national forest land scheme...

National Forest Land Scheme (NFLS)

33rd Meeting of the Evaluation Panel

21stOctober, 2014

Birnam Arts Centre, Birnam

Present: Ian Ross (IR), (Chair); Bob Stubbs (BS), Donald McPhillimy (DMP),Penny Cousins (PC), Jon Hollingdale (JH), Joan Mitchell (JM), AngelaDouglas (AD)FCS: James Ogilvie (JO), Malcolm Wield (MW), Betsy Walling (BW)

1. Panel session - there was no private panel session

2. Chair welcome etc -IR opened the meeting and welcomed all. Therewere no apologies.Declarations of Interest: IR declared an interest in the Aigas Trust application.While he had no personal involvement with the trust they had receivedfunding from SNH and so he asked BS to chair for agenda item 5 and hewould absent himself from the meeting.JH said that both Glengarry Community group and the Embo Trust were CWAmembers but there was no declaration of interest.

3. Minutes, Action Points and Matters Arising -Minutes - the panel agreed that the minute was an accurate record of themeeting.Action Points - AP 1 - it was not clear what this referred to. BW to checkpast minutes and e-mail JO to clarify. AP 1 BWMatters Arising - Paragraph 13 'Clawback Terms'. MW reported a discussionwith Donald McLellan, Land Agent, who said there will be more consistencyas the 'fixing of rates' was his sole responsibility now. IR asked for a writtenstatement from Donald to confirm the position and time limits for clawback.

AP2MWPC asked for a copy of Malcolm Crosby's presentation from the Augustmeeting. BW to source and circulate. AP3 BW

4. Progress Report - MW's report is at Appendix 1.JH queried the area for Acharossan 2 as he thought 454 ha was the total for 1and 2. MW will check. AP4 MWTiroran - PC noted that the AGM of SWMID had taken place on 4thOctober,2014. MW said that no communication had been received by FCS so it is notknown if the proposals from the July meeting attended by PC and ElaineJamieson had been implemented. MW intends to contact the group.DMcP questioned whether post approval involvement was a panel role. IRsaid this involvement had been at the request of FCS and PC's attendance atthe July meeting was to facilitate. He asked panel members to consider thisand form a collective view. AP5 IR

5. Consideration of Application by the Aigas Trust for NGO recognitionin the Sponsored Sale of Surplus Land -As Chair of the SNH Board, IR absented himself from the meeting as he wasaware SNH had previously supported the Trust. BS took the chair. The paneldiscussed the application. The question of the Aigas Trust's eligibility wasraised by several members.OutcomeThe Panel's recommendation is that the Aigas Trust is ineligible because TheTrust form has a number of issues for NFLS around governance, e.g. thetrustees aren't accountable to anyone and are responsible for designating /appointing their successors, but the critical point is that an unincorporatedbody can't own property in its own right - the trustees would have legal title toany land or other assets purchased (there's no NFLS leasing for NGOs) fromFCS through the NFLS (which they would have to hold "in trust" for thecharity) - essentially FCS would be selling to one or more individuals if theAigas Trust were able to use the NFLS.

Several comments were made about the difficulty of applying the guidance forCriteria 0 (governance) when evaluating NGO suitability due to their generalnature. JO agreed that this would be taken into account during theforthcoming revision of the NFLS Guidance.

6. Consideration of Application by Glengarry Community WoodlandSteering Group (GCWST) to purchase former repair depot and adjacentwoodland of approximately 30 hectares at Invergarry - Key Issues andPanel report is at Appendix 3 -BS had undertaken the site visit and both he and MW expanded on theirreports.OutcomeAll panel members commented favourably on this application. It was notedthat there was a discrepancy in the figures on the valuation. The Panelrequested clarity on clawback terms if the site was used for housing. ThePanel recommendation is that this application is approved. Observations thatFCS are satisfied with the structure of the group and also that afeasibility/business plan is in place before sale.

7. Consideration of Application by the Embo Trust (Urras Euraboil) topurchase an area of approximately 17 hectares at Fourpenny Plantation,nr Dornoch - Key Issues and Panel report is at Appendix 4 -IR had undertaken the site visit and both he and MW expanded on theirreports. Issues raised included lack of valuation; lack of clarity over ForestManagement plans; lack of clarity about renewables proposals.OutcomePanel discussion resulted in the decision that, while they support theapplication in principle, they could not conclude until further information wassupplied. The panel recognised that the group was not responsible for lack ofa valuation. The information required is an outline management plan andbudget and also a coherent document showing community support. Thisinformation is to be requested within one month and FCS is to emphasise tothe community that the short timescale has been set because the panel wish

to support the group. When the requested information is supplied this will becirculated to panel along with the valuation. The Panel would hope to agree arecommendation on the application via e-mail.

8. Consideration of Application by the Scottish Wildlife Trust topurchase approximately 4487 hectares of woodland at Barracks,Rannoch - Key Issues and Panel report is at Appendix 5 -The site visit was undertaken jointly by AD and JH. MW read out an e-mailreceived from Alan Anderson, SWT, sent in response to Conservatorcomment. JH expanded on his report and was supported by AD who agreedwith his comments. She added that the major issues for SWT werenegotiations with Network Rail and deer management. Another issue was thevaluation, which SWT have said it will challenge. Panel members madeobservations on the intent and commitment of SWT, the lack of detail in theirfeasibility assessment and the potential effect on FCS finances.OutcomeThe panel support this application in principle and recommend approval withthe following observations:1. Issue of intent and commitment of SWT to be clarified and confirmed.2. More detailed Feasibility Plan in terms of scale required.

9. Future meetings - the meeting pencilled in diaries for 26th November tobe removed. The date proposed for next meeting is Wednesday, 25th

February, 2015.

10. Site visits - site visits agreed were: Acharossan 2 - DMcP; EshielsJM; Kinachreachan - PC; Forsinain and Dyke - IR; Glenkens - JM;Colintraive - PC; Ballachulish - PC.

11. AOB - there was no other business and the meeting closed at 3pm.

NFLS Progress report

August 2014

An application to be accepted as an NGO eligible to apply to the NFLS has been receivedfrom The Aigas Trust.

Although the surplus land at Kinachreachan, Loch Awe is now on the market, a belatedexpression of interest has been received from the Dalmally Community Company for 0.7ha ofland above the A819 to form a viewpoint and car park linked to tourism development. TheDisposal Land Agent has agreed to exclude this area from sale.

Red list on progress spreadsheet - applications received

Applications have been received for surplus land at Rannoch Barracks (4487ha) andInvergarry (30ha). The Embo Trust has submitted a Community Acquisition application forapproximately 17ha at Fourpenny Plantation, Embo.

Orange list - applications in preparation.

A valuation for 434ha land at Acharossan (Acharossan II) was instructed on 25/9/14. This isthe second phase of land reserved until March 2015 following a successful CommunityAcquisition application and purchase of 452ha by the Kilfinan Community Forest Company,approved in 2008.

A community group at have taken forward their long standing interest in Eshiels Wood nearGlentress and a valuation has been completed.

Colintraive and Glenkens have joined the areas preparing applications for hydro energy.

Grey list - under consideration

There has been little change in areas under longer term consideration.

Green list - previous approvals

Aigas Forest has now been revalued at £760,000 (from £690,000). The Aigas Forest Trustwas expecting to hear if full funding will be available from SLF at the end of September.

Tiroran Forest has now reached 12 month post-approval.

Raasay continues to make progress and a request for an extension to their approval period(April 15) is expected, so they can complete proposals for a hydro scheme.

Engagement will soon be increased with the North Sutherland Community Forest Trust andRSPB to take forward their respective remaining interests in Forsinain and Dyke forests.

Blue list - withdrawn from the scheme

The interest of MICT in developing hydro in Tiroran is set to be taken forward with the newowners, pending successful completion.

Malcolm Wield20 October 2014

The National Forest Land Scheme

Sponsored Sale of Surplus Land

Summary of the key issues

Applicant: Glengarry Community Woodland Group

Land: Buildings and approx 30 ha land at Invergarry, Lochaber

1. The group were formed relatively recently as a result of the land beingnotified as surplus. They are well led, have quickly found their feet andappear to be well organised. They are taking a pragmatic 'one step at atime' approach.

2. They have provided a basic managemenUbusiness plan and asecondary projection of their financial management for 5 years. Theyhave identified a wide range of funding sources to begin to deliver theirplans.

3. The proposal to acquire the land has received some favourable localpublicity and the result of the community ballot was very strong (89% infavour). An MSP, local councillors and neighbours are among thosewho sent supporting letters, as did the Highland Small CommunitiesHousing Trust who initially expressed their own interest in the site.

4. HSCHT retain an interest in helping the community develop some lowcost affordable housing on part of the site some time in the future, iffeasible.

5. The group have prepared a good brief for a feasibility report and havealready taken sound advice on woodland management andcertification/sustainability. As a result, they have updated theirresponse to section 5.5 of their application over independentcertification.

6. The group are holding regular meetings with the wider community,intend to visit other NFLS sites and are communicating particularlywell.

MWield16th October 2014

Bob Stubbs visited the woodland on 15th September and met Grace Grant,seven other members of the woodland group, Ben Lennon, Planning Manager(attending on behalf of the FOM) and a member of the NFLS team. Bob'sreport follows:-

1


Checklist for the Evaluation Panel

Introduction

This checklist sets out the criteria and the main points to be considered whenjudging whether the NFLS criteria have been met for any individualapplication.

The criteria refer to the NFLS Guidance document, revised November 2010.

Applicant:- Glengarry Community Woodland Steering Group

Land: - 30.5ha, Invergarry Depot and Woodland

This is a surplus sale comprising 3 lots, together totaliing 30.5ha.

Lot 1 is a disused and now fairly run down depoUstore directly accessible off the A8?with a large tarmac standing area in front of it. The road access is good, particularlywhen approaching from the west although the long straight road when approachedfrom the east, makes a turn into the site potentially dangerous. The shed is currentlyused for storing straw bales; the doors are deteriorated and gutters blocked butnevertheless this is a good flat accessible site with some work needed to bring thebuilding back to a useable standard.

Lot 2 is a more extensive woodland area of 24.5ha, currently a mix of spruce, pineand some Douglas fir with pockets of birch and other broadleaves (see photo's) Thesite is bounded on one side by the A8? and on the other by a minor road that passesthe small community of Faichem. The site is reasonably flat adjacent to the old depotbut rises more steeply towards the north and west of the compartment

Lot 3 is a smaller area of woodland of 4.65ha bounded on the north by the A8? andon the southern edge by the River Garry It compnses mainly broadleaves andincludes a registered seed stand of birch and has amenity and recreational potential.

As a surplus sale site, the community have had to proceed at a pace and so a lot ofthe information they have provided thus far in their application IS a statement of "workIn progress" and they are well aware of the challenges that lie ahead On the visit, 9members of the steering group turned out to meet us

Please use the colour code to highlight your comments:-

issues which could have a negative effect on the applicationissues where additional consideration could be useful

2

issues which deserve special commendation

Criteria:-

1. Who can apply?

Only a formalised Community Body (CB) can apply to buy or lease nationalforest estate land and must geographically define the community area.

• Limited Company or alternative community body status• Community in control• No private gain• Appropriate winding up procedure• 20+ members, majority from the local community• Surplus assets used for community benefit• Main purpose is sustainable development• Majority of directors are voting members

Has the criterion been met?

Yes

The group are currently set up as a constituted steering group for the purposes ofassessing the potential of the Lots offered through the surplus sale; to conduct acommunity ballot and to set in train the preparation of a business plan. The group areclearly geographically defined and relate closely to the woodland and depot site.

The representatives of the steering group we met on site confirmed that they are inthe process of reaching a decision of formalising their new community body as eithera SCIO or Ltd Company and further, that this decision will have been made by thetime of the Panel meeting on 21st October. The steering group members were fullyaware of the requirements of the scheme particularly the need for community control;the requirement for at least 20 members and the provision of winding up procedures.

Assuming that the steering group make a decision as to which structure they chooseto set up and follow, it would be essential to see the formal constitution of the newbody prior to confirming and decision to approve.

2. Connection with the land

The community should be situated by, near to, or on the land.


Yes

3

The site is located on the eastern side of the Glengarry Community Council area andthe community are therefore clearly associated with the subjects In question.

3. Community support

Where the value of the land is greater than £50,000 the CB must hold a ballotto demonstrate community support. Where the value is lower, the CB can stillchoose to ballot, or use other means to demonstrate support.

• Ballot required?• Relevant ballot question set?• If no ballot required, evidence of community support• Neighbours views taken into account• Stakeholders views taken into account• Detrimental effects identified and addressed?


Yes

In addition, and as a preliminary to a more detailed business plan, the communitywere also surveyed to see what range of possible uses of the site might find favourThis generated a long list of ideas, which the steering group plan to refine further intoa formal business plan.

4. Capacity to manage the land

The CB must have clear proposals for the land and demonstrate the capacityto provide long-term sustainable management of the land A feasibility study

4

and business plan is always desirable and In any case is a pre-requisite forland valued at greater than £50,000.

Evidence of capacity may Include:

• Feasibility Study• Business Plan• Forest management plan• Other community purchases• Other community management


Yes

It's fair to say that at the time of the visit, the documentation we were provided withgave some outline thoughts as to what might be achievable and had been based onthe findings of a survey monkey questionnaire completed by the community As withthis type of survey, phrasing of the questions is key and some of the responses wereambivalent. However, the steering group are well aware of the limitations of the workthey have been able to achieve so far and are planning to refine and prioritise theirplans further at which point, their thinking will again be presented to the community.

The initial look at possible projects included:-

Conversion of the woodlands over time back to a stronger native/broadleavedcontent but meanwhile extracting and processing firewood for sale to the community.Within the woodland, space could be provided for woodland crafts (chainsaw carving,path and woodland walk creation, educational space for the local primary school)

Provision of allotment space/poly tunnel provision; vegetable and fruit growing orpossibly (in discussion) a local veg box scheme, could be set up using the depot andparking area as a sales/pick up point.

Activity and recreational space for the community with better defined walks andinterpretation facilities. More strenuous activities like mountain biking; paintballingand archery had fairly mixed (low) responses in their initial survey.

Accommodation provision was also raised in the initial survey although again thisdrew mixed responses with the prospect of selling house plots to the highest bidderhaving limited appeal whereas affordable key worker housing, having more appeal.

From that long-list of Ideas, the steering group are aware that they now need toprioritise their thinking and formulate their business plan and they reported at ourmeeting that HIE have encouraged them to keep going with that work and are Willingto provide funding to enable them to do so Furthermore, members of the steennggroup are keen to VISitother similar sites to see how projects have developed thereand so visits to Kirkton and possibly Abnachan are planned along with other possiblesitesSteering group members suggested that they may well have a completed businessplan prior to our panel meeting on 21sl October, in which case, it would be importantto see the content of that plan prior to any formal approval.

5

5. Consistent with the principles of sustainable development

Applications should show how sustainable environmental, economic andsocial benefits would be delivered. For forested land an intention to obtaincertification will be relevant.

• Economic benefits• Social benefits• Environmental benefits• Ecological and cultural features• Use of timber/ local timber/ renewables• Certification


Yes

Having met a number of the steering group members I am convinced that they havea genuine understanding of the potential for sustainable community benefit from thisacquisition and that they are realistic enough to know that they need to focus in on afew areas at first, building as they go.

The steering group have sought advice on certification and have concluded that, astheir plans revolve more around the encouragement of native species and thegradual removal of other species, certification is not appropriate at this stage. Shouldgreater commercial activity take place in the future then they plan to carry outcertification through an approved source and in consultation With FCS. The steeringgroup intend to comply with the UKFS as part of their intention to continue with along-term sustainable woodland.

6. Is community acquisition in the public interest?

Will the proposals deliver additional public benefit to the whole community andare they in the public interest?

• Additional public benefit

6

• Benefits the whole community, not Individuals• Benefits outweigh disbenefits• Impact on wider community and private interests• Scottish Forestry Strategy, designated areas and national policies

followed


Yes

As this is a surplus sale site for which no future public interest is deemed appropriate,then the plans that the steering group currently have for the site clearly have thepotential to benefit the wider community in a way that would not have been possiblehad it remained in public ownership

The DV valuation is quite high but the steering group realise that the accessibility tothe site, particularly at the depot, is good although as noted earlier, care needs to betaken on the approach to it.

7. Management of the national forest estate

Are the proposals significantly detrimental to the management of the nationalforest estate?

NB This criterion does not apply to Surplus Land sales.

Not applicable. This is a surplus sale.

7

•


Community Acquisition


Applicant: The Embo Trust (Urras Euraboil)

Land: approx 16ha Fourpenny Plantation, Embo, near Dornoch

1. The group have previously established their status with two previousapplications - Woodland Crofts at Fourpenny Plantation andAchinchanter.

2. The applicant has not provided a current valuation. An indication ofland valued at £500 per hectare by the FDM has led the Trust to expecta valuation of less than £20,000.

3. The Trust has been offered a grant of £20,000 from SSE to acquireland for the project

4. It is not clear how the project will work and there is a lack of financialinformation. Feasibility assessment is limited to an outline schedule ofactivity which identifies some funding sources but does not establishspecific costs. The application suggests low cost runrig allocations of£10 per annum and low admin running costs.

5. Despite a lack of specific proposals, the idea of establishing the projecthas attracted a wide range of support from MSP's, Highland Councilleaders, local organisations and potential participants.

6. The applicant has provided an optimistic but non-specific statement onthe control of woodland removal. The question of compensatory treeplanting has been raised by the Conservator.

7. In response to the Conservators comments, the Trust has suggestedFCS retain timber rights until 2019 and continue to work to the ForestDesign Plan following their acquisition of the land but has not yetsought a regulatory opinion on this proposal.

8. The Trust is exploring the possibility of a wind turbine or turbines thatthey hope to develop on the project area and which is limited to a briefmention in the application. The advent of renewable energy on the sitefollowing acquisition has not yet been discussed with FCS. An initialfeasibility report for this has suggested the prospect of planningpermission for a turbine or turbines of between 250kw - 500kw ISlimited. The Trust provided further information on a financial estimatefor the turbine idea, suggesting a potential profit for distribution ofbetween £1m - £3.6m over 20 years, per turbine.

1

9. A visit to the site was planned by Ian Ross for 17thOctober 2014. Thegroup was represented by Trust Director Jim McGillivray. Tim CockerillFDM North Highland FD, Hazel Maclean, Communities Manager NorthHighland FD and an NFlS representative planned to attend. Ian'sreport follows.


2


Community AcquisitionSponsored Sale of Surplus LandWoodland CroftsLeasing for Forest Management PurposesLeasing for Renewable Energy


IntroductionThis checklist sets out the criteria and the main points to be considered whenjudging whether the NFLS criteria have been met for any individualapplication.


Applicant:- The Embo Trust

Land:- Part of Four Penny Plantation -17 ha.

The visit was carried out on Friday 1th. Oct. 2014; the NFLS Panel wasrepresented by Ian Ross and Malcolm Wield was also present. FDM TimCockerill and CRT manager, Hazel Maclean attended for ForestEnterprise Scotland and the applicants representatives were JimMcGillivray, Rona Grigg, Vicki Mackenzie and Zanders Baikie.


Observation- issues which could have a negative effect on the applicationObservation- issues where additional consideration could be useful~servafio issues which deserve special commendation

Criteria:-

1. Who can apply?

Only a formalised Community Body (CB) can apply to buy or lease nationalforest estate land and must geographically define the community area.

• Limited Company or alternative community body status• Community in control• No private gain• Appropriate winding up procedure• 20+ members, majority from the local community• Surplus assets used for community benefit

• Main purpose is sustainable development• Majority of directors are voting members



The community should be situated by, near to, or on the land.


The main Embo settlement is within a few hundred meters of the ForestEnterprise site and the woodland area lies in the centre of the widerEmbo area. There has been informal community access and recreationon and around the site and there have been strong historical links to thesite, with the woodland being established by FC employees from Emboand near bye communities.

3. Community support

Where the value of the land is greater than £50,000 the CB must hold a ballotto demonstrate community support. Where the value is lower, the CB can stillchoose to ballot, or use other means to demonstrate support.

• Ballot required?• Relevant ballot question set?• If no ballot required, evidence of community support• Neighbours views taken into account• Stakeholders views taken into account• Detrimental effects identified and addressed?


IA valuation has yet to be completed, there is an indicative valuation of£20k, but this is open to some doubt as the community Trust hassuggested a future development on the area would be a wind turbine of200+kw and this may have some influence on the formal valwation.Ultimatel this ma have im~licationsfor a re uirecl ballot.

There is past evidence of support from a previous ballot result and thereare strong indications of support for this acquisition, with 30 peoplesigned up to participate in the "runrigg" development.

There is evidence of strong stakeholder support and also positive linksto some neighbouring land owners. The community has an ambition toown neighbouring "absentee" land holdings, but there is no indicationof explicit tensions related to this.

The application is somewhat unstructured and could more effectively"pull" the necessary key information together, but in general the keyelements are present to support the project.


The CB must have clear proposals for the land and demonstrate the capacityto provide long term sustainable management of the land. A feasibility studyand business plan is always desirable and in any case is a pre-requisite forland valued at greater than £50,000.

Evidence of capacity may include:



There is not a structured study and plan, but the elements are "loosely"present and this was reinforced during the site visit. The community hasa track record of taking forward and delivering a number of successfulprojects - sports pavilion, community shop, community garden and arein the process of taking forward a community centre.

The community has a mix of strong and relevant skills; a track record oftaking forward projects; existing links to land management; andinformal links to locally based forest managersand contractors.

If the project were to be recommended to proceed, the Trust could beasked for a more structured set of managementproposals, supported byan outline budget.





There is a strong and impressive sustainability thread through theproposal, as much of the Trust's work is aimed at securing a future fortheir community. here is a desire to retain ahd aftliaetwork!n familieiii the eQmmuni and to ,rovide a stron link fo the lalild The intentionis to promote local food production basedon the "runrigg" system, thiswould be for personal and community shop use; and to manageenergy Ibiomass production on the site and to use this as fuel for thecommunity centre.

There is wish to havea wind turbine on the site and there has beenaninitial feasibility study - this could generate a considerable incomestream and this would be used to support other community projects,including the purchase of houses as they come on the market,with afocus on a move from holiday homes to local housing.

6. Is community acquisition in the public interest?

Will the proposals deliver additional public benefit to the whole community andare they in the public interest?

• Additional public benefit• Benefits the whole community, not individuals• Benefits outweigh disbenefits• Impact on wider community and private interests• Scottish Forestry Strategy, designated areas and national policies

followed


The Trust's aims are very much to the benefit of the wider communityand would allow a currently very constrained piece of woodland to beused more productively. The area has a significant presence ofoverhead electricity lines and in the future much of it would need to be

retained as open ground. There is a large commercial caravan site atEmbo and this site could be used as an area of alternative informalrecreation for the visitors. The proposals are compatible with the aimsof the Scottish Forestry Strategy and a range of more local policies andstrategies.

7. Management of the national forest estate



Has he criterion been met?


Sponsored Sale of Surplus Land - Sale to an NGO


Applicant: Scottish Wildlife Trust

Land: Buildings and approx 4487 ha land at the Barracks, Rannoch,Perthshire

1. The land is being sold as part of the national forest estate repositioningprogramme and SWT are recognised by FCS as an NGO able to meetthe NFLS eligibility criteria.

2. The Trust has established contact and consulted with the localcommunity, who have confirmed they have no interest in acquiring theland.

3. The Trust envisage over the long term (20 years) significant peatlandrestoration, creation of a significantly higher broad leaved woodlandcontent and retention of productive conifer woodland. In theConservator's opinion the Trust's indicative proposals are likely toremain within the requirements of the UK Forestry Standard.

4. Continued deer management is critical to success and is a sensitiveissue with neighbours who manage adjacent land for sportingobjectives.

5. Viability of timber production and therefore surplus income isparticularly sensitive to price fluctuations due to the high proportion oflow grade timber (South coastal provenance Lodgepole pine) andtransport costs (road and rail).

6. Construction of a rail head timber transfer facility will requiremeaningful and ultimately successful negotiations with Network Rail.

7. The FDM has commented to the effect that in this case and in his view,NFLS Criteria No 7 - 'detrimental effect on the national forest estate', isrelevant. With such a high value property, a sale price with a smallpercentage difference above the DV value (market value) could have avery significant effect on FCS income.


Jon Hollingdale and Angela Douglas visited the woodlands on 2nd Octoberand met Alan Anderson, the SWT Head of Estates, Charlie Taylor, FDM Tay

1

FD, John McNulty, Forest Wildlife Ranger and a member of the NFLS team.Their report follows:-


Sponsored Sale of Surplus Land to a recognised NGO


IntroductionThis checklist sets out the criteria and the main points to be considered whenjudging whether the NFLS criteria have been met for any individualapplication.


Applicant:- Scottish Wildlife Trust

Land:- Rannoch Barracks


bservation- issues which could have a negative effect on the applicationObservation- issues where additional consideration could be useful

issues which deserve special commendation

Criteria:-

1. Who can apply?

The applicant must be a recognised Non-Governmental Organisation


Yes


The Non-Governmental Organisation must have a legitimate connection withthe land being purchased The Non-Governmental Organisation must be ableto demonstrate that the national forest land being purchased is central to thedelivery of its main objectives. Additionally, it may be appropriate for the NonGovernmental Organisation to demonstrate a local connection.

2

•


Yes

SVVT has a single charitable objective: "to advance the conservation ofScotland's biodiversity for the benefit of present and future generations". Theapplication states that their long-term vision is "to acquire and manage anetwork of healthy and resilient ecosystem supporting Scotland's wildlife". Theproposals for future management of the forest are compatible with thisobjective and vision.

SVVTdoes not have an existing relationship with either the Rannoch Barracksforest or the local community; their nearest members group is based atPitlochry.

3. Community consultation

The local community should have been consulted on the proposed purchase and anyissues raised by the community have, as far as possible, been addressed.


Yes

The local community have confirmed they do not wish to acquire RannochBarracks.

SVVT has consulted with the Rannoch & Tummel community council, theRannoch and Tummel Tourist association and the local deer managementgroup. SVVT ownership or their management proposals did not seem toarouse any specific opposition. Community concerns related to potential forincreased timber traffic (a likely issue whoever buys the forest) and the impacton deer stalking (discussed further wrt 06 below).

SVVTsay that a management/steering group with local representation will beestablished (reserve manager, local SVVTmembers and representatives ofthe local community including the deer management group), and that this willbe a mechanism by which the local community can input to and influence thedirection of management, although the Trust's (national) policies will alwayshave pnority. In addition they will appoint a site specific Reserve Manager astheir local contact for all interested parties.


The Non-Governmental Organisation must be able to demonstrate thecapacity for long-term management of the land. A feasibility study andbusiness plan is always desirable and in any case is a pre-requisite for landvalued at greater than £50,000.

3

Evidence of capacity may include:


Has the critenon been met?

Yes

SWT clearly have the organisational capacity to (and track record) managesignificant areas of land. Whilst SWT won't have experience of all the specifictasks (e.g. railhead construction) required here they will be capable ofcontracting in the necessary expertise.

SWT have produced a draft harvesting and second rotation plan which willrequire approval by the Conservancy once presented as a Long Term ForestPlan. This includes substantial conifer (SS?) restock on better soils in the NEof the forest, significant conversion to native woodland, and very extensivedeforestation. Where this is restoring blanket bog habitats (e.g. to the east ofthe railway) we would Imagine approval will be forthcoming, but it may not beso straightforward with respect to deforestation of the White Cow block to thewest of the line.





Yes

SWT's primary objectives for the acquisnion and future management ofRannoch Barracks are environmental: the restoration of peatland habitats andthe expansion of native woodland.

4

•

There will some economic benefit derived from future forest management:harvesting, stocking, protection and maintenance etc., and it is anticipatedthat SWT will create 2 (FTE?) staff posts (e.g. the Reserve Manager plus astalker/ranger) associated with the site.The scope for local use of timber (except for small volumes of firewood) isvery limited

SWT seem open to delivering enhanced social benefits from the site, but are(understandably) reluctant to commit to major recreational infrastructurewithout appropriate evidence of demand.

We note that SWT will be bearing some significant financial risk in taking onmanagement, as the economics of timber harvesting on this site are marginal,especially given the challenges of timber transport, and future viability issensitive to fluctuations in timber price.

6 Is acquisition by the Non-Governmental Organisation in the publicinterest?

The proposal must provide net additional public benefit and be in the publicinterest.

• Additional public benefit• Benefits the whole community, not individuals• Benefits outweigh disbenefits• Impact on wider community and private interests• Scottish Forestry Strategy, designated areas and national policies

followed


Yes

Additional public benefits are largely environmental and will accrue in thelonger term from enhanced habitats.

There may be some local community benefits arising from increasedemployment / contractor opportunities and improved access and use of theforest.

There are potential disbenefits to local deer interests: forest restructuring willrequire increased culling as the site will potentially draw in deer fromsurrounding (heavily stocked sporting) estates. The high proportion ofbroadleaves in the restocking plans may exacerbate this (cf Sitka). Mitigationwill require improved fencing, active deer management as well as ongoingmaintenance of fences to prevent/reduce effect of incursions.

5

'" .

There are also potential disbenefits from increased timber transport. SWT areinvestigating two possible railhead options which would reduce road haulagethough there are significant challenges in setting up timber transport by rail.

We note that timber transport and deer management would be significantissues whoever purchased the forest, or indeed if FES retained ownership.

SWT proposals appear to seek a balance between various national policies:e.g. on deforestation, expansion of native woodland habitats and peatlandrestoration - it will be for FCS Conservancy (and other statutory bodies) todetermine if they have found the appropriate balance.

7 Management of the national forest estate




N/a

This is a surplus sale and therefore this criterion does not apply.

We note that this application has been challenging for FES in terms of itsimpact on the repositioning programme, but this is not in itself a considerationin arriving at the Panel's recommendation.

We might also note, informally, that the local FES Ranger, who will be partiallyredeployed after the sale (regardless of who the eventual buyer is) hasextensive and provably irreplaceable knowledge of the site - SWT (or anyother buyer) would be well advised to seek ways to retain that knowledge.

6

national forest land scheme...

Documents