Minute of Meeting of the Sutherland Local Access Forum held in the Dornoch Social Club, Schoolhill, Dornoch on Tuesday 16 February 2010
Present
W G Johnstone, Access User (In the Chair)
W Beattie, Forestry Commission
H B Field, Access User
J Gall, Landowner/Crofter
M Macdougall, Forestry Commission
F McInally, Paths for All Partnership
Dr G Park, Access User
J Ross, Scottish Canoe Association
W Sutherland, Crofter
A Wood, Scourie Community Council
C Whealing, Scottish Rural Property and Business Association
G Farlow, Councillor, The Highland Council
J McGillivray, Councillor, The Highland Council
In Attendance
G Robson, Head of Environment and Development, Highland Council
M Dent, Access Officer, Highland Council
A Macrae, Administrator, Highland Council
1. Apologies for Absence
Apologies for absence were intimated from M Macpherson, I Mitchell, and W Ross, on other Council business.
The Chairman welcomed Fiona McInally to her first meeting, representing the Paths for All Partnership.
2. Minute of Meeting of 10 November 2009
The Minute of Meeting of 10 November 2009 was approved.
3. Core Path Plan - Update
The Forum was advised that the response from the Scottish Government Minister was awaited, the indications being that Network Rail’s objections had delayed a final response but that it was hoped this would be received in the near future.
It was AGREED to note the current position with the Core Path Plan.
4. Prioritisation of Core Path Improvements
The Access Officer reported that Leader funding (£750,000) had been secured to match the Council’s available finding towards core path improvements. The intention would be for 20% of the monies to be allocated to community led projects, and the remainder for Council schemes. The assessment and scoring of paths which had already been undertaken as part of the core path plan process would be used by the Council as a means of allocating funds to specific projects and the funding would be used to assist with the implementation of the core path plan over the next three years, which would include the signposting of routes.
The Chairman expressed concern that it was important that community councils and community groups in Sutherland be encouraged as much as possible to apply for funding, and suggested that the Forum should have an input into the application process. It was confirmed that the community funds should be available by the end of the year. The overall amount had not yet been allocated between the areas, and that while Sutherland scored well in terms of the access resource, it scored less well on population grounds, although the City of Inverness would be excluded from the bidding process.
It was reported that applications would be assessed by the Access Officer, with the Council’s Land and Environment Committee having the final say on the bids received.
The Forum AGREED to welcome the additional funding, on the basis that community councils and community groups be encouraged as far as possible to apply for funding for community based projects, and that the Forum be consulted in relation to the applications coming forward, before being submitted to the relevant Committee for approval.
5. Alladale – Dangerous Wild Animals Licence
There had been circulated statement by the Chairman following on the recent decision of the Caithness Sutherland and Easter Ross Licensing Committee to grant the renewal of a Dangerous Wild Animals (DWA) Licence to the Alladale Estate. He advised that the Access Officer had sought to bring the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2007 and its relevance to the licence application to the Committee. However the Access Officer’s presentation had been ruled not to be relevant to the licensing application, and as a result of the decision to grant the licence, he sought clarification on a number of points;
• An explanation as to why the Land Reform legislation had been ruled not to be relevant to the licence application
• At which point was it competent to take the Land Reform Act into consideration, and the procedure by which this would be facilitated
• Issues regarding potential conflict arising from the fact that the Council is the licensing authority and also the guardian of access rights, and what mechanism exists within the Council to consider a recommendation from the Local Access Forum that existing walking routes be safeguarded
• Potential conflict of elected Members serving on the Local Access Forum and the Licensing Committee which approved the application
• Clarity as to whether the application had been granted, in principle only, and that conditions to be attached would be issued when a detailed application was considered, and whether this process would include the consideration of access issues
It was confirmed that the elected Members who served on the Forum were not Members of the Licensing Committee, and therefore there had been no conflict in this regard. In terms of discussion at the Forum in relation to any potential future planning application, the Council Members would have to have regard to the Councillors Code of Conduct.
The Access Officer reported that he attended the Committee but that the advice had been that his objection was not relevant to the licence application, and therefore the Committee had agreed not to hear his presentation.
The Head of Environment and Development reported on the complexity associated with overlapping legislation in regard to the development, namely the dangerous wild animal licence, zoo licence, planning legislation and the Land Reform Act. He explained that meetings had taken place with all relevant parties which had considered the scope for creating a corridor through the area to allow for access as a resolution to the matter. Ultimately the Committee had been advised to determine the licence application solely under the Dangerous Wild Animals legislation. In the meantime the Estate had notified the Council of its intention to apply for a Zoo licence which would be subject to wider public and stakeholder consultation, and which if approved would negate the need for a dangerous wild animals licence. However he clarified that a zoo licence could not be issued until such time as the planning issue, regarding change of use, was resolved, with the Estate having been invited to submit a planning application. Any such application would also be subject to consultation, and he advised that powers also existed under the planning legislation to attach conditions.
During the subsequent discussion the following points were raised;
• Concern that it had not been possible for the different parties involved to reach agreement on the matter
• The interests of those with access rights must be considered and protected
• An explanation was required from the Council as to why the application had been considered in isolation, and at what stage it would be competent to take account of the access issues associated with the licence application
• It did not seem equitable that the Access Officer had not been permitted to make his presentation on access rights to the Licensing Committee
• The condition to be attached to the dangerous wild animals licence which referred to access (Condition 8) effectively removed access rights
• Access rights could be pursued under the planning legislation
• The creation of a corridor as referred to above could potentially provide a solution to the licensing issue
Following further discussion the Forum AGREED that the Chairman write to the Council’s Head of Legal Services seeking clarity on the points raised in his statement, as circulated.
6. Local Access Issues
(1) Skelbo Wood – the Access Officer referred to a prohibitive sign (viewed by the Forum during their earlier site visit) which was located near to a derelict building and close to a recognised path. He noted that the path was not heavily used but that he was of a view that proportionate action should be pursued, noting that this was not the only sign on the Estate, and that one complaint had been received.
Discussion followed on alternative courses of action that could be pursued, and the Forum AGREED that the Access Officer approach the landowner with an offer that the Council issue the Estate with ‘Access is Welcome’ signs.
(2) An approach had been received in connection with a land manager who had been asked for advice on suitable locations to wild camp. He had not given out this information on the grounds that the dissemination of the advice could not be controlled, and his concern that it may be advertised on the web etc. The question therefore was whether the fact he did not give advice was contrary to the Land Reform Act in terms of responsible access management.
The Forum AGREED to express the view that it was not the duty of a land manager/owner to give out such advice and that his actions had been reasonable and had not been in contravention of the spirit of the Act.
(3) Rispond Pier – The Access Officer provided an update on this matter and reported that TEC Services (Roads) had written to the landowner to assert a right of access to the pier and associated buildings.
Cllr G Farlow advised that he would pursue this matter in conjunction with the local community council, and it was agreed that the Access Officer furnish Cllr Farlow with full details on the matter
7. Membership of the Forum
The Head of Environment and Development reported that the Council’s Planning, Environment and Development Committee (PED) had agreed that all existing members would be invited to continue to serve on the Forum, and that it was anticipated that letters to this effect would be issued after the meeting of the PED Committee in March. Thereafter and to fill any gas, nominations would be invited in the press from representative groups. The nominations would be reviewed at the ward business meetings and recommendations made to the PED Committee in regard to the appointments. Nominations would also be sought from disability groups and it was suggested that the Sutherland Access Panel be consulted on this matter.
Responding to questions it was confirmed that the status quo would be retained in regard to the geography of the Fora. The Chairman expressed concern that that the period members were to serve on the Forum be clarified at the outset, stressing that members should not be asked to serve ad infinitum.
Cllr G Farlow confirmed that he would liaise with the Sutherland Access Panel in regard to representation on the Forum.
8. AOCB
(1) Cllr G Farlow referred to the TV programme and book, ‘The Sutherland Trail’, and queried whether in light of the publicity generated whether there were opportunities for the Council to promote the route. The Access Officer suggested that the route was probably well signposted, however there the Council would have a role in ensuring that the routes was kept barrier free, that any signs which had fallen down were repaired.
Following further discussion on long distance routes, it was noted that Scottish Ministers were currently investigating the potential for a Scottish Coastal Path, and it was AGREED that this form an item for discussion at the next meeting.
(2) The Chairman introduced Gail Rogerson, Woodland Officer for Sutherland to the meeting, who would be replacing Mr Willie Beattie as the Forestry Commission’s representative. The Chairman also thanked Mr Beattie for his valuable contribution to the Forum during his time as a member.
9. Date of Next Meeting
It was agreed that the next meeting be held on Tuesday 11 May 2010.
The Forum also AGREED that consideration be given to holding two fixed meetings per annum, on a six monthly basis, with a further two dates being arranged as a reserve should the level/nature of business require a meeting to be held in the interim.