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 2 23/09/05 


CAIRNGORMS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY 

FOR DECISION 

Title: PROPOSED EXTENSION TO THE SPEYSIDE WAY 

Prepared by: Bob Grant, Senior Access Officer and 
Murray Ferguson, Head of Visitor Services and Recreation 


Purpose 

The purpose of this paper is to: 
• provide feedback to Board on the public consultation exercise undertaken on the 
proposed Speyside Way extension; and 

• to highlight the outstanding issues that remain to be resolved and seek agreement 
from the Board on how to take these forward. 


Recommendations 

That the Board: 
1. approves in principle the new recommended route; and 

2. delegates authority to officers to work through the Speyside Way Management 
Group and undertake such further negotiations as are required to enable a 
satisfactory route proposal to be presented to SNH. 


Executive Summary 

The Board agreed at the meeting of 8 October 2004 that a public consultation exercise be 
undertaken to explore the feasibility of a “preferred route” to extend the Speyside Way from 
Aviemore to Newtonmore: a distance of some 34 kilometres. The consultation exercise was 
completed at the end of March 2005 and there was a good level of participation. Analysis of 
results indicated the need to vary the preferred route in 4 sections. Since that time, some 
further negotiations with interested parties has taken place and a variation to the preferred 
route is proposed. There are however a small number of outstanding issues with the new 
proposals and the Board is asked to consider the issues and recommendations for each section 
where a variation is proposed and to consider whether they are content to give their in 
principle support to the extension. 


PROPOSED EXTENSION TO THE SPEYSIDE WAY 

For Decision 

Background 

1. The power to approve an extension to an existing Long Distance Route rests with 
Scottish Ministers and it is the duty of Scottish Natural Heritage to consult with 
planning authorities through whose area the route passes, prior to submitting the 
documents to Scottish Ministers. To assist Scottish Natural Heritage with this 
process, CNPA agreed to lead the Speyside Way Management Group on much of the 
route feasibility work. 

2. The original desire, when CNPA took on the route development work, was to have a 
preferred line agreed with all concerned before asking SNH to seek approval from 
Scottish Ministers. Unfortunately, due to a number of on-going discussions, detailed 
in paragraphs 7 to 12, this has not yet proved possible. Sufficient clarity has however 
emerged through the consultation exercise and in post consultation negotiations to 
suggest that a final solution is close to hand. It is therefore proposed to seek Board 
support in principle to this line subject to a satisfactory conclusion to the detailed 
negotiations with the relevant landowners. Colleagues within the Speyside Way 
Management Group will continue in their active collaboration to resolve these 
outstanding issues. 

3. There has been significant public interest in extending the current southern terminus 
of the Speyside Way from Aviemore to Newtonmore. To bring this aspiration to 
reality, the Board agreed1 to a joint approach with other agencies which resulted in a 
temporary Development Officer being appointed to explore the feasibility of such a 
route. The Development Officer’s report was subject of a further Board2 paper which 
indicated that a full public consultation exercise should be undertaken on a “preferred 
route.” The line was selected by the Speyside Way Management Group having 
regard to the Development Officer’s report. 

4. The public consultation exercise took place between 13th December 2004 and 25th 
March 2005 and a summary of the feedback received is shown in Annex 1 to this 
paper. A total of 56 responses were received and these are also detailed in Annex 1 
and included land managers, individuals, community councils and associations, public 
bodies and tenants. 


Issues raised during the public consultation 

5. The consultation posed three questions: 
• Are you in favour of extending the Speyside Way? 

• Are you in favour of the rationale used to evaluate the route options? 

• Do you support the line of the preferred route? 


1 CNPA Board November 2003 
2 CNPA Board October 2004 

6. There was overwhelming support for the principle of an extension with thirty-four 
positive responses and no negatives. Thirty respondents did not comment on the 
rationale although eight commended the approach taken. There were, however, 
sixteen who questioned the scores given. Half of the respondents questioned elements 
of the preferred route. The consultation has therefore been very effective in 
identifying issues with the preferred route and providing suggestions for alternatives. 
The Speyside Way Management Group have therefore re-appraised the preferred 
route in light of these comments and have been exploring alternatives with land 
managers. Comments on the rationale were incorporated into the evaluation of the 
alternative options to the preferred route. A brief commentary on each of the sections 
consulted upon is shown overleaf together with an update on the changes to the 
preferred route with progress towards a satisfactory conclusion. To assist 
understanding of the proposed changes to the ‘preferred route’ a map is attached at 
Annex 2. This illustrates the new recommended route as a black and white dotted line 
and sections that were previously the preferred route but now no longer thought 
appropriate marked as a red dotted line. The total length of changes to the preferred 
route amount to some 9.8 kms which equates to approximately one third of the 
proposed extension. 

7. Aviemore to Dalraddy – section 1 (8.4 kms) – change proposed. There was 
considerable opposition to the favoured line which crossed the A9, passing Lynwilg 
House, following the Allt na Criche to Alltnacriche before contouring along the 
hillside passing Ballinluig farm before descending to Dalraddy. Specific concerns 
focussed on the steepness of the slope on ascent, the question of privacy for two 
residential properties and the possible impact on a commercial shoot. This route 
would also have been costly to build due to the number of burns required to be 
bridged. Other options considered also raised issues of privacy and potential impact 
on protected wildlife. One option that was not considered during the consultation but 
was suggested at a later date was a route on the south side of the A9 but on the north 
bank of Loch Alvie. This proposal would address the concerns in relation to privacy 
and potential impact on commercial activities. As the estate in question (Kinrara) has 
recently changed hands, CNPA has yet to discuss the feasibility of this route with the 
new owners although the proposed route has been communicated to them recently. 

8. Dalraddy to Kincraig – section 2 (4 kms) – no change. There were few comments 
received on this section of the route and no opposition. 

9. Kincraig to Feshiebridge – section 3 (2.4 kms) – change proposed. Both privacy 
and land management concerns were raised during the consultation and a number of 
respondents suggested an alternative that avoids these difficulties. The new proposal 
will avoid Invereshie Farm and Feshiebridge by taking a line from the end of the 
Kincraig shinty pitch through to Balnespick farm. A full discussion on the new line 
has yet to take place with the relevant land owners. 

10. Feshiebridge to Tromie Bridge – section 4 (10.7 kms) – change proposed. Three 
main issues were raised during the consultation. The first was with regard to Uath 
Lochans and the desire to retain it as a little known resource that should be 
“discovered” rather than promoted through being included in a long distance route. 
The second concerned privacy and the likely loss of amenity value to residents at 
Inveruglas. The third suggested that the route was straying too far from the Spey and 
should use the existing Badenoch Way. Each of these points have been reviewed and 
are commented on. The Uath Lochans are promoted within Forestry Commission 
Scotland’s land holdings. There is a car park and picnic area and therefore the 
argument of excluding the route from this area so that it can be “discovered” does not 
appear to reflect the current management of the location. Management issues have 
been discussed with the Forest District Manager and it was concluded that the 
preferred route should stand. The section of path that will pass the Inveruglas 
residents is a claimed Right of Way and has been on the existing Badenoch Way for 
some time. There is therefore already managed access along the route at this location. 
Finally, the route does depart from the Spey at a number of sites for both practical and 
amenity reasons. The proposed line will still be relatively close to the Spey and will 
offer an attractive change of scene by taking in the Uath Lochans. 

11. Tromie Bridge to Ruthven – section 5 (3.3 kms) – change proposed. Issues raised 
in relation to livestock management are currently being discussed with the farmer. 
The fall back position would be to use the B970 for one kilometre to avoid the fields 
in question as they are used for rearing young bulls. One advantage of this might be 
that the route passes the popular Ruthven Barracks. 

12. Ruthven to Newtonmore – section 6 (5.8 kms) – no change. Whilst there was some 
support for the use of the Sustrans route, a number of correspondents were against it 
on the grounds that it did not provide a pleasant recreational experience because it 
was both adjacent to the road and tarred. The most popular alternative was to take a 
line adjacent to Kingussie golf course following the Gynack Burn and passing Loch 
Gynack before descending into Newtonmore at Strone which would link into the 
existing wildcat trail. There is much merit with this alternative proposal but there are 
concerns from both existing owners about impacts on commercial activity and from 
the golf course. The Loch Gynack option would also take the route a considerable 
distance from the Spey and the character would be significantly different from the 
remainder of the route. In addition, the cost of developing a route across this ground 
to the required standard would be high. The advantage of the Sustrans route is that it 
currently exists thus reducing the cost of development and the timescale within which 
the route could come to fruition. It may however be possible to develop the 
alternative Loch Gynack route over time. 


Policy Context 

13. Long Distance Routes help promote understanding and enjoyment of the natural and 
cultural heritage of the area. By undertaking long walks or rides, users experience the 
special qualities of the Park at a pace that encourages a better understanding than 
those whose trips are more transitory. Long Distance Route users also contribute to 
the economy of the area through demand for overnight accommodation, eating places, 
pubs and other linked facilities adjacent to the route. Long Distance Routes are also 
used extensively for short walks and provide valuable links to other path networks. 
There are further economic benefits for the local area arising from maintenance work. 
There are also considerable health benefits from such journeys. 


Delivering Sustainability 

14. A well managed Long Distance Route will provide a managed access facility that 
contributes to sustainable transport, economic benefits and improve health to both the 
local communities and all those who will travel along its length. 


Delivering A Park for All 

15. Contributing to the development and maintenance of the Speyside Way and possible 
extension is an action identified within the current Corporate Plan. The longer term 
aspiration for the route is to make it more accessible with barriers being removed 
wherever possible and to move towards full multi-use. 


Delivering Economy, Effectiveness and Efficiency 

16. The proposed extension, once endorsed by Scottish Ministers, will be administered 
through the Speyside Way Management Group. This mechanism allows for the 
pooling of resources, savings through economies of scale and day to day management 
through a dedicated team. 


Financial Implications 

17. Recent Long Distance Route Development has been a collaborative effort involving 
all bodies who will have a role in the future management of the route. It is proposed 
that, should the route be approved by Scottish Ministers a similar approach would be 
adopted in this case. As well as the capital investment from bodies on the Speyside 
Way Management Group, external funding will be sought from other sources such as 
the Community Environmental Renewal Scheme (Aggregates Levy). Whilst the 
capital costs of any such development would fall on the Speyside Way Management 
Group, the on-going maintenance, once the route is in place, will fall on CNPA. 
Funding of the on-going management of the route will continue to be administered by 
Moray Council through the Speyside Way Management Group. The costs of 
managing the route are shared on a pro rata basis by the 3 managing authorities: 
CNPA, Moray Council and The Highland Council. As the proposed section will fall 
exclusively within the CNPA boundary, the additional cost will fall exclusively on 
CNPA. A full assessment of the additional staffing and maintenance funding required 
to ensure the route meets the nationally agreed standard for long distance routes has 
yet to be undertaken. This will only be possible once the route has been finalised and 
the costs of any new path agreements known. However, an indication of the likely 
costs would be in the order of £130,000 for one-off capital works which would be 
shared from the sources indicated above. The additional annual contribution towards 
management and maintenance is expected to be in the range of £58,000. This would 
mean an overall annual contribution towards the route’s management and 
maintenance of £115,000. 


Presentational Implications 

18. There has been a considerable amount of public interest in the extension of the 
Speyside Way. Whilst the proposals contained in this paper will meet the aspirations 
of many of the individuals and organisations that commented, a number will be 
disappointed that their favoured line has not been recommended. CNPA and other 
members of the Speyside Way Management Group may receive further 
representations from those who are not satisfied with the reasoning and 
recommendations contained in this paper. 


Next Steps 

19. If the Board agree the new preferred line, subject to satisfactory conclusion of the 
outstanding issues identified in this paper, then CNPA staff will ask the Speyside 
Way Management Group to take these proposals to SNH with a view to SNH seeking 
approval from Scottish Ministers for the extension. Approval for the detailed spend 
on capital and management will be sought from the Board at the appropriate time. 

Bob Grant 
Murray Ferguson 
September 2005 

bobgrant@cairngorms.co.uk 
murrayferguson@cairngorms.co.uk