A couple of hours after my post on FLS yesterday (see here) I received a response from FLS to a Freedom of Information request I had submitted on 24th February about the Sallochy campsite.  I can find no acknowledgement from FLS of that request in my emails so the timing of their response is  interesting!  The content is informative too, confirms what I was arguing in the post and has serious implications for the future of the camping byelaws.

FLS’ response confirms they have unilaterally decided to withdraw from operating the Sallochy campsite, which is on its land, because of cuts:

“FLS has operated Sallochy as a campsite under various staffing models since 2012. With reducing resources the decision has been made to cease this operation and look for a new model for the site.  I have attached a redacted Options paper regarding the site………….We are hoping to conclude discussions with the relevant party in the next few weeks however if these negotiations do not conclude FLS may have to consider alternatives including going to open market……………..There are no plans for a public consultation……………We haven’t had any discussions with Stirling Council or Police Scotland but I have enclosed some redacted e mails between FLS and NPA [National Park Authority].  [My emphasis].

The redacted emails (see here) and options paper (see here) clearly show the “relevant party” is the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Authority (LLTNPA).  They also confirm that FLS is trying to shunt the costs of the Sallochy campsite onto the LLTNPA (“they want camping provision but want us to contribute”).  However, if the LLTNPA fail to co-operate, FLS is prepared to outsource the facility to the private sector even though the “site would likely become more expensive and no longer provide an affordable camping provision along the ELL [East Loch Lomond] corridor.”

 

Putting corporate interests before the public interest

The Options Paper also shows that FLS is prepared to end all camping provision on its land at Sallochy in favour of a car park and four motor home spaces (which are far more profitable) and how the site has been mismanaged for the last 5 years:

FLS’ site at Sallochy was originally a popular public car park – as Option 1 states “an excellent day visitor location” – and became even better when toilet provision was added to help cater for camping.  For seven years camping and car parking co-existed without any obvious problems.  However, the  Covid pandemic was used as an excuse to lock the gates and day visitors have been denied access ever since.  That has deprived FLS of the car parking income and has contributed to the current crisis.

FLS’ response indicate the LLTNPA want to manage the site “for camping only” which suggests the National Park bears primary responsibility for Sallochy being closed to day visitors:

The explanation for this appears to be that operating Sallochy as a dual purpose facility, for both campers and day visitors, appear too much bother for management despite the loss of income. As a result the gate to the car park at Sallochy has been kept locked for five years even after the camping season has ended.  That is a public disgrace and beggars belief.

 

The Sallochy campsite and the review of the camping bylaws

When Grant Moir, now Chief Executive of the Cairngorms National Park Authority, first proposed camping byelaws as a temporary limited measure on east Loch Lomond, he received this response from Scottish Natural Heritage (the body with lead responsibility for access rights):

As a result of SNH’s position the provision of a campsite at Sallochy by Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS), as it was then, was a precondition for the east Loch Lomond camping byelaws being approved.

The need to provide more basic campsites was also a precondition for Scottish Ministers agreeing to extend camping byelaws to cover most of the popular loch shores (and best places for camping) in the National Park.  The LLTNPA agreed to provide a minimum of 300 camping places (to increase year on year) prior to the byelaws coming into effect.  The LLTPNA only achieved this target due a commitment from FCS to achieve it:

Following Sallochy, FCS provided further land for campsites at Loch Chon and Loch Achray and agreed to the creation of “camping permit areas” in other areas it owned, most notably Three Lochs Drive.  This was an area most of which was unsuitable for camping, which is why Police Scotland queried it (see above), but was made available so the LLTNPA could meet its target of 300 places.

It appears that FLS has now abandoned even that commitment and without any public consultation.  This decision has serious implications for the continuation of the camping byelaws which need to be reviewed by 2026.  Indeed, according to the LLTNPA website (see here) Three Lochs Drive is currently “closed while work is being carried out”, along with the campsites at Loch Chon and Achray and the permit area on FLS land a Tarbet Isle.  The temporary withdrawal of these facilities means the LLTNPA is currently failing to deliver what it promised to Scottish Ministers and provides further evidence that FLS no longer sees it as its role to assist with the management of essential recreational infrastructure on its land.

Instead of reporting what is clearly a crisis to the LLTNPA Board Meeting on 10th March, the Joint Response Visitor Management Plan 2025 stated:

“Pilot new management arrangements at Sallochy to enhance visitor experience and create  efficiencies across partners.  Estimated delivery date April 2025.”

That was despite emails released by FLS clearly showing that LLTNPA senior management are fully aware of what is going on:

Moreover, the Chief Executive of the LLTNPA, Gordon Watson, appears to have agreed to the transfer of costs from FLS to the LLTNPA for the next year without any approval from his board. While cutting out duplication should have happened long ago – the emails show, for example, FLS and the LLTNPA have different arrangements for cleaning the toilets at Sallochy and Milarrochy – assuming responsibility for operational costs currently met by FLS sets a very dangerous precedent.  What the LLTNPA should have been doing is demand FLS provide and manage visitor infrastructure on its estate but instead is endorsing the cuts.

In the Operational Plan for 2024/25, which the LLTNPA Board agreed in March 2024 (see here), it was agreed “to Conduct an internal review of the Camping Management Byelaws and begin early
stakeholder engagement in preparation for the statutory review due to take place in 2026″.  A year later on 10th March 2025 this internal review was reported as being “behind schedule”, with workshops scheduled (see here).  Given the time that would be needed to get FLS to reverse their decision to cut support for camping provision the LLTNPA appear to be heading for another outdoor recreation disaster.

The good news is that unless the LLTNPA can guarantee sufficient camping places in the camping management zones for the whole of the period the camping byelaws operate, from 1st March to 30the September, which requires FLS to co-operate, the logic is both NatureScot and Scottish Ministers should withdraw their support from the camping byelaws.  All the money that has been wasted on trying to enforce the camping byelaws would be far better spent on restoring a police presence to the countryside – to deal with anti-social and criminal behaviour of all types where it arises – and providing better infrastructure for visitors.