ARGYLL AND BUTE ACCESS FORUM MEETING 16 March 2011 at 17:30, Corran Halls, Oban MINUTE Present John Urquhart (Chair) Helensburgh and District Access Trust member Nicholas Halls Mountaineering Council for Scotland Fiona Russell British Horse Society Malcolm Holder Scottish Rural Property Business Association member Seamus Anderson National Farmers Union Scotland member Jan Dunlop Mull and Iona Community Trust ranger John Auld NFUS member Geoff Riddington Stuart Findlay Forestry Commission Scotland Neil Duncan SRPB/NFUS In Attendance Ali Hibbert Paths for All Jolyon Gritten Argyll and Bute Council Access Team Douglas Grierson Argyll and Bute Council Access Team Lissa Brackley (Minutes) Argyll and Bute Council Apologies Tony Charlesworth John C. Little Tilhill Forestry Donald Ewan Darroch Mike McManus Gavin Smith Andrew Campbell 1 Welcome and Apologies 1.1 John Urquhart welcomed everyone to the meeting and gave apologies as above. 1.2 Stuart Findlay of Forestry Commission Scotland was introduced to the group. 1.3 Ali Hibbert announced that this will be her last attendance at the forum. Due to budget constraints and changing priorities within Paths for All she will no longer be able to attend Local Access Forum meetings. Ali indicated that Paths For All are continuing to look for funding that would allow a presence at future LAF meetings. 2 Approval of Previous Minutes 2.1 Nick Halls queried the matter which was minuted under „Any Other Business‟ regarding individual representation on the National Access Forum. The draft minute stated that the LAF supported individual membership on the NAF. This was the opposite of what the LAF had recommended. The minute was amended to read “The Forum felt that individuals should not be allowed to sit on the NAF” 2.2 Jan Dunlop proposed the approval of the minute and Seamus Anderson seconded them. 3 Matters Arising 3.1 Jolyon confirmed that the Council‟s budget had been approved and advised that the Budget for the Outdoor Access Team has been cut from £70,000 in the current financial year 2010/11 to £31,000 in 2011/12 and £21,000 in 2012/13. This means that the Access Team have had to withdraw the following funding: Support to Mull & Iona and Isle of Bute Ranger Services- £8,000 Support to Kintyre Paths Maintenance Team – Transport, Equipment and Materials costs only- £11,000 Payments to Community based Local Path Groups to allow them to improve Local Path Networks -£10,000 Payments to Community Based Long Distance Paths Groups i.e. Kintyre Way, Cowal Way, Three Lochs Way, West Island Way (Bute) and West Highland Way £10,000 in 2011-2012 rising to £20,000 in following years. Development & Infrastructure Services are currently going through a Service Review process and as part of this serious consideration is being given to the merits of establishing a Coast & Countryside Trust for Argyll & Bute. This would be a charitable organisation, independent of the Council, which would help to attract and disperse funding for communities in Argyll & Bute for Access, Biodiversity and Marine related projects. The Trust would work in partnership with communities and other partners and would not seek to replace organisations such as the Mull & Iona Community Trust. The Trust would have staff that could support communities with developing, funding and delivering projects. Funding could come from a range of sources including carbon offsetting and a voluntary visitor/conservation investment partnership scheme where visitors using a range of facilities i.e. accommodation, cycle hire, sea kayaking, possibly even ferries would be encouraged to make a small contribution to the Trust. This money could be hypothecated to the area/s where it is generated so that the areas that receive the most visitors have more resources to manage their impacts. One issue that would need to be resolved is finding a mechanism that would allow communities that has made a successful funding application to pay contractors before the grants that have been made to them are received. One possibility is to identify a wealthy individual or organisation which would loan the trust funding for this purpose, the loan would be paid back after an agreed period and this may have tax advantages for them. A Project Initiation Document will now be written to obtain permission from senior managers to proceed with the proposed project. Jan suggested contacting Vanessa of the Mull & Iona Community Trust, since they already operate a similar loan to communities. 4 LAF response to Core Paths Plan 4.1 In order to collate a formal response from the forum, Ali collected the groups‟ comments on some of the bigger issues relating to the Core Paths Plan. 4.2 It was the general opinion that this is a good place to start with the Core Path Plan as it is a huge job to be undertaken. It was also noted that the larger, strategic links should be included at this stage. 4.3 The group all agreed that the public generally does not understand that the purpose of the plan is to join communities together, rather than linking walks. As communities weren‟t involved prior to the plan being published this has caused confusion. The group felt strongly that there wasn‟t enough people involvement. 4.4 The forum members agreed that there were sufficiency issues with the plan and that the concept of aspirational routes was unclear. Some forestry routes have been captured as if for recreational use. Some safe routes linking communities have not been identified and some single track roads with high volumes of traffic have – this balance isn‟t right and raises safety concerns. 4.5 Also mentioned, was the National Park‟s plan and issues surrounding the integration of the two plans. 4.6 Also discussed were the varied attitudes of land owners in the area and how a lack of knowledge/understanding can cause confusion. It is felt there is a lack of enforcement of the plan. Some felt that it would cause a privacy issue if a path was labelled a core path and there would be certain criteria which must be met and perceived standards. Also, the path would become a “motorway for pedestrians” and planning permission may be difficult to obtain. It also presents the concern of damage and fly tipping. There is a clear lack of communication but the Access Team do not have enough staff to get the messages directly out to the public. 5 Proposal for handling Core Paths Plan Objections 5.1 Jolyon advised the group that following the end of the consultation the Access Team will need to deal with representations and objections received within a reasonable time scale. Jolyon circulated a process map to show how objections will be dealt with and discussed the proposed process with the group. 5.2 Ali suggested that the process map be amended to reflect that when an objection has been received it must first be deemed valid before proceeding. 5.3 Ali commented that due to a large number of alterations that Perth and Kinross had made to their Draft Plan the Scottish Government Reporter required Perth and Kinross hold a further consultation on the changes they had made. Ali recommended that Jolyon contact Perth and Kinross. (Action Point 16/03/1-Jolyon Gritten) 5.4 Fiona Russell raised the point that not everyone had realised that they needed to register support for core path proposals in the previous consultation and as a result some proposed paths were now being shown as deleted paths. As such it was agreed that the public need to be encouraged to comment on the plan and not only if they wish to object to a proposal. 6 Ongoing Access Issues 6.1 Douglas advised that there were no new access issues lodged since the last meeting and that three of the issues on the previous list had been resolved. Douglas also advised that some existing issues may be resolved by the designation of a core path as this would remove the need to establish that an area was within access rights, it would also allow the Council to undertake works to maintain the core path and keep it free from obstruction or encroachment. 7 Any Other Business 7.1 Jolyon informed the group that he had been contacted by a farmer who had encountered a cyclist wishing to cross her farmyard whilst she was working with cattle. The group discussed signs that could be used to alert walkers/cyclists of temporary closures to paths whilst certain land management operations were being undertaken. 7.2 There was some concern that these signs are often ignored. It was stated that in some instances this can be a result of signs being used when not required or left up after a particular operation has finished. Such signage should only be used when required and include dates and times. 7.2 The group also discussed signage aimed at dog walkers as a means to ensure dogs are kept under proper control in areas with livestock and to address issues such as dog fouling. It was suggested that dog walking groups in Argyll be contacted and provided with leaflets and signs. (Action Point 16/03/2-Access Team) 7.3 Neil Duncan voiced concern over a Launching Point being identified at Ronachan (Seal Point). ND stated that this is an important site for wildlife, particularly for sea birds and seals, and if promoted as a Launching Point in the Core Paths Plan it will result in disturbance to the wildlife from increased usage and may encourage the use of jet skies and other motorised craft to this location.