CAIRNGORMS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY 


MINUTES OF THE BOARD MEETING 
held at Newtonmore Village Hall, Newtonmore 
on Friday 7th April 2006 at 1.30pm


PRESENT 

Eric Baird Bruce Luffman 
Stuart Black Eleanor Mackintosh 
Duncan Bryden Anne MacLean 
Nonie Coulthard Willie McKenna 
Basil Dunlop David Selfridge 
Douglas Glass Sheena Slimon 
Lucy Grant Richard Stroud 
David Green Ross Watson 
Marcus Humphrey 

In Attendance: 

David Cameron Don McKee 
Murray Ferguson Sandra Middleton 
Bob Grant Fiona Newcombe 
Nick Halfhide Andy Rinning 
Andrew Harper Francoise van Buuren 
Jane Hope 

Apologies: 

Angus Gordon Gregor Rimell 
Alastair MacLennan Andrew Thin 
Sandy Park Sue Walker 
Andrew Rafferty Bob Wilson 

Welcome and Apologies 

1. The Deputy Convenor welcomed everyone to the meeting and in particular the two 
newly appointed Board Members, Nonie Coulthard and Ross Watson. 
ADMINLG C:\Documents and Settings\Mark\My Documents\Sabato\CNPA\PAPERS TO PUBLISH\Board minutes 07 Apr 2006.doc 11/07/06 


Minutes of Last Meeting – approval 

2. The minutes of the meeting of the 10th March 2006 were approved subject to two 
changes: 
a) Paragraph 9 (e): this paragraph needed to be reworded slightly to avoid any 
misunderstanding of the phrase “considerable inefficiencies could arise through 
the use of public transport”. The point being made at the meeting had been that 
because of the limited availability of public transport in rural areas such as the 
Cairngorms, travel by public transport inevitably could take a long time, leading 
to inefficiencies in the use of time by individuals. 

b) Paragraph 10(b): the phrase “cost effectiveness” needed further explanation to 
make its meaning clear, namely that priority should be given to those activities 
which would yield the greatest gains relative to the input of staff time. 

Matters Arising 

3. None 
Operational Plan 2006/2007 (Paper 1) 

4. Jane Hope introduced the paper which presented the coming year’s Operational Plan 
and associated resource allocation for delivering the goals set out in the 2005/08 
corporate plan. The Board had discussed the Operational Plan at its previous meeting, 
and agreed that more resources should be devoted to delivering the seven priority goals. 
The current paper set out the consequences of that decision, by setting out the resource 
allocation across all the remaining goals, as well as the outputs planned for delivery 
during the Operational Plan year. The Board was asked to endorse the Operational Plan 
as the right balance of delivery across all the 20 goals. 
5. In discussion the following points were made: 
a) Once the 7 priority goals had been delivered, in particular the National Park Plan 
and the Local Plan, considerable resources would be freed up and this was likely 
to be in 07/08 and beyond. The issue was therefore less about making any 
changes to the Operational Plan for 06/07, and more about starting to think about 
changes in future years once these resources had been freed up. For example, 
there was an argument for devoting more resource in the future, to transport, to 
young people, and to good schemes such as the Youth Apprenticeship Scheme, 
and the Land Based Business Training Project. 
b) Decisions made about commitments to future funding needed great care. For 
example, an earlier decision on 100% funding of the Speyside Way was not 
necessarily wrong, but clearly carried great implications for the CNPA’s budget. 
Such decisions on major expenditure should quantify these implications and the 
Authority should be seeking partnership funding. 

c) Some concern was expressed about needing to put more resources into an 
improved visitor experience, including dealing with such issues as litter, 
viewpoints from lay-bys, dykes falling down, roadside verges. It was recognised 
that many of these issues, litter collection in particular, were the direct 

ADMINLG C:\Documents and Settings\Mark\My Documents\Sabato\CNPA\PAPERS TO PUBLISH\Board minutes 07 Apr 2006.doc 11/07/06 


responsibility of the local authorities. The Park Authority had good liaison with 
the local authorities on these and other matters. The National Park Plan which 
would be published for consultation on 11th April, provided the obvious vehicle 
for the Park Authority to work with all its partners in identifying the priorities 
for resources in the future. Whether or not there was a need to devote more 
resources to issues such as litter collection needed to be flagged up as an issue for 
discussion in putting together the National Park Plan, which would set out the 
priorities for the whole of the public sector within the Park. 

d) The increase in resource being allocated to goals 12 and 13 (land management) 
was welcomed. This was clearly an issue of considerable importance and 
complexity with implications well into the future, and it was right to devote time 
now to developing policy within the National Park. 

e) Some concern was expressed about the lower levels of resources being allocated 
to goal 16 (sustainable tourism) and goal 18 (raising awareness of the CNPA and 
CNP). The point was made that the Operational Plan in question merely 
reflected one year; considerable resource had been put into goal 16 in the 
previous year with very good results and the achievement of the European 
Charter on Sustainable Tourism. The resources allocated to this goal in 2006/07 
were appropriate, and were focused on developing work on performance 
measures. This work was vital, and would give a strong steer as to what needed 
to be done in future years, and what resources would be needed. In respect of 
goal 18, the emphasis in the current Operational Plan on completing the National 
Park Plan and the Local Plan would of itself raise awareness of the Park and the 
CNPA, so to some extent the effort devoted to raising understanding and 
awareness was spread over a number of other goals. 

f) In respect of goal 19 (transport/access ability) it was confirmed that the Audit of 
Transport was looking at both sides of the equation, namely provision and need. 
It was intended to pick up the perspective of both the visitor and the local 
communities. 

g) In respect of goal 18, there was a danger that the activities listed could be 
misconstrued as being too focused on the CNPA delivering messages, and not 
enough on listening. However, the point was made that many of these goals 
could not be seen in isolation but had to be viewed in conjunction with other 
goals; in this case goal 5 provided for considerable effort focused on community 
engagement. 

6. The Board endorsed the Operational Plan for 2006/07 as presented. 
Core Path Plan (Paper 2) 

7. Bob Grant and Sandra Middleton introduced the paper which informed the Board of the 
statutory duties on the Park Authority in relation to core paths planning and sought 
approval of the proposed process and time line for delivery of these duties within the 
National Park. In addition, the Board’s advice was sought on how best to focus the 
consultation to ensure that the final plan both met people’s aspirations and was 
affordable. 
ADMINLG C:\Documents and Settings\Mark\My Documents\Sabato\CNPA\PAPERS TO PUBLISH\Board minutes 07 Apr 2006.doc 11/07/06 


8. In discussion the following points were made: 
a) During the consultation with stakeholders, it was essential to engage with the All 
Abilities Network, and not just communities, to ensure that the needs of the less 
abled path users were taken into account. 
b) There was some discussion about how extensive the core path network would be. 
It should satisfy the basic path needs of local people and visitors for recreation 
and getting about, and provide key links to the wider path network – many of 
the paths in the core path network would already exist. The extent of the 
network would depend to some degree on what emerged from the consultation, 
which would reveal what people wanted. The core paths plan referred to the 
plan consultation process and the outcome from this; the core path network 
referred specifically to those paths identified as satisfying the requirements as set 
out in the Land Reform Act. The core path network would be developed through 
the core paths plan. 
c) Clearly the core path network itself carried implied costs of upkeep and 
maintenance. There were dangers of having a too ambitious a plan which would 
then inevitably lead to an expectation of a core path network being implemented 
and funded completely by the CNPA. It was essential that the consultation 
process should not just lead to a wish list and should be used to manage 
expectations. In practice there would be a whole range of tools for implementing 
and maintaining a good core path network. It was essential that the CNPA 
should not be left shouldering the full burden of financial responsibility for a 
path network which could consume all its resources. 
d) There were some good examples already in existence of the various mechanisms 
that could be used to implement and maintain paths. For example, providing 
capital equipment to local communities who could then deliver the maintenance 
through local volunteers. Ranger services were also a possibility; land 
management contracts also provided some potential opportunities. The 
possibility of setting up a trust was being investigated given that this would 
provide the opportunity to tap into other sources of funding which the CNPA 
could not. 
e) It was recognised that for this consultation there was an audience beyond the 
Park boundaries. However, the pilot in Newtonmore had revealed that it was 
very difficult to engage with some visitors especially cyclists to the area, about 
path issues. Recreational NGOs might have a role in the forthcoming 
consultation although once again there were some difficulties as membership 
only accounted for about 30% of those people using paths. The CNPA was 
working with its Community Liaison Officers to try and identify groups with an 
interest in walking. 
f) The example of UDAT (Upper Deeside Access Trust) was well know as a success 
story. Part of the success had been because of the European money available, 
which would not be available in the future. Groups of communities might be 
able to band together in the future to attract funding. There was no doubt that 
maintenance was a huge financial problem for the future of a core path network. 

g) One of the conundrums to be dealt with during the consultation was whether it 
was right to raise awareness and popularity of all paths given that greater use 
inevitably resulted in more wear, and greater financial consequences. 

ADMINLG C:\Documents and Settings\Mark\My Documents\Sabato\CNPA\PAPERS TO PUBLISH\Board minutes 07 Apr 2006.doc 11/07/06 


h) It was difficult to gauge the likelihood and the consequences of a public local 
inquiry (PLI). However, it was noted that a PLI was only likely to happen if 
there were substantial objections to a core path network on the basis of lack of 
inclusiveness. Hence the plan built in plenty of scope for discussion in the hope 
that this would prevent the need for a PLI in the future. There was no money in 
the budget at the moment for a PLI; a clearer judgement could be made on the 
possible need for this following the first consultation. 

i) Before embarking on a public consultation, it was vital to have done some 
preliminary work on what a core path network might look like and what the 
associated costs might be. Some desk modelling work could be undertaken, 
which included some assumptions about extent of path networks and costs of 
maintenance which in turn could provide a system of prioritising particular paths 
for inclusion in the network. This work needed to be done in advance of the 
consultation rather than afterwards. It was noted that there could be thirty two 
other local authorities also competing for additional monies for core path 
networks, at the same time as the CNPA; similarly all could be facing a PLI at the 
same time. It was therefore important to move ahead with the core path plan 
quickly. 

j) It would not be sufficient to simply consult with communities on the basis of 
what they would like to see by way of paths in the vicinity. Once there was some 
indication of a likely path network and communities’ wishes, it would be 
important to then monitor use and make some estimates of the costs of 
maintaining paths that were more frequently used. That would then provide a 
much sounder basis for confirmation of the final path network. This should be 
done at the end of the first consultation. 

k) It was important in identifying a core path network to take account of how paths 
would integrate with the public transport system, and also create links between 
communities. 

l) The CNPA was already working closely with the five neighbouring local 
authorities and had established a cross-border working group. Amongst other 
things this provided a mechanism for dealing with paths which crossed 
boundaries between other local access authorities. 

m) It was noted that water ways could also be core paths; demands for this also 
needed to be exposed in the consultation process. 

n) The core path network needed to take account of the responsibility to recognise 
heritage paths such as drove roads. 

9. The Board approved the recommendations of the paper as follows: 
a) Noted the statutory requirements that arise from the Land Reform (Scotland) 
Act 2003 with regard to core paths planning; 
b) Approved the process and time line which will ensure a comprehensive and 
effective engagement with all relevant communities; and 
c) Agreed the formation of a steering group, to include Board Members. Board 
Members should indicate to Bob Grant their wish to be included on this group. 
d) Asked for an informal discussion session to enable the Board to make input on 
some of the main issues raised by the paper, prior to the start of the 
consultation. 

ADMINLG C:\Documents and Settings\Mark\My Documents\Sabato\CNPA\PAPERS TO PUBLISH\Board minutes 07 Apr 2006.doc 11/07/06 


10. Action: 
a) Board seminar to be arranged for further discussion; Bob Grant to inform 
Board Members accordingly. 
b) Board Members to indicate to Bob Grant whether they wish to sit on the 
steering group. 
c) Interim proposals on core paths planning to be brought back to the Board in 
February 2007. 

[David Selfridge left the meeting] 

Brand Management Group Update (Paper 3) 

11. Andrew Harper introduced the paper which updated the Board on the work of the 
Brand Management Group, sought a decision on Board representation, and sought a 
steer on the use of Gaelic in conjunction with the brand. He noted that there was a 
typographical error in paragraph 22 which should refer to the options in paragraphs 20 
and 21, rather than 15 and 16. 
12. In discussion the following points were made: 
a) Forty businesses, tourist and community associations and events had been 
accredited to use the brand. It was essential to have appropriate monitoring in 
place to ensure that the quality associated with the brand was being maintained. 
b) Regarding the use of Gaelic, there were times this would be appropriate and 
other times not; any policy on usage needed further thought. The Gaelic 
language plan might be the best way of developing this. 
c) Good progress had been made on developing criteria for use of the brand; 
however a lot of work was needed to increase uptake of the brand. The proposal 
for additional support on the group was welcomed. 
d) Whether or not Gaelic should be used in conjunction with the logo may be driven 
by practical considerations associated with the physical limitations of 
incorporating Gaelic wording alongside the logo. However, there were other 
issues to consider such as what the brand stands for and whether or not the 
inclusion of Gaelic might be a useful marketing device. There were questions on 
whether Gaelic was always appropriate to use in conjunction with the brand 
logo. For example, it would probably not be seen as appropriate to use Gaelic on 
road signs on the east side of the Park. 
e) If Gaelic were to be used in conjunction with the brand, it was important that 
individuals could pronounce and explain it. 
f) The recommendation at paragraph 19 was considered sensible, namely to 
develop a policy in conjunction with the development of a Gaelic language plan 
for the Park. 

g) A cultural heritage audit was currently being conducted to identify the cultural 
assets of the Park area. Languages would form part of that. Once this audit was 
completed, the next step would be to consider how best to celebrate those assets. 
In respect of Gaelic, it had to be noted that a Gaelic Language Act now existed 

ADMINLG C:\Documents and Settings\Mark\My Documents\Sabato\CNPA\PAPERS TO PUBLISH\Board minutes 07 Apr 2006.doc 11/07/06 


which set out statutory duties in respect of properly incorporating the use of 
Gaelic. 

h) The attention of the Board was drawn to annex 2 setting out a communications 
plan in respect of the European Charter for Sustainable Tourism and the use of 
the Cairngorms Brand. 

i) It was important to be setting more meaningful and specific targets in respect of 
the brand. These needed to be described in terms of outcomes. In the short-term, 
the performance measures were simply in terms of numbers of businesses using 
the brand; in the longer term the success measure would be the delivery of Park 
Plan outcomes. It was noted that on the 26th May there would be a Board 
seminar to discuss further the National Park Plan outcomes. 

j) The CNPA needed to consider what actions it was taking as an organisation to 
support the Cairngorms Brand values (for example through its purchasing 
policy). 

13. The Board agreed the recommendations of the paper as follows: 
a) Noted progress made by the Brand Management Group in developing and 
promoting the brand, and requested that further work on targets and outputs 
be reported back to the Board in due course; 
b) Agreed an increase in the number of Board Members on the group to 3 and 
agreed that Board Members should indicate to Andrew Harper their interest in 
sitting on this group; 

c) Agreed that the issue of the use of Gaelic in conjunction with the Brand should 
be addressed, when the Authority’s Gaelic Language Plan is developed. 

14. Actions: 
a) Board seminar on the 26th May to discuss National Park Plan outcomes; 
b) Andrew Harper to bring a further report to the Board in due course on targets 
and outputs in respect of the Cairngorms Brand; 

c) Issues relating to the use of Gaelic in conjunction with the brand to be 
resolved through the Authority’s Gaelic Language Plan which will require 
future Board approval. 

[David Green left the meeting] 

Remit and Membership of Committees (Paper 4) 

15. David Cameron introduced the paper which sought the Board’s approval to a number of 
changes to remit and membership of committees. 
16. In discussion it was noted that the timing of most committee meetings (9am in the 
morning) presented a difficulty for a number of members attending committees. It was 
agreed that this would be looked at further in the context of rescheduling Board 
meetings and Planning Committee meetings. 
17. The Board agreed the recommendations of the paper as follows: 
ADMINLG C:\Documents and Settings\Mark\My Documents\Sabato\CNPA\PAPERS TO PUBLISH\Board minutes 07 Apr 2006.doc 11/07/06 


a) Approved the revised terms of reference for the Audit Committee as set out in 

Annex 2; 
b) Approved the appointment of Andrew Thin to the Finance Committee; 
c) Agreed that the two newly appointed Members would consider possibly 

serving on the Audit Committee following further discussion with the Chief 
Executive; and 
d) Ratified the Chairs of the Committees as set out in paragraph 17. 

Corporate Plan Update, Theme 5 (Paper 5) 

18. The Board noted the paper. 
AOCB 

19. The Board was reminded that on the 19th May, following the Planning Committee in the 
morning, there would be a special Board meeting to consider one item, namely a paper 
on housing. On the 14th June there was to be a joint meeting with the Cairngorms 
Housing Group to consider this paper which set out the preferred strategic direction of 
the Board, alongside the National Park Plan Priority for Action on “Making Housing 
Affordable and Sustainable. 
Date of Next Meeting 

20. Friday 5th May 2006, at Panmure Arms Hotel, Edzell. 
ADMINLG C:\Documents and Settings\Mark\My Documents\Sabato\CNPA\PAPERS TO PUBLISH\Board minutes 07 Apr 2006.doc 11/07/06