Official Report 318KB pdf
Cairngorms National Park (PE481)
We have before us two petitioners who are concerned about the proposed park. The first is Mr Bill Wright, who is appearing on behalf of the Cairngorms Campaign. Petition PE481 calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that the planning powers for the Cairngorms national park are the same as the powers for the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park. We will deal with that petition before hearing from Campbell Slimon. I ask Mr Wright to make some brief opening comments.
We submitted petition PE481 on the national park in March this year, because we were keen for the Parliament to intervene in the designation process before it was presented with the final designation order. As a result, we are delighted that the committee has come to Kingussie today to discuss the matter.
Thank you very much indeed. I offer members up to 10 minutes to put questions to Mr Wright on his petition.
I want to declare an interest, as I fully support the petition. When I asked Executive officials and the minister why proposals for the Cairngorms national park differed from the proposals for the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park, I could not get a satisfactory answer from them. Do you have any idea why the proposals are so different?
We have been completely mystified by that. As with Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, we in the Cairngorms are looking at big hills, communities in the glens and development pressures. As those factors apply to both national parks, we do not see why the proposals for each should be different. I can only make an assumption—there is widespread speculation that the matter comes down to influences that are being brought to bear on the Executive.
First of all, I welcome Bill Wright to Kingussie. Do you support the case for the inclusion of the parish of Laggan within the national park boundaries?
Yes.
I thought that you might say that. Thank you for that answer.
We certainly do. An exciting aspect of the system in Scotland is that the national park board will be made up of 10 local authority appointees, 10 ministerial appointees and—most important—five directly elected members. That gives an opportunity for local involvement that we find nowhere else.
In your petition and statement, you say that you are not happy with the planning powers in the draft designation order and that you would prefer that the planning powers were wholly with the Cairngorms national park authority as in the case of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park. If the planning powers were not wholly with the national park authority, would you prefer that they were wholly with local government, rather than the proposal that is in the draft designation order?
There is a real difficulty with that, particularly because of the local plan. If the planning powers were with the local authority, there would be no uniform management or development of the area. If, for example, some of the Perth and Kinross Council area was included in the park, thousands of houses might be built there and none in Badenoch and Strathspey. That is not a planned approach to the national park. It could become something of a free for all. The local plan is pivotal in that respect.
That argument could be turned on its head. If the national park authority had total planning powers, it would decide what happens in the national park. That could add to stresses and differences on the outskirts of the national park, where we could have housing plans. Would it not be better for the local authorities and the national park authority to be involved in planning to ensure that we do not have stressed areas on the national park's borders?
That is why it is vital that the local authorities be represented on the national park authority by councillors who are familiar with the circumstances within and outside the national park boundary. We have never suggested for a moment that local authorities be eliminated from the process. It is vital that the local authorities be on the national park authority to address the issue.
I have two questions. First, do you believe that your views represent those of ordinary people who live in the proposed park area? Secondly, your petition says that one of the reasons why you want change is "bitter planning controversies" in the past. Will you give me some examples of those planning controversies and how such controversies could be avoided if you get your way?
The Cairngorms Campaign is a relatively small charity. However, we are supported by a large number of charities through Scottish Environment LINK. We originally submitted the petition in partnership with the Scottish Council for National Parks and a host of other bodies, such as the National Trust for Scotland.
I do not necessarily want you to go into the detail of every controversial planning issue. I just want you to give me an example of how you think controversy could be avoided under your proposals.
Part of the problem is that, within the planning authorities in the past, the various parties have ended up in an adversarial position. That is perhaps a fault in the planning system. In the national park authority, all the stakeholders—10 out of 25 will be from local authorities and five out of 25 will be directly elected—will have a much greater opportunity to take part in the planning process, rather than just submitting their letters and views. There will be a real opportunity to resolve controversy in the future through a widely supported local plan.
I certainly do not dispute what you have said about the beauty of the hills above Blair Atholl or the Angus glens. What do you say to the argument that if the park is too large there will not be sufficient funding to do enough in any part of it?
We cannot change the fact that we have a fantastically large beautiful area. To put an administrative line through it is, to get back to your point about beauty, almost like saying that we can afford only two thirds of the Mona Lisa. In relation to meeting the requirement of the act on coherent identity, distinctive character and outstanding heritage, the Cairngorms include the Atholl hills and the Angus glens.
I see from the wording of your petition that you are suggesting that the powers of the Cairngorm national park authority be as comprehensive as those for the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park. If I heard you correctly, you accepted in your answer to Mr Ewing's question that there was a difference between the English national parks and national parks in Scotland.
Yes.
Do you accept that what is applicable to the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park might not be appropriate for the Cairngorm national park?
I would argue that the similarities between the two outweigh the dissimilarities. Clearly the act provides for different circumstances for different national parks in Scotland. There would be strong dissimilarities in national parks in places with only one local authority. The provision for the management of Rum or St Kilda, should they ever become part of a national park, would have to be different again. It would be odd to have direct elections in somewhere such as St Kilda, where a few members of Her Majesty's Army would be the only people who could be directly elected.
I note that your petition refers to the powers of the national park authority. You spoke about the shrinking of the proposed area. I want to ask two brief questions. First, you said that the Executive had ignored the views of communities. Will you give me evidence to substantiate that statement? Secondly, you said that various communities were scunnered. I understand the word "scunner" very well, but will you tell me how scunnered communities are manifesting themselves and what damage has been done?
Considerable damage has been done. A considerable amount of time and effort was devoted to a comprehensive consultation exercise, which Scottish Natural Heritage might talk about later. In some cases, members of the community, community councillors and community leaders were asked to facilitate the public meetings that took place. Since then, certainly in the case of Blair Atholl and the Angus glens, people have become so fed up that they have almost given up on the process. In other words, what happened was far removed from what was anticipated. You must not forget that expectations were raised during the consultation process. They were also raised by the Cairngorms Partnership, in which all the communities were involved.
Does Bill Wright have any comments on the Edwards report? John Farqhuar Munro commented on the different decisions that are being made for different parks. Does the experience of parks south of the border have a bearing on where we should be going with the Cairngorms national park?
I used to be employed south of the border and gave evidence to the Edwards panel. Although there are clear differences between the situation in England and that in Scotland, the planning systems across the UK are similar. The planning system has customers, such as those who apply for permission to build extensions on to their houses and those who want to engage with the system in order to make representations about applications. Where split systems exist, the problem for people is knowing where they should go to in order to make representations on local plans or structure plans or to submit planning applications.
I apologise to Elaine Smith, whom I did not mean to call last. Please make sure that I catch your eye if you want to ask a question.
My question will be brief. You will correct me if I am wrong, Mr Wright, but I detect a certain amount of unhappiness in your comments on the consultation exercise. The committee is meeting in Kingussie today to take evidence that we will feed back to the Executive. When the minister met the committee last week, he indicated that he would listen to the evidence that the committee brings back from today's meeting. I would like to probe you a little more. Do you think that the decisions have been made and that that is the end of the matter?
Having looked at the Official Report of the committee's meeting, I am a little more encouraged by what the minister said. However, members should remember that, when we submitted the petition in March, our big fear was that the committee would face a yes-or-no situation, in line with the provisions of the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000—either the committee would want the national park that the Executive presented, or it would not. It is difficult to say no. Given the potential controversies over the proposal, we thought it important that the committee had the opportunity to give the minister its tuppenceworth and to make a proposal with which it might be a bit happier, rather than a potentially controversial proposal.
Thank you. We must move on, as we have overrun considerably on agenda item 1. I do not doubt that we will hear more about planning powers as the afternoon progresses, so I suggest that we conclude consideration of petition PE481 by formally noting its contents. We will take into account the discussion that we have had on it when we produce our final letter to the minister.
I am happy with that, provided that we make a decision on the matter in public by the end of the meeting.
The decision that I suggest is that we note formally the contents of the petition and bring the details of the discussion to our considerations later.
I am unhappy with just formally noting the contents. If we are to discuss the pros and cons of the petition, we must make a decision. However, I will understand if you think it more appropriate to wait until we have heard all the evidence on the other issues.
I am happy to go down the route of delaying consideration of the petition until we have heard further evidence today. Are members content with that?
Cairngorms National Park (PE555)
We come to Campbell Slimon. I ask you to forgive me for mispronouncing your name earlier and, without further ado, I invite you to address your remarks to petition PE555, which is on behalf of Laggan farmers action group.
I farm in partnership with my son and daughter-in-law. We have 1,300 blackface ewes. We also have 80 out-wintered suckler cows crossed with Angus and shorthorn bulls and we sell their in-calf heifers at two years old.
I assure Mr Slimon that the fact that I am wearing the centenary tie of the Blackface Sheep Breeders Association is entirely a coincidence.
What are the main reasons for including the parish of Laggan? What is your view on the other areas that may seek inclusion, such as the Angus glens and Blair Atholl to the south?
I would not like to comment on the other areas. Laggan parish is different from those areas because all the rest would look out of the park for their main markets and services. In Laggan, we would look into the park for our vet and our banks, for example. Everything would be in the park, so we would be cut off. If we looked west, we would go to Lochaber, which is totally different. All our links are with Strathspey and Badenoch.
Is it your view that the whole of Badenoch and Strathspey should be included in the park?
Yes.
I was lucky enough to be shown around the area about which you are concerned. I was impressed by some of the farming practices that are being followed there. Can you say a little more about the environmentally friendly practices that you are employing?
When the Cairngorms straths environmentally sensitive area was set up, Laggan was at the forefront of that process. I am regenerating birch woodlands. Badenoch and Strathspey has more wading birds than any other area in Britain and Laggan compares favourably with the rest of Strathspey on that issue. The environmental work that is done on our farms bears comparison with the work that is done in the areas within the proposed boundaries of the park.
How would that environmental work be affected if Laggan were not included in the park area?
We do not know what the future holds, but at the moment people need a certain number of points to be eligible for the rural stewardship scheme. They would receive a point automatically for being within the national park and if we are excluded from the park, we will be automatically downgraded.
At times it is very difficult for the committee to hear the views of ordinary people, because we receive so many submissions from organisations that claim to represent other people. Do you believe that you represent a large number of ordinary people in your community? How many people do you represent?
There are about 200 people in the parish of Laggan. As the petition points out, I have played my part in placing farming at the forefront of various community projects that are under way in Laggan. We have forestry, a community-owned shop and five community-owned affordable houses. I do not think that such houses exist anywhere within the proposed boundaries of the park. We have a hall and we have taken various other initiatives.
Your submission is very strong. We hear a great deal about the theoretical disadvantages of being excluded from the park. What would be the practical disadvantages for your community of its being excluded from the national park area?
English national park representatives who have visited us have pointed out that areas that are just outside national parks are strongly disadvantaged when it comes to tourism. Visitors to the area, especially foreigners, will want to stay in the national park. It is worse to be just outside the park boundary than it is to be 30 miles away, in places such as Lochaber.
Would any other community be left out of the park if Laggan were included?
No. In my view, the best boundary was the line that was proposed by the Cairngorms Partnership, which follows the watershed of the Spey. Under the current proposals, the management of the Spey will be cut in two.
Your petition relates principally to the boundaries of the park. I want to ask you about the other issue that has been raised, which is planning. How do you think that planning for the national park would best be managed? If planning powers were passed totally to the national park board, would that have implications for the time and resources of the board?
As husband of the local councillor, perhaps I should not answer that question.
You certainly do not have to, given that your petition does not refer to planning.
I will say that, when we found that we were outside the boundary, we reflected that one of the reasons why we would not want to be in the park was that we would not be subject to planning restrictions. However, we now understand that being just outside the park means that the same planning restrictions will be placed on us, for a reason that was mentioned earlier. It is desirable for the planning conditions at the border of the park to be the same as those that apply within the park. We do not want to have a dump just outside the park, for example. It is likely that the same planning restrictions will apply outside as well as inside the boundary.
Have you ever been given any reason why the parish of Laggan was left out of the park? Can you think of any reason yourself?
The only reason relates to the form of funding involved. As was mentioned, the Executive wanted the park to be as small as possible. If the park is not properly funded, it is not worth having it.
You are asking us to do all that we can to include the parish of Laggan in the national park. What percentage of the population of the parish of Laggan supports the petition? What evidence do you have that the community really wants to be within the national park?
Our evidence is only from the farmers and crofters, but I can assure you that the level of support among them is 100 per cent.
What about everybody else?
The community had a meeting, at which there were representatives from Mr Rumbles's part of the world to explain the situation. A vote was taken, and the result was 2:1 in favour of being inside the boundary. A voting paper was also circulated, and the result was 80 per cent in favour. There was just a small return on the vote, but time and again, people commented, "We don't know what we're getting."
You say that it was a small return. Can you give me an idea of the number?
I think that the response rate was 25 per cent. If we take the number of households, it could be considered to be higher, presuming that there is more than one person per household.
Apart from getting a point towards the rural stewardship scheme, what specific agricultural benefits would you gain from inclusion within the boundary? Would there be any specific agricultural disadvantages to being left outside?
The question of green tourism may arise. We are now rural stewards and there will, we hope, be some kind of funding for us to continue to look after the vast farmed area.
Thank you all. I particularly thank Mr Slimon for answering the committee's questions. Would I be safe in assuming that committee members are content to deal with petition PE555 similarly to the previous petition, and to delay consideration of it until we have heard further evidence?
I thank Bill Wright and Campbell Slimon for their time.