Rural Development Committee, 02 Oct 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, October 2, 2001

Official Report 281KB pdf

---

Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park

I welcome Andrew Dickson, John Nicolson and Jim Halley, who have come to answer our questions as best as they can. I ask them to start by giving a short outline of all the issues that are involved. It is important to realise that we are not just focusing on Killin under this agenda item. There are other issues as well. After the outline, we will question the officials and try to get a feeling for the consultation process.

On my right is Jim Halley, who has taken over from Jane Hope, whom some of the committee will remember, as head of the national parks team. On my left is John Nicolson, who has been spending a lot of time of late walking the boundary. I shall say a little bit more about that in a moment.

We have listened with considerable interest to what has been said about Killin. We have listened with considerable interest to all the representations that have been made on that subject. If I may, I will return to that subject, but first, I will put the consultation on the national park—essentially the national park designation order—in context, most of which the committee will know, but of which I will remind you.

Before a national park is established, several stages of consultation must be gone through. That was the subject of considerable debate during the passage of the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000. Scottish ministers first publish a proposal for a national park. In the case of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park, ministers decided to ask SNH to act as reporter and to consult on the proposal.

The consultation covered matters to be included in the designation order—the area of the national park, the functions of the park and the structure of the national park authority. The Executive also asked SNH to undertake that consultation inclusively and to take steps to ensure that the consultation was participatory. It is fair to say that SNH did that. It did much work through surgeries, meetings and receiving feedback from people in the park area and a wider area.

SNH's report of the consultation was thoroughly thought through and researched. The conclusions were largely accepted by the Scottish ministers, although not in every last detail, and have been included in the draft designation order, on which we have just finished a 15-week round of consultation. We distributed 2,700 copies of the consultation paper and 35,000 summary leaflets. We held eight public surgeries in the park area—that was John Nicolson's part of the consultation—and consulted owners of land round the proposed boundary of the park, to ensure that the details of the boundary are sensible and that it does not cut through landholdings or go across topographical features illogically.

We have received 200 formal responses to that consultation. The main issue that has been commented on is the boundary. Many responses came from the Killin area and from further afield about the inclusion of Glen Dochart and Killin. Responses have suggested that more of the Cowal peninsula, Strathblane and Strathendrick should be included in the national park. Comments have also been made on the boundary round Loch Earn and St Fillans.

In the opposite direction, representations have been made that the area round the Lake of Menteith should not be included in the park. All those responses will be considered carefully. Ministers recognise the strength of feeling and have had the opportunity to experience that at close quarters in all cases, which they are considering carefully.

Generally, in deciding the contents of the designation order that the Parliament will consider, ministers must have regard to the criteria in section 2(2) of the 2000 act, which says that the area of the national park must be

"of outstanding national importance because of its natural heritage or the combination of its natural and cultural heritage"

and must have

"a distinctive character and a coherent identity".

The designation of the area as a national park must be

"the best means of ensuring"

that the four national park aims, which the act lists, are achieved in a co-ordinated way. Ministers will not please everybody in every case. The matters are for judgment. However, it is fair to say that ministers are in a position to make a well-informed judgment.

Mr Rumbles asked why SNH recommended that Killin should be left out of the park. As members will be aware, that was not an absolutely clear, open-and-shut recommendation. It was a recommendation on which there was a difference of emphasis between SNH as reporter—objectively assessing the views that had been put to it and testing them against the criteria—and SNH as natural heritage adviser to Scottish ministers. Wearing both those hats, SNH accepted that the decision was finely balanced.

In fact, SNH, as reporter, recommended that the whole of Glen Dochart should be excluded from the national park area because, as Elaine Murray said, it took the view that that area looked towards the Highlands and Breadalbane rather than towards the Trossachs. However, that was a finely balanced view. Commenting as natural heritage adviser, SNH took the view that the Tyndrum-Crianlarich area and the western part of Glen Dochart should be included in the national park, but that the eastern part of Glen Dochart and Killin should not be. Again, that was a finely balanced view. With the benefit of that argumentation and of the views that have been expressed, most recently here this afternoon, ministers will have to weigh up all the arguments and reach the decision on what to put before the Parliament.

I shall stop, as I have probably gone on long enough. There are other areas that members may want to explore, but it is probably best for me to stop at that.

Thank you. I think that other areas will emerge during our debate, and I open the discussion to members.

I was keen to know on what basis SNH recommended that the Killin area should not be included in the national park, so I am glad that you addressed that point, Mr Dickson. You said that SNH felt that Killin looked more to the Highlands than to the Trossachs. What about places such as the Argyll forest? Where does that look to? It does not seem to be logical. SNH does not seem to have treated those areas the same.

It is a matter of fine judgment. That is really all that I can say. To some extent, at the margins, it becomes subjective.

To pursue that point, if the objection is that Glen Dochart looks like the Highlands, would you accept that the upper part of Ben Lomond looks like the Highlands? Would you accept that, if you walk from the west highland way up over the hill to Comer farm, the bleak moorland there looks like the Highlands, and that that argument therefore takes us precisely nowhere?

I do not think I can say more than that it is a matter of fine judgment. There will be a number of areas in which it is by no means clear-cut. The drawing of boundaries is something that has to make it clear-cut, but the basis of the decision will not always be clear-cut.

You said that 200 people responded. What is the total population in the area that is contained within the current boundaries?

I think that the population who would be eligible to vote within the park boundaries is something like 12,000 to 15,000.

So, only a small number of people have responded—200 out of 12,000.

Yes, but the responses were clustered on specific issues. Bear in mind that many of the same people would have responded earlier to SNH. You may think that there is a degree of consultation fatigue, but that consultation followed up the strong arguments that were put in the Parliament during the debates on the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000.

I appreciate that efforts were made to consult and I am aware that SNH made efforts to go round and hold meetings. However, it is obvious that only a small proportion of the population responded.

I understand from Balfron community council, which has made separate representations to me to argue for the inclusion of the whole of Strathendrick and Strathblane, that it conducted a referendum of residents a couple of years ago. The result showed an overwhelming majority in favour of inclusion, by a ratio of 14:1. I understand that the boundaries cannot be determined solely by a referendum—that would not be in accordance with the primary legislation. Nonetheless, do you not agree that far more weight should be given to the clearly expressed views of communities such as Balfron, which has not only conducted a consultation but has held a full referendum of all those who live in the area?

All the views that have been expressed, and the strength with which they have been expressed, have been and are being made known to ministers. Ministers will think carefully before they reach a final decision.

Where the ministers are in doubt or are minded to consider inclusion—as with Killin, Balfron and even Carbeth estate—would not it be helpful to hold referenda? That would enable us to find out the views of all the people who live in the affected areas, not just of those who habitually respond to consultation documents.

That is not part of the system of consultation that was introduced after considerable debate in Parliament.

The issue that Fergus Ewing raises came up early in the debate on the National Parks (Scotland) Bill.

How many of the 200 responses that you received came from people who live outwith the suggested park boundaries?

Only a small minority, I believe.

We have not yet done the complete analysis, but I, too, believe that only a small minority of responses came from people who live outwith the suggested park boundaries. A large number of responses—around 80 of the 200 responses that were received—referred to the boundary question. However, we have not yet analysed those responses by address.

Could you say a little more about Balfron and the Endrick valley? I have received a considerable amount of information from people in those areas, particularly from Balfron community council and more recently from Strathblane community council. I gather that a letter from Balfron community council to the committee has been circulated. The council argues that its case is based on the criteria for inclusion. The main issue for Balfron community council is management of the Endrick valley. Large conferences have been arranged to consider how the environment and culture of the area can best be managed. One of the principal conclusions of those meetings was that there needs to be more integrated management of the area. It is clear that Balfron and Strathblane community councils feel strongly that the national park could provide such management. I dare say that that is one argument for the inclusion in the park of the Argyll forest, to which Mike Rumbles referred. You may feel that the area does not meet the criteria for inclusion. Even so, Balfron is near the proposed boundary of the park and the community council has made a good case for its being included, on the basis that there is a need for management of this important area.

That may be the case. Strong arguments will be put for the inclusion or exclusion of particular areas. The third criterion in the act is that the designation of an area as part of a national park is the best means of ensuring that the four national park aims are achieved in that area in a co-ordinated way. Ministers must, and will, have that in mind when finally they come to make up their minds on where the park boundaries should be.

Some people think that the designation of national park status will push up property values and that there is a danger of people being priced out of their communities. Do any of the consultation responses echo those concerns?

There were a couple of responses—a single-figure number—to that effect.

One or two individuals raised that issue at one or two of the public surgeries that we held.

Can you elaborate on those concerns?

They were basically what you have already said—that the designation of the area as a national park will cause house prices to rise.

What grounds were put forward for the exclusion of the Lake of Menteith from the national park?

Most people want the Lake of Menteith to be included in the park. The residents in the Port of Menteith area are not against the park, but do not want to be in the park themselves.

What are their reasons?

They feel that the lake and the surrounding area are perfectly well managed as they are.

We are returning to the point about designation being the best means of ensuring the co-ordinated achievement of the aims of the national park. Arguments over specific cases could run in both directions.

Did anyone argue that their area should be in the national park so that their property values would increase?

I doubt it.

The suggestion in the draft designation order is that the national park authority will be the planning authority. The local authorities will retain responsibility for the structure plans, but will be obliged to consult the national park authority on bringing together those plans. If the national park authority does not feel that the local authorities have taken its views on board in the preparation of the structure plan, what recourse does it have?

Under the present system, structure plans have to be approved by Scottish ministers, who will take into account all the representations that have been made by interested parties. That is, if you like, the court of appeal. The same thing goes for the national park plan, which the national park authority will have to propose. From that point of view, there should be the possibility of a consistent approach because of the involvement of ministers.

Do you agree that a national park should be as diverse as possible? I would push for the inclusion of the Balfron and Strathendrick areas, which I know well because I lived there as a child. The Endrick area is part of the angling area of Loch Lomond and it would be difficult to manage angling there if some angling areas were included in the national park while others were not. For that reason alone, I would like that area to become part of the whole. It was always considered to be part of Loch Lomondside.

You mentioned diversity. The second criterion is that the park should have a distinctive character and a coherent identity. A judgment on coherent identity is subjective, but that is a criterion on which ministers have to be satisfied.

It would appear that the establishment of the national park boundaries, particularly the one to which we are referring, was not an exact science. Although there was local consultation, the decision about where the boundary should extend to, and what the extent of the park should be, was arbitrary. I accept that, but I cannot see the distinction between the arguments for including or excluding Killin. If you are acquainted with the Killin area, Mr Dickson, you will accept that it lends itself geographically to inclusion within the Loch Lomond national park. It is ideally situated geographically. I wonder what the argument is against including it within the boundary of the new park.

As I think that I have said, the case of Killin in particular was one in which both the recommendation of SNH as natural heritage adviser and the decision of ministers about what to put into the draft consultation document were finely balanced. Your points and those of the petitioners will be carefully taken into account when ministers formulate a final view.

Our evidence suggests that there is an overwhelming body of support in the Killin area for its inclusion within the park. I hope that those representations will be considered.

Yes. That is noted.

What is the next stage? Should those areas not be included in the national park as finally drawn up? Is there a right of appeal? Are there further steps that people can take or have we come to the end of the line? Must we now wait for ministers to publish their plans?

The next stage is for ministers to bring a final, draft designation order before Parliament, which must be considered through the parliamentary process. The order is subject to affirmative resolution, so Parliament has to vote for it to go ahead.

There is no opportunity to amend at that stage.

That is right.

Rhoda Grant's last point is precisely my point. When the Executive decided to set up the national parks, it chose a particular way of doing that, which was to introduce primary legislation to this committee and to Parliament. The setting-up of the national parks was to be achieved by the designation orders.

Rhoda Grant asked Mr Dickson if there was a right of appeal. Well, there is—it is to this committee and to Parliament. I am particularly keen to hear that the ministers do not assume that Parliament is a rubber stamp on this issue and that they accept that it is up to the committee to say yes or no to the draft designation order. It would be a great shame if the ministers did not listen to the voices around this table and did not read the Official Report of today's meeting. This will be the first designation order to be laid before us. I for one do not want to delay it, but the minister has chosen this route and has assumed that the process will be smooth. I just want to flag that up. I hope that that information is passed to the ministers.

Indeed, it will be. However, it is not for me to say anything about what the minister considers the likely view of Parliament will be. It is a pity that the minister could not be here this afternoon, but she will take those considerations into account.

What costs, if any, are associated with including Killin?

We have not made a specific calculation of that. On the basis of the recommended park boundary, SNH calculated that the full cost of running the park, including running costs and project costs, would be around £5.4 million a year once the park was fully up and running. I imagine that the inclusion of Killin, which would extend the current proposed park area, would not change that figure considerably. However, the figure would have to be considered if ministers decided to go down the road of including Killin.

In your view there would be no financial barrier to including Killin.

I am hesitant to be categorical about that, because there might be issues and projects around Killin that could be brought forward under the umbrella of the national park and that might be expensive. However, from where we are at the moment, I would not have thought that the financial consequences would be exorbitant.

No financial consequences have been identified during the consultation process.

No, but the consultation process did not generally go into that kind of detail.

I have a few points, the first of which follows on from the last question.

Andrew Dickson was at Duck Bay Marina, where we had extensive discussions during which I, and others, raised the issue of resources. There is great concern about whether the resources are sufficient. Other issues were also raised, but, as I am not sure how pertinent they are to today's discussion, I will just list them quickly. Concerns about planning were raised—that relates to Richard Lochhead's comments. People want the national park to be a living park and do not want to have heavy burdens placed upon them, making it difficult for them to carry on their businesses. People do not want large-scale housing development outwith the park boundary. Infrastructure was one of the biggest issues that came up. How will the road network cope—not only the trunk road network, but, perhaps more important, the non-trunk road network? I would be pleased if the witnesses would take those issues away and reconsider them.

My last point follows on from Jamie McGrigor's comments. There are significant management issues about the park's boundaries. Jamie McGrigor mentioned fishing, and the Endrick valley has been identified as an area that requires integrated management. If we do not address those important issues, we will lose a part of the national park that could enhance it.

I will be brief. Members may be aware that Highland Council launched a campaign recently for what it considers to be much-needed improvements to and upgrading of the A82. The council has drawn particular attention to the difficult stretch that lies between Tarbert and Inverarnan, which is restricted to a single track because parts of the road have fallen into the loch.

I asked these questions back in 1999, but I did not get much of an answer. Will the designation of the part of Loch Lomond that includes that stretch of the A82 make the improvement to and upgrading of the trunk road more difficult, simply because it will fall within the national park? Can you describe how, in the view of the minister and the Executive, designation will affect such issues?

I will answer your last question first. It is proposed that the national park authority should be a statutory consultee for a range of other public authorities, including roads authorities. One would therefore expect that the park authority would be consulted and would take a view on that issue. Infrastructure provision might be relevant to the national park aim of promoting the sustainable economic and social development of its communities. I do not think that I can say any more than that. Without doubt, the question will have to be further debated.

It is worth pointing out that we will also be able to ask the opinion of the Transport and the Environment Committee on some of those issues when the designation order comes before the committee.

Can you give me some idea of what restrictions will be placed on water activities on Loch Lomond? Around the other lochs outside the national park area, there are concerns that watercrafts of different kinds will be diverted from Loch Lomond.

There has been a lot of concern about speedboats and jet-skis on Loch Lomond. The national park authority will have byelaw-making powers that could be used to control such activities. On the control of such activities outside the national park, I understand that the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 gives local authorities the power to make similar byelaws. I had better leave it at that. We will look into the position and write to the clerk. I am not 100 per cent sure of my ground on that issue.

Members have come to the end of their questioning, so I thank Andrew Dickson, Jim Halley and John Nicolson for their time. Perhaps they might take away with them the committee's firm feeling—if I judge aright—that the Killin and Balfron areas should be considered for inclusion within the park. We have probably not heard the last of that subject.

It now remains for the committee to determine what it wishes to do. We could perhaps decide on the petition separately. The appropriate way forward might be for me to write a letter on the committee's behalf to the minister to stress our support for the case that has been made today. However, I am willing to listen to what other members have to say.

It would concern me a little if we were to respond only to the petition and leave out Balfron community council's submission. Perhaps it could be included in the same letter. Balfron community council has taken the time to write to us and has an equally strong case, which should be given consideration.

I should have made clear my intention to put the case for the inclusion of both Balfron and Killin. I would like to hear what Sylvia Jackson has to say about that.

I suggest that you write separately on the two matters, so that if one falls the other does not fall with it. Killin community council has petitioned the Parliament, so it would be procedurally proper to deal with the petition in its own right. Two issues should be put in any such letter. First, the community in Killin is clearly of the view that it should be included in the national park area. Secondly, the evidence that we have just heard indicated that there is no known financial impediment. The Executive is not being asked to sign a blank cheque if it chose to accept Killin's inclusion. I am perfectly happy to support the Balfron submission, but I suggest that it be dealt with separately so that both do not fall because of a perceived inadequacy in the case of one.

We should stress in the letter that we are acutely aware that the draft designation order will be dealt with under the affirmative procedure. Therefore, we must make our views absolutely clear to the minister at this point, as we will not have the chance later. I hope that we will do the decent thing.

That point is well made. This is our final chance to influence ministerial thinking and I will seek to do so in the letter.

In case it is a relevant interest, I declare that I am a trustee of the Carbeth Trust, which relates to the Carbeth hutters. Carbeth is another area for which a strong case for inclusion has been made. Like Rhoda Grant, I hope that we will ensure that no area or community is excluded simply because it was not sufficiently organised to send in a petition or a submission. I hope that ministers will consider carefully Carbeth's extremely strong case for inclusion. The area is of outstanding scenic interest and is subject to all sorts of designations. For a huge variety of reasons, the area is of great importance to our national scenic heritage. I hope that its case will not be overlooked. It could perhaps be mentioned in the letter.

As Mike Rumbles has said, once we go into the affirmative procedure, although not hamstrung, we will not really be in a position to influence the boundary issue further. I hope that the Executive will listen carefully to all the views that have been expressed today.

What is the deadline for responding to the Executive?

The public consultation finished last week, so we are past the official deadline. Nonetheless, I like to think that a letter from the committee would carry weight.

There are people who have responded to the Executive's consultation but who have not contacted the committee. I would not like to be seen to be weakening their cases by making representations only on behalf of people who have contacted us and made strong cases. Fergus Ewing suggested that some people may not have been so organised and may not have thought of contacting us. I would not want that to be used against them. We should consider all people who have sought inclusion in the national park.

We are dealing with a specific petition. We have the evidence before us and, as Stewart Stevenson has said, we must address this specific issue. At the same time, perhaps in another letter, we can address other issues. However, we do not want to be accused of opening up the issue to consider areas on which we have heard no evidence. It is crystal clear what should happen with the petition.

I accept that point and the idea of writing two letters is logical. I would be happy to do that and to mention Balfron, Carbeth and the other areas from which representations have been made. Solid, robust thinking must be applied to the applications that have been made.

I sometimes disagree with Mike Rumbles, but this time I agree with him totally. I would like the committee to deal with the petition separately. Whatever you decide to do about Balfron, the issue that is critical for the community is the management of the area.

Do not worry—we all have arguments with Mike Rumbles now and again.

We have probably said all that needs to be said on this matter. We will write a letter that deals specifically with the petition, which we have all read and discussed, and we will write a further letter on the other issues that have been mentioned. Those letters will be sent in my name as convener. Is everyone content with that?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank Sylvia Jackson for her useful and valuable input—she is welcome to stay, of course.

That formally concludes consideration of the petition—I have to say that for procedural reasons.