Further to yesterday’s critique of Cairngorm Mountain – Towards a Vision and a Masterplan (see here) this post takes a look at the process Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE) is using to consult the public.
The consultation document (see here) is part a series of high level statements and part a wish list of potential developments; as such it can best be described as framework for a master plan. Its limitations are only too obvious. A future for the mountain with and without the funicular should have been contrasted and the implications of both options for new ski uplift should have been included and costed for public consideration. Having said that, the consultants who prepared the document engaged with a wide range of groups and individuals and they are to be commended for giving the exercise a fair stab, given the restricted remit given to them by HIE. and the process of this is the subject of this post.
HIE states that it is keen to find out people’s views but is this really the case? The only way of responding offered by HIE is via an online Survey Monkey (see here) which is open to 31st August. Now Survey Monkeys have their place. They are good for organising the dates of meetings and eliciting simple, quick reactions to services rendered. When it comes to exploring people’s views of more complex issues, they are only useful if spaces are provided for respondents to comment under each section where they score a particular issue. Remarkably only one such space is provided, in relation to respondents’ views of what they consider to be ‘the most important strategy’:
Respondents are thus left with a simple tick box exercise by which to express their views of what are complex and controversial issues. On top of that, the questions presented for scoring are often either meaningless or simplified to a point where no one could answer them properly.
The first section asks respondents to score the ‘vision statements’ made by a number of public, business and voluntary bodies.
Beyond the fact the it is unclear in the document whether these ‘stakeholder statements’ describe what people see as the situation now on the mountain or what they would like to see in the future, it is difficult to argue with any of them. It’s a case of ‘goodness is good’ and little can be learned from their being scored. The same problem continues throughout the first part of the survey: high level statements with which few would disagree are presented for scoring.
Things become a bit more meaningful when it comes to the sections on current or potential activities on the mountain. The problem here is that people are being asked to simply tick boxes on a ‘not important to very important’ continuum in respect of issues which are complex and which demand in-depth or qualified responses. A couple of examples will suffice-
North East Mountain Trust has strong reservations about more paths high on the mountain but might well support new links between the base station and Glenmore.
The document is vague about what the Mountain Bike strategy would mean on the ground. North East Mountain Trust would be very concerned about any developments which could be seen as encouraging people to take bikes onto the plateau but might have less reservations about facilities lower on the hill.
A Survey Monkey without spaces to comment renders it impossible for respondents to simply tick a box.
Come on HIE! Do you want to know people’s views and then spend time analysing these to get a real flavour of what might be possible and desirable for the future of Cairn Gorm or do you simply want to be able to tell the Minister that everyone is happy with what is proposed?
What should happen now
North East Mountain Trust has completed the Survey Monkey (reluctantly). We have also submitted written comments to the consultants and have copied these to HIE charlotte.wright@hient.co.uk (the Chief Executive) and to the Cairngorms National Park Authority planning@cairngorms.co.uk. We urge those with concerns to do the same before the current deadline for the Survey Monkey at the end of August. The Consultants to submit comments to are Threesixty Architecture INFO@360ARCHITECTURE.COM and Jura Consultants paul@jura-consultants.co.uk . We also call on HIE to email all interested parties and advise them that written comments are welcome. The deadline for comments should be extended to mid-September to allow for this.
[Written on behalf of the North East Mountain Trust SCIO 008783]
Its a pitiful attempt at consultation and more so an attempt to appear to consult. I waded through what seemed to be an never ending survey of opinions, frustrated that I had to rate a stream of insecure organisations of which I had no evidence of their performance whilst providing them with the oxygen to continue to exist. Once into the main content and beyond the endorsement of superficial vision statements, there was little depth or expansiveness to the questions. Whilst mountain biking was mentioned in passing, there was little mention of snow sports, which to state the blindingly obvious is what has generated the need to address the funicular fiasco. If you fail to specifically identify Snow sports in the comments and just follow the protocol of the survey then Snow sports will never be on the table. The nature of the questions seem to be about substantiating a Vision based around brand new Buildings to house organisations in comfy nests, rather than facilitate activities on the Mountain. The vision as presented and as the survey hopes to endorse is one in which more public money will be sucked up by organisations and consultants with little remaining to be spent on the mountain and its activities. As an Architect myself, who gets paid upon the basis of a percentage of the final building cost, its obvious that without Buildings in the Vision the consultants dont have a basis against which to be paid, so consequently this misguided consultation is about buildings in which various organisations can sit cosy in whikst righteously believing that their presence is serving the environment. Those with a personal stake can complete this survey several times over. For other folk, why would you even bother. Its approaching 2 years since this fiasco became apparent. 2 years wasted. 2 years in abeyance for businesses and livelihoods in the valley. How many more before folk can once again return to the mountain and enjoy all it offers? This insincere attempt at consultation is just a distraction from what needs to happen, and what should have happened long ago.
The consultation does not follow the principles outlined in Scottish standards for engagement, http://www.voicescotland.org.uk/media/resources/NSfCE%20online_October.pdf
as prescribed in the Community Empowerment Act 2015.
As HIE is both funded and empowered by Scottish Government, it is obliged to do so.
Consequently, the consultation is neither competent nor legitimate.
HIE has extended the consultation on the draft masterplan until 14th September.
https://www.hie.co.uk/our-region/regional-projects/cairngorm/
GET WRITING!!
As an uplift vehicle for snow sports, the funicular was doomed to failure. On those occasions when a chairlift couldn’t run by dint of high winds, the number of people who would want to visit the mountain top would be dew and far between.
A quad chair would be functioning almost immediately significat (and enticing) snowfall had occurred, allowing early access for skiers and snowboarders without a delay fir the track to be cleared and checked.
Impact in terms of flora and fauna woukd be minimal and allow access to runs currebisected by the funicular track.