WARNING - By their nature, text files cannot include scanned images and tables. 
The process of converting documents to text only, can cause formatting changes and 
misinterpretation of the contents can sometimes result. Wherever possible you 
should refer to the pdf version of this document.


CAIRNGORMS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY 

MINUTES OF THE BOARD MEETING 
held at The Airlie Arms Hotel, Kirriemuir 
on Friday 6th May 2005 at 1.30pm 


PRESENT 

Eric Baird 		Alastair MacLennan 
Stuart Black 		William McKenna 
Duncan Bryden 		Sandy Park 
Sally Dowden 		Andrew Rafferty 
Douglas Glass 		Gregor Rimell 
Angus Gordon 		David Selfridge 
Lucy Grant 		Joyce Simpson 
David Green 		Richard Stroud 
Marcus Humphrey 		Andrew Thin 
Bruce Luffman 		Susan Walker 
Eleanor Mackintosh 	Bob Wilson 
Anne MacLean 


In Attendance 

David Cameron 		Jane Hope 
Kate Christie 		Sam Masson 
Pete Crane 		Fiona Newcombe 
Murray Ferguson 		Andy Rinning 
Nick Halfhide 		Alan Smith 
Andrew Harper 		Debbie Strang 


Apologies 

Basil Dunlop 
Sheena Slimon 


Welcome and Introduction 

1. The Convenor welcomed everyone to the Board Meeting, which was the first at 
Kirriemuir 

 
Minutes of Last Meeting – approval 

2. The minutes of the previous meeting (8th April 2005) were approved with no changes. 


Matters Arising 

3. Under Paragraph 8 it was noted that a briefing on forestry for the Board had been 
pencilled in for July. A further paper on forestry consultations would be brought to the 
Board in six month's time. 


An Interpretation Framework for the Cairngorms National Park (Paper 1) 

4. Pete Crane introduced the paper which reported on progress made in developing a Parkwide 
approach to interpretation. Endorsement was sought for an Interpretation 
Framework and associated Action Plan. In discussion the following points were made: 

a) Paragraph 19 referred to the organisation of a series of talks, events and 
presentations around the Park; the target audience was both residents and visitors. 

b) Paragraph 21 referred to developing and implementing a policy on pre-arrival 
signage to the National Park. On a point of clarification it was noted that this type 
of signage was typically the brown signage endorsed by VisitScotland, and used 
to point visitors in the direction of the Park. 

c) Paragraph 26 referred to the CNPA working with communities to develop Park 
branded information and interpretation on existing community information panels 
and notice boards. The intention behind this action point was to work with what 
was already in place, and upgrade and improve this where appropriate, and in a 
way which suited the community's needs. 

d) The reference at Paragraph 36 to the prevention of wild fires as an element of 
responsible outdoor access, was welcomed. 

e) Although the paper referred to the Brand Wheel, it was suggested that the Brand 
Wheel itself ought to be combined with the paper and with any further 
presentations on the issue of an Interpretive Strategy. It had been developed early 
in the life of the CNPA, and underpinned and provided a coherent framework for 
the Interpretation Strategy. 

f) The paper had successfully identified the many linkages that needed to be made in 
an Interpretation Strategy, but one that was not articulated was the linkage 
between the Cairngorms National Park and other National Parks. This would be 
an important aspect for engaging with those for whom the Cairngorms was an 
important and attractive destination simply by virtue of being a National Park. 

g) Specific attention needed to be given to the targeting of young people in the 
Interpretation Strategy. Various vehicles already existed for this, for example the 
Young Cairngorms Website. 

h) With reference to Paragraph 9, it was noted that judgements on the quality of 
interpretive material needed to be exercised with some sensitivity. To some 
extent action point 3 would be the way of dealing with this, since it involved all 
stakeholders working together to develop a set of criteria including quality 
standards for developing interpretation. 

i) With reference to Paragraph 42 on delivering a Park for All, the point was made 
that interpretive material needed to be clear rather than pretty; this was 
particularly relevant for those with disabilities. 

j) With reference to Paragraph 33 it would be important in developing and 
promoting a strand of the Integrated Grant Scheme to allow communities to 
develop a local interpretation fitting with Park-wide themes, the CNPA liaised 
closely with the relevant local authorities, as these may already have grant 
schemes specifically aimed at communities. 

k) It would be important in developing an Interpretation Strategy to avoid being too 
prescriptive and to not stifle creativity. 

l) The paper was welcomed and commended. It had successfully brought together 
the many strands of a very complex subject and produced a clear way forward. 


5. The Board endorsed the Interpretation Framework and associated Action Plan as 
set out in the paper. 


The Land Based Businesses Training Project: Update (paper 2) 

6. Kate Christie and Fiona Newcombe introduced the paper which sought the Board's views 
on the various options for the future of the project, and updated Members on the progress 
of the project to date. In discussion the following points were made: 

a) The question was asked what gap in the market this project was filling, and how it 
avoided duplicating other training programmes. While there was some overlap in 
some of the courses provided by the LBBT, there was no other organisation 
providing the whole package which importantly included the identification of 
course needs, and the development of courses to meet those needs, as well as the 
organisation of courses that made them accessible for small organisations. In 
developing the Business Plan for the next year of the LBBT, the focus would be 
on gaps in the market and avoiding duplication. Discussions would be taking 
place with partners to ensure this. 

b) The geographical spread of courses would be important in ensuring that the 
project was truly inclusive. The project currently had good coverage across the 
whole National Park, but the project manager was aware of the need to encourage 
more uptake on Deeside. 

c) Thought should be given to linking in with secondary education, and raising 
awareness in schools of the opportunities in land based businesses, and the 
training that could be provided through the LBBT. 

d) The LBBT was welcomed as a very good project, providing an excellent service 
which was one of the keys to its success. The two individuals running the project, 
Kate Christie and Sam Masson, were congratulated for their personal contribution 
to the success of the project. 

e) With reference to Annex 1, the question was asked why it appeared that in an 
Objective 3 area it costs nearly twice as much to train half the number of people in 
Objective 1 areas. 

f) The point was raised that if a decision was made to broaden out the scope of the 
current LBBT, this might have some impact on the funding that could be levered 
in from other funders. Further, if the project was operating by setting up courses 
and using independent trainers, there might be the potential to bring all of those 
trainers together as a training consortium, and for those trainers to create a 
business that was free standing of the CNPA. 

g) The opportunity to link training with the delivery of interpretation (as set out in 
Paper 1) should not be missed. 

h) The idea of putting more effort into developing and delivering public benefit 
courses was welcome, but only if these were in addition to, and not a substitute for 
the other practical training projects. 

i) Extending training courses to the general public might be acceptable, provided 
that training was clearly helping to deliver the aims of the National Park. Any 
expansion of the scope of the project needed to be thought about carefully, as the 
strength of the project to date had been its clear focus and its clear targeting of 
courses. 

j) Paragraph 38 appeared to hint that if a training culture could be developed then 
the need for this project would disappear. However, the point was made that the 
difficulty for businesses was frequently not the existence or otherwise of training 
courses, but in sourcing, facilitating and organising. The need for those elements 
would remain. The question was whether it was the role of the CNPA to deliver 
those. 

k) There was some hesitation over the wisdom of expanding the course into tourism, 
as there were already plenty of other sources of training for this sector. The need 
for more emphasis on youth training was supported. In particular, linking this 
with the development of a Youth Apprenticeship Scheme was endorsed and was 
more likely to attract additional funding. 

l) The disappearance of the Area Tourist Boards could lead to an increased need for 
training on such things as marketing and promotion which businesses would now 
have to buy in for themselves. 

m) In thinking about widening out the topics covered by the LBBT, it would be 
important to link with the local authority led networks, not least because it was 
important that the local authorities were aware of the LBBT's existence. 

7. The Convenor summed up the discussion as follows: 

a) Kate Christie and Sam Masson were congratulated on an excellent project, 
and an equally excellent paper. 

b) There was support for looking at broadening the base of this project, but any 
such broadening should be related to the organisation's priorities. 

c) By the same token any broadening of the beneficiary base would be 
determined by the organisation's priorities. 

d) The preference would be that the project did not cease to exist, but 
continued. The CNPA Board would wish to see a business plan, which 
reflected additional external funding being sought. 

8. Action: 

a) Further paper to be brought to the Board in 2005, setting out proposals for 
continuing the project, including a business plan reflecting additional 
funding, and broadening of the project. 


Update on Developing a Park for All (paper 3) 

9. Andrew Harper introduced the paper which updated Board Members on progress in 
relation to the CNPA's work on social inclusion issues. In discussion the following points 
were made: 

a) In response to a question, it was reported that several post bus services already 
existed in areas of the Park. Nevertheless, in one part of Aberdeenshire the cost of 
running such a service had been found to be prohibitive at £104 per passenger. 

b) It was recognised that a lot of work with youth was currently underway and the 
question was asked whether there could be a presentation to the Board from some 
of the Youth Groups involved. A media project was currently under way in which 
young people were putting their views on the National Park onto film and video. 
There might be an opportunity for a presentation in connection with this. One of 
the important outcomes would be for the Board to demonstrate directly to those 
involved how interested they were to engage with young people and their views 
on the Park. The point was also made that recording young people's on the 
National Park would over time provide an interesting historical record. 

c) The question was asked whether sufficient baseline measures were being 
developed to allow progress to be measured over a lot of different work streams. 
It was acknowledged that work on the State of the Park Report would need to 
include adequate indicators on social inclusion. 

d) In relation to Paragraph 15 attention was drawn to the Cairngorms Partnership's 
work which should feed into the strategy. 

e) It was noted and welcomed that the concept underpinning the Park for All was 
being embedded into the work of all the groups in the CNPA. 

10. The Convenor summed up by emphasising that there were two important elements to the 
concept of a Park for All; on the one hand social inclusion, and on the other hand, the 
acknowledgement that the Cairngorms National Park must be able to accommodate all 
interests and all points of view. 

11. The Board noted the paper and the progress made on social inclusion issues. 

12. Action: 

a) Head of Economic and Social Development to consider an appropriate 
presentation to the Board by youth groups. 


Entry Point Signage for the Cairngorms National Park (paper 4) 

13. Debbie Strang and Murray Ferguson introduced the paper which reported on the 
continuing development work for the permanent granite markers, including the revised 
estimated costs, work on the funding package and the next steps for the project. In 
introducing the paper the point was made that the interim metal signs were in the process 
of being installed, the first of these would be the following week just north of Grantown. 
However, the installation was in the hands of the contractors and while the CNPA 
continued to press for the urgent delivery, the precise dates were determined by the 
contractors. In discussion of the paper, the following points were made: 

a) The cost of the granite markers had been revised downwards for various reasons, 
mainly related to design changes as set out in the paper. Costs could possibly 
come down further depending on how the granite was sourced. 

b) It was noted that the brand was slightly different on the small and on the large 
signs. This was simply related to the size of the marker, and therefore the size of 
the brand that could be accommodated, including wording. The size of the marker 
was in turn related to the size of the road - smaller roads, with less traffic, would 
have to have smaller signs. 

c) While the evolution of the project, and the many different reasons for various 
changes made along the way were understood, nevertheless as the signs currently 
stood they were quite different from those presented as indicative to the Board. 
The original indicative designs had been expensive, but recognised as being very 
high quality and impressive. They had been widely accepted and liked on that 
basis. The design as currently proposed, while less expensive, would not be as 
easy to justify to communities on the same basis as before. 

d) The original indicative design which had been seen by the Board a year ago had 
been part of the scoping study. It had not been intended as the final design. The 
Board had been asked for, and had given, approval to take the results of that 
scoping study away and explore further the detail of how this might be 
implemented. The alternative, which had been simple metal signs and signposts, 
had been rejected. It had been recognised back in July when the Board considered 
the schematic design, that work had only just started on developing the brand, and 
it was recognised that the final design of the entry point markers would have to 
incorporate that brand which had only been finalised in January. It was important 
to bear in mind that what was being reported to the Board today was the current 
state of play in the work undertaken to explore the original design further. It had 
been, and continued to be, an extremely complex project, with many of the steps 
dependent upon earlier steps, so that the design was constantly evolving. 

e) It had been clear from the beginning that it was not for the Board of 25 Members 
to design the entry point markers - a professional designer had been employed for 
that purpose. What was important was that the process followed throughout this 
project was robust and defensible. Staff were satisfied that the process was a 
defensible one; and all the design work had kept to the original spirit of ensuring 
high quality markers made from local materials. 

f) The complexity of the project was well appreciated. The complexity inevitably 
made the process a long one, which was difficult to reconcile with the expectation 
expressed in public meetings that signage was something that ought to appear 
very quickly. It was important to ensure that we continued the engagement with 
local communities, and had a clear story to tell explaining the process that was 
being followed, emphasising that there was a well structured critical path which 
formed the basis for the project, even though there would inevitably be 
developments in the design as work progressed. 

g) In a process as complex as this, there was a clear recognition that staff could not 
come back to the Board at every meeting with more detail. On the other hand, 
Board Members did need to be in a position to be able to explain to the public 
how this project was progressing. 

h) Despite the recognised pressure from the public to have entry point markers up 
quickly, now the decision had been made to put in place the interim signs, the 
pressure had been alleviated and it would be important to avoid rushing this 
project. 

i) Although planning permission had been approved for most of the signs, there was 
still the possibility for some variation. It was pointed out that the planning 
process itself had involved communities in being able to comment on the 
proposed designs. 

j) The branding exercise had involved the design professionals, and despite this 
some difficulty in incorporating the brand design into the indicative design for the 
entry point markers. 

k) The original entry point marker project had involved not just signs, but also 
various other strands of work including information points etc. it was confirmed 
that work was continuing on a number of fronts. 

l) The process followed by staff in taking forward the work on entry point markers 
had been robust and was defensible. The problem was not in the process, the 
problems that were arising were those of aesthetics. At this stage of the process, 
the design appeared to have drifted too far away from what had originally been 
conceived, albeit not a detailed or final design. The original indicative design had 
managed to mirror the landscape of the Cairngorms, and had a degree of "depth" 
to it. It would therefore seem logical to go back to the designers at this stage and 
revisit the question of a design which encompassed that depth while also being 
able to accommodate the new brand. 

m) The designer had already put extensive effort into making the brand work with the 
original indicative design for the entry point marker, however none of these had 
appeared satisfactory. The next step should be to invite the designer to come to a 
Board meeting explain how their process had worked. 

n) In discussion with many of the communities, cost had never been that much of an 
issue, given that it related to an impressive high quality outcome. Saving money 
on the product was not necessarily a good idea if it resulted in a significant 
sacrifice of quality. 

o) There would be a further Board paper in September giving information about 
funding, and seeking a decision at that point. 

14. The Convenor summed up the discussion as follows: 

a) The relevant staff should review with the directly elected Board Members 
how best to handle the matter of providing clear information to Members 
and communities on how this process was developing. 

b) Staff should review and satisfy themselves that the process followed to date 
has been robust and defensible, and importantly that the design consultant 
fully understands the principles as articulated by the Board at the meeting. 

c) More regular updates should be provided to the Board - this would not 
necessarily have to be at Board meetings but could involve information by 
post. 

15. Action: 

a) A further paper to be brought to the Board in September seeking Board 
approval of the entry point markers and associated expenditure; 

b) The relevant staff should review with the directly elected Board Members 
how best to handle the matter of providing clear information to Members 
and communities on the project; 

c) Staff to ensure that the process followed to date has been robust and 
defensible, and importantly that the design consultant fully understands the 
principles as articulated by the Board at the meeting. 

d) Regular updates to be given to the Board on project progress. 

[David Green and Angus Gordon left the meeting] 


Corporate Plan Report: Theme 3 (paper 5) 

16. Andrew Harper introduced the paper which informed the Board of work to date to 
achieve the third strategic aim of the Corporate Plan ("to support and stimulate economic 
and social development within the Park that sustains and is sustained by its special natural 
and cultural qualities") and the plans for future activity. In discussion the following 
points were made: 

a) With reference to Paragraph 15, the importance was stressed of ensuring that 
cultural heritage issues were incorporated into the drafting of the Local Plan. 
While it was recognised that to date the CNPA had not focussed resources on 
cultural heritage as much as was intended in the future, a number of workshops 
were planned for June, and these would be key to defining future actions. 


The John Muir Award in the Cairngorms (paper 6) 

17. Alan Smith introduced the paper which reported on progress made by the John Muir 
Award (JMA) in contributing to the aims of the Cairngorms National Park. In discussion 
the following points were made: 

a) It was noted that outreach of the project was extending beyond the boundaries of 
the National Park and this was welcomed. There might be opportunities for 
extending outreach by actually taking the National Park out to a wider audience 
(in contrast to the more usual situation of people coming into the Park and then 
going away again, with the risk of there being no follow up). 

b) In response to a question on what the main constraints were on the project, the 
point was made that this was essentially time input from the single project officer. 
The success of the project depended upon his being able to engage with other 
organisations and persuade them to fit the John Muir Award into the activities 
they were already undertaking. 

c) All schools had received a mail shot. In keeping with the project Business Plan, 
those areas where there was no JMA activity were being targeted. Nevertheless, 
all the schools which had received a mail shot were receiving a follow-up phone 
call. Since the production of the Board Paper, a further six schools had signed up 
to the project. 

d) This project was making excellent progress and was bringing a lot of benefit to 
many people. 


AOCB 

18. Eric Baird reported briefly on his attendance at a recent ANPA Conference on the 
Sustainability of Communities. He invited anyone who was interested in the detail to 
contact him. But in summary, he pointed to some interesting work reported by the New 
Economics Foundation, which had looked at sustainability of communities from the point 
of view of how policies could be put in place to ensure that money invested in an area 
was recycled within that area rather than leaking out. The New Economics Foundation 
was prepared to run courses on this issue and it might be interesting to invite them to 
make a presentation to the Board. 

19. The point was made that following BT securing the contract to roll out Broadband across 
rural communities, the Scottish Executive and the CNPA Board should be applying 
pressure to ensure that all communities benefited. 

20. A brief report was given from the Brand Management Committee. A set of criteria for 
use of the brand had been developed, and a paper summarising these would be circulated 
to the Board. Applications to use the brand could therefore now be processed. 


Date of Next Meeting 

21. Friday 3rd June 2005, the Victory Hall, Aboyne