Last week I wrote to Charlotte Wright, Chief Executive of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, welcoming HIE’s recognition of the need for investment in new ski infrastructure at Cairn Gorm but suggesting it was now time for them to step aside and let others develop a new plan. Unfortunately HIE’s pronouncements about their new vision for Cairn Gorm (see here), as quoted in the press last week, suggest this is unlikely to happen and that they are digging an even bigger hole for themselves. This post looks at the issues.
The first is that HIE cannot be trusted. This is well demonstrated once again at the end of the extract from the Strathy above where Susan Smith says some of the current lifts in Coire Cas will be replaced but “was unable to say which ones“. Here is HIE’s spokesperson totalling contradicting the plans as shown in HIE’s Video and Executive summary (link above). This clearly show all the current uplift in Coire Cas, with the exception of the Shieling tow, being removed. HIE would appear to have no regard for the truth.
Threats and bullying
Susan Smith, head of HIE business development is also quoted as saying “at the centre of this needs to be buy-in from stakeholders and the local community”. So everyone has to buy-in to HIE’s top down plan for Cairngorm, whatever that is – it appears to change from day to day – without any proper debate or consultation? Why? This is a sure way to waste another £27m at Cairn Gorm.
As an illustration of just how divorced HIE is from local opinion, at the Aviemore and Glenmore Community Trust’s AGM and open meeting on 8th November a member of the audience questioned HIE ruling out redevelopment of Coire na Ciste. This was then put to a show of hands and those in favour of re-developing Coire na Ciste first, before any new developments in Coire Cas, vastly outnumbered those supporting HIE’s proposals.
The Strathy article has done the public an enormous service by making clear that HIE has decided on one “set course” and are hell bent on following it: “But it appears that there would have to be very persuasive arguments to now veer from this set course”. So, what persuasive arguments have HIE made for their ill-thought out and inappropriate proposals for zip-wires and mountain roller coasters?
What needs to happen at Cairn Gorm is a bottom up plan, starting with the local community and stakeholders. People should not accept HIE’s bullying approach.
HIE and the SE Group Report
HIE’s claim to the Press and Journal (left) that the SE Group Review into ski infrastructure at Cairngorm is still in draft form and therefore cannot be released beggars belief. The SE Group submitted a draft copy of their report back in June as required by the tender. That same tender required the successful bidder to “Finalise report with preferred prioritised option(s) and recommendations and submit to HIE by THE END OF SEPTEMBER 2018 (HIE’s emphasis)”. If SE Group missed that deadline – it appears unlikely, they are a professional organisation – why not say so? The evidence suggests HIE may be trying to hide what SE Group really said
Isn’t it amazing that HIE can publish an ill-thought out vision for Cairn Gorm, any change from which they claim would need persuasive arguments, when they have NOT published the report on which their own vision is allegedly based?
Note too how HIE “do HOPE to publish the full report in due course” . If there had been a valid reason for not publishing the report, the honest thing to do would be to explain why and then commit to publishing the report.
Instead, HIE claims that some information may need to be withheld on grounds of commercial confidentiality. This is another smokescreen. They have had since June to identify what, if any, information might be commercially sensitive but amazingly have still not identified what this is.
The so-called “commercial” information most likely to be in the report is the current cost to Natural Retreats of operating and maintaining the infrastructure at Cairn Gorm. There is a very strong argument that this is not sensitive because it relates to infrastructure that the PUBLIC still own – Natural Retreats role is to operate it – and with a twenty-five year lease Cairngorm Mountain Ltd has no competitors. Its also needed to inform any future investment decisions from the public purse. Its in the public interest therefore to make it available yet HIE appears to want to do otherwise. Why?
HIE’s attempts to manipulate organisations and processes
The public should be sceptical that Highland Council, the CNPA, SNH and Forest Enterprise Scotland have all signed up to the vision “as a sensible approach for the way forward” as Susan Smith has claimed. Have Board Members and Councillors considered the proposals in secret? I doubt it. This looks like another attempt by HIE to try and bounce agencies into agreeing anything on the promise of money and as an attempt to address the current crisis at Cairn Gorm caused by its failure to maintain the funicular properly.
HIE is quite blatant in its disregard for local communities. Who are “the right community representatives”? Once again HIE decides who it will speak to and who will be excluded from processes. I find this chilling, an example of what could best be described as corporate fascism.
Funding HIE’s vision – the role of “Natural Retreats”
“Quizzed on their (Natural Retreats) funding role she (Susan Smith) said there had been no talks with them yet”.
This revelation from the Strathy is quite extraordinary. Four years ago when HIE appointed “Natural Retreats” to run CairnGorm Mountain Ltd it was claimed they would bring £6.2m in new investments in the first five years (see here). Now, HIE, launches a new £27m vision, in which it promises significant public investment, and it has not even asked Natural Retreats, what they will contribute. While this is a tacit admission that neither CML, nor their owners the Natural Assets Investment Ltd, are in a position to contribute anything it is fundamentally wrong. Natural Retreats were appointed in preference to local organisations on the basis they would bring investment to Cairn Gorm. Its been abundantly clear for two years that they can’t do this and HIE should not be allowing them to remain on the mountain to profit from future public investments
What’s going wrong is demonstrated by the temporary Planning Application that a Ms Sinead Mulvenney lodged with Highland Council at the beginning of November (see here).
There is a fundamental question about fair treatment of operators at different ski resorts which HIE needs to address. They appear to be funding the entire cost of two machines at Cairn Gorm, without even asking Natural Retreats for a contribution, when they have awarded just £200k to the Lecht ski company towards the cost of one machine (see here). The HIE press release (see here) does not make it clear who will own the new machines. Perhaps, HIE will retain ownership but if so why haven’t they offered this option to the other ski resorts and on what basis are they allowing Natural Retreats to use the machines (eg will the rent Natural Retreats pay increase?).
There are other issues. Its extraordinary that the Planning Application is in the name of an individual, albeit one giving the same address as Natural Retreats in Wilmslow, Cheshire. There is no indication of what organisation, if any, is making the application. At best this shows incompetence and at worst invalidates the application. While the section on the landowner’s consent appears to have been completed, its been redacted. Why? HIE who are a public body own the site so why cannot their information be made public.
Contrary to the claim in the Application NO evidence has been provided that the trial last winter was a success. HIE has withheld the results of that trial. The evidence from Cairn Gorm, however, suggests that, unlike the other ski areas, the trial there was far from successful and the machinery was out of operation for much of the time. HIE however simply allows the spin to continue without any proper investigation of Natural Retreat’s competence to run the resort or adherence to the terms of the lease.
All of this begs the question as to why any philanthropic investor would want to come to the aid of Cairn Gorm, as suggested by Susan Smith, when its run by HIE and “Natural Retreats”.
What needs to happen
The standard of HIE’s stewardship of Cairn Gorm and their ability to engage properly with stakeholders is completely unacceptable. If HIE are not prepared to leave the mountain voluntarily, retaining financial liability for all the mistakes they have made and the costs of rectifying them, the Minister responsible, Fergus Ewing, needs to instruct them to do so. Sooner rather than later.
It is good that HIE have identified the need to spend £27 million on Cairn Gorm to support active outdoor recreation activities. It is also good that they now recognise that the main function of the funicular is to support passive recreation – primarily coach parties and family groups who want to enjoy a ride on a railway, a nice view and perhaps a shopping, eating and drinking experience. The plan to spend so much public money, however, needs to start from stakeholder dialogue to identify exactly what facilities are needed where. The proposed chairlifts, for example are not in the best locations on the hill while the zip wire needs to be mainly in the forest zone below the car parks, as indicated in the HIE video which accompanies the plans. Stakeholder engagement needs to be as proposed by the Forestry Commission in their 2006 proposal to regain ownership of the upper slopes from HIE : http://cairngorms.co.uk/resource/docs/boardpapers/03112006/CNPA.Paper.1676.Board.Board.Paper.4.C.pdf. This paper explains how to engage local and national interests in the strategic and operational management of the HIE land. These arrangements need to be put in place NOW by Scottish Ministers BEFORE HIE spends any more public money on the mountain.
Dave – god to read something constructive. Getting a bit tired of Parkswatch’s relentlessly negative and accusatory coverage. Spending £27 million of (public?) money is a big deal and shows HIE are committed to maintaining winter sports on Cairngorm and wider Spey Valley. The funicular may have been a mistake (though built for understandable reasons) but still capable of contributing valuable income to the hill. The challenge now is to make the most of new uplift and ensure local knowledge is utilised to maximise the capacity of those lifts. I have my own reservation about the M1 replacement terminating above the Ptarmigan and being subject to wind related closures. But technology may have improved and there is an opportunity to utilise new innovation (such as heated seating!). I feel now is the time for the Scottish ski community to pull together and improve facilities rather than nurse old grievances.
I agree with much of what you say Peter but I can’t agree that Parks Watch have been relentlessly negative given the behaviour of HIE over the last couple of decades with regard to Cairngorm. This latest piece of work by SE Group is a case in point. We were told before the much-anticipated report came out that it was to be a review of the skiing infra-stucture – presumably to decide on the best way forward. No surprise that it was a very expensive US consultancy company, SE Group, that was chosen; surprising however, that no local views were sought by SE Group. The HIE version of the report suggests that SE have no real understanding of either the weather or how the hill actually works from the skier perspective. The actual suggestions resemble nothing more than the results of a brain-storming session involving any of us in the pub – although the roller coaster is a bit far out for most of us and we wouldn’t remove the surface lifts, obviously. One notable example of SE’s lack of understanding in the report refers to some skiers using the overflow parking at the Ciste during busy periods. Clearly their researchers were never there at those busy periods to witness the queues or the bus and the misery of families trying to manage kids, gear, no toilets, freezing cold. Remember the year when people had to wait well over an hour in -11C for the bus? The Ciste was almost casually dismissed by SE and the reasons given were entirely wrong. The Ciste was never used to allow access to the hill when the road was closed. There is absolutely no need to duplicate all the Cas facilities there a SE stated. In fact, as more experienced skiers prefer to use the Ciste corridor for access, crowding would be reduced at the Cas access point for beginners and non-skiers. However, having basic facilities re-established at the Ciste carpark has to be a top priority regardless of whether the direct access to the hill is ever re-built – as it should be. Unfortunately, HIE likes big, sexy projects which help it to meet its own targets so turning Cairngorm into a giant fairground ride will always be more seductive to them than listening to locals telling them that we need toilets and uplift and access to some decent skiing. Thanks for all your efforts Parkswatch
Hi Peter, thanks for your comment. Parkswatch tries to be critical rather than negative and is inspired by the idea that positive change is possible – I am sorry if that has not come across. There is I believe every reason to be sceptical about HIE’s pronouncements and while I have welcomed a commitment to £27m investment on Speyside, there are some serious questions to be asked why when £4m was the limit of plans just a few months ago how one report, without any public consultation, has suddenly caused HIE to say £27m is needed. That is a huge jump and given the timing, with the funicular not operating, you wonder whether this is not just another attempt to blind people with so much money they won’t argue. Its for reasons like this that I think HIE need to be removed from managing the hill – I strongly believe that skiers should be leading on the ski infrastructure needed and should also be managing the ski lifts (which means that Natural Retreats need to be removed from the hill too). Once HIE and Natural Retreats are removed, there is huge potential at Cairn Gorm