National Park and a plan of how it will address these. This, along with its failure to have any plan to reduce the visual impact of hill tracks, is I believe a major omission from the draft Partnership Plan. Without such a plan, there is a real risk is that the people being trained up through the Mountains and People project will have no jobs to go to – there needs to be a long-term vision and programme to sustain jobs. Part of this could include estates being required to use the expertise of the Cairngorms Outdoor Access Trust and its small workforce to repair all the damage that has been caused through the bulldozing of hill tracks. There is a real opportunity here for our National Parks to take a lead and demonstrate best practice and I hope the CNPA take up this challenge in the final version of the Partnership Plan.