a058 blarbuie to baddens, lochgilphead · cc: jamieson, elaine; roland stiven subject: fw: timber...

A058 Blarbuie to Baddens, Lochgilphead

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: 25 June 2012 12:35 To: Gritten, Jolyon

Subject: RE: LMO information

Good morning, With regard to your e mail below I can confirm the following information:

Applications were received in 2009, 2010 & 2011 for improving access / access enhancement by the

landowner’s agent. The whole length of the path identified in your Aspirational Path Report has been claimed as continuing

access improvement, drainage and servicing access road along the whole length of the track / path. As discussed this morning there would appear to be a discrepancy between who you think is the landowner

(Fergus / Dee Lyon) and who we have recorded on our system as being the landowner. Having looked in

more detail it seems the landowner rents the land to the Lyons.

I enclose a link to the LMO guidance relating to the Improving Access (Option 20). This specifically states

that the aim of the option is to upgrade and enhance paths / routes that were previous footpaths only to make

them accessible to members of the public, cyclists, horse riders etc. The guidance also covers the technical

specifications and improving access priorities.

Also as discussed I cannot release amounts claimed and paid or landowner information. I am sure Mr & Mrs

Lyon would be able to furnish you with landowner information. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/farmingrural/SRDP/Land-Managers-

Options/Availableoptions/Improvingaccess

If you have any further issues please get in touch

Regards

Graeme Pirie

From: Gritten, Jolyon [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: 20 June 2012 16:34 To: Pirie GA (Graeme)

Subject: FW: LMO information Dear Graham I am aware that you cannot release some information because of the data protection act etc. What we are trying to establish is whether a land manager has received funding from the Scottish Government for public access in the past, or indeed is currently in receipt of funding, to allow public access along this path which the Council is proposing as an Aspirational Path. What information could you release under FOI? In essence we need to know has the land manager received funding, what for and for what period? It would help to have a map showing the line of a path if this is what has been funded. We do not need to know who the sum was paid to or how much, although if this information is available it may help to clarify the issues. The Land Owner has objected to the proposal to develop a Core Path in the future and some members of the local community want to see it designated as a Core Path. I think that the Access Forum and the Reporter for the Scottish Government should have access to this information which will inform their decision on whether or not to designate this path as an Aspirational Path or Core Path. Similar information relating to an objection to the Core Paths Plan has led to one forestry manager withdrawing his objection to a proposed Core Path, where we were able to demonstrate that public money had been and continued to be paid to secure public access.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/farmingrural/SRDP/Land-Managers-Options/Availableoptions/Improvingaccess

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/farmingrural/SRDP/Land-Managers-Options/Availableoptions/Improvingaccess

I look forward to receiving as much information as you are able to disclose on this matter. Yours sincerely, Jolyon Gritten Access Manager Development & Infrastructure Services Argyll & Bute Council Manse Brae Offices Lochgilphead ARGYLL PA31 8RT

A086 West Loch Tarbert to Kennacraig

A096 Kilmory to Aros Hospital

A247 Salachary to Kintraw

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

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

Syd

Syd House Conservator

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/STTF

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. A247Salachray Not a strategic timber haul

route. Work on going with

FCS and National Access

Forum (NAF) will address

concerns re. Closure

procedure.

Comment only

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.

A248 Kilmory to Castleton, Lochgilphead

C049 Feolin Ferry to Cnocbreak Village

From: Jura Community Council [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 18 July 2012 14:38

To: Grierson, Douglas Subject: RE: core paths consultation

Dear Douglas,

At the Jura Community Council meeting on Monday evening the issue of CO49 was discussed. It is the groups view

that the route should NOT be designated a core path and subsequently support the objection.

With best wishes,

Donald Ewen

Acting Secretary

Jura Community Council

C086 Machrihanish to West Port

C090 (C) Machrihanish to the Inneans and Southend

Argyll and Bute Council Core Paths Plan

Finalised Draft 2012

Objection Report Representation

Path or Launch Point No. & Name: C102(b) Dunskeig circular, Clachan.pdf

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: As the landowner of part of this proposal I have not been consulted or written to by the access

officers informing me this idea had been reinstated. I object to this route being a core path and advertised

on another national website, especially as I have made it clear I have no objection to the locals using it. The

comments made in the proposals I had been made to remove the kissing gate because of horses are

untrue, it was done in consultation with the access officer to follow the strict letter of the code.

Consequently the gate was then left wedged open by a member of the public causing my neighbour to put

up the palette. If the palette is removed the kissing gate will be reinstated, experience has shown that the

general public leave gates open, there are no circumstances that will persuade me that while my neighbour

runs a stock farm that the boundary gate will be of a type that can be left open. We already experience non

locals trying to gain vehicle access, having this registered on a national website would only increase the

problem. This proposal will not receive my cooperation. My understanding is that the access officer has not

made a recommendation.

Your name: James Murphy

Serial No. 62

Email address: [email protected]

Address & Phone: Ferry Cottage, Clachan, Tarbert, Argyll. Pa 29 6xn. Telephone 020 7278-4770.

C110 Achnabreck to Moneydrain Road




Path or Launch Point No. & Name: C117 Craignish Point, Ardfern.pdf



Comment: It is proposed t hat this path is removed from the list of proposed Core Paths. I would object to

this. I had not commented previously on the proposal to include this as a core path as I had written to

complain that the fence was obstructing access and assumed this would be used in the appraisal process.

I used to use this walk regularly and often saw others on it as well, as is obvious from the desire lines in the

photographs. Many people could not cross the fence at this time and were disappointed to be able to go no

further. However, since these photographs have been taken, the fence has been repaired and I am no

longer able to access the area, where there are fantastic views of Mull, Jura, Scarba and over to Crinan.

You can often see Corryvreckan, and it is a great place to watch marine wildlife. The number people

accessing the area and are unlikely to disturb the Marsh Frittilary.

The car park identified on maps allows people to believe that there is a walk there and the introduction of a

kissing gate or even a style would allow them to access one of the few off road walks in Craignish, one of

only two core paths proposed for the area.

Your name: Judith Pollock

Serial No. 27


Address & Phone:







Comment: I believe this route SHOULD be designated as a core path. There are so few off road paths in

this area, and this is a truly beautiful scenic walk, which should remain accessible to the public. I believe

that if the route is designated and interpretation is provided that there should not be a conflict with the

conservation of the Marsh Fritillary Butterfly.

I part-own a house in Kilchrenan, (PA35 1HG) and often visit this part of the coastline with my family.

Your name: Mhairi Auld

Serial No. 29


Address & Phone: 11 Dougalston Avenue Milngavie Glasgow G62 6as







Comment: A long standing favourite walk before a visit to the Galley of Lorne. As a summer visitor I have

always met at least one other person on the walk to Craignish point. Farmer and cows seem friendly. The

view is great, would be a great shame to lose this small classic.

Your name: M Brand

Serial No. 30

Email address:

Address & Phone: 45 Glencairn Drive Glasgow G41

Dear Mr Campbell

Regarding you email which I received today.

I will ensure that the statement you have made below and the pages from the Craignish Local Plan are

copied into the report on the Objections to C117 Craignish Point and are available for members of the

Access Forum and the Scottish Government’s Reporter to read.

Your Name: Malcolm Campbell Your email address: [email protected] What would you like to contact us about? C117 Path Message: At the recent Craignish Community Council meeting on 06/06/2012, the proposed core to Craignish Point was discussed. As a member of the council I declared an interest and left the room. I understand that a decision was made to send a letter of community support. I am surprised at this decision as it contradicts the finding of the survey carried in Dec 2010 for the local community plan which was adopted by the community council and approved by Argyll & Bute Council on 08/03/2012. Please attach a copy of the two relevant pages from the plan.

Page 10: Summary of results, section analysis and conclusions section.

Page 51: Questionnaire results and analysis. I would suggest the 15% of the 148 who answered the questionnaire in favour access paths does not show sufficient support for the community council to write a letter of support, as it is clear that they represent a small minority of the community. I would like to make it clear that I was a member of the steering group which produced the Craignish Community Plan. Malcolm Campbell. 1991 Act Tenant of Aird Farm and Ferry Croft.

If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me again.

Yours sincerely,Jolyon Gritten

Access Manager

Development & Infrastructure Services

Argyll & Bute Council

Manse Brae Offices

Lochgilphead

ARGYLL

PA31 8RT


from the Craignish Community Plan

Page 51 from the Craignish Community Plan




Path or Launch Point No. & Name: C149 Bridgend to Ford.pdf

Object To Officer's Recommendation

Comment: See Response to Councils Final Draft consultation Document sent via email to Mr.Gritten

Your name: Mr And Mrs A Wilson

Serial No. 117


Address & Phone:

Response to

Argyll & Bute Council’s Final Draft Consultation Document

Concerning the Core Path Network, Specifically Proposed New Paths at Ederline, Ford, Lochgilphead (Reference C149(a)

– Bridgend to Ford and C493 – Ederline Loch, Ford)

By Mr & Mrs A Wilson, Ederline, Ford, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RJ

Introduction

Argyll & Bute Council is required, under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, Part 1, Chapter 5, inter alia ss.17 and 18, to draw

up a plan for a system of paths (“core paths”) sufficient for the purpose of giving the public reasonable access throughout their

area. Subsection 17(3) requires the local authority to have regard to–

(a) the likelihood that persons exercising rights of way and access rights will do so by using core paths;

(b) the desirability of encouraging such persons to use core paths; and

(c) the need to balance the exercise of those rights and the interests of the owner of the land in respect of which those rights

are exercisable.

Subsection 18(1)(c) requires the local authority to consult–

(i) the local access forum for their area;

(ii) persons representative of those who live, work, carry on business or engage (or would be likely to engage) in

recreational activities on the land on which it is proposed that there be core paths;

(iii) Scottish Natural Heritage; and

(iv) such other persons as the local authority think fit,

in each case inviting objections and representations to be made to them within such period as they specify.

In addition, the council is advised by the Scottish Government to follow the ‘Guidance Note for Local Authorities and National

Park Authorities’ in the interpretation of the Act. Some extracts from the Guidance Note appear below.

We were interested to read the council’s responses to the objections. We believe that the council has not had proper regard to the

points listed in s.17(3) and has not properly and adequately consulted the parties listed at s.18(1)(c) – particularly in the light of

the Guidance Note.

Clarification of Points

In his assessment of the objections in respect of proposed new core paths C149(a) and C493, the council’s access officer has made

a number of statements that are either misleading or incorrect. Several of these are listed below, in the order given in the response

to our objection in respect of proposed core path C149(a).

3. History of Access

The report notes but does not emphasise that C149(a) and C493 are not currently public rights of way. They are not; and therefore

the council seeks to create two rights of way where there are none, and seeks to give them ‘core path’ status. The council admits

that part of C149(a) is not even subject to access rights. We believe it is obnoxious, and outwith the spirit of the Act, to attempt to

use s.17(2)(a) to create new core path over land where access cannot currently be exercised, particularly when good alternatives

exist.

Our objection contains plenty of evidence relating to the current status of these routes. Regarding prescription, Col. Warde Aldam

noted in the History of Ford and District written by the rural womens institute, in the section on Rights of Way (1966), “The

public have no right of way over the road which runs from South Lodge and the farm building and the owners have been in the

habit of locking the gates from time to time”. Members of the public have been asked not to use this road on numerous occasions.

The gates on both proposed core paths have been closed at times and locked at times. We maintain that no rights of way have

been established. There are a few people who do have permission to walk on parts of C149(a).

5. Alternative Routes

For the record, the council’s Access Officer declined to consult on the main alternative in either the draft consultative document or

during the first consultation, despite being asked to do so on numerous occasions. Consequently the public had no idea there was

an alternative. Having spoken to four of the ten proposers of C149(a) about the alternative route, we can declare that these would

all be happy with the alternative, especially if the drainage is improved. The Access Officer has still not consulted with us about

an alternative to proposed core paths C493 and C149(a) where they meet at Ederline Farm – at the section where no access rights

exist.

We are genuinely surprised that the council did not select the ancient Drove Road as a core path instead of C149(a). This historic

route between Loch Aweside and Kilmichael Glen winds through beautiful scenery and connects to other existing paths. The

alternative is peaceful; it does not have motorised vehicles, blind corners, buildings, phone lines, stock fencing along both sides

and, importantly, its use does not conflict with land management and is safe. Even promoters of C149(a) agree it would be

manifestly more sensible to choose the Old Drove Road as a core path instead.

The council’s Access Officer states that the alternative is rough and wet even in dry periods. We know this path; it is wet in three

places and a day’s work would remedy that (we would be happy to undertake simple works ourselves, such as scraping the surface

back to hard stone and diverting water away where necessary).

The council’s Access Officer states the alternative route is used for feeding cattle, which is incorrect (our cows are wintered well

away from the track). He further states that the route is used and made muddy by tractors, which is also incorrect (the only time a

tractor went up this track in recent years was to sort out a fallen tree after last year’s gales).

The council’s Access Officer states that the alternative route is not suitable because sections are on inclines. This ignores some

basic facts. Firstly, the paths connecting to C149(a) have equally steep inclines; one is also a busy, single track road with a

number of blind corners. Secondly, the council is not under a duty to select the routes for core paths according to their flatness.

Thirdly, a great many core paths throughout Scotland will be more challenging to use than this route.

Notwithstanding that the Act does not require core paths to fully interconnect, the council’s access officer states that the

alternative to C149(a) would not form part of a ‘loop’. This is, in fact, incorrect; the old drove road existed to link Kilmicheal

Glen with Ford and it affords the visitor a complete circuit of Ederline Loch, plus opportunities to access open land.

We consider these are important points because local authorities are to be mindful of safe, non-motorised existing routes for

designation as core paths – thereby reducing the obvious potential for friction and accidents.

The Farm road and drive were developed at a distance from the ancient Drove Road for the very reason that it separates the farm

and business use from public access, for the safety and amenity of all.

6. Consultation

The point here is that there has been no consultation with the land manager, no meeting to discuss a better way forward. As stated

above, the Access Officer has, for reasons only known to himself, omitted to consult properly concerning alternatives as though he

were judge and jury. We believe the council has failed in its obligation to meet the guidance:

Prior to drawing up the draft core paths plan, these consultations with all parties would aim to reach as much agreement

as possible over the approach and priorities for the core paths. Taking adequate time to achieve full agreement at this

informal consultation stage may avoid subsequent formal objections, and the need for an inquiry.

The Access Officer has omitted from his analysis of objections the conflict that his proposal is going to cause. Our communities

are small and fragile; as land managers, we do not want to be put into daily conflict with the community concerning only a

handful of people who want to use these routes.

Other Points from the Guidance Note

In addition to the requirements of the Act, the council is required to take account of the Scottish Government’s Guidance Note for

Local Authorities and National Park Authorities. Some relevant extracts follow:

New access links are likely to be a key theme within the informal consultation processes, and the subject of consultation

with land managers and developers to ensure the widest mutual benefits from the outset. (Consultation regarding

proposed new core paths C149(a) and C493 has been woefully inadequate).

It is clear that core paths networks are not to be restricted only to constructed or surfaced paths, but are intended to

include the full range of path types. The network is therefore likely to encompass a full range of path surfaces, including

- natural grass and beaten earth paths through fields, woods, along riverbanks, etc; surfaced paths and tracks, towpaths,

etc; farm and forestry tracks; waterways with launching points; and quiet minor roads and pavements for certain

stretches if and when required. (The Access Officer has expressed a preference to designate the macadam surface of the

Ederline drive over the Old Drove Road, which it seems he should not have done).

Stock fencing on both sides of core paths over lengthy sections should be avoided. (The Access Officer has selected

route C149(a) over the alternative, despite C149(a)’s stock fencing and the natural boundaries of the alternative).

Core paths should assist the interests of sound land management, (including diversification and local enterprise),

without compromising accessibility. Through facilitating and encouraging access along suitable and agreed routes, the

core paths should aim to achieve mutual benefits for users and land managers. (The council has not sought to facilitate

or encourage access along suitable and agreed routes in the interests of mutual benefits for users and land managers at

Ederline; the routes of C149(a) and C493 appear to have been chosen in order to promote maximum friction).

An Attitude Problem

The attitude of the Access Officer towards the rights of those engaged in land management is illustrated by the following

comments:

Regarding the traditional farm kennels at Ederline Farm, “Certain measures could be taken by the owner of the dog to reduce any

possible disturbance, such as housing the dogs away from the route.”

Regarding potential interference with privacy at the Ederline Holiday Cottages, “People renting the Holiday Cottages will in all

likelihood spend a considerable proportion of their time exercising their access rights on land belonging to other people in the

area.”

Notwithstanding that we do not agree that ‘many of those supporting this path had been clear that this was their chosen route’,

regarding the Access Officer’s judgement that aspiration is enough to justify public use of a private drive, “Even if an alternative

route is provided many of those supporting this path have been clear that it is the road through the estate that they wish to use.

The current route is fairly level and has a good surface throughout and is accessible to people of all abilities the alternative will

never offer a similar standard of path.”

Regarding inconsistency of approach concerning path surfacing, “There is no intention that they will all become surfaced paths let

alone that there will is funding to achieve this potentially undesirable outcome.”

Regarding the heavy-handed approach, “Section 6 does not prevent or restrict the exercise of access rights over any land which is

a core path, thereby allowing a right of access through the farmyard.”

Regarding the scant regard for peoples’ privacy, “This is the residential property that will be most impacted by people passing it,

although because of its location next to the main road through the estate and at the heart of the farming operations it is already a

busy area.”

Regarding animal welfare and common sense, “Nothing in the Scottish Outdoor Access Code suggests that bio-security would be

threatened by allowing public access.”

Regarding Health & Safety, “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.”

And finally, regarding the conscious promotion of conflict, “In view of the fact that there is some support for this path to be

designated as a Core Path and a history of complaints about access rights I believe that the Council should continue to promote

this path for designation as a Core Path.”

Invitation to Consult Properly

We do feel, as the land managers who will have to live with the final decision on the ‘route’ on a daily basis, we have not been

accorded the time and the effort to find a way forward that will balance our requirements with those of the public. We also feel

that the Access Officer concerned has neither discharged his duties under the Act and Guidance (as outlined above), nor shown

the sensitivity and judgment needed by those in a position to influence the freedoms of others. I question the council’s approach

to the suitability of routes for designation as core paths; is it really necessary to focus on disabled access to rural land when the

community wants dog-walking paths and most visitors want to go hiking? Is putting up signage everywhere in our beautiful

countryside really the council’s panacea to all reasonable concerns on safety? We just hope that, along with the Access Forum,

we can see some sensible reasoning and achieve a solution which suits all parties. We remain open to proper consultation.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Mr & Mrs A Wilson, Ederline.

27th

June 2012.

C199 Furnace to Inveraray via Kenmore


Sent: 03 July 2012 14:27 To: Gritten, Jolyon

Cc: Jamieson, Elaine; Roland Stiven Subject: FW: Timber Transport and Public Access

Dear Jolyon,











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 :








Yours sincerely

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.


16. NP 002 Torinturk


18. C199 Furnace







27. A124 Glen Forsa


29. A226 Dalmally

30. A247Salachray

2. C199 Furnace Not a strategic Timber Haul route – concerns should be addressed via current work with NAF and FCS. Not all timber from this forest will head onto this road – access has also been taken from the A83

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.

C200Coillie Bhraghad – Queens Drive Inveraray From: House, Syd [mailto:[email protected]]


Cc: Jamieson, Elaine; Roland Stiven

Subject: FW: Timber Transport and Public Access

Dear Jolyon,











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 :








Yours sincerely

Syd Syd House Conservator Perth & Argyll Conservancy Tel: 01738 442830







33. C199 Furnace







42. A124 Glen Forsa


44. A226 Dalmally

45. A247Salachray

3. C200 Coille Bhraghad Inveraray Not a strategic Timber Haul route – concerns should be addressed via current work with NAF and FCS

Support

General comments;





C303(a) Cloanaig to Clachan Kintyre Way

C303(b) Cloanaig to Clachan




Dear Jolyon,




















Yours sincerely

Syd








48. C199 Furnace







57. A124 Glen Forsa


59. A226 Dalmally

60. A247Salachray

4. C303(b) Claonaig (Kintyre Way) Not a strategic Timber Haul route – concerns should be addressed via current work with NAF and FCS. If anything Core Path designation should increase chances of funding improvements on the Kintyre way.

Support

General comments;





C444 Oakfield to Eastfield, Tarbert Amendment

C454 Dalriada Dunamuck Section

C455 Dalriada Dalvore – Dunadd section

C458 Dalriada No9 Lock Crinan Canal - Dunamuck




Dear Jolyon,




















Yours sincerely

Syd








63. C199 Furnace







72. A124 Glen Forsa


74. A226 Dalmally

75. A247Salachray

5. 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;








Path or Launch Point No. & Name: C461 Dunaskeig, Clachan.pdf


Comment: This path is already used by the local community, who are most welcome. I have no wish to see

it advertised on a national website. I already experience problems with people trying to drive here parking

at the end of the public road blocking access. There are also issues of security, this path brings walkers

into close proximity of the house and outbuildings. Again we have experience of the field gates being left

open and stock escaping.

Your name: James Murphy

Serial No. 88


Address & Phone: Ferry Cottage, Clachan, Tarbert, Argyll. Pa29 6xn 0207 278-4770

C463 Dunskeg Bay




Path or Launch Point No. & Name: C493 Ederline Loch, Ford.pdf


Comment: See attachment sent to Mr. Gritten


Serial No. 118


Address & Phone:

Response to

Argyll & Bute Council’s Final Draft Consultation Document

Concerning the Core Path Network, Specifically Proposed New Paths at Ederline, Ford, Lochgilphead (Reference C149(a)

– Bridgend to Ford and C493 – Ederline Loch, Ford)

By Mr & Mrs A Wilson, Ederline, Ford, Lochgilphead, PA31 8RJ

Introduction

Argyll & Bute Council is required, under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, Part 1, Chapter 5, inter alia ss.17 and 18, to draw

up a plan for a system of paths (“core paths”) sufficient for the purpose of giving the public reasonable access throughout their

area. Subsection 17(3) requires the local authority to have regard to–

(a) the likelihood that persons exercising rights of way and access rights will do so by using core paths;

(b) the desirability of encouraging such persons to use core paths; and

(c) the need to balance the exercise of those rights and the interests of the owner of the land in respect of which those rights

are exercisable.

Subsection 18(1)(c) requires the local authority to consult–

(i) the local access forum for their area;

(ii) persons representative of those who live, work, carry on business or engage (or would be likely to engage) in

recreational activities on the land on which it is proposed that there be core paths;

(iii) Scottish Natural Heritage; and

(iv) such other persons as the local authority think fit,

in each case inviting objections and representations to be made to them within such period as they specify.

In addition, the council is advised by the Scottish Government to follow the ‘Guidance Note for Local Authorities and National

Park Authorities’ in the interpretation of the Act. Some extracts from the Guidance Note appear below.

We were interested to read the council’s responses to the objections. We believe that the council has not had proper regard to the

points listed in s.17(3) and has not properly and adequately consulted the parties listed at s.18(1)(c) – particularly in the light of

the Guidance Note.

Clarification of Points

In his assessment of the objections in respect of proposed new core paths C149(a) and C493, the council’s access officer has made

a number of statements that are either misleading or incorrect. Several of these are listed below, in the order given in the response

to our objection in respect of proposed core path C149(a).

3. History of Access

The report notes but does not emphasise that C149(a) and C493 are not currently public rights of way. They are not; and therefore

the council seeks to create two rights of way where there are none, and seeks to give them ‘core path’ status. The council admits

that part of C149(a) is not even subject to access rights. We believe it is obnoxious, and outwith the spirit of the Act, to attempt to

use s.17(2)(a) to create new core path over land where access cannot currently be exercised, particularly when good alternatives

exist.

Our objection contains plenty of evidence relating to the current status of these routes. Regarding prescription, Col. Warde Aldam

noted in the History of Ford and District written by the rural womens institute, in the section on Rights of Way (1966), “The

public have no right of way over the road which runs from South Lodge and the farm building and the owners have been in the

habit of locking the gates from time to time”. Members of the public have been asked not to use this road on numerous occasions.

The gates on both proposed core paths have been closed at times and locked at times. We maintain that no rights of way have

been established. There are a few people who do have permission to walk on parts of C149(a).

5. Alternative Routes

For the record, the council’s Access Officer declined to consult on the main alternative in either the draft consultative document or

during the first consultation, despite being asked to do so on numerous occasions. Consequently the public had no idea there was

an alternative. Having spoken to four of the ten proposers of C149(a) about the alternative route, we can declare that these would

all be happy with the alternative, especially if the drainage is improved. The Access Officer has still not consulted with us about

an alternative to proposed core paths C493 and C149(a) where they meet at Ederline Farm – at the section where no access rights

exist.

We are genuinely surprised that the council did not select the ancient Drove Road as a core path instead of C149(a). This historic

route between Loch Aweside and Kilmichael Glen winds through beautiful scenery and connects to other existing paths. The

alternative is peaceful; it does not have motorised vehicles, blind corners, buildings, phone lines, stock fencing along both sides

and, importantly, its use does not conflict with land management and is safe. Even promoters of C149(a) agree it would be

manifestly more sensible to choose the Old Drove Road as a core path instead.

The council’s Access Officer states that the alternative is rough and wet even in dry periods. We know this path; it is wet in three

places and a day’s work would remedy that (we would be happy to undertake simple works ourselves, such as scraping the surface

back to hard stone and diverting water away where necessary).

The council’s Access Officer states the alternative route is used for feeding cattle, which is incorrect (our cows are wintered well

away from the track). He further states that the route is used and made muddy by tractors, which is also incorrect (the only time a

tractor went up this track in recent years was to sort out a fallen tree after last year’s gales).

The council’s Access Officer states that the alternative route is not suitable because sections are on inclines. This ignores some

basic facts. Firstly, the paths connecting to C149(a) have equally steep inclines; one is also a busy, single track road with a

number of blind corners. Secondly, the council is not under a duty to select the routes for core paths according to their flatness.

Thirdly, a great many core paths throughout Scotland will be more challenging to use than this route.

Notwithstanding that the Act does not require core paths to fully interconnect, the council’s access officer states that the

alternative to C149(a) would not form part of a ‘loop’. This is, in fact, incorrect; the old drove road existed to link Kilmicheal

Glen with Ford and it affords the visitor a complete circuit of Ederline Loch, plus opportunities to access open land.

We consider these are important points because local authorities are to be mindful of safe, non-motorised existing routes for

designation as core paths – thereby reducing the obvious potential for friction and accidents.

The Farm road and drive were developed at a distance from the ancient Drove Road for the very reason that it separates the farm

and business use from public access, for the safety and amenity of all.

6. Consultation

The point here is that there has been no consultation with the land manager, no meeting to discuss a better way forward. As stated

above, the Access Officer has, for reasons only known to himself, omitted to consult properly concerning alternatives as though he

were judge and jury. We believe the council has failed in its obligation to meet the guidance:

Prior to drawing up the draft core paths plan, these consultations with all parties would aim to reach as much agreement

as possible over the approach and priorities for the core paths. Taking adequate time to achieve full agreement at this

informal consultation stage may avoid subsequent formal objections, and the need for an inquiry.

The Access Officer has omitted from his analysis of objections the conflict that his proposal is going to cause. Our communities

are small and fragile; as land managers, we do not want to be put into daily conflict with the community concerning only a

handful of people who want to use these routes.

Other Points from the Guidance Note

In addition to the requirements of the Act, the council is required to take account of the Scottish Government’s Guidance Note for

Local Authorities and National Park Authorities. Some relevant extracts follow:

New access links are likely to be a key theme within the informal consultation processes, and the subject of consultation

with land managers and developers to ensure the widest mutual benefits from the outset. (Consultation regarding

proposed new core paths C149(a) and C493 has been woefully inadequate).

It is clear that core paths networks are not to be restricted only to constructed or surfaced paths, but are intended to

include the full range of path types. The network is therefore likely to encompass a full range of path surfaces, including

- natural grass and beaten earth paths through fields, woods, along riverbanks, etc; surfaced paths and tracks, towpaths,

etc; farm and forestry tracks; waterways with launching points; and quiet minor roads and pavements for certain

stretches if and when required. (The Access Officer has expressed a preference to designate the macadam surface of the

Ederline drive over the Old Drove Road, which it seems he should not have done).

Stock fencing on both sides of core paths over lengthy sections should be avoided. (The Access Officer has selected

route C149(a) over the alternative, despite C149(a)’s stock fencing and the natural boundaries of the alternative).

Core paths should assist the interests of sound land management, (including diversification and local enterprise),

without compromising accessibility. Through facilitating and encouraging access along suitable and agreed routes, the

core paths should aim to achieve mutual benefits for users and land managers. (The council has not sought to facilitate

or encourage access along suitable and agreed routes in the interests of mutual benefits for users and land managers at

Ederline; the routes of C149(a) and C493 appear to have been chosen in order to promote maximum friction).

An Attitude Problem

The attitude of the Access Officer towards the rights of those engaged in land management is illustrated by the following

comments:

Regarding the traditional farm kennels at Ederline Farm, “Certain measures could be taken by the owner of the dog to reduce any

possible disturbance, such as housing the dogs away from the route.”

Regarding potential interference with privacy at the Ederline Holiday Cottages, “People renting the Holiday Cottages will in all

likelihood spend a considerable proportion of their time exercising their access rights on land belonging to other people in the

area.”

Notwithstanding that we do not agree that ‘many of those supporting this path had been clear that this was their chosen route’,

regarding the Access Officer’s judgement that aspiration is enough to justify public use of a private drive, “Even if an alternative

route is provided many of those supporting this path have been clear that it is the road through the estate that they wish to use.

The current route is fairly level and has a good surface throughout and is accessible to people of all abilities the alternative will

never offer a similar standard of path.”

Regarding inconsistency of approach concerning path surfacing, “There is no intention that they will all become surfaced paths let

alone that there will is funding to achieve this potentially undesirable outcome.”

Regarding the heavy-handed approach, “Section 6 does not prevent or restrict the exercise of access rights over any land which is

a core path, thereby allowing a right of access through the farmyard.”

Regarding the scant regard for peoples’ privacy, “This is the residential property that will be most impacted by people passing it,

although because of its location next to the main road through the estate and at the heart of the farming operations it is already a

busy area.”

Regarding animal welfare and common sense, “Nothing in the Scottish Outdoor Access Code suggests that bio-security would be

threatened by allowing public access.”

Regarding Health & Safety, “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.”

And finally, regarding the conscious promotion of conflict, “In view of the fact that there is some support for this path to be

designated as a Core Path and a history of complaints about access rights I believe that the Council should continue to promote

this path for designation as a Core Path.”

Invitation to Consult Properly

We do feel, as the land managers who will have to live with the final decision on the ‘route’ on a daily basis, we have not been

accorded the time and the effort to find a way forward that will balance our requirements with those of the public. We also feel

that the Access Officer concerned has neither discharged his duties under the Act and Guidance (as outlined above), nor shown

the sensitivity and judgment needed by those in a position to influence the freedoms of others. I question the council’s approach

to the suitability of routes for designation as core paths; is it really necessary to focus on disabled access to rural land when the

community wants dog-walking paths and most visitors want to go hiking? Is putting up signage everywhere in our beautiful

countryside really the council’s panacea to all reasonable concerns on safety? We just hope that, along with the Access Forum,

we can see some sensible reasoning and achieve a solution which suits all parties. We remain open to proper consultation.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Mr & Mrs A Wilson, Ederline.

27th

June 2012.

C511 Ardnave Point, Loch Gruinart, Islay




Path or Launch Point No. & Name: D001 Dunskeig circular, Clachan,.pdf



Comment: Route D001

Reinstate as core path.

It seems from the site that there are a number of objections to the exclusion of this route.

As previously stated I believe that this is a terrific route of historical interest as a previous trade route and

is of natural interest.

While there are copeting interest between those farming the land and those using access I think it important

that the landowner/ farmer is supported and suitably encouraged to work with access groups to both's

benefit. What we should avoid is pitting one against the other as both value the area all be it different ways.

cooperation is to be encouraged and the access users have responsibilities not to abuse access but rather

add to the value of the area by respecting the countryside.

I would propose that this route be reinstated and improved.

Your name: David Ritchie

Serial No. 20


Address & Phone: Corran Cottage, Clachan Argyll PA29 6XN




Path or Launch Point No. & Name: D001 Dunskeig circular, Clachan,.pdf


Comment: Responsible use of paths by walkers in general and locals in particular is not usually a problem,

however we object to the designation as a Core Path as it is likely to lead to increase in vehicular traffic

once advertised as such and particularly where Portachoillan is the start point – our experience to date is

that drivers doing so often park in such a way as to restrict access and can be obstructive when requested

to move to an area 50m away designated for the purpose.

Any increase in numbers will have a detrimental effect on the privacy and use of the house and area.

These comments are equally valid for paths C102a and C462

Your name: Rosemary Armistead

Serial No. 107


Address & Phone: Park Farm House Waterperry Common Oxford Ox331lq 07802 960669

D004 Moneydrain Circular

D025 Dun na Cuaiche, Inveraray




Path or Launch Point No. & Name: L013 An Lodan jetty, Ford Bay, Torran, Ford.pdf

Support Officer's Recommendation

Comment: Agree with moving of access point to L240 - although there is a dearth of access points at all for

canoeists on Loch Awe

Your name: Eddie Palmer, Sca

Serial No. 64


Address & Phone: Hillhead, Kinnettles,Forfar, DD8 1XF Tel. 01307 820454




Path or Launch Point No. & Name: L040 Dunaverty boathouse slip, Southend.pdf


Comment: Support alternative access point


Serial No. 75


Address & Phone: Hillhead, North Mains Of Kinnettles, Forfar, DD8 1XF




Path or Launch Point No. & Name: L062 Ronachan, by Tayinloan.pdf


Comment: Support due to the near location of other points, but pity that a possible access point for non-

motorised crraft has been spoilt by disturbance due to motorised craft.


Serial No. 76


Address & Phone: Hillhead, North Mains Of Kinnettles, Forfar, DD8 1XF




Path or Launch Point No. & Name: L240 Boat House, Kilneuair, Loch Awe .pdf


Comment: Access to Loch Awe is very restricted for kayakers and canoeists, and this is one of the largest

lochs in Scotland. It is essential that as canoeing continues to expand greatly, and this is one of the prime

locations for canoe-camping, that more access points are found.


Serial No. 83


Address & Phone: Hillhead, North Mains Of Kinnettles, Forfar, Angus, DD8 1XF Tel. 01307 820454




Path or Launch Point No. & Name: L240 Boat House, Kilneuair, Loch Awe .pdf


Comment: This is the private boat house to Ederline Estate.


Serial No. 119


Address & Phone:




Path or Launch Point No. & Name: NLP001 Whitehouse Bay, Inverneil.pdf


Comment: Agree with comments, but a great pity that there is almost nowhere for sea kayakers to land

between Ardrishaig and Tarbert. This is both an issue for tourism in the area, and also for safety


Serial No. 84


Address & Phone: Hillhead, North Mains Of Kinnettles, Forfar, DD8 1XF, Tel. 01307 820454

NP002 Torinturk to Port Ban, Kilberry


Sent: 03 July 2012 14:27

To: Gritten, Jolyon


Dear Jolyon,











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 :








Yours sincerely

Syd Syd House Conservator Perth & Argyll Conservancy Tel: 01738 442830







78. C199 Furnace







87. A124 Glen Forsa


89. A226 Dalmally

90. A247Salachray

6. NP 002 Torinturk 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. Little is gained by designating this route, those holidaying in the area can make use of the route, however advertising more widely i.e. as core path & on OS maps may see this route falling short of the visitors expectations due to work or closures. 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 continue on the basis of the SOAC.

Forest Enterprise (West Argyll FD) as land managers will comment directly

General comments;





From: J Robin Dixon [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: 19 June 2012 11:11 To: Gritten, Jolyon

Subject: NP002 -Torinturk to Port Ban, Kilberry

Dear Jolyon Mr Brian Leigh Bramwell owns Airidh forest which is in the middle of the timber haul route from Kilberry (Coulaghailtro) to Achaglachach (Torinturk) : the remainder of the haul route is mainly on Forestry Commission land. Mr Leigh Bramwell has passed to me correspondence re a recommendation for this timber haul route to become a core path. I object to this proposal as does Mr Leigh Bramwell on the grounds of safety. This route carries thousands of tonnes of timber each year and crosses very isolated countryside. The risk of an accident between a cyclist (often wired to music and not hearing as normal) and a timber lorry in such a situation is something we must seek to avoid by: a) Creating haul routes in the first place to reduce lorry numbers on fragile public roads used by non-forest traffic including walkers, cyclists and tourists b) Minimising the use of forest haul routes by traffic normally on public roads or way-marked footpaths. In the case of the Coulaghailtro- Achaglachach haul route I would respectfully suggest that this is not a suitable core path nor will it be used by many people. The much more scenic route along the B8024 will be the much preferred way. We have, through agreement, and with some trepidation accepted a section of the Kintyre Way on our North Kintyre Haul route but as yet we have used this section of the Haul Route very, very little and have had no real opportunity to assess the likely problems. There is an accident waiting to happen, and it will be a tragedy when it does happen. This is not a case of minimising public access – everyone has the right to roam – this is directing the public away from purpose-built timber haul routes unless there is a strong overriding reason to link two places –in this case the B8024 is, in my view, the link. Yours sincerely J Robin Dixon ROBIN DIXON & SON LTD Barfad Farm Office School Road Tarbert Argyll PA29 6UL

From: Kirsty Robb [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 19 June 2012 13:26

To: Gritten, Jolyon

Cc: Fergus Tickell Subject: NP002 -Torinturk to Port Ban, Kilberry

Dear Jolyon,

I have been contacted regarding the proposal to designate the forest haul route section between

Coulaghailtro and Torinturk as a core path. Concerns have been raised as to the suitability and safety of

this route being designated a Core Path.

I have had a look at the Consultation document for this section and note with interest your comments:

"This is a good quality route, which for the majority of its length is a Timber Haul Route. If the

route is proposed as a Core Path it is likely to receive an objection similar to the objections

received for other Timber Haul Routes that have been proposed as core paths."

This is an example of a timber haul route which is entirely unsuitable for use as a Core Path. As detailed

previously in the Argyll Timber Transport Group response to this consultation:

Forests and Woodlands in Argyll & Bute are currently used regularly by local communities and the general

public for all sorts of recreational pursuits. All forest operations e.g. harvesting operations, haulage, and

road construction are carefully planned by land owners and contractors with the appropriate health &

safety procedures implemented to keep the public safe, these are sometimes ignored by the persistent few,

but generally work can continue and the public are able to enjoy our forest environment safely.

In-forest haul routes, some of which have received large amounts of public funding are designed with the

specific intention of keeping heavy timber haulage away from the general public and local communities. To

promote forest roads as ‘Core Paths’ encouraging greater footfall would be counter- productive and

potentially dangerous. Potential Core Path users are also likely to be severely disappointed in the

environment created by a busy forest road – heavy traffic, mud and dust, diversions around work sites,

which are surely not harmonious with a country walk.

Argyll Timber Transport Group feel strongly that the Core Path Network should not direct the public onto

routes which are entirely unsuitable and potentially dangerous. Neither should it be in conflict with the day

to day management of forestry, a vital component of rural business which is so important to our local

economy in Argyll.

I have also completed the online objections report comment form and hope that you will take my comments

into consideration.

Kind regards,

Kirsty

-- Kirsty Robb Project Officer Argyll Timber Transport Group Harvesting Site Manager Ridings Sawmills Ltd (Cardross) Tel: 07788 536 878

NP005 Creag Bhan Viewpoint, Gigha




Path or Launch Point No. & Name: NP025 Portnahaven Circular (new section).pdf


Comment: I wish to register my objection to the proposed designation of path NPO25 as a core path.

Currently, locals and visitors alike use this path in order to gain access to the shore at Ceann a'Chladaich

as well as en route to Currie Sands and I see no reason for further regulation.

Since the introduction of the "right to roam" act I feel that adequate provision exists for walkers, ramblers,

etc.

Your name: Mary Henderson

Serial No. 93


Address & Phone: Rubha Na H-Uamha 4 Claddach Portnahaven Isle Of Islay Argyll PA47 7SY Tel. : 01496-860-275

From: Currie, Robin

Sent: 21 June 2012 14:29

To: Grierson, Douglas

Subject: Paths, Islay

I have become aware that there has been suggestions that some paths in the Portnahaven area

should be formally recognised. The crofters that have the land there, a Mr and Mrs Henderson, are not

in favour of this. They have no objection to people walking there as they do at present but that there

should be no formalisation by way of improvements to paths, sign-posting, etc. I support what they say

as the public have been able to walk freely in that area for as long as we can remember and no

complaints about restricted access have been made. The informal access between Portnahaven and

Claddach should remain as is. Thanks.

Robin Currie

Councillor, Kintyre and the Islands

Tel: 01496 850517




Path or Launch Point No. & Name: NP026 Portnahaven Circular (new section).pdf


Comment: I object to the proposed designation of path NPO26 as a core path on the grounds that

sufficient access already exists for walkers, tourists and locals. Any further regulation would be

unnecessary in my opinion.

Furthermore, I have reservations regarding the inclusion of a proposed path leading from Henderson's track

(NPO25) to the houses at the rear of Queen Street and would prefer that that section be deleted.

Your name: Ian Henderson

Serial No. 94


Address & Phone: Rubha Na H-Uamha 4 Claddach Portnahaven Isle Of Islay Argyll PA47 7SY Tel. : 01496-860-275

In a telephone conversation between Douglas Grierson and Mr Henderson 12th July 2012 Mr Henderson who

owns the field through which this proposal passes was very upset at the possibility that this route through the

field becomes a core path, stating that he only has grazing over a small area of land and having a core path

through this grazing area would be an unfair burden upon him considering the two other core path proposals

close by. He stated there have been instances in the past when gates have been left open and sheep have

gotten into peoples gardens. He also wondered what purpose does this proposed path serve especially with the

other two proposals NP025 and C058(a) being so close and in better condition.

From: Currie, Robin

Sent: 21 June 2012 14:29

To: Grierson, Douglas

Subject: Paths, Islay

I have become aware that there has been suggestions that some paths in the Portnahaven area

should be formally recognised. The crofters that have the land there, a Mr and Mrs Henderson, are not

in favour of this. They have no objection to people walking there as they do at present but that there

should be no formalisation by way of improvements to paths, sign-posting, etc. I support what they say

as the public have been able to walk freely in that area for as long as we can remember and no

complaints about restricted access have been made. The informal access between Portnahaven and

Claddach should remain as is. Thanks.

Robin Currie

Councillor, Kintyre and the Islands

Tel: 01496 850517

a058 blarbuie to baddens, lochgilphead · cc: jamieson, elaine; roland stiven subject: fw: timber...

Documents