Core Path Report for C149 Bridgend to Ford

1. Proposed Core Path

Page 1 of 63 2. Summary of Representations Received Representation Respondent Organisation/ Objection Respondents Respondent Objection Name Group Summery proposed Ref No. withdrawn action Objection Angus Privacy & Delete P001/1 Wilson Security / (Withdrawn) Livestock / & P001/2 Farming Operations / Wildlife & Conservation / Alternative Route Available / Business Objection Mr E P Privacy & Delete P129 Bowden- Security / Smith Livestock / Farming Operations / Alternative Route Available Objection Edward Privacy & Delete P122 McLean Security / Farming Operations / Wildlife & Conservation / Alternative Route Available Objection Maurice and Privacy & Delete P119 Norma Security / Cockerline Farming Operations / Alternative Route Available Objection Major Privacy & Delete P126 Warde Security / Aldam Farming Operations / Business / Alternative Route Available Objection Charles Ederline Livestock / Delete P123 Cuthbertson Estate Farming Operations / Health & Safety Objection Alick Beaton Privacy & Delete P120 Security / Farming Operations / Health & Safety / Alternative

Page 2 of 63 Route Available Objection Joachim Privacy & Delete P121/1 Brolly Security / Livestock / Farming Operations / Alternative Route Available Objection W G Cairns Privacy & Delete P118 Security / Livestock / Farming Operations Objection Gregory Privacy & Delete P127 Sosner Security / Farming Operations Objection Mr M and Privacy & Delete P116 Mrs A Security / Thompson Farming Operations Objection Pierre Privacy & Delete P124 Godts Security / Farming Operations / Alternative Route Available Objection Mrs Willa Privacy & Delete P115 Clare Security / Wilson Farming Operations / Alternative Route Available Objection Dugald C Privacy & Delete P125 McAuslan Security / Farming Operations / Alternative Route Available

Support Angus E059 MacIntyre Support Robert P091 Gillies Support Gillian E035 Garner Support Aileen P071 Gillies Support Wendy E054 Lilico Support Lorraine E058 MacIntyre Support Olwen P198

Page 3 of 63 Hemmings Support John Boden E006 Support David E0033 & Garner E034 Support Peter E013 Creech

3. History of Access i. Right of Way Status: None recorded

ii. Recorded Access Issues: A complaint was received regarding a gate being blocked and a group told that the road through the estate was private-

Status: Resolved. when visited the gate was not blocked; Access Officer felt that although the road through the estate is a private road it would probably be considered to be within access rights with the exception of where it passes through a farm yard.

There have also been a small number of verbal complaints from local people who have been challenged when using this path. None of these has been followed up with a written complaint. It would appear however that the community is split on this issue. Two of the representations received during this consultation make reference to people being challenged whilst using this path.

4. Site Visit

Turning down to Ederline from the Ford to Bridge over the Clachandubh Burn Bridgend Road

South Lodge at the entrance to Ederline Clachandubh - adopted road continuing Estate located close to the end of the towards Ederline House just visible on the adopted road left of this picture.

Page 4 of 63

Ederline House viewed from the path Continuing north towards Keepers Cottage

Keeper’s Cottage from the path Heading towards Ederline Farm

Path continuing past Ederline Farm Ederline Farm – note there are houses occupied by farm workers adjacent to the path

Farm buildings at the northern end of the Farm yard behind residential buildings farm

Page 5 of 63

Continuing towards the B840 Continuing past Bruachan

Note Ederline has a number of holiday cottages on the estate Continuing on the B840 into Ford

Junction with C173(a) part of the National Cycle Network linking Ford to Oban and Lochgilphead

Page 6 of 63

5. Alternative Route/s Several objectors have suggested that an alternative route for the proposed Core Path would follow a track to the east of the path through Ederline Estate shown as an orange line on the first page of this report. The path was walked during one of the wettest periods in recent years but even during drier weather was very wet and rough, in part because it is used for gathering cattle and feeding.

Path junction with the B840 east of Ford Access gate on to the path

The path starts wet and in places is very The path climbs the hill east of the farm wet and rough buildings and has some good views of the surrounding area

Very wet and muddy gateway Flooded section of the path.

Page 8 of 63

Path continues downhill towards the Steep descent on stony ground South Lodge

Continuing towards South Lodge Passing behind Keepers Cottage

Junction with the adopted road at South Lodge

Having walked the alternative path on two occasions I believe it is not equivalent to the proposed route being far rougher and poorly drained and I have no doubt that it is muddy in all but the driest weather. The track is used to access cattle grazing on the hill and by tractors taking feed to them etc and as a consequence is very muddy. The path climbs steeply and for less able walkers would be much more challenging than the level, surfaced path through the estate. I do not believe that this is a path those supporting the designation of C149 would accept as an alternative.

Page 9 of 63

6. Consultation with Objectors & Other Interested Parties Farm yard The Route goes through the centre of a working farmyard and livestock handling facility. This will cause disruption to the working farm and poses a risk of injury to members of the public via farm machinery and livestock especially cattle which may already be in an agitated state due to being moved or handled.

The farmyard and steading at Ederline are at the heart of our busy farming operation. It is an area where tractors and machinery are operating on a regular basis and where stock are handled. We are required by law to take account of the safety of visitors to the farmyard when managing the risks these operations present, however our risk assessment at present are tempered by the current low likely hood that we will have visitors passing through the farmyard. This will have to change if the route is designated as a core path. The burden on us will increase considerably with associated time and cost implications for the farming business. The proposal will impact negatively on future development opportunities.

Estate/Farm operations The drive is a private road to Ederline House, a few local residents have been allowed to walk the drive unhindered, however this was a right granted by the estate, there are large iron gates on the drive which the estate has the legitimate right to close for management of the estate- how is this gate to be circumnavigated should it be closed? Private signs have been in place over 30 years.

Livestock Walkers and cyclists progressing against the flow of stock can be very disruptive to the farmer and potentially frightening for many visitors.

The route passes between fields which are going to be amalgamated in the future as this will serve the long term management plans of the estate. The fields are directly in front of the shepherd’s and stockman’s house, these fields are used for sick and ailing livestock. The suggestion of the access officer was to reroute the path away from the farm buildings through this field. However because of the use this field is put to this would be highly unsuitable.

Farm dogs Working dogs kept at the farm would be constantly disturbed with each passer-by causing the dogs to start barking

Privacy and Security The route infringes upon the privacy and security of the workers/people living at Ederline Farm. Path is so close it will be a burden on the enjoyment of a private home. The properties will suffer a downturn in their value. Members of the public will be able to look directly into the front kitchen and living room.

We accept that access rights currently apply to the majority of the estate, except for the privacy zones around the farm properties and the curtilage around the farm buildings, we are extremely concerned that the core paths designation as proposed would mean that the access rights would apply to the two areas of the estate where they currently don’t exist, particularly through the farm yard.

Page 10 of 63

Holiday Letting Business There are a number of holiday cottages along this route where people pay for their privacy, these properties will lose their privacy. Holiday bookings will suffer. Significant investment is being made expanding a holiday letting business on the estate. A unique selling point for the business is the peace, tranquillity and privacy that the self-catering accommodation offers. We are concerned having a core path running past all the letting properties will unreasonably impact the privacy of our customers and could therefore have a negative impact on this aspect of our business.

Alternative Route Why not use the path to the east of C149(a) that is a more sensible route and would not conflict with the management of the farm. This is a serviceable public right of way and there is no competent reason why this alternative route should not be used. This alternative was not included in the formal consultation draft and so an opportunity to receive public opinion on it has been missed. We recognise that the alternative route would need some upgrading , and we are prepared to consider applying for funding under the SRDP Rural Priorities scheme to undertake this. This alternative would remove the potential for any conflict with the daily activities in the farmyard and protects the privacy of the dwelling on the estate.

Nesting Ospreys There is a chance that anyone using the route will disturb a pair of category one birds as ospreys nest to the south of this path. Signs are erected here in April advising anyone to keep out as there are nesting birds. SNH and RSPB are aware of these birds.

Use of Public Road Argyll and Bute Councils Access Officer has indicated that the route C149(a) offers access opportunities for less able users. In order to access this route people will have to make way of the public highway and the minor road leading south to Kilmichael. Both these roads are narrow single tracked routes with no footpath and limited passing places.

Carloonan Farm Carloonan Farm was used as a core path study by the Local Access Forum which found that the path was too close to the farm house. What is the difference between there and here?

Page 11 of 63

7. Access Officer’s Initial Comments Farmyard – Access rights do not extend to farmyards, however core paths can be designated in areas outwith access rights, See Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 Section 7 Provisions supplementing and qualifying section 6, Part (1) Section 6 does not prevent or restrict the exercise of access rights over any land which is a core path, thereby allowing a right of access through the farmyard.

Access to the countryside is often taken through farmyard when following a path or track, and it is recognised that such places are working areas that can be intensively used at times. The Scottish Outdoor Access Code states: if you do go through a farmyard, proceed safely and carefully, watch out for moving vehicles and livestock, and respect the privacy of people living on the farm.

Signage can also be used to help identify potential hazards such as moving vehicles; this can be especially useful during times when the farmyard is being intensively used. Scottish Natural Heritage have produced standard advisory signage for working farmyards and the Outdoor Access Team would be very happy to work with landowners/land managers to design and produce signage specific to a farm’s needs.

Estate/Farm operations Gates can be closed for legitimate reasons. The Scottish Outdoor Access Code states “Land Managers need to conduct their work as safely and effectively as possible. Hindering such work can cost them time and money, and can be potentially hazardous to your safety and to the safety of those working the land………Most situations will be adequately dealt with by recommendations and advice.” It further advises that they key points to remember if you come across a land management operation are: Keep a safe distance and take heed of reasonable advice provided by the land manager and follow any precautions provided for your safety.

As of November 2011 The Scottish Government and the National Access Forum have acknowledged that there is a deficiency in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 which means that there is no clear legal mechanism which would allow the use of a Core Path to be restricted or if necessary closed for any reason including on the grounds of health and safety obligations., however it is difficult to envisage that someone would progress on a core path when advised against doing so because of health and safety concerns. It is also possible that anyone disregarding such advice would forfeit their access rights.

As long as the gates are closed for legitimate reasons and for the minimum time required this should not be a problem, and people should respect this especially if advisory signage is placed at both starting points of the route advising when the gates will be closed.

Livestock – The majority of proposed Core Paths on agricultural land pass through fields used by livestock and in season for lambing or calving. There is standard advisory signage provided by Scottish Natural Heritage to inform users and reinforce responsible behaviour, i.e. keep dogs under control. The presence of livestock is not a reason for a Core Path not to be designated. The designation of the path will make it easier for the land manager to inform the public and provide advisory signs etc. Nothing in the Scottish Outdoor Access Code suggests that bio security would be threatened by allowing public access.

Farm Dogs- Many houses that a core path passes will have dogs, disturbance is possible however we do not believe that it is a valid objection for the route not to be a core path. Certain Measures could be taken by the owner of the dog to reduce any possible disturbance, such as housing the dogs away from the route.

Page 12 of 63

Privacy.

Tigh Na Creag Stroneskar – The path at this point is on the adopted road around 15 metres away from the house. The public has a right of access along the public road irrespective of the designation of the Core Path.

Clachandubh – Again the path at this point is on the adopted road around 5 metres away from the house. The public has a right of access along the public road irrespective of the designation of the Core Path. This cottage is available to rent as a holiday cottage owned by Ederline Estate.

South Lodge – This house is set in its own garden area which is well defined by the fence and is set back around six metres from the path. This cottage is available to rent as a holiday cottage.

Ederline House – This is a large six bedroom property set in a well defined garden with substantial hedges around it. The windows of the main public rooms look out over Loch Ederline on the opposite side of the house from the path. The path is over 45 metres from the rear of the house. The house is available to rent as a holiday cottage.

Keeper’s Cottage – This house is occupied by the owner of the estate and his wife. It is set above the path and at least 20 metres back from the path. It has its own well defined garden area.

Page 13 of 63

Ederline Farm - Angus Cottage is on left hand side of the picture.

This is the home farm for Ederline Estate. There are two farm worker’s cottages at either end of the range of buildings. Although a small area is fenced off in front of each cottage it is only one or two metres in depth. This is the residential property that will be most impacted by people passing it, although because of its location next to the main road through the estate and at the heart of the farming operations it is already a busy area.

Angus Cottage

The area in front of these building is used for handling livestock and when I have been visiting there has been a small volume of traffic generated by the estate including, postal

deliveries, contractors and others passing through.

Bruachan is a house set back from the path in a well defined garden area bounded on one side by the B840. It is approximately 12 metres away from the path at the closest point.

Ederline Farm Buildings - The path passes the home farm for the estate passing through areas used to move livestock and is close to storage buildings.

Page 14 of 63

Holiday Cottages- People renting the Holiday Cottages will in all likelihood spend a considerable proportion of their time exercising their access rights on land belonging to other people in the area. Thus the Estate which markets four of the houses on the estate as holiday cottages will benefit indirectly from the provision of a good Core Path Network. A Core Path published on the Ordinance Survey Map might also help to promote the holiday cottages on the estate and be an asset rather than a burden. The Estate’s own website http://www.ederline.com/local_attractions.htm lists a number of activities for potential visitors including riding, cycling and swimming amongst others. The Estate also offers fishing and stalking for guests.

Alternative Route- The alternative route proposed is wet and boggy in places. Although the estate claim that it is a public right of way this has not been recorded on the Scottish Catalogue of Public Rights of Way or brought to the Council’s attention in any other way. This would not be an unusual circumstance since most paths that would qualify as public rights of way are unrecorded. The surface is very rough and would not be accessible for many less able users in the way that the current proposal is. Although it is noted that the owners are willing to consider applying for funding to improve the route through the SRDP, at this time we do not have any guarantee that any such application will be made nor that it would be successful. If the alternative route was adopted at the expense of both C493 and C149(a) the circular route that both these proposals create would be lost to a single “there and back” route. Even if an alternative route is provided many of those supporting this path have been clear that it is the road through the estate that they wish to use. The current route is fairly level and has a good surface throughout and is accessible to people of all abilities the alternative will never offer a similar standard of path.

Nesting Ospreys – The RSPB did not object to this proposal. We requested advice from Scottish Natural Heritage on this issue. SNH do not believe that the presence of the osprey nest should prevent the route being designated as a core path. For full response from SNH please see Appendix IV.

Use of Public Road – A number of Core Path proposals are on single track roads, single tracked roads can be used by people with a disability, we do not believe this to be a valid objection.

Future Business Opportunities – One of the functions of the Core Paths Plan is to ensure that access routes are protected when development occurs. In the event that a Planning Application is received to develop any site adjacent to a Core Path the developer will have to show that it has been taken into consideration and that the public can still enjoy its use if appropriate. A Core Path on its own is unlikely to stop a development from happening.

Carloonan Farm – The Local Access Forum visited Carloonan Farm as part of a training exercise looking at access rights not core paths. Any determination of access rights is site specific and it would be difficult to draw conclusions from one location and apply them to another.

Surfacing of Core Paths – The Core Paths Plan is simply an audit of paths that are well used by the public. Some will be little more than a trod across the land whilst others will follow minor roads, the vast majority will be farm or forestry tracks. There is no intention that they will all become surfaced paths let alone that there will is funding to achieve this potentially undesirable outcome. Where appropriate paths will be repaired and where erosion becomes a problem it may be necessary to improve paths by providing drainage etc. In all instances the techniques chosen for the work should be in keeping with the surroundings and the expected uses.

Page 15 of 63

Promotion of Routes through the Core Paths Plan – One of the key benefits for members of the public will be that Core Paths are promoted through the Ordinance Survey maps which will show designated routes as being open for public use for the first time. The Council will also be able to target any resources that it has towards ensuring public access and assisting land managers with managing public access when paths have to be closed to allow land management operations such as tree felling. Although the public have rights of responsible non-motorised access most visitors to an area will rely on maps to indicate which paths they can use. For visitors from England and Wales who are used to networks of public rights of way being shown on their OS maps this is particularly important. Without the promotion of a network routes on maps the public are less likely to visit an area or spend as much time using the paths. This will have a direct economic impact on local tourism businesses and local communities.

Sufficiency: The Council has a duty in law to provide a sufficient network of Core Paths throughout its area for residents and visitors to the area. The Access Officers are of the view that without the inclusion of this path the Core Path Network will be insufficient in the area around Ford. This path is close to the village where a number of businesses including Ederline Estate provide accommodation for visitors. Argyll & Bute and is a centre for tourism with many jobs depending upon income from visitors. The Argyll & Bute Access Forum has a statutory role to advise the Council on access rights and the sufficiency of the Core Paths Plan and will consider this path in that context.

Summary: In view of the fact that there is a number of people wanting to see this path designated as a Core Path and a history of complaints about access rights I believe that the Council should continue to promote this path for designation as a Core Path. This issue will not be resolved before an Inquiry is held on behalf of the Scottish Ministers.

I would however welcome any comments upon the proposed alternative route from both those supporting the designation of the path along the estate road and those opposing it. The Access Forum will have an opportunity to review these comments before providing their advice to the Council.

Page 16 of 63

8. Advice received from the Access Forum Argyll and Bute Council Core Path Plan Finalised Draft 2012 Minute of Discussions by the Access Forum Path Number: C149(a) Path Name: Bridgend to Ford Forum Members Present x John Urquhart (Chair) x Dave Tomlinson x John Cameron Little x Duncan McDonald x Neil Duncan x Tim Lister x Mike McManus x Malcolm Holder x Blair Fletcher

Declarations of Interest x None

Members Familiar with the Location x Blair Fletcher x Tim Lister x Dave Tomlinson x John Urquhart x Duncan McDonald

Discussions x Privacy and security x Alternative exits that is supported by landowner x Public interests x General access rights x Preferences for different types of route- rougher hill tracks as opposed to formalised surfaced roads x Historical use

Access Forum Advice to Argyll and Bute Council Support Officer’s Recommendation (in Section 7) Object to Officer’s Recommendation (in Section 7) Mixed opinion amongst Access Forum members (record all views below) Majority View The alternative suggested by the landowner should be the core path. Further negotiations should be undertaken with the landowner to ensure the necessary works are undertaken that will bring the alternative route into a more suitable condition.

Minority View Dave Tomlinson and Blair Fletcher thought that the original route which follows a surfaced road and is suitable for a variety of users should be the core path- though there was recognition that an alternative route round the farmyard would be desirable.

Page 17 of 63

9. Access Officer’s Final Recommendations It is apparent from many of the submissions made by members of the community in Ford that they have used this path on a customary basis over many years. Some have been approached by the land manager (Olwen Hemmings, Lorraine MacIntyre) who has asked them not to use the path. The advice in the Scottish Outdoor Access Code states that land managers should allow access where this does not interfere with land management operations. It would from these representations seem that this has not been happening. See extract from the code below.

Scottish Outdoor Access Code Guidance regarding Farmyards

Although the road to the west of the buildings has been described as a farmyard it is also the main access through the estate to gain access to the holiday cottages and the main house. When I have been visiting the post office van and other deliveries have been using this road. It would appear that during the winter cattle are kept in an area to the east of the buildings. There is no evidence of cattle handling facilities in this area and although bales and farm equipment including a tractor are kept in this area. On the days I have visited there has been little evidence of intense activity on this area of the farm. Generally areas used frequently by cattle will be provided with a concrete surface, because of the damage caused by slurry to tarmac and for ease of cleaning, in this instance the road has a tarmac surface.

The alternative route was first proposed several years ago however the land manager has made no attempt to improve it. The route is used to gain access to livestock feeding areas and has been wet and muddy on every occasion I have visited and is suitable only generally for pedestrian use. Any use by horses would quickly reduce it to a much poorer state. It is certainly not suitable for most cyclists or people with children in pushchairs or people with a disability which might reduce their ability to cope with an uneven surface.

Page 18 of 63

Much has been made of the privacy of the houses along this path. I believe that with the exception of the two houses that front directly onto the path at the farm the remainder of the houses have well defined areas around them that provide “sufficient adjacent land to enable persons living there to have reasonable measures of privacy in that house or place and to ensure that their enjoyment of that house or place is not unreasonably disturbed; Land Reform Scotland Act Section 6(b)(iv). The remaining two houses at the farm have the characteristic of being beside the main road across the estate which serves three other houses. In my view their situation is similar to that of a lodge house which is located such that anyone entering the estate has to pass the house. Section 7 of the Land Reform Scotland Act 2003 states “Provisions supplementing and qualifying section 6 - (5) There are included among the factors which go to determine what extent of land is sufficient for the purposes mentioned in section 6(1)(b)(iv) above, the location and other characteristics of the house or other place.”

The history of customary use by local people of all ages and abilities encourages me to recommend that this path is designated as a Core Path. The path also gives access to a wider network of Core Paths and other paths in the area. I am aware that I have not on this occasion taken the advice of the Access Forum however they have advised that the alternative route should be designated as the Core Path. Despite the fact that this was proposed by the Land owner some years ago he has not as far as I am aware made any attempt to take this forward. I believe that with the provision of a few suitable signs it should be possible to manage public access along this path when there is a need to close the gates to drive stock into the yard to the rear of the farm buildings. The Access Team can provide these signs if the path is designated.

To summarise I am recommending that this path is designated as a Core Path.

Page 19 of 63

10. Appendices

Appendix I. Copies of the representations received during the formal consultation

Page 20 of 63

Page 21 of 63

Page 22 of 63

Page 23 of 63

Page 24 of 63

Page 25 of 63

Page 26 of 63

Page 27 of 63

Page 28 of 63

Page 29 of 63

Page 30 of 63

Page 31 of 63

Page 32 of 63

Page 33 of 63

Page 34 of 63

Page 35 of 63

Page 36 of 63

Page 37 of 63

Page 38 of 63

Page 39 of 63

Page 40 of 63

Page 41 of 63

Page 42 of 63

Page 43 of 63

Appendix II. Copies of relevant correspondence Exchange of Correspondence with Angus Wilson of Ederline Estate and Jamie McGrigor MSP re Proposed Core Path C149(a)

Angus Wilson has asked that the following exchange of emails and letters be made available to the members of the Access Forum and the Scottish Government Reporter.

From: ANGUS WILSON [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 3:14 PM To: Gritten, Jolyon Cc: A H Garratt Subject: Double Standards?

Dear Mr Gritten,

I arrived at your Council offices yesterday 28th June,to hand over a hard copy of our response to your Final Consultation, I walked into your open plan office, and asked to see you where upon a gentleman stood up and told me that I wasn't allowed to be there as the office was off limits to the public. Behaving responsibly I took his advise and went to the reception, why wouldn't I, clearly this is your place of business/work and you dont want public access through it for a host of sensible reasons. So why is Ederline Farmyard any different to your place of work, we have much more reason not to have public access through it?

I await your response and confirmation of receiving our letter to you.

yours,

Angus Wilson

From: ANGUS WILSON [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 3:15 PM To: Gritten, Jolyon Cc: Loudon, Sally Subject: Ederline farmyard Proposed CorePath C149

Dear Jolyon,

As I havn't heard from you since my last email regarding the 'irony' of your proposal to invite the public into our farmyard. When walking through you place of work to drop off documents to you, I was stopped and told that I wasn't allowed access in this area , although behaving responsibly. I quite understand why and in normal circumstances would wait at reception, which is why I can't think why you are pushing to encourage people to go through my place of work(our working farmyard), which may I remind you has danger/risk issues apart from security and privacy. We have stated that we would work with the Council you to improve the alternative ancient drove road(which has more support than the proposed route) in places, but you seem 'hung' up about disbled access which in this case not appropriate. Please can you show more sensitivity and judgement on this matter

I do look forward to your response this time,..

yours,

Angus Wilson Page 44 of 63

From: Gritten, Jolyon Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 9:59 AM To: 'ANGUS WILSON' Cc: A H Garratt; Murray, Fergus; Loudon, Sally Subject: Ederline farmyard Proposed CorePath C149

Dear Mr Wilson

Thank you for your email. I had not considered that the previous email required a reply because you had made your point and there was nothing more to say.

You Representations on the proposed Core Paths and Launching Point have already been acknowledged and are being dealt with through the same process as all other objections to the Core Paths Plan.

Your representations will be copied into the reports on the relevant Core Paths and Launching Point before being passed to the members of the Argyll & Bute Access Forum. They will then provide their statutory advice to the Council based in part on your representations and those of other people who have made representations on the proposed paths. I will then make my final recommendations for the plan to remain unchanged or for a change to the plan, based on their advice. Please note that the Council cannot make any changes to the plan until directed to by the reporter following a Public Local Inquiry. All outstanding Objections will be passed to the Scottish Government Ministers who will appoint a Reporter to conduct a Public Local Inquiry. The Reporter will then conduct his Inquiry either through written submissions or possibly a hearing at which you can make your position known. The Reporters as far as I am aware will always visit the paths in dispute unaccompanied, early on in the process so that they are familiar with them.

Your objections are being dealt with in exactly the same way as all other objections.

Finally would you like to have this exchange of emails copied into the report on the Core Paths Plan so that the Access Forum and the Reporter are aware of your position?

Yours sincerely,

Jolyon Gritten

Access Manager

Page 45 of 63

Email from Jamie McGrigior MSP

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: 18 July 2012 13:47 To: Loudon, Sally Subject: Core paths C149(a) Running through Ederline Farm

Dear Chief Executive,

I am writing to you as an MSP for Highlands& Islands in connection with an issue brought to me by a constituent, Angus Wilson, of Ederline estate near Ford in Argyll.

For good measure I am enclosing his response to Argyll & Bute’s consultation document on the core path network which is self-explanatory and clarifies his, and his family’s, concerns with regard to possible core path intentions. (Copied on the following pages).

Upon Mr Wilson’s invitation I visited the site at Ederline last Sunday and have to say that I have sympathy with his objections to putting the main core path on the main driveway to Ederline farm and house which has to pass through the farmyard where two gates are often closed and very near to the houses of employees on the estate and to two other occupied houses, including Ederline house itself.

I walked the alternative route which leaves the B840 a hundred or so metres further up from the main drive entrance to Ederline house (C149a). This track is, I would say, ideal as a core path. It is the old drove road between Lochaweside and Kilmichael Glen and runs parallel to the Ederline farm driveway through better scenery with more access to the visual aspects of wildlife and flora and fauna. It would not be plagued by cars and tractors and trailers nor herding of livestock, both cattle and sheep. Further on the path connects with several other routes which would be of interest to walkers.

Mr Wilson has suggested this alternative to the planners and I find it surprising that they are not keen to take up this offer as I would imagine that a core path is not meant to be a tarmac road which is busy with vehicles but rather a countryside track which is pleasant to walk on.

I hope you will look closely at the objections listed by Mr Wilson in this case and look at his suggested alternative which seems to me, by all accounts, a far better plan.

I thank you for your time in this matter and look forward to your reply.

Kind regards,

Jamie McGrigor MSP.

The Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh, EH99 1SP www.jamiemcgrigormsp.com

Page 46 of 63

Response to

Argyll & Bute Council’s Final Draft Consultation Document

Concerning the Core Path Network, Specifically Proposed New Paths at Ederline, Ford, Lochgilphead (Reference C149(a) – Bridgend to Ford and C493 – Ederline Loch, Ford)

By Mr & Mrs A Wilson, Ederline, Ford, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RJ

Introduction

Argyll & Bute Council is required, under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, Part 1, Chapter 5, inter alia ss.17 and 18, to draw up a plan for a system of paths (“core paths”) sufficient for the purpose of giving the public reasonable access throughout their area. Subsection 17(3) requires the local authority to have regard to–

(a) the likelihood that persons exercising rights of way and access rights will do so by using core paths;

(b) the desirability of encouraging such persons to use core paths; and

(c) the need to balance the exercise of those rights and the interests of the owner of the land in respect of which those rights are exercisable.

Subsection 18(1)(c) requires the local authority to consult–

(i) the local access forum for their area;

(ii) persons representative of those who live, work, carry on business or engage (or would be likely to engage) in recreational activities on the land on which it is proposed that there be core paths;

(iii)Scottish Natural Heritage; and

(iv) such other persons as the local authority think fit,

in each case inviting objections and representations to be made to them within such period as they specify.

In addition, the council is advised by the Scottish Government to follow the ‘Guidance Note for Local Authorities and National Park Authorities’ in the interpretation of the Act. Some extracts from the Guidance Note appear below.

We were interested to read the council’s responses to the objections. We believe that the council has not had proper regard to the points listed in s.17(3) and has not properly and adequately consulted the parties listed at s.18(1)(c) – particularly in the light of the Guidance Note.

Clarification of Points

In his assessment of the objections in respect of proposed new core paths C149(a) and C493, the council’s access officer has made a number of statements that are either misleading or incorrect. Several of these are listed below, in the order given in the response to our objection in respect of proposed core path C149(a).

3. History of Access

Page 47 of 63

The report notes but does not emphasise that C149(a) and C493 are not currently public rights of way. They are not; and therefore the council seeks to create two rights of way where there are none, and seeks to give them ‘core path’ status. The council admits that part of C149(a) is not even subject to access rights. We believe it is obnoxious, and outwith the spirit of the Act, to attempt to use s.17(2)(a) to create new core path over land where access cannot currently be exercised, particularly when good alternatives exist.

Our objection contains plenty of evidence relating to the current status of these routes. Regarding prescription, Col. Warde Aldam noted in the History of Ford and District written by the rural womens institute, in the section on Rights of Way (1966), “The public have no right of way over the road which runs from South Lodge and the farm building and the owners have been in the habit of locking the gates from time to time”. Members of the public have been asked not to use this road on numerous occasions. The gates on both proposed core paths have been closed at times and locked at times. We maintain that no rights of way have been established. There are a few people who do have permission to walk on parts of C149(a).

5. Alternative Routes

For the record, the council’s Access Officer declined to consult on the main alternative in either the draft consultative document or during the first consultation, despite being asked to do so on numerous occasions. Consequently the public had no idea there was an alternative. Having spoken to four of the ten proposers of C149(a) about the alternative route, we can declare that these would all be happy with the alternative, especially if the drainage is improved. The Access Officer has still not consulted with us about an alternative to proposed core paths C493 and C149(a) where they meet at Ederline Farm – at the section where no access rights exist.

We are genuinely surprised that the council did not select the ancient Drove Road as a core path instead of C149(a). This historic route between Loch Aweside and Kilmichael Glen winds through beautiful scenery and connects to other existing paths. The alternative is peaceful; it does not have motorised vehicles, blind corners, buildings, phone lines, stock fencing along both sides and, importantly, its use does not conflict with land management and is safe. Even promoters of C149(a) agree it would be manifestly more sensible to choose the Old Drove Road as a core path instead.

The council’s Access Officer states that the alternative is rough and wet even in dry periods. We know this path; it is wet in three places and a day’s work would remedy that (we would be happy to undertake simple works ourselves, such as scraping the surface back to hard stone and diverting water away where necessary).

The council’s Access Officer states the alternative route is used for feeding cattle, which is incorrect (our cows are wintered well away from the track). He further states that the route is used and made muddy by tractors, which is also incorrect (the only time a tractor went up this track in recent years was to sort out a fallen tree after last year’s gales).

The council’s Access Officer states that the alternative route is not suitable because sections are on inclines. This ignores some basic facts. Firstly, the paths connecting to C149(a) have equally steep inclines; one is also a busy, single track road with a number of blind corners. Secondly, the council is not under a duty to select the routes for core paths according to their flatness. Thirdly, a great many core paths throughout Scotland will be more challenging to use than this route.

Notwithstanding that the Act does not require core paths to fully interconnect, the council’s access officer states that the alternative to C149(a) would not form part of a ‘loop’. This is, in

Page 48 of 63 fact, incorrect; the old drove road existed to link Kilmicheal Glen with Ford and it affords the visitor a complete circuit of Ederline Loch, plus opportunities to access open land.

We consider these are important points because local authorities are to be mindful of safe, non- motorised existing routes for designation as core paths – thereby reducing the obvious potential for friction and accidents.

The Farm road and drive were developed at a distance from the ancient Drove Road for the very reason that it separates the farm and business use from public access, for the safety and amenity of all.

6. Consultation

The point here is that there has been no consultation with the land manager, no meeting to discuss a better way forward. As stated above, the Access Officer has, for reasons only known to himself, omitted to consult properly concerning alternatives as though he were judge and jury. We believe the council has failed in its obligation to meet the guidance: x Prior to drawing up the draft core paths plan, these consultations with all parties would aim to reach as much agreement as possible over the approach and priorities for the core paths. Taking adequate time to achieve full agreement at this informal consultation stage may avoid subsequent formal objections, and the need for an inquiry.

The Access Officer has omitted from his analysis of objections the conflict that his proposal is going to cause. Our communities are small and fragile; as land managers, we do not want to be put into daily conflict with the community concerning only a handful of people who want to use these routes.

Other Points from the Guidance Note

In addition to the requirements of the Act, the council is required to take account of the Scottish Government’s Guidance Note for Local Authorities and National Park Authorities. Some relevant extracts follow: x New access links are likely to be a key theme within the informal consultation processes, and the subject of consultation with land managers and developers to ensure the widest mutual benefits from the outset. (Consultation regarding proposed new core paths C149(a) and C493 has been woefully inadequate). x It is clear that core paths networks are not to be restricted only to constructed or surfaced paths, but are intended to include the full range of path types. The network is therefore likely to encompass a full range of path surfaces, including - natural grass and beaten earth paths through fields, woods, along riverbanks, etc; surfaced paths and tracks, towpaths, etc; farm and forestry tracks; waterways with launching points; and quiet minor roads and pavements for certain stretches if and when required. (The Access Officer has expressed a preference to designate the macadam surface of the Ederline drive over the Old Drove Road, which it seems he should not have done). x Stock fencing on both sides of core paths over lengthy sections should be avoided. (The Access Officer has selected route C149(a) over the alternative, despite C149(a)’s stock fencing and the natural boundaries of the alternative). x Core paths should assist the interests of sound land management, (including diversification and local enterprise), without compromising accessibility. Through facilitating and encouraging access along suitable and agreed routes, the core paths should aim to achieve mutual benefits for users and land managers. (The council has not sought to facilitate or encourage access along suitable and agreed routes in the interests of mutual benefits for Page 49 of 63

users and land managers at Ederline; the routes of C149(a) and C493 appear to have been chosen in order to promote maximum friction).

An Attitude Problem

The attitude of the Access Officer towards the rights of those engaged in land management is illustrated by the following comments:

Regarding the traditional farm kennels at Ederline Farm, “Certain measures could be taken by the owner of the dog to reduce any possible disturbance, such as housing the dogs away from the route.”

Regarding potential interference with privacy at the Ederline Holiday Cottages, “People renting the Holiday Cottages will in all likelihood spend a considerable proportion of their time exercising their access rights on land belonging to other people in the area.”

Notwithstanding that we do not agree that ‘many of those supporting this path had been clear that this was their chosen route’, regarding the Access Officer’s judgement that aspiration is enough to justify public use of a private drive, “Even if an alternative route is provided many of those supporting this path have been clear that it is the road through the estate that they wish to use. The current route is fairly level and has a good surface throughout and is accessible to people of all abilities the alternative will never offer a similar standard of path.”

Regarding inconsistency of approach concerning path surfacing, “There is no intention that they will all become surfaced paths let alone that there will is funding to achieve this potentially undesirable outcome.”

Regarding the heavy-handed approach, “Section 6 does not prevent or restrict the exercise of access rights over any land which is a core path, thereby allowing a right of access through the farmyard.”

Regarding the scant regard for peoples’ privacy, “This is the residential property that will be most impacted by people passing it, although because of its location next to the main road through the estate and at the heart of the farming operations it is already a busy area.”

Regarding animal welfare and common sense, “Nothing in the Scottish Outdoor Access Code suggests that bio-security would be threatened by allowing public access.”

Regarding Health & Safety, “As of November 2011 The Scottish Government and the National Access Forum have acknowledged that there is a deficiency in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 which means that there is no clear legal mechanism which would allow the use of a Core Path to be restricted or if necessary closed for any reason including on the grounds of health and safety obligations.”

And finally, regarding the conscious promotion of conflict, “In view of the fact that there is some support for this path to be designated as a Core Path and a history of complaints about access rights I believe that the Council should continue to promote this path for designation as a Core Path.”

Invitation to Consult Properly

We do feel, as the land managers who will have to live with the final decision on the ‘route’ on a daily basis, we have not been accorded the time and the effort to find a way forward that will balance our requirements with those of the public. We also feel that the Access Officer concerned has neither discharged his duties under the Act and Guidance (as outlined above), Page 50 of 63 nor shown the sensitivity and judgment needed by those in a position to influence the freedoms of others. I question the council’s approach to the suitability of routes for designation as core paths; is it really necessary to focus on disabled access to rural land when the community wants dog-walking paths and most visitors want to go hiking? Is putting up signage everywhere in our beautiful countryside really the council’s panacea to all reasonable concerns on safety? We just hope that, along with the Access Forum, we can see some sensible reasoning and achieve a solution which suits all parties. We remain open to proper consultation.

------

Mr & Mrs A Wilson, Ederline.

27th June 2012.

Page 51 of 63

Reply to Jamie McGrigor MSP

Planning Services Kilmory, Lochgilphead, Argyll, PA31 8RT Tel: 01546 604301 Fax: 01546 604250 Jamie McGrigor MSP e.mail – [email protected] The Scottish Parliament www.argyll-bute.gov.uk Edinburgh EH99 1SP Direct Line: 01546 604314 Ask For: Jolyon Gritten Our Ref: C207(a) Your Ref: Date: 12 June 2012

Dear Jamie McGrigor MSP

REF: PROPOSED CORE PATHS CORE PATHS C149(A) EDERLINE FARM

With regard to your email dated 18 July 2012.

Following objections to the proposals from Mr Wilson, the Access Team have produced a report for each of the paths. The reports for these paths C149, C493 and Launch Point L240 can be found using the path numbers on the Council’s website http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/planning-and-environment/core-path-plan-objection-reports-all- areas. The Access Team recently concluded a consultation on proposed changes to the plan with interested parties including Community Councils.

All the Core Paths at Ederline were proposed for inclusion in the Core Paths Plan by members of the community. The line of the path that they proposed is that which we have recorded in the Plan. The community have continued to support its inclusion in subsequent consultations on the Core Paths Plan and have at not identified the alternative “drove road”. The alternative route has been discussed in the report on the path but it is not suitable for as wide a range of users. Core Paths are intended to be used by a wide range of users, not just walkers, and may be trod lines across open country, farm and forestry tracks, private roads or indeed minor public roads such as the B840 to the north of Ford.

You may wish to note that there are other farms elsewhere in Argyll and Bute where a proposed Core Path passes through or very close to the farm buildings. For instance the Kintyre Way passes through the yard of Ballygroggan Farm and very close to the farm cottage and does not cause the farmer any great concern. Indeed he asked the Kintyre Way to include a statement on an interpretative panel nearby asking walkers to “give the farmer a wave”.

The number of paths on Mr Wilson’s land is a reflection of the proximity to Ford and similar local networks of paths can be seen around most settlements in Argyll & Bute, as was intended by the promoters of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act. The paths to which Mr Wilson is objecting include ones which members of the local community have told us they wish to use specifically for walking with children, cycling or riding horses to avoid the B840 (See pages 35 to 40 of the Objection Report). These paths all provide local walks for residents in Ford as well as tourists visiting the area. Mr Wilson has a number of holiday cottages on the estate and will benefit indirectly through tourists attracted to the area to enjoy outdoor activities.

Page 52 of 63

Once all the representations that have been received in the last round of consultation on these reports have been collated they will be passed to the Argyll & Bute Access Forum. They will then meet in Camera to provide statutory advice to the Council regarding the Core Paths Plan. The Access Officers will then make their final recommendations based in part upon this advice. The Council cannot make any changes to the Core Paths Plan following the publication of the Finalised Draft. These will only happen following the Public Local Inquiry and at the direction of a Reporter. Unless Mr Wilson’s objections are withdrawn they will then be the subject of a Public Local Inquiry.

The Reporter will generally walk or cycle all the Core Paths that are the subject of an objection, unaccompanied, to ensure that they have a good understanding of the issues. The Public Local Inquiry will take one of two forms with objectors either asked to participate by making written submissions or to attend a hearing where they can sit and discuss their concerns with the Reporter.

The final decision regarding the designation of these paths as Core Paths will be made by a Reporter whose findings will be approved by Scottish Ministers before the Core Paths Plan can be adopted. A flowchart describing the process for handling objections to the Core Paths Plan is attached.

If you need any further information please feel free to contact me again.

Yours Sincerely

Angus Gilmour Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

Cc; Councillor Donald MacMillan Councillor Douglas Philand Councillor Sandy Taylor

From: ANGUS WILSON [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 12:13 PM To: Gritten, Jolyon Subject: Ederline

Dear Mr Gritten,

Thank you for your reply, I was expecting a response from you on why you would want to encourage the public through our workplace when you prohibit them from yours?

To answer your question, I would like all correspondence made avialable to the Forum and Scottish Reporter, which would include the email attached from JamieMcGrigor MSP to your Chief Excutive.

Also, I would like to be informed, when the Forum are to meet and to know who is the appointed Reporter.

Yours,

Page 53 of 63

Angus Wilson

Page 54 of 63

Appendix III. Copies of responses additional consultations

Page 55 of 63

Page 56 of 63

Response to

Argyll & Bute Council’s Final Draft Consultation Document

Concerning the Core Path Network, Specifically Proposed New Paths at Ederline, Ford, Lochgilphead (Reference C149(a) – Bridgend to Ford and C493 – Ederline Loch, Ford)

By Mr & Mrs A Wilson, Ederline, Ford, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RJ

Introduction

(a) the likelihood that persons exercising rights of way and access rights will do so by using core paths; (b) the desirability of encouraging such persons to use core paths; and (c) the need to balance the exercise of those rights and the interests of the owner of the land in respect of which those rights are exercisable.

Subsection 18(1)(c) requires the local authority to consult–

(i) the local access forum for their area; (ii) persons representative of those who live, work, carry on business or engage (or would be likely to engage) in recreational activities on the land on which it is proposed that there be core paths; (iii) Scottish Natural Heritage; and (iv) such other persons as the local authority think fit, in each case inviting objections and representations to be made to them within such period as they specify.

Clarification of Points

3. History of Access

5. Alternative Routes

Page 57 of 63 had no idea there was an alternative. Having spoken to four of the ten proposers of C149(a) about the alternative route, we can declare that these would all be happy with the alternative, especially if the drainage is improved. The Access Officer has still not consulted with us about an alternative to proposed core paths C493 and C149(a) where they meet at Ederline Farm – at the section where no access rights exist.

Notwithstanding that the Act does not require core paths to fully interconnect, the council’s access officer states that the alternative to C149(a) would not form part of a ‘loop’. This is, in fact, incorrect; the old drove road existed to link Kilmicheal Glen with Ford and it affords the visitor a complete circuit of Ederline Loch, plus opportunities to access open land.

We consider these are important points because local authorities are to be mindful of safe, non-motorised existing routes for designation as core paths – thereby reducing the obvious potential for friction and accidents.

The Farm road and drive were developed at a distance from the ancient Drove Road for the very reason that it separates the farm and business use from public access, for the safety and amenity of all.

6. Consultation

x Prior to drawing up the draft core paths plan, these consultations with all parties would aim to reach as much agreement as possible over the approach and priorities for the core paths. Taking adequate time to achieve full agreement at this informal consultation stage may avoid subsequent formal objections, and the need for an inquiry. The Access Officer has omitted from his analysis of objections the conflict that his proposal is going to cause. Our communities are small and fragile; as land managers, we do not want to be put into daily conflict with the community concerning only a handful of people who want to use these routes.

Other Points from the Guidance Note

x New access links are likely to be a key theme within the informal consultation processes, and the subject of consultation with land managers and developers to ensure the widest mutual benefits from the outset. (Consultation regarding proposed new core paths C149(a) and C493 has been woefully inadequate). x It is clear that core paths networks are not to be restricted only to constructed or surfaced paths, but are intended to include the full range of path types. The network is therefore likely to encompass a full range of path surfaces, including - natural grass and beaten earth paths through fields, woods, along riverbanks, etc; surfaced paths and tracks, towpaths, etc; farm and forestry tracks; waterways with launching points; and quiet minor roads and pavements for certain stretches if and when required. (The Access Officer has expressed a preference to designate the macadam surface of the Ederline drive over the Old Drove Road, which it seems he should not have done).

Page 58 of 63

x Stock fencing on both sides of core paths over lengthy sections should be avoided. (The Access Officer has selected route C149(a) over the alternative, despite C149(a)’s stock fencing and the natural boundaries of the alternative).

x Core paths should assist the interests of sound land management, (including diversification and local enterprise), without compromising accessibility. Through facilitating and encouraging access along suitable and agreed routes, the core paths should aim to achieve mutual benefits for users and land managers. (The council has not sought to facilitate or encourage access along suitable and agreed routes in the interests of mutual benefits for users and land managers at Ederline; the routes of C149(a) and C493 appear to have been chosen in order to promote maximum friction). An Attitude Problem

The attitude of the Access Officer towards the rights of those engaged in land management is illustrated by the following comments:

Regarding animal welfare and common sense, “Nothing in the Scottish Outdoor Access Code suggests that bio-security would be threatened by allowing public access.”

Invitation to Consult Properly

We do feel, as the land managers who will have to live with the final decision on the ‘route’ on a daily basis, we have not been accorded the time and the effort to find a way forward that will balance our requirements with those of the public. We also feel that the Access Officer concerned has neither discharged his duties under the Act and Guidance (as outlined above), nor shown the sensitivity and judgment needed by those in a position to influence the freedoms of others. I question the council’s approach to the suitability of routes for designation as core paths; is it really necessary to focus on disabled access to rural land when the community wants dog-walking paths and most visitors want to go hiking? Is putting up signage everywhere in our beautiful countryside really the council’s panacea to all reasonable concerns on safety? We just hope that, along with the Access Forum, we can see some sensible reasoning and achieve a solution which suits all parties. We remain open to proper consultation.

------

Page 59 of 63

Mr & Mrs A Wilson, Ederline.

27th June 2012.

Page 60 of 63

Page 61 of 63

Page 62 of 63

Appendix IV. Additional supporting documents

Page 63 of 63

Page 64 of 63