I AM SURE that we, as Friends of the Ochils, have, as is fashionable, a mission statement. I am however ashamed to say that I don't know what it is, but would hope it is not a narrow statement of preservation, rather one which encompasses the possibility of change within the context of respect for the fundamental integrity of the landscape (which changes inevitably naturally, anyway), and within the wider context of the environmental and economic well-being of Scotland.
As a representative of a family which has owned land in the Ochils since the 12th century, one can claim for the family a tiny part of the credit for the landscape as it is or, rather, credit for not destroying the landscape which all of us are fortunate to enjoy. I am an unashamed apologist for the system of private landownership which I am sure has served Scotland well and hopefully will continue to do so - although inevitably there will be areas where it is possible to point to failures, and I am not suggesting that any of us is incapable of misjudgements.
It is a cause for sadness that economic conditions in upland agriculture are such that the number of families supported by agriculture in our part of the Ochils has reduced dramatically even over the last 30 years. While I have been responsible for Gleneagles, it has never been possible for the landowner to make a living from agriculture, and no one in my memory has taken out any funds from the estate for personal expenditure - rather, it has been necessary when possible to put money into the estate from earnings elsewhere.
The net income of Gleneagles, which is ploughed back into the land, is now from letting houses, sites for telephone masts, and royalties from extracting water for bottling. We are reacting to proposals for windfarms, which of course the government is encouraging in the search for sources of renewable energy, but have rejected any which in our view would create an unacceptable threat to the environment. It is for the planners to take the wider view of how concentrated windfarms should be in any particular area, and naturally there is a channel for the views of all to be taken into account.
David Gordon's comments in Newsletter 25 on our planning application to establish afforestation around the Lower Glendevon Reservoir provided the jumping-off point for my being asked to write this piece. Forestry is the most difficult activity to forward-assess in economic terms, mainly because of the timescale between planting and realisation of the crop. Diversity of economic interest on an estate must however be important in management terms, and taking Gleneagles as a whole it seems sensible to investigate at any rate the possibilities for further afforestation on the estate for amenity, biodiversity and commercial use. Last year saw an opportunity to take advantage of the Woodland Grant Scheme and the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme for establishing a woodland with both amenity and commercial timber production as the main features. We and our forestry advisers felt that there would be economic and management benefits in applying for the then existing schemes rather than the new one, with the knowledge that a final decision on planting could be deferred for five years, giving a period during which estate planning could be further considered taking account of all relevant interests.
It is clear that it is David Gordon's view that our proposed plantation "would not sit at all well in the landscape"; that is of course not our view and, as Mr Gordon reported, the objection from the Friends of the Ochils was supported by no one else, and the proposal was approved by the planners.
Whether we go ahead with the planting will depend on the assessment we make of its impact on other land-use on the estate in the area and on a final assessment - almost impossible to make - of the direct economic consequences. (I might add that the direct financial return from the timber is, we appreciate, only one of the effects of the planting. There is of course the visual impact which David Gordon has addressed, there is also the possibility of woodland walks contrasting with the open walking areas, and the effect of shelter on neighbouring farming and on fishing on the reservoir. Forestry is generally recognised as being able to support a wide range of recreational activities.)
David Gordon in his piece rightly said that "the difficulty of maintaining viable agricultural businesses makes other forms of income attractive". I hope that the above comments, which are very frank, indicate from the point of view of Gleneagles Estate the layered nature of the decisions which have to be made, and that environmental considerations form the major element in these decisions, which nonetheless must also be informed by those of finance. If our decisions were purely financial, however, our part of the Ochils would today look very different. We love these hills too.