Page 1 of 14

Core Path Report for C199 Furnace to Inveraray via Kenmore

1. Proposed Core Path

Page 2 of 14

2. Summary of Representations Received Representation Respondent

Name Organisation/ Group

Objection Summery

Respondents proposed action

Respondent Ref No.

Objection withdrawn

Objection Mr Tom McLellan

UPM Tilhill. on behalf of Kenmore Forest

Business Delete P018/6

Support Frieda Bos About Argyll Walking Holidays

P166

3. History of Access i. Right of Way Status: It is highly probable that a Public Right of Way for pedestrians,

cyclists and horse riders has been created along this route which has been in use for many years. However no evidence of use has been collected because the land owners and managers have always permitted public use. In 2008 a padlocked gate was installed to control unauthorised vehicles from using this track along the shore between Furnace and Inveraray. Subsequently a large number of Sub Aqua Divers contact the Council stating that they could no longer access dive sites with their vehicles. The divers need vehicular access to allow them to transport their equipment to the dive site. Information was sought to substantiate a claimed Vehicular Public Right of Way along the track however insufficient evidence of use was provided. Since there is a gap adjacent to the gate the Council believe the gate is not in contravention of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. The Designation of this route as a Core Path will not permit vehicular access by the public nor will there be any requirement to remove or change the existing gate.

ii. Recorded Access Issues: none

4. Site Visit Photographs of the path and surroundings with comments

1. C199 start at Dalchenna stables 2. Sealed road to stables and Caravan Park

Page 3 of 14

3. Approaching Dalchenna Farm 4. Typical stone surface

5. Gates at Battlefield caravan park 6. Bypassing caravan park via bridge

7. Typical surface old road to Furnace 8. Typical stone surface at Kenmore

9. Typical section through quarry works 10. C199 left, at quarry entrance

Page 4 of 14

11. End of C199 towards Furnace 12. Car park at Quarry Park, Furnace

5. Alternative Route/s None identified.

6. Consultation with Objectors & Other Interested Parties Objector: Core Paths are detrimental to Tillhill’s business interests.

Support: Would like to see more Core Paths linking communities and providing recreation.

7. Access Officer’s Initial Comments: Promotion of Routes through the Core Paths Plan – One of the key benefits for members of the public will be that Core Paths are promoted through the Ordinance Survey maps which will show designated routes as being open for public use for the first time. The Council will also be able to target any resources that it has towards ensuring public access and assisting land managers with managing public access when paths have to be closed to allow land management operations such as tree felling. Although the public have rights of responsible non-motorised access most visitors to an area will rely on maps to indicate which paths they can use. For visitors from England and Wales who are used to networks of public rights of way being shown on their OS maps this is particularly important. Without the promotion of a network routes on maps the public are less likely to visit an area or spend as much time using the paths. This will have a direct economic impact on local tourism businesses and local communities.

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.

Page 5 of 14

Land Management Operations- such as Tree Felling and Bracken spraying- The Scottish Outdoor Access Code states “Land Managers need to conduct their work as safely and effectively as possible. Hindering such work can cost them time and money, and can be potentially hazardous to your safety and to the safety of those working the land. Most situations will be adequately dealt with by recommendations and advice.” It further advises that they key points to remember if you come across a land management operation are: Keep a safe distance and take heed of reasonable advice provided by the land manager and follow any precautions provided for your safety.

Closure of Core Paths - As of November 2011 The Scottish Government and the National Access Forum have acknowledged that there is a deficiency in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 which means that there is no clear legal mechanism which would allow the use of a Core Path to be restricted or if necessary closed for any reason including on the grounds of health and safety obligations., however it is difficult to envisage that someone would progress on a core path when advised against doing so because of health and safety concerns. It is also possible that anyone disregarding such advice would forfeit their access rights.

Argyll & Bute Council has made a submission to a Scottish Government consultation on changes to Section 11 of the Land Reform Scotland Act proposing that Access Authorities be given the power to allow land managers to close Core Paths. Permission would only be given on the grounds of ensuring the safety of the public and the land manager to allow hazardous operations such as tree felling and spraying. The outcome of this consultation and other work by the National Access Forum is awaited with interest.

Maintenance – There is no requirement on the Access Authority to maintain a Core Path although the designation of a Core Path may in future make it easier for a land manager or community group to attract grants to improve a path. Since much of this route provided access to residential properties it is unlikely that the forest manager would be allowed to leave much of it in a poor state following tree felling operations. There is no standard of path provision for a Core Path which merely has to be passable for the users. Therefore a forest manager would not have to repair the path to a high standard following felling. Generally the Forest manager will reinstate a forest road within a few months to allow access to replant. I do not envisage a significant additional cost or need to change existing management practices.

Written Assurances - The Council is not in a position to give the forest owners a written assurance that the designation of this Core Path will not have a detrimental effect upon their business. Regarding the creation of a Public Right of Way over time I believe that one exists already since the path connects two public places, follows a more or less defined route and there is no evidence that for a period of at least twenty years that any attempt has been made to control public access.

Support from a Commercial Business - The sole supporter for this path is the owner of a commercial business which promotes walking holidays across Argyll & Bute to an international clientele. Commercial guides have the same access rights as any private individual and although it may appear that because there is a commercial interest this objection should be discarded this is not true. The provision of a good Core Paths network will in future underpin much of the tourism in the area and in turn the economy of many rural communities.

Page 6 of 14

Sufficiency: The Council has a duty in law to provide a sufficient network of Core Paths throughout its area for residents and visitors to the area. The Access Officers are of the view that without the inclusion of this path the Core Path Network will be insufficient in this part of Mid Argyll. This path is a link between Inveraray and Furnace and is understood to be a path that is popular with many local people. It is accessible for a wide range of users and is part of the mix of tourist attractions that have helped to establish Inveraray as a centre for tourism, with many jobs depending upon income from visitors. The Argyll & Bute Access Forum has a statutory role to advise the Council on access rights and the sufficiency of the Core Paths Plan and will consider this path in that context.

Conclusions - The route is an interesting and scenic coastal track, on an old road. It provides access to a small number of residential properties and is free from obstruction. The mixed stone and tarmac surface is suitable for cycling, and horse riding and is a popular walk. The path forms an important link between the communities of Inveraray and Furnace and is used by local people as well as visitors to the area. Therefore I am recommending that the council continues to push for the designation of this path as a Core Path.

Page 7 of 14

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: C199

Path Name: Furnace to Inveraray via Kenmore Forum Members Present John Urquhart (Chair) John Cameron Little Neil Duncan Mike McManus Blair Fletcher

Dave Tomlinson Duncan McDonald Tim Lister Malcolm Holder

Declarations of Interest None

Members Familiar with the Location John Urquhart John Cameron Little

Dave Tomlinson Duncan McDonald

Discussions General access rights Potential for route to be right of way Restrictions on future management

of woodland/road Primary function of the road

Other users of the road Issues of irresponsible use Popularity of location

Access Forum Advice to Argyll and Bute Council

Support Officer’s Recommendation (in Section 7) Object to Officer’s Recommendation (in Section 7) Mixed opinion amongst Access Forum members (record all views below)

Majority View Majority feel the route should be a core path Minority View John Little could not support the designation of this route as a core path

Page 8 of 14

9. Access Officer’s Final Recommendations This path has support from the Forestry Commission who have noted that they are working with the National Access Forum to produce guidance on the closure of Core Paths to allow forest management operations. The Community Council have supported the designation of the route which serves a number of private homes; however this will not entitle the public to drive motor vehicles along the road without the land owner’s permission. Notwithstanding this the path is popular with a range of non-motorised users and provides a link between two communities. Therefore I am recommending that it is designated as a Core Path, which has the support of the majority of Access Forum Members.

Page 9 of 14

10. Appendices

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

Page 10 of 14

Page 11 of 14

Appendix II. Copies of relevant correspondence None

Appendix III. Copies of responses additional consultations

Page 12 of 14

From: House, Syd [mailto:Syd.House@forestry.gsi.gov.uk] Sent: 03 July 2012 14:27 To: Gritten, Jolyon Cc: Jamieson, Elaine; Roland Stiven Subject: FW: Timber Transport and Public Access Dear Jolyon, Thanks for your email of 19 June re the above. It is unfortunate that the issue of timber transport and public access has become polarised in Argyll & Bute to an extent that I have not experienced elsewhere. By its very nature, Argyll & Bute is a rural area where, broadly speaking, most residents and visitors have had a long history of access to the countryside albeit following traditional permissive approaches. Forests and woodlands, in particular, have played a significant role in that (for example, the first Forest Park in GB, where access was actively promoted, was the Argyll Forest Park set up in 1935). The designation of Core Paths 'to give the public reasonable access throughout the area' might be construed by some to be less necessary in a region such as Argyll than in other, more heavily populated localities. Be that as it may, FCS is a supporter of the Scottish Outdoor Access Code and the designation of core paths. What we are doing is seeking to ensure a reasonable balance between the desire to promote 'reasonable access' and the ability of the forest manager to carry out forestry management activities without undue additional burdens. As you may know FCS has been tasked by the National Access Forum to develop a draft protocol to facilitate liaison between forestry interests and access authorities regarding management of access on core paths. This draft will then be subject to consultation with wider stakeholders followed by seminars to promote its contents. The intention is that this exercise will be completed by the end of March 2013. Once in place, this will give access and forestry stakeholders a clear basis for accommodating each other's interests within the context of the SOAC. It's a pity this was not in place earlier as it might have answered many of your queries. Because of the nature of the debate in Argyll, we will seek to hold a suitable seminar in Argyll & Bute to highlight the approach recommended. In the meantime however we have to deal with the current situation as it is. Broadly speaking, the forestry sector, both state and private, has a very good track record of supporting public access to forests and managing it positively to fit in with forestry operational activities. As I understand it, forest managers are concerned that, in some forest road locations in Argyll & Bute, core path designation may not be appropriate because the road is used regularly by heavy timber traffic. The main reasons are;

that core path designation would promote, via maps and other advertising, an unrealitic expectation of quiet access to recreational users at odds with regular use by heavy timber traffic;

that this might result in a conflict of use that the operational use of the forest road may be compromised by the designation and

place an unreasonable burden on the forest manager that access and use of the forest roads under scrutiny for recreational pursuit in

question is accepted by the forest manager but that core path designation is not as it will remove flexibility of forest management

Page 13 of 14

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 (roland@confor.org.uk), Confor, the Timber Transport Forum Project Officer who helps administer the STTF, who may be able to help. You can also view project proposals on http://www.forestry.gov.uk/STTF . Please find attached our comments on each of the core paths listed above including the objections. We would like both this letter and the individual comments to be available to the reporter when making their decision.We would be happy to discuss this further and to discuss the pending work of FCS in taking forward the protocol. Yours sincerely

Page 14 of 14

Syd Syd House Conservator Perth & Argyll Conservancy Tel: 01738 442830 * The attachment contains Objection s to Core Path Designation on Dunoon on: (a) C223 (Dunans Loop to Invereck and LLTNP boundary), (b) C211(a) Ardnadam Heritage Trail Loop and (c) C488 Dunloskin Wood. together with comment on the following roads :

1. NP 002 Torinturk 2. C172(a) Loch Avich 3. C199 Furnace 4. C200 Coille Bhraghad Inveraray 5. C303(b) Claonaig (Kintyre Way) 6. C458 Dalriada no. 9 lock 7. C468 Garelochhead 8. C520 Loch Nell 9. A002 Taynuilt to Tyndrum 10. A016 Barguillean 11. A121 Laggan Burn 12. A124 Glen Forsa 13. A200 Polvinster Oban 14. A226 Dalmally 15. A247Salachray 1. 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.