National Access Forum meeting - 2 June 2021

54th meeting, Wednesday 2 June 2021 10 am - 12:40 (virtual)

1. Welcome, introductions, apologies - Don Milton - Convenor

2. Minutes of previous meeting, action points and matters arising. (Unconfirmed minutes from the virtual meeting 27 January 2021 attached). Please email comments on the minutes to Secretary by 28 May.

• AP 53/1: Final draft of the guidance ‘Managing camping with tents’ to be circulated to full members for immediate comments or changes. Provided there were no substantive comments the Convenor would sign off any changes. Discharged: link to revised guidance on SOAC website circulated 19/2/21.
• AP53/2: Members to send the NAF Secretary any further topics for the annual work plan and AP 53/3: Convenor to populate the work programme with current tasks from the Forum and sub groups. Discharged: agenda item 8.
• AP 53/4: Sub group to redraft the NAF/LAF programme based on members comments that it should be more forward thinking and more interactive. Discharged: Agenda Item 6.
• AP 53/5: Convenor to discuss with Eddie Palmer running the mediation session as a separate event for LAFs. Discharged.

3. Outdoor Access with E- bikes – Research Update- Graeme MacLean - 10:20-10:30

4. Road Scotland Act & the Land Reform Scotland Act interactions (discussion paper attached) - 10:30-11:05 

TEN MINUTE COMFORT BREAK

5. Visitor Management Strategy (VMS) - 11:15-11:45

• VMS & SOAC communication – Mark Wrightham - NatureScot
• Stay a Night Trial – Fiona Murray - Forestry & Land Scotland (executive summary attached)

6. NAF- LAF Joint meeting 26 March- feedback from NAF members (summary note of the joint meeting attached) -11:45-11:55

7. LAF issue – The role of LAFs in relation to forestry operations and access (discussion paper & annex attached) - 11:55-12:10

8. National Access Forum Annual Work Programme – Don Milton (work programme attached) - 12:10-12:25

9. Forthcoming meetings & agenda items - 12:25-12:35

• NAF meeting 22nd September 2021
• NAF/LAF late autumn Joint meeting (virtual update meeting for LAFs) tbc
• NAF meeting 26 January or 3 February

10. Any other business (please inform the secretary of any substantive items) - 12:35-12:40

• Scottish Agritourism request to be a corresponding member of the Forum.
• How the NAF guidance on ‘Unauthorised Mountain Bike Trails – a guide for land managers and riders’ is being used to promote good practice.

Dates of next meetings:

NAF - Wed 22 September 2021, Battleby, Perth (tbc),
NAF/LAF – Joint Autumn meeting - virtual meeting,
NAF – Wednesday 26 January or 2 February 2022, Battleby, Perth (tbc).

Purpose

This paper from NatureScot summarises a number of identified issues that relate to the interaction between roads and access legislation. This is a complex area and the paper aims to provide a starting point for discussion rather than a definitive overview.

Action

The Forum is invited to discuss these issues and identify any positive action that could be taken to help address them.

Key issues

The promotion of outdoor recreation and active travel is now recognised as an important policy objective. This requires a clear understanding, by both the public and relevant authorities, of the types of non-motorised access that are permissible in different situations. This is largely determined by the combination of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 (LRSA) and the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (RSA), but the relationship between these Acts is not always clear. Forum members have highlighted a number of resulting practical issues including:

• Explicit restrictions on the range of users in situations where the public might normally expect access rights under the LRSA to apply. These include restrictive signs (eg. “no cycling”) and reported incidents in which horse riders have been charged with an offence under the RSA.
• The adoption of restrictive design approaches when creating new paths (for example in association with new development) on the presumption that these are solely for walkers rather than multi-use (including cyclists and horse riders).
• Partial, inaccurate or inconsistent public messaging leading to user conflict or under-use of particular paths by some users. This includes, for example, frequent blanket messaging that prohibits cycling on pavements, some of which can (if re-determined as cycle tracks) be legitimately used for this purpose.

As might be expected, the unclear legal position has been suggested to result in a variety of approaches across different local authorities, probably leading to further uncertainty among the public and other stakeholders.

Some Forum members have highlighted more strategic issues linked, for example, to funding, the balance of on- and off-road active travel provision and the implications of net zero. These policy issues are sometimes linked to the above technical concerns but probably require a wider discussion, and are not the primary focus of this paper.

Legal background

The LRSA confers rights of responsible access to most land, which extend to all non-motorised users including walkers, cyclists and horse riders, and to access with motorised vehicles “constructed or adapted for” people with disabilities. This establishes a normal default expectation that paths and places for outdoor recreation will be open to all such users, subject of course to responsible behaviour - including considerate shared use.

The RSA provides much of the legal framework for the management of roads in Scotland. Section 151(1) defines “road” very broadly to mean “any way (other than a waterway) over which there is a public right of passage (by whatever means)”. Section 151(2) then subdivides “roads” according to the extent of the public right of passage as follows:

• “footways”, where the right of passage is by foot only and the route is associated with a carriageway (this is more commonly referred to as a “pavement”);
• “footpaths”, where the right of passage is by foot only and the route is away from a carriageway;
• “cycle tracks”, where the right of passage “is by pedal cycle only, or by pedal cycle and foot only”, and;
• “carriageways”, where there is a wider right of passage by vehicle (this equates to the usual understanding of a “road” in common usage).

The “footway”, “footpath” and “cycle track” categories only therefore allow a limited range of users. Section 152(2) of the RSA allows roads authorities to re-determine specific “roads”, effectively moving them between categories, which can help to meet the needs of particular user groups in particular places, but none of these categories accommodates the full range of users than would normally be permitted under the LRSA. These categories carry significant legal weight, as section 129(5) of the RSA indicates that it is an offence to use these “roads” by modes other than those specified above, and there is consequently an inconsistency between the two pieces of legislation.

It is not necessarily clear which Act takes precedence in different situations. This has been considered to some extent in previous discussion between SNH (now NatureScot) and Transport Scotland which took place around 2010, during a review of national guidance on the provision of cycle infrastructure (Cycling by Design). This discussion noted section 6(1)(d) of the LRSA, which indicates that access rights do not extend to any land “to which public access is, by or under any enactment other than this Act, prohibited, excluded or restricted”, and concluded that the restrictions under the RSA would normally take precedence on “footways”, “footpaths” and “cycle tracks”. This caveat under LRSA section 6 is overridden by section 7(1) on “any land which is a core path”, and access rights have therefore been taken to apply in the normal way on such routes. This position was set out in the 2010 edition of Cycling by Design (see Annexes A1.4, A3.3 and A3.6), although these annexes are not included in the latest revision of this guidance.

Some ambiguities do however remain, particularly with regard to routes which are not designated as core paths:

• Section 9(b) of the LRSA indicates that access rights do not extend to “being on or crossing land for the purpose of doing anything which is an offence”, and as with section 6(1)(d) of the same Act, could be taken to suggest that access rights would defer to restrictions arising under the RSA. The interrelationship between these provisions in the LRSA is not necessarily clear.
• Section 129(5)(d) of the RSA conversely indicates that the offence under that section does not apply “where there is a specific right” allowing use of the route, creating a circular relationship with the above LRSA provisions, and it is not clear which Act would take precedence.

These legal ambiguities may be compounded by the frequent separation of roads and access functions within local authorities, resulting in distinct bodies of expertise in the application of the two Acts.

A possible approach

A definitive resolution of these issues would probably require legislative change and would not therefore be rapid or straightforward. A pragmatic initial step, however, might be to clarify the preferred outcome from a policy perspective and consider whether any further guidance may be helpful to roads/access authorities.

This is not a simple binary decision about giving blanket precedence to one Act or the other. In many situations, particularly away from “carriageways”, the full range of access permitted by the LRSA would seem to be a natural expectation. At the other extreme, many “footways”, particularly in busy urban areas, are not well-suited to multi-use, and the constraints under the RSA may then be entirely appropriate.

It would be helpful for the Forum to discuss these issues and consider any clearly defined action that may help to address them.

NatureScot
May 2021

Purpose

1. The purpose of the paper is to highlight a number of issues raised by the Local Access Forum representative relating to access management during forestry operations. These issues primarily relate to poor compliance with existing good practice guidance, but may also imply a need for more effective consultation with access authorities and LAFs.

Action

2. Members are invited to discuss the issues set out in the paper, indicating how widespread they might be and agree any supportive action for access authorities and LAFs.

Background

3. The functions of the LAFs are to provide advice for the access authority and others. The combined knowledge and experience of Local Access Forum members can provide valuable advice for changes in access provision during and after forestry operations.

4. Some LAFs have experienced access restrictions in their area, either temporary or permanent, brought about by forestry operations. The general principles of responsible access management during land management operations are of course set out in the Code, along with specific guidance for the forestry sector. Often early sight of these applications can prevent many unforeseen issues arising or allow for advice on more suitable, less restrictive alternatives which reflect local circumstances. Annex 1 (attached separately) gives a local example of some of the issues reported in para 5.

5. Issues reported by some LAFs from lack of awareness of forestry operations and missed opportunities therefore to advise may be summarised as:

• Lengthy restrictions to paths during forestry operations and lack of alternative routes,
• Restrictions remaining in place when no operations ongoing,
• Overly extensive restrictions to forest areas during forestry operations,
• Restrictions to some users from deer fencing of new planting
• Use of kissing gates for pedestrian access restricting multi use,
• Inappropriate use of signage during forestry operations (either wrong place or unclear).

6. ​​​​​​​The Scottish Forestry consultation process seeks views of local communities and stakeholders at the strategic Forest Plan stage and at the application stage for felling permission and woodland creation applications. (see: Forestry consultation procedures). Small scale forest management however does not require consultation but instead requires the application of existing good practice guidance (see para 9).

​​​​​​​7. Scottish Forestry maintains three public information registers for these purposes:

• The register of legacy grant schemes and Forest Plans
• The register of felling permission and Forestry Grant Scheme woodland creation applications
• The register of Environmental Impact Assessments

8. Furthermore, Scottish Forestry provides guidance on ‘Managing Woodland, Access and forestry operations’:  https://forestry.gov.scot/forests-people/managing-woodland-access . This includes 3 videos:

• An overview of best practice for safely managing woodland access during forest operations.
• Scenarios: guidance related to a number of typical woodland access scenarios.
• Interviews: views from various perspectives on the importance of well-managed woodland access.
• AND a link to The Managing woodland access and forest operations in Scotland practice note which sets out clear steps on how to be best manage forest operations to minimise disruption to public access and recreational users.

​​​​​​​9. It is clear that in theory the consultation process and industry guidance all seek to favour input from LAFs. However in practice there appears to be some cases when this process or the guidelines are not followed and some opportunities missed. It is unclear if the issues raised are a local matter or whether they are more widespread and what if any action can be taken to help minimise them occurring.

Discussion Points for NAF:

1. Is this a national issue requiring action by NAF?

2. Are access authorities receiving the relevant information on planned forest operations in sufficient time to consult, when necessary, with their LAF about access?

3. How can NAF/LAFs help, for example by building on/sharing existing good practice guidance?

4. What national actions/solutions can NAF recommend if appropriate? 

5. Can LAFs raise their profile with the access authority to ensure early engagement and timely advice?

Virtual meeting: 2 June 2021

Present:

*in attendance as additional representatives or guests.

Item 1 – Welcome & Introductions 

The Convenor opened the virtual meeting welcoming everyone to the Forum. He introduced a number of guests joining the meeting; Angus Corby and Fred O’Hara (Transport Scotland), Fiona Murray and Stuart Chalmers (Forestry and Land Scotland), Jamie Farquhar (Confor), Jim Densham and Graeme McLean (Cycling Scotland) and Eleisha Fahy (Scotways).

Apologies: Kenny Auld (LLTNP), Stephen Dora &, Alasdair Thomson (SG), Andrew Hopetoun, (HHA), Kevin Lafferty (SF), Eileen Stuart (NatureScot), Roger Scrutton (SSA), George Menzies (Scotways), Victoria Brooks (Wild Scotland).

Item 2 – Minutes, Action points and matters arising from previous meeting

1. Minutes: - the revised unconfirmed minutes of the 27 January 2021 previously circulated were approved with no further amendments.

2. Action points & matters arising: –

• AP 53/1: Final draft of the guidance ‘Managing camping with tents’ to be circulated to full members for immediate comments or changes. Provided there were no substantive comments the Convenor would sign off any changes. Discharged: link to revised guidance on SOAC website circulated 19/2/21.
• AP53/2: Members to send the NAF Secretary any further topics for the annual work plan and AP 53/3: Convenor to populate the work programme with current tasks from the Forum and sub groups. Discharged: agenda item 8.
• AP 53/4:  Sub group to redraft the NAF/LAF programme based on members comments that it should be more forward thinking and more interactive. Discharged: Agenda Item 6.
• AP 53/5: Convenor to discuss with Eddie Palmer running the mediation session as a separate event for LAFs. Discharged

3. Eleisha Fahy provided an update on AP 53/5. Two on-line mediation skills training sessions, sponsored by SOAN were held for access officers, forestry staff and rangers on 22 April and 25 May. Another SOAN event is planned for September and one sponsored by SRCA in July. Mediation Scotland gave an on-line training session for National Sheep Association Scotland members and received good feedback from the participants. It is still the intention to provide a mediation awareness session for LAFs which introduces the NAF Guidance Note, either as a standalone event or part of the NAF/LAF joint meeting in the autumn, as well as mediation skills training again tailored for LAF members. It is hoped that these events will extend mediation skills and build confidence in the sector. Eleisha raised the issue of funding and was keen to hear from the Forum of potential funding sources. Nick Cole said that the LAFs would very much like the training in mediation skills, suggesting a short standalone event would be best. Gordon Mckilligen said that the lack of local authority funding for training could be an issue. He again highlighted the lack of access officers in some areas which meant that access issues are not being addressed quickly before they escalate.

Item 3:  Outdoor Access with E bikes - Research Update -

4. Graeme MacLean gave an update on the UK joint research on ‘Outdoor access with E bikes’ which is being led by British Cycling. NatureScot and Scottish Forestry also contributed funding and the contract was recently awarded to Edinburgh Napier University. He explained that the research aims to increase our understanding on how to maximise the benefits of e- bike use whilst considering potential negative impacts, such as the interactions with other users, or impacts on fragile habitats. The research will be looking at four areas where there are currently gaps in knowledge including; trends in participation, design of paths and tracks for e-bikes, policies on land management and how changing behaviour, i.e. people becoming more active and accessing the countryside on e- bikes may be managed to mitigate against any potential impacts. The Forum along with other stakeholders will be able to comment on the findings from the initial desk based research, data collation and ideas arising from industry and user focus groups. Graeme agreed to keep the Forum informed of the progress and opportunities for members to input to the research.

Item 4: Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 & the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 interactions -

5. Mark Wrightham introduced this item which had arisen from previous discussions at NAF. As summarised in the short discussion paper this is a complex area to address, with the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 (LRSA) giving a general right of access and the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (RSA) applying more restrictive use, with each taking precedent on different occasions. There are also technical and design issues which have led to restrictions on access. He also highlighted the often mixed or confusing public messages for public routes particularly in peri–urban areas which led to restrictions on some users. NAF members had also raised issues around wider strategic funding for paths and active travel.

6. Angus Corby agreed that there are issues around the alignment of the two Acts. He suggested separating out the issues between trunk roads and local roads as these are handled differently, with the latter the responsibility of the local authorities. In relation to funding, Transport Scotland (TS) had invested a substantial sum into active travel and are very committed to get this right to address climate change and sustainability goals. He did stress that there are some areas where access restrictions must apply especially on trunk roads but added that all new TS schemes addressed access rights, e.g. the A96 duelling which included a shared use path along the route. Fred O’Hara added that Transport Scotland’s road policy guidance was being updated and he would be happy to look at this with colleagues in relation to the issues raised by the Forum.

7. In discussion, Nick Cole said that the core problem for LAFs arises from them not being statutory consultees, so they are often only contacted at the last minute when plans or operations are already in hand. Angus Corby replied saying that full public consultation is very much part of the process certainly for the trunk road network. Helene Mauchlen said that the British Horse Society had identified so many anomalies between the two Acts that she recommended that the Forum should push for legislative change. She also highlighted inconsistencies around consultation procedures between strategic roads and local roads development.

8. Helene welcomed the Sustrans ‘Paths for everyone’ approach as this had led to the removal of barriers and improvements for shared use. However there are still some issues surrounding shared use, with monopolies for walkers and cyclists especially on ‘quiet routes’ on country roads and pinch points on long distance routes in villages. Horse riders are often discriminated against with ‘cycle only’ lanes in and around towns and some footways unsuitable for multiuse. She mentioned the GG142 manual ‘Walking, cycling and horse riding assessment and review’ 2019, for designing routes where the BHS were very involved. Helene recommended that this needs to be more widely promoted and that guidance for local authorities was an immediate priority, along with greater consultation with LAFs. Fred O’Hara said he couldn’t comment on the local authority approach but it sounded as if guidance would be helpful.

9. Paul Timms agreed that in the longer term legislative changes were required, however, in the meantime guidance or a procedure note would be a good way forward. Stephen Jenkinson said he thought that the issues lie more with the local authorities and that the two culturally different approaches in the legislation were at the heart of the problem. He said there was an opportunity to help the local authorities to see what the unintentional consequences might be from any changes to the road network, ie pushing vulnerable users onto busy roads. He added that any guidance needs to be clear and there needed to be more education around removing signage and barriers. Stephan Hennig also supported the production of more guidance but stated that this needs to be informed by legal advice on the legislation. He added that there were provisions for changes and clarification in the LRSA through secondary legislation and that this was worthy of further investigation.

10. Angus Corby, mentioned the Scottish Government report on its ‘first 100 days of sustainability’ which provides an overarching framework for the delivery of safe access. He suggested closer partnership working, would help deliver this. Fred O’Hara mentioned the national ban on car parking on pavements and the understanding of the requirements of other users that had arisen from this move. The approach of education not penalties was he suggested best way forward. Johnathan Kitching mentioned the need for an education programme on the use of single track roads asking if there was anything in the pipeline to update the Highway Code to encourage motorists to consider other users on single track roads. Fred O’Hara agreed to seek advice from colleagues and suggested that the average speed on single track roads needed consideration.  

11. Rona Gibb agreed that there was a need to provide more guidance to local authorities especially with the drive to address climate change, reach net zero targets and develop green routes all helping to create more opportunities for access. She thought there were opportunities to use case studies e.g. the experience of the A96 upgrade, to show what can be achieved. Guidance would raise awareness across local authorities and other government departments. She mentioned that ‘Cycling by design’ was being updated, but raised concerns about any unintended consequences from just looking at one user. Instead she recommended that it should be looked at in a wider context, and compliance with the Equalities Act. Commenting on the ‘Shared spaces for people’ initiative she said there was still a tendency to promote single use, instead there should be a campaign around tolerance and more thinking about co-existence, disability awareness and the removal of barriers etc. Rona also suggested writing to the new Minister (Mairi McAllan) and inviting her to the next NAF meeting.

12. Fred O’Hara gave further background about the ‘Spaces for people initiative’ saying it wasn’t just aimed at creating spaces for cyclists but also allowed the widening of footways to implement pedestrian space. These are temporary measures and there will be experimental traffic orders, followed by a lot more consultations. Rona Gibb said that there was need to think about the signage and promotions as well as the space and a need to think about inclusivity of other users. Angus Duncan highlighted some good examples where local authorities are working with transport planners to develop more multi use paths. For example Falkirk Council had hosted a BHS event to raise awareness of the requirements for horse riders. He agreed that some steps needed to be taken to get better alignment between the two set of legislation, but argued that there was now widespread recognition that we have to improve spaces for people.

13. In summary, the Convenor thanked members for their input to the discussion. There had been agreement that some additional guidance was required and he proposed that a small working group be tasked with taking this forward and reporting back to the September NAF meeting. Angus Corby, Paul Timms, Nick Cole, Helene Mauchlen, Angus Duncan, and Jonathan Kitching all volunteered to be involved in the working group.

AP 54 /1: Secretary to set up a date for the NAF Access and Roads Working Group.

Item 5a: Visitor Management Strategy (VMS) and SOAC communication -

14. Mark Wrightham provided an update on the substantial partnership effort to implement the ‘Visitor Management Strategy (VMS)’ that had taken place over the winter months. The VMS was launched to the public in March and is available along with an ‘Action log’ on the Visitscotland website. He said that this effort had been well-received by communities and others, while noting that it would not prevent all visitor management issues. The weather had helped dampen visitor numbers, but some areas remain more under pressure than others. Monitoring will continue throughout the summer.

15. Mark went on to summarise the current implementation stage of the SOAC campaign. The campaign started in February focusing on ‘access with dogs’ but it is now much larger involving close collaboration between several organisations. On social media it has reached 3.5 million people with 10,000 clicks through to the SOAC website. The campaign is also broader, taking in wildlife disturbance, parking and new water based issues.

16. In terms of funding for visitor management, Mark outlined the outputs from the recent round of NatureScot’s Better Places Fund which seeks to provide funding for the rapid provision of infrastructure and services. He said 49 projects had been awarded funding totalling £1.4 million including funding for 62 new temporary staff posts and a second round of projects was currently being assessed. Corresponding funding through RTIF was being made available for more strategic projects. The aim is now to shift to longer term planning to:

• develop more engagement with schools,
• carry out research to investigate the driving forces behind behaviours,
• promote more sustainable transport and sustainable tourism options,
• review future governance and
• bring in key stakeholders like the NAF.

17. In discussion, Stephan Hennig questioned some of the messaging on the VisitScotland website in terms of Code compliance. Mark said this was being addressed and that on balance there were many benefits in having a wider partnership. Nick Cole argued that whilst school education would be beneficial in the longer term the majority of irresponsible behaviour is by people who are not interested and refuse to engage. He stressed the need for wider public engagement and education. Mark acknowledged the challenges and spoke about plans to work through ‘influencers’ rather than the usual outdoor activity channels. He referenced the good work being done by other organisations such as Ramblers Scotland, and why the research behind understanding behaviour is so important. Jonathan Kitching welcomed the idea of working with schools saying that children can bring influence on the rest of their family. See link to the small video on wild camping produced by Ramblers Scotland.

18. Helen Todd said she welcomed the recent investment but stressed the need for permanent posts and the replacement of access officers where they have been lost. It was important not to lose the current momentum and she suggested raising these issues with the new Minister. Mark agreed on the need to maintain momentum and that one of the priorities within the VMS is to engage with new ministers making a case for continued funding. Helen asked about the stalled SG monitoring programme for access officers and when this might be reinstated. Malcolm Duce confirmed that the access authority monitoring will commence once the pandemic is over and will run once every three years.

19. David Clyne outlined the visitor management investment in the Cairngorms National Park (CNP); £1 million is being invested in staff (9 seasonal, 5 full time rangers, bringing the total to 35 rangers) and £5,000 on infrastructure.  They have plans to recruit an infrastructure officer and develop the VMS for the coming years including upgrading campsites. Sustrans now have an officer embedded in the CNP who is preparing an inclusive active travel strategy. He reported that the Park is seeing an increase in water based recreation with some disturbance to breeding birds from paddle boarding eg at Loch Garten, the issue and possible solutions to improve access at key points and increase engagement and interpretation is being considered by the LAF at the end of June. The Park is also revising its events guidance and advice for land managers. Fiona Murray added that FLS had also recruited an extra 28 seasonal members of staff and were spending £5 million across Scotland on visitor management.

20. Eddie Palmer also acknowledged the growth in paddle boarding and said that a number of incidents had been reported by canoeists. However, the difficulty is in reaching this audience to deliver responsible access messaging, as many of them were not members of any affiliated group. Alan Dron mentioned water safety issues around open water swimming and paddle boarding following a recent fatality and the need to ensure clear access for emergency vehicles.

Item 5b): Stay a Night Trial – Forestry and Land Scotland 

21. Fiona Murray gave a brief summary of Forestry and Land Scotland’s (FLS) ‘Stay a Night Trial’ which operated for over 3 months during 2019 and is being repeated this year. She explained that the trial arose as a result of issues around the growth of unauthorised overnight parking and camping on FLS managed land, and having insufficient resources for enforcement. The trial opened up around 20 car parks for motor homes and campervans to stay overnight within the Forest Estate as part of their strategic visitor management planning. She reported that the facilities had been well received by visitors with good feedback, with people appreciating having somewhere quiet, and informal to stay and stating that they would be willing to pay. Up to 30 car parks have been opened up this year for overnight stays and more staff put in place to monitor the use and gather data on the impacts (e.g. incidents of littering, fire damage etc) for future planning. Charging is taking place but this is minimal (only two parking tickets) and no new technology is required to implement the charging. Early indications are that this year is going well. Davie Black offered support for the initiative saying it provided a much needed facility for access to the outdoors.

Item 6: NAF- LAF Joint meeting 26 March- feedback from NAF members

22. The Convenor relayed the feedback he had received about the NAF/LAF joint meeting held on 26 March. The attendance of over 70 participants suggested that it was useful. There had been general agreement that the presentations were very good, and the desire for an autumn meeting was strong although more time for debating LAF issues had been requested. He asked members whether they supported holding an autumn meeting, either virtual or physical, and when might be a suitable date. He also suggested that the small working group be reformed to draft a programme for the meeting. Nick Cole supported the idea of a further meeting for LAFs in the autumn suggesting that October or November after the September NAF meeting would be best. He also suggested a hybrid, virtual and physical meeting if technology would support this option. Other members of the Forum were supportive of a late autumn meeting for the LAFs.

AP 54/2: Volunteers for the NAF/LAF working group to plan the autumn meeting should contact the secretary.

Item 7: The role of LAFs in relation to forestry operations and access -

23. The Convenor introduced the item, highlighting the questions raised in the short discussion paper i.e. is access being unduly restricted during forestry operations and what action is required to increase the role of the LAFs in this regard. He asked the Forum for views on whether the issue was wide spread and if it can be dealt with locally. He pointed to the references in the paper to guidance on forestry operations, which was comprehensive and up to date. He mentioned the parallels with other access issues not being flagged up to LAFs sufficiently early.

24. Paul Timms thought it was a national issue but was uncertain as to how widespread it was. He was aware of several examples of where access to forestry has been impeded but also highlighted that responsible access includes the need to recognise the dangers of a working forest. He thought that there was scope for the Forum to work with the forest sector on this issue.

25. Stuart Chalmers gave the perspective from Forestry and Land Scotland and his role as national visitor services manager. He said there was growing concern about access near harvesting sites and their aim was to balance access that was safe and responsible. Feedback from his regional managers highlighted that some things could be improved around ‘public access management plans’ by visitor services and harvesting teams working closer together. In terms of LAF involvement FLS are supportive of being approached on key sites and they were keen to work with other stakeholders. They welcome early engagement of LAFs and firmly believe that the current guidance is adequate.

26. Helene Mauchlen agreed that the guidance was adequate but stressed that forest managers still needed to ensure that access is closed for the least amount of time possible. She said that it was difficult for LAFs to actively seek out cases on the register but that this could be eased if the policy was changed to seek direct LAF engagement. She added that most problems were resolved but perhaps could have been avoided through earlier engagement. She also mentioned that other barriers facing horse riders still included locked gates and stiles which were more difficult to resolve. Nick Cole reiterated these comments saying that the biggest issues are contractors leaving up signs, and a lack of consultation with LAFs in advance that something is closed. He agreed that the guidance was fine but wasn’t always followed.

27. Jamie Farquhar commented that FLS manage visitor access and forestry operations on the national estate very well but that the priorities for owners of the remaining 2/3 non-state forest enterprises were different. He reported that 98% of recreational users are responsible but the other 2 % were not responsible and this caused safety concerns. He added that keeping signs live and relevant is an issue as forestry operations are not 9- 5, some operations take place at weekends and some are stood down but it is too onerous to readjust signs for short period. Often a number of different people need access at different times and owners don’t know when people might be taking access.

28. Jamie agreed that the forest industry probably could do better and that it was a national issue. He thought that the written guidance was adequate and that engagement with stakeholders could be improved if the forest register was improved and if local authorities disseminated the information to the LAFs. He recommended a higher level education programme to reach the 2% that are putting themselves in danger and not undertaking responsible access. Roy Barlow reinforced several points; the excellent existing guidance and that the forest registers are not useful in their current form. He suggested greater involvement of the LAFs at the forest plan stage and plenty of notice on the ground during operations. He said that signage was essential but that forest managers still need to be aware of the 2% of the public that do not comply.

29. Eleisha Fahy said that consultation is key, stressing the importance of local authorities in disseminating the information to stakeholders. Some LAFs and access officers actively engage with plans which helps reduce the problems down the line. Stuart Chalmers agreed that seeking input during the planning stages was critical especially when fencing new planting areas and the need to identify gates. In terms of forest operations he welcomed more input saying getting the signage right is critical as well as adapting signage as operations progress. Although he stressed that sometimes what looks safe isn’t actually safe, and there can be risks associated with land slips and unforeseen hazards therefore it was important to obey signs even when work is not active. He would look at better advance communication and how to share this with LAFs.

Item 8: National Access Forum Annual Work Programme –

30. The Convenor asked the Forum for feedback on the usefulness of the current work plan tracker as introduced at the January 2021 NAF meeting. He also asked for ideas on topics for future meetings to be sent to the Secretary.

AP 54/3: Members to send comments on the work plan tracker and topics for future meetings to the Secretary.

Item 9: Forth coming meetings & agenda items –

31. The Convenor noted that this item had mostly been covered under items 6 and 8 above. Battleby is booked for the 22 September and further confirmation of whether it will be live or virtual will be given later. He asked about preferences for the January NAF meeting date.

Any Other Business

1. The Secretary informed members of the request by Scottish Agritourism to be a corresponding member of the Forum. There was no objection to this proposal.

2. The Convenor highlighted the recent U-tube video and how the NAF guidance on ‘Unauthorised Mountain Bike Trails – a guide for land managers and riders’ is being used to promote good practice. 

3. Steven Reeves asked about suitable signage regarding camp fires. Mark Wrightham said that this was being discussed as part of VMS shared messages and that he would forward the information. Alan Dron agreed to share his Scottish Fire and Rescue contact.

4. Fiona Murray asked members for advice on managing large events and the problems resulting when organisers go ahead without permission. Mark Wrightham pointed to para 3.60 – 3.61 in the Code stating it was good practice for organisers to liaise with landowners and when it was necessary to obtain permission.  Helene Mauchlen said that she regularly organised large events that required lots of local liaison and a huge amount of paper work but that it was worth it for the money raised. Angus Duncan said that if there was likely to be an impact on other users the LA would investigate using Sect 11 powers. Nick Cole said that whilst paper work is valid for large events it sometimes inhibited small groups from holding events and he asked if FLS could look at removing barriers for small events and small groups.

Close

Date of Next Meetings -      

• NAF – Wednesday 22^nd September 2021, NAF/LAF Autumn Joint meeting – Oct/Nov tbc, NAF – Wednesday 26^th January or 3 February 2022

Summary Action Points

AP 54 /1: Secretary to set up a date for the NAF Access and Roads Working Group.

AP 54/2: Volunteers for the NAF/LAF working group to plan the autumn meeting should contact the secretary.

AP 54/3: Members to send comments on the work plan tracker and topics for future meetings to the Secretary.

Summary of main topics - National Access Forum virtual meeting 2 June 2021

Mediation -

Following the publication of the NAF Guidance on ‘the Use of Mediation for Access’, two successful on-line ‘building skills in mediation’ sessions were held for access staff, and rangers by the Scottish Outdoor Access Network (SOAN), and another by Mediation Scotland for the National Sheep Association Scotland. Further training events are planned by NAF, SOAN and SCRA and mediation will also form part of Autumn NAF/LAF engagement.

Outdoor Access with E-Bikes –

Edinburgh Napier University were successful in obtaining the UK joint research contract led by British Cycling on ‘Outdoor access with e- bikes’. The research will be looking at 4 areas where there are currently gaps in knowledge including; trends in participation, design and operation of paths and tracks for e-bikes, policies on land management and changing behaviour, i.e. people becoming more active and accessing the countryside on e- bikes may be managed to mitigate against any potential impacts. The NAF along with other stakeholders will be able to comment on the findings from the initial ideas and focus groups later in the year, with the project scheduled to complete in late 2021 /early 2022.

Road Scotland Act & the Land Reform Scotland Act interactions -

The Forum along with representatives from Transport Scotland discussed a range of complex issues surrounding the interaction between the Roads (Scotland) Act and the Land Reform (Scotland) Act and the unintended restrictions that can arise especially around multi–use. This included mixed or confusing signage especially in peri–urban areas, design issues which favour walkers and cyclists, or those which forced horse riders onto busy roads. The discussion sought to separate out those issues which applied to strategic roads and local roads as the functions including consultation are handled differently.

Many but not all of the concerns raised by the Forum related to local road issues, which are not a Transport Scotland remit, and a lack of consultation opportunities. Therefore, greater awareness of inclusive design issues for multi-use at a local authority level was identified as being important. The focus on climate change and a move to net zero has resulted in many opportunities to facilitate active travel but these often tended to favour one user ie cyclists to the exclusion of other users. Better sharing of spaces and consideration of equalities was highlighted as being important in design, signage and promotion of routes. A number of good examples were given such as the multi-use considerations for the A96 duelling and the work of Falkirk Council transport planners and access staff in designing routes for horse riders.

There was recognition that both of the Acts had different starting points and objectives in terms of access rights which caused some difficulties in alignment but that changes to the legislation would be complex and lengthy. Instead there was agreement that further guidance on some topics would be useful and a small NAF working group would meet to take this work forward.

Visitor Management Strategy -

NatureScot provided an update on SOAC communications and the recent substantial partnership work to address national visitor management issues. Initial feedback is encouraging with many of the measures helping to ease visitor impacts but the picture across Scotland is variable. NatureScot’s Better Places Fund (Round 1, worth £1.4 Million) provided financial support for 49 projects including 62 new temporary staff and other funding through the Rural Tourism Infrastructure Fund (RTIF) is addressing more strategic projects. The co-ordinated SOAC communication campaign which is a key strand to the Visitor Management Strategy began in February, focusing on access with dogs but is now much broader covering a range of issues including wildlife disturbance and parking. The focus is on social media as well as traditional media and has reached 3.5 million people with over 10,000 clicks through to the SOAC website. Members welcomed the update and highlighted the additional investment that was being made in Rangers and in infrastructure. They recommended seizing on the current momentum and encouraging greater investment for the future. For details see VisitScotland Visitor Management: Scotland's Action Plan. 

Stay a Night Trial - 

Forestry and Land Scotland gave a brief summary of their ‘Stay a Night Trial’ which operated for over 3 months during 2019 and is being repeated this year. The trial opened up around 30 car parks for motor homes and campervans to stay overnight within the Forest Estate as part of their strategic visitor management planning. The facilities had been well received by visitors with good feedback, people appreciating having somewhere quiet, informal and low cost to stay. More car parks have been opened up this year for overnight stays and more staff put in place to monitor the use and gather data on the impacts for future planning. The Forum were supportive of the initiative as it provides a much needed facility for access to the outdoors.

The role of LAFs in relation to forestry operations and access -

The Forum discussed examples of where access to woodland had been impeded during forestry operations and the role that early engagement with Local Access Fora could play. The dangers of a working forest, including unforeseen hazards and often the uncertainty of the timing of contracted works in commercial forests were highlighted. It was recognised that the existing guidance on forestry operations and access was comprehensive and up to date. There was agreement that awareness raising of the guidance across the sector would be useful. Forestry and Land Scotland representatives said they welcomed input to their public access management plans at key sites and were happy to work with the LAFs and others to identify access issues at an early stage. Revision of the forestry register was identified as one mechanism to help better engagement with LAFs and other relevant stakeholders.

Forward work plan -

The Convenor asked the Forum for feedback on the usefulness of the current work plan tracker and also for ideas on topics for future meetings to be sent to the Secretary.

NAF/LAF Joint meeting 26 March 2020 –

Members discussed feedback from the recent virtual NAF/LAF meeting held on 26 March. Whilst lacking the usual networking opportunities, the meeting with over 70 participants had been successful combining presentations from a number of speakers and an update on the ‘Visitor Management Strategy’ work. A range of issues important to the LAFs was also included. Feedback suggested that the LAFs would like another virtual meeting in the late autumn with more opportunities to discuss current issues. A small working group would draft a programme to present to the September NAF meeting and LAFs for approval.

Future NAF meetings –

The next Forum meetings are: NAF meeting Wednesday 22 September 2021; NAF/LAF Joint meeting later autumn tbc, NAF meeting Wednesday 26 January or 3 February 2022. These meetings will continue to be ‘virtual’ rather than face to face until the current guidelines change.

For more information or comment on any of the above topics, please contact the NAF Secretary – Ali Tait ([email protected]; 01463 701662). Further information can be found on the National Access Forum pages.