Upper Acharossan Forest Acquisition Feasibility Study

Prepared by Jamie Chaplin Brice, October 2014

Version 5.0 29 October 2014

1

The Author would like to acknowledge assistance in the preparation of this document with thanks to Kilfinan Community Forest Company and the board of directors; Highlands and Islands Enterprise, Gordon Gray-Stephens, Ian Thomas, Munro Gauld, Argyll and Bute Council, Forestry Commission Scotland, Scottish Water and RJ Dixon LTD. This project has been supported by:

“Kilfinan is a shining example of the value that can be unlocked when an able and motivated community takes ownership of a substantial mature woodland. The project has made huge strides in a short space of time in harvesting a mature conifer crop, developing a sawmill, a shop, a micro- hydro power scheme, community growing areas, achieving FSC accreditation, and is moving towards the building of affordable housing units made from timber felled on site. The project is providing employment and future housing and reconnecting local people with their local history, which puts the woodland right at the heart of community”

Peter Wilson, Executive Director of Scotland’s Finest Woods Awards

2

Contents Page Executive Summary 4 1. Introduction 5 2. Background a) The forest 6 b) The community 6 c) The Kilfinan Community Forest Company 7 3. Proposal of acquisition a) The land 8 b) Process 11 c) Social and economic benefits 12 d) Community capacity and interests 13 e) Community ownership implications 14 4. Land options (for outcomes) a) Conifer plantation 16 b) Crofts 18 c) Housing 19 d) Holiday accommodation 19 e) Energy 19 f) Fishing and agriculture 20 g) Game 20 h) Training and education 21 i) Woodland burials 21 j) Paths/ bridleways/ cycle routes 21 k) Environmental improvements 22 l) Forest events and attractions 22 5. Valuation 23 6. Means of acquisition a) Delivery structure 24 b) Funding options 25 c) Opportunities and constraints 28 d) Summary 29 7. Conclusions 30 8. Appendices 31

3

Executive Summary

Since being founded in 2007, Kilfinan Community Forest Company (KCFC) has evolved from a grant supported organisation to a financially sustainable social enterprise which provides employment, wood fuel, composting, education and recreation to the Kilfinan community. Affordable housing and hydro energy will be additional services from 2015 and ambitious plans are already in place to develop the forest to its potential.

However, the extent of future growth is constrained because the current forest is only 127 hectares which cannot provide sufficient timber to sustain the sawmill in the longer term, and limits the potential for ambitious recreational development. KCFC is considering the purchase of Upper Acharossan Forest as a means to both secure the services already provided and to significantly increase growth of the forest business.

The KCFC Board of Directors are clear that the security and sustainability of the current operations must not be threatened by the acquisition of the new forest. There is no point in acquiring the new forest if there is no income to invest in developing the forest resource and opening it up for community access and enrichment. The acquisition must be seen to add value and to be sustainable in the longer term. This Feasibility Study and the associated Business Plan shows that it would be possible to retain sustainability and support growth by the acquisition.

The Feasibility Study and the associated Business Plan assess the following benefits:

Economic • Employment from forest operations and management • Employment from secondary processing and value adding such as sawmilling and woodfuel, wood products and compost • Opportunities for land based businesses via establishment of forest crofts • Increased income for local businesses through improved attractions and amenity

Social • Provision of nature trails, wildlife guides and interpretation • Forest School involvement to educate from an early age • Provide access to recreation to encourage an healthy and active community • Provide affordable housing, via selling plots and forest-made houses • Provide training and educational courses to develop skills in the community

Environment • Increase biodiversity, age structure and benefit wildlife and people alike • Provide the community with timber and woodfuel and reduce road miles • Grow food locally to cut down on food miles and reduce the carbon footprint • Provide community access to wider forest for leisure and recreation • Improve habitat for the native mammals, birds and reptiles and amphibians

The Feasibility Study and the Business Plan come together in the cost benefit analysis which shows the investment required to achieve the community’s vision for the greater forest. The acquisition will unlock significant income from timber to provide the reinvestment required to fund the ambitious development plans for the forest and to create the economic, social and environmental benefits identified by the Kilfinan community consultation.

4

1) INTRODUCTION

Kilfinan Community Forest Company (KCFC) is a charitable enterprise formed to work with and for the local community to manage and develop their forest, creating opportunities for a sustainable future.

The forest history is complex in that initially in 2010 a wider area was due to be purchased and in July 2014 a further area became available to the community.

KCFC purchased 127 hectares of Acharossan forest from Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) in March 2010, now known as Kilfinan Community Forest (KCF). This was part of a proposed 452 hectare holding, but the Community could not raise sufficient funding to purchase the entire area. The remaining 325 hectares of Acharossan has been held in the community interest until March 2015.

In 2014, a further 107 hectares have been offered to the community in conjunction with the 325 hectare area. This area was initially unknown to the forest and therefore doesn’t feature on any earlier documentation.

For the sake of this study, the currently owned area is referred to as KCF (127 hectares). The original retained area for the community is referred to as Acharossan (325 hectares) and the formerly unknown area of land on which this study focuses is referred to as Upper Acharossan (107 hectares). The total new area to be purchased equates to 432 hectares and the entire area should the purchase be successful amounts to 559 hectares.

The purpose of this feasibility study is to consider the Upper Acharossan 107 hectares in addition to the original feasibility study (MacIntyre and Gauld 2008) for Kilfinan Community Forest. The consequence is that there is crossover between the two feasibility studies and the valuation for the total new area of 432 hectares.

This feasibility study therefore compiles the new information regarding Upper Acharossan (107) and recent known information such as community consultation and then considers the funding options for the total new area (432) and subsequent routes to completion.

For simplicity, the detail of finance is covered in the business plan. For the sake of SLF applications, the total 432 hectare area is referred to as “Upper Acharossan”.

5

2. BACKGROUND

a) The forest

Acharossan forest is grown on un-drained heathland and unimproved grassland. The land was acquired by the state in 1963, when planting commenced sporadically until the late 1980’s. Prior to 1963 the land was used for grazing by local hill farmers, after which it was managed by Forestry Commission Scotland. The land was divided in 2010, with land in the north west being sold to Scottish Southern Energy (SSE); 127 hectares to the south east acquired by KCFC and FCS retaining ownership of 432 hectares (107ha +325ha); now up for disposal. While the new holdings have received active management since 2010, the FCS land has been undermanaged and provides no local employment.

b) The community

The parish of Kilfinan constitutes the community within the Cowal Peninsula (postcode area PA21). It includes the villages of Tighnabruaich, Kames, Otter Ferry, Kilfinan, Millhouse, Portavadie and Ardlamont. Argyll & Bute Council is the local authority.

The community of Kilfinan has experienced 50 years of decline since its heyday in the 1950s, when the resident population was about 3,500 people, it is now around 700 people. The loss of the direct ferry service to Glasgow and latterly the building of the New Road led to shops and local businesses going into decline. The local Forestry Commission Office also closed in 1987 and 37 forestry jobs were lost.

The area is now popular for retired people and second homes, which has pushed house prices well beyond the reach of local people. Nearly a third of houses in the parish are unoccupied second homes or holiday homes. This has created a population imbalance and the area has nearly double the national average of elderly people.1 Local businesses are struggling and people are moving away. The local primary school roll has decreased significantly since 30 years ago when there were over 70 pupils – the roll is now 29, which has halved in the last ten years.

With regard to the present KCF, several community consultations have been undertaken to date, in particular prior to the initial purchase to verify the requirement of a community forest. Methods included the following:

• A scoping study, • Community consultant assistants visiting residents and discussing the project, • A Management Plan for Acharossan Forest 2007, • A Renewable Energy Study,

1 Argyll and Bute Council, 2011 census statistics: PA21 has 28% economically inactive retired; the estimated national average retired over 65 year olds is 19%, n.b. this does not account for “economically active” retired, whom it is also believed make up a percentage of residents in the Kilfinan Parish.

6

• Phase One Affordable Housing Development – Master Plan and Design Guide • A Housing Needs Analysis, • The initial Acharossan Forest Acquistion Feasibility Study 2008

Several public meetings were held over the 5 year period between the initial community consultation in 2005 and the purchase of 127 hectares of Acharossan in 2010.

To date, there have been numerous open days and events held at the forest since 2010. The purchase of the remainder of Acharossan and Upper Acharossan has been brought to the attention of the community via consultation assistants, a survey and a public consultation meeting; detailed in part 3D.

c) The Kilfinan Community Forest Company

Kilfinan Community Forest Company was set up in October 2007 as a charitable company limited by guarantee. The company objective was to develop the Kilfinan Community Forest on behalf of the Kilfinan Community in Argyll, which it has successfully achieved to date. There are presently seven Directors who are all full time residents and represent all corners of the Kilfinan Parish.

Since purchasing 127 ha of Acharossan forest in 2010, KCFC has created greater opportunities for a sustainable future for the local economy, recreation and tourism, the environment and education. There have been a number of improvements to the local area, including the development of recreational activities, and the creation of a valuable educational resource for environmental activities. The wheels are also in motion for the provision of affordable housing and the installation of a micro hydro scheme.

Through these activities, KCFC continues to bring sustainability to the present forest to create local employment opportunities, with training opportunities that bring key forestry skills to the community. As well as creating new infrastructure, KCFC manages the existing forest to protect the local environment and sustain a natural forest, a key aim of the project.

KCFC has won two awards this year – for ‘promoting viable livelihoods’ in Scotland’s Finest Woods Awards 2014, and as the ‘organisation that has most improved its ability to involve and support volunteers’ in the Celebrating Voluntary Action Awards 2014.

7

3. PROPOSAL OF ACQUISITION

a) The land

Kilfinan Community Forest Company has registered an interest in purchasing 107 hectares of surplus land from FCS; which would adjoin the existing 127 hectares currently owned by KCFC.

This land primarily comprises conifer plantation, open ground and two reservoirs. The land rises from 120m at the lower powder dam to the rocky knolls at 247m of Cnoc Llane. It is relatively sheltered by comparison to the neighboring land to the north; however it is sufficiently exposed that some well grown conifer stands have been subject to windblow.

The land adjoins farmland of Craignafeoch to the south and the Strategic Timber Transport Haul Route to the northwest. The haul route leads south to the primary access point on the B8000 public highway. To the east, the land adjoins the remainder of FCS Acharossan, held in the interest of Kilfinan Community Forest Company, with a small section joining the existing KCF holding.

The conifer plantation is of varying ages and consists primarily of Sitka Spruce planted in 1985. Older planting from c1975 shows good form but some has been subject to wind blow as the crop has matured, as shown below.

8

The table below gives a breakdown of the forest components.

Component Area (ha) Percentage Scots Pine 0.05 0.05% Sitka Spruce 53.84 50.12% Lodgepole Pine 5.47 5.09% Japanese Larch 4.25 3.96% Mixed Broadleaf 1.8 1.68% Open Ground 29.50 27.46% Reservoir 12.50 11.64% Total 107.41 100

The current long term forest plan by FCS shows harvesting dates of 2017- 2021, 2027-2031 and 2032-2036 for the most of the crop; this could be reviewed if a new LTFP is written. In all around 14 hectares has blown and significant areas of failed crop where growing conditions have been less favorable. There are small areas of native woodland and open ground that could remain as LTR for the sake of biodiversity and environmental enhancement.

Watercourses:

The primary watercourse within the land, Craignafeoch Burn feeds into the Hafton and latterly the Powderworks reservoirs, which themselves are also fed directly by smaller watercourses. These reservoirs make the main feature of the land as it is approached over the STTHR from the B8000. FCS currently owns the reservoirs, but the lowest dam is owned by Scottish Water and is the primary water supply for the villages of Tighnabruaich and Kames. There are pockets of open ground within the land, particularly surrounding the reservoirs. Soils:

The soil types are predominantly peat gleys with areas of podzols and peat rankers. These soils are fairly typical for upland forestry in this part of Scotland, offering good growing conditions for conifers and high yields if kept well drained. Peat depth is variable within the site, with a simple survey showing depths of up to a metre. Often in deep peat, the timber crop is checked or has not established, this offers potential for peatland restoration.

Designations:

The land has a Right of Way that crosses the land roughly North West- South East from Kilfinan to Tighnabruaich. This is known as the Kilfinan Way. The land also falls within the South Cowal Area of Great Landscape Value designation, which limits development in the area if it would restrict the distinctive character or quality of the landscape2. This needn’t be a limiting factor for the development aims of the entire project as there is a 23ha Project Development Area (PDA) site within the existing KCF.

2 Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1947

9

There is a National Scenic Area, known as the Kyles of Bute NSA, around 2km to the north-east of the Loch na Sgine. Part of Acharossan forest falls within this, however the 107 hectares on which this study focuses does not.

The reservoirs are the village water supply and are as such a “drinking water protected area”; defined as such by Scottish Government.

Boundaries:

In terms of area, the land boundaries are shown best on the following map in part b) process.

The land is stock fenced to the south at Craignafeoch. There are two further stock fences, one running north from Loch na Sgnie and east from this fence runs another between the 1974 planting in coupe 9107 and the 1985 plantings in coupe 9156. Fences are in poor/fair condition for their current purpose of keeping most farm animals out but would certainly need replacing or repair come restocking due to the sensitive nature of saplings.

10

b) Process

The format for sponsored sale of surplus land is set out in the FCS NFLS guidance. The 107 hectares of land in question (shown green) is currently under FCS ownership and was due to be retained by FCS at the time of the sale of Kilfinan Community Forest in 2010.

KCFC purchased 127 hectares of Acharossan in 2010, now named Kilfinan Community Forest (shown yellow). A retainer on a further 325 hectares is in place until March 2015 (shown red, “Acharossan”). The newly offered 107 hectare property (shown green “Upper Acharossan”) would complement the current community forest land and could be seen as the missing piece of the puzzle in terms of access, diversity and the lie of the land. This land has been offered to KCFC in conjunction with the sale of the remainder of the original 325 hectares.

11

c) Social and economic benefits

It is well recognised that Argyll and Bute’s woodlands are a major resource for their people3 and that they can offer a wide range of economical and social benefits such as employment and business opportunities to the surrounding communities. There are also less tangible benefits such as clean air, carbon storage, social inclusion and recreational opportunities.

Community development is strongly promoted in the current Scottish Forestry Strategy (SFS); stating that forestry can improve the quality of life and well-being of people across Scotland, that forestry has an important role to play in lifelong learning and that FCS will support community ownership and management on the national forest estate where this will bring about increased benefits4.

Community forestry across Scotland has seen a upsurge since the beginnings in the 1980’s, with over 200 groups across Scotland now responsible for management of thousands of hectares of woodland and open space5; many encouraged by land reform and NFLS.

KCFC offers many social and public benefits to the area, including the Kyles Allotment Group, volunteering opportunities and the many open events hosted annually at the forest. The forest also benefits people economically through employment and training. The acquisition of further land would offer the company the ability to grow the capacity of the forest operations and therefore what it can offer locally, through continued employment and community involvement. These benefits are only possible through KCFC’s sustainable development and long-term approach to the economic, environmental and social issues in the area.

The new land complements the existing and proposed holdings of KCFC, the main implication being the requirement to manage the woodland in accordance to the requirements set in SFS. It has reasonable amenity value in terms of watercourses and the reservoirs, therefore offering potential for paths and trails, which could be combined with timber extraction routes and the Kilfinan Way within the current KCF holding.

The new land has the potential to offer further longevity, diversity and security to the community forest. Acquisition could mean securing a longer-term supply of timber to the forest sawmill, wood fuel business and the wider community due to the varying age classes. It would also raise the potential to offer standing sales, which could help fund the numerous development proposals within the forest, in turn offering benefit to local contractors and businesses by providing products and services to the area.

3 Argyll and Bute Woodland and Forest Strategy 4 The Scottish Forestry Strategy 5 Community Woodlands Association

12

The acquisition would offer job security to 1PT and 3FT staff in the short term and the combined area has the potential to support further jobs longer term.

d) Community capacity and interests

The new area of forest would require management and community ownership would entail this responsibility. The land would provide the community with opportunities to enable benefit that wouldn’t necessarily be available if it were to be sold on the open market. If the community controls the management of the forest, it is possible to retain all benefits of the forest within the community, whereas the alternative of private sale might restrict this capacity.

KCFC has a good track record of managing the current forest and the present voluntary board members and team of staff certainly have the skills to manage the proposed new area. However, it can be noted that the forest has a wide range of projects and the addition of further employees into the team would spread the workload and make it possible for the forest to reach targets even quicker.

Indeed, the community has been consulted in the past regarding the project and have shown support; the initial ballot in 2007 had a 64% return rate with 76% saying “yes” to the community ownership of Acharossan. This support continues, proven with a consultation on 16th October 2014 attracting 50 community members to hear presentations on the proposals of the acquisition.

Responses in a brief survey6 show that the following opportunities would be received well within the community.

Opportunity % Priority Importance Employment Opportunities 91% 1 Skills Development, Education and Training 85% 2 Provision of local woodfuel 82% 3 Affordable Housing 80% Environmental Improvements 80% Provision of local milled timber 77% Footpaths and mountain bike trails 75% Volunteering Opportunities 71% Holiday Accomodation, including camping 68% Woodland Burial Site 61%

The methodology for the survey was to rate the importance on a scale of 1-5 (1 being not important and 5 being essential), with the averages of the results providing the percentage. These results clearly show that employment opportunities is the main priority, with skills development and training coming second.

6 For survey quotes from community members, see appendix ii

13

e) Community ownership implications

It must be recognised that the decision of community ownership should not be taken lightly. However, the commitment required from the community to enable a community woodland to work is well known by KCFC given their past experience during the acquisition and management of the current KCF and also their knowledge of other community groups’ experience in the area. This makes KCFC well placed to make the decision.

The main implications of the land are the requirement to manage the woodland in accordance to the guidelines set in SFS and the UK Forestry Standard (UKFS). While KCFC’s track record with the current forest puts the community in a good position to manage the new land, there are further considerations applying to the new land including plant health, the reservoirs, and the membership of the Strategic Timber Transport Haul Route. i) Plant Health Biosecurity and plant health is becoming increasingly important in forestry. This can be a threat to present species within Acharossan and the forest structure should be well considered long term to limit this threat. For example, there is known to be ‘phytopthora ramorum’ in the area, with confirmed cases on the Ardlamont Peninsula. The species within the Upper Acharossan (107-hectare) forest that could be affected include Japanese larch and rhododendron ponticum. There are no known infections in Acharossan forest, however were a SPHN (Statutory Plant Health Notice) ordered on trees or rhododendron, the forest would be liable to remove them, often with strict conditions and time constraints.

Also of possible concern is Dothistroma (red band needle blight), which primarily affects pine species but can also affect sitka spruce, the main species within Acharossan. Dorthistroma is known to be present on some trees within neighbouring forestry, including the 325 hectare Acharossan area. This restricts growth and can lead to tree death. Unlike phytopthora, there are currently no movement controls for Dothistroma infected products7 such as saw logs or Christmas trees as the control measures are impractical. Controls primarily apply to pine plants for new planting. ii) Reservoirs There are implications associated with the two reservoirs in that the new owner must comply to; primarily water quality and the reservoirs act. The reservoirs act necessitates various inspections to ensure that structures are fit for purpose. Inspections would be required on a weekly basis by a trained KCFC inspector, with an annual inspection followed by a statement from an external qualified supervising engineer. This data would culminate with a ten yearly inspection and report from a qualified inspecting engineer, who would recommend any work to be done prior to the next inspection and sign off upon completion of the work.

7 Research Agency of the Forestry Commission, Dothistroma field guide 2013

14

The last ten year inspection was undertaken in 2006; with work being completed in 2010 to meet the inspecting engineer’s suggestions. The report highlights a potential issue in that the scower valve does not function, suggesting that this should be investigated to understand the condition of the arrangements. At the time of report a refurbishment of this valve was not deemed necessary; however it must be considered that the next ten year inspection (due in 2016) be brought forward prior to the sale; thus enabling an informed decision on KCFC’s part as to whether work would be required within the next ten years, arguably prior to the completion of sale. It is a requisite for the present insurance company that any reports and surveys are up to date and that structures are fit for purpose to enable insurance to be valid.

The reservoirs act is changing and the new act is yet to be commenced8. However it is known that the enforcement authority will be SEPA rather than the present local authority. KCFC should consider the criteria and responsibilities of the present 1975 act or most recent equivalent, and those of the new reservoirs act which is expected to come into place during 2015/ 2016.

There are also water quality implications in that the reservoirs are the village supply and as such the area is defined as protected by Scottish Government. It is required that the highest standards would be met, the detail of this would be highlighted in any LTFP work, which would be required prior to felling licences and harvesting or other work and must be compliant with ISBN 0 85538 615 0, Forests & Water guidelines in the UKFS. It would be essential that Scottish Water, SEPA and the Scottish Government be consulted prior to work of any kind commencing, to minimise any adverse impacts to water quality. iii) Strategic Timber Transport Haul Route (STTHR) The sale would include 2km of FCS road, which links the STTHR to the B8000. KCFC would have right of use of this road without a charge. The sale would also include a vote on the management committee of STTHR and include right of access to the north as a group member. However, there are costs that apply, for example should KCFC choose to haul timber across the STTHR to exit at Waulkmill there would be a charge of £0.11/ tonne/ km equating to around £1.45/ tonne. This can become significant when considering the sale of thousands of tones.

Timber could be hauled south without a charge, for example to haul timber back through Tighnabruaich on the B8000, then the A8003, both of which are consultation routes. Alternatively timber could be hauled to Portavadie pier, which would incur further cost via use of the haul route between the B8000 and Portavadie pier. This would only be possible if the pier were operable, as currently it does not function.

8 The Reservoirs (Scotland) Bill received Royal Assent on April 12, 2011. However, the new Reservoirs (Scotland) Act 2011 is yet to be commenced. Therefore, the 1975 Act as described on the Legislation section, continues to apply.

15

Ownership of the 2km road would mean that the purchaser would gain liability of the upkeep of their road, although the servitude agreements and levies with other group members means that the group would cover work required as a result of use by others, with any surplus going back to the road owner. SSE are an exception to this as they have a right of servitude with FCS. A user agreement for maintenance between FCS and SSE is currently in place to ensure upkeep of the FCS road; the conditions of this would be required for consideration in the event of agreement to sale of the land.

4. LAND OPTIONS

The initial consideration is to continue the use of the new land as conifer plantation; however there are further options for alternative ways in which KCFC could utilise all or part of the new 107 ha land. The maps in appendix iii) show opportunities, yield class, species and timber volumes.

a) Conifer Plantation

The present land structure is primarily conifer plantation, this being planted in the 1970’s and 1980’s as a timber crop, generally showing good form. This has been considered a suitable land use in the past and will continue to be one of the more productive options for land of this type in the area. KCFC could continue to use the area as a spruce plantation and offer the timber for standing sales. However, it is also important to consider the long-term supply for the company’s own use; the likes of the sawmill and the various building projects that the forest has planned. The age class of the new forest area adds diversity to that already owned by KCFC, thus offering a long-term supply to the community.

Access One of the main considerations for plantation forestry is the access; this is good to the western perimeter of the property thanks to the STTHR, however new roads would have to be considered within the property as internal access within the block is poor. Ideally, a new road would link up to the existing road within KCF while offering the community access to the crop that imminently requires harvesting, such as the windblown spruce. A new forest road to meet this requirement could cost around £65/linear metre, therefore in the region of £162,500 for the 2.5 kilometres that would be required.

It is anticipated that the Forest Infrastructure section of the new SRDP will include forest roads; on this basis funding for access roads might be available to KCFC should the relevant applications be approved. The Timber Transport Fund should also be considered as a possibility to fund new roads and access and could attract funding of up to 90%. The local geology is known to offer little in the way of quality road-stone, one exception being a handful of narrow bands of a harder igneous rock, as found in SSE quarry stone. Geology maps show there could be similar veins the new holding.

16

There would also need to be a burn crossing to the north of the reservoirs over the Craignafeoch Burn. This could be a pipe or possibly a bridge but either would require a survey to establish the best road route and crossing solution, with SEPA’s guidance on CAR9 having to be adhered to. A similar crossing of the same burn just upstream gives an idea of what could be created using a 5’ pipe and this would likely be the most cost effective solution.

Timber Yields, volumes and prices: A recent survey shows volumes of timber within the 107 hectares at around 16,000 cubic metres at present. An indicative average value of this is around £20/ tonne, assuming good form, access and an appropriate harvesting schedule. This equates to around £266,000 after factoring in conversions from cubic metres to tonnes. The price of sawlogs is recognized as being good at present; with the Global Sawlog Price Index recovering since the 2008 recession10. It is anticipated that UK sawlog prices will remain strong into the next twenty years as supply of mature crop will decline due to lack of UK conifer planting in the 90’s and around the millennium although predicting global markets means this is not guaranteed.

9 The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 10 Forestry Investment Management (FIM) timber index

17

Felling phases: The age and yield classes mean that the area has some crop that is ready to harvest, this is predominantly mature crop and windblown areas in coupes 9103, 9107 and 9108. Presently, similar neighbouring forests have reported losses of around 15% to 20%; indicating that timing is important to achieve the best yield from current blown timber. Within the 107 hectare area, over 6300 Tonnes are available to harvest now subject to felling licence. This would require access across the Craignafeoch burn, however this could be temporary until a decision about bridging specifications is met. The younger plantings in coupes 9156 and 9155 are not yet ready to harvest, this would be anticipated in 20-25 years, assuming they remain windfirm.

Restocking: The area is well suited to the present main species of Sitka Spruce. Multiple stems across the site show early browsing during the present crop, in particular on sub dominant crop establishment. Sitka spruce is less susceptible to this and so the crop has survived.

It could be anticipated that subsequent rotations would benefit from site improvements provided by better drainage and improved soils structure. With changes to SRDP in 2015, the rates of restructuring regeneration grants are presently being set with the EU and so support rates for restock is currently unknown. Limited areas of mixed conifer and mixed broadleaf would be possible to increase amenity value of the area. Of course, the type of restock would be subject to LTFP agreement and so KCFC should consider deer management and other herbivores such as neighbouring farm livestock.

The maps in the appendix show General Yeild Class and Current Timber Volumes. Areas of high yield and volume are generally of older age class; much of this is windblown due to exposure and soil conditions however the younger plantings now show good form with recent yield increase and are presently windfirm.

b) Crofts

The new area of land should be considered for crofts, with the woodland croft idea aiming to link woodland management to housing and rural livelihoods. Further croft sites would tie in well with the proposals for the KCFC Housing Masterplan, with crofts already being proposed in the existing holding. Should any of the new land be crofted, then it is subject to the Crofting Acts, which is regulated and supported by the Crofters Commission11. Crofting offers many advantages in that the crofter takes on the land management for their own use, thus offering diversity to the land use and also opportunities to those in the community who seek their “own” land.

11 www.crofterscommission.org.uk

18

c) Housing

It is currently unlikely that any domestic housing would be located within the new forest area as it does not fall into Rural Opportunity Area, however there is nothing to prevent KCFC from aspiring to include additional land in the next Local Development Plan12. Access to the site is good thanks to the STTHR route to the west of the holding and so this would be positive in terms of potential access for housing, were ABC to consider planning applications in the future. Equally, services of water (powder dam) and electricity (B8000) are relatively close to hand, particularly if coupe 9155 were chosen as a location for housing.

The current KCF (127 hectare) has a 23 hectare PDA area in which affordable houses are proposed, any future development of housing is likely to be within this area, but must not be limited to this if the track record and benefits are proven. The timber resource within the new area of land could be used toward any housing project within KCF

d) Holiday Accommodation

The Kyles of Bute and surroundings attract many holidaymakers in the summer months and the accommodation sector is well catered for by means of cottages, timber lodges, hotel accommodation and moorings for boats. Within the new area of forest, there is little scope to expand the provision of accommodation, however camping could be considered. There could be a possibility that a timber lodge or lodges could be built, as community owned holiday accommodation within the new forest; one possibility being a fishing lodge by the reservoirs. The KCFC sawmill enables the ability to convert sawlogs into sawn timber, which could be used in holiday accommodation projects. Any accommodation would be subject to planning permissions, the necessary building regulations and water quality guidelines if built near the reservoirs.

e) Energy

The new area of forest has the potential to produce renewable energy, although with no grid connection on site the viability of any scheme is compromised. Powerlines run along the B8000 road offering a possible connection point, however this being the nearest point means that the cost of infrastructure would negate any proposed scheme. New renewable schemes would be subject to a claw back from FCS for 25% of income generated via the scheme, for a period of 15 years, however it has been suggested by FCS that this would not apply to micro schemes (conditions will need to be agreed).

Wind The neighbouring landowners, SSE, are proposing a windfarm, which could mean better connections and infrastructure for future KCFC energy projects. Until the outcome of this proposal is known, only micro wind

12 Argyll and Bute Council, 24th October 2014

19 should be considered in the event of small-scale energy requirements, without a grid connection. Should SSE proceed with the windfarm, then shared community ownership of a turbine should be considered.

Hydro The nature of the new land suggests that a hydro scheme could be a possibility, with the reservoirs lying at the lowest point of the parcel and the volume of water being significant. However, the head of water and relatively low catchment area means that a viable scheme would be unlikely and no further studies into this should be considered at this point. Were the dam between the reservoirs to require significant work, a hydro scheme could be reconsidered at this point.

Biomass Woodfuel is deemed as energy; this can be woodchip, pellets or split logs. KCFC has an established split log woodfuel business, and the new area of forest could be thinned to maintain the log supply. The neighbouring property of SSE Acharossan has trialed different planting for bio-fuel, for example eucalyptus. This has proven to be growing well and similar pilot projects could be trialed within the new land, subject to forest planning and FCS approval. f) Fishing and Agriculture

The adjoining property to the south is farmland, primarily used for the rearing of cattle and sheep. The new forest area has little open land, but if crofting designations were made, it could be possible to plan for areas of open land to be used by crofters for other uses, with permission from FCS and the relevant constraints being met.

Both reservoirs are currently used for fishing on an 18-month lease costing £300+VAT per season. This lease is currently held by Tighnabruaich Angling Club and is due for renewal on 30th September 2015. KCFC could consider managing the fishing in house, however it would make sense to continue leasing the rights to the angling club as the management and benefits are then distributed into the community. g) Game

The land has the benefit of sporting rights. This is important for the control of deer, particularly given that future restock would need protection. KCFC has a Deer Management Plan and stalkers are presently engaged to control the current forest area; this plan should be extended across any additional land to ensure continuity of crop protection. The stalking has a value as it can either be leased to stalkers or stalked in house with carcasses then being sold to game dealers. Presently the KCF stalking rights are leased for £400 per annum. Upper Acharossan (107) combined with the Acharossan (325) and KCF (127) could attract offers upward of £2000 per annum if put to tender, but it must be recognised that deer control isn’t purely about income – the value of the stalkers input is an equally important factor in terms of crop protection and data collection.

20 h) Training and education

The new land offers the opportunity for training, particularly given the roadside access and variety of timber age classes for longer term forest skills training such as chainsaw qualifications and field studies.

KCFC have offered various training courses within the current forest, these have been from forest crafts to skills courses. This is important for people in the community to learn new skills and also offers the potential for specialist courses to be run. The training often benefits the forest as well as the trainee; for example data can be collected, paths constructed, buildings fabricated etc. A purpose built training facility is proposed within the present KCF, with the new forest area adding long-term security to training opportunities by adding more diverse courses and resource to what is presently owned.

The local primary school uses the present KCF as a venue for forest schools, with weekly sessions being run in a designated forest school area. Access to the powderdams through the new forest would widen the opportunity for the school to use the forest for field studies. i) Woodland Burials

The new forest area could be considered for woodland burials. Access and water quality are of key importance here and so a separate feasibility study would be required to establish the location. Currently, KCFC has considered woodland burials within the present forest but are yet to find a suitable location. The new forest area could offer the solution in terms of location and will be included in the feasibility study should the sale be completed. j) Paths/ Bridleways/ cycle routes

The area is known for the Cowal Way, which passes through the village of Tighnabruaich. The lesser known Kilfinan Way passes through the present KCF and the proposed acquisition area. KCFC has proposed to re-instate this route for walkers, or use a combination of timber haul routes and parts of the Kilfinan Way to link Tighnabruaich to the B8000 road. This route would cross the land of Upper Acharossan (107) and so ownership would be advantageous for establishing the routes to tie in with others within KCF (127).

The advantage of using timber haulage routes is that others can also use them, including cyclists and horse riders. With the proposed link between the STTHR and the existing road in KFC (127), singletrack for mountain biking could be worked into and around this route to create a mountain bike trail in the area. The nearest recognised trails are at the “fire trail” at Lochilphead and Ardgarten, with little on offer between. However, trails don’t generate direct revenue in that they are often free to use – the benefit is felt in the wider community in that mountain bikers would stay in accommodation and eat locally. The routes can be expensive to build, particularly timber

21 northshore/ boardwalk structures and surfaced routes (from £5 to £50/linear metre for some surfaced multiuser routes13). There are also high annual maintenance costs to consider funding for, with FCS suggesting costs of between 30 pence and 60 pence per linear metre for single track14. As an estimate, it could cost around £10,000 for a kilometer of singletrack with stretches of northshore. Realistically, a good trail would need to be around 10km or more to attract visitors to the area, perhaps with of 5km single track with 5km forest roads. If the roads were in place, this sort of project would still cost in excess of £50,000 to get an attractive route for mountain bikers. This could be a great asset for the community in terms of attracting visitors but the direct financial return to the forest would be hard to come by. It is quite probable that public access will be supported in the next round of SRDP funding and this could therefore help fund the installation of paths.

It must be noted that while amenity path networks are not directly income generating, they do offer great value to the community through encouraging more people to become active and stay active through walking, which ties in with the Scottish Government’s Physical Activity Strategy. k) Environmental improvements

Being predominantly spruce plantation, the nature of the land could currently be perceived as a monoculture; there is little age class difference (around ten years) although the various yield classes do offer some variety in cover and therefore biodiversity. There is potential through forest planning to maintain areas of productive spruce for commercial harvesting, while improving failed areas with natural regeneration and native species to favour wildlife. Rhododendron must be controlled to ensure this doesn’t take over open ground. l) Forest Events and attractions

The new forest area offers opportunities to start gazers and establishment of a “dark sky park”, to help people enjoy their local night sky could be an opportunity. This has been very successful in the Forestry Commission Scotland owned Galloway Forest Park15. The opportunity here is for interpretation and attraction of people to the area, with the community benefitting from increased tourism.

13 On the Right Track: surface requirements for shared user routes (CA213) The Countryside Agency; Landscape Access Recreation 14 Forestry Commission Scotland: An ambition for forest cycling and mountain biking, towards a national strategy, December 2005 15 http://www.darkskiesawareness.org

22

A polar opposite of the “dark sky park”; the enchanted forest16 at Pitlochry offers a visitor attraction by using lighting and sound as an arts installation within Faskilly Wood, Pitlochry. In 2014 around 43,000 people are expected to visit within 24 days towards the end of the tourist season, demonstrating the possibilities for a woodland to become a visitor attraction. The amount of accommodation in the area that is under utilised out of season offers capacity for visitors should the new forest host events or similar.

Equally, the rise in popularity of obstacle races such as “tough mudder”17 and “born survivor”18 poses an opportunity for the land. Obstacle courses are generally around 10-15km long, so a relatively large and varied area of land is required. Often the courses involve water, mud and timber and so forestry sites are well suited.

Aerial rope courses such as “Go Ape”19 could be a potential consideration for the forest longer term, although windfirm trees are a requisite here so the current site would require improvement to soil structure prior to a study for this. Another constraint is that Go Ape will only build ropes courses where there is an established footfall of visitors, often with a café or similar attractions; estimated costs for establishing a Go Ape is £250,000.

5. VALUATION

Kilfinan Community Forest Company and Forestry Comission Scotland instructed the valuation, using District Valuer Services. The 107 hectares of Upper Acharrossan is formed as part of the total 432-hectare area as this is the entire purchase area. The total value is £910,000. The community must consider legal fees which will be added to this value.

16 http://www.enchantedforest.org.uk 17 https://toughmudder.co.uk/ 18 http://www.muddyrace.co.uk 19 http://goape.co.uk/

23

6. MEANS OF ACQUISITION

a) Delivery structure

KCFC is a limited company with charitable status, thus making it eligible to apply for a community acquisition of the surplus land through the NFLS. This also means that KCFC can apply for the Scottish Land Fund20 to part fund the purchase of the land.

KCFC funded the purchase of the current KCF as part of a phased acquisition, purchasing 127 ha of the original proposed Acharossan area21. KCFC’s track record has proved its ability to work as a community forest, therefore it is well suited to be considered as a potential purchaser. Indeed KCFC still fits the NFLS requirements as cited in the initial Acharossan feasibility study22 and updated below:

• The community organisation is an eligible community body. • The land is not excluded land. • The community has a substantial connection with the land. • The community has the capacity to manage the land. • The proposal has community support. • The proposal is consistent with the principles of sustainable development. • The proposal is in the public interest. • The proposal is not significantly detrimental to the management of the National Forest Estate.

In 2010, KCFC applied for SLF, but the funds were not sufficient to purchase the total forest area defined in the Acharossan Forest Acquisition Feasibility Study. The result was that KCF raised £65,000 through a combination of community contributions and loans; this was match funded by HIE to purchase a smaller area of forest. The result is that the forest wishes to apply via NFLS for SLF grant funding towards the purchase of the total 432-hectare area, including the additional 107 hectares of Upper Acharossan; FCS considers this NFLS process as a re-application for the purchase of the 325 hectare area with amendment.

The terms of SLF are that the community should part fund the project. This could also be done using third parties, for example the timber rights could be sold or leased to a forestry company who could then co-manage the woodland to secure a timber supply for themselves, with rights to be retained by the KCFC longer term. This is a tried and tested formula; the likes of North-West Mull Community Woodland (NWMCW) and the Colintraive and Glendaruel Development Trust (CGDT) have both successfully worked in partnership with private sector forestry companies on that basis.

20 Scottish Land Fund (SLF) is delivered by the Big Lottery Fund and Highlands and Islands Enterprise on behalf of the Scottish Government. 21 Ref FCS map on page 11 22 MacIntyre and Gauld 2008

24

b) Funding Options

There are two funding options to consider; firstly the capital purchase of the forest and secondly the revenue/capital funding requirements of future developments. This feasibility study covers the purchase of the forest area and detail on revenue costs is in the business plan. Should KCFC wish to purchase the 107 hectares of Upper Acharossan then it will be required to pay FCS the market value of the property. It will be considered along with the purchase of the remaining 325 hectares of Acharossan as the combination of the two units of land complement the present KCF and could attract different values if sold individually. Subsequently, the valuation is for the entire 432-hectares.

The funding options for the capital purchase of the forest include the following options, or a combination thereof:

• Community Funding (via shares or donations) • Scottish Land Fund (SLF) • Loans (could be community based or commercial) • HIE Community Assets Team Funding • Sale of unwanted part of asset (possible legal constraints here with funders, FCS – however if considered prior to completion it could be an option) • Private Investment (e.g. hydro share or similar) • Commercial partnerships with a Private Sector Forest Company; to release payment up front; this breaks down into: o Lease of timber rights o Standing sale

Each of these funding options has a variety of advantages and disadvantages, with varying elements of input, control and risk for the Community Forest.

Community Funding The community could potentially fund acquisition via community contributions such as donations or a shares scheme. This offers the advantage that the community has a high appreciation of what is acquired, and offers community control in that ownership requires responsibility. However, the capacity of the community is important here in that the necessary skills are essential to manage the purchase and thereafter the forest. It could also be difficult for the community to raise the necessary funding given the size of the community and time constraints.

Scottish Land Fund/ other grant support The community could part fund the acquisition by means of the Scottish Land Fund. This fund offers up to 95% of the total capital cost, or £750,000 to assist a community purchase. There is also the opportunity for SLF to fund revenue. Growing Community Assets could also be considered as a funding option for revenue.

25

Highlands and Islands Enterprise also offer discretionary financial assistance of around 20% of the capital cost, however this funding could raise possible state aid implications. Grant support offers the advantage that the community would control the forest, with any yield or growth being available for the community to capltalise on, ensuring long term security. The disadvantage of grant support is that it can take time to implement and the even when requirements for funders are met, justification and auditing can be laborious. KCFC has an excellent track record of working with funders and so collaboration once again will be sure to result in delivery of the required outcomes.

Loans The community could fund the acquisition using loans. This offers the community control of the asset but does mean that good management and strong cashflow are essential. The element of risk to potential loan companies could make a loan prohibitive in that the solution to risk management is to increase the repayment terms; with the consequence being a squeeze on the community ability to manage the project. KCFC has a positive track record with Social Investment Scotland (SIS) for financing a rhododendron clearance project and is in agreement for loan funding of the hydro scheme in the present forest. This means were a loan to be considered, KCFC would be in a positive position to apply.

Sale of unwanted asset The community could potentially part-fund the purchase via the means of a sale of unwanted assets. In order for this to happen, it would require agreement with any other funders/ interested parties (notably FCS). However, upon agreement the sale could potentially provide funding to aid the overall purchase. The proposed forest area doesn’t offer any immediate suggestions of unwanted assets and therefore in this instance this scenario is unlikely.

Lease of timber rights, to private sector forest companies (PSFC) A recent study in Northern England shows that “peak wood” is estimated to be around 203023. While this is Scotland, it’s important to consider the global nature of the forest industry and that if shortage is expected in one geographical area, then supply will move to fill that market. The result of which, the private sector is hungry to secure long-term timber supply.

It is highly likely that the community would be able to secure a lease of timber rights with a private forest company. This option has the advantage that it would require relatively low input from the forest with regard to operations and that it has the potential to generate significant funding with a relatively low risk to the forest. This option would be limiting in terms of timber volume available to the forest and would require agreement in terms of forest planning, however the methodology has been tried and tested by the likes of NWMCW and Stronafian Community Forest, with successful outcomes.

23 Roots To Prosperity, (Confor) “Peak Wood” is when supply levels fall below demand.

26

Standing sale of timber (e.g. to PSFC) The community could look to sell standing timber in order to fund or part fund the acquisition. This option is simple in that an upfront payment could be secured for felling rights of the current crop in an agreed area and timescale and would be subject to agreement in a long-term forest plan. The community forest could limit its involvement in operations management, should it so desire, thus offering control to the forest in terms of input versus gain. It would be critical to agree all responsibilities prior to contract completion; this would cover the likes of agreed timescales, inventories and access agreements (such as roading etc).

Private investment, such as lease of other rights The community could look to a private investor to help fund the acquisition. In KCFC’s case the best opportunity here would be for renewable energy production. A long term lease could offer up-front payment to aid capital purchase of the forest. This would require little long-term management on behalf of KCFC, however leasing of asset could mean loss of the asset to the community. There are also other constraints to consider, for example FCS has a 25% renewables profit clause for 15 years meaning that any generation of income would be immediately less attractive to prospective investors. There are other rights that can be leased within the proposed land, such as stalking and fishing rights. However, these generate very little income in terms of what’s required to purchase the forest and the income will generally cover on-costs associated with the respective leases.

27

c) Opportunities and constraints

The funding opportunities and constraints are summarised in the table below:

Funding Option Pros Cons Community Funding Appreciation of Raising the volume of (donations/sale of acquired asset, funding from a small shares) ownership means that community can be management is solely limiting the forest’s responsibility Grant Funding (such as Grants unlikely to Grant funding can be Scottish Land Fund, conflict with onerous to achieve and Growing Community Community objectives requires strict Assets) outcomes Grant funding achieves ownership and control for forest Loans (community or Offers control and Repayment targets commercial) management to the requires strong community cashflow Sale of unwanted asset Relieves the Pre-sale negotiation community of with other funding unwanted asset in partners would be exchange for finance essential to cite and agree the terms of sale Standing Sale – sale of A harvest would be Clear responsibilities standing and agreed via the Long are essential, oversight windblown timber Term Forest Plan, the could result in cost to would enable advance extent of this either the PFSC or payments: determined by the Community Forest, for Community Forest example road requirements meaning constraints required level of intervention can be set Advance payments (subject to contract may carry cost to terms such as timing Community and LTFP)

The level of returns known before operations commence via survey

Timber supply is in demand making this option attractive to multiple PSFCs

28

Long Term Lease – A lease can generate Community forest lease of timber rights significant funding with could have little control would enable advance low cost and risks to over leased timber payments: the forest area

High demand for long Community potentially term leases loses annual yield of timber for the duration Potential value in of lease, depending on partnership working terms with a PSFC to assist Community Forest operations and management Private investment or Has potential to offer Leasing of rights could leases (such as a up front finance in mean loss of asset to renewable scheme exchange for long term the community. investment or lease) asset FCS renewables clause is in place, meaning 25% of any scheme profit is already accounted for.

d) Summary

On analysis of the funding opportunities and when considering the present finances of the KCFC business plan there are three options possible to enable Community Acquisition. These are as follows:

• Sale of assets via standing sale, with upfront payment; • Lease of timber rights with upfront payment • Grant assistance, such as Scottish Land Fund (SLF)

The business plan goes on to describe the financials of each option and how the combinations benefit the community long-term and short-term.

29

7. CONCLUSIONS

The benefits of community forestry are well known. The Kilfinan Community has benefitted greatly from the range of opportunities offered by their community forest to date; as such the option to extend the forest area to ensure longer term community benefit should be well considered. KCFC’s skilled board, capable staff and proven track record to date puts the community in an excellent position to do so.

The long term economical, social and environmental benefits that the KCFC brings to the community can only be enhanced by ownership of further land. However, the short-term gain of asset will incur great costs, particularly with the planned development within KCFC. It is therefore critical that KCFC show good management and planning to ensure that acquisition brings long term success and sustainability to the forest.

Considering the liabilities associated with the new area of land, assuming that a ten year reservoir inspection does not raise cause for concern, the purchase of the combined Upper Acharossan (107ha) and Acharossan areas (325ha) will offer great benefit to the community. Ownership of an asset that has capacity of growth must be advantageous. Simple economies of scale suggest that the new forest area can yield 3-4 times the income of the present forest, if managed well.

The benefit of community ownership is that the community can control the asset, however the route to achieve this must be carefully considered to enable the greatest possible benefit to the community. Any route that puts the present forest at risk should be avoided; therefore the most logical solution is to apply for grant funding assistance such as SLF, with gap funding support via a standing sale or lease to a PSFC.

30

8. Appendices

i) Upper Acharossan (107 hectare) Schedule

COMPARTMENT Species P_Date Area_Ha Top_Ht BA Av_dbh Volume GYC Total M3 9087 OL 0 12.50 0 0 0 0 0 0 9103 LP 1975 1.95 20 34 28 250 12 487.5 9103 LP 1975 0.28 20 34 28 250 12 70 9103 OG 0 0.64 0 0 0 0 0 0 9103 OG 0 0.20 0 0 0 0 0 0 9103 SS 1972 0.22 25 46 25 500 22 110 9103 SS 1975 0.47 25 46 25 500 22 235 9103 SS 1975 6.42 25 46 25 500 22 3210 9106 OGWBLOW 0 0.39 0 0 0 0 0 0 9106 OG 0 1.03 0 0 0 0 0 0 9106 SS 1977 1.28 25 46 25 500 22 640 9107 LP 1976 0.13 20 34 28 250 12 32.5 9107 LP 1976 1.48 20 34 28 250 12 370 9107 MBWBLOW 1974 0.11 0 0 0 0 0 0 9107 MB 1974 0.21 0 0 0 0 0 0 9107 OG 0 0.22 0 0 0 0 0 0 9107 OG 0 0.19 0 0 0 0 0 0 9107 OG 0 1.15 0 0 0 0 0 0 9107 SS 1977 0.54 25 46 25 500 22 270 9107 SS 1977 0.42 25 46 25 500 22 210 9107 SS 1977 2.95 25 46 25 500 22 1475 9108 MBWBLOW 1974 0.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 9108 MB 1974 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 9108 MB 1974 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 9108 OG 0 1.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 9108 SS 1974 0.35 25 46 25 500 22 175 9108 SS 1974 0.36 25 46 25 500 22 180 9108 SS 1974 0.93 25 46 25 500 22 465 9108 SSWBLOW 1977 0.04 25 46 25 500 22 20 9155 JLWBLOW 1985 0.16 14 33 20 200 8 32 9155 JL 1985 0.41 14 33 20 200 8 82 9155 JL 1985 0.19 12 21 14 105 12 19.95 9155 LP 1985 0.23 13 25 17 140 8 32.2 9155 LP 1985 0.07 13 25 17 140 8 9.8 9155 LP 1985 0.20 13 25 17 140 8 28 9155 LP 1985 0.12 13 25 17 140 8 16.8 9155 LP 1985 0.15 13 25 17 140 8 21 9155 MB 1985 0.26 0 0 0 0 0 0 9155 MB 1985 0.56 0 0 0 0 0 0 9155 MB 1985 0.19 0 0 0 0 0 0 9155 OG 0 13.80 0 0 0 0 0 0 9155 SP 1985 0.05 12 26 18 120 10 6 9155 SS 1984 1.22 22 43 20 405 22 494.1 9155 SS 1985 0.68 13 28 14 155 12 105.4 9155 SS 1985 1.53 16 30 22 205 16 313.65 9155 SS 1985 0.05 18 29 17 220 20 11 9155 SS 1985 1.14 16 30 22 205 16 233.7 9155 SS 1985 1.70 13 28 14 155 12 263.5 9155 SS 1985 2.22 16 28 18 190 16 421.8 9155 SS 1985 1.64 17 31 17 225 18 369 9155 SS 1985 1.94 22 43 20 405 22 785.7 9155 SS 1985 0.30 22 43 20 405 22 121.5 9155 SS 1985 0.34 13 28 14 155 12 52.7 9155 SS 1985 1.41 3 0 0 0 2 0 9155 SSCHECK 1985 0.26 9 15 13 60 9 15.6

31

CHECK 9155 SS 1985 0.35 3 0 0 0 2 0 9155 SSCHECK 1984 0.35 22 43 20 405 22 141.75 9155 SSWBLOW 1984 0.18 22 43 20 405 22 72.9 9155 SSWBLOW 1985 0.24 18 29 17 220 20 52.8 9155 SSWBLOW 1985 0.08 16 28 18 190 16 15.2 9155 SSWBLOW 1985 0.09 22 43 20 405 22 36.45 9156 JLWBLOW 1985 0.60 12 21 14 105 12 63 9156 JL 1985 0.59 12 21 14 105 12 61.95 9156 JL 1985 0.04 12 21 14 105 12 4.2 9156 JL 1985 1.56 12 21 14 105 12 163.8 9156 JL 1985 0.24 12 21 14 105 12 25.2 9156 JL 1985 0.06 12 21 14 105 12 6.3 9156 JL CHECK 1985 0.35 3 0 0 0 2 0 9156 JL CHECK 1985 0.05 3 0 0 0 2 0 9156 LP 1985 0.86 13 25 17 140 8 120.4 9156 OG 0 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 9156 OG 0 8.85 0 0 0 0 0 0 9156 OG 0 1.84 0 0 0 0 0 0 9156 SS 1985 0.60 13 28 14 155 12 93 9156 SS 1985 0.47 15 34 18 215 16 101.05 9156 SS 1985 0.78 15 34 18 215 16 167.7 9156 SS 1985 1.36 15 34 18 215 16 292.4 9156 SS 1985 0.66 13 28 14 155 12 102.3 9156 SS 1985 0.13 13 28 14 155 12 20.15 9156 SS 1985 0.75 13 28 14 155 12 116.25 9156 SS 1985 0.25 13 28 14 155 12 38.75 9156 SS 1985 8.77 17 31 17 225 18 1973.25 9156 SS 1985 1.96 15 34 18 215 16 421.4 9156 SS 1985 1.51 13 28 14 155 12 234.05 9156 SS 1985 0.08 13 28 14 155 12 12.4 9156 SS 1985 1.11 13 28 14 155 12 172.05 9156 SS 1985 0.24 3 0 0 0 2 0 9156 SSCHECK 1985 0.16 3 0 0 0 2 0 9156 SSCHECK 1985 0.20 3 0 0 0 2 0 9156 SSCHECK 1985 0.30 3 0 0 0 2 0 9156 SSCHECK 1985 3.53 3 0 0 0 2 0 9156 SSCHECK 1985 0.86 17 31 17 225 18 193.5 9156 SSWBLOW 1985 0.18 17 31 17 225 18 40.5 9156 SSWBLOW 1985 0.24 17 31 17 225 18 54 WBLOW 107.41 16182.1

32 ii) Community Consultation Feedback (collated 16th October 2014)

Of the thirty nine feedback forms received as a result of Community Consultation, the following comments were given:- 1. Memorial Trees 2. Heritage Development. Jobs for young people. 3. Community Forest strengthens the togetherness of the community. Excellent opportunity. 4. Affordable housing very important only for local residents and not sold as holiday homes. 5. Although not resident here all year. I have a great interest in ‘Community Development’ and ‘Sustainability’. 6. Develop a squirrel sanctuary and advertise it. Once established this will encourage more tourists to visit the area. 7. Bridle Paths. Better ‘Information flow’ would be good. 8. Quad bike/buggy track, assault course and outdoor survival training. 9. Tree Houses for holiday accommodation. ‘Go Ape’ activities, tree top walk. What has been achieved so far is amazing and very beneficial to the local community and is seen by others as an example of what can be done well. 10. Provision of maps of the area highlighting local history, details of local flora and fauna and general wildlife. 11. Firm links to local schools and youth organisations. Board walks giving access to wetlands. 12. Happy to work with you. (Local business owner). 13. Christmas trees. A Pet Cemetery. Event space and management services e.g. Weddings funerals etc. Well done for all the hard work! 14. Woodland Crofts 15. ‘Value Added’ timber products. Involvement with students. 16. Great work done on the existing forest. More of the same. Good luck! 17. ‘Go Ape’. Brilliant work! 18. A group mix of recreational use, Biodiversity and commercial forestry. 19. ‘Trim Trail’. Forest own ground for houses and people own the house, so forest manages the land for ever! Great enterprise. Well done! 20. Public ‘Suggestion Box’ for ideas for the use of the old Curling Pond. Eventual opening of the path to Kilfinan would be great for cyclists and walkers. What has already been achieved is great, the path along Medrox Burn is lovely and will hopefully be extended and the burn cleared of timber debris. 21. Motorcycle Trails.

iii) Maps: Opportunitues and Constraints, Yield Class, Current Species and Current Timber Volumes

33

Kilfinan Community Forest Kilfinan Community Forest, There are readily identified areas of poorly drained deeper peats where growth rates Legend GYC BRN: 166318 Tighnabruaich, are severely constrained by poor nutrient status and a stagnant water table. In other Compts GYC less than 8. Argyll PA21 2BD, Potential for peatland restoration. areas flushed peaty soils are facilitating good tree growth in excess of GYC12. A target MLC: 142/0017 Scotland Indicative roadline 10 threshold value for peat restoration of GYC8 needs to reflect the species present, and Company No: 333208 Right of Way 12 on this site there are areas where the current crop (LP & JL ) has a GYC of less than 8 Strategic Timber Transport Haul Route Charity No: SCO38908 16 while a crop of SS on the same site would be anticipated to be in excess of 12. The Areas of GYC less than 8 due to current Upper Acharossan species rather than peat depth 18 peat mapping available for the forest is not accurate enough to determine restocking 20 layouts, and won’t reflect the complex nature of peat in Cowal, where flushed high 22 nutrient status peats can provide an ideal growing medium for SS. Using the current Opportunities ± crop performance as a basis for decision making provides an opportunity to balance the competing issues that arise from deforestation to restore peat bogs. & Constraints Scale: 1:10,000 @ A4 03/10/2014 No designations, archaeological features or ANSW areas on site.

Many of the SS areas have displayed slow initial There is potential to adjust woodland distribution to growth rates arising from drainage and heather reflect soil characteristics, with a drawing back of competition issues. Post canopy closure growth rates forestry on deep peats with low growth rates and a .000000 have been observed to have improved markedly. It corresponding expansion of forestry across some could be anticipated that subsequent rotations will of the open knolls with good potential for

675000 benefit from site amelioration provided by better productive forestry. drainage and an improvement in soil structure.

9103

9106 SS is the species best suited to the site, and there is limited potential for LISS in this or subsrquent rotations due to exposure and soil conditions. 9108 The site is readily accessed via a fairly straightforward Limited areas of alternate conifers and MB are possible in small areas, 9107 expansion of the road network. Slope is not a constraint, but but deer would be a major constraint. Eucalyptus plantings in the locality the ground conditions will require robust brash mats. on a similar site have shown spectacular growth rates. Harvesting coupe layout needs to reflect this constraint, by providing connectivity between harvesting sites and the road network. 9155

Timber quality in the younger crops is generally good, with lower quality in the older 9156 windblown sections. Wastage in the windblown crop is anticipated to be 15% to 20%. Multiple stems are fairly common across the site, but in most instances these occur in the sub- 9087

.000000 dominant crop element and this probably arises from post establishment browsing of the slower growing crop element. 674000 A through road to the haul road to the north would have significant recreational advantages for the forest and community catchments, and would provide an all weather route for a significant section of the PROW B8000 public road running from Kilfinan to Tighnabruaich.

Drinking water supplies and recreational fishing A connecting road through from the existing Community Woodland require the highest standards to be followed in relation and connecting the two potential additions to the Strategic Timber to the water environment. Following the UKFS in Transport Scheme haul route is clearly the best option in terms of relation to the Forests & Water Guidelines and roading. The crossing point over the Craignafeoch Burn could be maintaining good communications with Scottish Water undertaken using a well laid 1.5m diameter pipe, as implemented will minimise adverse impacts. just upstream from this site on the neighbouring forest.

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 scale raster with the permission of HMSO. crown Copyright. DCP 2014. Licence no: 100042218

194000.000000 195000.000000 196000.000000 197000.000000 Legend Kilfinan Community Forest Kilfinan Community Forest, Tighnabruaich, Compts BRN: 166318 Argyll PA21 2BD, GYC 14 MLC: 142/0017 Scotland 2 16 Company No: 333208 Charity No: SCO38908 4 18 6 20 Upper Acharossan 8 22 ± 10 12 General Yield Class Scale: 1:10,000 @ A4 03/10/2014 .000000 675000

9103

9106

9108 9107

9155

9156

9087 .000000 674000

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey 1:50,000 scale raster with the permission of HMSO. crown Copyright. DCP 2013. Licence no: 100042218 195000.000000 196000.000000 Legend Kilfinan Community Forest Kilfinan Community Forest, Tighnabruaich, Compts BRN: 166318 Argyll PA21 2BD, Species SP MLC: 142/0017 Scotland JL SS Company No: 333208 Charity No: SCO38908 JL CHECK SS CHECK LP SS WBLOW Upper Acharossan LP WBLOW ± MB OG Current Species Scale: 1:10,000 @ A4 03/10/2014 .000000

675000 0 1975 1972 1975 9103 1975 0 0 1975 0 9106 1977 0 910819741974 0 1974 1974 0 1977 9107 1977 1974 19761976 1977 1974 1974 1985 1977 1985 0 1985 0 1985 1985 1984 1985 1984 91551985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 19851985 1985 0 1984 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 0 1985 9156 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985 9087 1985 1985 .000000 1985 1985 1985 0 1985 1985 19851985 1985 1985 674000 1985 1985 1985 0 1985 1985 1985 1985 1985

1985

1985

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey 1:50,000 scale raster with the permission of HMSO. crown Copyright. DCP 2013. Licence no: 100042218 195000.000000 196000.000000 Legend Kilfinan Community Forest Kilfinan Community Forest, Tighnabruaich, Compts BRN: 166318 Argyll PA21 2BD, Volume (m3/Ha) 206 - 220 MLC: 142/0017 Scotland 1 - 60 221 - 225 Company No: 333208 226 - 250 Charity No: SCO38908 61 - 120 121 - 140 251 - 500 Upper Acharossan 141 - 155 ± 156 - 190 Current Timber 191 - 205 Volumes Scale: 1:10,000 @ A4 03/10/2014 .000000 675000

9103

9106

9108 9107

9155

9156

9087 .000000 674000

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey 1:50,000 scale raster with the permission of HMSO. crown Copyright. DCP 2013. Licence no: 100042218 195000.000000 196000.000000