Glengarry Community Woodland

Management & Initial Business Plan

This plan is prepared on behalf of the Glengarry Community Woodland (GCW) Steering Group in support of their application in principle to purchase the former ‘Invergarry Depot and Woodland’ from Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) under the National Forest Land Scheme (NFLS).

This management plan is written in support of the initial application to Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) and the National Forestry Land Scheme. Any information herein is based on the best knowledge of the GCW Steering Group at the time and within the time available. It is intended to be an outline of potential and is not a full business or feasibility plan.

The work so far has been supported by Voluntary Action Lochaber (VAL), Highland and Island Enterprise (HIE), Highland Small Communities Housing Trust (HSCHT) and the Glengarry Trust. The assistance given has included guidance and advice, morale and financial support and for these we are very thankful.

We have also been in touch with the Communities Woodland Association (CWA) who support our plans to purchase the woodland and have offered advice and encouragement.

Grace Grant, Mac Provan, George Cross and Hector Rogers with the support of the GCW Steering Group.

8 August 2014

1

Executive Summary

This report is written in support of the initial application form to, in principle, purchase the depot and woodland in Invergarry under the under the National Forest Land Scheme (NFLS).

Since inception in early 2014, in a very short space of time, the Glengarry Community Woodland Steering Group and the community have managed to (amongst many other things):

 Establish a constitution (unincorporated group -16th April 2014)  Set up an information portal for group members and a public web site.  Communicated/engaged with all community groups (especially the school).  Made contact with a range of key support (HIE, HSCHT, CWA, VAL, FCS).  Considered other like projects  Sourced local skills  Engaged external support to run the community ballot.  Achieved a large turnout (nearly 60%) with just under 90% voting in favour.  Completed this report and the initial application to NFLS.

It is notable that all external visitors with whom we have engaged have stated how committed the group and the community is to this project which they also fully endorsed - and this is fully reflected in the excellent ballot response.

We are aware of the work still needed, particularly as it relates to finance, feasibility and the full business plan and these are identified throughout. Implicit in this is the plea that we be given time and support to make this happen - as the community so clearly wants it.

The survey has given us a huge amount of feedback to consider and work up into viable options for the feasibility and business planning stages. It clearly identifies that there is a current preference towards the environment and education with a secondary option being into employment/tourism. The least preferred being around building development. But there is no single overwhelming surge of opinion in any direction and all options need further consideration as stated by one survey respondent “I think all these ideas have potential and should be investigated further”

2

Contents Glengarry Community Woodland ...... 1 Management & Initial Business Plan ...... 1 Executive Summary ...... 2 Contents ...... 3 The Lots for Sale ...... 4 Background ...... 4 The Community Speaks ...... 6 Project Proposal ...... 7 Project Delivery ...... 11 Project Finance...... 12 Risk Analysis ...... 12 Conclusions ...... 13 List of Appendices ...... 14

3

The Lots for Sale

The property which forms the subject of this plan comprise two forest blocks on either side of the A87 Trunk Road to Skye from Invergarry, along with a disused depot, and is approximately 1km from Invergarry, opposite the cemetery.

Subjects for sale - detail map below

4

There are three lots for sale that are available only as a single purchase and they are described in a valuation report (appended) prepared for FCS and the Highland Small Communities Housing Trust (HSCHT). In brief:

Lot 1 extends to approximately 1.34 hectares and comprises the old depot yard that has good direct access off the A87 trunk road. The depot building is a timber frame, timber clad, metal roofed depot building in a run- down condition which contained deer larder, chemical store, office and workshop rooms with mains electricity and water, drainage to a septic tank, all within a tarmacadam area. There are the remains of a concrete servicing ramp for vehicles nearby to the West.

The whole area of Lot 1 is generally flat and triangular in shape with the apex to the west where it is mainly course grasses, rushes and Birch woodland. To the East it is mainly rough ground with Birch and Spruce bounded by post and wire fence which is in poor condition fronting the A87 road. An overhead electricity line crosses this part of the site. Sight lines from the entrance are good.

Lot 2. An area of commercial and amenity woodland on the hill-side (of varying steepness) to the North and West of Lot 1 amounts to 24.53 hectares planted in 1956. Comprises: Scots Pine, Douglas Fir, Birch, Japanese Larch, European Larch, and Norway Spruce, but yields are generally poor.

The area is bounded to the S and W by the A87 trunk road, to the NE by the single track road serving the Faichem community. An electricity power line transects the Lot S to N over a 20/30m wide cleared strip. Regeneration is hampered by the resident deer population both Red and Roe. Movement on foot through the area of Lot 2 is fairly easy and access is from Lot 1. Additionally, there is a small burn in the steep NE corner which runs into an adjoining property that is never known to have run dry. (Also, discussion with FCS reveals they have a national wayleave for power supply that any new owner would take over and this will generate income that would need to be investigated.)

Lot3. A small area of woodland of 4.65 hectares lying between the river and the A87 composed mostly of Birch with some conifer, of low commercial value but high amenity value as it enhances the river walk.

5

In the 1990s the site was downgraded to a depot and the office building was demolished and administration was devolved to the Lochaber District office at Torlundy. More recently the Invergarry depot and plantation became surplus to FCS requirements and an attempt was made to lease the site commercially but this fell through at the planning consent stage. Subsequently, through Scottish Government legislation, FCS were obliged to offer the land to the local community to purchase. This led to the formation of the Glengarry Woodland Steering group on 3rd April 2014.

Background

Description of the Area

Glengarry itself is a small, widely dispersed community of a little over 300 people based mostly in the village of Invergarry on the A87 trunk road at its junction with the A82 Fort William/Inverness road. The village was originally built by the Ellice family as a ‘model’ village. Following the collapse of the old village hall, in 2004 the community replaced it (in a new location) with a community hall. The relatively recently built community hall includes a cafe, meeting room, sports/assembly room, heritage centre and public toilets and is sited about 300m to the East of the land currently under consideration. The village hall has an active history section and mounts displays of interest, most recently a World War I presentation.

Invergarry is linked to the ‘Great Glen Way’. Although a small community it never- the-less has an active core of participants in activities and committees such as the Village Hall Committee and has annual events of high standing including Highland Games and Craft Fayre.

Invergarry has a small primary school of 28 pupils, who have already been actively involved in the discussion for the woodland, having painted logos for the initiative. (See the GCW website at: http://www.glengarry.org.uk/). It is the case that the population tends to be older with young people leaving the area, partly due to lack of affordable housing but mainly due to lack of employment.

6

Larger employers have tended to reduce the level of their local employment (such as FCS, Marine Harvest and the Hydro Board) and the community became increasingly dependent on tourism. In addition to the two hotels there are a number of Guest Houses, B&Bs and self-catering establishments. Therefore tourism is the major source of employment in the area.

Two hotels take advantage of the magnificent aspects of the locality including, Loch Oich, River Garry and all the way West to the Knoydart peninsula The third hotel, along the ‘longest single track road in Britain’ that winds its way along GlenGarry to the West coast at Kinlochourn, is currently closed and may be an indication of the difficulties of commerce in the area and a need to maintain the economy. One of the remaining hotels is only open in the tourist season. This contrasts with other localities, for example, Fort Augustus where there is more sustained economic activity throughout the year.

It is the case that Invergarry needs to be more attractive to visitors at all times of the year and its location on the junction of the A82 and A87 provides a significant amount of traffic all year but the village infrastructure does not invite stopping and shopping with no obvious coach parking facilities nor tourist shops and activities.

By acquiring this land the community will reduce its dependence on outside developers for employment (such as FCS and SSE) and extend the type and amount of locally generated, small scale economic activity with associated local employment.

Evolution of Project

The GCW Steering Group was formed as a constituted community group specifically with the aim to achieve a community buy out of the old Invergarry Depot and Woodland. It hopes to help the community in this relatively small area by empowering the local population to achieve what they want and need in their area, in order to maintain growth and stability for all residents, old and young alike.

GCW is aiming to be formally incorporated as a Scottish Charitable Incorporated Organisation (SCIO) or as a company limited by guarantee (Ltd. Company) (with

7 charitable status) in 2014 to support and promote sustainable community development in the local area.

FCS notified the community of its intention to sell the site under its 'repositioning programme'. Under the terms of the National Forest Land Scheme (NFLS), the community has 'first refusal' to acquire such land under arrangements for the Sponsored Sale of Surplus Land. This measure of the NFLS is subject to a very tight timescale and this, coupled with the notification of the sale itself coming even before their incorporation as a SCIO and/or Ltd Company and the lack of capacity during this crucial early phase has posed real challenges for the GCW Steering Group. But it is a challenge the community is rising to, with an excellent start given by the ballot result (see below).

The Group decided to notify an interest ahead of the August 2014 deadline and, with a great deal of help and direction from the Highlands Small Communities Housing Trust (HSCHT) early in the process (Ronnie MacRae and Susan Hunter) an initial valuation of the land for sale was arranged. This was paid for jointly by FSC and HSCHT. The resulting valuation of the area under consideration is appended.

A number of meetings enabled the initiation and establishment of the GCW Steering Group and all available information, including meeting minutes and the survey is on an information portal that is shared by the GCW Steering Group members. This is in addition to the public website at http://www.glengarry.org.uk.

With the assistance of VAL (Voluntary Action Lochaber) and the Glengarry Trust (who provided a £1000 ‘starter’ grant) a background information sheet and a Questions and Answers (Q&A) sheet (appended) have been published and printed for distribution as well as being available via the website.

Subsequent steering group meetings have further explored the proposal, alongside the ballot and it is identified that funding is required to cover the costs of professional support for business planning and the feasibility study.

The GCW Steering Group is fully engaged with the community and a range of communication activities have been undertaken and continue. The purpose of the

8 information and communication exercise has been to inform the local ballot which will guide future actions. The communications activities so far include:

 Initial letter to residents  Presence at Invergarry plant sale  Letters to community ‘leaders’  Survey to gain ideas (online and on paper (appended))  Logo competition with the school (see web site)  Publication of background information and Q&A (appended and on web.)  Posters throughout the community (eg at the local plant sale, school, shops and filling station.)  Glengarry Community Woodland web page  Presentations of ‘The Big Idea’ (on website) to various groups and open forum meetings such as the Community Council in July 2014.

The communication streams above preceded the ballot.

The Community Speaks

The information and communication so far has been to support the local ballot and to guide future actions, by enabling the community to be fully involved and express views and opinions.

The Ballot

The postal ballot of electors in the Glengarry community district (map appended), chiefly postcode area PH35 (postcodes detailed in application form), opened on 16 July August 2014 and closed on 1 August 2014. Ballot papers were circulated along with the 'Question and Answer' and ‘Background Information’ documents, along with a blank survey form ,in order that every elector was given enough information to vote.

The ballot resulted in:

9

 Number of people eligible to vote = 300  Number of eligible people who voted = 168 (56%)  Number of eligible people who voted in favour = 150 (89.2%)

(An additional eight ballot papers arrived too late to be included, although they reflected the general proportions above – with 6 ‘for’ and 2 ‘against’).

So, on a nearly 60% turnout, nearly 90% voted in favour of the purchase. This must be seen as a very positive result but, more importantly, a key indicator of the strength of the belief within the community that this is the right thing to do.

Accordingly the GCW Steering Group has secured a mandate from the community for the project, as required by the terms of the NFLS and considers the proposal outlined in this document to form the basis of a workable, robust and sustainable project.

However, the committee and the community fully realise this is only the start of a long journey.

Armed with this result, it is possible to proceed with the project and build upon the ideas and wishes of the residents of Glengarry, as so far expressed through the various forums and the survey.

The Ideas Survey

The ideas survey gave a number of suggestions and also asked for other ideas.

The results so far are appended but, in brief, it is welcoming to note the general positivity and the readiness to include fresh ideas and thoughts as requested. While analysis of results continues, what can be said, loud and clear, is that the community agrees with the principle of the purchase and that the various proposals, both those outlined below and any further inputs, will continue to be considered all the way to project fruition.

10

Project Proposal

Further Investigations

The GCW Steering Group were made aware of a number of other similar projects and thanks are due to other community groups for their help and advice, particularly Gary Servant of the Achnacarry, Bunarkaig & Clunes (ABC) Group, who talked eloquently and passionately to the steering group about their project. This led to a brief analysis of other community plans such as (amongst others):

 Glenmallie and South Loch Arkaig Forests  Kilfinan Community Forest Company  Kirkton Woodland and Heritage Group (at Loch Carron)  Raasay

The steering group appreciated that there were two fundamental issues. First, a need to fully understand what the requirements of such an enterprise are and second, to achieve this understanding, a need for capacity building (in terms of knowledge and skills) within the group. This is one key reason for the very positive meeting with Michael Hymers (Forest District Manager) and Ben Lennon (both of FCS) at the site on 4 August 2014 which allowed the committee to get a better and fuller understanding of the situation from FCS.

It is certainly the case that the support from FCS, HIE, VAL, Gary and others all helped and, to take this further, the group felt that the Loch Carron project was most similar to any likely proposal at Invergarry and, therefore, intend to visit that project early in September (when the summer season is tailing off).

We as a team and as a community, again, fully appreciate that more work is needed and make a plea for understanding from FCS that this can only be a plan in principle at this stage and we continue to look for positive support (moral and financial) from many others.

Organisational Structure

11

We have been advised that the any Glengarry Community Woodland group be incorporated either as a SCIO or as a Ltd. Company and for this organisation to take forward the project (if the NFLS application is successful) and thereby allowing the community to take ownership of the forest. Therefore, the GCW Group is a suitable applicant to the NFLS but, alone, may be unlikely to be a suitable vehicle for the management and delivery of an ambitious landscape-scale forestry and community land management initiative such as this in the longer term. It might be, dependent upon the final plans, that the day-to-day management of the asset will be by, for example, a community forester employed directly by and answerable to the parent organisation.

In any event, we are advised by HIE that care is needed in drafting the Articles of Association (for example the majority of the board members will be from the local community) in order that asset control remains within the community and this fully concurs with the view of the Steering Group. The community of Invergarry is a small one, and though about 5% of local residents are GCW Group members, the Group is still a small organisation with capacity issues of its own. There is a strong feeling amongst current office bearers of the GCW Steering Group, that a new organisation should be formed to own and manage the woodlands.

The exact structure of the new Group remains to be agreed, however its creation has the potential to include other stakeholders and partners in the management of the project and thereby increase its capacity and the resources available to it (subject to continuing to meet the NFLS criteria and others required of community organisations more generally).

Whilst other partners may be sought, it is entirely possible that the residents themselves can bear the responsibility of managing the activity or activities required in running this community initiative. There is a huge amount of will and skill within the community with, for example, the following three resumes for the committee giving an indication of the level of ability and knowledge that we can draw upon:

1. Chairman - Bruce Kocjan-Briggs

Is a Countryside Ranger with a special interest in outdoor education for child and adult groups with additional needs. Working on a National Long Distance Route (The Great Glen Way) has given experience of practical habitat management, balancing needs of people and wildlife and

12

managing groups in the outdoors. He has had a longstanding interest in traditional working woodlands, leading to him developing skills in greenwood working and chainsaw use

2. Secretary - Grace Grant

As a retired senior nurse, has huge skills in operating with small groups of people, sometimes in a stressful situations. People Management is a particular skill, alongside a high degree of communication ability, motivational skills and vision.

3. Treasurer - Charlotte Provan

Co-founder and director responsible for finance of a medium sized enterprise dealing with regulation of chemicals in Europe and beyond. Key skills include influencing, communication, motivational, management.

Within the local community there are many other skills sets including craft, financial and business, forestry and farming skills, all of which are likely to be called upon in due course.

Proposed Community Activities

It is thought that there are three groupings of activities that will create significant benefit to the Glengarry community and, within each of these headings are a number of specific activities to consider as possibilities. As noted above, at this stage it is not possible to precisely define the cost benefit of each project heading but it is possible to broadly discuss the ideas and viability. The intention is that independent consultants will be brought in to develop a feasibility report that will give more detailed viability of options.

The three groupings identified are:

 Employment/Tourism  Environment/Health/Education  Community/Development

The survey noted above (and appended) asked the community, within these three sections, about the various ideas that had been considered so far.

13

In general terms, the community seems to have given a more positive response to the ‘employment/tourism’ and ‘environment/health/education’ areas than to ‘community/development’. This is not to say that there will only be limited activities in these latter areas but, rather, that there needs to be ongoing consultation to develop understanding, discussion and communication of all the issues.

The following is an overview of the survey results.

Employment / Tourism

 Small Art & Craft stalls/units A generally well received idea with a large majority agreeing or strongly agreeing. One particular comment received strikes a chord: “I have a strong belief this community would thrive with a more substantial arts and crafts base.”

 A mountain bike centre (track and bike servicing)

Well received in the survey with specific comments perhaps extending this into skateboarding and offering help (“having built ramps for the European Skateboard Championships...”) But there is a polarisation of views for this activity, in that there are both ‘strongly agree’ and ‘strongly disagree’ votes. One comment poses a useful question in that it suggests a lack of cost benefit – especially given the close proximity of the mountain bike centre in Fort William.

 An archery training school

Not turned down flat but attracted less positive response than the other tourist type activities. Indeed, it is the more active activities that gained the strongest disagreement (mountain bikes, archery and, especially, an assault course/paintballing.) For archery, there appears to be ambivalence with many people voting for ‘neither agree nor disagree.’

 Some wood/woodland craft units

A very similar response to the Arts and crafts question is received but slightly in favour of woodland crafts. This was supported by a comment merely asking what about “woodland crafting?” Very few people took an active dislike to this activity.

 A secure store for outdoor activity/sports kit (eg canoes/bikes)

14

No particular negative score nor any comments. It might be that the community feels that, practically, if you were to, say, have a mountain bike centre then there must be storage. This would come down to size of storage needs and costs.

 The making of wood pellets and logs for sale

In communities such as Invergarry and the wider Glengarry area, surrounded as they are by extensive tracts of woodland, firewood should perhaps be the fuel of choice for all residents, and the community should be comfortably self-sufficient in this environmentally friendly fuel, rather than the common use of oil. This activity gained the highest score in ‘employment/tourism’ (in hindsight may have been better placed in ‘community development’).

Other comments pointed out that “wood pellets and logs must be sustainable” and “making wood pellets could be used internally...all year round option, rather than seasonal”.

The reality is that residents often find it hard to access firewood on account of the way the local forests are owned and managed, and their timber is marketed. Local ownership of these woodlands will allow the community to prioritise the needs of its own householders ahead of exporting timber, such that anyone local who needs wood fuel can get it. The community may choose to make firewood available direct to households, or contract out this activity to a local individual who may wish to build a business around firewood supply. In conversation with Michael Hymers of FCS it became clear that there was a belief that there could be wood for the community (on a ‘light touch’ harvesting scale) from the forest being considered here – for many years to come.

 The creation of an activity (eg assault course/paintballing)

As noted above, this activity attracted the most ‘strongly disagree’ in this section. On the face of it noisy activities could be seen to clash with developments directed at tranquillity and re-generation and that balance will be easier to maintain if a graduated approach is taken to any developments with short term and longer term and options kept in mind.

Environment / Health / Education

15

As a whole, this section scored very well and attracted the least negative ‘votes’ with the only activity slightly down from that high score is the suggestion to have ‘wood lots’.

 Having some allotments for local growers

Scored well with very few ‘strongly disagree’. It is the case that some overall management would be needed and there is debate about the amount of land that would be required or indeed could be available. It may be that this comes in association with the activity below:

 Some small stalls for local fruit and vegetables

Scored similar to the above but slightly down. There are no other comments to support either way. Therefore it may be that this idea needs more thought before it can be considered.

 Having wood lots for residents to lease some woodland

Woodlot Licences are a new model of forest tenure being promoted by the Scottish Woodlot Association (see http://scottishwoodlotassociation.co.uk). Under a Woodlot Licence, a licensee rents an area of woodland on a long-term basis from a landowner. In return for payment of an annual rental, the licensee has the right to harvest timber according to an Allowable Annual Cut (AAC) agreed in advance with landowner, with whom they also agree a management plan. The licensee is responsible for the management of the forest, including restocking the areas harvested. The arrangement allows individuals and their families to access woodland to manage productively, and to use and add value to the timber harvested, supporting their lifestyles and livelihoods. Management is of high quality, on account of the personal input of the licence holder and the intimate knowledge of the forest they acquire over the years. The approach is well suited to areas which are particularly sensitive and/or are difficult to manage through conventional methods (eg due to access constraints).

The result of the survey is that the community scored this lower than the other areas in this section but with quite a high proportion of ‘neither agree nor disagree.’ The complexity of the system described above (and it being a new system) may mean that more education about how it works is needed within the community before it could gain traction.

16

 A ‘woodland classroom’ for all ages  A nature trail with woodland activities  Clearing the old wood replace 'old wood' with 'plantation' and regenerating the natural woodland

These three are taken together as they all score very high and similarly. The local primary school is already fully engaged and supportive of the proposal and a design competition was held with the intention to create a logo for the group. All three activities are given many supportive comments including:

“Keep it for nature” “Paths... Benches... Let nature get on with it - not too tidy”

“Competition for children on woodland walks”

“Wildlife hides and interpretation boards”

“Take away non-native trees”

“Staggered clearance re-generation in sections”

In this area fresh ideas have been forthcoming from the community with suggestions such as “a hide for wildlife observation” and “Red squirrel feeding and observation platform”.

In any eventuality, the proposal will include the restoration of the woodland area such that native woodland types appropriate to the site are encouraged, with integrated open ground habitats, also restored where necessary. This will involve harvesting and extraction of non-native conifers (see below) and, primarily, manual removal of non-native species. Natural regeneration of native species will be facilitated through careful management of herbivore impacts, perhaps including controlled grazing of cattle (Highland Cattle would be a tourist attraction) as successfully carried out by FCS elsewhere on Loch Arkaig and in Glen Garry.

Propagation of trees using locally collected seed and other material will be a priority, possibly generating a small scale local tree nursery enterprise/project. The FCS representatives discussed this with us on 4 August 2014 and a particularly strong Birch seed ‘crop’ exists within Lot 2. These trees will then be used for enrichment planting when and where necessary, as well as new planting for woodland creation

17 in open areas. Any bog habitats will be restored, including blocking drains where necessary, and an essential backdrop to all the above will be regular inspection and control.

Community / Development

As noted earlier, this whole section scored relatively poorly. However:

 Having a car park for on site and shinty/cemetery overflow

This idea tends to buck the section trend attracting a high score.

 Building affordable or key worker homes  Selling house plots for income generation

Both these ideas are not seen as a priority, particularly selling house plots that did not score well. But, perhaps, insufficient information was given out to identify the need to have any housing tied to the land use and local key workers and not simply offered on the open market. If done, this is unlikely to be a feature of early work. Care would need to be taken to identify any future benefits related to such action. Advice would be sought from bodies such as HSCHT.

 Setting up small business units (eg technology or printing ‘hub’)

A high proportion of the ‘middle, no view’ answer - suggesting more information would be needed to gain support. It should be noted that the depot site is identified for small business use on the local development plan. If the right business idea was forthcoming it is possible to see acceptance, providing there was general fit with the community wishes.

 Building an iconic tree house building an iconic structure, for example.....for rental and/or activities

This idea did not score particularly well or badly. It is on a par with most of section 1 (where it might have been better placed). Having a large visible tree house (or other iconic feature) presence on the roadside would be an attraction in its’ own right and could easily be seen as a ‘pump primer’ such as for the use of recreational woodland cabins that is widespread in other countries (eg hytte in Norway). One comment tends to support: “use of some Douglas Fir for buildings on the site”.

18

Another comment, intriguingly, states that we should consider a unit for the “Men and Sheds charity”. These ideas can be followed up as and when appropriate.

 Setting up a youth club (say, ages 8 – 16)

This idea again polarised views scoring both ‘strongly disagree’ and ‘strongly agree’ – but swaying in favour of agreement. It might be that a youth club would be better placed within the existing community hall but, in any event, one thing is clear to the committee – that there must not be competition between the existing hall and any new activity on this site but, rather, that the activities should complement each other.

The Woodland

Although important, it is recognised here that timber harvesting will only be one aspect of the proposal and, it is equally important to consider all ideas.

Neither woodland lot has a particularly productive crop of planted softwoods and, for the main woodland lot (lot 2), the valuation (appended) identified the following:

 Scots Pine – 8.32 ha  Douglas Fir – 4.28 ha  Birch – 3.99 ha  Japanese Larch – 2.79 ha  European Larch – 2.39 ha  Norway Spruce – 0.29 ha

Discussion with FCS on site revealed that the soil is likely to be relatively rich given the current species and that natural regeneration should be possible - whilst noting the concerns contained within the valuation report - given careful management (not consistent with the large operations of FCS). Also noted was the evidence and availability of strong Birch growth for logs.

Project Delivery

As outlined above, the exact structure of the organisation which will be established both to take on the ownership of the woodlands and to deliver the project is still to be

19 confirmed. However a SCIO or Ltd Company will be the first step and eventually a local manager/community forester is likely to be employed.

The chosen organisation will oversee the feasibility study, business planning and the fund raising for the project. Post acquisition, the focus will switch to delivery on the ground but with the asset control being retained by the community for the community.

Project Finance

The valuation of the site is £200,000. The main funding sources anticipated for acquisition of the woodlands, project development and operation in the first five years are as follows:

Scottish Land Fund: Help is being given by HIE regarding the Scottish Land Fund (SLF) funding that might be sought for the purchase and this will help inform the funding package. However, it is noted that the pipeline for this fund is very healthy and the fund is becoming more competitive. Therefore we will be considering other ways of bringing in funding to assist with acquisition.

This project has been assessed as ‘non state aid’ by HIE and with that in mind the following sequence might apply:

1. Acceptance - September 2014 - £200,000 plus £5000 legal fees etc. 2. Appoint from advert in CWA manager/fund raiser to conduct a Feasibility study/business plan by, say, February 2015. (Potential funding by SLF, FCS seed corn) This appointment would also help to identify other sources of funding. The possibility of acquisition funding (say 90%) from SLF plus 10% possibly from Glengarry Trust, plus local fundraising could then be investigated. It is vital to identify other sources of capital funding in the meantime (LEADER fund, Scottish Rural Development fund). 3. Advertise and appoint community forester in anticipation of settlement date. Work to start at settlement date. Revenue funding required for two years, (requires spending by March 2016) – Eligible to apply for up to £50000 possibly from SLF, for this.

20

It is also intended that Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP2015-2020): be investigated to contribute to forest management costs for the project. Although the programme has yet to launch so that exact details are not available, it is expected to be similar to the previous SRDP programme. The scheme is competitive but this project, with its focus on restoring and managing priority habitats, is expected to be well-placed to secure funding from it.

Scottish Timber Transport Fund: this fund has been specifically established to support access improvements to existing woodlands. However, the fund is fully committed to March 2015 and it is expected to be extended. Advice given is that the Fund primarily seeks to support the removal of timber traffic from the road network. The problem here, however, is that much of the timber is alongside the A87 Trunk road. STTF funding therefore must be considered possible, but not probable.

Legal fees are likely to be in the region of £5000.

In terms of timber production, the valuation report noted that ‘the yield classes are quite poor’ averaging around YC10 or below for most species. Discussion with FCS on site suggested between £15 - £25 per tonne at the roadside and that there may be a sustainable 200 tonnes per year. Clearly this is not commercially viable as a timber operation and ‘added value’ must be given in some way via one, some or many of the activities mentioned above. However, it might be that initial voluntary work releases around £5000 per year for small development and can be supported by grants from elsewhere, at least in the short term. This figure may be exceeded due to the growing wood fuel market for small round wood. FCS gave contact details for further assistance in this arena, on 4 August 2014.

The main revenue costs will arise from forest management operations and the wages/salary costs of project management, game/wildlife management, harvesting and forestry contracting. These are likely to add up to one FTE post over the initial five year period.

Poorer timber on site may be worth extracting but may be better used on site for other activities. For example, brushwood, branches etc could be shredded and sold

21 as mulch / made into pellets. Or small round logs could be used directly for firewood by the local community and these could at least cover extraction/production costs and so contribute to clearing timber debris and managing the woodland.

Other Income: Woodlot Licences, huts/cabins, local firewood sales, renewable development and leasing craft workshop stalls all have the potential to make contributions to project finances. However, they require further investigation during the pre-purchase project development phase, not least to confirm demand for many of them. In any event, there are good non-financial reasons for including any or all of them in the project, including the social and rural development benefits they provide, thus any income arising will be considered a bonus rather than a justification.

It is intended that an individual with particular fund raising skills be approached to enable the community to gain the required funding through all avenues, including local community fund raising where appropriate. It is hoped that this will further engage the community on this journey.

Risk Analysis

A brief analysis of the main risks to the project which have been identified follows, with comments on their mitigation.

Risk Mitigation

Failure to gain approval for The steering group has done its best in the restricted purchase from FCS time available to make a robust case for acquisition

Failure to secure funding for Other funding sources will be investigated; early purchase costs positive feedback from HIE& the Scottish Land Fund means that only limited options have been considered to date

Timber market collapses Very unlikely, demand for timber is growing for reasons of climate change mitigation.

22

Lack of demand for Woodlot Available evidence suggests this is unlikely. Licences/woodland crofts / huts / local firewood

Project management failure Initial grant funding will allow the recruitment of a suitably experienced project manager to develop and deliver project; robust project governance will include co-option of directors with relevant specialist skills.

Insurance The group will need to take out insurance for the event of tree fall on the roads (although it is noted that the relevant roads agency has road clearance responsibility) and for public access to whatever activities are decided.

A brief SWOT analysis has been conducted:

Strengths: Good access to/from A87 trunk road; within walking distance of village; compact site ease of management. All services on site. Great community support with a range of skills, experience and knowledge. Size of site is appropriate for community management.

Weakness: Unsecure boundaries (poor fencing); Lot 2 on a hillside steep in places with attendant difficulties of timber extraction; track access limited; bisected by power line.

Opportunities : income generation; workshops; housing; horticulture; nature education; natural regeneration; overspill parking (cemetery, events), sustainable eco friendly building development (iconic structure and/or key worker housing).

Threats: Community apathy (on current evidence this is not a problem); deer restricting natural regeneration; legal restrictions on timber felling/extracting.

Given the feedback we’ve had from the community and external advisers, the strengths and opportunities far outweigh the threats and weaknesses.

23

Conclusions

This project represents a unique opportunity for the local community, working with partners, to secure an important area of woodland for local and wider public benefit. The preceding pages layout what we consider to be a principled case for a sustainable project delivering numerous public, especially local benefits.

It is the case that we need to work up the excellent ideas and responses to the survey into workable solutions. But the voters have given us a good initial steer by particularly welcoming the ideas around natural woodland and education, alongside native woodland re-generation. It is likely that any ideas will be approached in a step like fashion with one feasible yet simple option generating capacity for the next. And as one survey statement says: “The community ALWAYS has to be involved and benefit from this space”. And that is what the GCW steering group would want and any later development organisation would advance – by continuing to inform, communicate – and listen.

Opportunities like this do not often present themselves to communities like ours. We are aware of the work still required but are prepared for that challenge. The community has spoken - loud and clear - in support of this purchase and it would be a pity if we were not to make it happen. This is a project both for all of us, now and for future generations within Glengarry.

List of Appendices

A - Valuation Report – Independent valuation for FCS and HCSHT

B - Q&A sheet and Background Information sheet - published on website and distributed with ballot

C - Survey - published on website (via ‘Survey Monkey’) and with ballot.

24

D - Community District Map

E - Survey Results – tabulated and published on website

Appendix A - Valuation Report – Independent valuation for FCS and HCSHT

Paper pdf file only available. Printed for paper version. Electronic available upon request (subject to any confidentiality arrangements)

25

26

Appendix B

Q&A sheet - published on website and distributed with ballot

Glengarry Community Woodland

Proposed Purchase of Invergarry Depot and Woodland

Questions & Answers

What is being proposed? What is for sale?

The recently constituted Glengarry Community Woodland (GCW) Steering Group is proposing to apply to buy the woodland in Invergarry being offered for sale by Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS), via the National Forest Land Scheme (NFLS). The depot and woodland would be bought on behalf of the whole community.

What is the Glengarry Community Woodland (GCW) Steering Group?

The steering group has been set up as a precursor to your local community development organisation which would work to benefit the local area. The local community development organization would be a charity whose purpose would be to support and promote sustainable community development. All adult local residents would be eligible to be members at no cost.

GCW is a group set up to carry out the necessary community ballot and submit the application to FCS.

What is the National Forest Land Scheme (NFLS)?

The NFLS is a scheme administered by Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) which allows properly constituted community groups to acquire or lease land from them if doing so will deliver enhanced community benefits. There are several strands to the NFLS including the Sponsored Sale of Surplus Land which is applicable here. This gives the community a ‘right of first refusal’ to acquire the land, subject to meeting NFLS criteria.

For full details regarding NFLS, go to the website at: http://scotland.forestry.gov.uk/supporting/strategy -policy guidance / communities / national- forest-land-scheme-nfls.

Why should the community acquire these woodlands?

The Steering Group has been advised that this is a unique opportunity to acquire a locally significant land asset which will support sustainable rural development through direct and indirect jobs related to tourism, environment, education and community development.

27

Are any other organisations in favour of this proposal?

Yes. The Invergarry Community Council is in support, as is the Glengarry Trust. Also, Voluntary Action Lochaber (VAL); Highlands & Islands Enterprise (HIE); Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) and the Highlands Small Community Housing Trust (HSCHT) have all attended meetings and been very positive and supportive of the proposed buyout.

Would this affect existing services provided by the community hall?

Not at all, as the idea is that the two services would work in collaboration and complement each another for the benefit of the whole community.

How much of the woodland will be purchased?

The initial plans are to apply to purchase all of the woodland in Invergarry currently declared surplus by FCS, which is approximately 30 hectares. However, this will be subject to the production of a comprehensive business plan, which will establish the feasibility of the various ideas.

Why are we holding a ballot?

In order for our application to acquire the woodlands to be approved by FCS, it must meet various criteria. One of these is that the local community demonstrates its support for the purchase through a ballot of local residents. By voting 'NO' the woods will be placed on the open market in the next financial year - for other bodies to develop. By voting 'YES' you will give the steering group an additional 18 months to prepare a detailed business plan and secure funding for the purchase at no cost to the community.

Am I eligible to vote?

If you are over 18, ordinarily resident in the postcode area of Glengarry Community Council and are on the electoral register here you are eligible to vote in the ballot. Note that you do not have to be a member of the steering group or the subsequent community group in order to vote (though we would encourage you to join!). If you are under 18 and wish to express an opinion, please mail Bruce Kocjan-Briggs (contact details below.)

Does it matter whether I vote?

Yes! Under the NFLS process we are required to achieve a very large turnout from our community. So, whichever way you intend to vote, it is important you do so.

Will the ballot be confidential and fair?

Yes. Voluntary Action Lochaber (VAL) is organising this postal ballot on behalf of GCW. No voting forms are personally identifiable and no-one from the GCW group will be involved in the count.

How much will the woodlands cost?

28

The District Valuer has valued the land at £200,000.

In addition to the purchase costs, investment will be required in due course to restore and manage the woodlands.

How will we raise the money?

This will clearly be a challenge but one which has been met by many other communities in the past. This will not cost any individuals in the community any money. It is intended that the money be raised from a number of public bodies eg Scottish Land Fund ‘Big Lottery Fund’. Funding to support ongoing management could also be available from the Scottish Rural Development Programme 2014-2020.

What happens if we can’t raise the money?

If our application is successful but we are subsequently unable to raise sufficient funding within 18 months, our option to purchase will lapse and FCS will sell the woodlands on the open market.

How can we be sure the project is viable?

The process of business planning is already underway. An outline plan will be submitted with our NFLS application and, if approved, this will be developed further to confirm the detailed business case. The GCW group will be unable – nor would it wish – to progress the project without a sound business case being proved.

Where can I find out more about the project?

You could visit our website at: http://www.glengarry.org.uk

Or you could visit Glengarry Life where there are specific pages for the Glengarry Community Woodland (GCW): http://www.glengarrylife.com/index.html

Any member of the steering group will be happy to answer questions. These being:

Bruce Kocjan-Briggs (Chairman) – 01809 501294 or [email protected]

Grace Grant (Secretary) – 01809 501488

Charlotte Proven (Treasurer) – 01809 501265

Jon Fleming, Colin Grant, Lea MacNally, Jimmy & Catriona Menzies, Hector & Lindsay Rogers, Colin Sage or Neillie Stewart.

Please vote ‘Yes’ as this gives the whole community a say in how our village changes and develops in the future.

29

Background Information - published on website and distributed with ballot

Glengarry Community Woodland

Background Information for Ballot

The residents of Glengarry have an opportunity to acquire some 30 Hectares of woodland which is being sold by Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS), via the National Forest Land Scheme (NFLS).

30

As you can see from the map, the land being sold is really convenient to the village of Invergarry and is likely to be regularly passed by all who live and work in the area. It is split into three lots - but these are not being sold separately by FCS.

As a single purchase it means there is fantastic access - with an existing hut and services on site, as well as the opportunities provided by the woods themselves. We’re asking for your support, not your money!

A Glengarry Community Woodland (GCW) Steering Group has recently been constituted in order to investigate the viability of the community being able to achieve this purchase, to spread relevant information and, most importantly, to seek the views of all those who live and work in the community.

Also enclosed (or available on line) are

 Q&A sheets

 survey form

 ballot paper

We hope this additional information will help you when completing the ballot paper.

Online information is available via a link on ‘Glengarry Life’ at: http://www.glengarrylife.com/index.html

Or at our own website: http://www.glengarry.org.uk/

Please remember to return your ballot paper by 1st August 2014.

31

Appendix C - Survey sheet - published on website (via ‘Survey Monkey’) and with ballot.

Glengarry Community Woodland Your Ideas Survey…

What do YOU think the community needs?

A fundamental part of any business case is what is to be done with the land. To find out what the community wants and needs, your input is important. Please complete the following survey as this will ensure that your views will be taken into account.

If you prefer, you can complete the survey online on our website: http://www.glengarry.org.uk/

Or directly at the web address: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/93WD6FL

If completing the printed paper survey, please place a cross in the box that best matches your thoughts. Any answers you give will be kept strictly confidential.

Section one – Ideas for employment/tourism

Neither Disagree Strongly nor Strongly Ideas/suggestions/possibilities Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree

Small Art & Craft stalls/units are a good idea (lease/cooperative)

A mountain bike centre (track and bike servicing) is a good idea.

An archery training school/facility is a good idea.

Some wood/woodland craft units are a good idea.

32

A secure store for outdoor activity /sports kit (eg canoes/bikes) is a good idea.

The making of wood pellets and logs for sale is a good idea.

The creation of an activity (eg assault course/paintballing) is a good idea.

your suggestions

Section two – Ideas for environment/education/health

Neither Disagree Strongly nor Strongly Ideas/suggestions/possibilities Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree

Having some allotments for local growers is a good idea.

Some small stalls for local fruit and vegetables is a good idea.

Having wood lots for residents to lease some woodland is a good idea

A ‘woodland classroom’ for all ages is a good idea

33

A nature trail with woodland activities is a good idea

Clearing the old wood and regenerating the natural woodland is a good idea

your suggestions

Section three – Ideas for community development

Neither Disagree Strongly nor Strongly Ideas/suggestions/possibilities Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree

Building an iconic tree house for rental and/or activities is a good idea.

Setting up a youth club (say, ages 8 – 16) is a good idea.

Having a car park for on site and shinty/cemetery overflow is a good idea.

Building affordable or key worker homes is a good idea.

Selling house plots for income generation is a good idea.

Setting up small business units (eg technology or printing ‘hub’) is a good

34

idea.

your suggestions

Any further comments.

This survey is anonymous but if you wish to be contacted regarding it, or anything else about the Glengarry Community Woodland, please enter your name and contact details. Your confidentiality will be respected.

Name: ______

Contact Details: ______

When you have completed this survey, please return by 30 August 2014 to:

 The location you picked up the survey (eg the filling station) or

 Hand in to any steering group member as named in Q&A or

 By post to:

Grace Grant (Secretary Glengarry Community Woodland),

The Old Farmhouse

Faichem

Invergarry

PH35 4HG

35

36

Appendix D - Community District Map

Paper pdf file only available. Printed for paper version. Electronic available upon request (subject to any confidentiality arrangements)

37

38

Appendix E - Survey Results – tabulated and published on website

Paper pdf file only available. Printed for paper version. Electronic available upon request (subject to any confidentiality arrangements)

39