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 Core Paths Plan Consultation and Engagement Process – Stage 2 Public Consultation Meeting – Aviemore Date: Wednesday 16th May Time: 7:30pm Venue: Cairngorm Hotel Location: Aviemore No. Attending: 19 Public Introduction This report details the feedback obtained at a public meeting where people were asked to give their views on the Interim Draft Core Paths Plan. Summary • Making it happen on the ground There was concern expressed that if it takes three years to consult on the plan how long will it take to implement it. Current national guidance adopted by the CNPA recommends that if new paths are proposed then they should be deliverable within two years of the plan being adopted. • How will core paths make a difference Two questions were raised about how core paths will add value to the new access right, and what about other paths. The Core Path Network will be welcoming and be well promoted so it is the network that people will use around communities to access the wider network and to exercise their access right responsibly. • Different users on the network Two questions were raised relating to shared use of the network. Will paths have to be built alongside each other to cater for different users and will there be a path grading system introduced to better inform the public on what to expect. The same access right applies to the core path network as to the wider network, but opportunities do exist to promote certain paths for certain users. With regards to grading it is such a complex and ultimately unsatisfactory method that providing clear descriptions of what to expect will work better. • River Spey as a core path A question was raised about the intention of the Spey as a core path and whether it has met with many objections to date. The consultation is still on and we would welcome comment from all interested parties who may wish to comment. • Speyside Way Concern was expressed about the path surface on the Speyside Way which had recently been dug up near Aviemore Is the proposed core paths network sufficient to give you reasonable access throughout the area? (Not available in full text format) To summarise most people were happy with the need for core paths but clearly thought that Aviemore needed work to improve the existing network and expand it. Next Steps The comments and issues raised at this meeting will inform revisions to the Interim Draft Core Paths Plan as part of the wider consultation process. A revised version will be considered by the CNPA Board in December 2007 and the revised Plan will then be submitted to Scottish Ministers in February 2008. Cairngorms National Park Authority 18th May 2007 adamstreetersmith@cairngorms.co.uk Annex 1 Comments made on maps and diagrams are shown below and have been recorded exactly as written by participants: H Diagram Is the proposed core paths network sufficient to give you reasonable access throughout the area? What’s good about it? • Good range of paths • Rothiemurchus –appears more than adequate • Rothiemurchus- more than adequate • Hopefully encourage more people to get out and be active –signposted paths will help a lot What’s bad about it? • Confusing map order How could it be improved? • Roads should be included to “join” up sections of the network • Map numbers on maps too big graphically and obscures detail underneath. Make smaller • Have a colour code for other paths to see how they link into core paths. Important to see how the whole network works. (agreed by one other) • All these meetings and all the planning over the years will be fine, providing that eventually a core path network actually results. (agreed by one other) Map comments Kingcraig Map • LBS1- Will you put the way marker at the path bend in the middle of Loch Insh? • LBS1- How do you travel both ways? This discriminates against south bound traffic. River Spey is not a path for all travellers Aviemore Map • There should be a link between High Burnside and the nature reserve • Orbital Path high time this existed Cromdale Map • LBS3- Poor signage at River Spey • LBS3- (new path drawn) future alternative? –not for current plan Upper Deeside • Braemar- Links into network from youth hostel into woods behind Lower Badenoch and Strathspey • GR7- Should a core path go to summit of Meall a Bhuachaile? • Glenmore to forest lodge should be a considered for core path • Loch an Eilan to Feshiebridge should be considered for core path • Glen Feshie to Drumguish • For clarity maybe road links that are missing should be highlighted • Orbital path required to circumnavigate Spey Valley Golf Course • There should not be a fence surrounding the golf course at Dalfaber it prohibits walking to woods Boat of Garten and dog walkers • River Spey is an essential route for water travel. (kayak, canoe etc). It is world class, a recreational asset and essential for local activity travel • Can Speyside Way be closer to Spey nr LBS1 to LBS30 along river not through village • LBS30 – between old railway bridge and sewage works poor condition dangerous • LBS30- Line of Aviemore Orbital between old sewage works check before alignment • Fence (Aviemore Mt resort) removal- to re-establish access form road next to Tescos and through AMR- Craigallachie. Also gives access for children to get to Scout hut • Due to the deep drainage at the development at Edenlaithe the group of tall Aspen trees where keepers cottage stood are as good as dead so are Birch trees • LBS30 Burnside- LBS39 Craigallachie . Link on west side of A9 makes good sense and would really compliment the feel of the Orbital footpath. (I do not like the idea of path going from horse field and through AMR as part of orbital route as marked) • Do the CP routes in and around Aviemore protect re development of housing areas. • A link from Aviemore to Kincraig is needed • Glen Feshie to Drumguish Participants were asked to evaluate the event, the results are as follows: % of Participants Responding Location Very Useful 80% Useful 20% Not Useful 0% Waste of Time 0% Venue Very Useful 80% Useful 20% Not Useful 0% Waste of Time 0% Timing Very Useful 50% Useful 50% Not Useful 0% Waste of Time 0% Presentations Very Useful 60% Useful 20% Not Useful 0% Waste of Time 20% Information Available Very Useful 70% Useful 40% Not Useful 0% Waste of Time 10% Opportunity to speak to staff Very Useful 90% Useful 0% Not Useful 0% Waste of Time 10%