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 LOCAL OUTDOOR ACCESS FORUM 
Paper 3 CPP Update and Next Steps– 21 August 2007 
ANNEX 1 

Core Paths Plan – Interim Draft 

Report on Stage 2 Consultation 

Introduction 

This report details the process and findings of the second round of consultation 
and engagement on the Cairngorms National Park Core Paths Plan which took 
place from 1st April to 30th June 2007. The first stage of the Core Paths Plan 
process (September to November 2006) engaged with a wide range of people 
to raise awareness of core paths planning, to find out which paths in the 
National Park are important to them and why. The information obtained was 
used to develop an Interim Draft Core Paths Plan identifying a network of core 
paths. The consultation sought people’s views on these proposals. 

The Process 

The Cairngorms National Park Authority (CNPA) contacted all those who got 
involved in the first round of consultation to provide them with feedback and to 
advise them that the Interim Draft Core Paths Plan was available for comment. 
The CNPA ran 12 public meetings and attended 22 other meetings and events 
to discuss and gather views on the Interim Draft Core Paths Plan. The 
consultation was advertised in the press, on the CNPA website, in local 
newsletters, via posters and by letter. Emails and letters were also sent out to a 
wide range of interest groups and different clubs such as land managers, 
community groups, walking, cycling, horse-riding and canoe clubs. All land 
owners/managers in the Park with a core path proposed on their land were sent 
a copy of the Interim Draft Core Paths Plan two weeks in advance of the 
document being made public. A comments form was made available to assist 
people in responding on the Plan. The Plan and comments form were made 
available on request or at meetings, at various post offices and libraries 
throughout the Park and also on the Park Authority’s website. 

Who Got Involved? 

A total of 565 people engaged in the process at meetings and events run or 
attended by the CNPA. 87 written submissions (consultation responses in 
letter/email form) and 116 questionnaire responses were received (26% of these 
electronically via the CNPA website). The questionnaire asked respondents to 
provide information about their age, gender, where they live, whether or not 
they have a disability, who they were responding on behalf of and what kind of 
activities they undertake in the National Park. This information was obtained to 
enable the CNPA to assess how effectively the consultation had engaged with 
different groups of people. The results are shown on page 2 of this report. 



Information about the people who completed Questionnaires 
(Charts and graphs not available in full text format)


The consultation process failed to engage with the under 25 age group 
although numbers of males and females responding was similar and there was a 
good response from visitors to the National Park. The results show that there was 
a good response from a variety of interest groups 


The Feedback 

The Interim Draft Core Paths Plan consultation document asked people to 
respond on three specific questions: 

1. Is the core paths network sufficient to give people reasonable access 
throughout the National Park? 

2. Have we got the selection criteria right? Why? 

3. Have we selected the right paths using the selection criteria or are there 
gaps, omissions or inconsistencies in our approach? 

The feedback received on each of these questions is detailed below. 


Is the core paths network sufficient to give people reasonable access 
throughout the National Park? 

The questionnaire asked people to respond either yes or no to this question, the 
results are as follows: 
(Chart not available in full text format)

The majority of people indicated that they felt the proposed network to be 
sufficient. Comments contained in the questionnaire and in other written 
responses indicated that the proposed network is inconsistent across the 
National Park. It was noted that some areas (e.g. Upper Donside, Eastern 
Cairngorms, Cromdale, Dalwhinnie and popular locations such as the Linn of 
Dee) do not have a sufficient network. It was also noted that including all 
existing low ground promoted paths within the network has led to an uneven 
spread of paths across the area. For example, those communities and areas 
which are already well served by paths (such as Glenlivet) have the higher 
proportion of the proposed network and those currently poorly served (such as 
Cromdale) have a lesser network. It was also observed that the proposed 
network is inconsistent across the entire area due to the exclusion of mountain 
and upland paths. Some respondents indicated that they felt the proposed 
network is over sufficient. 



Have we got the selection criteria right? Why? 
People responded as follows: 
(Chart not available in full text format)

The results and comments contained in the questionnaire and in other written 
responses indicated that the majority of people felt that the selection criteria 
identified were about right. A few people noted that the criteria are fairly vague 
and all encompassing, it was suggested that a system which provided a score 
for each path may be more robust. A number of people commented that the 
first criterion (“Contribute to the positive management and stewardship of the 
sensitive natural and cultural heritage of the National Park and promote its 
understanding and enjoyment.”) is too complicated and needs to be clearer in 
its intent to contribute to positive land management as well as natural and 
cultural heritage. There was a suggestion that negative criteria could be used 
i.e. a criterion which states what a core path should not be (e.g. it should not be 
dangerous, environmentally damaging etc.). It was also suggested that the 
criteria should more closely reflect the aims and priorities of the Park Plan and 
Outdoor Access Strategy and that there should be criteria relating to the 
protection of key routes, the popularity of routes and the suitability of routes to 
be core paths. 


Have we selected the right paths using the selection criteria or are there gaps, 
omissions or inconsistencies in our approach? 

The questionnaire asked people to respond on this question and identify any 
specific routes that they thought should/should not be included in the network. 
People were also given the opportunity to comment on this at public meetings 
by adding comments to maps of the area which showed the proposed core 
paths network. People were also asked at these meetings to identify any 
inaccuracies in the mapping of the proposed network. A summary of the 
common issues arising for each area and community are given in the table on 
the following page. Details of all comments made for each area/community 
can be made available on request. 



Community/ Area    /  Summary of common issues arising 

Aviemore 
(Map 18) 
Issues with access at the Aviemore Highland Resort and Spey 
Valley golf course were raised. There was support for the 
completion of the Orbital path (LBS30) using the woods to the 
west of the A9, providing a link from the new housing 
development to the Craigellachie Nature Reserve. 

Ballater 
(Map 6) 
There was concern that the section of the 7 bridges walk 
(UDE28) on the South Deeside Road is unsafe and traffic calming 
or a traffic free route should be investigated. There was also 
some demand for links to the Deeside Way (UDE3) to enable 
circular routes. 

Boat-of-Garten 
(Map 17) 
There was strong support for the completion of the Speyside 
Way, off-road across the bridge to the village (LBS64). There was 
also some concern about the feasibility of designating a core 
path on the east bank of the river (LBS65). 

Braemar 
(Map 3) 
There were a lot of safety concerns over the proposed route 
over the golf course (UDE7) and support for the re-routing of the 
proposed link between the Society Bridge and Glenshee Road 
(UDE9) south along the river and alongside the golf course. 

Carr-Bridge 
(Map 15) 
There were a number of inaccuracies in the mapping of the 
proposed core path network, particularly in relation to the paths 
around the golf course and Carr plantation. Potential for 
disturbance to wildlife was also highlighted in some areas. 

Central Cairngorms 
(No Map) 
There was some support for inclusion of old drove roads and 
Rights of Way such as Glen Tilt, the Lairig Ghru, Glen Feshie etc. 
with links into neighbouring Perth & Kinross. It was also requested 
that a map of the area be included in the Plan. 

Crathie 
(Map 4) 
There was some concern over the proposal to designate the 
path between the Old Brig O’Dee and Crathie (UDE1) in relation 
to areas that are excluded from access rights and natural 
heritage issues. 

Cromdale 
(Map 12) 
The proposed core paths network in Cromdale is too limited and 
needs to be expanded. 

Dalwhinnie 
(Map 25) 
The proposed core paths network in Dalwhinnie is too limited 
and needs to be expanded by working with the Highland 
Council on cross-border links. 

Dinnet & Ordie 
(Map 7) 
There was concern over the suitability of some of the routes to 
be core paths due to current and future forestry operations and 
also potential wildlife disturbance. 

Dulnain Bridge & Skye of Curr
(Map 14)
There were a number of inaccuracies in the mapping of the 
 proposed core path network, particularly in relation to the paths 
 in Curr Wood. Future forestry operations and potential 
 disturbance to capercaillie and twinflower were also noted. 

Eastern Cairngorms 
(Map 1) 
A number of people expressed concern over the limited number 
of paths proposed in the area and suggested a variety of paths 
in other Glens as well as longer routes linking the Angus Glens 
and into Upper Deeside. 

Glenlivet & Tomintoul
(Maps 9 & 10)
Most people were generally happy with the proposals for 
Glenlivet although they did note some issues with path 
alignment and the need to manage access on paths in the 
shooting season. 

Glenmore & Rothiemurchus 
(Map 26) 
A number of forestry operation and wildlife issues were identified 
and there was some concern about over provision of core paths 
in this area. There was also support for a link from Glenmore to 
Nethy Bridge. 

Grantown-on-Spey 
(Map 13) 
There was some concern over the proposal to designate the old 
railway line as a core path due to plans to re-open the line for 
use by the steam railway. It was also noted that there is a need 
to better manage access in Anagach wood to limit disturbance 
to Capercaillie. 

Insh 
(Map 20) 
There was some concern over the inclusion of the path down to 
the river (LBS103) due to the wet nature of the area and 
potential disturbance to wildlife. There is a need to better 
connect the community to the Badenoch Way (LBS72 – 
incorrectly mapped) and wider network. 

Kincraig 
(Map 19) 
A number of issues have arisen in relation to path between 
Suidhe Crescent and the Brae (LBS52), it was also noted that the 
Badenoch Way is incorrectly mapped. There is some support for 
a couple of Rights of Way linking to Feshiebridge to be included 
in the core paths network. 

Kingussie 
(Map 21) 
There is support for the development of a route from Pitmain 
Township via Loch Gynack through to Newtonmore and also 
support for the riverside path but concern over potential for 
flooding. (Similar to responses for Newtonmore) 

Laggan 
(Map 24) 
There is support for an off-road route linking Laggan village to 
the Wolftrax facility. Part of this route is now in place but issues 
relating to potentially unsafe road crossings and land 
management have been identified on the remainder of the 
route. 

Lower Badenoch & Strathspey 
(Map 11) 
There have been similar levels of both support and opposition to 
the proposed designation of the River Spey as a core path and 
the possible designation of access and egress point to the river. 
There has also been support for inclusion of the Speyside Way 
and the Sustrans National Cycle Route throughout its length, 
rather than just the off-road sections as currently proposed. 
(Similar to responses for Upper Badenoch & Strathspey) 

Nethy Bridge 
(Map 16) 
Most people were generally happy with the proposals for Nethy 
Bridge although there was some concern over disturbance to 
wildlife and also support for inclusion of an existing route 
providing access from the Causar Road to the paths in the 
wood to the primary school. 

Newtonmore 
(Map 23) 
Most people were generally happy with the proposed network 
in the area and in particular the designation of the Wildcat Trail. 
There is some support for the development of a route from 
Newtonmore via Loch Gynack through to Kingussie. (Similar to 
responses for Kingussie) 

Upper Badenoch & Strathspey 
(Map 22) 
There were similar levels of both support and objection to the 
proposed designation of the River Spey as a core path and the 
possible designation of access and egress point to the river. 
There has also been support for inclusion of the proposed 
Speyside Way extension and Sustrans National Cycle Route 
throughout its length, rather than just the off-road sections as 
currently proposed. (Similar to responses for Lower Badenoch & 
Strathspey) 

Upper Deeside 
(Map 2) 
There was a lot of support for the completion of the Deeside 
Way and some demand for an extension of the route by 
providing off-road links between Ballater, Crathie and Braemar. 
There was strong representation from a number of people 
requesting the inclusion of the River Dee as a core path. It was 
proposed that the link between Dinnet and Glen Tanar (UDE4) 
be moved to follow the existing Firmounth Right of Way. 

Upper Donside & Strathdon 
(Map 8) 
The proposed core paths network in Upper Donside is too limited 
and needs to be expanded. Some issues were noted with path 
alignment. 


Main Issues Arising From the Consultation 

In addition to comments made on the selection criteria and the paths selected, 
a number of other issues were commonly identified. It was suggested that the 
Plan should include some quiet roads and pavements and it was questioned 
why the Speyside Way and some Rights of Way had not been included in the 
proposed network. A number of comments were received that some upland 
paths should be included in the network but only with sensitive and appropriate 
signage and way-marking. It was observed that the inclusion of all existing low-
ground promoted paths in the network may have lead to uneven distribution of 
path provision across the network. 

The lack of dedicated funding for core paths and, in particular, maintenance of 
these paths was raised at many of the meetings and is a major concern, 
particularly to land managers. The issues of who would be liable if there was to 
be an accident on core paths was also a common concern. Issues were raised 
over the proposed designation of core paths in forests both for natural heritage 
reasons and where timber harvesting and thinning operations are planned 
within the next few years. 

There has been both a high level of support and opposition to the proposal to 
designate the River Spey as a core path, there has also been strong 
representation requesting the inclusion of the River Dee in the Plan. It was also 
noted that neighbouring authorities may or may not propose their sections of 
these rivers as core paths, this may also be an issue in relation to some longer 
distance paths which cross over into other authority areas. 

Next Steps 

The issues identified in this report will be presented to the Cairngorms Local 
Outdoor Access Forum for discussion and advice. The Plan will then be revised 
and a Draft Core Paths Plan produced. This draft plan will be presented to the 
CNPA Board in December 2007 for approval to submit it to Scottish Ministers by 
February 2008. The Plan will then be the subject of a formal public consultation. 

Cairngorms National Park Authority 
7th August 2007 

sandramiddleton@cairngorms.co.uk