UKC

An application has been lodge with the Cairngorms National Park Authority for constructing a major telecoms mast adjacent to Luibeg bridge and the paths leading to the Lairig Ghru and Coire Sputan Dearg (Mar Lodge estate).

I have objected on behalf of North East Mountain Trust (NEMT) which is extremely concerned about its effects on this area of outstanding natural beauty which is a Wild Land Area and is covered by numerous designations protecting it. NEMT considers this to be a test case for the protection of Scotland's finest landscapes.

If people want to object, details of where to find the application which some suggestions regarding objecting are below.

NEMT's objection should be lodged on the Cairngorms National Park Authority's website sometime later this week but if anyone would like me to send them a copy directly, just email. NEMT's objection outlines how we think the application is contrary to Cairngorms Local Development Plan LDP) and Scottish National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4)- see below.

Cairngorms National Park Authority planning reference 2023/0364/DET

To access the application, go to -

https://cairngorms.co.uk/planning-development/

click on 'View planning applications' and then put in the above number.

To object or comment, click on the 'Comments' link on the first page which opens for this application.

Deadline for comments- 16th October

Comments for people wanting to object

The proposed mast would be located adjacent to the paths which lead into the Lairig Ghru and Coire Sputan Dearg- OS Grid Ref: NO 01137 94275

As most people may not want to object in as great detail as NEMT has done below, the following are some suggestions-

- State that you know the area and consider it one of Scotland's most outstanding areas of natural beauty.

- It is in a Wild Land Area as defined by Nature Scot and it is also covered by a number of legal designations protecting it.

- The application is contrary to both the Cairngorms Local Development Plan LDP) and Scottish National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4). This is very important as objections will be considered against aspects of planning policy and law and not on the basis that objectors simply 'don't like it'. Objections should state at least some of ways it contravenes these two policies (NEMT's arguments are outlined in our objection)

- Because the proposed area covered by the mast has no businesses in it and no permanently occupied houses, improving telecoms coverage would have v. little public benefit.

Ofcom have prompted the industry's creation of SRN by finally recognising that the population model for mobile coverage is not correct and it is not when they are at home that people need their phones most. 

Currently, we have three principal forces toward mobile network expansion. 
1. ESN. Emergency Service Network is the replacement for Airwave which in turn was the replacement for the VHF networks that various police forces erected across the Highlands in the 1950 and 1960s. This is put in place by EE which is owned by BT. Most ESN masts are also part of EE's public network. 
2. SRN. Shared Rural Network is a project involving multiple MNO (Mobile Network Operators), which can be three, or all four, sharing a base station with the objective of meeting new Ofcom requirements for geographic coverage.
3. S4GI. Scottish government 4G Infill seeks to finance further 4G LTE infrastructure and services to “not spots” in Scotland.

When my father started going into the hills, steps forward in safety that soon emerged included the 999 service, tying government surplus stretchers to deer fences, assigning mountain rescue posts, and 275 Sqn RAF. You could easily be a whole days walk from a phone or from a house where there was a car or bicycle. 

When I started going into the hills, it still often involved folk running or walking 8 or 10km to the nearest phone to get help. If you were alone, injured, and hadn't left a detailed itinerary with somebody competent, then you were going to die. These things still happen, but very rarely. A contract is in place that is expected will soon make every mobile phone a potential rescue beacon when authorised in a genuine search and rescue operation.  The UK, and Scotland in particular, maintains a position as one of the safest places in the world, whether you are in a city street, on a vessel at sea or on a mountain. "Honi soit qui mal y pense."

Things will continue to get safer, in spite of people continuing to push boundaries, creating challenges for those operating emergency services. In mountain rescue, VHF is still king. However, that is supplemented with satellite comms and, increasingly, VHF ported over the internet and 4G networks. If that is not happening in the southern Cairngorms at present then it will be soon enough. 

Then why would anyone erect a mast in such a location? Just for a laugh?

Maybe it forms part of a comms link connecting rural communities that otherwise would remain isolated? Maybe it will be part of ESN and be invaluable to emergency services & MRT?

If I used the area for walking I'd need to know a lot more about the purpose of the installation, rather than simply objecting because it might spoil my view when I walk past it.

The government has mandated 95% geographic coverage across the Uk, see Mountaineering Scot;

https://www.mountaineering.scot/news/shared-rural-network-statement
Braemar and surrounds already have good mobile coverage, which also provides signal on the central Cairngorm tops.  So this masts purpose is not for remote rural communities coverage, but to meet the above mandate. 
So this mast will increase (presumably with others yet to be announced) geographic coverage in the Glens and we will see a lot more of these planning applications.

Yes they will help Emergency services, local teams to this area carry (a limited number of) Sat Phones as they know on lower ground com’s are difficult.

So it really depends on your personal position if the visual intrusion is worth it.

Lest anyone be in any doubt, this isn't just a wee aerial than can be hidden behind some trees (not that regen has progressed that far yet at the proposed site): this is a 20 metre tower in a large compound cut into and platformed onto the hillside, with a generator which will require regular vehicle access to be fuelled and serviced. Nor is it in a hidden corrie few will visit: it's just yards from one of the main routes through the Cairngorms and in the way of one of the most iconic and photographed views. (Image a 70ft mast and compound just beside Blackrock Cottage obscuring the view to the Buachaille.)
Come up with all the arguments you like: it's an obscenity and must be refused.

Anyone from Cairngorm MRT care to comment on whether better connectivity would help them by:

- reducing the risk of missed or late callouts

- helping pinpoint rescue locations more accurately

- or, in a world where more people are navigating by phone (we can't hold back the tide), could this help punters not get lost, reducing the demand on MRT volunteers?

I don't have skin in the game and while the visual impact isn't great, if it's a choice between not seeing a mast and helping the MRT, my vote goes MRT. 

Given the geography of the area, I wonder why this location has been chosen instead of a couple of miles east at Derry Lodge, which would be considerably less visually intrusive. In terms of improving coverage in the valley floors, it seems to me that the Luibeg burn is not a particularly advantageous location. 

For the area affected it would be the opinions of Braemar and Aberdeen MRTs you should be querying. It WOULD be good to hear their views, but I don't think the safety argument here is too strong. We're talking about 4G cover here, not phone signal, and there already exists plentiful satellite-based options for nav and for emergency call-outs which covers the whole of the Cairngorms and not the relatively very small area involved here.

I get the argument about visual intrusion, but it does also seem a bit sad that the last areas without a phone signal are gradually disappearing - just as much of an intrusion in some ways. And yes, I know I could leave my phone behind or just switch it off!

Pedant alert; It’s not in Cairngorm MRTs operational area, it is in Braemar MRT, supported by Aberdeen MRTs, patch.

You can get signal at Derry Lodge, so a mast there would not fill as much currently uncovered area and would duplicate coverage towards Braemar, and thus not be so efficient in helping  meet the 95% geographic coverage target. 
 

it may also, though I have no knowledge facility relay from other masts yet to be proposed elsewhere.

The documents in the planning application show that this mast will provide coverage for hill-goers as they pass anywhere in the glens from half way up Glen Lui to the top of the Luibeg Burn. Should we expect future planning applications for generator-run masts to cover the rest of people's Cairngorm journeys? For example, through the Lairig Ghru?

The Mobile companies have to get to 95% geographic coverage. So it will depend if the Ghru earmarked for being part of the 5% that won’t get coverage.

In short a great many glens are going to get masts, probably nearly all that have land drover tracks up them.

Looking at the 'Supplementary Information' document, the developer actually views the inferiority of the current hiking/camping experience in the Luibeg Burn area - namely the lack of access to mobile phone apps - as representing the main need for a mast! Emergency service coverage is mentioned secondarily.

"The immediate area is an established local hiking area and sits approximately 70m North of an established trail. Those who visit the area for hiking and camping experiences often suffer from no mobile connectivity due to characteristics of the local topography. Mobile connectivity must be cherished in this area as it can improve upon people’s experience when exploring the park. There are several online OS maps and mobile applications such as GoJauntly, AllTrails, and Get Outside that are highly valuable resources to assist walkers in navigating trails. None of the mobile operators currently serve this area, which includes no emergency service presence, and therefore improved coverage would only improve upon hiker’s overall experience and safety."

Also, on intrusiveness, I think the noise and fumes from having a diesel generator running 24/7, hours from the nearest road, will be more noticeable than the visual impact.

I can understand, regardless of whether I agree, the rationale for windfarms, electricity pylons etc.  but I really can’t fathom what this achieves?  Do we really need total connectivity across all areas, populated or not, at the cost of visual and aural impacts?  Or am I missing something of the argument for this? 

Did the army not try to bridge the Abhainn Camas Fhionnairaigh and threat to blow up the Bad Step in the 70s, in the name of safety absolutism? Sure I read that in Hamish's Mountain Walk somewhere...

I go climbing in Knoydart quite a bit. I quite like the fact my phone sits in a corner unused for the best part of a week.

Regarding visual impact, it's probably going to be tiny in the long term. 

Removing mountain tree cover: massive visual and ecological impact.

Building a reasonably sustainable moderate visual impact ski resort then screwing it up by building a railway, with the wrong materials, and then MB tracks while ignoring the needs of the skiers the resort was built for: big visual and ecological impact.

(As regards power supply, I don't think you can assume what will be happening there. Also, methods may change over time. A huge amount of experience of making base stations work on mountain sides has built up since the 1990s.)  

Yes I recall that passage actually, fairly sure it was in that book. I’ll try to dig it out when I get home though I had hoped it was apocryphal! 

(As a random aside my son (9) watched one of your films on YouTube - in his world you’re now up there as the ‘Mr Beast’ of hill-going).

Judging by the number of inreach devices I see hanging from peoples rucksacks, I'd say that ground based masts like the one proposed are rapidly becoming obsolete. I believe the latest i-phone now has built in satellite connectivity. It would seem that technology is moving faster than the planning bureaucracy.  

Not to derail, but it's also a bit like building new pumped hydro storage in the Highlands, when batteries will soon make it completely obsolete. Tech is moving fast just now.

Not have one in the first place? It's been done!

Ah, the Camasunary bridge. As a non-swimmer, crossing that was the scariest thing I've ever done in the Scottish hills. September 81, and it was all washed away a few years later.

You're right about the army wanting to improve access to Coruisk, blasting the Bad Step etc.

I held out longer than most, and then held out against taking it in the hills for a long time. 

I can't claim my videos are a tenth as addictive but that is a brilliant wee compliment! Thanks

"I could...just switch it off!"

you sure about that?

I have continuously had mobile phones from the end of 1988 (including a car kit from the beginning), but I did not take my phone onto the hill for a very long time, as I thought of it as a bit like cheating. Even now I'm not sure of it.

Surely the argument for it being able to keep phone apps in continuous contact/usage for navigation purposes is a fragile argument, as people will presumably see themselves as going out into a wild environment. Such people need to be able to use a map and compass, as mobile phones are not 100% reliable, and that is part of the experience, i.e. finding your way by your own endeavours, and you allow for the possibility of problems, by taking extra food/clothing/bivvy bag(?).

Is this mast going to be down a little bit from the actual bridge? ( I am supposed to be heading out to work, and do not have the chance to look at a map).

2 years ago, I broke my fibula coming down the boulder field (foot slipped into a cleft on granite ball bearings),from Cairn Toul, and everyone assumed that I rang the MRT, but I managed to head back to my bike near Derry Lodge, with the help of someone whom I had joined on the hill, called John Walker (thank you John). I think that we all should try to "rescue" ourselves where possible and rely less on outside help. ( I picked this up from the blurb to do with Denali national park, and actually going there) I realise that it is not always possible to self rescue, but we should not make everywhere a safe zone. So NO to the application.

That seems a little optimistic, given the regular and repeated reports of hill-walkers relying on the likes of Google maps and similarly inappropriate phone apps. 

You could argue that they should be able to use a map and compass, but we know there are many who venture out without either. A question could be asked as to how far those people should be helped via improved connectivity. 

We do have to recognise that there are increasing numbers of people venturing into the hills without the appropriate skillsets. These are not necessarily the feckless and foolhardy, but may simply be novices, with no experience and quite possibly without an understanding or awareness of the skillsets that are required. For example, if your first experience of a big hill is the tourist path on Ben Nevis in good weather, you have no need of map or compass, and you may get to the bottom thinking all hills have easy paths. Similarly, if you go walking in the Lake District or the Yorkshire Dales, there are plentiful signposts pointing you in various directions. If that is the sum of your experience, you may not realise there is a bit more to it that that. 

For what it's worth, I do increasingly find the phrase 'map and compass' unhelpful. Being able to read a map is one thing, but being able to use a compass is quite another skillset. I can't remember the last time I used a compass. 

Despite what I've said above, I would agree that we should not make everywhere a 'safe' zone, and I would also be opposing the application. 

I can remember the tattered remains of the bridge they built.   Their awful road (Hamish expressed concern for the welfare of folk evacuated over it) is still there - as is the Bad Step, thank goodness.

I got my first phone in about 2004 and a smartphone in about 2012. I carry it in the hills but found I felt rather liberated when I lost it and did without for a week on my own a few years ago. I definitely consider using it for navigation to be cheating, but I was persuaded about a year ago by a thread on here that, since the technology exists, it would be irresponsible not to be able to give a pinpoint position in an emergency, so I downloaded a thingy which gives my grid reference using satellites. I have once cheated and used it to help find a very obscure coastal crag on Islay.

I hope we will long have pockets without a phone signal or 4G. It adds to the wildness and wildness is a good thing.

Plan has been withdrawn, but is expected to be re-submitted 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyd1e6jj267o

Yes it has.

The good news- the application has been withdrawn. North East Mountain Trust understands that this is partly because of the very large number of objections. Thank you to everyone who objected.

The bad news- It is likely to be resubmitted in the not too distant future providing more info and possibly siting it in a slightly different location. It will be a new application and people will need to object all over again.