After Highlands and Islands Enterprise announced that the cost of repairing the funicular would be cheaper than the cost they claimed would be needed to remove it, I asked them for the basis of this claim. Then, when the response revealed very little, I requested a formal review of their decision to refuse the information under the Freedom of Information Act (see here). The Review, carried out by HIE’s acting Chief Executive, has revealed that HIE has in its possession a report Cairngorm funicular railway (railway dismantling report) dated May 2019 (see here and extract above). That HIE has commissioned such a report is very interesting. Unfortunately, they are now refusing to make public any of its contents. They have also failed to answer two of my three questions – so I will be appealing to the Information Commissioner.
My second question asked what the estimated cost of removal was. The response stated:
“HIE has since released SOME [my emphasis] of the information which is provided below”
HIE then quote the figure of £13.3m which they released to selected media outlets subsequent to my FOI request. Their answer, however, suggests there is OTHER information they hold on the costs of removal and provides no justification for why HIE are refusing to release that information.
My third question asked for the basis of how the costs of removing the funicular had been worked out and that too remains answered.
It isessential that this information is made public for two reasons. The first is that the cost of removing the funicular depends to a great extent on how much is removed. Complete removal of the funicular and re-instatement of the ground to how it was before the funicular was constructed would be very costly, mainly because there is no “spare” material on site to fill in the holes that would be created if the concrete pillars supporting the funicular were removed. However, chopping the pillars just below ground level and removing the superstructure above could be done far more cheaply.
While the legal agreement about the operation of the funicular requires it to be removed completely if it ever ceases to function, its far from clearcut that that is the most sensible option now. Its quite possible that removing the funicular completely could cause further damage to the mountain and it would be best to leave the pillars in place as happened in Coire na Ciste.
Moreover, if the legal agreement about the funicular cannot be changed, then the costs of removing it entirely should be ADDED to the costs of repairing it to show WHOLE LIFE COSTS. That is because eventually the concrete columns supporting the funicular WILL deteriorate to a condition where they are beyond repair and the funicular WILL need to be removed. No structure lasts for ever and structures in the mountains deteriorate faster than elsewhere. HIE need to include those costs in the business case its putting to the Scottish Government.
I suspect too that when that time comes whoever is running the funicular will argue it would be much better to leave the pillars in place rather than have it completely removed and seek to have the legal agreement revised. If that’s likely, HIE should consider that option now. I suspect they haven’t because to do so would undermine their argument that the cost of repairing the funicular is cheaper than removing it.
The second reason why HIE needs to make the costs of removing the funicular public is their appalling record at Cairn Gorm when it comes to financial matters. They are not to be trusted and its essential that any business case they put to the Scottish Government is subject to public scrutiny and detailed analysis by Audit Scotland.
In a reply to an FOI request, CMSL sent me an extract of the Section50 agreement:-
“(a) In the event of the Applicant wishing to discontinue the operation of the funicular railway either temporarily or permanently, otherwise than:-
(i) for the purpose of maintenance or repair
(ii) as a result of bad weather or
(iii) as a consequence of the Applicant’s normal and reasonable management of the Ski Area or in the event of the Applicant being obliged permanently to discontinue the operation of the funicular railway, the Applicant shall forthwith give written notice to the Planning Authority, SNH and the Proprietor, which notice shall indicate whether the discontinuance is temporary (and if so, for how long) or permanent. For the avoidance of doubt, in the event of the Applicant discontinuing the operation of the funicular railway permanently because of an intention to assign its interest in the operation to a new operator, the Applicant will, nonetheless be required to serve written notice under this Clause on the Planning Authority, SNH and the Proprietor.
At present, the status of the funicular is that the service has been temporarily suspended to enable specialist engineering investigations to be carried out and a detailed business case prepared on future options to repair or remove the structure. Highlands and Islands Enterprise, as owner, has stated that its intention is to repair the funicular, subject to this being technically achievable and a business case approved by the HIE Board and the Scottish Government. We believe this accords with point (i) above, meaning that the condition relating to removal is not currently applicable.
Because of this, there has been no need to make any request to the Highland Council or SNH, as described in the paragraph you quote from the Auditor General’s review. The documents that you request therefore do not exist.”
In effect for as long as HIE maintain their position to repair the Funicular there is no time limit or requirement for them to initiate removal and that if removal is the course taken it could be in stages over 2 – 3 seasons and in my opinion could be longer as there does not appear to be a time limit stipulated for complete removal.
Great interview with Susan Smith on BBC Scotland this afternoon, defending the decision to limit the number of skiers per day as a way to offer the best customer experience… And no, they wouldn’t be introducing pre-booking so yes, you might drive for hours, only to discover you weren’t one of the lucky few. But this would deliver a fantastic customer experience. And did she mention… it’s all about customer experience.
In addition to cost of repair of the funicular and its end of life removal costs, whole life costing would have to include the annual operating costs and maintenance costs for the funicular, offset by the ticket money raised. In this regard, can anyone honestly prove that the funicular has ever made money? Given the year on year reduction in passenger numbers (both winter and summer), this annual loss is only going to grow, especially as maintenance costs would inevitably rise as the funicular got older. Additionally, if HIE is still keen on the items suggested in the SE Group report, then funicular use will drop even more. Even SE Group in their executive summary pointed this out!
Nevertheless, Ms Carroll Buxton (HIE’s interim chief executive) said to the P&J: “The business case is going to be looking at the whole-of-life cost because obviously the funicular brings in money”. If what she says is true, then what is HIE’s problem – it should want to engage in public consultation on their plans and make their business case to the Scottish Government a public document……because if you believe Carroll Buxton, HIE has a rock solid business case with nothing to hide!
I’m sure the HIE funicular repair business case if it ever sees the light of day will be full of ludicrously optimistic projections and false accounting, and as far as the HIE public statements are concerned they fall into the category of, if you are going to tell a lie…make it a big one.
We are approaching the situation that has blighted the Mountain for as long as we all can remember…..
There is no point spending one single penny until a “PLAN” is thought through, tested against possible revenue and costs and that it is then proven that the Mountain can operate as a sustainable business……
We have to have a Mountain that can make money, be financially secure, able to grow and be sustainable.
Unless that happens there is no point in continuing, it’s just a complete waste of everyones time and effort.
Absolutely Angus, It’s a time for cool heads and some joined up forward thinking. No one is going to be entirely satisfied whatever the outcome of this is but ultimately we need a financially viable winter and summer mountain operation. The past procrastination and dithering must end now. The environmentalists and planners will need to get real if this business is to succeed, this is only a small corner of the Cairngorms, visitors must be able to access the outdoor areas in the summer and the new lifts and associated earthworks/infrastructure must be consented without ball breaking conditions attached. H.I.E. must realize that they are out of their depth or are being fed duff information from vested interests ! The Idea of a constructive conference in Aviemore, where everyone can vent their spleen and listen to the pros and cons from all parties involved should now happen and soon. The matter of documents being shown with large parts redacted is not only insulting to the public who ultimately pay for all this but if it weren’t so serious would be laughable, this is not a matter of national security ! So just spill the beans and give us the answers. As for the latest statement that numbers allowed on the mountain is being restricted to 1000 per day, that is hardly going to help in raising the funds and making a profit to sort out this shambles !
Once again we see the usual conservationists demanding that the funicular railway is removed. At the planning stage these objectors made this a very expensive project. It was impossible for HIE to make a profit, with the crazy s75 agreement and Visitor Management Plan. This should have been a first class visitor attraction, rather than a financial disaster. For those who kid on that the closed system protects the SAC and SPA, approx. 3.4 million people have visited the SAC and SPA which is only 100 metres from the car park, since the funicular has been open.
I have visited and lived in Aviemore since 1956, when Aviemore was a railway junction with a population of 500 people. Thanks to skiing and later serious tourism and mountain activities it now has a population of about 3500 people.
Whilst it might be simple to spend another £13 million of public money to remove the funicular, it would need another bucket of public money to build something to replace it. Therefore, it must be logical to repair the funicular. It would be criminal just to remove it.
I am not a skier but I have completed all the Munros and cannot accept the nonsense about protecting the landscape in Coire Cas. Let me emphasize Coire Cas, Coire na Ciste and Coire Laogh Mor are unprotected areas. This area was developed as ski area in the 1960s, with all the ski infrastructure.
Ray Sefton, your third sentence “It was impossible for HIE to make a profit….” implies that as the VMP is still in place HIE/ CMSL will still not be able to make a profit from the Funicular despite the fact that they are preparing to spend over £9m of government/ taxpayers money on it’s repair. Remember how much the estimate was for building the Funicular in the first place and how much it eventually cost. Could it’s repair and subsequent maintenance escalate in the same way again? HIE only have a guess as to how much it will cost to repair! When CML went bust in 2008 and the VMP was blamed then why haven’t HIE tried to have it changed? Surely that would have been the sensible thing to do?
Your second last paragraph does not take into account a second option if the Funicular is to be removed. First build new uplift, improving the CMSL business income, and then, in a couple of years time, when the business is more viable, remove the Funicular. There is as far as I am aware no time limit on its removal, and sooner or later it will need removing.
As to your last paragraph, the SE Group reports of 2018 and addendum of 2019 advocate “summer grooming” or bulldozing of, by my estimate, over 200,000 sq. m. of Coire Cas. While it may be an unprotected area, in these days of climate change and the Scottish Government’s declaration of a climate emergency, is that really considered to be acceptable?
50acres of hill to be groomed as you put it?
That will be impressive.