Core Path Report for New Path 020 West Highland Way

Transcription

Core Path Report for New Path 020 West Highland Way
Core Path Report for New Path 020
West Highland Way - Forest Lodge, Black Mount (OLI)
1. Proposed Core Path
Page 1 of 6
2. Summary of Representations Received
Representation
Respondent
Name
Objection
Michael
McManus
Organisation/
Group
Objection
Summery
Respondents
proposed
action
Respondent
Ref No.
Core Paths
Plan
insufficient
Include
this path
as a core
path
P107
Objection
withdrawn
3. History of Access
i.
ii.
Right of Way Status: Claimed Right of Way SA:003, may once have been the main road before
it was replaced by the modern A82 and also a section of the West Highland Way.
Recorded Access Issues: None
4. Site Visit
Start of the path at Forest Lodge
Scottish Rights of Way Society sign
One of a number of bridges designed by Thomas
Telford according to an interpretive sign at forest
Lodge
Page 2 of 6
The final section of path leading to the boundary
with Highland Council.
5. Alternative Route/s
None Identified
6. Consultation with Objectors & Other Interested Parties
The objection is to the failure to propose designating this section of the West highland Way in the
Core Paths Plan
7. Access Officer’s Initial Comments
After consulting with other Access Authorities responsible for managing the West Highland Way the
majority of the route south of this point including all of that in Argyll and Bute has been designated
as a Core Path. The section of the West Highland Way north of here in Highland Council has not
been designated as a Core Path because it did not satisfy the criteria set for a Core Path.
Argyll & Bute Council took the decision not to designate this part of the West Highland Way
because the next section in Highland Council’s area had not been designated and it was felt to be a
more rational decision to end the path at Victoria Bridge where two Core Paths meet.
There are arguments both in favour and against the designation of a recognised long distance route
as a Core Path.
In favour of designation of the West Highland Way as a Core Path;
The local authority already has an access agreement with the land owners
The local authority has a legal duty to maintain the path
It is already promoted and is highlighted on the Ordinance Survey Map at 1:50,000 –
1:25,000 and is in numerous guidebooks, websites etc.
33,000 people a year walk the path.
It provides a link between the two local authority areas and between the communities along
the route including Bridge of Orchy and Kingshouse.
The path is a good standard, vehicular track and could be used by cyclists, walkers and
horse riders and by a wide range of users of all abilities limited only by the gradient.
Page 3 of 6
Arguments against designation
The local authority already has an access agreement with the land owners
The local authority already has a legal duty to maintain the path which it does not have for a
Core Path
It is already promoted and is highlighted on the Ordinance Survey Map at 1:50,000 –
1:25,000 and is in numerous guidebooks, websites etc.
Because of these factors it does not need to be designated to protect public access along
the route
There is a suggestion that because the West Highland Way is a long distance path designated
under powers given to the Council by the Countryside Scotland Act 1967 it may have a higher level
of protection than a Core Path for instance the Council has a legal duty to maintain the path.
In this particular instance I will consult the land owner before seeking the advice of the Access
Forum. I am not convinced that there is any benefit arising from the designation of this section of
the West Highland Way as a Core Path, however if there is no objection from the land owner I do
not see any problem with doing so.
8. Advice received from the Access Forum
9. Access Officer’s Final Recommendations
Page 4 of 6
10. Appendices
Appendix I.
Copies of the representations received during the formal consultation
Page 5 of 6
Appendix II.
Copies of relevant correspondence
Appendix III.
Copies of responses additional consultations
Appendix IV.
Additional supporting documents
Page 6 of 6