Core Path Report for C223 Dunans Loop to Invereck and ...

of 83

Core Path Report for C223 Dunans Loop to Invereck and LLTNP Boundary

1. Proposed Core Path

of 83

2. Summary of Representations Received Representation Respondent

NameOrganisation/ Group

Objection Summery

Respondents proposed action

Respondent Ref No.

Objection withdrawn

Objection SandbankCommunity Council (Iain J MacNaughton)

SandbankCommunity Council

Health & Safety / Car Parking

Delete P205

Objection Tom & Maureen Pierson

Health & Safety / Irresponsible Access / Car Parking

Delete P193

Objection A S Watkins Car Parking Delete P135Objection Kilmun

Community Council (RobertAldam)

Kilmun Community Council

Health & Safety / Irresponsible Access / Business / Maintenance

Delete P076

Objection Kirsteen Manuel

Privacy & Security / Livestock / Business /Liability

Delete P073 & P075

Objection Digby Guy Aitchesse Health & Safety/ Business

Delete P213

Objection David and Lynn Petro

Health & Safety / ShootingInterests / Irresponsible Access / Business / Car Parking

Delete P141

Support Frieda Bos About Argyll Walking Holidays

P166

Support DinahMcDonald

Cowal East PathsGroup

P153 & P156

Support S McIntyre E067Support Dougie

Fletcher Mountain Leader

E029

Support Drew McIntyre E066Support G. Garrett E035Support Rob Cooksley E012Support Bob Bennett All Ability

Access P140

Support Gwyneth Maskell

E065

of 83

3. History of Access i. Right of Way Status – Partly ROW SA37, this claimed right of way is on the section south

of the B836.

ii. Recorded Access Issues: letters were received from 3 different parties on the 4th March 2005, 6th March 2005, and 28th February 2005 reporting that a landowner was challenging their access rights over Ballochyle Estate, and that this was being done in an aggressive manner. There was also a complaint made against a sign that read “Private Ballochyle House no Access”

The area where the incidents occurred and where the sign is located is a tree lined avenue close to Ballochyle house. The landowner has stated that she does not believe the avenue is within access rights as it is part of her garden although she currently tolerates people walking along the avenue.

The sign is located at a point where the track splits in two and is in reference only to the track that leads to Ballochyle House, the location of the sign could be improved so as it is clear that the sign only relates to one and not both tracks.

4. Site Visit Images of the Proposed Core Path Glenmassan to B836

Start of the path on the Glenmassan Road where there has been a problem with public parking obstructing the driveway

Corners along the road to Ballochyle

Speed hump along the road which has been recently resurfaced

Landscape Contractor’s storage area beside path

of 83

Path continues towards Ballochyle House

Sign beside Glenbahn House

The section of path beyond this point was closed to allow timber harvesting at the time of the site visit.

Tight corner and steep slope leading up towards Glenbahn

Path continues towards Balagowan Farm

of 83

Access to Core Path C211(c) opposite Sandbank Primary School linking to C223

Sign at junction with Heritage Trail and C211(b) indicating path to Glenkin.

Path leading to C223 and Ardnadam Heritage Trail Car Park

The remainder of the path follows a forest road through mature conifer plantations with a good surface but limited views in most directions. At the time of the site visit daylight was limited and photography was not possible.

Ariel Photograph showing the location of the proposed Core Path relative to the Dalinlongart Landfill and the Biomass plant.

BiomassPlant

Access shared with Landfill Site

of 83

5. Alternative Route

An alternative route through the forestry to the west of Ballochyle was suggested at one point. This would have climbed a forest road opposite Glenbahn before turning northwards. At the top of the hill some 100 meters higher the path would turn back on its self to join the main estate road beside the Landscaping contractor’s storage area. The route is shown above in blue.

This path was funded by the Forestry Commission at some point many years ago but has since fallen into disuse.

Path climbing opposite Glenbahn Path continuing to climb heading northwards

of 83

Good views over Holy Loch to the south from the top of the hill

Much poorer path descending towards the estate road.

Fenced area across the line of the path occupied by two horses

Path junction at the top of the hill

Some sections are overgrown and the drainage has failed resulting in a wet surface.

Locked gate to secure horses

of 83

Improving path leading to the estate road

In summary this alternative route does not offer an equivalent standard of path to the proposed Core Path. The route would only be acceptable for fit walkers able to climb a fence and a gate and would be impassable to the majority of potential users.

6. Consultation with Objectors & Other Interested Parties The Objections to the proposed Core Path fall into two areas, north and south of the B836.

North of the B836 – Ballochyle Estate

There is concern that the section through Ballochyle Estate will increase the numbers of unauthorised vehicles parking on and using this section of private road. There is already a problem due to increased levels of inappropriate vehicle parking on this road conflicting with the use of the road by the residents vehicles and commercial vehicles (including timber lorries). The current average of use is approximately 50 vehicle movements a day. There is also concern that emergency vehicles may not be able to attend an emergency in the estate because of the levels of inappropriate parking. By designating the route a core path the level of inappropriate parking will increase.

The SNH, the residents and the owner of Glenbhann woodland spent £30,000 resurfacing this road, and these parties also pay an annual maintenance cost for the upkeep of the road.

Since the resurfacing of the road there has been an increase in the use of the road by dog walkers that has resulted in an increase of dog waste and general litter being deposited along the road verge. There is also health and safety concerns regarding vehicles confronting uncontrolled dogs on the road.

People have been inappropriately planting bedding plants along the side of the road.

The proposal passes through a tree lined avenue that forms the curtilage and part of the garden of a dwelling house and is therefore outwith access rights. There has been a considerable amount of work done to improve and manage this area, and promoting it will threaten the safety and security of the householder.

There is concern over liability issues of members of the public using the road.

The movement of Livestock is a concern.

An alternative route should be agreed upon.

of 83

South of the B836 – Dalinlongart Wood

Section of land over which the route passes are used for stalking, again this raises health and safety concerns.

Proposal passes very close to a proposed CHP Biomass electricity generating station at Dalinlongart, this will increase vehicular traffic on the route during the construction and operation of the plant. Have been informed the plant will require 60,000 tonnes of timber per year. We think it is unwise to promote this route, thereby increasing usage due to the expected level of use by heavy timber lorries

Access along the road will periodically be severely restricted and/or denied due to health and safety requirements when harvesting/forestry operations are being undertaken.

7. Access Officer’s Initial CommentsThere were objections to the path on the following grounds, the Council’s response to each follows;

North of the B836 – Ballochyle Estate

1 Ballochyle Estate – this house is located 35 metres from the path and is well screened from most directions. It has a well defined garden area.

Visitors to the SNH and National Park Offices as well as Scottish Woodlands Offices at Glenbahn will drive past the gate.

Cottage 4 Ballochyle Farm – This group of farm cottages is over 80-meters away from the path. Disturbance of the residents is likely to be minimal although some walkers have tried to walk past the farm, probably in error and the designation of the path might help to avoid this as would the provision of a simple direction sign.

SNH / National Park Office Ballochyle – This is the public office of the government funded body responsible for steering the Access Legislation through the Scottish Parliament. The office is shared with staff from Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park. This is a public office which members of the public visit regularly.

View along the road to the office from the junction beside 1 Ballochyle Estate.

of 83

Ballochyle House – A large house set back 50 metres from the path. I am of the opinion that the path does not pass through the area required for the privacy of the occupiers of Ballochyle.

Although the path passes along a driveway leading past the house beside a tree lined avenue that forms a boundary between the garden and the driveway I believe that it provides adequate privacy for the occupiers of this house.

Glenbahn – A large bungalow used primarily as a home set back 65 meters from the path. The house is also used as an office by Scottish Woodlands and a base by a local Tree Surgery and Forestry Contractor who uses the roadway as a base for a chipper and uses chainsaws in the area.

of 83

Balagowan Farm

The farm and its buildings which are used by Churchill Venison a business which is involved in stalking and culling deer and preparing the meat for sale is located in this farm accessed off the B836 from the south. It is located on a spur over 90 metres off the Core Path. This business already shares the access road with forestry vehicles and the public have a right of access along the forest road into the estate.

The red line indicates the route of the proposed Core Path.

Public Access - The residents of Ballochyle claim that that they are not opposed to public access and although this may well be the case for the majority, the Council has had a number of complaints dating back to March 2005 with the most recent during July 2011. The Police were also involved in an incident in 2005 where a member of the public alleges that a resident drove a car at excessive speed past two horse riders endangering them. An anonymous complaint was reportedly made to a member of staff at the SNH office that they had been verbally assaulted by the occupant of Ballochyle House as recently as July 2011.

Traffic on the Ballochyle Estate Road - Access rights need to be exercised responsibly regardless of whether on a core path or not, a key aspect of responsible access is to respect the interests of other people. Users of core paths are required to show due care and respect for all other users of the route including resident’s vehicles as well as other non-motorised access takers. Signage could be used to raise awareness that the path is used to access a number of households and businesses and that there is a greater chance a vehicle may be encountered on this route. It could also ask people to keep dogs under close control i.e. “Cars and other vehicles use this road - Please keeps dogs on a lead”.There is however no requirement that dogs are kept on a lead just that they are kept “under close control or on a lead”.

A lot of privately owned roads and tracks are popular for recreational activities and drivers of vehicles on any such road, regardless of whether it is a core path or not should be aware of the potential for encountering recreational users on the forest road. There is an expectation that drivers will behave in a responsible manner when they encounter other users i.e. moderating their speed as required and being prepared to stop.

It is claimed that there is a significant volume of traffic using this road a conservative estimate of fifty vehicles per day. This is not unlikely with SNH, the National Park and Tillhill Forestry having their offices on the estate as well as 9 residential properties using this road to access the Glenmassan Road. It is assumed that the majority of the traffic from Balagowan Farm and the Deer Stalking and Venison Business run by Winston Churchill Venison will use the B836 and not pass through Ballochyle.

Sustrans the charitable body behind the National Cycle Network uses minor rural roads for a significant proportion of its network. The standard that is applied by Sustrans is 1,000 vehicle movements per day

of 83

and where possible to install traffic calming where possible to reduce vehicle speeds; See Appendix IV (iii) for an extract from “The National Cycle Network - Guidelines and Practical Details issue 2”. The road through Ballochyle although used by some HGV traffic is not used by anything like this number of vehicles and there are a number of speed humps along its length to regulate vehicle speeds.

Therefore it is not believed that the numbers of vehicles and access takers using the road would indicate that it should not be designated as a Core Path.

Parking on Ballochyle Estate - It is accepted that there are problems with vehicles parked inconsiderately at the entrance to Ballochyle Estate or along the road itself. This could be dealt with by erecting signage asking people not to park at the road junction and stating that only authorised vehicles should use the road. The Council has offered residents a suitable sign at no cost –shown right. If there is parking which affects the safety of other road users this is a police matter and they should be contacted for assistance.

Vehicular Traffic – The designation of a Core Path will not affect private vehicular rights of access for the owner or other authorised users. A responsible user will be prepared to travel at an appropriate speed and stop or give way to other users as appropriate whether in a motor vehicle or not.

Damage to the Track – It is unlikely that walkers or cyclists would cause significant damage to the track in comparison with cars, HGV’s and agricultural vehicles. Equestrian users could cause some damage however this is likely to be less than the existing vehicular use.

The fact that part of the route has in recent years been resurfaced to take increased vehicular traffic is not relevant to the arguments regarding the designation of a Core Path. The Council believes that the public have a right to use the route and the improvements to the surface have merely made the route easier to use and more popular, which was probably not foreseen by the residents. It is possible that in the future Core Paths will be eligible for funding to enable land owners to maintain them which may assist the residents with the costs.

Safety of other users- Access rights need to be exercised responsibly regardless of whether on a core path or other land, The Scottish Outdoor Access Code specifically states that users are responsible for their own safety. Land Managers should act with care at all times for other people’s safety whether they are using a Core Path or not. The land manager is only likely to be found liable if they create a hazard and do not guard the public against it adequately. Therefore if a member of the public falls in to an unguarded deep excavation the land owner could expect to be sued, a member of the public tripping and falling over river bank would have little prospect of successfully suing the land owner.

Having walked the route I do not believe that there are any unusual hazards on this path and I did not observe a significant number of vehicles using the route at the time. For most of the route pedestrians have good sight lines and will be able to see vehicles approaching as well as hearing them. The only exception to this being a short stretch between Ballochyle and Glenbahn where the path climbs steeply

of 83

and turns as it does so. Motor vehicles should not be travelling fast at this point and the responsible user including cyclists

One objector notes that a forestry contractor uses part of the path to park a chipper on when processing timber. Land managers have a duty under the Land Reform Scotland act to behave in a way that respects public access rights Section 3(1), this could be seen as being in conflict with that duty. It might also leave the operator of the chipper open to prosecution under the Health & Safety at Work Act since it would be reasonable to assume that the public will use a track such as this which is clearly shown on the OS map whether it is a Core Path or not and could unexpectedly find themselves dangerously close to the chipper.

The suggestion that the designation of a Core Path will create a hazard for a business which carries out deer stalking on the hill land above the path is not relevant. Indeed the designation of a Core Path may make it easier for the stalkers to provide information to the public about where stalking is in progress. SNH and the Association of Deer Management Groups have produced “Stalking and public access: signs guidance for land managers” http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A342190.pdf which may be helpful. It is the responsibility of anyone with a firearms licence to ensure that when shooting at a target that there is no possibility that anyone is present in the backdrop. It would be highly irresponsible to fire any weapon towards a path, track or road whether or not the public have a legal right of access.

Liability – The Land Reform Scotland Act does not extend the duty of care owed by the land manager/land owner to another person exercising their access rights. The Scottish Outdoor Access Code and the Act also stress that the access taker is responsible for their own safety. See “A Brief Guide to Occupiers’ Legal Liabilities in Scotland in relation to Public Outdoor Access” 2005 http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/heritagemanagement/occupiers.pdf

Insurance – There has been no indication to date that the designation of a Core Path across land will increase the insurance risks or therefore the premiums. See SNH Commissioned Report 275: Access to the Outdoors - the insurance industry's perception of risk 2008 http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/commissioned_reports/275.pdf . This report reached the following conclusions.

• Clear trends have been identified in the cost of liability insurance since 2000; however, the market has been driven by factors such as the World Trade Centre attacks, changes in the investment basis for underwriting insurance and changes in regulation. No evidence was found that the introduction of the 2003 Act had influenced the general level of premiums.

• Public liability insurance is largely rated on the area/size of the insured interest. Specific activities are then considered that ‘add on’ layers of premium based on risk.

• No evidence was found of recent liability cases involving the Land Reform Act 2003 or out-of-court settlements.

• From the perspective of the insurance industry, the current position is broadly comparable with the situation prior to the introduction of the 2003 Act.

• The insurance industry is reactive in its assessment of risk, i.e. introduction of the 2003 Act is only likely to influence insurance premiums if a raft of claims comes forward.

Therefore there is no reason to believe that the designation of a Core Path will lead to an increase in insurance premiums on this estate.

Security - The Land Reform Act assumes that the majority of users will act responsibly and not threaten the security of land managers or residents. It is the responsibility of a property owner to take reasonable measures to secure their property. These will be the same measures that an insurance company requires, whether the public have a right of access past a property or not. The majority of people exercise their access rights without being a threat to the security of anyone else.

of 83

Dog Fouling and Litter – The Land Reform Act assumes that the majority of users will behave in a responsible manner, as they do in fact do. The Access Team is not aware of a particular problem along this route with either dog fouling or litter but the Council has environment wardens and can provide assistance if required. The Scottish Outdoor Access Code advises dog owners to keep their dogs under proper control and to pick up and remove any faeces. The National Park will also been contacted to ask if Ranger Staff based at the office on Ballochyle Estate would be able to encourage dog owners to behave responsibly when necessary.

Forest Roads Access rights need to be exercised responsibly regardless of whether on a core path or other land, a key aspect of responsible access is to respect the interests of other people. Users of core paths require to show due care and respect for all other users of the route, and in this case this will include both non motorised access takers as well as drivers of authorised vehicles. Signage could be used to raise awareness that the route is part of a Timber Haul Route and that there is a greater chance a vehicle may be encountered on this route.

A lot of forest roads are popular for recreational activities and drivers of vehicles on any forest road, regardless of whether it is a core path or not should be aware of the potential for encountering recreational users on the forest road. By designating the route as a core path vehicle drivers will be more alert to this possibility.

Grant of Access - The Council believes that access rights apply to the whole length of the route and it is not necessary for the owners of the road to grant the public use of their servitude rights so no application for these is required.

Ann Gloag Case and Dalriada Project – Ann Gloag brought a Section 28 Declarator against Perth & Kinross Council, this is a separate legal process not connected to Core Paths Planning which is covered by Sections 17-20 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. The Dalriada Project carried out negotiations with various land owners in Mid Argyll to establish a network of new paths. Although the Council was a partner in the project the discussions with Ms Cox were carried out by staff working for the project not Council Officers and do not establish a precedent of any sort.

Core paths going through an area believed outwith access rights: Core Paths can be designated in areas considered outwith access rights. See Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 Section 7 Provisions supplementing and qualifying section 6, Part (1) Section 6 does not prevent or restrict the exercise of access rights over any land which is a core path.

of 83

South of the B836 – Dalinlongart Wood

Biomass Power Plant

The proposed Core Path is no closer than 250 metres from the boundary of Biomass Plant; the public road is a similar distance away at closest point. Since vehicular access to the Biomass Plant during the construction and for the operation of the plant will be taken from the B836 the designation of this forest road as a Core Path cannot be said to have an effect upon the operation of the plant. See Appendix IV (i) for extracts from the Planning Application and supporting documents.

In their Planning Application for the development the developers have stated that they will generate no more that 9 deliveries per day, or 18 HGV movements plus presumably a small number of cars and vans used by staff working on the site, see Appendix IV (ii). The site access road is already used by a Landfill and the additional traffic volume does not appear to have concerned the Roads Department.

It is possible that the site operator will construct a direct link into the site from forestry to the south of the site avoiding the B836 and that this might use part of the Core Path Network. The developer has stated that the plant is designed to burn a set volume of biomass per day, therefore the volume of traffic along any new link would be no more than that using the B836 i.e. 9 deliveries per day.

The B836 is an Agreed Timber Transport Route which has recently been improved for this purpose and also forms part of National Cycle Network Route 75 linking Dunoon with Portavadie. The National Cycle Network uses a considerable number of rural roads without any apparent issues. See Appendix IV (iii) for the guidelines for the use of Rural Roads as part of the National Cycle Network.

During the construction phase there will presumably be an increase in traffic visiting the site however this will not follow the proposed Core Path but will use the B836 a public road and the existing Access Road for the Landfill Site. The designation of the Core Path will have no impact on the Biomass Plant at any stage during its construction or operation.

of 83

Summary

More than one supporter has noted that this path offers all ability access for people with impaired mobility, wheelchair users and those with prams. Paths like this are not common across Argyll & Bute or indeed in the immediate area. It has also been noted that C223 is part of a longer distance route giving access between Dunoon and the National Park avoiding the A815 main road. Appendix II includes a copy of a response from the Access Officer in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park, the neighbouring Access Authority confirming the role of this path in linking Dunoon and the National Park.

There have been a number of representations supporting the designation of this Core Path from people who wish to walk, cycle, use push or wheel chairs and horse riders. This proposal is a good link away from busy A815 between Dunoon and surrounding settlements and Loch Lomond & the Trossachs National Park. If this path is not included I believe that the Core Paths Plan would not be sufficient to meet the needs of local people specifically those wishing to access the National Park.

Therefore I am recommending that the whole of this path merits designation as a Core Path despite the objections that have been received to the proposal.

of 83

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: C223 Path Name: Dunans loop to Invereck and LLTNP boundary

Forum Members Present Niall McAlister Hall (Vice Chair) Fiona Russell John Little

Duncan McDonald Stuart Shaw

Declarations of Interest Fiona Russell - local resident John Little (Forestry Management)

colleagues at Tillhill objected to this path Members Familiar with the Location Duncan McDonald Fiona Russell Discussions Privacy The existence of access rights Public interest Sufficiency Legal burdens created by core path designation Car parking Alteration of the primary purpose of part of the route from forestry road into Core Path 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 Unanimous belief that access rights would apply along this route

Majority supported the Access Officer recommendation that the path become a Core Path. It is important in terms of providing a sufficient network as it provides the only off-road link between Dunoon and Sandbank to the National Park and Benmore Gardens.

Minority View John Little thought there was a management issue associated with the route being designated as a Core Path and that the section of the route south of the B836 was created to provide access for timber vehicles to extract timber it was not created as a path although the public do have a general right of responsible access to use the road. Also the Core Path designation will increase the land owner/managers legal burdens.

John Little also felt that at the north end of the route the residents and owners of the estate access road had legitimate concerns about increased use of their existing access road. He is aware that those with legal servitude rights of access on this proposed Core Path consider that the council seem intent on imposing this designation on a road that they have paid to create and maintain and that the council appear to be unsympathetic to the concerns, rights and interests of the residents, owners and land managers for whom this is their only vehicle access, without exploring other options of creating a new non vehicle path if this is such an important link to the National Park.

For these reasons he could not support the Access Officer recommendation.

of 83

9. Access Officer’s Final Recommendations The Access Officers will continue to promote this path as a Core Path because we recognise that it is an important link in the local path network which existed for many years prior to the creation of the timber haul route which has replaced a section of it. It is shown on the County Series Ordinance Survey Maps from 1860-1895. There is also support from the Access Officers for Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park

We recognise that the designation could impose additional burdens on the land owner, however this is true of all Core Paths and we do not believe this is a valid reason for a path not to be designated. The Access Officers have proposed that changes are made Section 11 of the Land Reform Scotland Act which would allow Access Authorities to permit the closure of Core Paths to allow large scale land management operations such as tree felling. Part of this objection to the designation relates to a section of the Land Reform Scotland Act which the Council recognises needs to be amended.

The Objectors have not provided any information regarding the numbers of vehicles using the routes or Risk Assessments to back up their case against designation of the Timber Transport Routes as Core Paths.

The concerns raised by the objectors can all be managed with assistance from the Access Officers and by following best practice which is currently being developed by the National Access Forum in conjunction with the Forestry Industry.

We believe that this is a popular path, close to one of the areas larger urban settlements, which is already well used by the local community and the designation of this route as a Core Path is not likely to increase the obligation on the land managers with regard to public safety significantly. The public already have a right of access and the forest manager and other users of the road need to ensure that anyone using the road with a vehicle drives safely and is aware that the route is used by non-motorised users to whom they owe a duty of care. This has to an extent already been accepted since speed bumps have been installed on a few of the corners.

Therefore no change is proposed to the Core Paths Plan, C223 will continue to be proposed as a Core Path.

of 83

10. Appendices

Appendix I. Copies of the representations received during the formal consultation

[email protected]

01369 700008

of 83 Paragraph 11.5.22 from Finalised Draft Core Paths Plan 2010 document.

of 83

11.5.22

Core Path No. C223 - Dunans Loop To Invereck And LLTNP Boundary

Path length in meters - 6851 Surface Types - Unbound aggregate, Sealed Gradient - Moderate Sign Posts - No Bridges - Yes Gates less than 1.2 meters - None Kissing Gates - None Stiles - None Other Information - Gates>1.2m Potential obstacles and notes - Section are on public road

Copies of relevant correspondence

Email from Loch Lomond & the Trossachs National Park confirming the importance of this proposed Core Path.

From: Douglas Stewart [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 29 November 2011 12:16 To: Gritten, Jolyon Cc: Bridget Jones Subject: RE: Core Path Report for C223 Dunans Loop to Invereck and LLTNP Boundary Importance: High

Jolyon,

Apologies for the delay in responding on this, hopefully the following can be incorporated into your report in time for submission to the reporter.

As discussed with you today your proposed core path C223 forms a principal link between the forthcoming Argyll & Bute Core Paths network and that now adopted by the National Park. The formalising of a link between the two networks and as mechanism to allow promotion and development of a traffic-free route connecting the National Park to Dunoon is seen as an important outcome of the Core Paths planning process undertaken by the respective Authorities. As you are aware we have collaborated during all stages of development of the National Park Core Paths Plan to ensure future connectivity of our respective path networks, while accounting for all relevant issues and it is to be hoped suitable agreements can also be reached to allow proposed core path C223 to be incorporated. On the matter of path C223 being subject to use by vehicles servicing a proposed Biomass Energy Generation plant, I can confirm that we have worked productively with the developer of a similar plant in the National Park to cater effectively for public access and recreation alongside operation of the plant. It is to be hoped therefore that a similarly cooperative approach could be adopted in order to secure a mutually beneficial outcome for all concerned.

Get back to me if necessary.

Doug

of 83

Correspondence with Councillor Bruce Marshall - received after the Forum gave its advice to the Council

From: Gritten, Jolyon Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 11:34 AM To: Marshall, Bruce Cc: Grierson, Douglas Subject: RE: Core Path Reports

Dear Councillor

Although the Access Forum members have already met to give their advice to the Councillor on these objections I will copy your comments into the reports so that they are available to the Reporter as part of the Public Inquiry Process. The Objection Reports will be sent to the Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals in the next couple of weeks, and they will appoint a Reporter to conduct an Inquiry.

Yours sincerely,

Jolyon Gritten

Access Manager Development & Infrastructure Services, Argyll & Bute Council Manse Brae Offices, Lochgilphead, ARGYLL, PA31 8RT Tel: 0154 660 4314, Mobile: 0782 788 3167 Email: [email protected]

From: Marshall, Bruce Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2013 11:26 AM To: Gritten, Jolyon Cc: Grierson, Douglas Subject: Core Path Reports

Jolyon

Re your paper to the Bute & Cowal Area Committee in which you ask for comment, I apologise for being late in making my comments.

C223 I have been approached by both camps and do not wish to comment

Councillor Bruce Marshall - Ward 6 Cowal Violet Grove, Strone, Dunoon, PA23 8RX 01369840346, 07717772097

of 83

Appendix II. Copies of responses additional consultations

Argyll and Bute Council Core Paths Plan Finalised Draft 2012

Objection Report Representation

Path or Launch Point No. & Name: C223 Dunans Loop to Invereck and LLTNP Boundary3.7MB.pdf

Support Officer's Recommendation

Comment: This is a good path that does not infringe upon anyone's privacy. It should be designated a core path. It keeps walkers off a very busy and fast road.

Your name: Jean Maskell

Serial No. 50

Email address: [email protected]

Address & Phone: Dalinlongart Farmhouse SandbankDunoon Pa23 8qs

of 83

Argyll and Bute Council Core Paths Plan Finalised Draft 2012

Objection Report Representation


Comment Only (In A Number Of Cases The Access Officers Have Not Made A Recommendation; Please Use This Option To Make Your Views Known)

Comment: The part that is being objected to by the landowners is the road that leads from the Glen Massan road by Invereck along to Ballochyle and then up passed Ballochyle House to link up with the Clachaig road. This is one of the few paths in the area suitable for wheelchairs and pushchairs and is really valued by local people.

Again for selling the local area allpaths and link trails should be encouraged including these roads.

This is also part of Argylls Secret Coast and the paths and trails should be deveolped sold as an attractio. Just look what its done for the walking and cycle trails in the Borders and Dumfrieshire. This will bring in trade for publicans and hotels and stores. to this its a must and a no brainer to object.

Your name: Walt Foster

Serial No. 53

Email address:

Address & Phone:

of 83

Argyll and Bute Council Core Paths Plan Finalised Draft 2012 Objection Report Representation



Comment: this is an important access path. Problems with parking alone should not be sufficient reason to delete path. Improved signage and awareness are best methods of resolving isssues. Path passes close to Main house but not sufficient to effect privacy. This is also an important access route for walkers and users of the area and should be retained working together to resolve any outstanding issues.

Your name: Andrew Armstrong

Serial No. 57


Address & Phone: 4 Ash Gardens Dunoon PA23 8DH 01369 704617

of 83




Comment: As a new resident to the area and a keen walker, this is one of the few paths in the area I have already explored. I was pleased to note it was suitable for pushchairs and wheelchairs, as it is often difficult for those having to use such modes of transport to access the more natural parts of the local landscape. Walkers and families who make the effort to spend time in areas such as this, are more than likely to have respect for the countryside and be happy to follow a well signposted footpath than wander off track. I have relocated to this area with the understanding that Scotland promotes, protects and develops access to the Scottish countryside.

for all.

Your name: Moira Ferguson

Serial No. 60


Address & Phone: Aldersyde, Shore Road, Kilmun, Dunoon.Argyll. Pa23 8se

Tel: 07711 039 528

of 83



Object To Officer's Recommendation

Comment: Public Access: Comments on past estate resident behaviour are irrelevant. They relate in some cases to persons who no longer reside on Ballochyle. Core Path designation will make no difference to a person's behaviour. It is not helpful or constructive to report an "anonymous" complaint in the report. The complaint could have been malicious - there is no way of knowing the truth.

Traffic on the Ballochyle Estate Road: Having signage of any kind imposed on private property against the wishes of the owners is unacceptable.

Ballochyle Estate road should not be compared with a minor rural public road. It is narrower than a public road, it is short, it has no public road signage and it has few passing places. It is not treated as a public rural road by the current access takers, mainly dog walkers. Just because it has less than 1000 vehicle movements a day is not a reason to consider it for Core Path designation.

Parking on Ballochyle Estate: A great deal of walking and cycling and to a lesser extent horse riding access is taken at present and although parking can be a problem at times, it is manageable without signage - which is not wanted by the estate residents.

Vehicular Traffic: The Core Path designation will increase the number of vehicles on the estate roads because more people will visit the path, many coming by car to the Glen Massan road entrance, and if parking at the road end is unavailable it is inevitable that some cars will come into the estate seeking a parking space.

Damage to the Track: The report states " The Council believes that the public have a right to use the route" - This statement is misleading because it would suggest that something or someone is preventing the public from using the route at present which is simply not true. The entire route is open to the public as long as there are no forestry operations taking place that would endanger the public if they crossed a specific section of the route. The same constraints would exist if the route is designated a Core Path.

The report seeks to reassure the various owners of the sections that make up the route that the cost of repairing wear and tear caused by the public taking access could possibly be covered through the residents applying to unspecified grant schemes for funding. It seems extremely unreasonable that the owners are left to negotiate with grant schemes that at present do not exist.

Summary: Supporters note that the path offers all ability access for people with impaired mobility, wheelchair users and those in prams. - This is available with difficulty due to irregular traffic movements, few passing places and a narrow road. Core Path designation will only exacerbate the current situation. There are no plans to increase the number of passing places which are already being used regularly for parking by dog walkers.

The long distance route is mentioned by supporters - it already exists and is being used, without Core Path designation.

of 83

I believe that the majority of people from Dunoon and the surrounding urban area accessing the National Park will do so by car - the average daily walk in the UK is under two miles and the distance from Dunoon to Invereck is over five miles - round trip 10+ - so although the long distance route is and should continue to be used it is not the critical link between Dunoon and the National Park that the report makes a case for and should not be designated as a Core Path because it is unnecessary and would be counter productive to the efficient management of several commercial woodlands and to the daily lives of Ballochyle Estate residents.

Without identifying individual supporters I would say that in many cases their comments are based on poor knowledge of the current residents situation - "new owners not wanting it - NIMBY" is not helpful and completely untrue. Most residents have lived on the estate for at least twenty years and are very protective of the unique environment in which they live. For the record no resident is against public access, despite what the report may allude to. What all the residents and the various forest managers, agents and owners are against is a Core Path Designation.

Letter of Support from Douglas Stewart of the National Park: I have been told at two public meetings held in Dunoon's Queens Hall by A & B Access Team that the Core Path designation will not necessarily increase the number of people accessing path C223. Douglas Stewart's letter in support of Path C223 states "and as a mechanism to allow promotion and development of a traffic free route connecting the National Park to Dunoon". It seems clear that the National Park Authority are keen to promote the existence of the path to the wider public through advertising and to develop the path, presumably through the use of waymarking signage and information boards and through the imposition of controls on forest operations. This is my interpretation of his letter but I think that they would be very disappointed if their efforts did not result in more people using the route.

Your name: Tom And Maureen Pierson

Serial No. 89


Address & Phone: 1 Ballochyle Estate SandbankDunoon Argyll Pa23 8rd

Tel. 01369 706 568

of 83



Object To Officer's Recommendation

Comment: 1. We feel the report is not nearly rigorous enough; it simply dismisses any negative points of view. Any consequences that might result from access, that we have addressed and asked specific questions about have been ignored. This is not good enough - it is such a busy road and there are serious heath and safety implications that must be given very careful consideration, before the Council sanctions this increased access.To assume everyone 'uses access responsibly' is naive - we can tell you, they don't.

2. The part of the road that goes up to, and past, our house (Glenbahn) is blind on several corners - even if we were barely moving in our cars, if a cyclist, or horse were on the wrong bit of the road,at the wrong time, we would collide with them. They have nowhere to go, it's single track, with a drop on one side and ditch on the other. We also have large heavy goods forestry vehicles on this road every day; with the extra weight, they simply cannot stop suddenly. We already have had near misses with people walking up past us. They treat it like a country track and are all over the place. This is I would remind you, the only access road to our home..

3. The most worrying passage for us personally is the one that effectively threatens us with restraint of trade. We process wood from time to time on our own land beside our house. It is the only place that allows us to safely do it (we use a large woodchipper and chainsaws.) The excess wood is the by- product of our work as tree surgeons. According to the report, we are told we have 'a duty to behave in a way that respects access rights'. So who stands up for and respects our rights to carry out our work? This is a truly extraordinary paragraph and extremely serious. Is it the case that the right of access supercedes all other citizen rights in Scotland? It would seem so. What that paragraph actually effectively says is; on the off chance that someone who has no connection whatsoever with Ballochyle chooses to exercise their right of access to walk through at any time day or night, we cannot therefore carry out our legitimate work, because we cannot guarantee their safety. It is hard enough working in a rural area - this is an abuse of legislation.

4. You mention several times about people being 'challenged' and going to complain. May I just point out that it works both ways. We have all at one time or another been subject to rudeness. (Not I might add because we have confronted people - but simply because we are inconsiderate enough to be driving on the road where they choose to be walking.) I manage the woodland for Scottish Woodlands (on behalf of the woodland owner) and during the last large extraction of timber had real problems with people wishing to access on foot or cycle. The road was closed because the large machines were felling trees. A number of people completely ignored the signs and me, and went right on through. What do I do- because you can bet that if anything happens they will sue. There is much more felling to come, so this will need to be clarified.

5. The road running past Glenbahn is hilly, rough and has poor visibility.

I respectfully ask that consideration be given to the above and thank you for your help .We are not just against this for the sake of it - there are real issues that need dealt with in much greater depth out of respect for those people that live here and have to deal with it all..

of 83

Your name: David Petro

Serial No. 104


Address & Phone: Glenbahn Ballochyle Dunoon Argyll Pa23 8rd

01369705564

of 83




Comment: We totally agree with the access officers comments and recommendations. The section of the path around Ballochyle is very important for several reasons

It provides a link between the LLTNP core paths and the Argyll and Bute Core path network.

It is accessible - very few paths are accessible

It does not infringe the curtilidge of any f the properties along the route.

Dog walkers should be encouraged

Parking issues could be addressed by encouraging parking at the Ballochyle offices of LLTNP.

One landowner has been aggressive in discouraging - forbidding walkers and horse riders. This is intimidation and should not be acceptable.

The East Cowal Paths Groupstrongly support this core path.

Your name: East Cowal Paths Group

Serial No. 116


Address & Phone: 6 Deer Park Glen Massan Dunoon PA23 8RA

01369 706591

of 83

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 usethat 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

of 83

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

of 83

Syd

Syd HouseConservatorPerth & Argyll ConservancyTel: 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 Torinturk2. C172(a) Loch Avich3. C199 Furnace4. C200 Coille Bhraghad Inveraray5. C303(b) Claonaig (Kintyre Way)6. C458 Dalriada no. 9 lock7. C468 Garelochhead8. C520 Loch Nell9. A002 Taynuilt to Tyndrum10. A016 Barguillean11. A121 Laggan Burn12. A124 Glen Forsa13. A200 Polvinster Oban14. A226 Dalmally15. A247Salachray1. C223 Dunans Loop There are a number of significant

objections to the proposal. While locals and visitors can continue use of this route under SOAC, further promotion as a core path, given the current issues would exacerbate the issues. Forest operations will also undoubtedly impact on this route at times The proposed route is a strategic timber haul route and will see peaks in activity; that will have a detrimental effect on the visitor experience, as well as Health and Safety implications for the land manager.

There appears to be sufficient path network proposed around the area and throughout Argyll without the need for this Strategic Haul Route to be included – access would still

Object

of 83

continue on the basis of the SOAC.

Further investigation into alternatives that better address the all ability access issues could be pursued.

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.

Your email address: [email protected] Your name: digby guy Your comments: I refer to the proposed path between the rumbling bridge at the entrance to Glenkin and Ardnadam. This is a key timber haul road and will be very busy for the next two years whilst the windblow is harvested. If the CHP plant goes ahead it will become a key haul route for south Cowal because the TTG haul route will be linked to this road via Dunloskin. This renders it inappropriate not to say dangerous to put forward as a core path. it is also wholly inappropriate for use by disabled persons. This is an industrial extraction road and the very idea that its apprpriate for a core walking route is quite rediculous.

of 83

Appendix III. Additional supporting documents i) Extract from the Planning Permission for the Biomass Plant and Approved Plans.

The following documents are all available from the Argyll & Bute Council website Planning Pages Application Reference no. 08/00309/DET | Erection of a wood fired combined heat and power plant and formation of vehicular access | Land To The North Of Dalinlongart Waste Disposal Site Sandbank Dunoon

of 83

Approved Plans

of 83

ii) Extract from the Planning Application Submitted by the developers in January 2008 concerning the timing and number of vehicle movements per day.

iii) Extract from “The National Cycle Network - Guidelines and Practical Details issue 2”Sustrans 1997 regarding the use of Rural Roads as part of the National Cycle Network. http://www.sustrans.org.uk/resources/design-and-construction/technical-guidelineshttp://www.sustrans.org.uk/assets/files/guidelines/Rural%20Roads.pdf

Core Path Report for C223 Dunans Loop to Invereck and ...

Documents

Transcript of Core Path Report for C223 Dunans Loop to Invereck and ...