Rural Development Committee, 11 Oct 2002

Meeting date: Friday, October 11, 2002

Official Report 318KB pdf

---

Petitions

---

Cairngorms National Park (PE481)

We now have to begin to conclude our consideration of the designation order. We will do that in private, as I explained.

Earlier today, we heard from two petitioners and agreed to leave consideration of the petitions until after we had heard from all our witnesses. I would like to ask for views regarding the proposed boundaries of the park as they relate specifically to petition PE555.

Is that Bill Wright's petition?

No.

Convener, we had agreed that we would discuss both petitions.

We will, but I suggest that we deal with them one at a time. We can deal with PE481 first, if that makes you happy. Petition PE481, which was from Bill Wright on behalf of the Cairngorms Campaign, and which called on the Parliament to urge the Executive to ensure that planning powers for the Cairngorms park are the same as they are in the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park. I ask members to confine their remarks to that petition at the moment.

I am not persuaded that petition PE481 should be supported. In the evidence, it emerged that there are differences between the two park areas in terms of geography, economy, population patterns and pressure.

I take the exact opposite view. I have said it before and I will say it again: whenever we have asked why there should be a difference in the way that planning is dealt with in the two park areas, we have never had a good answer—not from the minister, not from the officials and I was not happy with the answer from Highland Council today. During our informal session—a vox pop, if you will—the message came across that we should be consistent and that we therefore ought to support the petition.

The issue of planning powers is the most difficult of all the issues that we have discussed. Ironically, if we have two separate models, in a few years we will be able to compare how each has worked, which will be useful, given that we are setting up national parks for the first time in Scotland.

My main concern relates to the issue of social development and social housing, which was raised a few times today. It appears that local authorities might be best placed to pursue that concern. I heard no evidence that that would best be dealt with by a national park authority. For that reason, I think that the emphasis of the planning powers should remain with the local authorities. That would be more democratic and would be more likely to ensure that the social aspect—by far the most sensitive issue of the ones that we are discussing—is addressed.

I think that we should note the petition but not support it. Reasons for doing so have been set out by other members. It is also important to note that the Cairngorms national park and the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park are opposite sides of the same coin. One has been set up to manage visitors and protect an area that has become stressed; the other is being set up to encourage visitors and development. On balance, it would be right to go along with SNH's proposal, which allows for local elected members and the park board to work together on planning but for development control to stay with councils.

I am not inclined to support the petition for the simple reason that the wording is rather ambiguous. It urges the Scottish Executive to

"ensure that powers for the Cairngorms National Park Authority are at least as comprehensive as those for the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park."

What is meant by "comprehensive"? The petition does not suggest that the powers be similar or dissimilar. I am a bit confused about the wording and will therefore not be supporting the petition.

We should note the petition but not support it, as Rhoda Grant said. I was greatly persuaded by the gentleman from Highland Council who suggested that there be joint responsibility for the management of the park.

I agree that we should note the petition but not support it.

Everybody has had their say. We have heard a variety of views from outright support to rejection of support. A majority of the committee appears to wish to note the petition but not support it. I detect support for agreeing to support SNH's proposals, which might be seen as a compromise.

I am quite happy to suggest, along with other members, that we note the petition but do not support it.

In a spirit of agreement, I will also agree that we should note the petition.

We will consider these matters in more detail later. If members agree merely to note petition PE481 at this stage, that is what we will do. Are we all agreed?

Members indicated agreement.

---

Cairngorms National Park (PE555)

I ask members for comments on petition PE555, which was spoken to earlier by Campbell Slimon.

I support the petition. The case for the inclusion of Laggan in the national park was well made today and was made strongly to me by farmers whom I visited in Laggan. The case was also supported by other speakers today, so I suggest that we agree to support the petition.

I, too, would like to support the petition. The clearest and strongest arguments that we heard today related to the issue of the SNH boundaries.

In order to save time, can I ask whether all members are agreed to support the petition?

Members indicated agreement.

That brings us to the end of today's formal meeting. We still have a great deal to discuss and we have been given an enormous amount of food for discussion. My job is to try to guide the committee to a consensus. As a meek lowlander in this gathering, perhaps I am the right person to try to do that.

I thank everyone for attending. Your input has been hugely valuable and useful to us. I wish you all a safe journey home.

Meeting continued in private until 18:03.