NEWS: New Hut Proposed for Aonach Mor

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 UKC/UKH News 14 Nov 2017
Aonach Mor montage, 4 kbThe Inverness Backcountry Snowsports Club would like to build a mountain hut on the east flank of Aonach Mor. Sleeping 8-12 people, it would be sited northeast of Coire an Lochain, near the Back Corries area of the Nevis Range ski centre.

Read more
1
Removed User 14 Nov 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Booo! There's a fecking ski lift to the top of Aonach Mor - why not just use that to explore the corries if yer arsed.
2
 Robert Durran 14 Nov 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Seems like a poor precedent to me.
2
 John Kelly 14 Nov 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
Confess - I've loved staying CIC but we have a million buildings but only one 'wilderness'
Post edited at 16:59
2
 Michael Gordon 14 Nov 2017
In reply to Removed User:

Yes I don't quite get the point in this. There's tons of remote bothies if you're after 'backcountry' ski-ing. Why build a hut somewhere easily accessible by ski lift?
2
 Doug 14 Nov 2017
In reply to Michael Gordon:
I'm a former member of the club & would have argued against a hut anywhere if still a member. But my mebership lapsed years ago, my place on the club committee as well.

But this is practically in the ski area & seems particularly daft. When I saw the article on the club's website I assumed it would be much more remote
Post edited at 18:05
1
 Robert Durran 14 Nov 2017
In reply to Doug:

> When I saw the article on the club's website I assumed it would be much more remote

Weren't they planning a more remote one in the Cairngorms. Sure I saw something about it.
1
 Doug 14 Nov 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

a bit more info
http://www.ibsc.org.uk/club-matters/ibsc-mountain-hut

(not sure why this wasn't in the article)
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Great idea - anywhere else in Europe and this wouldn't even raise an eyebrow. The highlands have innumerable bothies in similar locations so what is the problem with this? Presumably the hair shirt brigade are worried that it won't be drafty and leaking like a sieve and that an environmentally friendly toilet will deny them the opportunity to just shit anywhere? The Scottish Government's initiative to promote 'hutting' is typically enlightened and we should support it. Also - any climber who has, or who ever intends to stay at the CIC ought to pause before they think to criticise this proposal.
23
 Michael Gordon 14 Nov 2017
In reply to Doug:

I assume the photo at the bottom is to indicate that they're proposing something similar? Does this Ben Avon one belong to the estate?
In reply to Doug:

Thanks Doug, but that link is already in the 2nd para of the article
 Simon Caldwell 14 Nov 2017
In reply to colin struthers:

My initial reaction was, why won't it be available to BMC members
 Doug 14 Nov 2017
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

looking again I can now see the hyperlink but on my scree the blue of 'here' is barely different to the words before & after

Maybe time to see my optician again
 Flinticus 14 Nov 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Seems it will be a log / wooden construction.

Not sure it that is in line with the proposed new hutting code but the site is 2km from the nearest forest.

Wouldn't a stone building be much more in harmony with the environment and in tune with traditional Scottish buildings found in the Highlands? Look at most bothies, farm buildings, lodges or abandoned shielings

These log buildings look misplaced.
 Robert Durran 14 Nov 2017
In reply to colin struthers:

> Great idea - anywhere else in Europe and this wouldn't even raise an eyebrow.

There are differences in scale between Scotland and many other places; remoteness is worth preserving.

> The highlands have innumerable bothies in similar locations so what is the problem with this?

Wrong. This is a high mountain location quite unlike those of bothies.

> Also - any climber who has, or who ever intends to stay at the CIC ought to pause before they think to criticise this proposal.

I agree. Even as a paid up SMC member, I find it impossible to defend the existence of the CIC. I'd happily see it removed.
3

> Wrong. This is a high mountain location quite unlike those of bothies.

No, actually Robert, it is you who are
wrong on this occasion (as I rather suspect you know)

Hutchison Memorial hut is bang in the middle of the Cairngorms and right next to major mountain routes. Fords of Avon ditto. And Corrour, and Garbh Coire. All of these are in wilder and significantly less accessible locations than the proposed hut below Aonach Mor.
 Robert Durran 14 Nov 2017
In reply to colin struthers:
> Hutchison Memorial hut is bang in the middle of the Cairngorms and right next to major mountain routes. Fords of Avon ditto. And Corrour, and Garbh Coire. All of these are in wilder and significantly less accessible locations than the proposed hut below Aonach Mor.

I know you will call me pedantic if I call two of those "shelters" and one a "hut" rather than a bothy. But whatever, I'd like to see them removed too, so my position is consistent. Anyway, they are the very few exceptions; the vast majority of bothies are in low valley locations.
Post edited at 22:03
4
In reply to Robert Durran:

Yes, that would be consistent of you, I agree. But probably not consistent with what most other mountain users in Scotland would want.

Also, you say there are differences of scale and character between the Highlands and other places in Europe where such huts are accepted. Presumably you have not visited Iceland where such huts are located in some of the most incredibly remote and wild locations. Or Norway, or Finland etc, etc.
9
 Ramblin dave 14 Nov 2017
In reply to colin struthers:

There's a balance to be struck between enabling more people to access the hills, and preserving the value that remote places derive from their remoteness. I don't think that the balance that we've got at the moment is automatically right, but nor do I think that any push in either direction should be uncritically welcomed. There are vast swathes of amazing scenery in Scotland that you can see without getting out of the car, let alone having to pack a tent or a bivi bag, so I don't really understand why people are obsessed with picking the few areas that really are still exciting for their remoteness and inaccessibility and cooking up schemes to plonk huts in the middle of them.

Although as was said upthread, the weird thing about this particular scheme seems to be that it's practically in a ski area anyway, so why bother?
 bouldery bits 14 Nov 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I dislike this Idea.
 DaveHK 14 Nov 2017
In reply to colin struthers:

> Yes, that would be consistent of you, I agree. But probably not consistent with what most other mountain users in Scotland would want.

Big assumption there.

> Also, you say there are differences of scale and character between the Highlands and other places in Europe where such huts are accepted. Presumably you have not visited Iceland where such huts are located in some of the most incredibly remote and wild locations. Or Norway, or Finland etc, etc.

I think that might be his point, that most places in Scotland are not that remote and so can be accessed without needing huts.

1
 John Kelly 14 Nov 2017
In reply to Ramblin dave:

It would provide access for a very narrow group, the tow is much more egalitarian
 Robert Durran 14 Nov 2017
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> Although as was said upthread, the weird thing about this particular scheme seems to be that it's practically in a ski area anyway, so why bother?

Maybe they think it will help with planning permission.
 Robert Durran 14 Nov 2017
In reply to DaveHK:

> I think that might be his point, that most places in Scotland are not that remote and so can be accessed without needing huts.

I would go further - no areas need huts. And my point is also that in countries with much bigger remote areas, a few huts make less impression on things.

1
 scoth 14 Nov 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

For those opposed to any development in the Scottish uplands of this form, would anybody care to elaborate or think a wee bit more deeply on the reasons why? Looking through the thread, the only reasons given so far are to do with notions of wildness, values associated with remoteness and setting bad precedents.

Alternatively, if you see a hut, bothy, shieling with similar geography why does it conjure up such a negative feelings? Is it the actual aesthetics or does the object represent something else?
 Roberttaylor 15 Nov 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

When I saw the announcement that they planned to build a hut I thought it'd be somewhere like where Culra bothy is, so that people could walk/ski in to it, enjoy a couple of days of skiing steep stuff on local hills or touring then walk/ski out. To have it right at the top of a ski tow is a bit baffling and disappointing; a waste of a good opportunity.

Had it been more like I'd envisioned I'd have considered joining the club to get the use of it. As it is, why would I use this hut instead of simply sleeping low and getting the lift?

I don't object to the idea of huts in Scotland; the ones in Norway blend in nicely to the scenery and detract not one whit from the view or the sense of wildness (for me at least, ofc Norway is very different to Scotland and those huts have been there for a long time). I would rather see future Scottish huts lower down though, ideally near or in forestry instead of up high where they will be battered by the weather, far more visible and a lot harder to build/maintain.
 Michael Gordon 15 Nov 2017
In reply to Roberttaylor:

If I've checked the map correctly it would appear to be more at the bottom of a ski-lift, not at the top. Fairly certain though that the location of this ski-lift has factored highly in the decision.
 Michael Gordon 15 Nov 2017
In reply to DaveHK:

It may be a big assumption but I also think most hill users are supportive of MBA bothies in remote locations. I think a major difference is the way the character of the area is changed, and that's not simply down to the look of the building. Putting a hut with good facilities right below a ski-lift would likely make this wilder side of the mountain significantly more popular, essentially like an alpine hut with a tow just above it.
3
 DaveHK 15 Nov 2017
In reply to Michael Gordon:
> If I've checked the map correctly it would appear to be more at the bottom of a ski-lift, not at the top

Given how often that lift actually runs the location is more remote than some think. It's skiing's equivalent to Brigadoon!
Post edited at 07:41
 Doug 15 Nov 2017
In reply to DaveHK:

But still fairly easy to get the lift to the top of Aonach Mor & ski down, or if snow conditions rule out descending to the proposed hut, its an easy skin from the top of the gondola. Might not be roadside but its not really remote
 ScraggyGoat 15 Nov 2017
In reply to Michael Gordon:
You might like to reconsider your 'most hill goers are supportive' of bothies in remote locations. While I like to use bothies, and would support further provision in certain places, it is not an uncritical/unqualified support. I wouldn't want to see huts/bothies everywhere, and in particular I wouldn't want them to detract from areas that have a remote feel, or on high ground.

About a decade or so ago the MBA were poised to rebuild Slugain ruins on Invercauld Estate which would have formed a base, and eased access into Ben B'huird and the its associated cliffs. Members of all of the three main local Climbing and Mountaineering clubs objected, as did the local mountain environmental lobby / charity group the NEMT (almost entirely composed of hill-goers of one form or another). Against this local opposition the MBA was forced to abandon the project. These were the very people who it could be argued would have gained most benefit. They all did so because they felt it would change the character of one of East Scotland's more remote hills.

So as above, I think there is a balance to be struck/defended
Post edited at 09:29
 Adam Long 15 Nov 2017
In reply to DaveHK:
> Given how often that lift actually runs...

That was my first thought too. Any stats available on how often it has actually been available in the last ten years? I have a vague memory of hearing it wasn't even being maintained any more.
 GraB 15 Nov 2017
In reply to Adam Long:
I'd like to see those stats too. From personal experience I think I've only ever seen the lift working a couple of times - in many trips into the back corries over the last 20-25 years. But as others have already said, its hardly remote from the top of the lifts or by traversing in from the gondola.

I'm very much against the proposal in this location - remote or not, I don't think there's enough precedent and I'm with Robert in that I'd like to see the CIC, Corrour and others removed.
1
 Simon Caldwell 15 Nov 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

So in summary, the hut is a bad idea because it isn't remote enough and is right next to a ski centre. And the hut is a bad idea because it's in a remote and otherwise unspoilt area.
1
 summo 15 Nov 2017
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

> So in summary, the hut is a bad idea because it isn't remote enough and is right next to a ski centre. And the hut is a bad idea because it's in a remote and otherwise unspoilt area.

Or to summarise your summary. It fills no known need or gap in the market. Building for buildings sake.
 GraB 15 Nov 2017
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
No, I don't think that's right. Whichever you look at I, whether you consider it remote or not, it is high and therefore IMO it shouldn't be given approval.

I'd actually like to see the Braveheart chair removed as well. It hardly ever runs, is too short to be worthwhile and when it does run you can still skin up the hill much faster without it.

1
 daWalt 15 Nov 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
let's consider this rationally.
location: it's a ski area
applicant: ski club
proposed use: skiing

ski club wants to build facilities on the edge of a ski area shocker!! :-0
Post edited at 10:58
1
 Ramblin dave 15 Nov 2017
In reply to ScraggyGoat:

Yeah, this is pretty much how I see it.

Basically, there are a few places in the highlands that have a sort of romantic excitement to them at least partly because they take a bit of nous or a bit of planning or a lot of fitness to get to. You can sit in the office daydreaming about trips there, if your friends have been there you can pump them for information and ask them what it was like, you may not ever get to all of them, but the fact that they exist is exciting in itself. What constitutes inaccessible varies from person to person - I've met people for whom going up a munro might as well be going to the moon, and I've met people who'd probably be quite amused (but be too polite to show it) that I spend months planning bothy trips to get into a place that they'd think was a nice target for a morning run. But the nice thing about Scotland is it is currently is that we all have stuff that's challenging as well as stuff that's already easily accessible.

There's a reasonable parallel with bolting trad routes, actually. As a nervous bumbly I'm unlikely ever to climb Great Slab at Froggatt as a trad route; if it was bolted (something else that wouldn't be given a second thought in many parts of Europe) then I could probably wobble my way up it. But even for me, I think it has more value as an iconic challenge that I'm not up to than a mediocre one that I could be.
 jonnie3430 15 Nov 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I don't see a summer benefit of having the hut there, for winter there is the lift giving access, so I don't see the point (hence why I'd be against it.)

I assume the drive for it is so that club members can enjoy evening food and drinks on the slopes in the evening? Guides and instructors will now be able to offer a lazy night on aonach mor to clients too. It seems really odd.
 ColdWill 15 Nov 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News: If they're going to do it they should do it properly:
https://lensscaper.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/post008_0832.jpg
 galpinos 15 Nov 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

This just seems like an odd location to me but maybe I’m not the target customer/user. They are basically building a hut in a ski resort. It’s not remote, it’s at the bottom of a ski lift. Having skied the back corries a few times (I have seen the Braveheart lift turn once) it will seem odd to have a hut at the bottom.

I actually do like the idea of a remote-ish and high-ish hut in a location with great day touring, where you could ski in for few days and pick off day tours/peaks/descents but it would have to have a summer use as well. However, I understand people’s reservations about huts and their requirement is always undermined by the fact that Scotland is never that remote.

My actual objection to this hut in particular is that it would be in an area I use but I would not be able to use the hut. At least with the CIC, though never having use it I could, in theory, if I was actually organised/committed/wanted to.
 Nathan Adam 15 Nov 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

As a local to the area, this is a really promising project if done in a suitable way, in my own opinion.

A concern that came to mind was that it may take away otherwise good winter trade from hotels, hostels and B&B's in Fort William and the surrounding areas in another wise quiet period of the year. If they're up on the hill then they aren't spending locally either (other than maybe in the supermarkets beforehand), but this has been happening with the CIC hut for years.

I think having it at Nevis Range makes it the ideal location for back country skiers, especially when the lifts close early in the season due to lack of demand and the still keen skiers have very limited access to the mountain in general and having a base for a few days would make that access a bit less hassle. It's most definitely not a particularly easy access Coire if the Great Glen Chairlift isn't running and even then it's fair wander or skin up.

I hope it becomes something that is welcoming to a variety of different people, rather than a snobbish elitist area that I often feel when greeted by some occupants of the CIC when looking for a bit of shelter from the weather.
2
 Robert Durran 15 Nov 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Of course the real issue here is not the desecration of the mountains with inappropriate "development", but the question of who was responsible for importing the term "backcountry" to Scotland.
1
 Doug 15 Nov 2017
In reply to Nath93:

Its for 8 - 12 people, it won't take that much trade away from local businesses, especially as the club members are from in/around Inverness so would likely otherwise be day visitors.

And by ski touring standards, the access is very easy. Even if you walked/skinned all the way from the road it would be less than many alpine huts (I'm old enough to have skied on Aonach Mor before the lifts were built so have been road to summit on a mix of foot & ski)
 jonnie3430 15 Nov 2017
In reply to Nath93:

I hope they mitigate the avalanche and rock fall risk as well, I'm sure I've seen a lot of debris down that face in the past.
 Nathan Adam 15 Nov 2017
In reply to Doug:

But it's not only for members of the club, it's also for members of those affiliated with Snow-sports Scotland, Mountaineering Scotland and other groups who may be staying in the area for a while. I understand it's not for a large amount of people but it all adds up.

I've only ever walked up the bike track and beyond to the summit after being too keen to wait for the gondola hunting out winter and I know that wasn't particularly pleasant but the thought of having the hut there might convince me to do it more often early season if conditions are good and I don't need to do multiple times. Maybe I'm just lazy though..
 Root1 15 Nov 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I don't agree with new buildings in wilderness areas. Putting it into perspective though, look at the huge number of bulldozed tracks in the hills for, the shooting faction, hydroelectric schemes, forestry, and for access to build electricity pylons. More appear year by year, and this is a much bigger problem.
 Webster 15 Nov 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Seems like a great idea to me. its 'just' wild enough to make it worthwhile, but the notion that it will be defacing our precious wilderness is utter rubbish! there's a whacking great chairlift just round the corner! the only issue I have is that it wont be open to everyone... by all means give club memebers priority booking, but if the hut isn't filled and there are people wanting to use it, it makes no economic (let alone moral) sense in stopping others use it.
2
 Michael Gordon 15 Nov 2017
In reply to ScraggyGoat:

I agree that bothies have to be viewed on a case by case basis, that my support for them is not necessarily without question, that there is a balance to be struck, and that I wouldn't want to see them everywhere.

But what 'remote' areas in Scotland don't have bothies? Knoydart, Fisherfield and Cairngorms all spring to mind as places with bothies located within, as well as other sites with an 'away from things' feel such as Cape Wrath, Rum etc. So I think those with an apparent blanket opposition to those in remote areas perhaps don't realise how many there already are! As already mentioned, the likes of the Hutchinson (which I really like) is high up. But it's not prominent, and I'm sure most would be opposed to bothies on ridges or plateaus, including most MBA members. And is height a more important factor than remoteness? (I would say no)

I stand by my 'most hill goers' statement, though this is of course not based on looking at the results of a survey. Happy to be corrected!
 Robert Durran 15 Nov 2017
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> But what 'remote' areas in Scotland don't have bothies? Knoydart, Fisherfield and Cairngorms all spring to mind as places with bothies located within, as well as other sites with an 'away from things' feel such as Cape Wrath, Rum etc. So I think those with an apparent blanket opposition to those in remote areas perhaps don't realise how many there already are!

All the conventional bothies are old habitations and as such are in major valleys on the routes of old paths. I think this gives a natural and important distinction from any modern purpose built huts which I personally feel have no place in the hills - they would just be a lazy avoidance of hard graft and camping and, as such, an erosion of the sense of remoteness which comes with honest effort.




1
 Michael Gordon 16 Nov 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

I think I agree with you more on these lines.
 ScraggyGoat 16 Nov 2017
In reply to Michael Gordon:

Plenty of areas that don't have bothies or only at the very edge of them. Fannichs, Ardgour, Mullardoch, Monar, Torridon, Fionaven, Forest of Harris/South Lewis and ares north of Ben Wyvis. These spring to mind without thinking very hard about it.

Then there are areas that are well known be well used if facility was established, but I would be against; Coruisk, underneath Triple Buttress, behind liathach, before we think about all the cols with classic views. These locations could support commercial alpine style huts, but either those or bothies would change their character completely.
 Jamie B 16 Nov 2017
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> I assume the photo at the bottom is to indicate that they're proposing something similar? Does this Ben Avon one belong to the estate?

Looks like it does, I've had a nosy through the windows and it has the appearance of a gin hut for shooting parties. In one of the most horrifically muirburned mono-cultures I've seen - but that's a different land use discussion. I think it's primarily there to illustrate the architectural style proposed.
 NottsRich 16 Nov 2017

Does anyone recall seeing info on a hydro scheme being built in the same place, with the idea of powering the hut and contributing to the ski centre? This would likely make a change to the frequency that Braveheart Burn is runnable for kayakers, which would be a great shame. However I can't find details of the proposed scheme (or even the bit of info I first read) to form a real opinion. Anyone know any more?
 Michael Gordon 16 Nov 2017
In reply to ScraggyGoat:

>
> Then there are areas that are well known be well used if facility was established, but I would be against; Coruisk, underneath Triple Buttress, behind liathach, before we think about all the cols with classic views. These locations could support commercial alpine style huts, but either those or bothies would change their character completely.

To be fair, Coruisk has the JMCS hut already so another building would be superfluous, and there's Camasunary anyway. Not a good example perhaps. I too would be against bothies behind Liathath or in Coire Mhic Fhearchair. Alpine-style huts with their associated luxuries (and, thus, increased popularity, more so I suspect than the average bothy) would be even worse. Robert makes a good point about bothies traditionally being only sited where a building/ruin already exists; a good rule of thumb when considering proposed developments like this I feel.
 Al Todd 16 Nov 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
The club has just initiated a process of consultation with all interested parties so comments made here will be taken into consideration in shaping final plans. The location has however been carefully considered to take advantage of the long lying snow holding locale bearing in mind it is a snowsports club. Hence whilst I completely understand the comments about its proposed location, having a snowsports hut in a location nowhere near snow doesn't make sense.
I could cite numerous examples of inappropriate stalking and fishing lodge developments built in recent years throughout the Highlands most at the behest of a small elite preserved for the use of a tiny minority and none have involved any form of public consultation. Worse still the proliferation of wind farms springing up throughout the Highlands is massively changing many mountain areas into industrialised zones. The focus of the anti any development angst should therefore perhaps be better aimed at landowners who are exploiting our countryside for their own exclusive use or for profit. This hut will benefit very many hill goers, not just skiers, which is the reason I am in favour.
3
 Al Todd 16 Nov 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:
Robert, I totally respect the views you're expressing on mountain huts, but since you've previously said you quite like wind farms and don't see they are doing any harm (springing up all over the Highlands), how do you square that with your comment that remoteness is worth preserving?
1
 Robert Durran 17 Nov 2017
In reply to Al Todd:
> Robert, I totally respect the views you're expressing on mountain huts, but since you've previously said you quite like wind farms and don't see they are doing any harm (springing up all over the Highlands), how do you square that with your comment that remoteness is worth preserving?

All I have said is that I've yet to see one that has visually bothered me, but that is far from saying there are no locations in which they would bother me - they are not "all over the highlands" and I don't think they are ever likely to be so. Anyway, conflating wind farms with huts is a non-argument; remoteness is not primarily about the visual impact of developments - it is about facilitation of access, and the only way wind farms might contribute to that is through the tracks built to them (also a bigger visual problem to me than the elegant turbines themselves). But I doubt many of us have used a wind farm track to significantly ease access to the hills (unlike estate tracks - a far bigger issue) since, as I said, the windfarms are not "all over the highlands" but largely confined to areas of lesser interest to walkers.

Edit: Of course in an ideal world we'd have no hill wind farms, hill tracks or mountain huts, but it is not an ideal world and just because it is hard to stop two of those things, it does not mean we should encourage the third.
Post edited at 00:21
 wintertree 17 Nov 2017
In reply to Al Todd:

> but since you've previously said you quite like wind farms and don't see they are doing any harm (springing up all over the Highlands), how do you square that with your comment that remoteness is worth preserving?

I’m not that poster, but I square that view because without more use of wind power that wilderness is totally f***ed in the long term.

Round our way one of the biggest visible changes are packed rock tracks being built all over the moors so that mega rich visiting Arabs can be driven to their grouse shoots in Discovery 4s without spilling their drinks. I’m surprised they’ve not started building helipads.
Post edited at 07:55
 Al Todd 17 Nov 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:

Mmm I would beg to differ, the map below dates from 2012 since when many others have been approved

https://windfarmaction.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/telegraph-map.jpg

As you say the ancillary roads and other infrastructure to support the windfarms leads to further lessening of remoteness. Take a drive up to Garva bridge and towards the Corrieyairack pass just now. Ok its not the Grey Corries, Glen Shiel or Affric but a once wild area now has a string of new 50m pylons passing through, a massive sub station being built and a new motorway heading up to over 700m under construction in order to get even more blades up to a high mountain area.

We certainly need renewables, windfarms have their place (offshore!) but they are ever more encroaching on the true wild areas as are hill tracks and daylodges for shooters. I agree this real destruction of the landscape does not justify a ski club hut but lets keep things in perspective! What the IBSC is proposing is something which will benefit the wider outdoor community and will be sited in an area which already has various developments including a ski lift and a recently completed hydro power scheme.
 jonnie3430 17 Nov 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Wind farms: Younger generations solution to older generations mistakes.

Who are all the moaners about them? Ah yes, the older generation, who won't have to deal with the dramas we face over the next 50 years.
5
 Robert Durran 17 Nov 2017
In reply to Al Todd:

> Mmm I would beg to differ, the map below dates from 2012 since when many others have been approved


I think that a glance at that map in fact confirms my view that windfarms have pretty much been confined to the peripheral areas of the highlands - certainly not in your own words "all over the highlands". Obviously there will be cases each of us don't like, but it seems to me the planning has generally been pretty sensible.
1
 Robert Durran 17 Nov 2017
In reply to Al Todd:

> Ok its not the Grey Corries, Glen Shiel or Affric but a once wild area now has a string of new 50m pylons passing through, a massive sub station being built and a new motorway heading up to over 700m under construction in order to get even more blades up to a high mountain area.

I do agree with you on this one - unlike wind turbines I find the pylons far uglier and a greater intrusion; it is a great pity the cables could not have gone underground on the more sensitive remote parts of the route.

Since you mention the west highland glens though:

In my view the massive push for hydro schemes in the west highlands in the 1950's is the real tragedy for the landscape of Scotland. Unlike with wind farms, the desecration goes right to the heart the west highlands with almost every major glen from Loch Quoich to Loch Shin ruined by the ugly scars of the reservoirs' shores. You only have to look at the few glens which escaped to appreciate just how much beauty has been lost. Ironically it has made some areas such as the heads of Loch Mullardoch and Loch Monar more remote by destroying paths and leaving hideous ground along the shores - but we have paid a horrendous cost for this. If the Glens were still untouched, I simply cannot imagine the go ahead for such wholesale destruction being given nowadays; wind farms are a relatively minor irritation in comparison.

1
 NottsRich 17 Nov 2017
In reply to jonnie3430:

> Who are all the moaners about them? Ah yes, the older generation, who won't have to deal with the dramas we face over the next 50 years.

What do you define as old? I certainly wouldn't consider myself an older generation, but find myself siding with many of the views above from people who I know to be older than myself. Perhaps you should be less sweeping in your judgement as I'm sure there are many of your generation that wouldn't agree with you. They do have a place though. Perhaps alongside motorways, definitely offshore in selected locations, but not in the few 'natural'/wilderness areas that we have remaining. And there are definitely a lot more popping up around Scotland in quick succession just now... But they are certainly not the only option for renewable generation, especially around the island that is the UK.

1
 Doug 17 Nov 2017
In reply to NottsRich:

In Germany & elsewhere wind turbines seem to be mostly in lowland farming landscapes and I think there is more community involvement so some of the profit goes to local councils. It probably also means the electricity is generated closer to where its used. Maybe its now different but I remember that in the past it was not possible to object to windfarms due to the subsequent need for installing the infrastructure to get the electricity from the Highlands to the Central Belt.
 Simon Caldwell 17 Nov 2017
In reply to Al Todd:

> This hut will benefit very many hill goers, not just skiers

Could the hut be made available to BMC members rather than just Mountaineering Scotland members?
 Robert Durran 17 Nov 2017
In reply to Al Todd:

> This hut will benefit very many hill goers, not just skiers.

But you could say the same about the entire Cairngorm ski area and road. I have "benefitted" hundreds of times from the ski road and carpark on Cairngorm yet they are the worst visual and remoteness eroding abomination in the Scottish hills. Maybe, like the hydro schemes, we have just grown so used to them that and so we sometimes fail to realise just what horrendous plans got approved in less enlightened times.
 daWalt 17 Nov 2017
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
> Could the hut be made available to BMC members rather than just Mountaineering Scotland members?

I suspect that this has already been taken into consideration.
the hut is there primarily for the club - there's already patrons only club "huts" at all the ski areas (but these aren't accommodation huts).
realistically the place is likely to be booked-out, or even unbookable, esp during a good snow year.

makes sense to hire the place out spring, summer and autumn if anyone would want to use it.
but potentially only Snowsports Scotland affiliated clubs can book in winter.... I don't know what the policy will be, but I wouldn't be surprised (and kind of hope for) some preferential system for skiers.....
....
....
...
....
...
...
ok splitboraders too
but you have to sleep in the hall.
.
.
no telemarkers tho!
Post edited at 16:18
 Al Todd 17 Nov 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:
Ha ha now I'm in agreement with you and you with me what was it we disagreed about again?
 Al Todd 17 Nov 2017
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
Hi Simon, thats certainly still open for discussion and final decision as part of the current consultation. I personally do not want to see the hut as being there exclusively for the use of a small minority and the initial proposals do not intend it to be that way.
 Doug 17 Nov 2017
In reply to daWalt:

> no telemarkers tho!

unless its changed a lot, that would rule out most club members (it used to be the Inverness Nordic Ski Club)
 Robert Durran 17 Nov 2017
In reply to Al Todd:

> Ha ha now I'm in agreement with you and you with me what was it we disagreed about again?

Huts? Wind turbines? Pylons? Bulldozed roads? Ski infrastructure? Hydro schemes?
 Al Todd 17 Nov 2017
In reply to Robert Durran:
I'm pro a new mountain hut and you're against, you're not opposed to wind farms provided they're not in scenic areas and I am depending on the definition of what is scenic and we're both opposed to everything else. Generally on the same side!
Post edited at 18:35
 daWalt 17 Nov 2017
In reply to Doug:

> it used to be the Inverness Nordic Ski Club

exactly; it's backcountry now.
don't want these retrograde interlopers sneaking back in now do we

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...