by Mike Dales

New guidance to local authorities planning departments will make it much more difficult for helicopter operators to set up tourist flights over popular mountain areas in Scotland as a result of a document published recently by the Scottish Office.

National Planning Policy Guideline (NPPG) 14 on the Natural Heritage gives the latest government policy on a range of environmental issues and with immediate effect will form the basis for planning decisions being taken by local authorities in Scotland.

The MCofS fought a long campaign through the first half of 1997 to prevent Man Friday helicopters of London from building helipads at the Sligachan hotel on the Isle of Skye and operating tourist flights over the Cuillin Mountains The MCofS campaign resulted in over 1500 letters of objection being sent to the Planning Office in Portree. The argument against the proposed development was that the use of the helicopters would be intrusive in a wild land area and cause a disturbance to people's quiet enjoyment of the area.

Planning guidance at the time was less than helpful in that planning departments only needed to consider the use of land, or in other words, the siting of the helipads. The proposed site for the helipads was only a few metres from the boundary of a National Scenic Area (NSA), but being outside the NSA, this designation didn't offer any protection to the mountains once the helicopters were in the air.

Wild land is mentioned in NPPG 14, and the MCofS is delighted that recognition is at last being given to the importance of this resource for the public's benefit. In a statement to the media, the MCofS Access and Conservation Officer Mike Dales made this comment about the latest publication from the Scottish Office: "One of the great pleasures of being in the Scottish mountains is that you ran enjoy your surroundings without the constant clatter of helicopters overhead. We are delighted that government protection is now in place to ensure that our mountains don't end up like the kind of fairground attractions we encounter in many other countries."

Helen Geddes, the MCofS Vice President was also quoted in the outdoor press with the following statement: "If helitourism had got its foot in the door on Skye, we could have faced the same problem on Ben Nevis, Glencoe, Torridon and so on. The support that our campaign received from mountaineers was tremendous and there is no doubt that the momentum it created has led to this new government policy."

Paragraph 16 of NPPG 14 states:

The most sensitive landscapes may have little or no capacity to accept new development. Some of Scotland's remoter mountain and coastal areas possess an elemental quality from which many people derive psychological and spiritual benefits. Such areas are very sensitive to any form of development or intrusive human activity and planning authorities should take great care to safeguard their wild land character. This care should extend to the assessment of proposals for development outwith these areas which might adversely affect their wild land character.

The Scottish Office has made it clear that this last sentence is aimed at enabling local authorities to refuse permission for plans to develop helipads where the use of those pads would lead to disturbance in a wild land area.

Since the campaign to prevent the introduction of flights near the Skye Cuillin was eventually won in June 1997, (more) the MCofS has continued to campaign for greater protection to the rest of Scotland's mountainous areas.

Read the full text of NPPG 14.

Back to Newsletter index

DIFFERENT ROUTES TO ACCESS LEGISLATION
IN SCOTLAND AND ENGLAND

by Nick Kempe

A key part of the new access legislation in Scotland will be the proposed Scottish Countryside Access Code which the Access Forum is currently working on. The Forum has now agreed that there should be a public consultation on the draft code and this should happen before the summer. Clubs and individuals will therefore have the opportunity to comment.

MCofS has been arguing strongly that the Code is mainly an educational measure and is therefore not something that can be enforceable in the same way as a law. We do believe that the criminal law ( which disturb nesting birds or let dogs worry sheep ) provides an adequate basis to govern behaviour in the countryside and that the real issue is how existing law can be made more effective (e.g. by promoting awareness through the Code) rather than trying to create new laws or new bureaucratic mechanisms.

Meantime in England and Wales, after months of speculation that the Government was reneging on its promise to deliver greater access to open countryside , it announced proposals for access legislation South of the border. These are totally different from the proposals for Scotland.

In England the Government is confining a legal right of access to open country, which covers but a small proportion of the land there. The implication of this is that people do not have a right to go to other areas of the countryside such as woodlands and indeed existing de facto access to these areas could be undermined by the legislation. In Scotland, by contrast, the Government has accepted the Access Forum and SNH's recommendation that there should be a right of access to ALL land and water ( except for gardens and land where access is already prohibited by law for safety reasons) as long as this is exercised responsibly.

In England, the proposed right of access is for walkers only. There are even arguments at present about what equipment someone can carry and remain a walker, such as whether an ice-axe and crampons makes someone a climber! In Scotland the right will be for all non-motorised informal outdoor recreational activities (from picnicking to hang-gliding, from sailing to horse-riding) and will therefore meet a much wider range of needs.

In England the proposed right may not extend to hours of darkness. Since when did mountaineering ever take place only in daylight?!

In England, a number of bureaucratic mechanisms are being proposed to control access (e.g. landowners being given powers to close land for 28 days a year without seeking permission). In Scotland, consensus has developed among the landowning and recreational organisations that the way forward lies not in trying to enforce the unenforceable, but rather in promoting responsible behaviour through a new Scottish Countryside Access Code and associated measures.

In Scotland the emphasis is on dialogue between different interests and in co-operation rather than confrontation. Landowning organisations have recognised the legitimate interest of the public in access to the countryside and in return recreational organisations recognise that landmanagers need to be given the resources required to manage access sensitively. This is not the case in England where the Government is even proposing to add Trade Union and Business interests to local access forums. This appears a recipe to make agreement even harder to reach!

The Scottish Parliament has the opportunity, if it accepts the Access Forum and SNH's proposals, to secure for Scotland the best access system in Europe. The initial view of MCof S is that proposals for England will leave it worse off than most other European countries and are of concern to all those who enjoy forays south of the border. We believe it is worth lobbying MPs (Scottish MPs will need something to do after the election to the Scottish Parliament) when the time comes, although when this will be the Government has not said.

The Executive Summary of the English proposals, "Access to the open countryside in England and Wales: appraisals of options" is available free from DETR Free literature, POBox 236, Wetherby LS23 7NB. This and the full report ( cost £45) is on the DETR website at: http://www.wildlife-countryside.detr.gov.uk/access/index.htm.

This is a very important issue - Please take the time to make your voice heard

Back to Newsletter index     next article