Agendas, reports and minutes

Minutes of Meeting of the Sutherland Local Access Forum held in Ben More Assynt, Drummuie, Golspie on 18 November 2015 at 2pm.

Present:

Mr G Johnson, Scottish Rights of Way Society/Access User
Mr G Farlow, Councillor, Highland Council
Mr H B Field, Sutherland Walkers Group/Access User
Mr J Gall, Landowner/Crofter
Mr M MacDougall, Forestry Commission
Mr J McGillivray, Councillor, Highland Council
Mr J Ross, Scottish Canoe Association/Access User
Mr W Sutherland, Crofter

In Attendance:

Mr M Dent, Access Officer, Highland Council
Ms A Macrae, Committee Administrator, Highland Council

1. Apology for Absence

An apology for absence was intimated on behalf of Mr P Olson.
    
2. Minutes of Meeting of 23 March 2015

There had been submitted for confirmation as a correct record, the minute of meeting of 23 March 2015, the terms of which were APPROVED.
    
3. Matters Arising

•    National Access Forum/Local Access Forum – the joint meeting was to be held on 20 November 2015 in Battleby. It was noted that details of the meeting had been circulated to the Forum but that nobody was available to attend on this occasion; and

•    Invershin Viaduct – it was reported that the relevant works were nearing completion and this item could be now be removed as a standing item from the agenda.

3. Core Path Plan Review

There had been circulated the Consultative Report for the Sutherland area in the Highland Council Core Paths Plan.  

The Forum was advised that the review would take place alongside the consultation process for the new Caithness and Sutherland Local Development Plan. A single plan, the Caithness and Sutherland Core Paths Plan would be produced and where appropriate the Core Paths would be shown on the Local Development Plan.

It was explained that the Consultative Report had been produced as part of a review process, and that it was not a draft Core Paths Plan as set out in Section 17 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003.  Public comments were welcome, but the Council was not seeking formal objections to the proposals at this stage. Any objections would be treated the same as other comments and should any proposal be put forward in a Draft Core Paths Plan, the Council would give notice, in accordance with section 18 of the above Act, at a future date.  

Thereafter, the Access Officer explained that a desk top survey had been carried out by officers, based on local knowledge and experiences from carrying out core path surveys. The proposed new routes and modifications detailed in the above report had come from this desk top survey and also suggestions made to the Council since the adoption of the first core path plan. No on the ground survey work had been carried out directly related to this core path plan review. 

The Access Officer also explained that there were two levels of proposals set out in the report.  Firstly there were proposals which clearly met the aims of the review as set out in the above report. Typically these would be routes that were known to the Council through previous visits or past community involvement etc. These were also the routes intended to be proposed as core paths.  Secondly there were proposals that may meet the aims of the review but either further onsite investigation was required and/or public feedback was welcome on the use of that route for recreational purposes, as a link path or whether it was of amenity value. The consultative report sought to assess public comment on these routes as potential core paths but the Council was not proposing them at the present time.

Discussion then followed on whether the inclusion of core paths would be assessed using the criteria and scoring system which had been adopted in the development of the existing Plan. The Access Officer advised that it had been the view of colleagues that more judgement be used for the inclusion of core paths as part of the review.

In regard to the above, it was suggested that a joint approach be used going forward where paths were assessed using the relevant criteria and scoring method but officers also had the opportunity to exercise their judgement where they felt this was appropriate, provided an explanation was provided as to the reasons in respect of individual routes.

Thereafter, a lengthy discussion followed on each of the settlement areas and accompanying maps during which a range of points were raised in regard to each area, including the following:- 

•    Ardgay (SU03), Map (SU03b) – Ardgay Hill – it was agreed that the core path should be retained as currently mapped; it was noted that there had been no contact from either land manager of local community council in response to the review of the Plan but that there would be an opportunity for objections to be submitted as part of the final consultation on the Plan;

•    Bonar Bridge (SU05) – proposed core path from Loch Buidhe towards Achvaich, Dornoch (SU09.19(P)) – agreed to support the inclusion of the path while noting that commercial forestry was due to be harvested in the area using this route;

•    Bonar Bridge (SU05) – proposal to investigate core path from Achinduich, towards Sleastary by Loch Buidhe (SU09.20(P)); it was agreed that this proposal should not be taken forward on the basis that sections of the path were in poor condition;

•    Brora (SU06) – agreed the proposed modification to route SU06a to reflect usage;  

•    Croick (SU07) – agreed to support the proposals for creating long distance strategic routes; 

•    Dornoch (SU09) – it was agreed to remove the section at route SU09.19(P) past the pig farm at Embo;

•    Kinlochbervie (SU15) – agreed not to investigate potential for route at The Rhue/Ministers Point and the Sheilings Peat Road to Loch Innis;

Following further discussion, the Forum AGREED the consultative report subject to the modifications highlighted in discussion.
    
4. Local Access Issues/Planning Report

The Access Officer reported on the following local access/planning issues during which he advised that:-

•    Big Burn - Golspie Community Council had gained planning approval for the upgrading and maintenance of paths;

•    Dunrobin Farm/Rhives – an update was on the proposal to develop a caravan site in this area;

•    Gordonbush Windfarm Extension -  it was noted there were no access issues associated with this development;

•    Golspie Golf Course/Karting Track – reference was made to issues of coastal erosion and the potential impact on core paths in the area; and

•    Kinloch, Hope and Loyal Estates – it was reported that a planning application was awaited for a proposed major development involving a shooting lodge and spa and that the impact in terms of access issues would be assessed once this was lodged.  

The Forum NOTED the update.
    
5. AOCB

Mr B Field highlighted for information two action points arising from the meeting of the National Access Forum held on 30 September 2015. He noted that in respect of the A9 dualling project there was a consistent message from all user groups on the need to prepare a coherent access strategy document for the project as a whole.  Therefore it had been agreed that SNH staff would help to keep the NAF advised on relevant strategic project developments on the A9 dualling project over coming months, and other relevant member organisations and that access authorities would maintain their individual and collective awareness.   

In regard to an item on the inclusion of core paths in Scotland on OS maps, Mr Field noted that it had been agreed that contact with OS would be maintained on this topic and, if useful, the NAF would provide a statement for the OS to emphasise the case for mapping the core paths on OS products. Members had also been asked to consider suggestions for any pilot areas for OS if needed. 
    
6. Date of Next Meeting

It was AGREED that the next meeting be held before the relevant meeting of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee, the suggestion being May 2016, the date to be confirmed.  

The meeting ended at 4.15pm.