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 – Kingussie Date: Friday 11th May 2007 Time: 7:30pm Venue: Talla Nan Ros Location: Kingussie No. Attending: 10 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 During the meeting the following issues were raised and are summarised: • Path Management Several issues were raised regarding the practical management of core paths. The vast majority of core paths will already be on the ground and managed and maintained by either community groups, land management contracts or by the land manager because of site access needs. Core Path designation does not change a land managers responsibility. Case law to date indicates that land managers have duty of care for all people who are likely to be on their land, whether they are on paths or not. Generally they are only expected to draw visitors’ attention (e.g. though signs) to hazards that are not obvious (e.g. hidden mine shafts). Potential hazards such as steep banks or cliffs are obvious to the user and the Scottish Outdoor Access Code makes it very clear that users have to be responsible for their own safety. By creating promoted and well signed routes Core Paths should help land managers by developing paths that will be used by most people. • Developing the Interim Draft Core Path Plan The initial stage of consultation sought to identify as many paths as possible. , There was a concern that some of these may have been lost in the analysis and application of the criteria. The Core Paths form part of that wider network, the part that allows people to get around the countryside for daily life and allows access to that wider network. • The CNPA’s role Questions were raised who would take the lead in dealing with some of the associated problems with public access and that it was confusing where the CNPA’s role ended and the Highland Council’s began. For example, litter collection remains the responsibility of Local Authorities within the National Park. Littering is clearly irresponsible and the main focus of our work will be encouraging people to take access responsibly. When it comes to bridges and other facilities the CNPA was not established to directly own land and facilities and we are not best placed to own and maintain bridges, etc. However, the Park Authority will work positively with land managers and community-based organisations to help fund bridge repairs on the basis of the policy set out in the Outdoor Access Strategy. . Is the proposed core paths network sufficient to give you reasonable access throughout the area? (Not available in full text format) In conclusion all those who attended were satisfied with the extent of the network provided. 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 16th 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 to have interesting places to walk where one knows that one will not be causing offence or problems for landowners/managers • It looks a worthwhile exercise and being pursued sensibly • The network allows freedom of access to be exercised whilst still allowing land mangers to steer the public to preferred routes What’s bad about it? • Finding information and good maps with all paths marked clearly • Still a long way to go –but we are moving in the right direction How could it be improved? • Add 2take your litter home” reminders to waymarkers • I agree with the above statement “education” is always good if enacted sympathetically Map comments Kingussie Map • (Proposed/identified on map) Glentromie tramp • (Proposed on map) Important ink to existing paths through acres filed (zoned for housing to Tom Baraidh woods • Through route to Alt Laridh has been proposed as a development/addition linked to wildcat Trail – new landowner • LBS82 Summer route only floods, bridge needed, conservation issues, nesting birds, HF museum have concerns? Well used by dog walkers lately by motorcyclists Dulnain Bridge Map • LBS94 from Mid Curr at edge Curr does it exist now? • LBS94 dotted line cutting Curr S to N crosses prime Capercaillie territory –need to consult Kenny Kortland – path does not exist now. • (Asterisk next to LBS94 very wet area • (Double asterisk next to LBS94) as part of woodland management currently fenced and has animals in it. • Whole woodland research on twin flower and insects proposed paths passed some good sites Lower Badenoch and Strathspey Map • Glen Tromie has a private tarmac road – suitable for all abilities access if you can get past the rough section near Tromie Bridge • Glen Feshie has suitable routes without going miles into the mountains • Sustrans Route 7 to Laggan Area A889? • Laggan Balgowan proposal should extend to Cluny • New route Catlodge to A889 Trunk Road junction • (Proposed/identified on map) Loop of Badenoch Way • For site visit on Curr Wood contact Ern Emmet • Path from Broomhill to Heather Centre is old A9 but dies short of Heather Centre and is v.v. wet impassable at western end • Lady’s Walk path does exist in Curr Wood but is rarely used to Broomhill & is v. wet at Curr Woods N.W. Boundary. Participants were asked to evaluate the event, the results are as follows: % of Participants Responding Location Very Useful 100% Useful 0% Not Useful 0% Waste of Time 0% Venue Very Useful 100% Useful 0% Not Useful 0% Waste of Time 0% Timing Very Useful 70% Useful 30% Not Useful 0% Waste of Time 0% Presentations Very Useful 100% Useful 0% Not Useful 0% Waste of Time 0% Information Available Very Useful 70% Useful 30% Not Useful 0% Waste of Time 0% Opportunity to speak to staff Very Useful 100% Useful 0% Not Useful 0% Waste of Time 0%