Following the planning application to repair the funicular (see here), Highlands and Island Enterprise  have submitted another two Planning Applications at Cairn Gorm.  These indicate that HIE intend to submit no less than six further applications  in the short-term.  This post explains what is going on and takes a critical look at the new applications for a car park barrier and more tube slides.

What the applications reveal about HIE’s plans for Cairn Gorm

There is still no sign of a masterplan for Cairn Gorm, despite almost every stakeholder with an interest in the place saying this is needed, and despite the Cairngorms National Park Authority last year agreeing that a masterplan should be submitted before any further planning applications were considered.

HIE has completely ignored the National Park Authority since then: four applications approved so far (Ptarmigan, Tube Slides, Snow making machines and groundworks to beginner’s area);  three applications in planning the pipeline (funicular repair and the new ones) and six more to come “in the short-term”.  This is not joined up government.

Both new applications are accompanied by a planning statement:

So what is this extensive programme?  Neither the public nor the CNPA are being told.

The statement that is a range of “maintenance and renewal projects which were not progressed by the previous management company” (i.e Natural Retreats) is very interesting . HIE effectively assumed responsibility for the liabilities associated with these maintenance and renewal projects when they took Cairngorm Mountain into public ownership. So what is the estimated cost?  And how come then that HIE bought back Cairngorm Mountain Ltd for TWICE  the price they sold it for (see here)?

Parkswatch gave extensive coverage to Natural Retreats’ failure to invest in infrastructure at Cairn Gorm as required under the contract with CML (see here for example) and a number of people tried to raise this unsuccessfully with HIE.  Here, for example, is the response I received from Charlotte Wright, the Chief Executive of HIE, on 12th June 2018, i.e. just five months before Cairngorm Mountain Limited put itself into administration:

HIE remains satisfied that our monitoring arrangements of the contract between HIE and CML are rigorous and compliant.

If HIE’s monitoring was so rigorous, how come they they have inherited so many “maintenance and renewal projects“?

There is no reference in the Supporting Statement to any masterplan,  instead it talks of a “co-ordinated approach” to the planning applications:

What that co-ordinated approach might be, we are not told.  There is nothing in the Supporting Statement to explain the purpose of the planning applications or how they fit together.  Instead the applications are split into:

• projects of significance;
• a list of two further projects whose importance is not clear, and
• a list of “more limited projects”:

HIE’s consultants don’t attempt to justify putting forward these “projects of significance”,  before any masterplan is approved. Moreover, having failed to include the track upgrades and temporary new tracks required to repair the funicular in that application (see here again), HIE are now revealing they wish to install two new tracks:

No attempt is made to explain the purpose of either track.  From the description of their location, neither seems associated with any other development.  So what are they for?  The potential impact of two new tracks on the landscape and environment at Cairn Gorm is likely to be significant.  That’s yet another reason why a masterplan is required.

These applications are not limited, rather they are related.  The location of the snowfactory is relevant to any consideration of new conveyor belts for snow sports beginners and where “these” (note plural) might be located (again we are not told).  Future plans for downhill skiing do have a bearing about whether extending the existing Kassborer garage makes sense.   Reducing the capacity of the lower car park through installing more tube slides, has implications for downhill skiing while the proposal to install barriers and re-surface the car park are also clearly related.  The CNPA should not be considering any of these applications on a stand-alone basis but requiring they are considered as part of a masterplan.

To sum up, while HIE’s supporting statement to these applications tells us very little, the lack of content demonstrates exactly why a masterplan is required.  To claim that “HIE and CMSL will provide the oversight to prevent “the more strategic and medium term planning approach” from being undermined is wrong.  Only the CNPA can do that.

The application for car park barriers at Coire Cas

The application (see here for papers) appears to be for one entry barrier and one exit barrier at the edge of the car park.    There is no explanation provided for why HIE wishes to install these barriers or how the barriers relate to the application to improve the surface of the car park which has still to be submitted.  If it’s part of a wider project, for example improve the car park and then introduce compulsory charging why not say so?

The application for tube slides in lower Coire Cas car park

In June last year Highland Council approved the temporary installation of a tube slide at Cairn Gorm (see here) and later in the year approved a variation to the application which required the slide to be removed over the winter months.  The new application (see here for papers) is to extend the existing slide and to add two new ones.

To their credit the CNPA this time have not left this to Highland Council to decide the appliction and have called it in on the grounds that it raises “issues of significance to the collective aims of the National Park”.  Normally this would happen within a few days.  The fact that the application was lodged on 5th March and not called in until 27th April suggests that HIE has lobbied hard behind the scenes to prevent the application being called in.  If that is so, congratulations to the CNPA for standing their ground.

Again, the detailed plans are very sketchy:

There is no attempt to look assess the landscape and environmental impacts of the slides or explain how they fit with HIE’s wider plans for Cairn Gorm.  The application looks like a further attempt to turn Cairn Gorm into some sort of theme park by planning creep.  That is exactly why a masterplan is needed.

HIE does, however, make an attempt in the Supporting Statement to justify the application:

A couple of months ago Alan Brattey submitted a Freedom of Information request to Cairngorm Mountain Scotland Ltd  asking them how much income their operation earned in 2019 broken down by various categories.  The response included the income from the tube slides:

The tube slides brought in just under £13k last summer.  That is what HIE describes as “very successful”.   That sum may not have even covered the wages of the staff needed to supervise the operation, let alone the costs of installation.  In the new Application HIE have made no attempt to assess the income that the new slides might bring in against the costs of operating them.

The Landmark Centre at Carrbridge is a successful local tourist business which operates three water slides and a number of chutes.   HIE’s proposals will impact on their business and it now appears that HIE is preparing to go into competition with them.  That is not only wrong, and arguably unlawful under the EU rules on state aid, it’s stupid.  The place for such “attractions”, even if justified, is not high up the mountain but somewhere sheltered and hidden in the trees, like Landmark,

The deadline for objections to the application is Monday 25th May (see here to submit comments online)

What’s really going on?

How to explain this rash of planning applications and the absence of any masterplan for Cairn Gorm?  Unintentional incompetence or deliberate?

While there is plenty of incompetence on show at Cairn Gorm, HIE’s failure to produce a master plan has gone on so long that it can no longer be explained by incompetence.  We need to remember that HIE announced the bones of a new masterplan, with proposals for new lift infrastructure, 18 months ago  (see here).  HIE had had sight of the S.E Group’s proposals at least six months before that and it would have been quite easy to consult on these.   Instead of consulting on  the ideas set out in the SE Group Report, early this year HIE employed consultants to undertake a new consultation starting from scratch (see here). That has still not reported.  What happened in-between the SE Group report and the current consultation is that it became clear the funicular was not only broken, it would take at least £10m to repair.

One way to understand the planning application to repair the funicular and the host of “smaller” planning applications in the pipeline is that these comprise HIE’s TOTAL plans for Cairn Gorm.  The new plan could be summed up as fix the funicular, re-vamp the Ptarmigan, add a few play slides and use the car park as an additional source of revenue.  Meantime, to keep up the pretence of being interested in downhill skiers, keep up the snow factory for the time being, add a couple of conveyor belts but do NOTHING to create the new uplift that is needed.

Then, once all the current Planning Applications are through, announce that the Scottish Government  has agreed to pay for the repair of the funicular but, sadly, no more money is available.  That then removes the need for HIE to consult on  any alternative plan for Cairn Gorm.  Effectively this consigns downhill skiing on the mountain to history as Alistair Bell warned might happen four months ago (see here).  A year or two later HIE can then announce that, again sadly, the snow factory and beginner’s ski belt are no longer financially viable and flog them off.

What might prevent this is that there are increasing signs that some of the interests that supported HIE in the past are no longer doing so (see George Paton’s excellent letter above).   It’s surely time that all those with an interests at Cairn Gorm got together and agreed a way forward that does not involve HIE.