Our overall impression of this consultation paper is that it is a well thought through document that shows a commitment to managing this important mountain area in an integrated way with an emphasis on participation from all interested parties.

The original call for this kind of management approach came simultaneously from the MCofS and the local community in 1997, so it is encouraging to see that within four years we now have this advanced document to comment upon, and a commitment of funding in order to implement the eventual strategy.

Although we feel this document is generally positive, there are points that we feel are wrong and in need of revision. We will attempt to list those points below, and give our views on how they should be amended.

Section 5. Mountain Management.
Bullet point C1 (iii), re. waymarking cairns. The installation of two navigation poles near the summit of Ben Nevis in the mid-1990's was a highly controversial issue and one that led to heated debate and direct action. The MCofS is firmly against such navigation aids that might prevent one accident, but contribute to another. We feel that the current wording of this point is open to interpretation and could be used as a route to repeating the previous conflict. The MCofS wish to be involved in any Advisory Group that is set up to discuss issues such as waymarking and wider mountain safety.

Bullet point C3. We believe that the litter problem on Ben Nevis should be targeted and made a priority in terms of information to general visitors to the area.

Section 6. Visitor Information and Interpretation
The Nevis "house style" is a concept that we support and represents a positive move away from the haphazard signs at the start of the Ben Nevis path.

In D4 we feel there is opportunity to raise the profile of the litter issue again.

Section 7. Traffic and Parking Management
We are concerned about traffic issues in the area and are pleased to see these being addressed. We feel that in E3 there is the opportunity to include cycling opportunities and cycle parking.

Section 8. Litter and Refuse Management
We wonder whether the reference in the Background section to litter at wild camping sites is actually referring to litter at roadside camping locations. We are keen to address all forms of litter, whoever is causing the problem, but we are also keen to separate wild camping from roadside camping. The two are different and we wish to see the correct use of terminology.

We believe that the litter education message should extend to a leaflet in bedroom packs in the Fort William area. This could be mentioned in F1.

Section 9. Planning and Development
We would like to see much stronger planning guidance that is strongly against bulldozed tracks and telecommunications masts.

MCofS Consultation Responses