Cairngorm Mountain Masterplan

A Brighter Future for the Hills?

George Allan

So it's here at last- no, not the bulldozers currently creating a building site around the funicular but Highlands and Islands Enterprise's long-awaited masterplan for the mountain. How far does it reflect the principles and proposals laid out in the 'vision' document produced by five voluntary organisations led by NEMT a couple of years ago?

Of course the voluntary organisations strongly opposed the repair of the funicular and, from the start, the masterplanning process was predicated on the funicular being back in service. There is little point in rehearsing the arguments against this decision. Suffice to say that the statement at the beginning of the Masterplan that the only reasons that repair was approved before the masterplan consultation were that the SE Group report recommended this and a decision to repair removed uncertainties stretches credibility to breaking point.

What is striking is that the document says so little about the future of skiing; after all if it wasn't for skiing the north side of the hill would be more like the north side of Braeriach! The SE Group report made recommendations regarding the future of uplift with the funicular back in operation but all we have in the masterplan is a commitment to 'review inefficient uplift and infrastructure'. Unless HIE gets this right, there is little chance that the sharp decline in skiers' interest in Cairngorm will be reversed.

The positives

So what's there to like about the plan? It contains strategies for

• ecological regeneration.
• active and sustainable low carbon travel from the Speyside corridor upwards.
• decarbonising the infrastructure. However, ideas for roof top solar PV and a single wind turbine at the base station will have to be approached with caution, given the potential landscape implications. It is interesting that previously mooted small-scale hydro doesn't get a mention.
• a Centre for the Mountain Environment. NEMT is very pleased that this proposal, which was original mooted by Bob Kinnaird fifteen years ago and which was a key proposal in the voluntary organisations' 'vision' document, is included. HIE seems to have listened to the arguments that such a centre should be an 'idea' which can encompass a flexible cluster of activities including nature tourism, high quality ecological and climate research, educational activities (both indoors and out) etc. rather than being just a physical entity. Consideration is to be given to the replacement of the day lodge with the 'centre' but the risk here is that the 'idea' will crystalise round physical infrastructure, such as visual displays, thus restricting its potential. The voluntary organisations' vision document suggested that the centre might be a twin hub to include the Glenmore area as well the base station area: it is disappointing that this wider option has been ignored.

It is to be welcomed that fairground 'attractions' such as zip wires and a mountain coaster aren't included but that's not to say that they might not emerge at a later date under the catch all section entitled 'a mountain for all', given that the tube slide infrastructure by the base station isn't mentioned either. While some flexibility over time will be needed around the edges, there mustn't be a drip-drip of applications for new infrastructure proposals which aren't in the plan.

What proposals ring alarm bells?

• Mountain biking. This section is short on detail and is contradictory. It notes the benefits of uplift for cyclists in the same breath as the need to disperse cyclists away from the honeypots of Cairngorm and Glenmore. Is the plan to have new dedicated downhill trails for both families and harder core riders? The biggest risk in high altitude facilities is the likelihood that this will increase bike use on the plateau. Much is made of monitoring to see if this happens but without any legal redress beyond byelaws, which would be nigh impossible to police, increased monitoring is meaningless.
• The visitor management plan. There has long been a lobby opposed to the section 50 agreement which places controls on egress from the Ptarmigan in summer. The document implies that HIE would dearly love to slacken these controls, if not rip them up all together. While regular review of the arrangements is not unreasonable, they are there for good reason. While past monitoring has been complex, the removal of chair access to the plateau in summer, together with the closed system linked to the funicular, does seem to have led to increase in ground cover (Bullivant, N. 2018 Cairngorm Ranger Matador). Looking further forward, if new chair uplift is constructed, will users be allowed onto the plateau in summer? The protected areas and the plateau remain under threat. There is a further question. Does the section 50 agreement discourage people from visiting Cairn Gorm? If it doesn't, why fix something which isn't broken?
• 'A mountain for all'. There is a section devoted to stressing the importance of providing diverse activities and improving access. Sounds good but there are risks in this approach. Drennan Watson once said “A mountain for all is a mountain for nobody”, or words to that effect.

Repairing the Funicular: will the Park and HIE ensure the ground is fully restored? ©Nick Kempe

The Bigger Picture

HIE has listened, at least to some degree, to the critics: the document stresses the importance of environmental sustainability and the proposal for a Centre for the Mountain Environment reflects the principle that activities on the mountain should reflect only what its unique environment can offer. Giving HIE credit, however, shouldn't disguise the following:

• From presiding over dilapidated infrastructure, illegal track building and ground works to outsourcing management to a company which had no relevant experience and failing to meet skiers needs, HIE's record as a custodian of the hill has been a disaster. The masterplan is only a document. How it is implemented will prove whether this heralds a better future for the mountain.
• Perhaps surprisingly the document slips in the possibility of a review of future ownership. Does HIE now want to wash its hands of the headaches, some of which it has created? HIE is an economic development agency and with statements such as 'integrated with the local tourism offer', 'opportunities to attract investment' and 'asset at the heart of a thriving economy' it shows. Maybe HIE has twigged that an economic development agency shouldn't own and retain responsibility for a high mountain environment. Perhaps it is acknowledging that there is a blatant conflict of interest in being responsible for allocating public money to run a business which it also owns and manages.

With a new Minister now responsible, there is an opportunity for the Government to radically change the current arrangements, but will it? And what of the National Park Authority? It has legal powers and informal influence. Will it use them to protect the mountain? Could the masterplan be a new start for Cairngorm? It is possible, just don’t put your shirt on it!

The masterplan is available here.

Coire na Ciste Proposals

NEMT decided not to object to HIE’s proposals to start charging campervan owners to use the Coire na Ciste carpark. We aren’t happy about any development at this altitude but accept the need for more campervan facilities in the area. In this case, the car park is already there and in use by campervans. We commented on the proposal suggesting, among other things, improved waste disposal facilities, increased tree planting and seeking increased guarantees against subsequent further development.

Please let the webmaster know if there are problems with viewing these pages or with the links they contain.