Skip to content
Please be aware the content below has been generated by an AI model from a source PDF.

Cairngorms Local Outdoor Access Forum meeting minutes - November 2025

Cairngorms Loc­al Out­door Access For­um Held online on 12 Novem­ber 2025

Present:

  • Adam Streeter-Smith (AQSS) — Park Authority
  • Ben Oliv­er Jones (BOJ) — LOAF
  • Car­ol Mack­in­tosh (CM) — FLS
  • Colin Cad­den (CC) — LOAF
  • Colin Simpson (CS) — Park Authority
  • Douglas Car­chrie (DC) — LOAF
  • John Gri­er­son (JG) — LOAF (Chair)
  • Ken­neth Gib­son (KG) — LOAF
  • Lauren McCal­lum (LM) — LOAF
  • Mark John­ston (MJ) — LOAF
  • Pete Wright (PW) — LOAF
  • Sara Den­ner — Park Author­ity (notes)
  • Vicky Hilton (VH) — Park Authority

Apo­lo­gies:

  • Patsy Richards
  • Ben Dol­phin

1. Wel­come & introductions

Dis­cussed

  • JG- Wel­comed group and asked group to intro­duce themselves.

Action

2. Minutes of last meet­ing – approv­al and mat­ters arising not oth­er­wise appear­ing on agenda.

Dis­cussed

  • JG- Dis­cussed Minutes of last meeting.
  • CC- Quer­ied if LOAF meet­ing notes from 5 March 2025 have been edited as he reques­ted, to reflect Caper­cail­lie beha­viour at Ryvoan, as it appears that they haven’t.
  • CS- Meet­ing notes on serv­er show edited ver­sion, SD to ensure cor­rect ver­sion is on website.
  • VH- Advised group that pre­vi­ous issue of locked gate In Deshar Woods has been resolved.
  • MJ- Quer­ied if there had been any update on drone guidance.
  • AQSS- Advised that a dis­cus­sion paper has been taken to Nation­al Access For­um in Septem­ber and dis­cussed. Also had feed­back from Nation­al Trust Scot­land her­it­age depart­ment with their con­cerns regard­ing poten­tial dam­age to build­ings and health and safety risks to pub­lic and staff, so have met Civil Avi­ation Author­ity to dis­cuss. Some com­plex­it­ies as there are vari­ous inter­na­tion­al stat­utes that gov­ern air­space. NatureScot have agreed to pro­duce nation­al guid­ance in ref­er­ence to the Land Reform Act in particular.

Action SD

3. Paper 1- Inform­al Review of the Core Paths Plan – dis­cus­sion session

Dis­cussed

  • VH- Intro­duced report on the inform­al con­sulta­tion of the core paths plan. Asked group not to share as not pub­lic yet. Asked group for feed­back. None was given.
  • CC- Dis­ap­poin­ted at num­ber of responses (208) but aware that people can’t be forced to respond.
  • VH- Advised that around pre­vi­ous reviews received around 30 responses so this was con­sidered a good response, and there will be anoth­er chance to respond at the form­al con­sulta­tion stage.
  • VH gave present­a­tion — reminded group of what con­tent was put on web­site and online map in present­a­tion. High­lighted to LOAF the key mat­ters that had aris­en from the inform­al consultation:
    • Advised that Dul­nain Bridge to Car­rbridge path is cur­rently impass­able so will look at maintenance.
    • Work­ing with RSPB on Spey­side Way from Kin­gussie to Ruthven.
    • The Car­rbridge-Aviemore NMU has not been chosen as a core path for now as the A9 dualling timeline is likely to be lengthy.
    • Lag­gan com­munity keen to keep core paths on main roads.
    • Met with Sco­trail to dis­cuss private level cross­ings and two have been removed.

VH asked for feed­back on three issues: Nethy­bridge to Tul­loch, Glen­more to Allt Mor and New­ton­more to Allt Laraidh gorge. Reminded group of ambi­tions and cri­ter­ia of a core path.

1. Nethy bridge Tul­loch moor path.

Described the exist­ing con­di­tions and infra­struc­ture of the track and the var­ied feed­back received. Own­er of exist­ing road and build­er of board­walk cur­rently unknown.

Dis­cus­sion points:

  • CC- Has observed that the road has sunk over last 10 – 12 years and pre­sumes that any work car­ried out on tar­mac road wouldn’t last long.
  • BOJ- Con­firmed that there are black grouse in area.
  • CC- Opined that it would be an ideal addi­tion to core path net­work and doesn’t think many walk­ers will use it as no car park­ing facil­it­ies so shouldn’t become overly busy.
  • BOJ- Out­lined com­munity con­cerns that he had received. From an RSPB per­spect­ive he felt that it’s a bal­an­cing act and feels neut­ral. Con­cerned that if it was des­ig­nated as core path, that the RSPB be obliged to main­tain it.
  • VH- Advised that no one cur­rently knows who owns the road. If it became a core path, CNPA may be able to offer money towards maintenance.
  • AQSS- Advised that core path status doesn’t con­fer more access rights than under Land Reform Act, landown­ers have occu­pi­ers’ liab­il­ity and a duty of care to public.
  • CS- Wondered if there was any evid­ence to back up con­cern that if some­thing gets des­ig­nated it will get more used.
  • VH- Uncer­tain of what could be done to gath­er this evid­ence accurately.
  • AQSS- Core path des­ig­na­tion has not pre­vi­ously been used as an advert­ising tool.
  • PW- Quer­ied if land own­er­ship needs to be estab­lished before core path can be designated.
  • VH- Con­firmed that landown­ers do need to be noti­fied, so if one can­not be estab­lished, a plan­ning style notice at each end of the path is dis­played for 12 weeks.
  • DC- Gen­er­ally sup­port as core path. Sym­path­ises with loc­als. If board­walk could be updated it would be beneficial.
  • KG- Thinks increased use would be more likely to be attrib­uted to improved sig­nage rather than core path designation.
  • AQSS- Need to con­sider if net­work of paths offer reas­on­able access to areas. B970 road is part of nation­al road cycle net­work. Gets sense from group that con­sensus that the route is import­ant, but the ques­tion is long term sus­tain­ab­il­ity, also recog­nising that loc­al con­cerns should be rel­at­ively easy to satisfy.
  • CS- Agrees that this is gen­er­al feel­ing. Asked group if happy for this to go Board and form­al con­sulta­tion phase. Group agreed.

2. Allt Mor path

Used to run to Cairngorm Moun­tain car park and is cur­rently closed. Pro­pose de-des­ig­nat­ing upper path from Utsi’s bridge to car park due to land­slide. FLS would sup­port this, and oth­er sug­ges­tions have been put for­ward to repair it or find altern­at­ive route. No changes pro­posed for lower sec­tions but still received comments.

Dis­cus­sion points:

  • AQSS- Recently met with Cairngorm Moun­tain as part of Cairngorm strategy. Should con­sider if it should be kept for now or acknow­ledge that some­thing will be done in future.
  • KG- Felt would be bene­fi­cial to have path to link two areas the whole length.
  • CM- Advised that path has been repaired before and then there was anoth­er land­slip. Don’t have end­less sup­ply of money and mind­ful of cli­mate change. Have been advised by engin­eer that bridge from car park has lifespan of approx­im­ately 5 ‑10 years and would be min­im­um of £70k to replace. Next year’s budget cut by 10 – 15% so don’t have resources. Sig­nage cur­rently up to indic­ate path closed but sus­pects some people still use It.
  • CC- Feels that route is very import­ant as only off-road route between Glen­more and Cairngorms.
  • VH- Agrees that this is a key route.
  • DC- Sym­path­ises with both sides and ques­tioned what implic­a­tions would be if removed as core path.
  • VH- Advised that noth­ing will change on ground. Less oblig­a­tion for landowner.
  • AQSS- Need to con­sider long term FLS or Cairngorms plans, land man­age­ment plans, long term felling etc. Is there a sus­tain­able option? Recog­nise the need for non-motor­ised link between the two areas. Should we look at altern­at­ive or keep what we’ve got and let Board decide?
  • DC- Cur­rently uses middle sec­tion between road and Utsi’s bridge for guid­ing cyc­lists. Com­munity happy to help with maintenance.
  • Wary of sig­nage being sug­ges­ted as remov­ing all liab­il­ity as it doesn’t.
  • CM- Aware of sig­nage lim­it­a­tions. any help greatly appreciated.
  • LM- Echoes what’s been said. Con­cerned about remov­al and incon­sist­ency of sig­nage and wary about not hav­ing anoth­er altern­at­ive to offer people.
  • CS- Sym­path­ises with FLS. Won­ders what pre­ced­ent this would set if core paths were de-des­ig­nated due to lack of resources, wor­ried oth­er landown­ers will fol­low suit. Thinks needs to be giv­en more con­sid­er­a­tion out with this group.
  • AQSS- In sum­mary need to main­tain core path between two areas, oppor­tun­ity for fur­ther dis­cus­sion with FLS on oth­er options. Take to Board acknow­ledging it might take a while to deliv­er and will need invest­ment. Asked group if in agree­ment which was confirmed.
  • CS- Poten­tially an option to treat two sec­tions separately.

3. New­ton­more-wild­cat trail

VH explained route is re-routed than ori­gin­ally due to land­slip and pro­posed de-des­ig­nat­ing it. New­ton­more Asso­ci­ation have checked and agreed that it is unfeas­ible to fix. Shared com­munity feed­back. Con­sid­er­ing keep­ing upper path.

  • AQSS- Con­strained as cattle are in field above gorge.
  • KG/VH- Dis­cussed sig­nage to waterfall.
  • VH- Thanked group for feedback
  • AQSS- Will take stra­tegic ques­tions forward.

4. Paper 2 — LOAF Mem­ber­ship and elec­tion of convener

Dis­cussed

  • JG- Advised group that step­ping down after Feb­ru­ary meet­ing and asked for sug­ges­tions on how to recruit more members.
  • AQSS- Thanked the new mem­bers that have joined recently. Advised which geo­graph­ic­al areas need more representation.
  • PW- Sug­ges­ted social media or refram­ing what mem­bers do.
  • AQSS- Sug­ges­ted using social media and Cairn magazine, group agreed. Explained pro­cess of elec­tion of Con­vener. JG will chair Feb­ru­ary meet­ing to include elec­tion at end of agenda.
  • VH- Help­ful to put some­thing out to describe duties of Convener.

Action

5. Paper 3 — Update and for­ward look

Dis­cussed

  • AQSS- Will bring paper on annu­al case­work to next meeting.
  • AQSS- Pre­vi­ously brought paper to LOAF on out­door access events, this is still in pro­gress reflect­ing on chal­lenges on large scale events. Nation­al Access For­um are look­ing to update Nation­al Guid­ance on events so hold­ing back for now in order to have united mes­saging and hopes to have this pub­lished in early Spring 2026.
  • AQSS- Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment have approved fire byelaw, and CNPA are now in midst of plan­ning for April 2026, devel­op­ing resources on effect­ive mes­saging and resources and pro­ced­ur­al mat­ters behind the scenes.
  • AQSS- Con­tract­ors are work­ing on Spey­side Way between Inver­uglas and Insh, due to be fin­ished by end of Decem­ber. Carr road foot­bridge now open.
  • AQSS- Intern has been work­ing with Badenoch & Strath­spey access pan­el to pro­mote access­ib­il­ity, also worked with part­ners on toolkit for access­ible paths and demen­tia friendly paths. Look­ing at demen­tia friendly infra­struc­ture at Badaguish.

Dis­cus­sion points:

  • CC- Quer­ied if Car­rbridge path to school from new devel­op­ment have lighting.
  • AQSS- No, as not pro­moted as a safe route to school.
  • CC- Quer­ied what train­ing the Rangers have done to carry out path grad­ing training.
  • VH- Advised that FLS, Walk­ing Scot­land and NatureScot have worked on stand­ard­ising path descrip­tions 10 years ago. Will share in minutes. All path leaf­lets except for Tomin­toul have path grad­ing but this is being worked on. Path Grad­ing stand­ard can be down­loaded here — The Path Man­agers Guide to Grad­ing – Walk­ing Scotland
  • CC- Works with Scot­ways on leaf­lets, would be help­ful to use.
  • KG- Quer­ied if any changes were repor­ted for the Bal­later paths.
  • VH- No change at present.

Action VH/AQSS VH

6. AOCB

Dis­cussed

  • JG- Advised that as part of his Con­vener role, he was asked to attend Nation­al Access For­um meet­ing as an observ­er. He learnt that oth­er access for­ums are strug­gling for sup­port, and some loc­al author­it­ies don’t have any Access Officers. Felt that the Cairngorm Nation­al Park are in an advant­age­ous pos­i­tion in comparison.

Action

7. Date of next meeting

Dis­cussed

  • AQSS- No date as yet, will cir­cu­late at later date, will be two online meet­ings, and one in per­son meeting.
  • CS- Sug­ges­ted meet­ing should be held pri­or to going to Board in March
  • AQSS- Agreed and it will likely to be late February/​early March.

Action

Meet­ing ended 20:32