Official Report 214KB pdf
Our main business today is to take further evidence for the stage 1 consideration of the National Parks (Scotland) Bill. Last week we took evidence from Scottish Natural Heritage, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Scottish Society of Directors of Planning and the Royal Town Planning Institute in Scotland. This week we will hear from the Cairngorms Partnership, the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs interim committee, Scottish Environment LINK and the Scottish coastal forum.
I thank the committee for inviting us to give evidence. I should explain what the partnership is and does—that might clarify why we find ourselves giving evidence today.
The committee is aware of your position through your letter. We are quite happy about that—we realise the parameters within which you must operate.
Should conservation and recreation be identified as the prime purposes of national parks?
That would be my view at all times, but the partnership has, through the years, been in place to implement a strategy and work plan that considers not only conservation and the environment in the Cairngorms area, but employment and economic benefit, which I believe are fundamental. Our interpretation of the draft paper from SNH was that it also examined economic benefit and employment.
Do you have concerns about unqualified application of the Sandford test under section 8(6) of the bill, and about the effect that that might have on co-ordinated delivery of aims?
There is no doubt that that test would be applicable in the core conservation areas. In the longer term, we would like some form of zoning to be applied in the park, so that it contained development zones and countryside management zones as well as the core conservation areas to which the Sandford principle would apply. Those zones could also act as buffer zones.
Many of the submissions made to the committee raised concerns about the adequacy of powers under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 for the national park authorities. What are your views on the desirability of having self-contained and comprehensive byelaw powers specific to national park authorities?
That is one of the matters on which we do not have a view. Whatever the new model for the national park, there is no doubt that it must have adequate powers to do the job properly. Because much of our work is based on consensus—in fact, that is all that we can base our actions on—we think that consensus is fundamental. However, I suppose that everyone will expect powers of last resort to be in place, in order to deliver the specification for which the park has been set up.
Are you convinced that the national park authorities will have sufficient means under the bill to influence the general activities of local authorities and public bodies and of the owners, users and managers of land and water?
That is a difficult question for us to answer. The national park must have proper and adequate funding in order to ensure that it can operate in the way in which the country wants it to. I am not in a position to state whether the funding is adequate, because we have no idea what that funding will be.
I believe that some rough, ballpark figures have been discussed.
That may be so, but those figures are lined up against a lot of blank sheets of paper—we have no idea about park boundaries, about the scale of operation of national parks, or about how many national parks there will be. We know that there will be a national park at Loch Lomond and that there will be one in the Cairngorms area eventually, but other issues about marine parks and so on have yet to be determined.
A lot is said about the likely cost, but the figures that are being spoken about are the figures for the park authority. As you will see from our work plan, however, all the partners must be on board if the whole range of activities is to be delivered. Our work plan has investment in the parks of up to £100 million spread across the partners. That degree of support must continue after the park authority is in place.
Do you have a view of what powers the bill should give to the authority in areas such as skiing and recreation?
I do not want to sound negative, but I am not sure that we are in a position to respond to that directly as we are not engaged in that business. The Cairngorms ski lift operation is a stand-alone body over which we have no influence.
Do you have any views on traffic regulation and designation of footpaths in the area?
We have a keen interest in footpaths, as we expect the national park to have an expensive responsibility for the maintenance of paths. One of the issues that we are examining, irrespective of whether there will be a national park, is whether we can raise private finance that could be matched by Government money and would be available for the long-term upkeep of paths. We have found no evidence that people feel that paths should be tolled. Equally, it is hard to find someone who agrees that there should be tolls on roads.
We have done a lot of work on the subject of paths with our partners. With the present rate of investment, it would take about 40 years to repair the worst-damaged bits of the best-loved paths. If the park is to be a national showcase, remedial action is needed as a matter of urgency. We have done research on this and have found that about £7 million will be needed in the next four years or so to make the necessary repairs, but that presages the need for a revenue stream, which might be the park's responsibility.
There was a forecast recently—I do not know whether it is good or bad news—that the amount of tourism worldwide could double in the next 10 to 15 years. Could the Cairngorms cope with a doubling in the number of tourists?
The area could carry such an increase but it would be damaged. Other issues such as climatic change and higher rainfall also come into play—erosion is caused by the elements as well as by people. We have to think positively. I will put on one of my previous hats—I used to be chairman of the Scottish Tourist Board—and say that there are huge opportunities for Scotland to develop its tourism industry. However, it must be borne in mind that Scotland's assets can degrade and must be looked after.
With respect to the powers of the national park authority to ensure the protection of the environment, Scottish Natural Heritage has suggested that the bill fails to provide a power of last resort to the authority. Do you have a view on that?
I do not think that the partnership has a view on that. I go back to what I said initially—that if a national park is to be realised as a sensible and progressive way of moving forward, it must be properly established, funded and administered.
Murray Tosh would like to ask about planning matters.
I would like to begin with a supplementary to the previous exchange. Ian, once or twice you referred to boundaries. We have received a letter on that issue from the convener of your community councils group. The group wanted the area of the park to cover all the communities that service and sustain the Cairngorms area. Your map shows a very broad area. Am I right in thinking that you and all the constituent parts of your partnership want to establish that or something like that as the boundary of the park?
I should probably ask Stewart Fulton about this, as he has been here longest and is an expert on planning, which I am not. However, the time and effort that was put into establishing the Cairngorm Partnership area and the boundary some five or six years ago was sufficient to lead me to believe that that consultation came up with a sound and proper boundary. The panel members of the Cairngorm Partnership believe that it would be a sensible boundary for a national park.
I have a couple of questions about planning. We have received many submissions and last week took evidence on the separation of planning functions between the local authority and the parks authority—that is an option envisaged in the bill. What is your view on that? What would you see as the practical implications of the park authority and the planning authority being different bodies?
Since 1995, I have been on secondment from the Executive, but normally I am assistant chief planner in what was then the Scottish Office and is now the Scottish Executive. In my view, the best way ahead for the park is for it to have the maximum influence with the minimum intervention. I favour a model in which the park authority has strong powers of intervention—powers to input material and to be listened to at the various stages of the planning process. Personally, I do not think that it is necessary for the park to have a full-blooded planning department—at least not in the Cairngorms, where there are five different administrations.
Later this morning we will take evidence from witnesses who argue that the parks authority should be the planning authority. You do not regard that as appropriate.
I believe that other structures could be equally effective, as long as the powers of intervention are recognised as credible and are backed up by the Administration.
Do you see that as something particular to the Cairngorm area, which is inapplicable in other potential plan areas?
I would not go so far as to say that. About two years ago, we had a planning expert examine the situation in the five authorities, and the commonality of purpose in all the structure and local plans was very high, partly because the department issues a great deal of detailed advice. The methods for dealing with designated areas are crystal clear, as the European designations have to be handled in a particular way. That means that a good part of the area is dealt with in a manner from which people cannot deviate. The study showed that, although there were sub-regional differences here and there, by and large the plans were going in the same direction and being applied in the same way.
Do you agree that, under your model, with the NPA having strong powers of intervention rather than being the planning authority, we would need much clearer delineation of the purposes and aims of the national parks than the bill currently provides for?
That would come out of the park plan. The park plan has to be understood by everyone. People must know what they are to take away from it and deliver on the ground. That is the crux of the issue. The park plan must be strong and effective. The purpose of the development plan is to make it absolutely clear what developers can and cannot do. In many ways, it is a facilitating device. One diverges from it at one's peril, as that would mean diverging from policy. However, if the park plan is clear, if the park authority has a strong input into it—as other authorities would have an input into structural plans and so on—and if the park plan represents consensus on what needs to happen, that should be strong enough to hold the ring.
Do you see a need for a trigger at the end of a planning process, which would allow you to refer to the Scottish Executive if you felt that significant planning applications were contrary to the approved plan, to the principles of the national park or to both?
The answer to that is definitely yes. The referral system is already in place. If Scottish Natural Heritage is not content with the planning authority's handling and application of a national scenic area, it can refer the matter to the First Minister. His decision at that point is whether to intervene. If he decides to intervene, he calls the application in and determines it himself. There is nothing new about that; it is the same mechanism that gives the park authority strong powers to stop the clock from running on applications that would apply unfavourable conditions. That is part of the normal stock in trade of the planning process.
The novelty would not be the principle, but its extension over such a wide area.
Yes, and that could be done. I do not think that there would be a problem if that was established as the procedure. In the old two-tier system, there was a development control scheme in the regions and districts whereby the regions would receive a routine list of applications that they had asked to see because of their type or scale. The regions screened those applications and decided whether they should be called in for regional processing if they were sufficiently large. Systems such as that have been in place, off and on, over the years—and over a wide area.
You mentioned national park plans. That is a theme that we want to develop.
I have a couple of questions on that topic. In the evidence that we have received from several organisations, the effectiveness of the duty on public bodies to have regard to the national park plan has been commented on. It has been suggested that we should consider whether that duty should be extended to private organisations and individuals. Would you like to comment on how effective that duty on public bodies would be in practice?
I am proceeding with caution again. I agree with you; I do not think that "have regard to" is a strong enough phrase. Public bodies could have regard to something and still decide to do something else.
What would you expect the practical effects to be of failing to place some kind of statutory duty on land managers to implement the national park plan? What would happen in practice?
If a land manager was in default?
Yes.
I do not think that we can answer that question. That would be a new theatre of operations. In relation to some of the European zonings—other people are more qualified to talk about this than I am—if the land is not managed towards favourable conservation status, there are already sanctions in the system. The same would apply to sites of special scientific interest, for which a list of operations must be observed.
Do you expect conflicts to arise between different organisations and bodies if there is not a strengthening of the duty?
I do not know. It is horses for courses; it depends where you are and with whom you are dealing. There are difficulties here and there but, in the main, the landowners with whom we deal go in the same general direction as us—the partnership area is about 97 or 98 per cent privately owned. I imagine that, as new legislative measures on access and so on are implemented and landowners are further engaged with the public, things will soften up and there will be fewer difficulties, but others no doubt have a different view.
First, we have the experience of the way in which landowners have accepted and administered SSSIs, European schemes and so on. Secondly, support for the biodiversity action plan in the Cairngorms has been widespread; the plan commands a lot of respect. That is a signal that people in the Cairngorms look on the countryside as something that they want to support. We do not come across evidence of the law being broken.
I want to clarify that. In general, you seem to be suggesting that you would support a strengthening of the duty or an extension of it to other bodies and individuals.
We two individuals sitting here would probably say that the wording could perhaps be put another way.
We get your drift.
It is difficult to say, as we do not yet know the colour or shape of the national park plan. In the broadest possible terms, I suggest that the plans should be subject to fairly frequent review. Times change quickly, in terms of environmental issues, let alone economic or labour issues.
We see our strategy as durable and do not revisit it frequently, but we publish our work plan, which we gave you with the strategy. The partnership operates a policy of maximum transparency. In the work plan, we inventory everything that the partners are delivering. Everyone should be able to see where the money is going and what is being done to achieve each of the strategic objectives. The plan includes sections on communications and new work. If things needed done that had a bearing on monitoring or that might change the strategy, they would be included in those sections. The plan is serviced—if bits of the strategy look a little out of date, the work plan will say what is happening to review the situation and to refine, improve and take the matter forward.
Taking that analogy a shade further, I believe that it could be said that the strategy is well thought out, well planned and implemented, while the work plan provides a means to revisit the strategy annually to see how far down the line we have come. The members of the panel are keen to go back to the work plan every year to update it but, as yet, they have not said that the strategy needs to be changed. We would be comfortable with the national park authority adopting a similar proposal.
Are you suggesting that the strategic approach should be dealt with over a longer period, with regular annual reporting on the work plan?
Yes. We need to keep an eye on that.
As there are no other questions, I thank Ian Grant and Stewart Fulton. They have a busy day ahead of them, as they are going on elsewhere. As a frequent visitor to the Cairngorms area, I am excited about the prospects for us all. I hope that it will all go well. Thank you very much for coming along.
Thank you very much for having us.
It was our pleasure.
Thank you. I am glad to be here again. As you said, convener, I am wearing a different hat this morning and will be speaking more about the nitty-gritty of what we are doing in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs.
You know us too well in terms of who will ask what.
Good morning. Your submission highlights a number of suggestions on the purposes and aims of national parks. Could you explain the effects of failing to include recreation and of the omission of "responsible" as a qualifier to employment? Why did you suggest substituting "well being" for "development" in the wording of the aim at section 1(3)(d)?
Bill Dalrymple wrote the words, so I will ask him to respond to those questions. They are good questions, to which he has the answers off pat.
If only.
That was a very clear and helpful explanation, thank you.
Have you been considering the eventual total overall carrying capacity of the area for tourism?
The short answer is that we have not. The term "carrying capacity" always causes me concern. Currently, 5 million visitors pass through the Loch Lomond part of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs area, through the area of the old regional park. We registered 5,000 powered craft on Loch Lomond last year. If you ask me at what point the visitor numbers start to damage the very resources that people come to see, I do not know the answer to that.
I see where you are coming from as regards the inclusion of the word "responsible" before "enjoyment". Is that not based on a view that the interpretation will be subjective rather than objective? What makes you think that the legislation will be viewed subjectively rather than objectively?
From my point of view, the crucial thing is to have a bill that is capable of interpretation five years down the line or 10 years down the line. I am not so concerned about whether the act contains a certain word or not, provided that the debate has taken place and has been recorded, and provided that the national park authority, when it is given the task to manage an area, has a clear-cut framework in which to do so. The difference between objective and subjective is sometimes difficult, but, when push comes to shove with regard to a particular management problem, the more definitive the statement on what we mean by the act and the subsequent strategies the better.
In planning, would you not accept that, when not dealing with individual rights but considering the overall definition of a national park, it is more likely that you are considering things objectively, and that somebody behaving in the manner that you mentioned would be viewed as acting in a manner detrimental to people's enjoyment anyway?
There is such a problem with power craft on Loch Lomond that the introduction of the word "responsible" is important. Everyone has seen television programmes about how easy it is to hire a jet-ski and drive at 50 or 60 mph around a loch. If the word "responsible" allowed the park authority to require training or even licensing for people to use those lethal craft, it would be valid.
In your submission, you note several concerns about present byelaw provisions and their reliance on current statute. Could you explain the main concerns of the interim committee about the practical effect of failing to incorporate specific byelaw provisions? Are there any specific byelaw provisions that you would like to be included?
We could talk about that at great length. The Loch Lomond area has had byelaws since February 1996, so we have a fair amount of experience of applying byelaws in a high-pressure area. When the draft bill was published in January, we were somewhat confused because, on first reading, it appeared that the various sections would give us sufficient scope to introduce an adequate backstop for byelaws. However, on second reading, and bearing in mind the link to the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, we have found some shortcomings.
So you are saying that you are unable to balance the right of people to enjoy the beauties of Loch Lomond in peace and quiet with the right that others have to use those ghastly machines anywhere they want.
That is the word that I would use to describe them too.
What you say about byelaws is important. However, how would those byelaws be enforced? Is the national park legislation sufficient? Would you expect the police to pursue someone who, for example, did not have third-party insurance? That would seem to be quite sensible.
It is important to remember that byelaws would be used as a back-stop, the last resort if other management means have failed. One of our problems is that if someone's persistent contravention of the regulations results in our attempting to pursue the matter in the sheriff court, we have to go through the police force, which does not regard an infringement of a byelaw as being as important as a serious crime, obviously. We work closely with the local sheriffs and I am aware that the procurator fiscal in Dunbarton is amenable to the notion that park rangers should be able to report directly to the procurator service. That would streamline the situation. My rangers are keen to be able to do that.
Is the legislation that we are considering adequate in that respect, or would further legislation be required?
I would like the national park legislation to deal with this matter once and for all. I will be disappointed if we have to wait until other legislation is reviewed. I cannot speak for the Cairngorms area, but in Loch Lomond we are dealing with extraordinary pressures. No matter how sophisticated the strategy development becomes, there will always be a need for a back-stop, which should be applied efficiently.
Your submission raises concerns about obligations on the Ministry of Defence and the Crown Estate and suggests that a requirement to consult the park authority should be placed on the MOD. Should that requirement be incorporated in the bill?
I am not a legal expert, so I am not sure whether the requirement should be incorporated in the bill or should be guidance. However, there is a need for close co-operation between the MOD, the Crown Estate and the interim committee; our position near Coulport and Glen Douglas makes that important. We accept the Crown Estate's position while the land belongs to the Crown, but land should come under the planning legislation as soon as it is disposed of by the Crown.
Many people have said that the phrase "have regard to" is not strong enough in this context. Some people are looking for a strong statement such as incorporating in the bill a requirement for public bodies to consult the park authority. Would you comment on that?
I will keep hammering away at that point. As far as I am concerned, the phrase "have regard to" is totally insufficient, as I am told that laymen may misunderstand it. However, in our response to the consultation, we suggested wording that tries to involve constructively all parties in potential national park areas in working together to realise the aims of the national park authority. In doing that, one must have stronger wording in place than "have regard to".
On the powers of the national park authority to ensure the protection of the environment, what do you think of SNH's suggestion that, by failing to provide a power of last resort to the national park authority, there is a gap in the bill?
I answered that point last week. Bill?
That puts me in an extremely awkward situation, as I do not know what Councillor Thomson said last week.
I will not tell you.
We did not make that suggestion, but anyone sitting around this table who thinks that every possible situation could be covered by legislation is living in a fool's paradise. Therefore, in principle, the power of last resort seems to me to be a sensible provision, to be used in the last resort.
I want to reiterate the comments that I made last week, which I believe Bill shares. If the park plan is sufficiently robust, we should be able to avoid conflict.
Murray Tosh will ask questions on planning matters.
I will start by teasing out the meaning of a couple of phrases that you use in your letter to the committee of 18 April. In paragraph 8 of that letter, you use the throwaway line that
We are concerned that the bill should be unequivocal about the relationship between the national park plan and the statutory planning system. At present, the bill states that the national park plan must consider the management of the area in general, but there is a question about how much of the content of the plan should address land use planning, as that is not clear.
Would it be sufficient for the legislation to make it clear that the national park plan should be a material consideration for those preparing the local plan for that area? Would that give sufficient weight to the national park plan?
It must be clear whether the national park plan is envisaged as having a similar status to other development plans, or whether it is only a material strategic statement. When one is faced with making a decision about a planning application, the policies of local plans and structure plans will be the first port of call, and the national park plan is almost secondary, because it is merely material to that decision rather than having primacy. We are concerned about that situation, which we would like to be clarified. Should policies in the national park plan help to guide planning decisions, by being the first port of call when that decision is being made?
Would that difficulty be resolved if the park authority had the right to make its own local plan, that is, if the park becomes a local plan area?
My answer is yes and no. At present, the Loch Lomond and Trossachs area is covered by three structure plan areas, and therefore by three structure plans. In order to consider an overall strategy for the area, there is a need for the park plan to be able to provide a long-term integrated and coherent approach. A local plan, by its nature and as described in statute, is a shorter-term document, which covers a maximum period of five years and which considers the detail of site-specific developments and so on. A national park plan may be a more strategic document and therefore may have a strategic planning role. If the park authority does not become the local plan authority, the policies prepared in the park plan would not have primacy and therefore the park authority would not have a primary role in land use planning policy.
It could also be said that both the interim committee and the component councils are relaxed about and keen to implement the idea that the national park should be both the development control authority and the local plan authority, although it should not be the structure plan authority. All three councils are fairly happy with that.
I will come back to that point in a moment. I would like you to expand upon the remark made in your submission that
The bill outlines two possible options for planning powers for national park authorities. Other permutations of powers could be considered as well, and it seems strange that an enabling bill specifies two particular options when other options exist. Our position is that if the bill does not outline all the options, it should not outline any at all, leaving the matter to be determined at the designation order stage.
Gillie, you referred to the division of powers between the local authority and the park authority. As a witness from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities last week, you suggested that, ultimately, the two authorities should be unified. A lot of the evidence presented to us suggested that there should be a definite commitment to unifying the development control and local plan roles as quickly as possible.
As I said, the three authorities and the interim committee share the belief that the local plan should devolve to the national park authority, which would still have to happen, whether in the short or medium term, although not in the long term. Everyone is relaxed about that.
Do you consider that the bill, as introduced, fails to place a duty on the councils, or whoever the planning authorities would be, to give greater weight to the conservation of heritage resources in the event of conflict with the other three aims?
The interim committee and the councils in the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs area are happy with the legislation's equal emphasis on the four aims—obviously I cannot speak for councils in the Cairngorms area. Furthermore, we are content with having the backstop of the Sandford principle in the legislation, although we hope that it will never be drawn out of the cupboard.
In our response, we were keen to stress that the Sandford principle is associated with conflict. In that respect, the national park plan will be a crucial document, and there will obviously be differences of views and emphasis in its development. Such a philosophy should be built into the whole process.
We may have covered some of these issues already; we are now considering just the role of the national park plan.
I think that my first question about privacy has already been answered.
Although that statement is good enough where public authorities are concerned, it is more difficult to achieve such an aim with private individuals. It is not hugely practical to require individuals to have regard to the national park's good when they are planning some kind of action. However, the aim of bodies such as local authorities and the Forestry Commission should be the betterment of the park itself.
Of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, you have suggested in your response that
We have prepared three budgets to date. The initial budget bid reflected our opinion on the support needed to prepare the way for the creation of the national park authority in summer 2001. When that bid was not successful, we submitted an amended budget, which was £400,000 less and also unsuccessful. In the end, the final budget was about £800,000 less than the initial budget.
The interim committee has been asked to provide a smooth transition to the national park; however, the question is at what stage we provide that transition. We believe that we should be as far as possible along the road to allow the national park to get up and running as quickly as possible. SNH believes that it will be three years before the national park is running smoothly. As the interim committee has been dealing with national park issues in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs for some years, it should have a strong role in providing for that transition. However, we need the funding to do that. Next year, funding arrangements will be a nightmare because there will be a transfer part way through a financial year.
We are not complaining, however; we will do what we can in this intervening year. However, such work will only prepare the way for the national park authority; it will not put into effect any real action, which would take resources that we do not have.
I should add that we are working with a fairly heavy capital programme of about £6 million, the catalyst money for which is provided by local authority contributions through section 94 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. If we had decided not to continue with this programme in the interim period, we would have given up the opportunity to pull in at least £2 million of European funding under the old objective 2 and objective 5b programmes. We will be handing over a smooth-running operation.
As a national park authority rather than an interim committee, would you be in a better position to tap into sources of funding such as lottery money and millennium projects? Would you be in a stronger position to help other partners and agencies to do so?
The old Loch Lomond park authority has an exemplary record in nailing down money for capital programmes and the experience of the people who have been involved in that authority will stand the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs area in very good stead. Those people know the ropes; they know where the money is and where to get it—indeed, Karen Tobin, for one, has a good track record of getting the money where necessary. Funds from sources other than the Executive will be needed and the people involved in finding such funding will not let the grass grow under their feet. However, a strong element of core funding is still needed.
As members have no further questions, I thank Gillie Thomson, Bill Dalrymple and Gordon Watson for attending the meeting and for giving us a good, practical and strategic overview of the issues facing us.
Thank you for inviting Scottish Environment LINK to give evidence to you today; we welcome this opportunity to do so.
Your submission raises concerns about the consultation process. Can you elaborate on those concerns?
We feel that there has been thorough consultation since Scottish Natural Heritage was asked to undertake the task. The more recent steps have been rather hurried and the period between comments on the draft bill and the position that we are in now has been short. We are not criticising the process, other than to say that, at times, it has been rather a struggle for an organisation such as ours to reach a consensus from the views of 27 of our member bodies in the time available.
You note concerns the omission of references to the recreational purpose of national parks. Do you think that the bill should stand as drafted? If so, what do you think will be the consequences of failing to include recreational purpose?
We think that there should be some changes to the bill. First, the SNH evidence acknowledges that, worldwide, virtually all national parks treat as fundamental the conservation of natural and cultural qualities and the recreational experience. We think that section 1(2)(a), which refers to the conditions, should contain a reference to recreational quality as well as to "natural and cultural heritage".
On the collective achievement of aims, your submission says that the combination of diversity of aims and the relatively weak balancing duties could serve to generate rather than to relieve conflicts. Could you expand on your concerns and explain your proposal that the aims should be seen to have an element of hierarchy?
We accept that the four aims are all valid; we have no argument about them. However, the national park will have been selected and designated on the basis of the purposes that have been discussed. Any steps that were then taken to meet one or other of those aims, but that undermined those purposes, would undermine the whole concept of the national park. We have some difficulty with the lack of an explicit statement that the core purposes of the national park should never be detracted from in meeting those aims. We do not have a difficulty specifically with the aims, but we feel that the difficulty that I have described may arise. An authority will be faced with making decisions where it might favour the short term and, through a gradual but unintended process, begin to undermine the core purposes of the national park.
The international standard for national parks is that the conservation of the natural heritage is the core reason for the park's designation. The key thing is not that any of the aims in section 1(3) should be downgraded, but that the aims in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) should be fulfilled in a manner that is consistent with the conservation aim.
Are you suggesting redrafting the bill to specify that?
We suggest a minor amendment to section 1(3) so that the aims in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) must be fulfilled in a manner that is consistent with the aim in paragraph (a).
I think that you have covered the other question that I wanted to ask, which was how the word "collectively" would affect management and practice. You think that a lack of such a provision could lead to gradual erosion.
We think that that is a risk. There should be an onus on the park authority in every decision that it makes to consider the long term and the whole purpose of the park, rather than the merits of each individual case.
You may have heard the phrase "as a nation" used in connection with the priorities that may determine what area of the park we are talking about. Do you have a view on the concept of the nation?
We believe that the phrase "as a nation" is a powerful tool for separating some aims that will be of higher priority than others. Any of the four aims could be zoned to take a higher priority. If there is a consistent rationale for creating zones within a national park, that provides the framework within which decisions can be made.
We have asked virtually everyone who has appeared before the committee about the planning arrangements within the national park authority area. Will you explain what the consequences would be if the local authority were to remain the planning authority—that is what the Cairngorms people are pitching for—and what the practical consequences would be if development control powers were separated from development planning?
I shall ask David Morris to address the latter point. Planning is not just a means of control; the whole planning process is about facilitation and negotiation, both in development planning and development control. In the context of a national park, it is fundamental that those processes of control and negotiation should both be vested in the national park authority, if it is to be able to work effectively. That is the principle. I ask David to pick up the point about development control.
In recent years, we have felt uncomfortable that, for several developments in the Loch Lomond area and in the Cairngorms area, the decision lay simply with the local planning authority. One hotel at Luss is right on the side of the loch, and there is the Cairngorm funicular railway issue. Grampian Regional Council was strongly opposed to that planning application, but the scheme went ahead primarily because the Highland Council was in favour of it. The national park authority must be the planning authority, as has been the experience in other countries.
If it is starkly clear that the national park authority should be the planning authority for both purposes, why is that not what we are hearing from the various organisations that are involved in the Cairngorms area? The broad evidence that we seem to be receiving from every quarter is that people want planning powers to remain with the local authority.
It is recognised that this is a sensitive question, particularly further north and west in Scotland, as some of the organisations that have given evidence to this committee have shown. Judging by some of the key planning decisions that have been made in the Cairngorms area over the years, we stand by the view that it would be better to have a mix of local authority representatives from various sides of the massif involved in decision making. We are not saying that that should be absolute, however. In our evidence, we say that it should be normal for the national park authority to be the planning authority, but if there are cases—in other national parks that may lie further north or west—in which it is decided that things should be different, those should be regarded as exceptions and the case for that should have to be made.
In your submission, you suggest that marine national parks might constitute special cases. What sort of planning regime would be appropriate in a marine national park?
There is no town and country planning in those areas, as that would extend only down to the low water. The key issue in a marine national park would be to get all the relevant authorities to agree on a park plan and on the way in which those bodies would implement the measures that are required in the park plan. The concept of a marine national park raises other issues in relation to responsibilities that are reserved matters.
A national park authority should be able to act as the advocate for the place and the people of the park. One of the key interactions between place and people will be in planning; for the sake of clarity, the best place for that to happen seems to be within the park authority.
I am trying to work out where we have got to.
We were discussing the "have regard to" question. The strength of that phrase has been discussed in all our consultation.
Ah, yes. Scottish Environment LINK has expressed strong concern over the drafting of section 12 and the phrase "have regard to". You suggest that a duty should be placed on public bodies requiring compliance with the park plan. What would be the effect of retaining the current wording of the bill, and what duties should be placed on private landowners, occupiers and managers?
It is necessary to remind ourselves that there is a distinction between public bodies and private landowners and so forth. Section 12 relates to public bodies and the like. There was particularly strong feeling among all Scottish Environment LINK's bodies that "have regard to" is a weak phrase; we agree with what Stewart Fulton and the Loch Lomond witnesses said about that. The phrase would enable a public authority to examine the plan and note what was in it, then do something different.
Could you expand on that? That is a fairly new idea, and would be in addition to such things as agri-environment schemes.
It would be an extension of the same principle. Having established the objectives in a national park plan, the public agencies would seek creative ways in which to further those aims through the provision of incentives. That could apply equally to the conservation of listed buildings and to aspects of the wider landscape. The phrase "have regard to" has negative implications. People need to think a little more creatively about supporting the objectives, rather than simply having regard to them. One mechanism for encouraging private agencies—organisations or individuals—to do that would be the provision of incentives and grants.
Scottish Natural Heritage has raised concerns over the powers of the national park authority to ensure the protection of the environment. It suggests that there is a gap in the bill, which fails to provide a power of last resort for the national park authority. Do you have a view on that?
Scottish Environment LINK bodies have not collectively taken a view. We listened with interest to the evidence that was given earlier this morning, and found it very persuasive.
Good answer.
Yes. I shall try another tack.
I was not trying to be evasive.
Many submissions to the committee have commented on the adequacy or otherwise of the byelaw powers and the transfer of the powers of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 to the national park authority. Do you have a view on byelaws?
We have considered the matter briefly, mainly with members who are concerned with the Loch Lomond area. We listened to what Bill Dalrymple said about the need to ensure that the byelaw powers are enforced, perhaps through enabling rangers to enforce them if necessary. Those are concerns that our member bodies have also expressed.
We think that it is very important that any byelaw proposals or management rules under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 are subject to full public consultation. There is concern that that has not happened so far.
Do you think that the bill as it stands provides adequate powers to the national parks authority to deal with speedboats, navigation on water bodies and jet-skis?
Yes. We are conscious that in many situations byelaws are a very powerful tool. Loch Lomond is a difficult case, because of the right of navigation that exists there, which includes motorised craft. However, water bodies such as Loch Leven near Kinross, to which byelaws are applied, have a very tight regulatory regime. Some of us would argue that it is too tight. As a member of the access forum, I am aware that this debate is going on throughout Scotland. We are content that the byelaw power will be a sufficiently powerful tool for local authorities and national park authorities. We merely want to ensure that there is adequate consultation on byelaws and management rules.
Do you believe that the bill provides enough powers with respect to the marine environment?
It could do, if the responsibility on other public bodies to have regard to it is strengthened. That would mean that those public bodies to whom the relevant section applies would have a responsibility to act in accordance with the plan for the marine area. The big question to which we have not been given an answer relates to the role of those bodies that have a responsibility for reserved matters. The Department of Trade and Industry, for example, has a responsibility for navigation. We believe that that issue should be investigated during consideration of the bill.
I will finish with an open question. Is there any question that we have not yet asked you this morning that you wish we had asked and would like to reply to?
I am sure that there is, but I cannot think of one offhand. The main issue that we have not mentioned is the Sandford principle, which is set out in section 8(6) of the bill. We believe that it is written into the wrong part of the bill and should be associated with section 1(3), which deals with the aims of national parks. The Sandford principle should apply to all public bodies and others taking decisions within the context of the national park and not be specific to the work of the park authority.
I am interested in the byelaw provision—not so much in how it affects this legislation, but in the effect that it may have in due course. Where do you see the revenue that is raised from byelaw infringement going? Should it be hypothecated? Such revenue could go either to the Treasury, as happens in the case of offences caught by speed cameras, or to the local authority, as happens in Edinburgh in the case of infringements registered by traffic wardens.
We have not addressed that issue as an organisation, so I am in no position to give you an answer on behalf of LINK. However, I accept that this is an important issue.
I want to return to the section of the bill that deals with marine national parks. Do you have any suggestions for amendments that might make its intentions more open? In particular, do you think that we should enshrine in the bill the provision of proper consultation of all parties with an interest in the area of sea that is under consideration?
We believe that at all stages public consultation on the selection of national parks is incredibly important. It is known worldwide that a park will be most successful when people are behind it.
I agree completely with what Andrew Bachell has just said. The mechanism set out in the early parts of the bill for the run-up to the designation order requires public consultation, and that is one way of ensuring that it happens. One concern that we have about section 29, on marine national parks, is the inclusion of the phrase
So you think that an amendment of the sort that you have suggested would be useful as a belt and braces, so to speak.
It could be.
I would like to have a last crack at the Sandford principle. Are there other parts of the bill which are seriously deficient as regards to how the Sandford principle has been incorporated?
The Sandford principle is often portrayed as something that is brought to bear when everything has gone wrong, when, in fact, having it in the background ought to enable people to think about solutions rather than about heading for conflict. A number of provisions in the bill are designed to address conflict rather than to promote good practice and to encourage people to look for problems before they arise. For that reason, we believe that the closer the Sandford principle is to the aims of the bill, the more robust the bill will be.
The name of this principle is derived from a committee chaired by Lord Sandford, which examined how the national parks in England and Wales could be corrected. It is a shame that the English and Welsh parks had to be brought up to standard in 1995, after having existed for so many years. It would be a shame if Scotland took the same route and had to correct its parks later on.
We discussed this with officials of the Scottish Executive. Some member bodies in LINK were slightly uncomfortable about using the Sandford principle, as it dates from 1974. We thought that there was a case for setting the issue in a more international context, as it is the same issue worldwide. We thought that a more modern interpretation of the Sandford principle, based on international criteria, might be more appropriate.
I thank Andrew Bachell, Lloyd Austin and David Morris for giving evidence to the committee. We share your desire that Scotland should lead the way on national parks. We hope that the work that you have done and that the committee is doing will assist that process.
Thank you. On my right is Martyn Cox, who is the coastal project officer and, therefore, a full-time employee of the Scottish coastal forum. In that sense, he is unique. I am the independent chairman of the forum. I thank the committee for giving us the opportunity to give evidence this morning. After I have set out briefly the background to the forum's establishment, I will be happy to answer questions.
Thank you for those opening remarks.
I want to zero in on that key element. In your submission, you welcome collective achievement of the aims and emphasise integration. Will you expand on why that is key? What do you mean? Why is integration particularly important in the marine context?
I am sorry. I missed the early part of your question.
Will you expand on the collective, integrated approach, explain what you mean by it and say why it is particularly important in the marine context?
The previous group touched on the fact that many marine areas, which are beyond the control of local planning authorities, are organised sectorally: different departments of state deal with specific aspects. It is generally accepted that an integrated approach will be an essential aspect of managing the coastline in the future. If a marine national park were to be designated, it would be essential to ensure that planning capability for the park would come under the jurisdiction of one authority, so that there would need to be fairly major changes to the laws governing marine areas.
When you say one authority, do you mean that one local authority should manage beyond the low-water mark or that a new authority should be set up? The suggestions in the national parks legislation do not make it clear what sort of authority would be appropriate for managing a marine park.
That is absolutely right. I do not think that anyone knows yet what nature of authority would be given the task. However, whatever authority finds itself in the position of managing a marine national park, it would need to have the same authority as is being considered for terrestrial parks.
One organisation?
Yes. One organisation.
Janis Hughes wants to ask about consultation on boundaries.
In your evidence, you suggest that consultation on marine boundaries is particularly important. Can you elaborate on the particular consultation arrangements required for marine areas and how they differ from the arrangements needed for terrestrial parks?
That is a very deep and searching question and I am not sure that I am entirely competent to give an altogether useful answer. As yet, measures have not been put in hand to deal with the marine aspects of national parks. If a future national park were to embrace a marine area—whether a wholly marine area, an area that enclosed islands or an area including a terrestrial element, in which the coastline was simply extended offshore by a given distance—many aspects of the current law governing marine areas, which is sectoral, would need to be resolved, so that powers could be given to whichever authority was selected to operate the national park to ensure that it did not have to have recourse to the different departments of state to achieve its aims.
So the main difference is the separate laws that apply to marine areas?
Yes. The single biggest difference is the changes that would need to be put in place for the designation orders for terrestrial and marine parks.
You mentioned the possibility of a park covering a marine and a terrestrial area. How could that be dealt with?
Again, it is early days, but planning arrangements would need to be put in hand that allowed marine areas to be embraced by the same organisation as was dealing with the terrestrial areas. That takes us into fairly major changes, because local authorities currently have no planning powers beyond the low-water mark.
Are the arrangements set out in the bill inadequate for marine national parks because of the specific difficulties that may have to be overcome and the specific laws that may have to be changed? Does the legislation need to be more specific to accommodate marine parks?
The bill is enabling legislation, so as long as it includes sections that adequately permit marine national parks, should they ever be identified or needed, it will have achieved its aim at this stage. My concern is that the single section in the bill referring to marine areas will stand or fall alone. Should it for any reason fall, the door will be closed on the possibility of marine areas being included.
In your submission, you raise a number of concerns about the powers of the national park authorities in marine areas. What do you consider to be the main problems? Do any changes need to be made to the system described in the bill for marine areas? What needs to be added to the bill to address the problems? Would they be solved by setting up a unitary marine authority? Is that the best way of doing it?
If such an authority were already in place, it would make the wording of the bill a great deal easier than it is. So far, it has been felt appropriate to establish only one section, which comes quite late on in the bill, after the miscellaneous section. It is obviously an afterthought. That is fine, provided that the section goes through as it is, although it does talk about areas comprised wholly or partially of sea, as though they were exclusive. The forum might have preferred something less prescriptive; however, there is no great worry about that. The main worry is that if a marine dimension is to be included at later stages of designation, it will open up major areas that will need to be resolved, although there is no reason why that should not be achieved in due course.
You state that there is no certainty that byelaws would be able to achieve the required level of management. SNH, in its evidence to the committee, also highlights that reliance on the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 is inadequate as, for example, it provides only for the use of powers within 1,000 m of the coast. What changes to the bill are required, specifically to cater for the marine environment?
Inevitably, the questions that surround areas of sea are more complicated than lines drawn on maps, which can so easily be resolved by the parties involved. As soon as we go seaward from the coast, questions arise about the area that we might wish to enclose. Is it within territorial waters? Does it go out to some sort of median line or does it go out to the extent of the economic zone? All those aspects would come into question in the event of a marine national park being designated.
What changes are required to the provision of powers derived from regulations 34 to 36 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994, to provide for a national park authority to establish management schemes, and to make byelaws and orders under Scottish fisheries legislation?
I will confer with my expert to confirm whether we can give you a helpful answer or whether we might try to investigate that.
Would you rather see that section in the bill as drafted left as loose as possible to allow for as much freedom as possible?
My subjective answer is yes; it is one of a range of detailed questions that would need to be considered carefully, should marine national parks be introduced.
You mentioned in your response that the bill should explicitly recognise that statutory bodies other than local authorities would have lead responsibilities in marine areas below the low watermark. Which bodies should be recognised in that respect? How should the bill take account of that recognition?
Perhaps it goes a little beyond what might be necessary within an enabling bill. However, harbour authorities, for instance, would need to be carefully consulted if anything were seen as imposing on their designated areas of jurisdiction. There are issues around energy, particularly off the shore of Scotland. Oil and gas extraction and so forth would merit exactly the same treatment. Fisheries are much involved, to say nothing of expectations relating to public rights of navigation. The matter is complex, but it would need to be resolved so that a park authority, as constituted, would have the necessary powers.
We shall move on in a similar vein, to planning powers.
Before I come to planning powers, I would like to pick up on the last point. You talked about the need to ensure that the park authorities had the necessary powers. However, as was pointed out earlier, many of those powers refer to non-devolved areas. Given that, to such a large extent, energy and fisheries are non-devolved, is it conceivable that the Scottish Parliament could create a marine national park covering the broad range of powers that you have just indicated?
I agree—a number of major questions arise, on how those powers could be achieved. However, I imagine that if the need were clearly established and, after due consultation, it were felt that that was an essential extension of national parks legislation, ways would be found in which to achieve those powers.
Your submission has been that the provisions of the bill might be insufficient for the purpose of planning in a marine national park, specifically because the existing planning legislation does not go beyond the mean low watermark. Will you explain what might be required to ensure that the park authority could be granted appropriate and adequate statutory powers of planning?
It is beyond my brief to answer that on behalf of the forum. However, on my own account, I would say that planning powers will be needed offshore; as things stand, they could not go beyond the 12-mile territorial limit. Should a marine national park be introduced in their area, local authorities will need to be able to plan offshore in the way that they are able to on land.
That is an interesting question for us, too—we will need a committee bill to test our powers.
In your response you mentioned an area on which other agencies have made similar comments—the lack of facility in the bill for a plan to be reviewed. You obviously consider that as important; is there an optimum period in which a review should take place? Should a requirement for such a review to take place be enshrined in the legislation?
The forum feels quite strongly that any new legislation of such enormous importance should have a review period locked into it—there should be at least consideration of a review. In that way, people who might not have been part of the consensus will at least feel well served, as they will know that the period of the legislation is only so many years. Again, it is beyond my competence to say how many years that should be. However, there should be a short period for new legislation of this type: enough time to settle and enough time for a review.
Would the complexities of a marine national park necessitate an earlier review period than would a wholly terrestrial park?
I am sure that they might, but—and again this is a personal opinion—I would not propose that the review period be different. If the period was considered reasonable at the time, I am sure that it would suffice. My guess is that it should be a short to medium-term period. It should certainly not be long; for instance, something of the nature of the common fisheries policy is too long.
There are many concerns about the drafting of section 29. You seem to be looking for something that opens the door to marine parks, but does no more than that, because it is a complex area. Do you have any suggestions about how the section could be amended to achieve that?
Our concern centred on the fact that although we suggested changes in order to introduce the marine element, when the bill was drafted, it included only one section on the marine dimension. That is a simplistic approach. If Parliament decides not to accept that approach and deletes the section from the bill, the possibility of marine national parks will removed.
Should we be looking for something that leaves the door open and which does not seek to apply provisions that are relevant only to a terrestrial national park? At the moment, the bill simply says that we can change the provision for terrestrial national parks to cover the marine environment, which raises all sorts of problems. Should we be saying that we would also like to have marine national parks, but that we should revisit that matter with a separate set of aims and objectives when necessary?
In so far as the application to marine national parks has been drafted, the bill says what it needs to say. The concern of the forum is that if the section were to be altered or completely withdrawn from the bill, we would lose any opportunity under the legislation to permit marine national parks. The current feeling is that the slightly simplistic approach of using one section on marine aspects makes it vulnerable. If individual parts of earlier sections had mentioned the marine dimension, the forum would be happier with the bill.
Do you think that we could include some protection in the current section to serve you better?
It would be better if that section could be protected; as enabling legislation, it does all that is necessary. However, if the section is not protected, it is open to the possibility of being withdrawn or altered beyond recognition.
Would there be any merit in amending the bill to make explicit the possibility that a terrestrial national park might include marine areas, given that there is speculation that the third national park might be in Wester Ross? We cannot know about the boundaries, but it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that some of the lochs and islands in the area would be included. Does the section give adequate provision to allow the park to extend over those areas? If the section fell—for whatever reason—would you feel that the possibility of including marine areas no longer existed? Should we specify the possibility of a park that covered marine as well as terrestrial areas?
At the moment, section 29 includes 90 per cent of what the forum would like to be included in legislation. However, it focuses "wholly or mainly" on sea, which is slightly different from the forum's concept, which as you said, would be a national park that is predominantly terrestrial, but with a certain amount of water attached to it—perhaps nursery areas for fish. The forum does not imagine an area wholly of sea. We think that provision should be made for any designation, including the sea. Your description of a terrestrial park that enclosed an area of islands or sea off the coastline is entirely consistent with what the forum has concluded is appropriate.
If the section were to fall, would the bill be incapable of including marine areas?
Yes.
How do you imagine protecting section 29? Would you suggest that whenever the bill mentions a national park authority, we should say "a national park authority or marine park authority"? The double phrase would then run through the bill. Is that consistent with your thinking?
Yes. That would be far safer.
I want to return to the wording of the section—"may by order prescribe"—and the reservations held by the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs interim committee. Although I do not expect the minister to act by diktat, the current wording would allow that. Do you think that there should be something to enshrine proper consultation?
I am sure that that would strengthen the section. However, that issue is not particularly in doubt. The marine dimension of the national park is a complex business—it is subject to sectoral control—and would need to be debated and consulted on widely before anything could be changed. The forum is more concerned to ensure that the door is open for a marine dimension to national parks in the enabling legislation, without suggesting that there will be marine parks in the near future.
In a sense, the Government has set up your group to debate matters such as this, yet most of your recommendations appear to have been ignored. Do you have any comment on that?
It is new ground and I am wholly sympathetic to the fact that we are in pioneering territory. The forum is very conscious that much of what we are debating has never previously been debated. Scotland's coasts are among its finest assets and we are hellbent to achieve anything that we can to strengthen integrated management of the coastline, including the sea areas off the coastline. The National Parks (Scotland) Bill is the first piece of legislation in which marine national parks can enter into people's imagination, leading to further debate. The more that people know, the more they are likely to protect.
Thank you for attending the meeting, which has been most interesting and productive.
It might be very useful for us to have the Official Report of this morning's proceedings for our meeting tomorrow. I know that that makes demands on the official report, but it would be very helpful for us to have it tomorrow morning. Perhaps the official report could examine its work programme.
The official report has given priority to this meeting, but I cannot confirm the time at which the report will be completed tomorrow.
I realise that this is the last evidence session that we will have on stage 1 of the National Parks (Scotland) Bill but, at the weekend, I consulted some environmentalists who told me that Yosemite park is going through an intense review. There might be much to learn from the problems faced by Yosemite. Why reinvent the wheel when we could consider the review of one of the world's most famous national parks, which has been running for some time? Could we find a way of gaining evidence from Yosemite, either by writing or by e-mailing?
We can consider that. It is not a matter for stage 1, but we can look into it.
We also need to discuss areas of questioning on the SSI under the affirmative procedure, on the annual budget process, when the minister will give evidence. Do members agree to discuss that in private at the next meeting?