Looking back on my long involvement in conflicts on Cairn Gorm what always strikes me is that the main cause has not be tensions between landuses but simple incompetence – particularly by HIDB/HIE. Now Highlands and Islands Enterprise is having to take over a bankrupt company running the facility for the second time and there is a proposal for a further “investment” of £27 million, ignoring the £1 million recently spent on a snowmaking machine. Does this not bring things to the point where a long step back is needed to consider the situation more widely than HIE’s scrabbling around within its repeated crisis?.
The first area of conflict was erosion and flash flooding, which last increased greatly on Cairn Gorm, twice taking out the road bridge over the Cas. On the first time the flash flood came within seconds of causing multiple fatalities. This was all caused by handling a sensitive mountain environment as if it was a builders’ yard and much pressure was brought to bear by NGOs and others to contain this problem! The current cost of ground repairs etc? Unknown.
The proposal for western expansion into the Northern Corries and Lurchers Gully was against the advice of the then manager of the chairlift company Bob Clyde who wanted to expand east, but Highlands and Islands Development Board reps insisted. This major conflict produced a six week public inquiry at great cost. The proposed development was turned down by the reporter on grounds of impacts on landscape and other recreations. But substantial evidence on the lousy snowholding of the corries, misdesign of the access road, misunderstanding of the traffic capacities etc etc, showed it had been a totally impractical proposal from the start. Its refusal very likely saved the chairlift company from bankruptcy.
The user figures forecast for the funicular were very doubtful from the start, but informed criticism was ignored while much silly hype on a “World Class Experience” on Cairn Gorm was pursued by HIE. Again, it caused a major conflict.
Cost of construction soared from just over £14 million to £19.1 million but this was only part of a wider redevelopment. Included in the total must be a further £1 million for the interpretive centre (a loan from Highland Regional Council that had to be largely written off) and £3.6 million for HIDB to buy the Daylodge from the chairlift company to give it some working capital. It is difficult to accurately measure the overall losses of the eight years of the new chairlift company for these included costs other than those it had incurred but it was about £16-20 million. The admission by the then HIDB that the operation could not provide an economic rent and the reduction in rent from £500,000 to £100,000 meant most future maintenance costs would have to be picked up by HIDB/HIE – i.e .the public purse!
It is no surprise that Cairngorm Mountain Ltd under Natural Retreats also operated at a loss. HIE had spent £1.5 million of staff time on the operation during the eight years of the previous Chairlift Company, £75,000 of that on economic consultants looking for ways to run the operation more cheaply. The answer seems to have been there wasn’t any way to make much savings. How then can any future company operate at other than a loss without sustained financial support/subsidy from HIE?
Surely it is time to come to a major final decision about the whole operation on Cairn Gorm within a broad context:-
- The welfare of the local economy (the social and other benefits to downhill skiers never quite gets a mention). How can the operation be made sustainable for the local community and for the enjoyment of skiers?
- The whole Glenmore area including its diverse recreational and biodiversity assets.
- Other ski developers who have to compete with this massively subsidised competitor.
- The Cairngorms National Park. Effective conservation of protected mountain massifs like the Cairngorms depends largely on the management of development pressures around them. A margin of surrounding foothills to adsorb some pressures is key and the Cairngorms have that except at Glenmore where direct access to the core is provided. The pressures created by the continuing development of Aviemore/An Camus Mor at this critical point is increasingly creating a classic problem in National Park management.
- The wider Highlands and Islands Community which HIE is meant to serve. If large amounts of money are disappearing down a bottomless pit on Cairn Gorm, it cannot be spent on other communities – so who or where is losing out as a result?
- The national community. At a time of austerity, when we increasingly can hardly properly finance children’s’ education or hospitals etc, should we be pouring £27 million etc down the financial hole on Cairn Gorm?
Time for a decision? The costs of removal of the funicular may be horrendous, but the costs of maintaining it and indeed any operating company seem substantial and endless.
Once the report on the repairs of the funicular is published, this would be the right time for local community interests and the wider environmental and recreational interests to put their heads together.
Bang on. HIEs funciular obsession caused this mess. Their obsession to justify millions previously spent on the choo-choo is out of control. The inherent problem with the funicular is that the closed system inherently limits repeat summer custom for 8 months of the year.
The closed system has nothing to do with the financial non viability of the funicular. Tourism experts (David Hayes, David Pattison etc) and development/skiing experts (Alan Blackshaw etc) had already demonstrated that the funicular project was commercially unviable before HIE proposed the closed system. The financial justification for the funicular project was based on fairy stories told by the HIE consultants. You are correct, however, about the HIE “obsession”, so clearly demonstrated by the statements made by Fraser Morrison (Chairman of HIE at the same time as being Head of Morrison Construction, when the funicular project was proposed) and his Chief Executive, Iain Robertson. Soon after HIE awarded the contract to build the funicular to Morrison Construction their CEO, Robertson, left HIE and became a Morrison Construction staff member. Some might think a stronger word than “obsession” is needed to describe the origin of the funicular.
In the 33 months to 31 December 2017 CML lost £2.6 million – an average of £80,000 a month. HIE does not have that sort of money, neither does any Trust and a commercial operation wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole. I don’t have a solution.
But a large reason for the loss was a huge increase in administration charges. If Natural Retreats were charging £80 an hour for a service that previously cost £20 an hour that could explain most of the loss. Unfortunately HIE has refused to look at whether the internal charges between the Natural Retreats group of companies were reasonable or not. Maybe they were but we know three of the Directors of the UK Great Travel Company received £100k fees for the last financial year for which accounts have been produced. That money was coming from somewhere. The first thing that needs to be done in looking at the future is to work out accurately what the reasonable costs of running various “facilities” at Cairngorm – some might be viable, others not.
Oh and the removal of the funicular would trigger the repayment of the EU grant.
With respect to the competition for other ski areas, that is not a big problem at the moment as CairnGorm has been so badly run in the last few years the customers have been driven to the other ski areas. However I agree that HIE throwing money at CairnGorm without providing investment to the other ski areas is grossly unfair and anti competitive. I also worry that HIE will waste the money it does spend at CairnGorm. Past experience suggests that it will as it clearly hasn’t listened to advice from informed locals in the past and I doubt it will in the future.
The financial disaster on Cairn Gorm has been caused by the planning conditions which required a closed system, which was tantamount to sabotaging success of the funicular railway. I have been fighting the closed system since the start with no success. Those making the decisions were unable to make fair and balanced decision, as required by the planning process. Letting over 200000 people a year, 3.4 million people since the funicular opened, leave the carpark and enter the Special Area of Conservation (SAC) within 100 metres and not let users out at the Ptarmigan Station, where the SAC is not entered until over the summit of Cairngorm, is crazy. It would be impossible to identify any damage caused by an open system with that amount of people leaving the car park. That alone must question the credibility of decision makers and some conservationists.
The law changed in 2005 when the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 (the Act) came into force. The Visitor Management Plan (VMP), in my opinion, is in conflict with the Act and has been illegal since 2005. There is no difference in catching a bus from Aviemore to the carpark than catching a train from the carpark to the Ptarmigan Station. The Act doesn’t apply to entering the train, you pay. However, the Act applies to leaving it.
I refer to this extract from Reference A- Chapter 5 .
14 Prohibition signs, obstructions, dangerous impediments etc.
(1)The owner of land in respect of which access rights are exercisable shall not, for the purpose or for the main purpose of preventing or deterring any person entitled to exercise these rights from doing so—
(a) put up any sign or notice;
(b) put up any fence or wall, or plant, grow or permit to grow any hedge, tree or other vegetation;
(c) position or leave at large any animal;
(d) carry out any agricultural or other operation on the land; or
(e) take, or fail to take, any other action.
Allowing the young and fit people to walk from the car park and not allowing our valuable tourists and the elderly egress from the Ptarmigan Station would appear to be against the law. In fact, I think it is in conflict with the concept of non-discrimination.
The Act doesn’t specify where access can be taken from. The land outside the Ptarmigan is land that has the right of access under the act.
To put Natura 2000 sites into perspective. 39% of the Cairngorms National Park is covered by EU designations. I notice there are no restrictions anywhere in the CNPA area, except for the Funicular Railway. In addition, there are 258 Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) in Scotland, and, with the exception of access being denied to certain sites on Military establishments, I am not aware of any which restrict walkers on the grounds of conservation. The unprotected land surrounding the Ptarmigan station, has a right of responsible access. In addition, so do the EU designated areas.
I wish to see Cairngorm become a visitor attraction that we can all be proud of. At this time it is a financial disaster area that has cost the public purse £35 million. Over the years these restrictions have successfully sabotaged what should be a first class visitor attraction and any hope of improving skiing facilities. Removing the closed system may allow the facility to become profitable.
The CNPA are the access authority and in my opinion they and their cohorts have been circumventing the act since 2005.
Hi Ray, I have pointed out on several occasions on this blog now that a right of access is not the same as a right of egress and you do not have a right of egress from buildings or other structures (otherwise you could pull the cord on the train as it passes through Drumochter and jump out the train onto the land where access rights applies). You have never answered this but keep on maintaining the restrictions are contrary to access rights. I believe you have got this totally wrong which is why its not surprising your argument in this respect has got nowhere in 20 years. On your other points, HIE totally inflated the expected visitor numbers under the proposed system – when they realised they could not get out of that system they should have abandoned the funicular but instead refused to change course. Nick
I’m not sure that is a good analogy. If a train stops at a station there is nothing to stop you getting out at the station even if your ticket says your going all the way to the terminus. I don’t think CML can actually stop you exiting the Ptarmigan, what they can do is refuse you carriage back down as you have broken the terms and conditions you signed up to when purchasing a funicular ticket. Personally I think the VMP is stupid for the reason Ray mentions – to get to the SAC from the Ptarmigan is a reasonable hike, most people in summer aren’t going to go beyond the summit which is outwith the SAC, yet you can walk into the SAC along the northern corries path from the Cas carpark practically straight from leaving the car park (as AFAIR the SAC starts just beyond the fence line at the Faicail ridge run)
Yes, this is a correct interpretation of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. There is nothing in law to stop anyone exiting the top station – the only sanction is for the funicular operating company to refuse further travel on the funicular because there has been a breach of the conditions of carriage.
There is no chance that the removal of the closed system would lead to the funicular becoming commercially viable. It was demonstrated to be non viable before the closed system was proposed by HIE. Today, the key requirement is to develop a new chairlift system which gives access to the Ptarmigan bowl, at a lower altitude, for snowsport participants, mountain bikers and walkers. This must be an open system with no restrictions, summer or winter. The present proposals from HIE will not meet these requirements.
Nick
Your response was just as I expected. Absolutely, no attempt to justify the closed system.
Cairngorm staff have never had any legal authority to stop people leaving the Ptarmigan. They rely on passive public doing as they are told. Thanks to Dave H and Dave Morris for agreeing with my interpretation.
HIE spent 8 years trying to sell the Cairngorm Estate in the early years and were unsuccessful. Reason again is the planning condition. If the railway closes for 3 years the owners have to remove it. The owners do not have to remove any of the ski infrastructure. So the funicular will never close.
I re-emphasize the VMP is in conflict with The Land Reform Act (Scotland) 2003 and has been since 2005.
Whenever, the funicular opens again it will continue to be a financial disaster if the closed system is not removed.
My understanding is that the Forestry Commission were trying to get the land transferred back to themselves but backed off in the end because HIE were trying to shift all of the financial liability for the funicular onto the Commission. They should try again, now, in cooperation with community right to buy interests, so that HIE is no longer in control of future investment decisions on the mountain. I see no possibility of the closed system being removed – it was a condition of the EC grant aid as well as being a key planning condition – and an open system would not bring in sufficient extra revenue to resolve the continuing financial crisis that afflicts the mountain. Neither would it result in any improvement to its current use (as an open system) in the winter season, unless it was run at its design speed which has not happened so far in its first 17 years of operation! We need to accept that the summer operation of the funicular will continue primarily as a facility for passive outdoor recreation enjoyment but with new uplift facilities built to meet the potential for a wide range of active outdoor recreation activities. If we focus attention on the closed system it will divert political attention away from the need for substantial investment in new uplift facilities (chairlifts, primarily) and allow the politicians to delude themselves into thinking that such new investment is not needed and they can save a load of additional public money by just tweaking the closed system instead. The funicular closure is a 2018/19 crisis, but we should not throw away the opportunity that is just around the corner for major investment in new facilities that will bring long term benefit.
Ray, if you re-read my past responses you will see that I have never claimed that staff have legal authority to stop people leaving the Ptarmigan as you say here. Please don’t put words into my mouth. If you step outside the funicular building you enjoy all the rights of the Land Reform Act just as you did if you push open the fire door of a supermarket and step into the field outside. That does not mean you have the legal right to push open that door. When you enter a supermarket or the railway or the funicular you do so on the terms of the person/entity who controls that building and sometimes, as at Cairngorm, planning conditions and legal agreements are put in place to determine how that building is used. That has nothing to do with the Land Reform Act. I was not trying to comment on the merit or otherwise of the Closed System, only your continued claims that it is unlawful under the Land Reform Act. If you are so certain, try a bit of crowd funding and take it to Court. I predict that you would lose a lot of money in legal costs. Nick
Let’s get back to reality – closed system or not. We’ve had a decade or so of vast sums of public money subsidising ill-conceived investment and, certainly in the last four years, of an operating company being permitted by HIE to milk out the little cash flow coming from the operation of the funicular. Now that the lack of maintenance, in combination with what seems to be bad design and build, is catching up, we are facing further massive public funded subsidies to keep the failed project of the funicular going.
Ludicrously, HIE just wants to compound the failure by rushing into a hurriedly complied ‘vision’ of the future. I fully agree with Drennan Watson’s conclusions.
One further thought in the midst of all the Brexit/Remainer melee, it is my reading of the EU State Aid rules, that the majority of the crazy ideas being put forward by HIE would be in breach of these EU State Aid rules – if publicly funded.
To deal with Ray Sefton’s issue of the closed system, the assertion that provision of open access at the top would have made the funicular financially viable is fantasy. The scale of losses etc provided by Dave Morris and G Jewson between them have made that clear but there is plenty of other financial evidence that confirms this. The funicular was never going to cover costs and it didn’t. We discussed the campaign to give open access with Bob Kinnaird when he was the manager and he explained that they received rather few requests by visitors to exit the facilities. It was clear that the campaign to open the system, to them, was at best a distraction and at worst something of an embarrassment.
However two other aspects re open access also need considered. Firstly, the access legislation does not simply permit access – but responsible access. A key issue is that too much access can damage the resource, in this case by the impact on soils and vegetation by walkers who come to enjoy the experience or, in the Cairngorms situation, with wild land recreation, leading to density of usage that reduces the quality of the wild land experience. In the first scenario, both the resource and the recreationists are negatively affected as the quality of the environment is important to that kind of user. In the second the quality of the wild land experience of recreationists is degraded. Even open access has to be managed. This is what underlies the principle in recreational management of the BALANCE OF ACCESS in the interests of both recreationists and their environment. In the Cairngorms, “The long walk in” traditionally sustained this balance but, when the chairlift opened and permitted direct access the plateau etc, this was removed. Adam Watson’s counts showed numbers on the plateau then increased 100 fold (not just 100%) and the resultant spreading damage to highly vulnerable soils and vegetation was well measured. In short, the balance of access was mismanaged in a way that damaged both the environment and the interest of recreationists.
Providing open access from the funicular would have raised other very serious concerns!! The public that used the chairlift to access the hills were largely hillwalkers etc. With regard to competence in managing the hazards of the hills, they were well along that standard educational gradient of AWARENESS -> INSIGHT-> COMPETENCE. Those using the funicular are a very different population, coming largely from a highly urbanised society and not even at the first stage of that progression. People who, like myself, have trained young folk like newly joined young scouts or lead parties of such quite inexperienced adults in open country are initially surprised at their complete cluelessness in these circumstances and their often unpredictable actions. An example of what can happen without supervision is that instance of a young lad and girlfriend who went to the Cairn Gorm summit about Easter and got separated in mist on the descent back towards the Ptarmigan etc. She chose the right direction – he didn’t. One day in June that year in the Lairig Grhu, I spent some time giving comfort to rather shaken young folk who had just discovered his rotting corpse in the Garbh Corrie of Braeriach. To have provided open access from the funicular for such a population to such an environment of mists, unpredictable weather, rather featureless ground and not too distant cliffs would frankly have been recklessly irresponsible. Nobody with any experience of dealing with an inexperienced public, especially in such situations, would ever have proposed it!!
Ray Seftons’s comparison with access from the carpark is not valid. At the top of the funicular you require egress from an enclosing building. As the carpark, you get out your car and go where you like – under the access legislation. Others have made this point.
The nub of the problem is what can be done in the current situation, as Nick Kempe has tried to suggest. It is not an entirely new situation. There are a series of “funiculars” resulting from rather grandiose ambitions of HIDB in the Highlands and Islands in the form of a redundant paper mill and aluminium smelters. Given the money lost on the Aviemore Centre it came close to being another. Each closure has left a hole in the local economy but which communities have survived – with damage.
What to do in the circumstances is really difficult. The financial losses show I think that Nick is right – “* the funicular will never pay”. The losses during its operation under two companies have been huge even ignoring other costs run up by HIDB/HIE When, under the previous company, HIE reduced the rental of all facilities from an “economic” rent of 500,000 to 100,000, they were basically accepting the income from the funicular could not equal operating costs. That leaves you with either accepting indefinite public support to maintain it or closing it. I cannot see politicians or the general public accepting an indefinite long term continued flow of public money into what looks like a bottomless financial pit. Closing it also brings on the cost of removal. Dave Morris will recall us going up there with the Director of the Rocky Mountain National Park in USA.
“Would they have built the funicular in a national park in USA?”
“No!”
“Why not?”
“Because the one thing you know for sure about any piece of technology is that it will go out of date and will need removed. So, we never permit anything that we will not remove and, looking at all those concrete, you will never remove it.”
I think that, if it comes to removal of the funicular, whatever planning conditions say, we would have to accept foundations if not the pillars etc left in place. Their removal would probably do more environmental damage that just leaving them.
Even more fundamentally, the funicular is the only summer access and, removing it would surely make the Ptarmigan, interpretive centre etc up there largely redundant nine months of the year and the Day Lodge with a limited custom base – after all why go to the carpark if there is no trip up the mountains? You are also left with a semi-redundant road system. Can you then sustain them solely for the sake of a limited ski season? That seems very doubtful. The whole thing hangs together or collapses together. Nevis Sport, I believe, only gets 10% of its income from winter sports and in fact looses money on it. But it sustains the winter season so that it can employ full time year round staff. Staff on Cairn Gorm I am told,are on short term zero hours contracts.
I am very unsure as to where things can go from here but alternative means of encouraging summer visitors would be needed, hence the proposals for mountain biking etc made by Alan and others. But therein lies the danger that new proposals lead to further conflicts between recreationists or regarding impacts on the environment. Some close dialogue between the diverse interests, including local representatives pursuing such ideas, would be valuable and they should be encouraged to meet soon – eg after the report on damage and restoration for the funicular is published.