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 4 Reviewing the Forum – the results 21 August 2007 

CAIRNGORMS LOCAL OUTDOOR ACCESS FORUM 


Title: Reviewing the Forum – the results 

Prepared by: Fran Pothecary, Outdoor Access Officer 

Purpose: To present the Forum with the results and analysis of the 2 year review 
of the Forum’s work March 2005-April 2007 


Advice sought 

That the Forum note the results of the review and support the proposals for change 
below(see last paragraph) 


Background 

1. a. When the Forum was established, it was agreed that two years into the life of the 
Forum there would be a review to assess how it was functioning and whether it was 
meeting its aims and objectives. At the March meeting Forum members were 
presented with a questionnaire to complete. Eleven members responded and the 
paper outlines the comments made, and draws out the significant points. 

Representation and Involvement 

2. a. Do you think all relevant access interests are adequately represented on the 
Forum? If not, what interests are either missing or under-represented? 

• Seven members answered that interests were adequately represented, with two 
identifying the need for disabled interests representation, and one mentioning the need 
to a representative of visitors to the Park. One suggested occasional representation 
from minority access interests e.g. geo-caching. 

b. Do we need more skills or experience in the Forum? If so, what are they? 

• As above, media skills and representation of disabled interests were mentioned 

c. Are you satisfied that the Forum is made up of a committed membership and 
does everyone participate equally in meetings? If not, what suggestions would 
you wish to make to improve the current position? 

• All responses were positive about the commitment and participation of members. The 
level of good natured debate was commented on and one respondent noted that land 
management voices are strong but not to the detriment of the forum (“far from it”). It was 
suggested by one member that a facilitated review in the Forum could be done – using 
the H’ diagram as a tool for self assessment 


Analysis of Representation and involvement 

3. Overall a very high degree of satisfaction was achieved and many comments received 
attesting to the commitment and participation of Forum members in meetings. There 
appears to be a concern which was highlighted at the last meeting that disabled interests 
are not well represented on the Forum, partly because of the standing down of Ken 
Macmillan who previously chaired the All-Abilities Group. This group has been reestablished 
as Inclusive Cairngorms, is supported by the Park Authority and brings in a 
wider range of interests from excluded groups. As an aside it is worth noting that the 
appointment of Paul Corrigan, the recent Forum recruitee was partially made on the extent 
of his experience of working in the field of all-abilities and disabled access. 


Operational Matters 

4. a. Is a minimum of four meetings a year, plus an annual open event, adequate to 
cover Forum business? If not, what would you view as the optimum number of 
meetings each year? 

• All eleven respondents concluded yes, with two comments that 4 meetings a year was 
a minimum 

a. Meetings alternate generally between the east and west of the Park – does this 
work in practice? 

• Again a conclusive yes with two comments that Angus Glens are hard for people to 
get to and that the east side is inconvenient to travel to from the Central Belt. 

b. Papers are sent by post to arrive 5 working days before the meeting – does this 
give you enough time for reading etc? 

• Nine people responded in the affirmative with two comments that it was not long 
enough (10 working days rather than 5 was suggested by one respondent). There was 
a comment that it gave enough time for personal reading but not enough if consultation 
with others was required. Two respondents mentioned using email to send out papers, 
and one that the website papers aren’t always up in time. 

c. Do you believe there are sufficient resources directed towards the Forum’s 
activities? 

• A conclusive yes with one comment that there will never be enough resources! 


Analysis of Operational matters 

5. Overall people were happy with the timings, locations and numbers of meetings. There was 
an indication that there might not be enough time to read papers. The preparation of papers 
will often start several weeks in advance of a meeting and there is a fine balance between 
giving sufficient time for members to read papers, but ensuring that information is as up to 
date as possible. 

6. Papers were originally sent out by email as well as hard copy and this was stopped due to 
technical problems encountered in sending lots of documents to a large number of people. 
One alternative would be to encourage members, or those who want, to download 
electronic copies of papers from the website, in addition to receiving hard copies from the 
Authority. 


Role and Remit 

7. a. Is there a clear understanding amongst Forum members of the relationship 
between the Forum and the Park Authority? 

• All eleven respondents felt there was a good understanding of the relationship between 
the Forum and the Board, although two mentioned the need to be reminded from time 
to time and how this would be helpful for new members. One respondent was not 
entirely happy with the relationship. 

b. Are the pre-Forum meeting training events worthwhile and how could they be 
improved? 

• Ten respondents felt that the event were worthwhile with one member suggesting it 
was too soon to evaluate their usefulness, and another querying the costs v. benefits. 
One respondent suggested visits to Glenmore Lodge; the Park HQ; Inchrory Estate and 
Mar Lodge Estate – and another suggested bringing in more outside experts. There 
was a comment that the events shouldn’t be called training events to avoid confusion 
with Continuing Professional Development objectives 

c. Should the Park Authority make more use of Forum members’ skills, outwith 
meetings and if so, how? 

• Seven respondents felt that more use could be made of Forum members’ skills 
particularly regarding local access issues and local opinions. However three 
respondents also acknowledged that this already happens and that the decision of 
whether to involve Forum members should be at the discretion of access staff. It was 
recognised that CPP consultation meetings offered opportunity for members to help, 
and that there was good attendance of Forum members at wider meetings e.g. the 
NAF/LAF Liaison events; good practice events and the SPRBA/NFUS organised 
events. 

d. Are there areas of work you would like to see the Forum address, and if so what 
are they? 

• The following suggestions were made by individuals: the work of other Forums; more 
issues and less strategy; local promotion of SOAC; an assessment of access legislation 
and help with path work. Other comments included that there was a full enough work 
programme and the Forum remit was at capacity. 

e. What are the strengths of the Forum? 

• All eleven respondents attested to the breadth, diversity, experience and commitment 
of Forum members. The Convenor and Vice Convenor were commended as was the 
internal working relationships between Authority and Forum. There were several 
accolades for how well the Forum functions as a team and listens to each others views. 

f. What are the areas for improvement in the Forum (if any)? 

• Respondents would like to see the following: more case studies; how other Forums 
operate; reduced and more succinct paperwork; reduced focus on processes and more 
on access experiences and provision; a closer relationship between Board and Forum; 
more dynamism 


Analysis of Role and Remit 

8. There was a clear understanding of the relationship between the Park Authority and Forum 
although it was recommended that reminders could be given from time to time! 

9. The training events were applauded but it was recommended that the name be changed to 
avoid confusion with CPD objectives. More suggestions were given for places to visit. 

10. The majority of respondents felt more use could be made of Forum members skills’ but also 
several respondents acknowledged that this is already happens, which leads to a 
conclusion that there may not be a clear picture of Forum members involvement outside the 
meetings. Certainly Forum members are active beyond the confines of Forum meetings 
e.g. those that attend national events and other Forum; core path planning events and subgroups 
set up by the Authority. Some members have also given advice on individual access 
issues - however they are often responding as locals or specialists ‘in the know’ about 
specific issues - that is, they are not speaking on behalf of the Forum. 

11. There is a thirst for more case studies, less paperwork and more of a look at on the ground 
practical issues. To date the outdoor access caseload has not thrown up many issues 
which have required the intervention and advice of the Forum. It is hoped that this can be 
met in some way by the afternoon workshop sessions, coupled with further presentation of 
‘key issues’ thrown up by casework and the occasional access issue itself. 


Communication 

12. a. Do you think that the Forum should have a more independent role in 
communicating with the public? If so, how could it be achieved? 

• Eight respondents said that the Forum should not have a more independent role in 
communicating with the public – two of those respondents citing possible confusion for 
the public over the role of the Forum, and the clarity of there being a single point of 
contact for all information about outdoor access – that being through the Park Authority 
itself. One respondent thought that the Forum was fully independent as it was. One 
respondent suggested communicating through a Park newsletter (although it was not 
clear whether this was a suggestion for a Forum newsletter or more publicity through 
Parklife itself) 


Analysis of Communication 

15. Overall it was agreed that the Forum should not have a more independent role, although 
the fact that one respondent thought that the Forum was fully independent may be 
indicative that different people will have a different understanding what “independence” 
means. Certainly the fact that the main point of contact about outdoor access issues are 
the Authority staff, and that the Forum is heavily supported by Authority resources means 
that it is not operationally independent and it is unlikely and undesirable to change this 
status. The question of the newsletter has been raised before but it is clear at present that 
the Authority staff lack resources and time to commit to, or support, this initiative. Use is 
made of Park Life, the Park Authority’s twice yearly magazine, in communicating the 
Forum’s news. 


Objectives and functions 

14. a. On a scale of 1-5, how well do you think the Forum meets its objectives and 
performs its’ functions? (1 = not at all, 5 = fully) 

• Three respondents scored 5; seven scored 4 and one scored 3 – that is 46 out of 55. 


Summary 

15. Overall there is a high degree of satisfaction in the way the Forum is functioning. It is 
suggested that the staff will: 

• Ensure that papers are placed timeously on the website; 

• Examine the suggestions for pre-meeting workshop events, including the need to 
examine the relationship between the Authority and the Forum on a regular basis; and 

• Consider the role and potential involvement of Forum members in access matters 
outwith the meetings. 

The Forum is asked to note the results of the review and support the proposals for change 
above. 

Fran Pothecary 
Outdoor Access Officer 
franpothecary@cairngorms.co.uk