Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Page 1 of 17
Core Path Report for C458 Dalriada No 9 Lock, Crinan Canal-Dunamuck
1. Proposed Core Path
Page 2 of 17
2. Summary of Representations Received Representation Respondent
Name Organisation/ Group
Objection Summery
Respondents proposed action
Respondent Ref No.
Objection withdrawn
Objection Mr John Little
UPM Tilhill, on behalf of Kilmichael
Health & Safety / Maintenance / Business
Delete P018/9
Support Frieda Bos P166 Support Will Self E076
3. History of Access i. Right of Way Status: None
ii. Recorded Access Issues: None
4. Site Visit
This path has a finger post at either end, A gate with signage. The sign indicates This is the finger post at the canal end of the paths various surface types The route.
Section of path where flag stones have Section of path that is on a forest road, it is been used this part of the route that is being objected to
Page 3 of 17
The path leaves the forest road after Close up of finger post About 160 metres.
One of the many sections of boardwalk Trod earth, this section is also quite narrow Used on the path
A further example of a trod section of Some parts of the path can be over This path uneven ground
Flagstone have been used for the section The finger post at the Dunamuck end of the of the path that links in with C454 path
Page 4 of 17
5. Alternative Route/s None Identified
6. Consultation with Objectors & Other Interested Parties The proposed Core Path uses a section of the existing forest road which is critical to the primary use of the forest as a timber resource. The land owner objects to core path status being placed on the road as it could impact on their ability to divert access off the road for health and safety reasons during operational work and because the Local Authority could insist that the route is reinstated to original condition after normal operational use, placing an additional operational and financial burden on the forest owner.
7. Access Officer’s Initial Comments This path was created as part of the Dalriada Project (a Heritage Lottery Funded Landscape Partnership Scheme) and was created in partnership with Scottish Natural Heritage, the Forestry Commission, British Waterways, Kilmartin House Museum and the community. This path is promoted via the Heart of Argyll web page: http://www.heartofargyll.com/ and through the Dalriada Project’s “Kilmartin Glen” leaflet copied in Appendix IV. The line of the path was chosen following negotiations with the land owner with whom the Council has a signed Access Agreement. The landowner has now objected to the proposal to designate the route as a Core Path. The Dalriada Project has funding for the Council to maintain the network of paths for a ten year period from 2011.
The section of this proposal that is on forest road is approximately 160 metres in length; the total length of the route is over 3 kilometres. The section of forest road affected by this proposal is highlighted in the black circle in the map below; the red line is the core path.
Page 5 of 17
Land Management Operations- such as Tree Felling - The Scottish Outdoor Access Code states “Land Managers need to conduct their work as safely and effectively as possible. Hindering such work can cost them time and money, and can be potentially hazardous to your safety and to the safety of those working the land………Most situations will be adequately dealt with by recommendations and advice.” It further advises that they key points to remember if you come across a land management operation are: Keep a safe distance and take heed of reasonable advice provided by the land manager and follow any precautions provided for your safety.
Closure of Core Paths - As of November 2011 The Scottish Government and the National Access Forum have acknowledged that there is a deficiency in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 which means that there is no clear legal mechanism which would allow the use of a Core Path to be restricted or if necessary closed for any reason including on the grounds of health and safety obligations., however it is difficult to envisage that someone would progress on a core path when advised against doing so because of health and safety concerns. It is also possible that anyone disregarding such advice would forfeit their access rights.
Argyll & Bute Council has made a submission to a Scottish Government consultation on changes to Section 11 of the Land Reform Scotland Act proposing that Access Authorities be given the power to allow land managers to close Core Paths. Permission would only be given on the grounds of ensuring the safety of the public and the land manager to allow hazardous operations such as tree felling and spraying. The outcome of this consultation and other work by the National Access Forum is awaited with interest.
Maintenance – There is generally no requirement on the Access Authority to maintain a Core Path although the designation of a Core Path may in future make it easier for a land manager or community group to attract grants to improve a path. In this instance the Council has an Access Agreement with the land owner which requires the Council to maintain the path. There is no standard of path provision for a Core Path which merely has to be passable for the users. Therefore a forest manager would not have to repair the path to a high standard following felling. Generally the Forest manager will reinstate a forest road within a few months to allow access to replant. I do not envisage a significant additional cost or need to change existing management practices.
Support from a Business – One supporter for this path is the owner of a commercial business which promotes walking holidays across Argyll & Bute to an international clientele. Commercial guides have the same access rights as any private individual and although it may appear that because there is a commercial interest this objection should be discarded this is not true. The provision of a good Core Paths network will in future underpin much of the tourism in the area and in turn the economy of many rural communities.
Conclusion
The Council are currently responsible for maintaining this path which is already being promoted and has general advisory signage in place; further temporary signage can be produced if required. It is recommended that the route C458 should continue to be proposed as a Core Path in the Core Paths Plan.
Page 6 of 17
8. Advice received from the Access Forum
Argyll and Bute Council Core Path Plan Finalised Draft 2012
Minute of Discussions by the Access Forum Path Number: C458
Path Name: Dalriada No9 Lock Crinan Canal-Dunamuck Forum Members Present John Urquhart (Chair) John Cameron Little Neil Duncan Mike McManus Blair Fletcher
Dave Tomlinson Duncan McDonald Tim Lister Malcolm Holder
Declarations of Interest John Cameron Little
Members Familiar with the Location John Cameron Little John Urquhart Blair Fletcher
Dave Tomlinson Duncan McDonald Tim Lister
Discussions Future management restrictions Future funding Level of use
Monitor usage Already promoted route
Access Forum Advice to Argyll and Bute Council
Support Officer’s Recommendation (in Section 7) Object to Officer’s Recommendation (in Section 7) Mixed opinion amongst Access Forum members (record all views below)
Majority View Majority feel route should be a core path Minority View John Little could not support the designation of this route as a core path
Page 7 of 17
9. Access Officer’s Final Recommendations This path has support from the Forestry Commission who have noted that they are working with the National Access Forum to produce guidance on the closure of Core Paths to allow forest management operations.
Recommend designating this path which has been developed by the Dalriada Landscape Partnership Project using lottery and other public funding. There is an access agreement with the land owners, including the owner represented by Tillhill and the path is promoted and maintained by the partnership. Where issues of safety or land management have been brought to our attention we have provided signage to help with managing them.
Page 8 of 17
10. Appendices
Appendix I. Copies of the representations received during the formal consultation
Page 9 of 17
Page 10 of 17
Appendix II. Copies of relevant correspondence None
Page 11 of 17
Appendix III. Copies of responses additional consultations
Page 12 of 17
Page 13 of 17
From: House, Syd [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 03 July 2012 14:27 To: Gritten, Jolyon Cc: Jamieson, Elaine; Roland Stiven Subject: FW: Timber Transport and Public Access Dear Jolyon, Thanks for your email of 19 June re the above. It is unfortunate that the issue of timber transport and public access has become polarised in Argyll & Bute to an extent that I have not experienced elsewhere. By its very nature, Argyll & Bute is a rural area where, broadly speaking, most residents and visitors have had a long history of access to the countryside albeit following traditional permissive approaches. Forests and woodlands, in particular, have played a significant role in that (for example, the first Forest Park in GB, where access was actively promoted, was the Argyll Forest Park set up in 1935). The designation of Core Paths 'to give the public reasonable access throughout the area' might be construed by some to be less necessary in a region such as Argyll than in other, more heavily populated localities. Be that as it may, FCS is a supporter of the Scottish Outdoor Access Code and the designation of core paths. What we are doing is seeking to ensure a reasonable balance between the desire to promote 'reasonable access' and the ability of the forest manager to carry out forestry management activities without undue additional burdens. As you may know FCS has been tasked by the National Access Forum to develop a draft protocol to facilitate liaison between forestry interests and access authorities regarding management of access on core paths. This draft will then be subject to consultation with wider stakeholders followed by seminars to promote its contents. The intention is that this exercise will be completed by the end of March 2013. Once in place, this will give access and forestry stakeholders a clear basis for accommodating each other's interests within the context of the SOAC. It's a pity this was not in place earlier as it might have answered many of your queries. Because of the nature of the debate in Argyll, we will seek to hold a suitable seminar in Argyll & Bute to highlight the approach recommended. In the meantime however we have to deal with the current situation as it is. Broadly speaking, the forestry sector, both state and private, has a very good track record of supporting public access to forests and managing it positively to fit in with forestry operational activities. As I understand it, forest managers are concerned that, in some forest road locations in Argyll & Bute, core path designation may not be appropriate because the road is used regularly by heavy timber traffic. The main reasons are;
that core path designation would promote, via maps and other advertising, an unrealitic expectation of quiet access to recreational users at odds with regular use by heavy timber traffic;
that this might result in a conflict of use that the operational use of the forest road may be compromised by the
designation and place an unreasonable burden on the forest manager that access and use of the forest roads under scrutiny for recreational pursuit in
question is accepted by the forest manager but that core path designation is not as it will remove flexibility of forest management
Page 14 of 17
I have no doubt that the pending work requested by the NAF will largely answer these concerns. In the the meantime, I understand that around one-third of the proposed core paths for Argyll & Bute are located on forest roads and paths. Most of these proposals have been accepted by the local forest manager, including my FCS colleagues in West Argyll Forest District and Cowal &Trossachs Forest District who manage the National Forest Estate, though with some exceptions. By and large therefore we have no further comments to make on submissions with the exception however of 3 core path proposals all around Dunoon on (a) C223 (Dunans Loop to Invereck and LLTNP boundary), (b) C211(a) Ardnadam Heritage Trail Loop and (c) C488 Dunloskin Wood. After due deliberation, we are inclined, reluctantly, to object to these core path designations on the basis that :
there are existing alternative access routes in and around this area - (NB access to forests using forest road access is good both locally and generally within the A&B Council area )
that these are very important Timber Haul Routes and it would not be appropriate to advertise them as core paths for recreational users
that core path designation may impact on the primary function of the roads as a timber haul route (which is to remove timber traffic from the travelling through Dunoon) and might compromise the goodwill of forest managers elsewhere who may be considering collaborative projects to upgrade forest roads in Argyll which seek to minimise the impact of timber traffic on fragile rural public roads
that the roads may still be used for recreational purposes in accordance with the SOAC; it simply won't be advertised as a core path
I attach our detailed objections for each of the proposals. I do not believe that removal of these routes will compromise access in and around Dunoon. I have not responded to the proposed designation of the NP002 Torinturk to Kilberry road as it is really for local managers to lead on that aspect. Broadly speaking, Strategic Timber Routes may be suitable as core paths but I would recommend each case be looked at indvidually as circumstances will vary. Re your reasoning on why forest roads should be core paths, one might turn your logic around in some locations - why declare Strategic Timber Haul Routes to be a core path , which may unduly constrain the forest manager , when access for recreational users is low-key and generally available on other paths? As regards the application forms for the STTF, almost invariably each application for a forest road makes the case for the benefits of additional public access and undoubtedly such benefits do accrue . I am not convinced however that this means every STTF must become a core path by definition. The community and social benefits are not simply based on a new route created but on the reduced access points, impacts on the public road and in forest haulage reducing disruption to fragile local communities. I'm not sure that seeing the application forms will help throw any further light on the topic but I have copied this response to Roland Stiven ([email protected]), Confor, the Timber Transport Forum Project Officer who helps administer the STTF, who may be able to help. You can also view project proposals on http://www.forestry.gov.uk/STTF . Please find attached our comments on each of the core paths listed above including the objections. We would like both this letter and the individual comments to be available to the reporter when making their decision.We would be happy to discuss this further and to discuss the pending work of FCS in taking forward the protocol. Yours sincerely
Page 15 of 17
Syd Syd House Conservator Perth & Argyll Conservancy Tel: 01738 442830 * The attachment contains Objection s to Core Path Designation on Dunoon on: (a) C223 (Dunans Loop to Invereck and LLTNP boundary), (b) C211(a) Ardnadam Heritage Trail Loop and (c) C488 Dunloskin Wood. together with comment on the following roads :
1. NP 002 Torinturk 2. C172(a) Loch Avich 3. C199 Furnace 4. C200 Coille Bhraghad Inveraray 5. C303(b) Claonaig (Kintyre Way) 6. C458 Dalriada no. 9 lock 7. C468 Garelochhead 8. C520 Loch Nell 9. A002 Taynuilt to Tyndrum 10. A016 Barguillean 11. A121 Laggan Burn 12. A124 Glen Forsa 13. A200 Polvinster Oban 14. A226 Dalmally 15. A247Salachray
1. C458 Dalriada no. 9 lock Not a strategic Timber Haul route – concerns should be addressed via current work with NAF and FCS. Current partnership project and funds in place for medium term maintenance.
Support
General comments;
There is repeated reference to forest roads being reinstated within a few months of harvesting for replanting. There is often a significant fallow period before replanting due to weevils or other constraints and it is not correct to say that reinstatement may occur in this timescale. Reinstatement may also be subject to other restrictions under the Wildlife and Countryside act - with operations already having to work in tight timeframes.
Page 16 of 17
Page 17 of 17
Appendix IV. Additional supporting documents
