Will Huckerby Forest Enterprise Recreation & Communities Manager Julie McMorran Forest Enterprise Recreation Civil Engineer Fiona

Transcription

1 UPAG Site Visit 2017: Ben A an 15 September 2017 Attendees: Will Huckerby Forest Enterprise Recreation & Communities Manager Julie McMorran Forest Enterprise Recreation Civil Engineer Fiona Scottish Natural Heritage Recreation & Access Officer Cuninghame (SNH) Bridget Jones SNH Strategic Paths & Projects Manager Kenny Auld Loch Lomond and the Access Adviser Trossachs National Park Authority (LLTNPA) Gordon Paxton- Outdoor Access Trust for Technical Projects Officer White Scotland (OATS) Lachlan Hutchinson OATS Loch Lomond and the Trossachs (LLT) Path Trainee Isobel Wilson OATS LLT Path Trainee Emma Levy OATS LLT Path Trainee Mark O Brien OATS LLT Path Trainee Veronica Keyte OATS LLT Path Trainee Martin Stodter OATS LLT Path Trainee Nicholas De Boer OATS LLT Path Trainee Jacob Mirza. OATS LLT Path Trainee Richard Fox Lake District NPA Fix the Fells Ranger Chris York Walking the Talk Consultant Ross McGowan McGowan Outdoor Access Ltd Path contractor Doug Sinclair Nevis Landscape Partnership Footpath Officer Bob Aitken Consultant Path Consultant Julian Digby Cairngorms Wilderness Path contractor Contracts Ltd Chris Taylor Cairngorms Mountain Ranger Ben A an context: 454m high 1.2km long Extremely popular mini mountain Forestry Commission ownership Located in: Loch Lomond & The Trossachs National Park Great Trossachs National Nature Reserve Queen Elisabeth Forest Park Stirling Council

2 Site challenges, opportunities and constraints: High visitation est. 50,000 + Mixed ability use and demand Car parking Close to half of Scotland s population Clear fell site in transition to native woodland SSSI near summit area National Park conservation aims National Park visitor experience aims Path repair funding via The Mountains and the People HLF project run by OATS Further detail about the path upgrade and repair, including location map, is presented by OATS in the Ben A an Path Report March In summary the two most recent path work contracts on Ben A an were let as part of the HLF funded Mountains and The People project led by COAT, now Outdoor Access Trust for Scotland (OATS). The project is also funded by SNH, LLTNPA, CNPA and FCS and includes path training courses in both of Scotland s National Parks, volunteering, education, health walks and an extensive capital works programme over 5 years. Ben A an was identified as a priority path for repair within the Loch Lomond & the Trossachs National Park and is one of the frontline hills identified in the Park s Outdoor Recreation Plan which also includes Ben Lomond, The Cobbler, Ben Ledi and Ben Venue. Site visit notes The group headed for the summit of Ben A an and discussed the technical aspects of the path on the way back down. The following notes capture the key discussion points, but as always many other talking points will have been covered during the visit. Summit plateau SSSI: Hand built section 1: Cairngorms Wilderness Contracts Ltd The summit plateau below the bedrock craggy summit is part of the oak woodland SSSI; the group discussed the challenges of protecting the habitat, which is peat bog, whilst managing the inevitable desire of walkers to cross over it. A ground level stepping stone solution was used, with stone helicoptered in from a local FCS quarry. In previous path works, the FCS/NP ERDF project 2003/3, no path construction was permitted on the SSSI and walkers were encouraged around the boggy area on re-constructed path, but the short cut when dry was always more popular. The new stepping stone work has also been supplemented by landscaping work on the various braids all of which has bedded in well. Upper gully section Hand built section 1 This section has had a number of attempts in the last 20 years to construct through and over it, with mixed results. The group discussed the challenges of steep bedrock, very steep overall gradients, water overflow from the adjacent burn and the high number of walkers. The discussion included the pros and cons of constructing into the bedrock, chiselling out and securing pitching stone, creating natural hand holds and firm places for feet. The use of anchor stones/water bars and the importance of anticipating and planning for water flows especially during excess periods of rain or snow melt, channelling water off the main pathline were also debated. In addition the challenges of bringing in stone by helicopter and securing

3 it safely on site in bags on steep slopes; and weather/visibility issues. Mid gully burn crossing Hand built section 1 The main issue here was a problem with steering ascending walkers across the burn at the crossing point. Repeated attempts had failed to block the route with blocking boulders dislodged by water and landscaped turfing failing due to foot pressure. A bigger boulder and landscaping approach was suggested, but again the steep gradient of slopes made securing safely tricky, as blockers would be located directly above walkers crossing the burn. The key characteristics of this section of path have been retained with pitching/steps meandering up the steep side of the burn as per the original path alignment and build. Main path, ATV tracks and forest management activity Machine built full construction, high and dry section 2 : McGowan Outdoor Access Ltd. Will Huckerby explained the complex nature of the path construction taking place in tandem with the clear fell operations and on one of Scotland s busiest hills. He described the use of alternative routes and diversions, signage and netting, temporary bog-matting to float walkers over the temporary new line, use of matting that would not slide off the slope or create a trip hazard and also the use of post/rope to show the line and help with negotiation of steeper sections. WetPave was recommended as the best matting option; and Will felt that signage worked most of the time but there is always someone that ignores it and proceeds through a work site. The group discussed the use and design of ATV tracks, used here for quad bike access for woodland management, with one track dissecting the main Ben A an path. Differences in in cost and build quality, walkers experiences and impact on the landscape were all discussed, concluding that it was very important to be careful about the use of perceived contradictory approaches in the same landscape. For example landscape quality should not be adversely impacted by a lower 10 per m on brash ATV track specification in the same location as high specification low impact hill paths at 20 per m with ditch and turfing. Discussion followed about seasonal vegetation control on the verges of the main path, with disagreement about whether this was necessary. The impact on walkers experience, aesthetics of path edges and the fit in the landscape were all debated. The general consensus was that not cutting gives a softer feel and more natural look, but that strimming keeps the path width open and wearing courses free of obstruction, keeping walkers to the path line and accommodating the high numbers, with the option for side by side walking at

4 points. It was suggested that this could be viewed as form versus function? Bridge upgrade There was a brief discussion about the bridge receiving a complete facelift with only the beams retained. The bridge was replaced to the same specification as the original design, but with new anti-slip surface treatment. First lower steep section of path Machine built full construction, high and dry section 3 : McGowan Outdoor Access Ltd. Gordon provided detailed information on this section of path which generated the most discussion. There was general consensus that the current constructed alignment was not fit for purpose mainly due to the gradient. The gradients are in excess of 20 degrees and despite the site being relatively unconstrained, a clear steer being given to keep away from the adjacent burns steep and high embankments to keep within the available budget, the line does not work. The adjacent fence has created an artificial boundary by avoiding the need for planning permission if works stayed inside the fenced damaged zone. An alternative route further to the west might have been better, but is likely to have required planning approval and the fence line to be repositioned. Much consideration was given to the best options for path alignment, with 2 main proposals: or 1. Make adjustment to the existing line through: additional pitching breaking up long steep sections create lower manageable gradients better containment on path edges/verges 2. Full re-alignment by: Moving the path line towards the burn. Adding in switch backs to lower gradients but still gain height Building a new path

5 Option 1 appeared to be preferred, with the task falling to the TMTP trainees to implement as part of their upland path works training, with contactor involvement later if required. There was talk about lessons learnt and how the path ended up being so steep despite knowledge that this is a key part of path design and if done badly results in significant erosion problems both on the path and alongside it. It was agreed that it is important to keep learning and not lose sight of the fundamentals of good upland path design and construction. The path contractors highlighted a keenness to keep learning and improving on build techniques and keeping standards high. The role of planning permission was also discussed with clarification provided that because the proposed path upgrade works were in the location of the original path, permission was not required, but that if the pathworks had been of a greater extent and/or proposed on new ground e.g. on the other side of the fence, permission would probably have been required. The need to check for planning permission was generally felt to be a good thing to help to ensure good design within the landscape and that in particular the National Park Authority planners would see this as an opportunity to ensure good quality path design in keeping with the environment, and would take advice from the NPA access specialists in making any decisions. The scale of works carried out on Scotland s mountains with high volumes of materials, machine work and often new path construction can merit the requirement for planning permission. Some hand built pathworks or light touch interventions may be viewed as de minimus by Planners if on an existing path line, but can trigger the need for planning permission, especially on designated sites. This was noted as a change from previous interpretations and that the need for permission could vary depending on the planning authority and site specific detail, so it was stressed that advice from planners should always be sought at an early stage. The visit concluded with thanks to Fiona, Gordon and Will for organising and the excellent attendance from a variety of interests, in particular the TMTP trainees. Bridget Jones Scottish Natural Heritage December 2017