Official Report 318KB pdf
We move to agenda item 3. The committee will hear from three panels of witnesses. After opening statements from each panel, members will have the opportunity to ask questions. I ask the witnesses on the first panel—I think that they know who they are—to come to the table. I can see three people—we hope that they are the right ones.
To save time, I have made half a page of personal details available to committee members. However, for the sake of those in the room who have not seen that information, I should add that I have been deeply interested in the Cairngorms area and its people since 1938. I have lived and worked there for years, and belong to many national and local organisations such as mountaineering clubs and so on, although I am not formally representing any of them at this meeting. Instead, I speak as an individual who is deeply interested in the area and in all aspects of the national park.
Upper Donside received the draft designation order with a great deal of surprise and disappointment. The area, which has been identified as area 8 by SNH, was involved from the beginning in the Cairngorms Partnership areas. Although my submission focuses primarily on boundaries, other issues will emerge from it.
For clarification, can you tell us in what capacity you represent the Strathdon community, which after all is a fairly wide label?
The community is made up of the parishes of Strathdon and Glenbuchat, which comprise about 300 people. At the public meeting, which a member of the Rural Development Committee attended, I was put forward to represent the whole community at today's meeting.
Thank you very much.
How many people attended that public meeting?
About 60 people attended.
Finally, we will hear from Brian Parnell.
The Scottish Council for National Parks was originally founded in 1943 to seek a Scottish bill to follow the bill for national parks in England. The organisation died off during the period of the Countryside Commission for Scotland, which it was hoped would give rise to national parks. However, when the commission was abolished about 12 years ago, a number of commissioners—I was one—and officials got together and reconstituted the Scottish Council for National Parks to take forward the old argument.
During our consideration of issues relating to the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park, the Killin community impressed us with the amount of community support that it had garnered for its proposal. We pointed that out to the minister, who changed the boundaries of the park to include that community. I ask Bruce Luffman whether he feels that Strathdon's situation is similar to Killin's?
Yes. The marginal difference is that the Strathdon community always assumed that it would be in the park. It has been part of the Cairngorms Partnership area for many years. More pertinently, the area of the Cairngorms straths environmentally sensitive area follows exactly the border of those two parishes. A commitment to that was made nine years ago by all the farmers in the area.
As you said, the area has been part of the Cairngorms Partnership area since the partnership was set up in 1995. Has anyone ever given the Strathdon community any reason for its exclusion from the park?
No. I know of no reason why the community would be excluded. If anything, the opposite should be the case because of tourism. The area is the eastern gateway to the park and is on SNH's designated Highland tourism route.
What are the cultural, economic and social similarities between the areas that the panel is proposing should be part of the national park?
You are asking about the rationale for the original decision to include in the park the whole of the massif, which would be logical because a boundary between the authorities that have been included in the park and the two that have been excluded runs along the tops of mountains. That makes sense from the perspective of arranging local government areas, because mountains are not particularly important in that regard. However, if you are trying to conserve that environment and look after tourism and recreation, it makes no sense to include only half a mountain. Inclusion of the whole massif—perhaps including the Ladder hills as well—is logical.
Your question about the cultural similarities has not been answered. Historically, the bulk of the area shared a common social and cultural identity. It was largely Gaelic speaking and there was a lot of contact across the hills from the Spey to the Dee on drove roads and so on. That no longer exists, of course, as people drive around now and Gaelic has virtually died out in the area. In Deeside, Aberdeenshire Scots is spoken and, in Speyside, English is spoken, because the people there were previously Gaelic speakers. The strong social and cultural similarities of the area have become looser as time has gone on.
The part of the world that contains the Cairngorms area has a fragile economy. The Lecht ski centre, which employs a large number of people and brings about £4 million into the area every year, will be cut in half by the boundary of the park and a couple of communities will be split off from it.
I ask Dr Watson whether the aims of the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000, which include the promotion of recreation and sustainable economic and social development, are unique as aims for national parks.
They might well be. The emphasis on sustainable development is fairly recent. Ten years ago, when the English national parks were redrawn, that term was used, but not much. One problem is that the term is now overused, without being clearly defined. If one considers the matter internationally, a national park does not necessarily involve conflict between public informal recreation and the protection of nationally and internationally outstanding landscape and wildlife. That is because the landscape and wildlife are the main draw for the public and the main source of economic benefits. Anything that goes against the landscape and wildlife will damage local people in the long run.
We all want to avoid the sort of conflicts that there have been in the area in the past. I am thinking about the funicular railway, over which you and I took opposing positions. Do you agree that there is a sense in the area that we must find a way in which to progress that will avoid the conflicts of the past? To do that, a strong element of local involvement is essential. The benefit of involving local authority councillors in the process is that we can vote them in or out. Given that in the Executive's proposals councillors are to have a major role in planning issues, people will have a democratic voice and be able to participate directly.
A high proportion of the members of the national park board will be councillors and other locally elected members.
Do Mr Luffman and Mr Parnell wish to comment on that?
Although I share Dr Watson's views on certain aspects, there is need to make socioeconomic progress, because we have a fragile economy. A number of people who have lived in the area for many years need to have their incomes and their lifestyles sustained.
I am not quite sure where we are.
You do not have to comment if you do not want to.
I would like to focus on the proposals that the committee hopes to make a decision on. I agree with Dr Watson's outlining of most of the background. We want an efficient park that will be capable of activity that includes the support of economic and social development.
We might come back to that later—we will see where we get to. The committee was keen on including socioeconomic and sustainable development when it considered the National Parks (Scotland) Bill.
Fergus Ewing explored some of the points that I wished to explore. I will ask Dr Watson about the proposed make-up of the board. You mention in your written submission that it was originally proposed that 10 people would be on the board
I do not want to suggest some magical percentage, but the fact is that the park is a national park, not a regional or local park. Its national and international features are outstanding. The extra money will all come from the national taxpayer, so we have to think of the people of Scotland as a whole.
Are you not comforted by the proposal for the ministerial appointments to represent the national interest? Will those appointments be helpful?
We have to have those appointments.
That expands on the comments that you made in your written submission.
The reason that it was done was ease on the map. It is much easier to draw a line straight down a road, as happened through the Lecht. As to why it should not be, we do not want a business—it is a large business, as I have shown—to be split down the middle between planning authorities that might have different ways of looking at it.
I have a question about the point that Elaine Smith raised with Adam Watson. Adam will be aware that the number of board members is not up for discussion, as that was included in the enabling act. I will hold my hand up and say that it was my amendment that put the five locally elected people on to the board, which means that 15 of the 25 members are local people. I did that for the fairly clear reason that, given that the park will be a national park, local interests have to be protected.
Yes, it is a possibility. Quite apart from world heritage site designation, other countries around the world agree about the standard of national parks through the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. That body will consider a standard for the Cairngorms. It will look bad for us if its view is that it is second best. Scotland could and should do better.
My question is primarily for Bruce Luffman, as it is about Aberdeenshire. Will young local people find it easier or more difficult to acquire housing in Strathdon? Due to the high value of housing, it is notoriously difficult for them to do so at present. Should you go into the national park?
Could you clarify your question? Are you asking whether it is possible to have affordable housing in the national park?
Some people say that that is a possibility. Is that a factor in the community's thinking?
The affordability of housing is a factor, not only in the Strathdon area but in other parts of rural Aberdeenshire. The new Aberdeenshire local plan is under consideration at present. Around seven houses are shown for the Strathdon area. Under planning guidelines, that cannot be affordable housing, as that does not kick in until there are 10 or more houses. Others in the community and I hold the view that the opportunity exists to designate certain developments as affordable housing. If that were done, the designation could not be removed after planning permission had been granted. The issue with affordable housing is that it has to be artificially contrived in order for it not to be sold on the open market.
Will house values in Strathdon increase if you go into the national park area?
To be perfectly honest, I think that they will not. As we are some distance away from places such as Aberdeen, there is little opportunity for that to happen in Strathdon. Tenants work the land in most of the area, and although some of their sons and daughters have moved away, others have stayed because of the Lecht. I have personal knowledge of that situation: there is sufficient housing to meet demand, and I do not anticipate a rise in demand.
In Aberdeenshire, particularly in places such as Strathdon, it is notoriously difficult to get planning permission for social housing that local people can afford to buy and that they will not be outbid for. Are you concerned that, if Strathdon becomes part of the national park, people will find it even more difficult to get planning permission for new housing developments?
That brings in the issue of where planning is placed and how it is administered. Some members of the audience may find my view unusual, but I happen to think that the park authority should have responsibility for planning and that the three councils should provide the service as agencies of the park authority. Recommendations could be made about, and powers delegated for, peripheral matters in the way Adam Watson described a moment ago, while the park authority could make decisions about major issues. That would avoid the establishment of an enormously expensive, stand-alone planning authority and would use the already established agency format. That is an ideal way of going forward and would take into account the review of planning that is to take place in 2004.
Do you not think that properties in Strathdon will increase in value if the area is included in the national park? Please correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that Strathdon already has extremely valuable properties, in comparison with elsewhere in the north-east.
You have to manage the situation. The value of property in Strathdon is not going to increase, because people in the area do not move. Therefore, the number of properties in the area is insufficient to generate those changes. A lot of the properties are estate houses, which are not sold. People stay on the land and are able to live in Strathdon because they do not have to pay high wages or high rents. Rents are low throughout the Strathdon area, in comparison with Deeside or further afield. If Strathdon were to be included in the national park, the artificial climate, if you like, that exists there would prevent increases in property values.
The conflict between affordable housing and holiday homes is a major issue throughout much of the Highlands. As Bruce Luffman said, it is more of an issue in Deeside than it is in Strathdon. Hardly any indigenous, local people are left in parts of Deeside, because people from outside, such as university lecturers from Aberdeen, have taken up properties as holiday homes, which puts property prices beyond the reach of the indigenous, local population. The same problem has arisen in Strathspey, where concerns have been raised about massive housing developments in Nethy Bridge and Carrbridge for precisely the same reasons. It is clear that the local authority mechanisms established by the Scottish Office and, later, the Scottish Executive, have failed to solve those problems. One could argue that something should have been done about the situation long ago.
The problem in Strathspey is pressure from house builders who want to build houses that they can sell at a good price. That means that they build holiday homes for incomers and, as they look for appropriate sites, there is tremendous pressure on land.
Can I ask a follow-up to that response?
Very briefly. I am keen to move on if we can.
Are you saying that if national parks had planning influence over housing development, they could use that to discriminate in favour of local people who want to continue to live there?
If national park boards are the development control authority and are also able to make structure plan policy, local plan policy and so on, they can make it very clear that they will give consent to the kind of housing that can contribute to the area's needs.
As we are getting a bit short of time, I ask Mary Scanlon and Jamie McGrigor to put their points and then let the panel answer them.
My question is for Adam Watson and Bruce Luffman. Is it fair to say that, rather than looking towards a coherent national park identity, we have been given a boundary that is driven by local authority convenience? Moreover, will Adam Watson explain his suspicion of a political fix on boundaries?
Perhaps it would be easier if the witnesses answered those questions now.
It is probably a matter of administrative convenience to include three instead of five authorities in the national park area. However, as I point out in my submission, SNH's various support mechanisms have not been adequate, because it never gave a proper rationale for its various proposals on boundary options. That led to the confusion that has continued ever since. I am not sure whether Strathdon or Laggan should be included in the national park area. All I can say is that, if we have outstanding areas of landscape or wildlife such as the European-designated sites that are shared by Aberdeenshire, Angus and Perthshire, it seems daft to draw a line through the middle of them.
What did you mean when you said that you suspected that there was a political fix about the boundaries? I should also point out that I said that, instead of adding to a coherent national park identity, the boundaries were driven not by "administrative convenience" but by "local authority convenience".
My suspicion of a political fix arose from the fact that Highland Council has long been publicly opposed to any kind of national park. However, when a previous convener of the council sat on SNH's main board, a meeting was held at Battleby between Highland councillors and a senior SNH person who was dealing with national park issues. After that meeting, public statements from Highland Council made it clear that it now welcomed the national park, because SNH had recognised the council's concerns that planning powers should remain with local authorities and that most of the extra costs would be borne by the national taxpayer. That was followed by an SNH report that said that it had advised ministers that arrangements for the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park should be different from those for the Cairngorms and that ministers' preferences also differed on the two areas.
Are you saying that SNH received the support of Highland Council on the basis of a promise that it would have control of planning?
I suspect that that is the case. Many people share my suspicions. The SNH documents give many arguments for treating the Cairngorms differently. Those arguments are all bogus, because they also apply to Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park.
Amazingly, John Farquhar Munro would like to intervene on this issue.
I listened with interest to your comments on the suggestion that Highland Council and Scottish Natural Heritage had reached a compromise on this issue. Are you seriously suggesting that Highland Council changed its view because of pressure from Scottish Natural Heritage?
The council changed its view—that is a fact.
What appears to be the case to you may not be what happened.
Let us say that people can make up their minds on this issue based on a number of associated events that took place. There are certain facts and dates that need to be considered.
We can pursue this issue with the next panel of witnesses, if members wish. I do not want to engage in a head-to-head argument. I will take a last brief question from Jamie McGrigor.
I do not know how brief it will be.
It will be very brief.
Adam Watson's submission mentions hillwalking and overgrazing by red deer. I am a keen hillwalker and know that it is easier to walk over ground that is grazed by deer and sheep than to struggle through areas that are fenced off for regeneration. I am worried by the thought that the herds of red deer that will be very important to the national park will be decimated because of a desire to reforest the hills that make up the beautiful landscape of the Cairngorms.
There is no danger that the hills will be reforested. The highest part of the hills is arctic terrain that will remain treeless because of the climate. The question of reforestation applies to moorland, which was deforested by man and has been maintained as open moorland for sheep grazing, grouse and deer. That is true for all of the Highlands and much of upland Scotland.
Like any evidence-giving session, this one could run on, but we must bring matters to a close. Thank you for taking the time to give evidence to the committee. I hope that you will stay with us for the rest of the afternoon's proceedings.
Thank you for inviting the business community to give evidence this afternoon.
Thank you very much.
Members of the committee have our submission in front of them. I will highlight two or three points.
I thank both of you for your brevity. We will now broaden out discussion of the serious points that you have put across.
May I clarify the point that Sally Dowden made about her submission being on behalf of about 500 businesses?
The figure is more than 500. I do not have the precise number. Cairngorms Chamber of Commerce has a membership of almost 120 businesses out of a total of 800 in Badenoch and Strathspey. At the outset of the consultation on the enabling legislation three years ago, the chamber of commerce took the view that the issue was so important for the entire area that it could not put in a submission only on behalf of its members; it had to go out and consult the entire business community. The chamber was helped through that process by the fact that we have 10 business and tourism associations in the area, all of whom had in excess of 50 members who wished to engage in the process. We consulted them in the initial stage and made our response on that. We also held a business conference at which Sam Galbraith gave the keynote speech, as I mentioned. There were 140 delegates. We know that we are speaking on behalf of in excess of 500 members of the business community in Badenoch and Strathspey.
I know that you have experience as a wildlife tour operator and have experience of other national parks. How do the ideas behind this national park match up to those behind foreign national parks?
As my submission says, we have legislation for Scotland in the 21st century. We have the opportunity, through the social and economic development aim, which is the fourth aim of the national parks, to have something unique.
I am glad that you mentioned the importance of people.
In the speech to which Sally Dowden referred, Sam Galbraith said that if we are to succeed in holding local opinion and support, the national park must provide an opportunity for new approaches. The past conflict that pitted conservation interests and commerce against each other should be consigned to the dustbin. Does Sally Dowden agree with that general sentiment? Does she have fears about the support of the extensive business community—including not only businesses, but the people who work for them—that she has consulted? Will she spell out some of the local concerns about what a national park might represent for economic development in the area?
The answer to Fergus Ewing's first question is yes, most whole-heartedly. The answer to his second question is that most of the concerns have arisen during the most recent consultation period. Despite the business community's representations, the consultation took place at the busiest period of the year for the business community and for the farming community, too, as a previous witness said. That makes people feel disfranchised, because they do not have the opportunity to give the consultation the time, effort and resources that it deserves. They start to question the process and whether something will be imposed on them, or whether they will be enabled to do things for themselves.
What is the view of Highland Council about the existing proposals under the draft designation order? Would the representatives of Highland Council like to respond to the criticisms that were made earlier about local authorities having planning responsibility? Do you have any proposals for ways in which the four aims of the national park can be made to work with the local authority playing a major role in planning?
Highland Council seeks to ensure that we have the best possible park authority to deliver the stated aims, taking account of all the differing interests, including environmental, social and economic interests.
I mean no discourtesy to Sally Dowden, but I am delighted that we have three representatives from Highland Council with us today, as I hope that they will be able to respond to a question that I have asked of ministers and civil servants without getting an answer. I hope that you heard what Dr Adam Watson said earlier. I do not know whether you have seen the evidence that Dr Watson submitted, but I will read one short paragraph from it so that you know what we are talking about. He says:
Convener, it is quite remiss of Mr Rumbles to lead that evidence, given that the sentence in question says that "there is suspicion" that that happened. Dr Watson has made an assumption; it has no factual basis.
Convener, I am not leaking anything. I am quoting from open evidence that has been presented to the committee.
I accept that the submission has been given to the committee, but I ask you to put a question on it.
I was just about to before I was interrupted.
It is interesting to note that the other members of the panel are passing the question on to me, as the official. I was not present at any meeting in Battleby; indeed, I was not aware that any such meeting had taken place.
I do not really understand your response, but obviously that is my problem. I asked a straightforward and simple question. The reason why the park authority should be responsible for integrated planning is the exact opposite of the reason that Bob Cameron gave in his response. His answer proves our point.
I was not there, but it is news to me that a deal was struck. It would have been remiss of the council and SNH not to discuss the national park proposals and to find ways of reaching a concordat on the various issues involved. In fact, I find it terrible that such remarks were made, especially as what was said is not the case as far as we are concerned.
So there is absolutely no question that a deal was done.
No question at all, as far as I am concerned. I have no knowledge of any such deal, other than what was involved in the usual consultation process that everyone would expect us to carry out.
So no deal has been struck behind closed doors.
I want to move on now. The points have been made, and I do not think that it is helpful for members to ask any more questions that are based on allegations or suppositions.
I want to respond to the question about the difference between Cairngorms national park and Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park.
That is perfectly in order.
The two areas have different problems and pressures, the first of which is Loch Lomond itself. The pressures caused by the loch were entirely different from the pressures that we face. Secondly, there is a large population on the doorstep of the Loch Lomond area, while we are quite distant from large populations. That creates an entirely different situation. Thirdly, the local authorities down there did not want to retain the powers; they wanted them to go to the park board. I dealt with Gillie Thomson down there on that issue, through the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
I want to follow up that evidence by asking Bob Cameron about his submission. You say that Highland Council thinks that it should retain all planning powers while consulting the park authority. Will you go into a bit more depth about how you see Highland Council doing that and what it would involve? I think that Councillor Dunlop referred to a call-in order. Will you explain how that would work? I presume that it would involve referring matters to ministers if there was a conflict. I would like a bit more of the technical detail on all that.
At the moment, the national interest in planning applications is represented on a number of fronts. For instance, we are required to consult the trunk road authority in some cases and SNH in others and sometimes we are required to consult both bodies. If the planning authority wants to do something that is different from what SNH or the trunk road authority or whatever other national agency advises it to do, it must refer the matter to ministers. A similar situation could exist in the park. The planning authority could retain its powers and if the national park authority objected to an application or wanted conditions to be applied that the planning authority was not prepared to apply, the matter could be referred to ministers. I would expect that to happen in a limited number of cases.
I want to ask Sally Dowden a quick question about her opening statement. You seemed concerned that your response might have been treated as an individual response. Is the worry that the exercise is some kind of numbers game in which of 400-odd responses, 300 might say one thing and 100 might say another? Do you accept the validity of considering the points that have been put? Will you clarify for the committee how many people you represent and how you took their views?
Our concern is about the use of percentages in measuring one statement against another. People have used percentages quite liberally both today and in the previous two committee meetings, when the committee spoke to civil servants and the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development. Our concern is that if the Executive considers only the straight percentages of the responses that it hears, it will not take into account the number of people who back up a response. Lots of people have referred to that today. We have to go back to basic principles and say that the democratic process must take account of the number of people who are responding. We might find that the respondents who voice a 10 per cent minority view are representative of 500, 1,000 or 1,500 people. A decision that disregards 10 per cent of the responses should not be made if those respondents in fact represent a huge number of people. I am not in any way trying to invalidate or belittle the effort involved in submitting individual responses. They are all valid and should all be taken into account, but they should be taken into account in the proportion in which they were given. Statistical analyses should not be used incorrectly in arriving at the wrong decision.
We are beginning to run short of time. I ask members to confine themselves to one question apiece.
I direct my question, which returns us to the theme of social development, to Bob Cameron. Do you believe that the question where planning powers reside is crucial for the future of social development in the area? Is it irrelevant? Does the way in which the powers are used matter more? If planning powers were given to the park authority in relation to social housing, would that hamper current progress towards social housing being provided for local young families?
The question about where planning powers reside is critical. Planning provides the means by which many social policies are delivered and affordable housing is always delivered through the planning process. Either planning permission is granted directly to social housing providers, or permission to build social housing is granted following negotiation with private developers. The current advantage that is held by the council is that it is heavily engaged with the social housing providers. The social work department and housing department, as well as other parts of the council machinery, are involved in providing social housing in the areas where it is needed most. That advantage is in danger of being lost and there is a possibility that the momentum that has been built up may be set back by a handover of planning powers.
That is very significant evidence.
Local authorities have a duty to house people and to deal with homelessness. Do they feel that they could fulfil that duty if responsibility for planning were held by the national park authority? How could they provide local housing if that were the case?
As you know, local authorities no longer actually build houses. New housing tends to be provided through housing associations. The partnerships that we have built up through the rural partnership for change play a significant role in that.
I have a question for Sally Dowden. In your submission, you mention concerns about the
The business community has always taken the view that the park authority must be an enabler, rather than a doer. If it is not an enabler, it will never achieve the four aims. The business community seeks to guard against any provisions in the designation order that would allow—almost force—the park to conduct economic activities. We are particularly concerned about the reference in the designation order to the provision of ranger services under the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967. The business community does not want the park to engage in economic activity. There are sufficient powers in the enabling act to allow the park to cover all its responsibilities. However, to start by specifying that the park should provide a particular service is to prevent the fourth park aim—promotion of social and economic sustainability—from being achieved. The business community is seeking to ensure that when the designation order is issued there is a level playing field.
Why not? I do not know whether you will get an answer, but you may try.
I understand that there has been a review of structure plans in Scotland. I understand that the Executive has already taken on board the results of that review and has agreed that in the next two years structure plans will be produced only for the four main city areas and for the national parks. Is not it true that, by default, the Cairngorms national park will have to produce the structure plan for the area that it covers? Does that place in question the sense of what is contained in the draft designation order? As a lay person, I do not understand the planning provisions in the order. However, does not the Executive's decision about structure plans contradict those provisions?
You have asked an extremely good question. It is for the Executive to answer it, so we will almost certainly put that question to the representatives of Scottish Natural Heritage when they appear before us. I have no doubt that they have taken note of it. Like the two councillors earlier, I was tempted to pass the buck by asking Bob Cameron to answer your question. However, he looked rather sick at the thought of that.
As I am allowed to ask only one question, I will put it to Sally Dowden. People in Boat of Garten have described the application for planning permission for 120 houses in a village of 377 houses as a massive development. It may not be massive in the context of Glasgow, Edinburgh or Inverness, but it is massive in the context of Boat of Garten.
I asked my previous question because the business community finds planning's inclusion in the designation order to be extremely confusing. At that point, matters always go back to first principles. The first principle is that the national park authority should set the parameters within which everyone works and that the local authority should go away and produce the work under those parameters.
I understand that. However, you have conducted a rigorous consultation and I commend you for it. As a list member for the area, I would like to know whether the businesses in the area would prefer the national park to be the main authority or would they prefer the input that has been received from Highland Council?
Their preference is for the park authority to be the strategic authority. They want the local authority to be allowed to carry on with local plans and development controls, because they are the people who we can access easily and quickly. They already have relationships with the people in Badenoch and Strathspey because they are elected by them and are therefore locally accountable.
Please draw to a close, Mary.
Has the option that has been put before the local business community met with its favour?
No. The present designation order, which the business community and I find very confusing, appears not to produce that result. That goes back to why I asked the question about the structure plans and the local plans. There are elements of the designation order that lead to contradiction and confusion. We merely seek a clear, simple and non-bureaucractic system.
That point was well made. The business community has made its views known to you and its preference is clearly that the local plans should stay with the local authorities.
I will answer that, then pass the question over to my colleague, Mr Dunlop.
Highland Council and I envisage that the park authority would produce the park plan, and that it would then be incumbent on the organisations and authorities that are involved—from the Forestry Commission to the Highland Council—to adhere to it. I see no reason why that system should not work. The park plan would ensure consistency throughout the park area, because there would be only one plan for the area and every authority would have to adhere to it.
Sally Dowden's comment was apt. We do not need another level of bureaucracy that will strangle any sort of development.
That is one of the strongest arguments in favour of continuing with the present system.
Lastly, Jamie McGrigor may ask a question.
My question has been asked.
I would like to ask a question, convener.
You have already had quite a bit of time, but you may ask a brief question.
I have asked only two questions.
You may ask a brief question.
Thank you.
As you rightly said, those areas are not part of Highland Council's area so perhaps we should not comment on them.
I would like you to.
I will give my personal view, which is that although those areas identify with the Cairngorms, the pressure or need for them to be included in the park is not the same as the pressure to include other areas. As you rightly say, if only three local authorities are involved instead of five, that will have an effect on representation from local authorities. As I see it, the problem is that, depending on the boundaries, the Highland Council will represent between 60 and 70 per cent of the population in the park. When a body represents an area, it represents the people in that area. Therefore, population considerations are extremely important. The Highland Council would be underrepresented if the other authorities, which cover only a small proportion of the population, had one representative each.
You have confused me. Are you in favour of bringing in the Perthshire and Angus areas?
No.
I assume that that is your personal view.
It is my personal view.
Finally, finally, finally, Fergus Ewing can ask a question.
I want to mention what seems to me to be an anomaly. If the current boundaries in Badenoch and Strathspey are sustained, but responsibility for planning is given to the national park authority, the national park authority will be responsible for planning in Grantown and Aviemore, but not in those parts of Badenoch and Strathspey that are excluded from the park. You would have to maintain a planning department for the southern parts of Badenoch and Strathspey, although, if the national park authority were to be granted full powers, I presume that you would lose planning responsibility for the northern parts of the area. Have you considered that scenario?
Sally Dowden alluded to the confusion that would arise and John Farqhuar Munro alluded to the extra layer of bureaucracy that would be created. The situation would become very confusing for the general public.
Of course, if the whole of Badenoch and Strathspey were included in the national park, that potential anomaly would be removed.
I think that that question was for me—it gives me a chance to get a plug in. At present, just two planning officers handle 300 applications. The case load per planning officer in Highland is higher than in any other authority in the UK, and the Highland Council operates on the basis that its officers have a higher case load per officer than any other planning authority in Scotland. That is the end of my plug.
The figure would be five times £160,000, given that the Highland Council, Aberdeenshire Council, Moray Council, Angus Council and Perth and Kinross Council would be involved.
I can only guess what the other councils' budgets are. Certainly, Highland Council's budget for the Badenoch and Strathspey operation is £160,000.
I thank the witnesses for their evidence and for doing their best within the time available—I am afraid that we have run out of time again. I ask you to step down from the table, although I hope that you will join us for the rest of the afternoon. There is a bar in the corner of the room and it is last orders—if I may put it that way—for any member of the public who has yet to put in their request to speak.
Murray Ferguson and I have been working on the park proposal since 1997. Since September 2000, when ministers issued their proposal, we have been working intensively on the Cairngorms. Murray Ferguson will take questions on the consultation process and on the area and boundary issues that are of interest to the committee. I will pick up on planning issues and other matters.
Thank you for your brevity on a complex subject. I am sure that we will come back to many of the points that you raised.
I will also keep my remarks brief. Members have a written submission that describes our group and outlines our dissatisfaction to date with the DDO content and with the process. Our submission also identifies the steps that we believe are necessary if we are to redeem the situation. We want to re-engage with communities, bring some credit back to the Scottish Parliament and, I hope, further the success of the national park. I do not think that I need to make much more of a plea on behalf of local communities, because today quite a few people have accepted that the community is a good thing. I leave it to members to question me further.
I thank you, too, for your brevity.
I have two quick questions. On the differences between the proposed boundaries, it is clear that SNH put resources into reaching its conclusions. What resources did the Executive put into reaching its conclusions?
That question is difficult for us to answer. You are right to say that SNH put considerable resources into its work. We estimate that more than 30 staff members were involved in the consultation, and the rough estimate of the cost of organising that consultation was £250,000. The Scottish Executive was presented with our report in August 2001. As you know, the Executive took some months to produce the draft designation order, but you would really have to ask Executive officials about the resources that were involved in that.
Was the difference in the resources substantial?
Yes, I think that the difference was substantial.
You have heard previous witnesses giving reasons for different planning powers being proposed for the two national park areas. What do you believe the reasons to be? Do you agree with what you have heard?
A number of strong arguments have been made for the different options. SNH made it clear in its report that the option that was proposed by the Cairngorms campaign—for the park authority to be the planning authority for the area in the traditional UK sense—could work. However, having thought about the issue and the arguments, and having listened to the views of communities inside and outside the park and to the views of national and local bodies, we felt that there was a better approach with which to begin this park. In essence, that approach would involve a joint approach to development planning between the park authority and the five local authorities in the area that we proposed. However, the development control function would remain with the five local authorities. There would also be a call-in power. I do not think that the committee has yet discussed that option. It is somewhere in the middle, but we argue quite strongly that it is a different approach to the planning function.
Does Eric Baird want to add anything?
Although we do not have a particular view for or against the local authority keeping planning control, we were concerned that it was difficult for us to come to a coherent view because planning was not presented coherently. It seemed that some control was to be left to the park authority, which could call in various applications and deal with them. Some was to be left to the local authority and a large part was to be developed as protocols—in other words, we were to make it up as we went along. I am all for spontaneity in life, as are the rest of my group, but when there are clear objectives it is important to have clear directions for how to reach them. Developing protocols as we go along would lead to confusion. The planning system should be clear and the community should have access to the system. The community should be directly involved.
In your submission, you say exactly that—that the need for community involvement in the planning process should be made clear. How would you like that to be achieved?
I would like there to be community participation in planning. Rather than communities simply reacting to planning proposals, communities should be able to initiate them and to say how they would like their communities to develop.
At the moment, we have 132 applications for wind farms in Scotland, many of them in the Highlands. What is SNH's—
I do not know that this question is of great relevance to the national parks.
It is, because I want to ask SNH whether there will be wind farms in the national parks.
Can we just have a yes or no on that one?
SNH has a policy view on that, but it would be up to the park authority to decide what goes into its park plans. Arrangements for local planning will conform to those plans. National planning policy guideline 6—the Government's statement on renewables—has a presumption against wind farms going into the national parks.
Against?
Yes.
If planning powers remain with the local authorities, will that affect the status of the national park? It has been suggested to us that the Cairngorms park may not be as good as the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs park if control of planning development remains with the local authorities.
We have to be clear about what we mean by "planning powers". The draft designation order sets out that the park board would act as the "local plan maker". We operate in a plan-led system, in which local plans exert a powerful influence on development control decisions. Whether it is right or wrong, the draft designation order provides for a shared responsibility for the planning function.
What is SNH's view of sustainable development in a national park? A previous witness expressed concern that sustainable development had to be seen in relation to the purpose of the national park. Could other kinds of development be allowed?
We have not come to a firm view about specific types of development. Communities can take any of a number of development pathways. The correlation between the development pathway in a national park or protected landscape has to be tied closely to the special qualities that exist in the park or landscape. Adam Watson rightly referred to the interlinkage in this part of the world between development and the natural environment. Any development pathway would have to maintain and enhance that linkage.
But you would not necessarily believe that all future development had to be curtailed in relation to the national park. Could the park board promote other sorts of sustainable development in the area?
Yes.
Do you want to add to that, Mr Baird, or are you quite happy with it?
I am quite happy with it. The point was made that we are talking about sustainable development in the context of the national park's qualities and characteristics.
It was kind of SNH to send me a copy of its paper summarising the key issues that resulted from its consideration of the draft designation order. The paper is dated 2 July and states:
Yes. SNH supports the inclusion of those areas. I should add that we support the inclusion of all the other areas that are within the line that we suggested to the Executive. In the consultation paper that we issued before the Executive's consultation started, and in our report, we went to considerable trouble to explain our thinking so that anyone who did not agree with us—you will appreciate that these are quite complicated matters—could make their views heard and challenge us, as appropriate. When we saw the Executive's consultation, we were disappointed that a similar approach had not been taken.
You put that diplomatically, given that you spent two or three years working on the consultation process and outlined everything so well, only to find that, suddenly, the draft designation order ignores many of your recommendations.
I have a couple of questions for Eric Baird, but I will start with a bit of background. Your submission says that
They have been proposed by the community councils and I presume that the community councils have been subjected to the same electoral processes to which you have been subjected.
I presume that you would also say that a community council was mandated by the community.
To some extent, yes. The community would be wider in the case of a local authority representative than in the case of a community council representative, who directly represents a specific, smaller community.
Yes. However, the two come together in the bigger organisation that you are here to represent.
Our concern about the consultation process on the DDO is that there was virtually no consultation. That was partly a result of the time scale and partly because the consultation took place during the summer holidays. We are also concerned about the short notice that we were given despite the fact that, for several months beforehand, we had repeatedly contacted Scottish Executive officials, asking them how the process was going, whether we could be engaged in planning for it and what the process was going to be. It was not until virtually the 11th hour that we were asked to come on board and facilitate consultation on the DDO in the community.
Has coming on board—even at the 11th hour—been useful?
It has been useful in so far as it has been better than nothing. However, it has not been as useful as our participation in the consultation that was undertaken on the initial proposals. SNH was charged with carrying out the consultation and gave that responsibility to the local communities—we undertook that consultation for SNH. We achieved a 250 per cent increase in the quantity of the response over a previous consultation that had been carried out by consultants. The quality of the information was also far higher.
I have a final question, although SNH may want to comment on what has just been said. You say that
The DDO does not make it entirely clear who the local representatives will be and where they will come from. For example, there is no onus on the local directly elected representatives to live and work in the area.
That makes the matter clearer. I presume that the directly elected representatives would be the five whom you are talking about.
Indeed. That is part of what I am referring to. There is also no onus on the local authority nominees to live or work in the area or to represent that particular area. They could represent the local authority on behalf of the area or on behalf of the local authority. That is an ambiguous point.
You seek clarification.
I would be interested in clarification. I hope that any clarification would come down on the side of emphasising local involvement.
I have received a letter from the National Trust for Scotland; I imagine that other members have also received it. The letter states:
In essence, no. The IUCN has developed a list of protected landscapes, which has been referred to. UK national parks fall under one category, but there is a separate category called national parks. The logic of the argument that you are advancing is that all UK national parks do not fit into the IUCN category. However, the IUCN has made it clear that there is a family of protected landscapes, which have a different remit and role, irrespective of what one calls them.
I want to quote further from the National Trust for Scotland's letter:
That is a definitive statement to make, given that the national park is not in place.
That is what the NTS says.
An issue that has not emerged is that we are comparing legislative differences. We have discussed the purposes. One of the features in the Scottish legislation is that the national park plan will be a statutory document. That is not the case in England and Wales, where there is a statutory mandate to produce a document but ministers do not approve it. In Scotland, ministers will sign off the park plan and the Rural Development Committee might well consider it. That represents a route for the integration of policies across the area, from planning matters to the other issues that are of importance to the area. We do not agree with the NTS on the issue that you have raised.
You think that the Cairngorms national park would have an equivalent status to other national parks, irrespective of the proposed planning regime and the boundaries.
We agree with the NTS's expression of concern about the boundary as currently proposed. Only three local authorities would be involved in the park. SNH is firmly of the view that the history of the conflict about the mountain massif suggests that it is essential that the five local authorities that surround the massif are tied into its management and are encouraged to manage the area in an integrated way.
This will have to be your final question, Mary.
You are saying that you followed all the categories to ensure that the area would be recognised as a national park. You are concerned that what has been proposed is second rate.
When the DDO came out, the communities went through a range of emotions. The first emotion that we experienced was disappointment that the Scottish Executive's response did not corroborate either the advice that SNH gave or the views of the local community.
The national park aims include the promotion of
That is not a fair question to ask a national agency. We have local staff who might have a view on specific activities.
You said that you have been looking at the matter since 1997. I would have thought that you would have reached a conclusion.
We have been looking at and developing the framework. It would be hard to understand why we would come up with a framework and a prescription for the management of the area at the same time, given that we have placed so much emphasis on a managing body that is locally accountable and whose main aim is to develop a management plan for the area.
Your reply is neither clear nor particularly reassuring, but I will move on and raise a point that has not been mentioned in the meeting so far. Under the Sandford principle, where there is a conflict between one of the four aims—conservation, sustainable use of resources, recreation and sustainable economic development—the first of those four aims takes precedence, to put it simply.
I remind committee members that the principle that has been mentioned is only one part of the Sandford principle as expressed is in the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000. Section 9(6) of the act says:
I would like to make two points, the first of which is a point of information. Part of the Sandford principle says that, provided that the conflict cannot be resolved by any other means, the first aim should apply. When a conflict arises, a lot of work obviously goes into resolving it, without immediate resort to the Sandford principle.
I certainly agree with that sentiment. Unless we know what conflict means, we cannot know how the national park, if it goes ahead, will work.
One of the underlying principles that we followed was to approach the whole issue by looking first at the area that had the special qualities. I am reassured by the consistency of what the committee has heard from various witnesses today, because that is more or less what we heard during the consultation. Many people have a deep sense of caring for this special area. We wanted to start with the area, agree on the size of the area that we should all be protecting and then come on to matters such as the powers that the park authority should have and how much it should cost. We remain concerned that some people seem to want to approach it the other way round, by thinking of the complexity of the planning arrangements or the cost of the project before defining an appropriate boundary. We were firmly of the view that we had to start with the geographical issues and develop appropriate tools at a later stage.
I thoroughly agree with that approach. I think that I am right in saying that the budget of the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park is to be around £4 million or £5 million. If the budget for the Cairngorms were to be the same and if planning were to rest with the NPA, that would mean that just about 50 per cent of the budget for the park—covering the very large area that you would wish to cover—would go on planning bureaucracy.
There is a cost attached, but to equate the costs that we have heard about in Badenoch and Strathspey with those in the other four local authorities is probably not the way to do it. We advised ministers on the costs and the cost that we came to was roughly £5 million a year. That was for a park authority that had a local development planning function but not a development control function. We asked the consultants to give us a total additional cost, and they came up with a figure of £80,000 to £120,000. Much of today's discussion has been about Badenoch and Strathspey, which has a significant development control case load. The situation is not the same for the Angus glens, and it is certainly not the same for Perth and Kinross, where there are probably just a handful of development control cases each year. I do not have the figures in front of me right now and I do not know what the figures are for Aberdeenshire, but it would not be fair for the committee just to multiply the Badenoch and Strathspey figures.
Do you agree with the Cairngorms Chamber of Commerce's view that the park should allow locals to take responsibility and be accountable for the opportunities that are given to business? Do you believe that the park should be an enabler?
The answer to both those questions is yes. When we looked at experience in other parts of the world, the strong message was that local ownership of parks was important. Today, we have had a discussion about whether the 60:40 split sufficiently reflects the local or national interest.
Is the Executive in the habit of rejecting SNH's advice where SNH is the primary adviser? Is this occasion a first? What is SNH's view on the time scale for introducing the final order? Is the time scale too tight?
My work over the past five years has been almost entirely on the national park, so I am not best placed to advise on how the Executive has received our other advice. We submitted our advice on the national park in August 2001. We had expected to be approached for further advice if the Executive thought that that was necessary during the interim period before the publication of the draft designation order, but that opportunity was not taken up. The draft designation order came out as members see it before them today.
Is the time scale for the publication of the final order too tight?
That raises a difficult set of issues. At a previous committee meeting, the minister gave a commitment that he would look again at the macro issues concerning the boundary and whether the other local authorities should be included. However, as a member of the committee said, it might be complicated to come up with a new detailed line on a map because the local people whom such a change would affect would not have had the opportunity to be involved in a consultation. Whether the Executive wishes to go down that route without further consultation is a matter for the Executive.
The final question will be from John Farquhar Munro.
I have a simple question, which digresses slightly from the discussion that has taken place.
During our consultation, one of the five big questions—in some ways, perhaps the easiest question—that we asked people was what the national park should be called. We were surprised at the variety of names that we got back. "Cairngorms" was by far the most popular of the anglicised forms. Many respondents asked that there should be a Gaelic translation of the name. Our board took the view that that would be helpful. We passed that advice on to the Scottish Executive.
The word is already Gaelic, so it does not need a Gaelic name.
Indeed, but the view that came through strongly as a result of the consultation was that a Gaelic version of the name would also be helpful.
In talking to John Farquhar Munro, you are talking to a man with a mission.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—