The original documentation for the proposals can be read at the
Scottish Natural Heritage website

Download this document in .pdf format

Thank you for consulting the MCofS about this proposal for the area, powers and representation of a Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park. The Council has participated in the many previous discussions that led to the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 and has consistently supported this general development, and the particular proposals for the Loch Lomond area. Our members take a strong interest in the conservation of natural heritage, and so we welcome the opportunity to comment on the proposals. Our response to the consultation document is focused on the matters of particular importance to us, but for the convenience of your summarizers, we have appended a series of answers to the questions put in the document.

1. The proposed areas to be included within the National Park boundary

   Our general view is that the bigger the Park is, the better the core heritage resources will be conserved. So we are strongly in favour of including buffer lands around the important peripheral mountain ranges: the Arrochar Alps, the Ben Lui group, Ben More and Stobinian, Ben Vorlich and Stuc a' Chroin, and Ben Ledi. Besides this general consideration, the lands around Killin and St Fillans in particular are very similar in character to the central Trossachs lands around Loch Achray. These little towns, like Callander and Aberfoyle, form natural gateways to the Park area.

2. The philosophy of the boundary: watersheds, valleys or neither?

   While there seems to be approximate consensus in favour of using watersheds as boundaries, there are problems in following watersheds, just as in following river lines. In each case, the land feature (ridge-crest or river-valley) has an evident unity that a Park boundary placed there ignores or discounts. This difficulty could be met by seeking to draw boundaries in the region between ridge-lines and valley-bottoms, or by ensuring 'porosity' of development control and conservation assistance across the boundary.

   We favour the first of these possibilities. Ridge-crests and the areas around them badly need conservation work on hill-paths, removal of old march fencing, and development control of communications masts, wind-turbines, hill roads, new fences, etc. We think these aims would be best achieved by including the outward slopes of peripheral hills within the Park proper. Some 'porosity' of boundary would still be required - e.g. consultation with Park Authority before car parks or bridges are built outside the Park boundary, but giving access into it.

3. The proposed powers of the National Park Authority

   We agree that it is of vital importance that the NPA should have complete control and responsibility for all aspects of planning, including development planning and control, within the Park boundary. We refer to page 6 of our response to the Scottish Executive Consultation on the Draft National Parks (Scotland) Bill (dated 02/03/00, attached) where our views on the subject of planning powers are given in more detail.

   We noted there, and reiterate here, a particular need for legislation allowing restriction of General Permitted Development Rights in relation to vehicle tracks, road improvements, telecommunication masts, signage and road furniture, electricity and power lines, fencing, etc. It is not clear from the present Consultation Paper whether such a mechanism will be available to the Park Authority, nor what form it might take, but without such powers the work of the Park will be persistently undermined.

   To give a particular example, on Ben Lomond the good management of the NTS property is undermined by poor or indifferent management by Forest Enterprise of the surrounding lands. In spite of changes in published policy, much of FC and FE practice remains incompatible with good management of a National Park (block monoculture plantings, extensive clear-felling, deep ploughing, ugly holiday cabin developments). A second particular example is the construction of bull-dozed service roads, for agriculture, sport, forest management, etc. These are always unsightly, they cause long-term landscape damage and they are worse than useless for pedestrians since they destroy older footpaths. While such construction is regulated in certain designated areas, there is no general exercise of control.

   In these example cases, and the others mentioned in the first paragraph of this section, a National Park cannot pursue its aims effectively unless special powers are available to control new activities of this sort, and to make good deficiencies in existing activities and constructions.

   Section 3-3 of the Consultation Paper identifies various challenges facing the Park area, and these challenges must necessarily feed into the Local Plan and through that into development control. We note that no explicit recognition is given there to the need for landscape conservation. We are sure that this should be given a clear and separate place, and suggest the following wording:-
   "the need to safeguard and enhance the distinctive landscapes of the area by protecting them from intrusive developments, by restoring landscape damage and by improving landscape diversity."

4. The proposed methods for appointing the NPA Board

   We agree in general with the proposals for appointment of Board members, and with the suggestion at the conclusion of 3-45 that particular public bodies or interest groups should not have 'reserved' places. The important Sandford principle has been reduced by the Executive and Parliament, against consistent advice, to a 'greater weight given to aim 1(a)' provision in Section 9.6 of the Act, the minimum provision possible for international recognition as a National Park. Aims 1(b), 1(c) and 1(d) all use the unfortunate verb 'promote' in relation to consumption and enjoyment of Park resources - once more against consistent advice. These weaknesses in the enabling legislation make it of paramount importance that those who are appointed should possess, as you put it in 3-45, 'a strong commitment to the overall purpose of National Parks'. Special expertise and knowledge is important too, of course, but must be considered a secondary virtue.

   Acknowledging that places should not be 'reserved', we are nevertheless confident that we can identify many individuals who combine the 'strong commitment' referred to above with expert knowledge of our recreation and its needs. So we are ready to make suggestions for appointment, if consulted.

5. Park Authority Staffing

   The consultation document makes it clear that there will be office jobs and rangering jobs in the NPA. However, we could find no commitment to on-the-ground jobs in path management, etc. Nor is there any explicit promise of an educational provision. In the case of path management it is clear that best practice is pre-emptive construction and maintenance work undertaken before paths become badly damaged. We are sure that the NPA should advertise this best practice to other public-interest landowners by making a clear commitment to on-the-ground path management.