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 Community Hall, Boat of Garten 
on Friday 23rd January 2009 at 11.30am 


PRESENT 

Eric Baird 		Bruce Luffman 
Stuart Black 		Eleanor Mackintosh 
Duncan Bryden 		Ian MacKintosh 
Jaci Douglas 		Anne MacLean 
Dave Fallows 		Mary McCafferty 
Lucy Grant 		Fiona Murdoch 
David Green 		Andrew Rafferty 
Drew Hendry 		Gregor Rimell (arrived late) 
Marcus Humphrey 		Richard Stroud 
Bob Kinnaird 		Susan Walker 

In Attendance: 

Murray Ferguson 		Jane Hope 
Andrew Harper 		Hamish Trench 

Apologies: 

Geva Blackett 
William McKenna 
Alastair MacLennan 


PAGE 2

Welcome and Introduction 

1. The Convener welcomed everyone to the meeting, noting that the Board 
had held a Community Engagement meeting the previous night with a 
focus on the work of the Boat of Garten Community. The enthusiasm and 
stamina of the Boat of Garten Community was clearly impressive and 
played a large part in the community being a finalist in the Calor Village 
of the Year. 
Minutes of Last Meeting – approval 

2. Minutes of the last meeting on the 21st October 2008 were approved. 
Matters Arising 

3. An update was requested under Paragraph 28(f); this concerned the 
question of the inclusion of the path linking Cromdale with Spey Bridge in 
the Core Path Plan which would be submitted to Ministers. It had been 
noted at the previous Board meeting that there was good community 
support for the inclusion of this path in the Core Path Plan and therefore a 
good argument for the CNPA including it in the Plan. There had however 
been objections to the inclusion of this path on the grounds of potential 
impacts on fishing interests. Murray Ferguson reported that the intention 
was to submit the Core Paths Plan to Ministers by the end of February. 
Negotiations were still continuing and the expectation was that this 
particular path would be included in the submission to Ministers but with 
an outstanding objection to its inclusion. 

Declarations of Interests 

4. None. 

Cairngorms Collaborative Business Structure (Paper 1) 

5. The Convener noted that John Carnie of the Royal Deeside and 
Cairngorms Destination Management Organisation, Alan Rankin of the 
Aviemore and Cairngorms DMO and Sally Dowden of the Cairngorms 
Chamber of Commerce were in the public gallery; he welcomed them to 
the current item under discussion, namely an update to the Board on 
progress towards the Pan-Park Model for Collaborative Business working. 
Andrew Harper introduced the paper which noted that following the 
Board meeting in July 2008, the Cairngorms Chamber of Commerce 
(CCC) had been working with the Destination Management 
Organisations (DMOs), and other business groupings in different parts of 
the Park to develop a more coherent model for business collaboration. A 
report had been commissioned and this was attached to the Board 
paper. It identified the arguments for further developing a model which 


PAGE 3

was outlined in the paper and which had the scope to deliver a range of 
important benefits both for businesses and for the public sector. This was 
still work in progress and there were still details to be worked out. The 
various business groupings involved were in the process of consulting their 
wider membership and the wider business community which they hoped 
to complete in February. The direction of travel of this work was right, and 
should enable businesses to capitalise more fully on the existence of the 
Cairngorms National Park, and be more effective and efficient. Businesses 
had put in a considerable amount of time and effort in getting to this 
stage and this was to be commended. This was a private sector initiative 
intended to maximise the potential of tourism businesses in the Cairngorms 
to compete with an increasingly global market in times of an economic 
downturn. 

6. In discussion, the following points were made: 

a) As work in progress, the initiative was to be warmly welcomed as a 
partnership of private and public sector helping to ensure a more 
coherent approach to the commercial marketing of the National 
Park. It was a very positive move. Clearly there were questions of 
detail which would need to be resolved in refining the final model 
but those did not need to be discussed that day. 

b) This was a vital first step for the National Park Authority in enabling 
the private sector to support business throughout the Park as a 
primary driver of economic development, rather than the Park 
Authority itself doing this. Business was best focusing on business; the 
NPA could provide help on issues such as governance, funding and 
general facilitating activity. 

c) No one should underestimate the amount of work invested in the 
development of the model to date. It was right that the CNPA 
should give its full support to the continued development of this 
model. If a single tourism voice for the private sector could be 
achieved within the National Park this would be an unprecedented 
development in Scotland. The corollary was that the public sector 
should also look to work more strongly together and to work with the 
new business organisation. 

d) In the longer term, the aim must be for the private and public sector 
to be working side by side to deliver sustainable economic 
development within the National Park, in the interests of business 
and the National Park itself. Historically, the approach by the 
private sector had always been to provide funding for a limited 
period after which the exit strategy was to withdraw the funding 
and leave the private sector to “get on with it”. However, if there 
was to be a genuine partnership approach there would always be 
a requirement for resourcing by the public sector, the point being 
that this would be funding for delivery for which the business sector 
would be accountable. 


PAGE 4 

e) The proposed business model struck a cord with the national 
strategy on tourism; it would enable the Cairngorms National Park to 
make a potentially significant impact on tourism in Scotland. 

f) The challenge for the CNPA was to ensure a joined up public sector 
voice to match the single joined up business voice within the 
National Park. 

g) It was appropriate to delegate the decision on the details of 
funding for the new organisation. The suggestion of £60,000 was 
proposed as a maximum within which the Finance Committee 
could operate. 

h) It would be important that the model did not lose the uniqueness of 
local communities across the Park. It was confirmed that the whole 
intention of the initiative was to ensure that local diversity could be 
maintained while at the same time allowing those communities to 
capitalise on the identity of the Cairngorms National Park. It was 
about reinforcing local identity within the Park-wide identity. 

i) The initiative was warmly welcomed – the biggest risk was that it 
would not work and not happen. The Board urged everyone 
involved to be bolder and more enabling and to put all its resources 
and effort into ensuring that this initiative did work. 

j) It was important that all small businesses were brought on board. 

k) It was good to treat all users of business as visitors. 

l) The model must engage with Visitscotland. 

m) This early work had been very good. It should always be driven by 
looking at customer’s wants. 

n) The question of monitoring was raised. Andrew Harper confirmed 
that progress would be reported to the Board at suitable intervals. 
As far as financial monitoring went the Finance Committee would 
ensure that deliverables attaching to any funding could be 
monitored. 

[Gregor Rimell arrived] 

o) This initiative was welcomed as the culmination of what the Park 
Authority had wanted to do five years ago but the time had not 
been right. 

p) It was important to recognise that other public sector partners such 
as the Local Authorities and the Enterprise Networks also had other 
important drivers in addition to the National Park. 

q) As far as monitoring was concerned the resources offered had to 
be measured against what was delivered. 

r) There remained an issue of businesses not currently in any of the 
business groupings (CCC or DMOs). It would be important to make 
clear how these businesses could “buy in” to the new initiative. 

s) The web portal was a crucial example of the type of initiative that 
the public sector should be running even if the CNPA were initiating 
and facilitating it. The CNPA should be enabling, but was 


PAGE 5

perceived as imposing. This was precisely the sort of project on 
which the private sector should have a significant role in delivery 
and the proposed new structure should make that possible. 

t) People and organisations would probably want to move at different 
speeds even thought the CNPA and others were keen to move 
quickly. 

u) It was noted that the £60,000 suggested in the paper as a cap 
could be covering transitional costs although in the long term the 
model should allow businesses to deliver more. 

v) This was a good model for the future and it was important that 
funding should recognise that this was not just a continuation of the 
same but was a fundamental step change. It was envisaged that 
the new model would allow the business sector to “step up” and 
deliver things that they could not do under the existing fragmented 
structures. 

7. The convener summed up the discussion by noting that there was wide 
support for the way this work was developing. He offered his thanks to all 
who had put in a huge effort to date and noted that while there was still 
issues to resolve, the work was going in the right direction and the CNPA 
was prepared to put its help and assistance behind this initiative albeit it 
should always be essentially business led. This was an exciting 
development which concerned the Cairngorms competing with the 
challenge from the wider global tourism competition. 

8. The Board approved the recommendations of the paper as follows: 

a) Welcomed the work that had been carried out so far in identifying a 
potential pan-Park model for collaborative business working and 
agreed to continue to support the principle; 

b) Agreed to delegate to the Finance Committee consideration of 
CNPA funding to the Collaborative Business/Mechanism once 
further detailed work had been carried out. 

Strategic Review of Scottish National Parks: Next Steps (Paper 2) 

9. Jane Hope introduced the paper which noted that the Strategic Review 
of National Parks in Scotland had reported and the recommendations 
were the subject of a consultation by the Scottish Government. The 
proposed consultation response by the CNPA was presented to the Board 
for consideration. The recommendations were focused on changes in 
Board governance and in particular Board size. The Review also 
concluded that the two Scottish NPAs should develop a plan for sharing 
services and working more closely; the Board were asked to note that this 
would require significant input of time by senior staff in the CNPA. The 
paper also noted that Ministers had concluded there would be no stage 2 
of the Review. As a result there would be no review of the Planning 
function and it was suggested that the CNPA should take the opportunity 


PAGE 6

to do its own internal assessment of its Planning function not with a view to 
making substantial changes to the function itself (ie would continue with 
the Call-in power) but with a view to considering and improving the 
service which the Park Authority provided to the public. Finally the paper 
also noted that there was an opportunity to position the CNPA over the 
next five years building on the successful completion of the Review. It was 
proposed that the Board’s informal discussion in February should address 
this. 

10.Following up on the point made at paragraph 29 of the paper, it was 
noted that Ministers had now confirmed the extension of the 
appointments of those Members whose second successive terms were 
due to end in March 2009 or March 2010. The extension had been made 
for eighteen months and six months respectively, ensuring that the current 
CNPA Board would remain unchanged between now and the likely 
implementation date of any new arrangements involving a smaller Board 
etc. which looked as if it would be around September 2010. 

11.In discussion the following points were made: 

a) Although required to develop a plan for sharing services with Loch 
Lomond and the Trossachs, it would be important to not ignore the 
potential for sharing services with other bodies as well. The driver 
should be to put in place whatever arrangements were best for the 
CNPA. 

b) The various changes that would flow from the Strategic Review 
would be made through a new Designation Order. Even though 
there would be no formal review of the planning function through 
Stage 2, nevertheless the minor changes required to the 
Designation Order to correct some of the earlier anomalies in 
respect of the planning provisions, could still be made. 

c) The lack of a Stage 2 review was in many ways quite welcome. 
What was most important in terms of its planning function was that 
the CNPA should be considering how best to deliver on the new 
National Planning Framework. 

d) In a question about the arrangements for Direct Elections, Jane 
Hope agreed to circulate round Members a paper pulling together 
the evidence available on the operation of Direct Elections in the 
Cairngorms as well as an analysis of the outcome of the 
consultation conducted in 2000/01 when the original Elections 
Order was put together. 

e) It made sense to engage in more discussion with the Loch Lomond 
and the Trossachs National Park Authority particularly on those issues 
of common concern (eg the SRDP). It was noted that this contact 
already occurred to some extent at official level, but probably 
needed to occur more at Board level as well. It was important to 
note that this would only make sense if the emphasis was put on the 
limited number of issues on which the National Parks jointly could 


PAGE 7

have a stronger voice; it would not be appropriate to try and take 
the same position on everything. 

f) It was noted that the proposal from the Review appeared to be 
that any future changes of boundaries etc would be considered at 
least initially through the proposed Ministerially chaired National 
Strategy Group. 

g) Having come through the first five years successfully, a major 
challenge for the CNPA over the next five years would be proving 
itself in terms of delivery in partnership with the private sector as set 
out in the previous paper and working with Loch Lomond and the 
Trossachs to achieve a much stronger single voice for Scottish 
National Parks. To some extent success would depend over the 
next five years in identifying the areas in which we wanted to be 
“bolder and braver”. 

h) One of the important contributions made by the National Park 
Authority was the work with local authorities and other partners in 
implementing the nationally driven initiatives. The CNPA possibly did 
not get as much credit for this as it should but that should not 
detract from the fact that this joint working by public bodies on 
national initiatives was crucial. 

i) The Council nominees on the CNPAs had generally been local 
elected councillors from Wards in the Park. After two successive 
terms, these local councillors would have to stand down and it was 
therefore likely that the council nominees would be councillors 
outside the Park. [Post meeting note: recent amendments to 
legislation means that this is no longer the case. As a result of the 
changes to the Public Appointments and Public Bodies (Scotland) 
Act 2003 Act the appointment by Ministers of local council 
nominees to the CNPA Board will no longer be governed by the 
Commission for Public appointments. This means that there will no 
longer be a restriction on the number of terms for which a local 
councillor can serve on the Park Board] 

j) It was agreed that the proposed Ministerially chaired National 
Strategy Group should have the Conveners and Chief Executives 
from both National Park Authorities represented. It was noted that 
it would be helpful to have some of the partners on the Strategy 
Group in order to add value to the efforts by both Park Authorities in 
bring a more coordinated and integrated approach within the 
National Park areas. 

k) There was some discussion about the response which the CNPA 
Board should make on the consultation question of Board size. A 
number of Members felt that the Board size of twenty-five had 
worked well (as already articulated in the proposed response). 
However, they also recognised that the consultation on which the 
review was based had already clearly shown a desire to reduce the 
size of the Board. In that case it would be important to ensure that 
the benefits of the current Board size were not overlooked when 


PAGE 8

Ministers finally decided on the maximum size of the National Park 
Boards. The points to be noted and therefore were as follows: in 
the original consultation in 2001 on the Cairngorms National Park 
many communities argued for a large Board in order to ensure 
adequate representation; the Cairngorms National Park was 
geographically very large and ensuring good representation was 
difficult without a sizeable Board; the Scottish NPAs had a broader 
remit than other NDPBs and in that sense were more like local 
authorities and their size determined accordingly; a comparison 
with National Parks south of the border was instructive given that 
they had a smaller remit than Scottish National Parks and yet almost 
all had Board sizes above twenty. 

l) It was the mix of types of Board Member that had been crucial to 
the effectiveness of the CNPA Board – directly elected, direct 
Ministerial appointments, and appointments on the nomination of 
councils. Because of that balance, there was a good 
representation of views on the Park Board. 

m) The proposal for a National Park Strategy Group chaired by Ministers 
was supported. This would provide a good opportunity to 
encourage government and its agencies to be bolder, and to 
recognise the potential for using National Parks as test beds on rural 
policy. 

n) It was noted that there was an enthusiasm for more directly elected 
Members. However, it was noted that there were some caveats to 
be considered. The very nature of direct elections meant that 
successful candidates tended to be relatively inexperienced in 
terms of Board Membership, especially in the public sector. This was 
not a criticism but was merely a reflection of the fact that Members 
who joined the Board through this route were often new to the 
arena of public boards. They brought fresh ideas which was 
welcome; the corollary was that it could be quite daunting and 
difficult. It was noted that people might be put off if they thought 
there was no back up and support. It was also noted however that 
the crucial issue here was balance and these characteristics of the 
directly elected Members were very effective provided that they 
were complemented by other types of Member with different 
experience and types of expertise. The three types of Member were 
crucial to the quality of the whole Board. It was noted that 
Ministerial appointments were the only ones amenable to an 
assessment against the skills matrix for the whole Board, so once 
again, the important point was the mix of three types of Member 
coming from three different sources. This in turn had implications for 
the size of the Board. 

o) In respect of Paragraph 22 which considered the proposal for 
Ministerial appointment of the Convener the point was made that a 
different skill set was required for a Convener compared with Board 
Members as a whole, and the proposed new arrangements needed 


PAGE 9

to recognise that. With a smaller Board, there was an increasing risk 
there may not be individuals with the inclination or the time 
available to take up the responsibilities of Convenership. 

p) In respect of Paragraph 7 and the proposed Strategy Group the 
point was reinforced that there needed to be a very clear role for 
the proposed group; it was important that it should not superimpose 
itself over the NPAs. 

q) It was noted that in conversation with English and Welsh National 
Park Authorities most of which had Board sizes above twenty, the 
general feeling was that they could not envisage being smaller than 
fifteen Members; below that accountability fell away significantly. 

r) If the Minister appointed the Convener and Deputy Convener there 
could be suspicions about Government interference. It was also 
noted that if the Convener was appointed by the Minister, there 
needed to be some sort of fall back procedure under which if 
Members lost faith in the Convener there would be the possibility of 
the Minister ending that appointment. While the line of 
accountability from Convener to Minister was important and 
therefore Ministers would want to make such an appointment, 
equally a Convener who did not have the confidence of other 
Board Members would not be effective. It was noted that the 
debate around the Board table about the proposals emerging from 
the Review were driven by a deep care and concern about the 
Cairngorms National Park. No one was arguing for their own seat; a 
significant number of Board Members would be departing from the 
Board in any event as the new Board came into place. The 
concern was very much about the future of the Cairngorms 
National Park which had got off to a good start. The Board was 
now contemplating the consequences of choosing between 
various alternatives. It was recognised that the CNPA did not exist in 
a bubble and there was a considerable body of opinion that the 
Board needed to be smaller. It was important to make clear why 
the current number of twenty five had particular virtues. The original 
discussions in 2001 had been inclusive and had reflected the 
inclusive Aims given to the Park Authorities. It was therefore vital 
that the Park Boards were equally inclusive. They were required 
under their founding statute to take an integrated approach and 
therefore needed broad representation. 

12.In summing up the Convener noted the points on which there was 
agreement and which the draft Consultation Response would be 
amended to incorporate. This would be circulated around the Board, 
with the Convener and Deputy Convener to act as final arbiters on any 
further changes. 

13.The Board agreed the recommendations of the papers as follows: 


PAGE 10

a) Agreed the proposed response to the Consultation at Annex 1, 
subject to a number of changes recorded in the discussion. 

b) Noted the proposed work in the wake of the Review (closer working 
with Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, and an internal review of the 
planning function). 

c) Noted the opportunity to build on the CNPA successfully completing 
its first five years, and agreed to further discussion (in February) on 
positioning the CNPA for the next five years. 

14.Action 

a) Jane Hope to revise the proposed Consultation Response, circulate 
round Board Members, and agree final changes with the Convener 
and Deputy Convener prior to submission to the Scottish 
Government. 

National Plan 4-Monthly Report 1 (Paper 3) 

15..Gavin Miles introduced the paper which provided the Board and all 
partners involved in delivering the National Park Plan with a periodic 
update on progress with delivery of the National Park Plan. The paper 
provided a summary of progress in delivering the actions set out in the 
National Park Plan and an assessment of the likelihood of achieving the 
five year outcomes under each of the seven Priorities for Action. It was 
noted that the assessments were made by programme managers and 
these were inevitably best estimates rather than precise quantified results. 
The colour amber reflected uncertainty over the delivery of an outcome; 
it did not mean the outcome would not be delivered, simply that there 
was uncertainty. It was quite possible that in the future some of these may 
become red as the assessments were revised and it became clearer that 
certain outcomes would not be delivered. 

16.The purpose of this first progress report was to introduce Members to the 
format of the report and seek views on its usefulness. Inevitably it was 
trying to provide a relatively straightforward and simple way of presenting 
some very complex information. Subsequent progress reports would be 
able to flag up those outcomes which were becoming a source of 
concern (or alternatively celebration) and provide the basis for a 
discussion on what action was needed. 

17.In discussion the following points were made: 

a) The report was welcomed as a useful way of presenting some 
complex and multifaceted information. The suggestion was made 
that information about direction of travel on some outcomes and 
actions might be useful. In other words the fact that some 
outcomes or actions were progressing from amber to green or 
alternatively from amber to red would be useful as time went on. 


PAGE 11

b) It was noted that the comments column in the table relating to five 
year outcomes were referring to outputs rather than outcomes. In 
other words the comment column illustrated what was being 
delivered and therefore provided the basis for the interpretation of 
whether or not the outcome was likely to be delivered at the end of 
five years. 

18.The Board noted the report on progress with approval noting that the 
second progress report would be in May 

The Following Papers Were for Information, and were noted: 

Corporate Plan Monitoring (Paper 4) 

Key Issues from the Sustainable Tourism Strategy Mid Term Review 
(Paper 5) 

AOCB 

19.A number of brief items were reported as follows: 

a) There was currently a consultation under way by the Department for 
Culture, Media and Sport on World Heritage Site listing. It was noted 
that the Consultation was essentially about processes, albeit 
eventually this may have implications for the Cairngorms given that 
the Cairngorm Mountains were on the tentative list for World 
Heritage Site listing. It would therefore be appropriate for the CNPA 
to consider making a response; Jane Hope undertook to circulate 
the proposed response around the Board on the basis that the final 
arbiters would be the Convener and Deputy Convener. 

b) There was a consultation underway on Climate Change and the 
National Forest Estate led by Forestry Commission Scotland. This 
sought views on proposals for changes in the way the national forest 
estate is managed to improve investment and management in 
climate change mitigation. This had been circulated to some 
members for comment. Hamish Trench undertook to circulate the 
CNPA response to the Board for information. 

c) The Convener reported that he had attended a deer event early in 
January in Edinburgh looking at working with partners and 
promoting the benefits of eating venison. 

d) The Deputy Convener reported that he had attended a meeting of 
the Land Use Group. He also noted that in his contacts with 
members of Europarc he had received some very positive 
feedback on the Junior Ranger Camp held in the Cairngorms 
National Park the previous autumn; there was also positive 
feedback about the help we were providing Europarc with on their 
audit function. The CNPA were therefore beginning to be 
recognised in European circles. 

PAGE 12

e) Duncan Bryden reported on the positive feedback he was hearing 
on the John Muir Award. 

f) Fiona Murdoch reported on attending a food security seminar at 
which Alastair MacLennan had done a presentation. The Cabinet 
Secretary had also attended. 

g) Duncan Bryden and Eric Baird both sat on Regional Forestry Forums 
and noted that in early March there would be a Joint Forum 
Meeting which would provide an opportunity to build strategic 
relationships with partners in the Cairngorms National Park. 

Date of Next Meeting 

20. Friday 20th March 2009, Richmond Memorial Hall, Tomintoul.