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 – Spey Users Group 
Date: Monday 18th June 
Time: 7:30pm 
Venue: Ben Mhor Hotel 
Location: Grantown-on-Spey 
No. Attending: 28 


Introduction 

This is a summary report of the main issues raised in a discussion forum at a special 
meeting of the Spey Users Group. The meeting considered the implications of the 
current proposal in the consultation document that approximately 88 kilometres (55 
miles) of the main stem of the River Spey (from Spey Dam to the boundary of the 
National Park) be designated as a core path. 

The meeting was chaired by Murray Ferguson, Head of Visitor Services and 
Recreation who introduced a number of people present from the Local Outdoor 
Access Forum, the Spey District Salmon Fisheries Board, Scottish Canoe Association, 
Paths for All Partnership, Scottish Natural Heritage, the Highland Council, the Moray 
Council and the Board of Cairngorms National Park Authority. The meeting 
commenced with two introductory presentations from Bob Grant, Senior Outdoor 
Access Officer and Sandra Middleton, Outdoor Access Officer. There was then a 
period of general discussion around topics suggested by the participants as 
summarised below. In response to a question it was clarified that the main topic of 
discussion for the evening was to discuss that part of the River Spey that falls within 
the Cairngorms National Park. However, it was suggested that participants should 
feel free to raise more general issues about the Spey and these would be noted by 
the representatives of the other two local authorities that were present. 


Summary of discussion 

Controlling use of the River 

• There was some concern that core paths status could increase the level of use 
of the river for paddle-sports and as such there may be damage to spawning 
salmon. It was suggested that this could be controlled by having an ‘open’ and 
‘closed’ season for paddle-sports, similar to that observed by anglers. However, 
it was noted that it would be difficult /impossible to reconcile the type of control 
proposed with the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 or the Right of Navigation 
that was established. 

• The issue of carrying capacity was highlighted with the view that, at some stage, 
a decision has to be made about how many paddlers the river can sustain. 

• It was suggested that core path status could provide an opportunity to better 
manage (rather than control) people on the river. This could be done by 
improving signage and information boards at popular access and egress points, 
at fishing huts and at particularly sensitive sections of the river, increasing user 
awareness of their rights and responsibilities. 

• It was noted that there had been concerns of a ‘flood’ of increased use of the 
river for paddle-sports when the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 came in to 
effect. It was stated, however, that this had not been the case. As such, some 
participants felt that it is unlikely that core path status would increase the usage 
and therefore there is no requirement to control it. One participant considered 
that concerns from anglers may relate more to the appearance of paddlers on 
the river rather than to the disturbance to fish. 


Avoiding Ecological Damage 

• There were significant concerns that core path designation would lead to 
increased usage and therefore irrevocable ecological damage to the river. 
There was some demand for a full Environmental Impact Assessment to be 
carried out prior to any designation, and support for using the ‘Precautionary 
Principle’. It was suggested that impacts from increased use may not be 
immediately discernible and it may be that when impacts can be detected it 
may already be too late to take remedial action. A system of benchmarking 
should be put in place to allow changes to be monitored. 

• Representatives from Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) advised that they will 
respond on the consultation shortly and that their response can be made 
available to those wishing to see it. SNH noted that there has been a high level 
of use of the Spey for centuries and even so the current status of the Natural 
Heritage is of a good enough quality that it has been designated as a Site of 
Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and a Special Area of Conservation (SAC). SNH 
representatives noted that they are supportive of the core paths planning 
process but that they must balance this with their duty to ensure that it does not 
result in adverse impacts to the natural environment. 

• It was stated that evidence from existing ecological studies had not shown a 
negative impact on the fish resource from paddlers. 

• It was noted that through experience of studying and surveying recreational 
impacts at Loch Leven, it can be difficult to study something that is not 
changing, particularly when levels of recreation are unpredictable making it 
difficult to prove cause and effect. It may be that core path designation will 
help people to act more responsibly. An approach that allows access to take 
place while monitoring the condition of the resource should allow changes to 
management to take place in the future, if need be. 

• Impacts on other (non designated species) should also be considered and 
should not be underestimated. 


Public Safety/Liability 

• There was concern that designation of the River Spey as a core path could lead 
to a public expectation of the river as a safe place to recreate. It was also 
observed that the river is a changing and challenging environment and that 
obstacles in the river can shift in times of spate. A number of deaths and serious 
accidents have occurred. 

• The issue of land manager liability was raised and the Occupiers Liability 
(Scotland) Act 1960 was cited whereby people partaking in such activities as 
canoeing or kayaking do so by taking a ‘willingly accepted risk’. As such, liability 
for the risks involved with that activity do not generally fall on the land 
owner/occupier but on the participants themselves. It was noted that the 
Scottish Outdoor Access Code was helpful in this regard as one of the three key 
principles on which it is based is to take responsibility for your own actions – this 
applies equally to land mangers and to recreational users. 

• The view was expressed that the proposed designation of the River Spey will not 
increase the number of paddlers on it and that commercial operators in 
particular are very safe in their operations. It was stated that all Scottish Canoe 
Association members and commercial operators also have 3rd Party liability 
insurance. 

• It was noted that whilst there are particularly dangerous rapids on the River Tay, 
this is not the case on the Spey which is popular for full descents and offers 
opportunities for a wide range of paddling abilities. However, it was agreed that 
good information did need to be provided. SCA had already taken steps to put 
this in place but more could be done. 


Economics 

• The findings of the Spey Catchment Management Plan 2003 were quoted, 
noting that participants in angling on the Spey spend an estimated £11.8m p/a 
as well as providing 367 full-time jobs. It was also noted, however, that 
watersports on the River Spey also provide income (£1.7 m p/a) and jobs (48) for 
the local economy and whilst the figures involved are not as high as that for 
angling they are still significant. 

• It was noted that the owners have responsibility for the management of the river 
and pay accordingly but that paddlers, and particularly the paddling 
businesses, put no money into the direct management of the river. As a 
consequence improved access and egress points should be funded directly by 
paddlers. 


Different Types of Recreational Use 

• Some concern was raised over the use of the River for rafting due to the large 
number of people involved and the potential disturbance and damage to the 
River of participants jumping in to the River to make their trip ‘more exciting’. 
Expectations of users needs to be managed and all users needed to behave 
with respect for other users. 


Consultation Process 

• There was some concern that land owners had not been consulted prior to the 
Interim Draft Core Paths Plan being published. 

• It was clarified that CNPA had organised two workshops in 2006 specifically to 
engage land managers in the core paths planning process. As part of the first 
phase of consultation all interested parties had been invited to contribute 
before any core paths had been proposed. In addition, all land managers 
identified as having a core path proposed on their land had been sent a copy 
of the Plan two weeks prior to the Plan being made public. It was also noted 
that it was important to allow all interested parties to engage on the proposals 
on an equitable basis. This is the very first draft of the Plan and that it is very 
much open to debate and change. There will be several further rounds of 
consultation and the possibility of a public inquiry at a later stage. CNPA is of the 
view that, at the present time, the debate can best take place by making 
proposals and enabling different interest groups to have their say in an open 
and constructive way. 


Other Access Authorities 

• It was noted that access authorities across Scotland are approaching core 
paths planning in different ways making it difficult for bodies such as the Scottish 
Canoe Association to respond, particularly in cases such as the Spey where the 
River spans ground covered by three separate access authorities. 

• There was concern that the CNPA are proposing to designate the River Spey as 
a Core Path and that the Moray Council is not. A representative from the Moray 
Council advised that they are still undecided as to whether or not they will 
propose the River Spey as a core path and noted that their consultation will be 
launched on the 5th of September this year at Glenfiddich providing an 
opportunity for people to respond to them on this and other issues. The 
representative also advised that the Moray Council will be strongly guided by 
the Moray Local Outdoor Access Forum on this issue. 

• A representative from the Highland Council advised the group that 7 Kilometres 
of the River Spey falls within the Highland Council remit for core paths planning 
and, as such, they will be interested to hear the points raised as result of the 
CNPA proposals, as well as the issues raised through their own consultation 
process, to determine whether or not the Spey should be designated as a core 
path. 


Benefits to Anglers & Paddlers 

• It was noted that the main benefit of designating the River Spey as a core path 
would be to make it a priority for action and funding for the CNPA to provide 
better visitor facilities, information and signage at popular access and egress 
points on the River. This could help to manage paddlers away from sensitive 
sites along the length of the River and also ensure that users are provided with 
on-site information about their rights and responsibilities when using the River. 

• It was noted that the case for investment in facilities could be made even if the 
river was not designated and it seemed that the disadvantages of designation 
was considerable to achieve this one small set of benefits. 

• The need for more water in the River was raised and was of interest to both 
anglers and paddlers. It a may be possible to address this through the Water 
Framework Directive. It was noted that most of the issues arising are bank based. 


Next Steps 

In conclusion, Dick Balharry spoke on behalf of the Local Outdoor Access Forum 
and Duncan Bryden on behalf of the CNPA Board. Both noted that it had been 
very useful to hear the debate at first hand and looked forward to considering the 
matter further in due course. 

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. The Cairngorms 
Local Outdoor Access Forum (LOAF) will take a lead role in providing advice to the 
CNPA on the Plan and will be meeting in August and again in November to do so. 
The LOAF has membership reflecting the interests of land managers (5), 
recreational users (5), local communities (7) and public agencies (4). A revised 
version will be considered by the CNPA Board in December 2007, along with a 
Strategic Environmental Assessment and an appropriate assessment for Natura 
purposes. The Plan will then be submitted to Scottish Ministers in February 2008. The 
timescale beyond that depends on the Scottish Executive but it is not likely that the 
final Plan could be adopted before early 2009. 

Cairngorms National Park Authority 
June 2007 

sandramiddleton@cairngorms.co.uk