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 
Paper 3 23/02/07 


CAIRNGORMS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY 


FOR DECISION 


Title: Approval of Draft Core Paths Plan for Consultation 

Prepared by: Bob Grant, Senior Outdoor Access Officer 
Sandra Middleton, Outdoor Access Officer 


Purpose 

This paper summarises the progress made to date on developing a Core Paths Plan for the 
Cairngorms National Park and builds on the discussion at the recent joint workshop for the 
Board and Local Outdoor Access Forum. The paper provides costed options for a proposed 
core paths network and seeks the Board’s approval on the most appropriate network for 
inclusion in the Interim Draft Core Paths Plan which will be subject to a public consultation 
exercise. 

Recommendations 

That the Board: 

a) note the progress made to date in developing an Interim Draft Core Paths Plan; 

b) approve the aim for the Core Paths Plan for the Cairngorms National Park; 

c) considers the options presented and approves Option 2 as the basis for the 
development of the Interim Draft Core Paths Plan for public consultation; and 

d) approves the inclusion of the River Spey as a proposed core path within the Interim 
draft Core Paths Plan. 


Executive Summary 

This paper explains the approach used in developing and identifying a network of core 
paths for the Cairngorms National Park and the principles behind two options for potential 
core paths networks. The first option identifies a basic framework of routes which will meet 
the legal requirement of core paths planning. The second option provides for a more 
extensive network which would meet both the legal requirement and also contribute 
towards delivery of the wider objectives of the National Park Plan. The paper also proposes 
that the River Spey be included in the next round of consultation as a proposed core path. 



APPROVAL OF INTERIM DRAFT CORE PATHS PLAN FOR 
CONSULTATION – FOR DECISION 

Background 

1. 
The National Park Plan recognises the importance of the existing path network and 
identifies as part of one of the Priorities for Action the need to bring the current good 
quality of outdoor access opportunities up to the excellent standard that is expected 
in a National Park over the next five years. The preparation of the Core Paths Plan is 
a key mechanism which will contribute to achieving the Outcomes for this Priority 
for Action. 

2. 
The preparation of a Core Paths Plan is also a statutory obligation placed on both 
National Park Authorities and on the 32 local authorities in Scotland by the Land 
Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. The aspiration is that the process will lead, in time, to a 
widespread and highly visible network of paths across Scotland that are easy and 
attractive to use. Most core paths will probably be located on the lower ground and 
there will be especially good provision close to communities. The benefits of the new 
and positively managed path networks will contribute to a number of the wider 
Scottish Executive targets relating to improved health, physical activity, social 
inclusion and minimisation of carbon emissions to mitigate against climate change. 
Core paths will have an important role in ensuring that people can easily experience 
the special qualities of the Park. 

3. 
Therefore the first test which the network of core paths will have to satisfy, as set out 
in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 (“the Act”), is: “Is the proposed network of 
paths sufficient to give the public reasonable access throughout the National Park?” 
Looking to the implementation of the National Park Plan, the critical test is: “Is the 
proposed network of paths sufficient to achieve the Outcomes identified in the 
relevant Priority for Action? (Annex 1)” 

4. 
It is important to understand the stage we have reached in the core paths planning 
process and the work that lies ahead. The project plan was approved by the Board on 
7 April 2006. A Steering Group was convened comprising members of the Board and 
the Local Outdoor Access Forum. A formal project management approach has been 
adopted, taking account of Guidance from the Scottish Executive and using the best 
practice model promoted by Paths for All Partnership and SNH. A Cross Border 
Working Group was established to facilitate discussion of the issues with adjacent 
local authorities. The work that CNPA has undertaken to date is described in the 
next section of the paper. 

5. 
Looking to the future there will be two key intermediate stages before the Core Paths 
Plan is adopted; the first will be preparation of an Interim Draft Plan which will be 
subject to an informal public consultation (as described below). The second stage will 
result in a Draft Plan which will be submitted to Scottish Ministers and will then be 
the subject of a formal public consultation under the terms of the Act. The Core Paths 
Plan will then be adopted after taking into account any representations and 
objections and, if necessary, holding a Public Inquiry. 


Gathering Information on the Existing Path Network and the Needs and 
Aspirations of the Public 

6. 
During September, October and November 2006 the CNPA ran 25 events aimed at 
engaging the communities of place and communities of interest (including land 
managers, visitors and recreational user groups) in the core paths planning process. 
The aim was to find out what paths people value and why, what they use the 
network for and what are their concerns. Questionnaires and maps were used to 
record information about different areas in the National Park and were made 
available to participants at the events and were also available to download from the 
CNPA website. 

7. 
Overall, approximately 560 people were directly involved and we received 568 
completed questionnaires. The questionnaires also produced some demographic 
information which has proved useful in analysing how effectively the engagement 
process worked. Feedback reports detailing the way in which each community and 
community of interest could get involved in the process and the views they 
expressed are available on the CNPA website. An overall summary of these reports 
is provided in Annex 2. 

8. 
The events provided a good opportunity to speak to people about core paths 
planning and to manage their expectations in relation to what can be achieved 
through it, particularly in relation to the cost implications of new path build and 
upgrade. Maintenance of existing paths was a frequently raised issue and the events 
provided an opportunity to clarify the duties of the CNPA in overall management of 
the network. It was stressed that there is no specific duty on CNPA arising from the 
legislation to maintain the paths and, as such, a partnership approach will be 
required. In addition, the events allowed a thorough debate on the desirability, or 
otherwise, of the network extending into or through the mountainous or wilder 
areas. 


Aim for the Core Paths Plan in the National Park 

9. 
To provide a clear sense of purpose an aim has been developed for the Core Paths 
Plan in the National Park. The aim takes into account the legal requirements, 
guidance from the Scottish Executive and a link to the overarching National Park 
Plan. The aim of the Core Paths Plan in the National Park is: 
“The Core Paths Plan will identify a network of paths. This network will be 
sufficient to meet the needs of residents and visitors by providing a range of high 
quality outdoor access opportunities in the National Park and which help people to 
enjoy and understand the Park’s special qualities. Core paths will be clearly 
promoted and provide for a wide range of activities and users, connecting them to 
local services, public transport links and to a wider network of paths in the Park. The 
Plan will assist the National Park Authority in the effective overall management of 
the network”. 

10. 
It is recommended that the Board approve the aim for the Core Paths Plan for the 
Cairngorms National Park. 


Developing Criteria for Selecting Core Paths 

11. 
The Outdoor Access Audit, which was completed in 2005 in preparation of the 
Outdoor Access Strategy, demonstrated that there is considerable variability 
throughout the area in the availability and quality of paths. For example, some 
communities have excellent promoted path networks while others have almost none. 
In addition, some of the path networks are well maintained and looked after while 
others are neglected or suffering from lack of maintenance. To address this issue 
several Action Areas were identified within the draft Outdoor Access Strategy, as 
shown in Figure 1, each with different priorities for the next five year period. 

12. 
The initial analysis of the questionnaires and comments made during the recent Core 
Paths Plan engagement process supports these findings and has established that 
“one size will not fit all” with regard to a Core Paths Plan. There is clearly a need to 
develop a selection process that recognises the different needs in different areas of 
the National Park. To do this effectively and robustly an initial set of selection 
criteria was developed and discussed at a workshop on 16 January involving 
members of the Board and Cairngorms Local Outdoor Access Forum. 

Figure 1. Map of the Park showing the Action Areas from the Outdoor Access Strategy 
(not available in full text format)


13. 
To assist in the discussions at the workshop, a potential core paths network was 
developed for Action Area G (Upper Badenoch and Strathspey). The discussion at 
the workshop broadly supported a process that initially evaluates individual paths 
and then applies broader criteria across the network in each of the eight Action 
Areas. A number of suggestions and proposals were made at the workshop and 
these have resulted in a refined selection methodology for the network (as shown in 
Annex 3). 

14. 
In summary, the proposed core paths network will be identified using a four stage 
approach. The first stage will assess the individual paths identified through 
engagement with the public to identify those paths with highest demand which are 
close to settlements and those which may present an issue in relation to the natural 
and cultural heritage. The second stage will then select paths which will make up 
the proposed core paths network based on this information and using criteria which 
reflect the aim of the Core Paths Plan. 

15. 
Many of the existing promoted paths in the area (as defined in the Outdoor Access 
Audit as, “routes which are signposted throughout their length and promoted in 
associated visitor information facilities or leaflets.”) will already have been included 
in the core paths network at Stage 2. Stage 3 will allow for all remaining promoted 
paths which have not yet been identified at Stage 2 to be included in the core paths 
network. The fourth and final stage will be to assess the sufficiency and affordability 
of the proposed network as a whole. 

16. 
There is clearly a degree of variation possible in relation to what can be termed 
‘sufficient’ (from the Act) and it is recognised that there are differing views from a 
number of quarters to what should be the overall extent of a core paths network. A 
number of the concerns raised relate to potential costs: both for initial capital works 
and on-going maintenance. To address these issues and to assist the Board in 
determining the optimum network for the Park, two options have been devised, as 
described below: 

a) Option 1 – a basic core paths network 

This network of paths would be the minimum required to satisfy the legal 
requirements of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. This network would be 
selected using only Stages 1, 2 and 4 of the proposed methodology (Annex 3) 
and, as such, would not include all existing promoted paths. Most of the paths 
which would be in Option 1 are already present on the ground with only 
relatively small sections requiring to be upgraded or built. An example of how 
this network might look for the Upper Deeside area is shown on Map 1. 

b) Option 2 – a more extensive core paths network 

This network of paths goes beyond Option 1 so that it would also contribute 
towards delivery of the five year Outcomes from the National Park Plan. This 
network would be selected by using all 4 Stages in the proposed methodology 
(Annex 2) and, as such, would include all low ground routes that are currently 
promoted through leaflets and signposting as defined in the Outdoor Access 
Audit. This option recognises that much of the existing promoted path 
network in the National Park has been developed as a result of demands from 
residents or visitors – these paths have already been valued as important and 
considerable time and effort has already gone into their development. A higher 
proportion of the paths in the total proposed network (than in Option 1) are 
already present on the ground with only relatively small sections requiring to 
be upgraded or built from scratch. An example of how this option might look 
for the Upper Deeside area is shown on Map 2. 

Cost of the Options 

17. 
Before evaluation of the two options it is worth considering further the costs 
involved. The Guidance from the Scottish Executive makes clear that access 
authorities should use their powers,“…for the effective overall management of the 
core paths network”. The management functions include keeping accurate records 
on core paths and their infrastructure; ensuring core paths mapping is accurate and 
kept up to date and available; maintaining contact details of relevant land mangers; 
monitoring requirements for removal of obstructions; re-instatement after ploughing 
and managing inspection records. The Park Authority is also required to supply 
information about the core paths network as part of the Scottish Executive’s 
monitoring requirements. 

18. 
Whilst there is no specific duty for the Park Authority to maintain the whole of the 
core paths network, if the Outcomes of the Park Plan are to be achieved it will be 
important that the network is well maintained and easy to use. An effective 
partnership will be required between whoever manages the land, public bodies and 
others to ensure that this happens. The Park Authority will be the lead public body 
in making sure that this work takes place but the Park Authority is unlikely to be 
able to fund all necessary maintenance on every path. It is likely that a range of 
imaginative solutions will need to be found, depending on local circumstances. 

19. Much of the existing extensive network of promoted paths is already maintained by 
a variety of means, for example: 

a) individual land managers – either funded privately or through support 
mechanisms such as Land Management Contracts, management agreements 
or grants; 

b) public bodies who maintain paths on their own land (e.g. Forest Commission 
Scotland and Scottish Natural Heritage); 

c) non-governmental organisations – funding work through their own 
membership subscriptions or Lottery supported schemes (e.g. National Trust 
for Scotland or RSPB); 

d) community bodies who rely on volunteers, path sponsorship schemes and 
grants to maintain their own networks; 

e) 
Trusts (e.g. the Upper Deeside Access Trust) who have developed very 
successful programmes to upgrade and maintain paths using funds from a 
variety of sources. 


20. 
The Park Authority spent £330,114 in the 2005/06 financial year on access 
infrastructure, management and maintenance. This sum was by way of a 
contribution towards some large projects which included the Deeside Way, 
Inverdruie cycling lane, the Bachnagairn path and the management of the Speyside 
Way. The total value of these projects amounts to £766,860 and our contribution was 
43% of the overall costs. It is reasonable to anticipate that future capital works would 
attract a similar degree of partnership funding. 

21. 
It has not been possible in the time available to work up full cost estimates for each of 
the two options but the following figures provide an indication of the levels of costs 
that are likely to be incurred. The costs for Option 2 are based on a ‘worst case 
scenario’ where all existing way-marking and signposts would require replacement – 
in reality this may not be the case. 

Table 1: Capital Cost estimates for Option 1 and 2 
(not available in full text format)


Table 2: Maintenance Cost estimates for Option 1 and 2 
(not available in full text format)


22. The cost estimates have been based on the following assumptions: 

a) Capital costs calculated @ £25 per metre for high specification new build path 
and £10 per metre for low specification new build/upgrade path plus a sum 
for bridge construction/repair of two bridges close to communities 

b) Fingerpost signs costs calculated @ £150 per sign and way-marker posts costs 
calculated @ £40 per post and estimate made for one community network 
multiplied by number of communities 

c) Promotional material costs calculated @ £3,000 per community for five years 

d) 
Annual maintenance costs calculated @ 20p per metre for the path network as 
a whole 

e) 
Maintenance funded over the whole network by mechanisms described in 
paragraph 18 with a potential overall contribution amounting to 50% of total 
costs. 


Evaluation of the Options 

23. 
A summary of advantages and disadvantages of the two options is presented in 
Annex 4. Both options have the potential to satisfy the requirements of the Land 
Reform Act. If the development of a core paths network was to be undertaken in 
isolation from other work within the National Park, then Option 1 would be the best 
option to select. However, Option 1 fails to satisfactorily contribute to the wider 
goals within the relevant Priority for Action in the Park Plan. Option 2 has 
considerable further advantages and would provide the closest fit with the 
expectations of a National Park. 

24. 
In making a decision about the two options it is important to note that the Board are 
not being asked to make a firm financial commitment at this stage. Resource 
allocation will take place in the normal way though the preparation of the next 
Corporate Plan. Whichever option is chosen it may not be realistic to expect that 
resources can be found to fund all of the necessary capital works within the 2 year 
timescale that is required for the Core Paths Plan and it would be more realistic to 
phase the work required over a 5 year period. Only those capital works that can 
realistically be delivered within the 2 year timescale would be included within the 
adopted Core Paths Plan while those that cannot be achieved in that timescale would 
be identified as aspirational paths. 

25. 
Such paths would be high priorities for new capital investment and the work 
required could perhaps be carried out by the proposed Outdoor Access Trust that is 
to be the subject of a Board Paper in April. If there is a sufficient degree of 
partnership support it should be possible to undertake the works in time for 
inclusion in a subsequent review of the Core Paths Plan in 5 years time. This is in 
line with Scottish Executive guidance on developing a Core Paths Plan and this 
timescale would tie in with the 5 year timescale identified within the Park Plan. 

26. 
It is recommended that the Board considers the options presented and approves 
Option 2 as the basis for the development of the Interim Draft Core Paths Plan for 
public consultation. 


Core Paths on Water 

27. 
Core paths can be designated on water and the test for “sufficiency” must therefore 
include rivers and water users. The community engagement exercise showed that 
the River Spey is a popular place for water activities with many residents and 
visitors. The river already has a right of navigation over its length (confirmed by the 
House of Lords) and is one of the most important rivers in Scotland for kayaking and 
canoeing. It is of particular value for multi day-touring trips. 

28. 
The river is of course also very highly valued by fishermen and provides 
employment and a considerable income stream for a range of businesses associated 
with the fishing industry. The need for both fishermen and paddlers to share this 
resource has been recognised for some time. The Scottish Outdoor Access Code 
provides very useful guidance and an annual Spey River Users meeting provides an 
opportunity to discuss issues and find common solutions to problems. In general, 
although there are tensions from time to time, there are good working relations on 
the river. 

29. 
While other rivers were highlighted during the community engagement exercise, the 
case for including them in the Plan as proposed core paths is not compelling. No 
other rivers have attracted the level of support engendered by the Spey. 

30. 
In taking forward this proposal through the next consultation there would need to be 
considerable further discussion, particularly with the relevant land managers and 
fisheries interests. There will also need to be further work undertaken with each of 
the two relevant local authorities (Highland and Moray Council) and, as the Spey is 
designated as a Special Area of Conservation, further consideration of Natura issues. 

31. 
It is recommended that the Board approves the inclusion of the River Spey as a 
proposed core path within the Interim Draft Core Paths Plan. 


Policy Context 

32. 
Delivering Sustainability – The Plan will help to provide the physical resource 
which can be used to promote active and healthy lifestyles and will provide 
accessible networks that can be utilised for recreational or functional purposes. A 
good path network will help mitigate against climate change by encouraging people 
to holiday close to home and reducing car dependency. An excellent range of quality 
paths will be of value to visitors and so contribute to the local economy. A well 
planned system of core paths will also help land managers to integrate outdoor 
access with their operations. 

33. 
Delivering a Park for All – Core paths must meet the needs of residents and visitors. 
As such they should cater for all types of users and, wherever possible, be barrier 
free. Providing facilities that enable access for all will encourage greater use of the 
network and demonstrate that the network is for all to use and enjoy. By engaging 
local communities early in the identification of core paths, it is hoped that they will 
wish to become involved in actively managing the paths network in partnership with 
CNPA and land managers. 

34. 
Delivering Economy, Effectiveness and Efficiency -A Park-wide Core Paths Plan 
will ensure that there is collective recognition of the most important paths. This will 
provide an excellent basis for a range of future work – for example by ensuring that 
any new repair or maintenance work will be prioritised (and resources targeted 
accordingly) or as work to be undertaken through planning gain. As formally 
designated paths there will be a significant degree of protection from consequences 
of development in the future. 


Implications 

Financial Implications 

35. 
The Board are not being asked to make any firm commitments for expenditure at this 
stage but clearly it is important to consider the overall likely costs of managing the 
network at this stage. The estimated costs associated with implementing the Core 
Paths Plan are shown in Figure 1 and discussed above. The capital element is 
unlikely to be affordable within a single year and it is proposed that the capital 
works are taken forward with partners over a 5 year period. 

Presentational Implications 

36. 
A similar programme of communication will be developed for the next round of 
public consultation to ensure that a wide spectrum of path users and land managers 
are able to present their views on the Interim Draft Core Paths Plan. 

37. 
Expectations have been managed through the community engagement process but it 
is acknowledged that only a very small percentage of potential path users attended 
any of these meetings. There will be an expectation that the Park Authority is able to 
make a difference to the existing network. Providing recognition of the value of 
promoted path networks adjacent to communities will help manage any residual 
concerns that they are not being repaired immediately. The need to stress the 
timescales involved in pulling together partnership funding for large projects will be 
part of managing these expectations. 

Implications for Stakeholders 

38. 
The main stakeholders are the land managers, the residents and visitors who will use 
the core paths network when it is approved and implemented. In practice, it is clear 
that much of the path network already exists but the need to promote and signpost 
the paths will ensure that the network links effectively with communities and with 
the wider path networks. It will therefore be important to implement the Plan once it 
has been agreed to maintain public confidence in the process. Potential funding 
partners for capital projects will need to be approached to ensure that projects can 
become embedded in future operational plans and funding rounds. 

Next Steps 

39. 
The next step will be to pass the Interim Draft Plan for printing, agree specific dates, 
times and venues for the next round of public consultation in the spring. The 
consultation, which will take place between April and June, will show the proposed 
core paths network on detailed maps and will provide a sound basis for all parties to 
provide feedback. 

40. 
Thereafter, Park Authority staff will attempt to resolve any outstanding issues with 
relevant parties and prepare a revised Draft Core Paths Plan for the Board to 
consider in December 2007. The Draft Plan must be submitted to the Scottish 
Executive by February 2008. There is a strong imperative to ensure that the network 
is sufficient and it should be borne in mind that there may be a Public Local Inquiry 
at a later stage. A final, formal consultation will be required which is programmed 
for spring 2008 and then, depending on the nature of the representations made, the 
Plan can be adopted. 


Bob Grant 
Sandra Middleton 
February 2007 

bobgrant@cairngorms.co.uk 
sandramiddleton@cairngorms.co.uk 




Annex 1: Extracts from the finalised National Park Plan 

Priority for Action: Providing High Quality Opportunities for Outdoor 
Access 

Outcomes for 2012 – what does this seek to achieve in five years? 

i. A wider range of people will have the opportunity to enjoy the outdoors. 

ii. Land managers and those enjoying the outdoors will have a better understanding 
of their respective rights and responsibilities which will positively influence 
behaviour and enable all to enjoy the special qualities of the National Park. 

iii. There will be a more extensive, high quality, well maintained and clearly 
promoted path network so that everyone can enjoy the outdoors and move around 
the Park in a way that minimises reliance on motor vehicles. 

iv. There will be greater involvement of communities, land managers and visitors in 
the management and maintenance of paths. 

v. There will be more effective connections between public transport and places with 
outdoor access opportunities. 

vi. There will be locally based healthy walking groups throughout the National Park 
and active promotion of outdoor activity by health professionals in order to 
contribute positively to the physical, mental and social health of residents and 
visitors. 




Annex 2: Cairngorms National Park Core Paths Plan 
Summary report on Stage 1 Public Engagement 

Introduction 

1. 
The first stage of the Core Paths Plan process targeted four main interest groups: 
communities of place; land managers; people who recreate in the Park (both visitors 
and residents, including businesses, national organisations and clubs e.g. Ramblers 
Association, Scottish Canoe Association, Cairngorm Club, etc.); and visitors to the 
Park. This report provides a summary of how the Cairngorms National Park 
Authority (CNPA) engaged these different groups of people and the feedback we 
received from them during the first round of consultation which ran throughout 
September, October and November 20061. 

The Process 

2. 
The CNPA ran two workshops aimed at land managers, two workshops aimed at 
people who recreate in the Park, 19 community drop-in events. Staff also attended 
two of the larger Highland Games in the National Park in order to capture 
information from visitors. Work was also carried out in conjunction with members 
of the Local Outdoor Access Forum, a number of schools, and Tourist Information 
Centres. The leaflet explaining the Core Paths Plan process and specially designed 
questionnaires were distributed to everyone attending events and were also available 
for download from the CNPA website. 

3. 
The aim of this first round of engagement was to raise awareness about core paths 
and to seek views about the paths that are important to people. Care was taken to 
manage peoples’ expectations in relation to what could be achieved through the 
process. It is important to note that people were not asked to identify those paths 
which they think should be designated as core paths. People were also asked to 
identify their aspirations for new paths that should be built or promoted. However, 
participants were advised that there is limited funding available and there could be 
no guarantee that any new paths would be built. 

The Feedback 

4. 
Most of the events were well attended and 568 questionnaire responses were 
received, both through the post and at events. The events involved a great deal of 
one-to-one discussion with people and so the information collected was often much 
richer than was written on the forms. This prompted some excellent debates and 
presented the opportunity for raising awareness of the Scottish Outdoor Access Code 
and other issues. Evaluation sheets were completed by attendees at all of the events 
and the feedback received has been extremely positive. 


1 Detailed reports for each community and interest group will be made available on our 
website in due course 


5. 
A number of common issues and comments arose at many of the events. With 
exceptions in a few communities, most people identified that they think the existing 
path network in their area is already good. Typically, the issues were raised about 
how the path network was promoted and managed. There was a view from most 
people that this could be improved so that the existing path networks were more 
valuable to more people. Most people identified low-level walking around 
communities as the most popular activity, and there was particular demand for 
circular routes, near to settlements. Dog-walking was also very popular, although 
people not cleaning up after their dogs was a common complaint. Demand for 
traffic-free and barrier-free cycling and horse-riding was identified in a number of 
communities, as was the need to remove barriers such as narrow gates or steps to 
provide better access for push-chairs. A number of canoeists and kayakers identified 
the River Spey as important with a lesser number also highlighting the River Dee. 

6. 
Participants were generally understanding of the fact that funding would be limited 
and that it therefore needed to be targeted at the paths which were of most social 
value. However, funding for maintenance of path networks was a key concern. 
Land managers in particular were concerned about increased use of core paths and 
any associated increase in liability, and sought assurances that the paths would be 
appropriately maintained. Many participants gave their opinions about potential 
funding mechanisms for maintaining core paths including use of Land Management 
Contracts, visitor pay-back schemes and path sponsorship. 

7. 
The requirement to promote and way-mark core paths caused some debate, 
particularly in relation to the suitability of promoting upland and mountain paths. 
The general feedback was that upland and mountain paths should not be promoted 
and should not be designated as core paths. However, it was clear that such paths 
still required maintenance. There was also some debate about whether or not core 
paths should be identified as such and the prevailing view was that they should be 
marked in a similar way to the existing network of promoted paths. In many of the 
communities, tourism businesses and staff from Tourist Information Centres noted 
that there needs to be much better information in the village centres (e.g. near to bus 
stops and shops) to enable visitors to find the starting point of paths. 


Conclusions 

8. 
This first round of consultation and engagement has successfully engaged with a 
wide range of people, including both residents and visitors. There is widespread 
enthusiasm for active management of paths to allow people to get out and enjoy the 
Park. It is apparent that most of the potential core paths network is already in place. 
The most important thing that implementation of the Core Paths Plan can deliver is 
improved information and promotion of paths, removal of barriers to enable a wider 
range of users and abilities to access them and overall management of the path 
network in a coordinated way. There is also a good fit between the approved 
National Park Plan and the aspirations of those people who fed in their views 
through the consultation. 


Sandra Middleton 
December 2006 



Annex 3 - Methodology for selecting the core paths network 

Stage 1 - Assessing individual paths 

1. 
During the public engagement process the majority of people identified paths near to 
where they live as the ones that are the most important to them. Guidance on the 
Core Paths Plan expects that many core paths will be located close to where people 
live. 

2. 
All core paths will be signposted at key access points in order to encourage the use of 
the paths and create confidence in their use. Policy 10 of the draft Outdoor Access 
Strategy2 supports a, “presumption against way-marking in wild, remote or other 
sensitive areas, especially in mountainous terrain, where people are expected to be 
self-reliant.” Assessing paths for their proximity to settlements will have a second 
benefit of identifying those paths which may not be suitable for promotion and sign-
posting for reasons such as safety. 

3. 
In line with the aims of the National Park, it is essential that designation of a core 
path will not have a significant negative impact on sites designated for their sensitive 
natural and cultural heritage. Core paths will have an important role in ensuring that 
people can easily experience the special qualities of the Park. 

4. 
Method - All paths (both existing and aspirational) identified through engagement 
with the public will be screened to identify those paths that lie outwith 4 kilometres 
of a settlement. These paths will then be identified for consideration in Stage 2. 
These paths will then be screened for those that lie within areas designated for their 
sensitive natural and cultural heritage, these paths will then be highlighted to help 
inform the second stage. 

Stage 2 – Selecting the Core Paths Network 

5. 
The legal requirement is that the core paths network should be the basic framework 
of routes which are, “sufficient for the purpose of giving the public reasonable access 
throughout their area.”3, the area being the National Park. The National Park is a 
large area to work with, with diverse communities with varying needs and 
aspirations and as such there is a requirement for a more local approach in different 
areas of the National Park. Core paths networks will be identified for each Outdoor 
Access Strategy Action Area to enable a more local approach. 

6. 
Method – The paths identified as being close to settlements in Stage 1 will be 
considered at Stage 2 for inclusion in the area networks. In some cases the public 
engagement process did not identify all of the paths which may be considered as 
essential for achieving a core paths network and as such, additional paths may also 
be considered where appropriate. The selection of candidate core paths networks 
within each Action Area will use a criteria based approach, the basis of the 


2 Cairngorms National Park Outdoor Access Strategy, CNPA, 2007. 
3 Part 1 Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 Section 17(1) 


application of said criteria will be a value judgement given by the Outdoor Access 
Team informed by the key issues and priorities as identified in the Outdoor Access 
Strategy and the information obtained during the public engagement process. 

7. 
The criteria have been developed to reflect the aim of the Core Paths Plan. The core 
paths network within each Action Area should reasonably satisfy each of the five 
following criteria and collectively be sufficient to give reasonable access throughout 
the area: 

a) 
Contribute to the positive management and stewardship of the sensitive 
natural and cultural heritage of the National Park and promote its 
understanding and enjoyment; 

b) 
Provide, or provide access to, a range of activities which will support 
stakeholder needs; 

c) Provide, or provide access to, paths for a range of abilities; 

d) Provide, or provide access to, links between communities; 

e) Provide links within communities and to key public transport connections 
and places of local importance. 


Stage 3 – Including existing promoted paths 

8. 
The selection of paths at Stage 2 will identify a basic framework of routes and these 
may include many of the existing promoted paths4 in the National Park. Whilst the 
public engagement process was as thorough and inclusive as it could be, it is 
recognised that it only provides a snap-shot of opinion over a short period of time 
from a relatively small audience. Consequently, some existing promoted network 
may not have been included. Paths that are already promoted have, by their very 
nature, been valued as important. Inclusion of the existing promoted paths in the 
core paths network provides a much clearer link with the relevant access related 
outcomes identified in the National Park Plan and provides an opportunity for the 
CNPA to realise the benefits of the Core Paths Planning process in it’s wider 
objectives. 

9. 
Method - Stage 3 will involve adding all remaining existing promoted paths8 which 
have not yet been identified through the selection process in Stage 2, into the 
candidate core paths network. 


Stage 4 -Assessing the Park-wide network and its affordability 

10. 
Two further tests need to be applied. The first is to consider the extent of the 
proposed network for the Action Areas and to determine whether or not, 
collectively, they meet the test of sufficiency for the whole of the National Park. At 
this stage any overlap between the identified core paths and any designated Long 
Distance Routes (LDR) should be removed. The Speyside Way is the only such route 
in the National Park. It is already designated under separate legislation and has an 
adequate management scheme and funding package in place, supported by a 
number of public bodies working together. Overlapping designation would add 


4 As defined in the Outdoor Access Audit, CNPA, 2005. 


little value. The LDR should of course be managed in close association with the core 
paths network. 

11. 
The guidance5 states that the core paths system needs to be achievable and 
sustainable, so the second test needs to take account of projected resources. The 
proposed network may require capital funding for the implementation, upgrade or 
repair of paths as well as funding for improved signage, way-marking and 
associated promotional information. Where a new path is to be considered an 
assessment will have to be made as to whether or not the path could reasonably be 
made available for its intended use as a core path within 2 years of the Plan being 
adopted. This assessment will include a judgement as to the potential costs 
involved. 

12. 
Dependent on available resources new paths will be prioritised for implementation 
dependent on where they add greatest value to the network and provide the greatest 
public benefit. If it becomes apparent that there is a need for a new path but that it 
cannot be put in place within a 2 year time frame then it may be developed as part of 
the wider path network and could be considered in a subsequent review of the Core 
Paths Plan. This is in line with current guidance. 


Sandra Middleton 
February 2007 

5 Part 1 Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, Guidance for Local Authorities and National Park 
Authorities Section 17(1) 



Annex 4 Summary of advantages and disadvantages of Options 1 and 2 

Option 1 

Key features: 

• a basic core paths network; 

• the minimum required to satisfy the legal requirements of the Land Reform 
(Scotland) Act 2003; 

• does not include all existing promoted paths; and 

• comprises largely existing paths but with some new build and upgrading of paths 
around communities with very poor provision at present. 


Advantages: 

• Lesser extent makes this network 
relatively cheaper 

Disadvantages: 

• Will create a two-tier system of 
promoted paths, some of which are 
core paths and others not. 

• Community aspirations less likely to be 
met. 

• Less likely to meet the standards 
expected of National Park 

• Less likely to contribute to NP Plan 
outcomes. 



Option 2 

Key features: 

• a more extensive core paths network; 

• comprises the network defined in Option 1 plus all low ground routes that are 
currently promoted through leaflets and signposting as defined in the Outdoor 
Access Audit; 

• largely existing paths but with some new build and upgrading of paths around 
communities with very poor provision at present. 


Advantages: 

• Builds on the history of paths that have 
been promoted in the past 

• Creates a unified system of paths that 
are promoted throughout the Park 
bringing benefits for overall 
management 

• More likely to meet NP standards 

• Community aspirations for paths more 
likely to be met 

• More likely to contribute to NP Plan 
outcomes 


Disadvantages: 

• Relatively more expensive