Agendas, reports and minutes

 

 

1.  Welcome and Introductions

 

NOTED

2.  Apologies:  Sandra Bardwell. 

 Agreed that Dr Bardwell’s place on the Forum continue to be kept open for her.

3.  Minutes of Local Access Forum – 15 October 2013

APPROVED subject to correction of Item 3, Matters Arising – Lochloy, to read, “in relation to an access issue where a gate had been locked, a request had been received…”  SE to follow this up.

Matters arising and update on progress

• Site Visit – Cannich – River Glass – there had been no progress via the Building Standards option; SE had therefore written to the new owners but had not had a reply.  SE recommended that he write to the owner again saying Boots N Paddles had offered to help.  Agreed that a joint offer of assistance (THC and Boots N Paddles) be made to the landowner. Claimed Public Right of Way – SE to write to the owner and/or put up a notice before December.
• New Members – SE provided information on two applications which had been received for vacant places on the Forum.  Normal procedure was for the applications to be considered by Area Committees (Nairn Badenoch & Strathspey; and City of Inverness Area), who would then make recommendations to the PCI Committee.  LAF Members urged that this process could be expedited as soon as possible, and suggested that the applications could be brought to Ward meetings for consideration, if the Area meetings timetable would not allow the applications to be considered in time for approval at PDI on 5 November.  Liz Lee undertook to find out what might be possible in this regard.
• Croft Dhu -  no progress
• Lochloy – it had been intended to hold a site visit that day, involving the LAF, the landowner and representatives of the horse rider group.  However, as it had not been possible to clarify a number of issues prior to the meeting, the landowner and Council had both agreed to defer the meeting to December.  It was important that the situation be discussed in as open and inclusive way as possible.  A draft report had been sent to the landowner and other relevant parties for comment.  Agreed that a date be set in December for a further meeting, this to include a site visit and hearing involving the landowner and interested parties.
• Corrimony – no progress
• Kingsteps – a new hearing had been set for 1 October; no further action to be taken meantime
• Cluanie Dam – SSE had agreed to open it to pedestrian access, position being monitored.  Members discussed the likely demand for equestrian access (believed low as the route led only to a Corbett and was not on an “A to B” route).  It was noted that there were no access rights over dams.  Previous unwelcome activities (such as Midge Death Festival) had made owners reluctant to allow access, but if such activities had ceased, that position might change.  In response to questions raised, SE provided advice on where responsibility lay should and accident befall persons taking access.
• Torachilty – electronic equipment for monitoring the height of the water had been installed.  There was a possibility that canoeists could inadvertently trip the water release system if the meter interpreted the height of a canoeist as the height of the water.
• Torvean – a number of core paths would be managed using temporary stopping up orders while the Inverness West Link was under construction.
• New Access Issues - SE advised that a number of new access issues had arisen since the last meeting, including at: Breakachy, Kilmorack, and Balnaspirach – SE had raised this issue with Network Rail but had received no response.
• Affric – Kintail Project - SE tabled maps of the proposed route and reported that sign posting appeared complete.  LAF members expressed disappointment that the route was going through Cannich when a number of alternative scenic routes were available.  However, it was recognised that Corrimony was an important area for birds (lekking area), and that the RSPB would not wish quad bikes etc. on that path.  SE summarised the work undertaken and provided information on the standard of path provided.
• Highland Core Path Implementation Project II SE and the Chair had visited Nairn Golf Club and viewed the ramp.  It had been agreed that SE would compile drawings/specs for the Golf Club to consider.  It was hoped that work could be carried out over the winter months, before the summer tees were in use. 
  

          The Ardersier to Fort George path had been completed, but needed sign-posted.

           Councillor Liz MacDonald reported that the Nairn Access Panel had requested a boardwalk/platform to
           enable access to the beach at Kingsteps; there was potential for LEADER/SRDP funding for this.  
           Possible sites were being considered.  SE to email maps to Councillor MacDonald.  It was agreed that
           Kingsteps be placed on the agenda for the December meeting, and visited if there was time.

4. Access Issues

4.1  Diversion of Right of Way, Pitmain Lodge, Kingussie

The Cairngorms National Park Authority had granted planning permission for a bothy at Pitmain to be upgraded to a guest lodge, but had imposed a planning condition that the Estate must obtain approval from the Highland Council for the Right of Way which ran past the bothy to be diverted.  (National Park legislation left the Council as the appropriate body for dealing with Rights of Way issues in the CNPA area.) 

Although the Estate had created a new path and bridge for the Right of Way diversion, it had not had the diversion approved and so was in contravention of the planning condition and Right of Way legislation.  The Estate had also locked a gate across the original Right of Way.  Problems had arisen as the new bridge had collapsed during a recent spate.  It was not known what action (if any) the Estate would take to repair the bridge, although there were some indications that an insurance claim might be lodged.  The Council needed to decide whether or not it wished to take this matter forward formally through the legal diversion process.

Points raised in discussion included that: if the Estate wanted the Right of Way diverted they should maintain the bridge; if people couldn’t use the new bridge, they should be able to use the first one; it would be in the interests of the Estate to legally formalise the position; the Council would not negotiate with Estate with regard to costs.

SE advised that if the formal route were followed, the Council should consider:

• amenity – e.g. was the new route easy to use
• whether the diversion was in the interests of good land management
• the likelihood of making a successful order (e.g. what was public response likely to be, number of objections etc.)

The Estate would be required to pay for the diversion and the costs of making the order, including advertising.  The Council could require the Estate to build and maintain the bridge.

SE confirmed that the Estate had been asked to allow access via the original Right of Way meantime, and that he was in contact with the agent who was aware of the position. 

4.2  Balintombuie, Dalchreichart – “Private Property No Access” sign erected – negotiations in hand to see if the owner would replace the sign with one saying “No unauthorised vehicles”.

4.3  Smithton – bollards on a national cycle route were not visible in the dark; this was a health and safety issue.

4.4  Loch Loyne (nr Cluanie) – a small gate had been locked – SE trying to find out who the owner was and will ask them to unlock the gate or put it on a long chain.

4.5  Moy Estate – padlocked gates (understood to be in response to sheep rustling) – SE to talk to the shepherd.

4.6  Westfield Way, Culloden – residents had erected fences to prevent people getting into the amenity greenspace on the housing estate.

4.7  Inverwick, Glenmoriston – Padlocked gate – SE had written and asked for it to be opened.

4.8  Nairn Dunbar Golf Club, Lochloy Road – Locked gate; SE had asked for this to be opened; a positive response had been received.

4.9  Farlie (Beauly) – in the course of upgrading works, SSE had prevented people from walking.  There was a new road, but people couldn’t use it as there were locked gates.

4.10  Guisachan (Tomich) – SE was looking into some complaints received.

4.11  Loch Ceo Glais – the Chair reported that following a meeting with Balfour Beattie, who were in the process of carrying out works to upgrade pylons, improvements were being made, including scrub clearance, so that people did not have to walk on the road.  Members welcomed this.

4.12  Inverfarigaig – the Chair wold be meeting with the Forestry with a view to improving information for the public, including better signage.

4.13  Great Glen Way (Drumnadrochit)  - the Chair commented that horses travelling west on the Great Glen Way (GGW) towards Drumnadrochit could not get through a kissing gate at Achpopuli (the old route) and so had to use the main road for the two miles, which was dangerous.  She asked SE to investigate what might be possible with regard to allowing equestrian access on this section of the GGW.  SE responded that he would be happy to offer the landowner an alternative gate, however, the ground was boggy and there had previously been local opposition to the route – this might still remain.  It would not be possible to publicise the route as an alternative to the GGW.

4.14  Great Glen Way (Scorguie) – the Chair drew attention to the difficulty experienced by horse riders taking access through the underpass due to the chicane; this meant horses had to go up over the road.  She requested that SE bring this to the attention of GGW officers.

4.15  Cawdor Castle  - the Chair reported that gates and barbed wire had been put in near Cawdor Castel.  SE to send the Chair a map for her to mark the locations.

4.16  Coastal Pathways – Councillor MacDonald reported that the Nairn Economic Initiative Strategy (Nairn Partnership) was wanting to deliver a coastal path between Nairn and Ardersier.   SE to forward information to Councillor MacDonald with a view to a sub-group being established within the Nairn Partnership.  There was also potential to extend the path to Moray, dependent on negotiations with landowners.

 

In response to questions raised, SE advised that people generally only brought matters to his attention when attempts to resolve a situation had failed.  He also outlined the kinds of assistance that could be offered, from help with a management plan, to provision of a gate or assistance with costs of purchase and installation of a gate.  Owners were within their rights to prevent vehicular access, but for the most part not to prevent people from walking.  The Council could offer owners a clearer sign. 

Comments raised in discussion included that farmers liked to know who was on their land, for a variety of reasons; some signs were for safety (e.g. at golf courses to warn of the fairway); and that the majority of walkers did not want confrontation with landowners and would be put off by signs prohibiting access. 

In response to concerns raised by the Chair, SE under took to phone Bolts in relation to a No Access sign at Scaniport, and to contact the Estate in relation to improving parking at Torbreck Wood, where car parking was preventing access by horse.  He confirmed that there was no longer a budget to create small car parks at the start of walks.

5.  Local Access Forum Development

The Forum discussed what kind of training would be useful in developing members’ skills and knowledge to enable them to carry out their role.  Options included training courses run by SNH, the National Access Forum annual meeting, observing other Fora, or experiencing access issues first hand e.g. by horseback.  Following a suggestion from the Chair, it was agreed that SE investigate whether it might be possible for INLAF to learn about the Cairngorms National Park Authority’s approach to access, including site visits to places where there were access issues, and sitting in on a Forum meeting; the timing of the visit to take account of available daylight.

6.  Future Meetings

Agreed as follows:

1. The next INLAF meeting would be held in December 2014, to include a site inspection at Lochloy, Nairn.
2. A visit to the CNPA Access Forum – site visit and observing a meeting – would take place prior to the December INLAF meeting.
3. That in future, INLAF meetings would be held twice a year, approximately in April and October.  Should there be issues which were proving difficult to resolve, the INLAF meetings would incorporate site visits and face-to-face communication with the parties involved where possible.

7.  AOB

7.1  SE reported that:

• Stratherrick and Foyers were developing an access initiative and had sought assistance from the LAF – SE would be in contact with S&F.
• Spey Users’ Group – representatives from the relevant Local Authorities would meet with rafters, anglers, canoeists etc. to review the year
• an Access Authorities meeting (Highland, Moray, Aberdeenshire, CNPA) would be held on 30 October; to share practice and experience

7.2  Councillor MacDonald sought the Forum’s views on an idea being considered by Nairn events Committee, to hold horse racing on the beach at Nairn.  Points raised in discussion included:

• the need for insurance
• to check what the tides were doing
• health and safety issues
• potential need for a special order to close off open space, if people were going to be charged an entry fee.  

8.  Date of next meeting

December 2014 - tbc

 

The meeting ended at 3.45 p.m.