National Access Forum - 17 September 2025

National Access Forum – 67th meeting on Wednesday 17th September 2025, 10:30 – 13:30

Hybrid meeting – In-person at Battleby and Virtual via MS Teams

1. Welcome, introductions and apologies – Richard Barron – 10:30 – 10:45
    
2. Minutes of previous meetings, action points and matters arising – Richard Barron – 10:45 – 10:55

AP 65/5: Richard Barron and Sue Hilder to draft letter to Fiona Hislop separately then send to sub-group – deferred

AP 66/1: NAFSec to set up working group to provide advice for NatureScot on updating forum operating principles – discharged

AP 66/2: NAFSec to set up first meeting of commercial access guidance and outdoor events guidance sub-group – discharged

AP 66/3: NAFSec to send out meeting note from Conic Hill working group meeting to forum members for info – discharged

AP 66/4: Convenor to send letter highlighting lack of funding with Agri Reform Programme to CabSec – discharged

3. Operating principles update – Ali Tait – 10:55 – 11:05
    
4. Signage – Bridget Jones – 11:05 – 11:25
    
5. SOAC – 20 Years of access rights in 2025 – Dougie Pollok – 11:25 – 11:30
    
6. SOAC supporting guidance review programme – Bridget Jones on behalf of Caroline Fyfe – 11:30 – 11:40
    
7. Commercial access and outdoor events guidance sub-group update – Fiona Murray – 11:40 – 11:50

Comfort break – 11:50 – 12:00

8. Drones – Adam Streeter-Smith – 12:00 – 12:25
    
9. Private level crossings and core paths update – Sue Hilder – 12:25 – 12:45
    
10. Resources for access update – Gavin Corbett – 13:00 – 13:10
     
11. Forthcoming meetings and agenda items – 13:10 – 13:20

• NAF meeting – 18th Feb 2026 – Battleby
• NAF meeting – 10th June 2026 – Battleby
• NAF meeting – 7th October 2026 – Battleby    
   

12. A.O.B. – 13:20 – 13:30

• NAF/LAF meeting 2025 – Ali Tait
• Dirty camping – Nick Cole
• Seasonal issues – Gavin Corbett

Close 13:30

Purpose

This paper updates the Forum on NatureScot’s review of guidance on the Outdoor Access Scotland website.

Action

The Forum is asked to note that the following guidance have been uploaded as html pages:

• Open Fires and BBQs in the Outdoors – advice for people managing the public
• Deer stalking and public access – guidance on stalking communication
• Local Access Forum – a guide to good practice
• Guidance on foraging in Scotland

The Forum is asked to note that a NAF sub-group has been established to progress guidance on Commercial access to the outdoors in Scotland and Outdoor events in Scotland.

The Forum is asked to provide any feedback on questions in the scoping paper on 3rd party promotion of outdoor access in Scotland.

Background

NatureScot provided a paper for the NAF meeting on 18 September 2024 outlining plans for reviewing and updating guidance on the Outdoor Access Scotland website. We committed to liaise with the organisations involved in producing each guidance document, and seek input and endorsement from the Forum on the National Access Forum guidance documents and any others of relevance. A ‘NAF approval stamp’ is used on guidance approved by the Forum.

Guidance review – progress

The table below provides a summary of progress since the last NAF meeting.

NatureScot
September 2025

Proposed new guidance 

Other guidance

Prepared by: Adam Streeter-Smith, Recreation, Access and Infrastructure Manager for The Cairngorms National Park Authority  

Purpose 

The prevalence of drone use at popular and iconic sites in the Scottish countryside, has prompted discussion between land managers and access authorities as to the whether or not drone flying is covered by access rights.

The National Access Forum is invited to:

1. Consider and advise if the use of drones below 250g is covered by access rights:
2. If covered by access rights, does the Scottish Outdoor Access Code (SOAC) provide sufficient advice on responsible drone flying and is it widely promoted:
3. If CAA / SOAC advice is not sufficient should national guidance be developed to clarify what responsible drone flying is.

Background 

There has been a steady increase in the popularity and use of drones for business and for personal use. They can be invaluable tools in surveying and provide awe inspiring footage for use in films and promotional videos. However there has been concern raised about the impact of drone flying on others enjoyment, sensitive species and sites, livestock and privacy.

This paper is focused on the use of drones below 250g (or in the Co class as defined by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)) and or non-commercial drone flying. Drones below this size do not require a Flyer ID, however it is recommended by the CAA to help people understand how to fly safely and legally. If they have camera an Operator ID is still required.

Scottish Outdoor Access Code

Drones are not specifically covered by access rights in the legislation. Section 2.14 of the Scottish Outdoor Access Code suggests that “the use of powered model craft” is out-with access rights. When the code was developed drone technology was in its infancy. At that time model aircraft use was most frequently associated with club or group use of facilities or sites and therefore local restrictions may have applied. 

Currently the Code makes no specific mention of drones. The flying of drones as a leisure activity may be interpreted as falling with the scope of ‘recreational purposes’ in Section 1(3)(a) of the Act.  It has also been noted that a user could be flying a drone for recreational purposes while standing on land not requiring access rights, like a road or a garden, but nevertheless overflying land where access rights apply.

If flying a drone for leisure purposes is to be taken to be within the scope of access rights, drone users would be required to undertake the activity in a manner that is consistent with the Code’s three guiding principles of respect for other people, caring for the environment and taking responsibility for your own actions. 

Key issues for discussion

Data Protection and privacy

Filming the public with a drone could be classed as video surveillance and for many individuals be seen as particularly intrusive, especially if for example, posting on social media sites such as YouTube takes place without the knowledge of the individual. There is no specific legislation on the data protection implications of drone use. However, the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression are both considered fundamental. The Information Commissioner, the UK Data Protection regulator, has stated that drone use may infringe a citizen’s right to privacy and private life if the drone is used intrusively.

Wildlife and Countryside Act 

Some irresponsible behaviours towards wildlife such as flying drones in a way that causes stress or disturbance to animals eg flying close to a nest site could be an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) and the Habitats Regulations 1994.  The Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) states “You must not intentionally disturb specially protected birds while nesting, or their young.”

Livestock disturbance

Unfortunately, there have been a number of high profile instances where irresponsible drone flying has caused livestock to panic which could be detrimental to pregnant females. Civil proceedings could be raised against an irresponsible drone pilot if livestock were injured as a result of harrying by a drone.

Non compliance with CAA drone guide

Irresponsible flying of drones has occurred eg piloting a drone out of direct sight, over crowded areas such as popular beaches.

Report to NAF from Chair of Short-Life Working Group on Private Level Crossings

The short life working group¹ was set up by the NAF in September 2024 to look at practical responses to a letter from the Scottish Government to access authorities in July 2024 on access rights at private level crossings on Scotland’s railways.  

The working group has met 5 times with an unplanned gap between December 2024 and July 2025.  The group has looked at a number of issues with a view to improving the way private level crossings interact with public access.  These include on-site signage, national guidance (including SOAC-linked guidance), and alignment with other parts of the UK. Our proposed way forward is attached to this paper, in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Network Rail and access authorities on dealing with public access at private level crossings. 

In developing the MOU, we have reviewed the 2019 “Public Rights of Way Level Crossings on the Rail Network” Memorandum of Understanding in England and Wales².  Although not an exact fit for the situation in Scotland, we believe that seeking to use a similar model in Scotland strengthens the value and legitimacy of the latter.

NAF is invited to:

• Note the progress by the working group and the draft MOU
• Note that it is subject to further comments from Network Rail and Scottish Government as well as any feedback from NAF members.
• Agree that the working group engages CoSLA and national park authorities to review the best ways in which access authorities can be reflected collectively as parties to the MOU.
• Consider whether and how NAF might be a party to the MOU.
• Recommend that, on completion of this work, Scottish Government issue a follow up letter to access authorities, updating on the matters covered in its directions issued in July 2024.
• Agree to receive a final report in the shortest possible timescale, with final MOU; agreement of parties; and arrangements for ongoing feedback and review.
• Note the intention to accompany the final MOU with dissemination and aware-raising activities.

Notes

1. Membership of the group comprised Highland Council (representing local authority perspective), Network Rail, Local Access Forums national representative, Ramblers Scotland and Scotways. The group was chaired initially by the NAF convenor and then by Sue Hilder of Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Authority. NatureScot provided secretariat. Scottish Government attended in observer capacity.
    
2. The England and Wales MOU is between Network Rail, the Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning & Transport - Rights of Way Managers’ Group (ADEPT), the Institute of Public Rights of Way and Access Management (IPROW) and the Local Government Association (LGA).

Following on from discussion at the National Access Forum in February 2025 NatureScot has prepared a short paper setting out the current position in relation to the role of signage in helping to manage outdoor access in Scotland.

Background

Signage has been one of the main mechanisms used to provide on-site information for the public about responsible behaviour and the Scottish Outdoor Access Code, as well as information, advice, warnings and instructions on a whole range of other access related topics.

Over the years support materials have been produced by a variety of organisations, including NAF approved guides, to help those involved in managing the public and land. The main audiences have been land managers, access officers, rangers, communities and organisations; and generally taking the form of printed or downloadable guidance documents, web-based information and templates.

Signage guidance

Paths for All have just completed an update of the “Signage Guidance for Outdoor Access: A Guide to Good Practice”, first published in 2009. The new guidance will be published this month (June 2025) and will be the most up to date signage guidance.

The following are in the “resources” section on the Code website and are identified in the SOAC guidance review programme:

• Signs Guidance for Farmers and other Land Managers – NatureScot – 2006
• Signs relating to access and locked gates – summary messages on good practice – NatureScot – 2012
• Signage – summary guidance on good practice principles – NatureScot - 2010
• “Deer stalking and public access – guidance on stalking communication” – NAF – update in progress, see Agenda item 6.

Signs templates

NatureScot has a signs section on the Code website with sign templates to download and use to help create signage for access management.

The templates are currently being reviewed and new proposals being prepared for signage design including the use of “poster” style signage, new graphics, imagery and shorter messaging as well as the flexible access and land management designs.

Signage design and use

There is a huge amount of access related signage being used across Scotland and it takes many different forms.  Some of the common themes for signs include:

• Lambing and livestock – dogs and dog control
• Fires and BBQs
• Wildlife disturbance – people and dogs
• Deer stalking
• Leave no trace - litter, camping, dog poo
• Path/trail/area restrictions – land management operations/public safety
• Shared use paths
• Direction and orientation
• Warning and safety
• Regulatory – byelaws and management rules

Many of the public sector organisations have developed their own signage design styles and use corporate branding. The National Park Authorities, Forestry and Land Scotland and NatureScot have their own approaches as do the respective local authorities. Land managers also produce signage sometimes with help from the access authority, NFUS or SLE and may also involve SPARC.

The messaging included on signs can vary even within similar topic areas. Recently, 2024, the Forum and the Visitor Management Steering Group agreed a messaging framework to guide Fires and BBQ messaging that might be used on signage, and to ensure consistency with the Code and other regulations.

Signage discussion

The updated Path for All Signage Guidance provides an opportunity to promote good practice and highlight the key principles involved. The refreshed sign templates from NatureScot and improvements to the Code website planned for this year will also help. But is there more that needs to be done?

Some discussion prompts:

• What are the issues?
• Consistency of messaging – national/regional/local – by topic/issue
• Use of shorter or clearer messages and alignment with the Scottish Outdoor Access Code
• Signage design/styles/templates/symbols – function and form
• Guidance, templates, support and sharing good practice

NatureScot
June 2025

Hybrid meeting: 17th September 2025

Present:

*Observing only

Apologies: Richard Armstrong (WalkingScotland), Richard Hunter (CONFOR), Jim Densham (Cycling UK), Roy Barlow (Woodland Trust), PoliceScotland

Item 1. Welcome, introductions and apologies

1. Richard Barron opened the meeting and welcomed David Maclennan, who is new in post as Deputy Director of Nature & Climate Change at NatureScot. He also welcomed Catriona Davies, who has begun her role at Mountaineering Scotland.

Item 2. Minutes of previous meetings, action points and matters arising

2. The minutes from the 66th meeting were confirmed as a true and accurate record.  
    
3. No matters arising.

AP 65/5: Richard Barron and Sue Hilder to draft letter to Fiona Hyslop separately then send to sub-group – discharged, more discussion during agenda item 9.

AP 66/1: NAFSec to set up working group to provide advice for NatureScot on updating forum operating principles – discharged

AP 66/2: NAFSec to set up first meeting of commercial access guidance and outdoor events guidance sub-group – discharged

AP 66/3: NAFSec to send out meeting note from Conic Hill working group meeting to forum members for info – discharged

AP 66/4: Convenor to send letter highlighting lack of funding with Agri Reform Programme to CabSec – discharged

Item 3. Operating principles update

4. The working group arose from an action given at the June 2025 National Access Forum meeting - AP 66/1: NAFSec to set up working group to provide advice for NatureScot on updating forum operating principles.
    
5. In advance of the meeting, the group was asked to consider the following questions:

• Are the current Operating Principles fit for purpose?
• What key areas or aspects should any review and update focus on? 
• Are they areas or aspects that can be omitted from review
• How would the Forum like to be involved in helping NatureScot update the Operating Principles?
   

6. Overall, it was felt that the Operating Principles are broadly fine, with some minor changes to be made to improve clarity, but it was also noted that the Operating Principles should not be too prescriptive as maintaining flexibility is important.
    
7. Membership definitions were highlighted as an area to focus on, with more clarity being sought on the different types of membership – full/corresponding/observing/non-voting. A table of definitions included in the updated document would be helpful for readers. The number of members is appropriate. The terminology also needs updating e.g. Scottish Natural Heritage changed to NatureScot.
    
8. The group agreed that the full Operating Principles should be included in the review, with nothing being omitted. It was noted that much of the document will remain unchanged, but important to review, nonetheless.
    
9. The group agreed that Ali will collate the feedback and take back to NatureScot, who will then draft updated Operating Principles to be taken to the forum at the February 2026 meeting. Unless there are any major issues flagged, the group felt that one meeting was sufficient but are happy to meet again if further discussion is needed.

Item 4. Signage

10. Bridget highlighted the range of signage that is currently available, including the blue and white templates available on the SOAC website. It is important to remember the role that signage plays in managing access. WalkingScotland is due to publish dedicated signage guidance soon and lots of related guidance is available.
     
11. NatureScot is currently updating the SOAC website and is looking at the signage templates within this update; will look at the possibility of flexible/blank signs. There is discussion to be had around consistency.
     
12. It was noted that it can be counter-productive to fund new signage while existing signage remains up; contributes to sign blindness and conflicting messages. Joined up working and resources on the ground can help back up good signage.
     
13. Discussion was had about the impact of signage with messages like “danger of death” but not enough specific details about duration or location, and how this can affect outdoor education practitioners, guides etc who need to work with risk assessments.
     
14. It is important for signage to not only give information about risks but also clear asks of visitors. There is lots of rich material to draw from, the trick will be combining that depth of available messaging with an ask that is clear and doable for land managers.
     
15. Will it be possible to do any user testing? NatureScot has just posted a masters project on their website - evaluating the effectiveness of signage used to influence visitor behaviour on national nature reserves, in the context of protecting nature. LLTNPA has also reached out to Stirling University to propose a study looking into the ongoing issues at Conic Hill with dogs and livestock. If this is unsuccessful, it could be productive for NatureScot and LLTNPA to look at working together on the potential masters project. Members asked Ali to keep them updated on this project.
     
16. It was also noted that it would be beneficial to have a national supplier of signage, potential savings to be made.

Item 5. Scottish outdoor access code at twenty years

17. The NatureScot summer comms campaign is complete, awaiting results.
     
18. NatureScot has made available another round of funding for supporting increased awareness and understanding of access rights and responsibilities (this follows from the funding that was made available in 2024/25). This fund is to support the development of more content, materials and activities which support ongoing awareness raising and understanding of SOAC, access rights and responsibilities.
     
19. £20k is available, with projects being awarded between £500-2000 each. The fund is open from the 1st October, and projects must be completed by the end of the financial year. However, materials produced will not have the SOAC at twenty branding, so they can be used after the end of the financial year as well.
     
20. Project proposals can be submitted until 1 December 2025, although NatureScot reserves the option to close the invitation for project proposals before the final deadline if more than enough good quality project proposals are received.
     
21. Please contact NatureScot with any queries using [email protected].

Item 6. SOAC guidance review programme

22. The Forum was asked to note that the following guidance has been uploaded as html pages:

• Open Fires and BBQs in the Outdoors – advice for people managing the public
• Deer stalking and public access – guidance on stalking communication
• Local Access Forums – a guide to good practice
• Guidance on foraging in Scotland
   

23. The forum was asked to note that a NAF sub-group has been established to progress guidance on commercial access to the outdoors in Scotland and outdoor events in Scotland.
     
24. The forum was asked to provide any feedback on questions in the scoping paper on 3rd party promotion of outdoor access in Scotland. Discussion was had about the cross-over with signage, and clarity of messaging coming from the code. Is there potential for a toolkit approach or a checklist? Also, clarity is needed about what exactly the term “third-party” means. The SOAC website is in the process of being updated. The forum agreed that they would like to see a further developed paper from Caroline Fyfe then potentially put together a sub-group to look at this issue.
     
25. With regards to Annex 1 update, NatureScot is in discussions with Scottish Government and aiming for position by end of the year.
     
26. The Brief Guide to the Law timeline has been updated, with it due to be published within the next month or two.
     
27. It was noted that the refreshed guidance for Access Authorities and National Parks is not on the list, Bridget will ask Caroline to add it for review.
     
28. Managing camping guidance was also highlighted for review next year.
     
29. Eleisha also noted the typo on the front page of the mediation guidance. NAFSec to resolve.

Item 7. Commercial access and outdoor events guidance

30. Fiona gave an update on the activity of the sub-group. The sub-group has met once and agreed its purpose – to achieve alignment between the two pieces of guidance. It was agreed the two should remain separate and that audiences should be made clearer. The sub-group is also looking to dovetail with the CNPA events guidance. It was also agreed that case studies should be included.
     
31. Hugh highlighted existing guidance from Outdoor & Woodland Learning guidance for landowners.
     
32. The sub-group will progress the drafts to a certain stage, then seek specific advice from forum members e.g. Willie White for advice on education groups. The guidance will then be brought to the forum via an agenda item.

Item 8. Drones

33. Adam Streeter-Smith provided a discussion paper on drones for the forum. This follows a lot of discussion and concern about drones within the Cairngorms National Park. Adam has also had discussions with National Trust for Scotland about drones and will pick up on these points after the meeting but noted that there is a group looking at this within the heritage sector.
     
34. The prevalence of drones has grown significantly in the last few years; they can be a valuable business tool and be useful for survey work. SOAC was written before drones became widely popular and therefore does not refer to them.
     
35. This discussion focussed on drones below 250g (Flyer ID is required for operating drones over 250g), these are more commonly used non-commercially than drones over 250g.
     
36. Recreational drone users can fly over other peoples land from their own. They can cause concerns around privacy; while flying over someone else’s land can be intrusive it is technically not illegal. There is potential for an offence if wildlife disturbance takes place – Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. There have also been reports of livestock disturbance.
     
37. Discussion was had about this issue and how it relates to the forum; is it appropriate to say that access rights apply to walking onto someone’s land to use a drone recreationally? Is land-owner permission needed? Or is it more effective to set out responsibilities/expectations? It was also noted that other activities e.g. fishing that are covered by other legislation/codes even though they take place in areas covered by access rights.
     
38. British Horse Society has done some work on drones and have an app where incidents can be reported.

AP 67/1: Helene to send BHS slides on drones work to NAFSec, who will share with members.

39. It was highlighted that it is not clear whether drone flying is within access rights; rather, appropriate use equals compliant with drone guidance so that is what needs to be made clear.
     
40. It was also noted that SOAC is specifically for non-motorised forms of transport (except for vehicles that have been adapted for disability). So, this may lend credence to drones not coming under the code.

AP 67/2: Adam to send NAFSec information on over-flying for NAFSec to share.

AP 67/3: NatureScot to seek legal opinion on whether drones are covered by SOAC.

Item 9. Private Level Crossings and Core Paths

41. The working group has met five times and has moved forwards with developing a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). There is an extant version in England and Wales, which is not an exact fit but there is relevance.
     
42. The MoU does not change the law or engage with the legal side; rather it provides a practical way of working to balance access and health and safety needs. It is clear that different parties are coming at this from different angles.
     
43. The forum was asked to agree on the process of moving forward with this MoU. A report and final MoU will be brought to the February meeting, with the aim of Network Rail and Access Authorities being the signing parties, and NAF providing endorsement. It is also expected that NAF will be updated after a bedding-in period. It was also noted that Phil could approach the original group Local Authorities he initially approached to be signatories if needed. 
     
44. As progress has been made on this area of work, the Convenor asked for AP 65/5 to be discharged, with possibility of adding it back to the agenda if needed.
     
45. Sue thanked Roddy MacDougall (Network Rail) and Gavin for their work in the background, noting the positive and pragmatic relationship that has been established.

AP 67/4: PLCs and CPs report and final MoU to be brought to the Feb 2026 NAF meeting.

Item 10. Resources for access

46. After the June meeting, a letter was sent on behalf of the forum to Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands Mairi Gougeon, highlighting concern about the lack of funding for access within the agriculture reform programme.
     
47. A response was received which highlighted funding for active travel, but this is not a reassuring response. Some conversations have been had with Scottish Government, and these are to be followed up via the resources sub-group.
     
48. Gavin has also been conducting a survey of access authorities to quantify situation with regards to capacity and delivery against obligations and will report back at the February meeting.
     
49. Sue, Bridget and Phil met with National Trails UK who are looking to put together a manifesto for funding in Scotland.

Item 11. Forthcoming meetings and agenda items

50. Please note amended dates for 2026 meetings:

• NAF meeting – 18th Feb - Battleby 
• NAF meeting – 10th June – Battleby
• NAF meeting – 7th October - Battleby

Item 12. A.O.B.

51. NAF/LAF meeting – If any members are aware of training opportunities from their organisation that can be offered to LAF members, please contact NAFSec. SOAN training module will be on agenda for meeting, which will be on 22nd October via MS Teams.
     
52. Dirty camping – Nick Cole updated the forum on access/visitor management issues that are occurring in Perth and Kinross, noting that a distinction between wild-camping and camping that is not SOAC compliant would be helpful to include in any guidance. Dog-fouling has also been raised as a specific issue, with Nick asking whether ownership of the issue could be taken on by Kennel Club. Discussion was had about specific existing guidance and toolkits e.g. from Keep Scotland Beautiful. As this is a wider irresponsible access issue it would not be helpful to look at it separately and Steve also noted the link to the signage discussion from earlier in the meeting.
     
53. SOAC Activity/Seasonal Issues – Gavin highlighted the recent calls for a review of SOAC and noted that often the response is a negative, which doesn’t properly illustrate the activity that is being done to promote code messages and activity. Asking for alterations to the code is an understandable reaction to the issues being faced, but it won’t resolve access/visitor management issues on the ground.
     
54. Bye-law proposal, Scottish Borders Council – The forum discussed the proposed byelaw to exclude access from the Centre Parks development near Hawick. NatureScot is a statutory consultee and will respond. ScotWays and Ramblers are also engaged with this matter. As it has wider national implications for access, it is not a local issue. ScotWays has concerns about only one Local Access Forum being consulted, when this has broader implications. As there need to be exceptional circumstances to justify a byelaw under S12, the argument will need to be carefully made. A similar example of this is Taymouth Marina development, which was rejected. Sue highlighted that the Centre Parks development may require a change of use, and therefore may be a planning authority issue with byelaws not being relevant. Gavin noted the closing dates for consultation of the 5th December and highlighted the importance of as many views submitted as possible.

AP 67/1: Helene to send BHS slides on drones work to NAFSec, who will share with members.

AP 67/2: Adam to send NAFSec information on over-flying for NAFSec to share.

AP 67/3: NatureScot to seek legal opinion on whether drones are covered by SOAC.

AP 67/4: PLCs and CPs report and final MoU to be brought to the Feb 2026 NAF meeting.