[Update 3rd May: this map, which was contained in the Committee report was incorrect, it shows the 4.83km of proposed new track but the application extended west and included a new bridge over the Allt Chaorainn to the left of the Parking symbol].

The Planning Application for a new “forestry” road, which would connect the Pitmain and Glen Banchor Estates across the moor behind Newtonmore, will be considered by the Cairngorms National Park Authority (CNPA) on Friday (see here for Committee papers). Officers are recommending Board Members reject the application, which is welcome, and although the reasons for doing so are sound, in my view they could have been more robust.  It is good therefore that a number of objectors have asked to address the Committee and one hopes they will help strengthen the CNPA’s arguments and resolve in order to prevent the Pitmain Estate returning with further applications.

 

The purpose of the proposed road

In my previous posts on the applications to build this road  (see here), (here) and (here), I argued it was not necessary for forestry purposes but was intended for sporting purposes.  It was therefore contrary to policy 5.2 in the CNPA’s Local Development Plan which contains a presumption against new tracks on moorland except where this would enable other tracks to be removed.

The agents acting on behalf of the Jafur family, who own both estates, have since effectively confirmed this argument:

The first paragraph confirms that the claim in the design statement that “the new extraction route is necessary due to timber lorries being unable to use the south-east aspects of the Glen Road, Newtonmore” was not true.  Smaller timber lorries could in fact use the public road but the Pitmain Estate has now dredged up new reasons for not using them.  The need for Central Tyre Inflation (CTI), which can improve vehicle safety on rough ground, is asserted, not proven while  the claim that there is nowhere on the estate to transfer timber to larger lorries is irrelevant.

But it is the statement in the second paragraph, that the cost of constructing the new road is “very likely” to be more than the value of the timber that can be extracted, which is really important.   As a forestry road, the proposal makes no financial sense and the only conclusion is that the real reason the estate wants to build a new road is for other purposes.  This is very significant in planning terms because forestry roads come under the Prior Notification system and cannot be rejected by Planning Authorities, only modified.  The admission from the estate, therefore, confirms that CNPA officers have been right to treat this proposal as requiring full planning permission.

The suggestion in the email that the proposed road demonstrates the commitment of the owners of the Pitmain and Glen Banchor estate, the Jafur Family, to progressing conservation projects on their estates is completely ridiculous.  Set aside the serious problems with these projects in Glen Banchor (see here) and (here), which have failed to tackle deer numbers or prevent muirburn, they have been paid for by public monies and not required the construction of a single new road.   Its the same with peatbog restoration on Pitmain where, in a parliamentary answer to Rhoda Grant, MSP, on 9th January (see here), the Scottish Government revealed that in the five financial years since 2018-19 they had awarded Pitmain Estate £673,472 in Peatbog Restoration monies:

That has not required a single new road.

The most likely explanation for the new road, therefore, is that the Jafur Family want to be able to travel with their guests between the Pitmain and Glen Banchor Estates without going on a public road when shooting (it would enable the Jafur Family to travel directly to Glen Banchor from Pitmain Lodge which they have been in the process of enlarging).  A secondary and related reason may be that they wish to intensify game bird/grouse moor management on the land between the Sheep Dog Trial road in Glen Banchor, and the Strone Rd to the east which is currently inaccessible to vehicles (For a time there were feeding stations for red partridge by the proposed new road just beyond the Sheep Dog Trial Road).

All credit, however, to CNPA staff for extracting further information out of the estate about the woodland in Glen Banchor, including this map which shows both plantation forestry and native woodland.  In the email  the estate clarified that 46 out of 67.5ha of the plantation forestry has been affected by windthrow (and therefore has no commercial use).  It would be best left where it is or offered to local residents to use.

The politics of the application and what needs to happen

This planning application appears to represent a devious attempt by the Jafur family  to create a great scar across the landscape primarily for their own convenience and that of their shooting guests.  First, the application was designed to exploit the Prior Notification system, being dressed up a forestry road which the CNPA would have had no power to reject, even though no sensible forester would ever endorse the proposed route.  Second, after the first application received a significant degree of opposition, it was withdrawn and replaced by a very similar application (this is not explained in the Committee Report).  If this was designed to wear out the opposition it worked as there were significantly less objections second time round.  Third, as I have explained in previous posts, the supporting papers lacked information about the design or impacts of the road (e.g. on the landscape or deep peat) because, had this been provided any policy justification for the road would have collapsed.

In determining the application, members of the CNPA planning committee should make it very clear that providing for the convenience of shooting clients is not a matter of overriding national importance that will cause them to abandon key policies contained within the Local Development Plan, the National Park Partnership Plan or National Planning Framework 4.  In doing so they should give a clear message to other sporting estate owners that they will give short thrift to attempts to circumvent the planning system by presenting sporting roads as being for forestry purposes.