Minute of Meeting held in Ledgowan Hotel, Achnasheen on Tuesday, 27th June, 2006 at 2.00 pm.
Present:-
Ms Cattie Anderson, Scottish Natural Heritage
Mr Robin Chalmers, Access Users Representative
Mr Robin Forrest, Access Users Representative
Mr James Hislop, Access Users Representative
Councillor Roy Macintyre, Highland Council Member Representative
Mr John Mackenzie, Land Managers Representative (Chair)
Ms Kristine, MacKenzie, Community Representative
In Attendance:
Geoff Robson, Head of Environment, The Highland Council
Phil Waite, Access Officer, The Highland Council
Stuart Livingstone, Senior Administrative Assistant, The Highland Council
Mr John Mackenzie in the Chair
1. Apologies for Absence
Apologies were intimated on behalf of Mr Richard Wallace, Mr E A Macpherson, Mr Hector Munro, and Councillor Val MacIver.
2. Site Inspection : Slaggan, Laide
The Members assembled at Ledgowan Hotel, Achnasheen at 2.00 p.m. and immediately adjourned to the site inspection at Slaggan, Laide.
On arriving at the site, the Chairman welcomed the objectors, Mr and Mrs Bovey, and the respondents Mr and Mrs Gunn and their representative Mr Ewen Mackinnon of the Scottish Crofters Commission. In addition approximately 21 local residents from the local crofting community attended. It was confirmed that Mrs Bovey would present the submissions for the objectors and that Mr Mackinnon would present the case for Mr and Mrs Gunn. The Chairman then outlined the procedure to be adopted.
The Access Officer presented the case for the Council, copies of which had previously been circulated. He advised that a dispute had arisen between some local residents and a crofter over whether access was being obstructed or deterred along the track off the road between Laide and Mellon Udrigle.
The track comprised an adopted road and right of way between the Laide – Mellon Udrigle road and the deserted crofting township of Slaggan. The road had a tarred surface in a poor state of repair and was gated at the Laide road end, which was not usual for an adopted road. Maintenance of the road had been sporadic, the last patching work having been undertaken in 1996. The Ross and Cromarty Area Committee had approved its removal from the list of adopted roads but had received an objection from Mr MacKenzie and the Aultbea Estate who owned land at the Slaggan end. This objection was the subject of ongoing discussion.
The road passed through an area of common grazing known as the Horse Park. Mr & Mrs Gunn, crofters in Mellon Udrigle, owned a number of Highland Cattle and sheep which they grazed in this area. They brought in feed for the animals which they unloaded at various points along the track.
Two of the local residents, Mr & Mrs Bovey and Mr & Mrs Russell felt that this practice encouraged the cattle onto the road thus causing an obstruction to responsible access. They considered the cattle to be dangerous given that cows with calves were present, and on occasion Highland bulls were also present, the latter posing a particular risk due to their horns. The objectors had suggested that the road be fenced to overcome these concerns.
It was explained that Mrs Bovey and Mr Russell had had prolonged correspondence with the Highland Council, first with the Head of Roads & Community Works and, from January 2004, with Alex Sutherland and Geoff Robson, Officers with the Council’s Planning and Development Service.
The Report advised that an incident had occurred in 1998 when a woman, accompanied by her dog, had been thrown by a cow protecting her calf. The woman had not complained and had admitted that her dog had chased a calf. After this incident Mr Gunn attached a home made sign to the gate stating, “ Please Beware of Highland Cattle, especially those with young calves”. While this was an unofficial sign the Report indicated that it was close to the advice available, in that it cautioned people of the risk but did not prevent them from proceeding. An official sign had been offered to Mr & Mrs Gunn but had not yet been erected. Mr & Mrs Gunn had disposed of the cow involved in the 1998 incident and believed the remaining cattle were of a docile temperament.
The Report referred to HSE Guidance sheet (No 17) on keeping cattle in fields with public access, which was currently being reviewed. The most pertinent points were;
• Dairy breed bulls are banned from fields with rights of way
• Other breed bulls only permitted with cows and heifers
• ‘Fields’ does not include open fell or moorland.
• Assess type and timing of access e.g. groups, dog walkers, summer v winter.
• Assess cattle temperament
• Consider fencing and alternative routes
• Display appropriate signs
The Scottish Outdoor Access Code advised;
• Do not take your dog into a field with young lambs or calves
• If the cattle react aggressively and move towards you, let the dog go and take the shortest, safest route out of the field
• If it is not possible to take an alternative route, try to keep a safe distance away and watch them carefully.
• Farmers/Crofters should avoid putting dangerous animals on a well used route.
If not consider signposting a reasonable alternative.
The Report invited the Access Forum to consider the following points:-
• Are the crofters doing all they can do to reduce the risk to the public?
• Is this area to be considered a ‘field’?
• Should dogs be permitted in this area when calves are present?
• Is fencing the road reasonable and who should be responsible for this?
The Chairman then invited Mrs Bovey to present her case. Mrs Bovey read the following statement copies of which had been circulated to the meeting:-
“I would like to start by stressing that I have no personal vendetta with Mr & Mrs Gunn. I have always accepted that they have a right to put their cattle on the grazings. However the public also has rights. This road has been used over many years as a means of access to a settlement of nine crofts and the beach. In this area we have very few low level, easy walks which are suitable for all age groups, for pushchairs, bicycles and people with some degree of walking difficulty. Since being adopted by the local authority some years ago little has been done to maintain it and the presence of the cattle, particularly at the start of the road, has caused it to deteriorate rapidly. Although it is a public road/right of way the condition of the road makes it unsuitable for most vehicular traffic and it is used mainly as a pedestrian access.
“The Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, Section 49(1) states “any person permitting a creature in his charge to cause danger or injury to any other person who is in a public place or to give such person reasonable cause for alarm or annoyance shall be guilty of an offence.” By Section 133 of the same Act public place means “any place (whether a thoroughfare or not) to which the public has unrestricted access”. Therefore this road is a public place and as the animals give cause for alarm there is a continuing offence here the whole time. The occupier’s duty to take reasonable care of the public is not diminished by this new Act.
“As far as right of way is concerned, for upwards of 70 to 100 years or more this road has been used publicly and openly with no restriction or objection by anyone. Prescription and Limitation Act 1973 reduced the necessary period of uninterrupted use from 40 years to 20 years for a Right of Way. Nobody argues otherwise and Scotways accept this. It is an overriding interest and not referred to in Title Deeds in Scotland, unlike England. Byelaws made under the Act do not affect nor interfere with Rights of Way.
“For many years the local authority has had a duty to “assert and keep open and free from obstruction or encroachment, any public Right of Way”. This is now reinforced by Section 13 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 in relation to upholding access rights using the very same wording. When I raised this point with Mr Alex Sutherland in September 2004 he replied that “while the duty may be mandatory on Local Authorities, the manner in which the duty is exercised must be at the discretion of the Council’s elected members”. I always understood that “duty” and “mandatory” meant compulsory. I can see no point in having legislation which can be ignored if it suits the Council to so do. It is the Council’s duty to take some steps at least to keep the Right of Way open and free from obstruction. The cattle, particularly bulls are obstructions in law on Rights of Way.
“On this Public Road/ Right of Way there are cattle known to be dangerous and which the occupier knows have a propensity to make the public fearful. In November 2001 there was an incident where a lady visitor was tossed and gored in the leg causing an injury requiring eight stitches. Cattle are notoriously unpredictable animals. The notice on the gate at the main road shows that Mr and Mrs Gunn accept that the animals are potentially dangerous.
“After the fence was erected some six or seven years ago and the gate installed at the entrance (legally?) two highland cows were introduced, these and their offspring have continued to breed each year. In late 2005 there was a total of 11 animals, then a bull was brought in and shortly after two new calves were born, and another calf was born about two months ago. So we now have 15 animals possibly including three entire bulls. The Health and Safety Executive Guide Lines state that for beef cattle, which these animals are, no entire bull over the age of 5 months should be in an area where the public have access. The young bulls may have been castrated now, they were certainly entire when the three calves born recently were conceived. The recently introduced bull probably means that there will be more calves arriving soon. Each year the number of animals present on the grazing increases but they do not appear to be kept for any commercial purpose.
“In the summer the cows tend to wander off but do appear on the road from time to time. Mr and Mrs Gunn make no attempt to keep the animals off the road, especially in the winter, some seven months when they are fed daily. They are fed using a 4x4 vehicle which is driven down the road and the food is then placed at the side of the road wherever the cattle happen to be. There is no set feeding station. Very occasionally they might be fed over the fence from the main road or at the Beast Loch gate.
“The new legislation states that nobody should “deliberately or unnecessarily make a track that might be used by the public difficult to use by ..... providing an animal feeding site over or next to it when this could readily be done elsewhere”. It also states “in determining the way in which land is used, managed or the ownership of it is conducted an owner is to be presumed to be using, managing and conducting the ownership of the land in a way which is responsible if it does not cause unreasonable interference with the access rights of any person exerting or seeking to exercise them”.
“For over four years now I have been corresponding with the Highland Council in an attempt to get this road made safe for public use. Their replies to me have been, in the main, condescending and patronising. The walk along this road is mentioned in several publications obtainable from bookshops and tourist offices. This walk is of great interest to many people all the year round. Fishermen fish the lochs, there is a variety of birds, summer and winter, wild flowers, the old settlement is of archaeological interest, and the rock formations at the coast are of interest to glaciologists. The small beach was very popular in the summer.
“With all the recent emphasis on the establishment of core paths this road could easily link up with paths from Mellon Charles, Greenstone Point, Opinan and Mellon Udrigle.
“I would again emphasise that my efforts to ensure that this right of way is made safe for everybody has always been my main concern, it has not been done for personal reasons. There is no doubt that many people have been deterred from using the road because of the presence of the cows. I have met people who have aborted their walk because of the situation. I personally have not stopped using the road with my dog as knowing the area I never put myself in a position where I feel threatened, and more importantly put the cows in a position where they feel threatened. I would say that the majority of visitors wishing to walk the road have little or no experience of cattle nor do they appreciate how unpredictable they can be, especially when cows with calves and/or bulls are present.
“I know many people do walk past the cows. Mr. Waite I know has recently done so. I would ask you all to think of a situation where you wish to walk down this road with one child in a push chair another walking or on a bicycle and grannie and granddad who are of restricted mobility.
“Given the fact that the ground would make it almost impossible to make a wide detour around the cattle, would you proceed?”
“The ideal solution which I think would be fair to all parties is to erect a fence on the right hand side of the road from the main entrance to the cattle grid and gate at the far end. The fence could possibly be constructed in such a way as to allow sheep to pass under. This would give the cows an area of some 350 – 400 acres. If a feeding station was established inside this fence just down from the main gate with a small gate or style to give access this should be adequate. I know there is a cattle crush situated some way down the road which would need to be relocated. This could possibly be moved to the far corner of the grazings up the road to Mellon Udrigle where there is already a gate and a funnelled fenced area.
“Finally I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you and also to add that I have had support from other people in this matter and Scotways. I feel that this whole situation could have been resolved a long time ago by the authorities had they carried out their duty under the then existing legislation. I hope that now the new access legislation is in place we can all look forward to a solution satisfactory to all parties. Thus far the rights of the public have been totally ignored.”
Mrs Bovey concluded her presentation by stating that she considered that it was the duty of the local authority to keep the Right of Way open. She also considered that the sign erected by the crofters acknowledged that a danger existed. She highlighted the potential of the route to both special interest groups and general walkers and argued that this tourism potential was being hampered by the presence of the cattle. She suggested that a fence should be erected on the right hand side of the road to restrict the movement of cattle.
The Chairman then welcomed Mr Ewen Mackinnon to present the case on behalf of Mr and Mrs Gunn. By way of background Mr Mackinnon explained that the land had been used as common grazing land for centuries. It had been fenced in 1900 and again in 1994. The land was used by local crofters to graze cattle and sheep. Mr Mackinnon considered the issues under discussion centred on respect and responsibility. Walkers and those whose livelihood depended on the use of the route required to respect each others interests and act appropriately. There was also an issue of responsibility. Those using the land purely for access required to accept that they had a responsibility for their own safety while the crofting community had to ensure that cattle did not pose an undue threat. Mr Mackinnon felt that the crofters had acted responsibly in this respect.
With reference to the incident in 2001 when a walker was injured, Mr Mackinnon advised the Meeting that calving was now carried out elsewhere and that no danger was now posed to walkers provided that they acted responsibly. On the issue of fencing the road, Mr Mackinnon referred to the commercial expense but also highlighted the adverse environmental impact the erection of fencing would have an unspoilt area. Mr Mackinnon concluded that such and issue should be capable of local resolution and that Mr and Mrs Gunn should be encouraged to pursue their livelihood.
Mrs Gunn advised the Meeting of the difficulty of feeding in winter which required the feed to be left on a dry area of land which posed restrictions due to the boggy nature of the area.
The site meeting ended with a short inspection of the route. The Chairman explained that the Forum would consider the issue at its meeting in Achnasheen later in the day and invited all parties to attend. Mr and Mrs Bovey, Mr and Mrs Gunn and Mr Mackinnon all advised that they would be unable to attend.
The Meeting resumed at the Ledgowan Hotel, Achnasheen at 6.15 p.m. the same day when the following were present:-
Ms Cattie Anderson, Scottish Natural Heritage
Dr Stewart Campbell, Community Representative
Mr Robin Chalmers, Access Users Representative
Mr Robin Forrest, Access Users Representative
Mr James Hislop, Access Users Representative
Councillor Roy Macintyre, Highland Council Member Representative
Mr John Mackenzie, Land Managers Representative (Chair)
Mrs Kristine MacKenzie, Community Representative
In Attendance:
Geoff Robson, Head of Environment, The Highland Council
Phil Waite, Access Officer, The Highland Council
Karen McLeod, Principal Solicitor,(Planning), The Highland Council
Robert Bain, Area Development Manager, The Highland Council
Stuart Livingstone, Senior Administrative Assistant, The Highland Council
3. Resignation – Ms Cath Clark
The Chairman advised that Ms Cath Clark a Community Group representative had tendered her resignation due to a possible conflict of interest. Mr Mackenzie thanked Ms Clark for her active interest in the work of the Forum. The Forum was advised that action was being pursued to fill the vacancy.
4. Minute
The Minute of Meeting of 8th February, 2006 was submitted. The Minute was approved subject to a correction under the following heading:-
Core Path Planning
paragraph 5 – Delete “ 32,000 km of paths per page…”; Substitute “32,000 km of paths for the authority…”
paragraph 6 – Amend to read “Cattie Anderson, considered the scale of the maps to be unsuitable since it was difficult to differentiate the colouring between paths and roads.”
5. Communication Strategy
There had been circulated Report by the Head of Environment, The Highland Council, updating the Forum on progress with regard to the Communications strategy. The Report highlighted measures being taken to disseminate and gather information between the Council and all relevant sectors. This was being achieved through a full range of communication and publicity.
The Forum approved the Report in principle and agreed that a further report be submitted to the next meeting providing details of the database being prepared.
6. Core Path Planning
The Access Officer provided an update on the timetable with regard to progress on the undernoted projects:-
Invergordon and Fearn Peninsula March/April
Gairloch and Loch Ewe May/June
Black Isle and Muir of Ord September/October
Loch Broom October/November
Mid Ross and Alness March/April, 2007
South West Ross May/June, 2007
Update on progress and priorities for Easter Ross, Gairloch and Loch ewe.
7. Local Access Issues
(a) Slaggan, Laide
The Chairman referred to the site meeting earlier in the day as detailed in Item 2 to this Minute. The Members who had attended the site meeting were invited to consider the issues raised by the various representatives.
The Head of Environment, The Highland Council, advised the Forum that the route was an uncontested Right of Way and as such was not affected by the terms of the Land Reform legislation.
The Forum discussed the issues raised by the parties and concluded that Mr & Mrs Gunn were taking active measures to minimise any danger to the public by removing cows with calves to a safe area outwith the area under discussion.
The Forum Agreed that :-
i) fencing along the route was unnecessary and inappropriate;
ii) the Access officer take steps to replace the sign on the gate;
iii) having regard to the area adjoining the road being common grazing, the use as such could not be construed as obstructive to other users, and,
iv) Mr & Mrs Gunn be asked to endeavour to find a feeding place for cattle off the road.
b) Public Access at Feddonhill Wood, near Fortrose
The Chairman welcomed Mr and Mrs Tuley to the meeting and explained the procedure.
There had been submitted Report by the Director of Corporate Services updating members of the Forum on the appeal by the owners of Feddonhill Wood against a notice served by the Council under Section 14 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 and to advise members of a compromise proposal put forward by the said owners. The Report also sought the Forum’s view of the said compromise proposal.
The Report highlighted the background to the issue which had been instigated following complaints from local horse riders that their access to Feddonhill Wood, Fortrose was being blocked by barriers. The Council’s Access Officer had met with the owners of the wood, Mr. & Mrs. G. Tuley on several occasions to try and obtain their agreement that horse riders be allowed to take access to the wood. These negotiations, seeking limited access to the wood, had been unsuccessful and the Council on 7th November 2005 had served notice under Section 14 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 on the owners. This Notice required the owners to either enlarge the width of the gap between the barriers and adjoining fences to 1.5 metres to permit the passage of horses and their riders or to remove the padlocks from the barriers.
After several hearings in Court a Proof had been set which would be held in Dingwall on 29th August 2006. While the Council acknowledged that not all of the paths in the wood to the North of the Broomhill Farm access were suitable for horse riding, it was of the opinion that the path shown in red on a plan submitted to the meeting was of a suitable construction for horse riders to exercise responsible access.
Arising from the discussions and following the initial Court hearing, the owners’ Solicitor had intimated that his clients were willing to put forward a compromise proposal involving the construction of a temporary access running parallel to the access road to Broomhill Farm until such time as the timber in the wood to the south of the Broomhill Farm access was felled. Following the felling of the wood to the south of the Broomhill Farm access road in approximately five years time, a permanent bridle way would be constructed allowing horse riders access to Broomhill Farm without requiring to use the Broomhill Farm access road.
The Report referred to contact made between the Council and those who had originally complained about access and summarised their responses to the situation and to the proposed course of action.
The Report concluded that although the owners’ proposal had been cautiously welcomed, the question remained as to why go to the time and expense of putting in a temporary access when there already existed a path that was considered to be suitable for access by horse riders. The Report indicated that a path shown in red on the plan submitted to the meeting could be used until such time as the trees were felled which would allow horse access to be monitored and used if necessary before considering the construction of a new bridle way.
The Report recommended that the Forum indicate to the Council whether it considered Mr. & Mrs. Tuley’s proposed alternative access for horse riders to be sufficient to satisfy their obligations to permit access in terms of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003.
At this point the Chairman invited Mr. Tuley to present his case. Mr. Tuley explained that he was a retired Chartered Forester previously in charge of Forestry Commission woodlands around Aberdeen. He also explained that he had been instrumental in the adoption of a walkers welcome sign by the Forestry Commission. He advised that he was the first to produce a local leaflet of recreational facilities in that area. He suggested to the meeting that this indicated that he was not opposed to the use of tracks in his woodlands by walkers.
Mr. Tuley described the neglected state of the wood when he took it over some thirteen years previously. The Council had not made any reservation about access rights when sold and the Forestry Commission had not grant aided recreation over the whole area. He also explained that the site was of a sloping nature rising from 80 – 170 metres with almost no level areas and all covered with trees with a track through the middle. Following acquisition he was concerned about the use being made of the track by motor bikes and horses and had tried to stop horses using the wood whilst reviewing his future proposals which took five and a half years. This action he considered necessary to prevent the churning up of parts of the wood, particularly during wet periods. His purpose behind managing the woodland was for the purposes of the enjoyment of the owners, to benefit his pension fund, to provide a source of firewood, to provide him with exercise, to benefit wildlife and to provide access subject to those using the wood doing so in a compatible manner for a small wood. Mr. Tuley explained that one of his main concerns was the use of the wood by horse riders particularly having regard to the fact that Broomhill Farm had a right of access through woodland along the track. As owner he had indicated a willingness for all horse riders to use a track and had offered its use as a core path and had been asked for horse box parking. The use of bikes had been restricted to a particular area of spruce where jumps had been erected resulting in a major increase in his insurance premium. He also permitted walkers to take access throughout the wood using paths, some of which were grass covered, and where he had excluded horses.
With reference to the path in dispute, Mr. Tuley claimed that some sections were liable to become muddy. There was also the difficulty of a steep track which could prove dangerous. Mr. Tuley disputed the statement by the Council that the path was mainly surfaced with hardcore and suitable for horse use. He also questioned whether the gradient was suitable for use by horse riders.
Mr. Tuley argued that as land owner he permitted responsible access. The gates to the site had been illegally unlocked in April 2005 resulting in damage by horses. Following this incident, he had met on a few occasions with the Council’s then Access Officer who, had advised him, that as an owner, he must allow horses and expect mud. Mr. Tuley posed the question as to what amount of mud could be created before walkers could reasonably complain. Following the meeting he had presented a written specification of what damage he thought could be sustained whilst retaining the grass cover. He stated that this had not been accepted by the Council. He also referred to a subsequent meeting at which the Council’s then Access Officer had invited an independent horse adviser who had suggested that a route for horses could be created through the spruce parallel to the track which he had not accepted. He advised that he had made a subsequent offer including the use of byelaws after the last Court hearing but claimed he had not received a response from the Council.
Mr. Tuley informed the Forum that the spruce would be felled within five years after which a new network of routes could be planned and which might include all access users including disabled with/without vehicles, walkers, bikers and horse riders. Part of a core path network would be provided subject to adequate funding and agreement. He also advised that following this proposed work all existing routes would disappear when the spruce were felled.
Mr. Tuley concluded that as an owner he had rights associated with the ownership of his land and wanted to retain grass covered paths, not mud. He argued that there were about sixty horses at Broomhill. There were also other horse owners in the area. He also advised that paths through the wood had been damaged which he was unable and unwilling to repair and was tired of receiving complaints from other users. He stated that considerable time and money had been spent on the horse problem which would have an effect on his livelihood and eventual return on his investment.
Mr. Tuley then advised the meeting that he would be agreeable to provide, at his own expense, an alternative path shown blue on the plan enclosed with the Report as a temporary route until that part of the forest had been felled in approximately five years time provided he could retain the existing path for use by walkers only including the retention of the locked barrier at the entrance to the track.
After a short discussion during which questions were put to Mr Tuley, the Chairman invited the members to consider whether they would be prepared to accept the alternative recommendation, namely, that Mr. Tuley construct a path along the line shown blue on the plan enclosed and that he retain the locked barrier on the path marked red on the enclosed plan.
Mr Robin Chalmers seconded by Ms C. Mackenzie moved the Forum recommend acceptance of Mr Tuley’s suggestion to construct an alternative temporary path shown blue on the plan submitted until such time as a permanent path could be built through the felled spruce.
Mr Robin Forrest seconded by Ms Cattie Anderson moved as an amendment that the Forum recommend that the gates to the path either side of the path shown coloured red be opened to permit access.
On a vote by a show of hands, 3 votes were cast for the amendment and 4 votes were cast for the motion with 1 abstention. The motion was declared the finding of the meeting.
(c) Braemore Estate
The Access Officer advised the Meeting that he had written to the owner of the Estate requesting that certain signs be removed which deterred access and that others be re-worded. The alternative route was also signposted and assistance might also be offered.
The owner had responded by agreeing to remove a sign at point A but had debated the issue of the signs at B and C and had asked what assistance the Council could offer. Following a visit and discussion between the parties, it was reported that all signs had now been removed. The estate had then invited the SRPA Access Officer to visit. She had agreed with the points raised by the Council’s Access Officer The Estate had thereafter agreed to review all the signs as requested.
The Forum noted the position with satisfaction.
(d) Reiff, Coigach
The Access Officer advised the Meeting concerning a locked gate on the path at Reiff and the reluctance of the owner to provide a replacement kissing gate. He advised the Meeting that after many attempts to contact the crofter discussion had not progressed satisfactorily. The Access Officer had then asked the Crofters Foundation to approach the owner to make him aware of hid responsibilities and a response was awaited.
After discussion, the Forum agreed that if the Crofters Foundation failed to convince the crofter to permit access the Council should proceed to issue a formal notice.
8. The Highland Council Access Strategy 2006 – 2011
The Forum noted an update report by the Head of Environment concerning progress of the Highland Council Access Strategy 2006 – 2011 which had been submitted to the Council. It was noted that the Council had asked that some aspects of the strategy be reconsidered, including (i) the raising of expectations, core policy, and the need to identify sufficient resources, (ii) a statement on long term strategy, and, (iii) the need to stress that the countryside was a working landscape.
9. Any Other Business
Ms Cattie Anderson distributed information advising that Scottish Natural Heritage had £2,000 the training of members. Arising therefrom, the Head of Environment suggested that this could provide scope for a joint crofters/Access Forum in the West coast.
It was agreed to delegate appropriate action to the Chairman, Ms Cattie Anderson, Mr Robin Forrest, the Head of Environment and the Access Officer and to report to the next meeting.
10. Date of Next Meeting
It was agreed that the next meeting of the Forum would be a daytime meeting to be held in the Council Offices, Dingwall on a date to be determined in consultation with the Chairman.
11. The Meeting Closed at 8.40 p.m.