The Scottish Executive Rural Group ran a public consultation into the future of National Scenic Areas in Scotland. The consultation which run until Monday 24th April 2006. The consultation papers can be read online, or downloaded in pdf format from the Scottish Executive website.

Our response to the consultation can be read below. The response we made to a Scottish Natural Heritage consultation on the future of Scotland's Landscapes, two years earlier, can be read here.

Introduction – who we are

The Mountaineering Council of Scotland is the representative body for hillwalkers, climbers and mountaineers in Scotland. We are a membership organisation with well over 2,000 individual members plus over 8,000 affiliated members via about 140 associated clubs, representing almost all Scottish mountaineering clubs.

We have a longstanding concern to conserve and enhance the natural heritage of our mountain areas, demonstrated in our Access and Conservation Policies. These are available on our website under www.mountaineeringscotland.org.uk/council/policies.

Scope of consultation

Despite its all-embracing title, this consultation is specifically about legislation to give NSAs a proper statutory footing, and guidance to secure their proper management. We welcome these steps, subject to our comments at the end on viewing Scotland's landscape heritage as a whole.

Para 1.2 states 'The consultation paper may also stimulate a wider debate on landscape issues and the kinds of landscape we want'. We would warmly welcome this, but do not attempt to respond in detail here. We were represented at a recent meeting with the Deputy Minister arranged by Scottish Environment LINK to raise the profile on landscape, and will be glad to engage with you in progressing the suggestions made in the follow-up letter. We hope that the wider debate you hope to stimulate will address 'Enhancing our care of all Scotland's landscapes' including those beyond the NSAs.

Section 3 – Legislative provisions for NSAs

Criteria for designation

We agree that NSAs should remain an 'accolade' designation, not seeking to represent all Scotland's landscapes. Criteria other than natural beauty and amenity which are likely to be acceptable should be suggested (without being exhaustive) to guide any further submissions. Clearly cultural landscapes – both in the man-shaped sense, and those with strong associations with the arts or in history – may be nationally cherished even if scenically less than top-drawer. We propose that areas which are especially valued for their remoteness, tranquillity, unspoiled character, or relative wildness should be equally eligible, because of their particular vulnerability to intrusive changes.

We agree with SNH that the priority for action is to secure better management of the existing suite of NSAs. If a review of their coverage is undertaken, we would suggest that the criteria should include public estimation (locally, nationally and internationally), as obtained by independent evaluation. This does not equate to frequency of visitation. Indeed the difference between a National Park and an NSA is that the former is generally much visited, while the latter can be lightly visited yet greatly appreciated by repute, including via published works and imagery.

It is important to secure local public support for NSAs, especially where they are still seen as having negative, constraining effects. One way to mobilise this is to invite bids for an initial limited number of new or enlarged NSAs (as in effect with Marine National Parks); another of course is to offer resources for their enhancement on a competitive basis.

Statutory purpose

We suggest the following refinements to the definition of purpose proposed at 3.5 :

• National Scenic Areas are those landscapes which are most valued by the people of Scotland, and are most renowned internationally, and
• they are of such outstanding scenic beauty and amenity that they should be safeguarded as part of the national heritage.

We are concerned that the proposed aims of designation are too complaisant. They imply that changes from development and other pressures are inevitable, and that they can only be 'managed' as against stringently controlled. They then recognise 'social and economic needs of communities' without any limitation on what communities are meant (they could be in other parts of Britain) or any definition of 'needs'. Also, the actual wording needs improvement - the first clause seems to have a gap in its syntax, and does not relate well to the second clause.

We propose a much crisper statement of aims, which distinguishes protection from enhancement, and which makes it clear that development and other changes must be essential and relevant to local communities (by which we mean within or adjacent to the NSA) :

• to ensure that where development and other changes are essential for the social wellbeing and economic prosperity of local communities, they are not prejudicial to the special qualities of the NSA and are managed consistently with the purpose of the NSA, and
• to secure restoration and enhancement of the landscape character of the NSA, and its public appreciation as part of the national heritage.

You will note that in the first bullet we have taken a more upfront and positive attitude to the issue of local economic development, rather than treating it as an afterthought. See below for our views on this issue.

At para 3.6 you set out a three-fold approach to the NSA designation, on which we comment :

bullet 1 – acceptable, except again that recognition as being of 'the very highest scenic quality' can logically only apply to at most a handful of sites, not 40 – what is meant is that these landscapes are valued nationally as against regionally or locally – suggest 'very high' or 'particularly high'.

bullet 2 – suggest amend last clause to '...merit special effort to ensure that current and future generations can always appreciate them'. (simpler than 'can appreciate these qualities in future').

bullet 3 – suggest delete first clause 'Several NSAs cover extensive areas' so as to begin 'Most NSAs include communities living and working within and around them'. The extensiveness of the area is not pertinent to the laudable sentiments which follow.

Designation of NSAs

We have no comments on these proposed powers and roles.

NSAs and National Parks

De-designating NSAs in National Parks has been proposed to minimise duplication, overlap, confusion, and bureaucracy, which are laudable aims. However, by no means all of the areas included within the National Parks have very high scenic merit. The Cairngorms Park Local Plan utilises the NSA boundaries as one determinant of its zonation of a stronger presumption against development, so they have some practical benefits.

We suggest :

• that NSAs should be retained within National Parks, subject to review of boundaries being permitted on a case-by-case basis
• that separate Management Plans should not be required where an NSA is adequately covered by a National Park Management Plan
• that on no account should the reduced Permitted Development rights within NSAs be lost by default as part of any simplification within National Parks.

Section 4 - Management Strategies

We would prefer that local authorities were required to prepare Management Strategies, but can understand the tactics behind 'encouragement' (para 4.2). We suggest that Ministers should take reserve powers to have Management Strategies prepared or redrafted (eg. by SNH) in the event of a Local Authority being unable or unwilling to do so timeously and competently. We trust there will be sufficient carrots to make deployment of such sticks unnecessary, but their existence can hasten compliance.

NSA identification and signage

We welcome the sentiments at 4.4 concerning the economic benefits of NSA designation, including tourism and badging of local produce. It is notable that commercial road atlases commonly highlight NSAs, as a surrogate for the National Parks in England and Wales, to guide visitors to the most scenic localities. However NSAs are not shown on OS maps, nor are they marked at their roadside boundaries. On the one hand we do not wish to add to the proliferation of intrusive signage clutter, nor to over-promote some areas at the expense of others, but if NSAs are to mean anything as a statutory accolade with enhanced protection and management, then we suggest :

• a standard NSA symbol or logo – for example, an adaptation of the excellent SNH logo which has become quite well recognised on NNR signs
• a standard house-style for discreet NSA signs at main entry/arrival points, preferably akin to FCS and NNR signs in natural materials – not brown tourist signs nor big glossy National Park signs
• no directional signage to or within NSAs (as has been done to excess for LL&T National Park), and where possible a rationalisation of existing signage.

The list of five key components at 4.5 is good, but 'Making it happen' should include identifying the partners and stakeholders, and how they will be kept informed and involved in delivering the actions (this is so critical to success that it could well be a sixth heading). Bullet 2 should include a 'base line' assessment of the present condition of these special qualities (as one of our members comments . 'Fine looking mountain except that there is a square block of sitka in view, pylons along the flank, an ugly track, and the floor of the glen is mostly birch wood browsed to heather height.')

At 4.7 it is suggested that small, simple NSAs may only require a 'light touch'. We would go much further. We advocate :

1. that all Management Strategies should be concise, with their protection aspects focused on key threats and major areas of change, and their enhancement actions should focus on those likely to be affordable and achievable in the MS timescale – more ambitious aspirational aims should be distinguished and prioritised.
2. that SNH should prepare an MS template containing all the main headings and reference materials likely to be needed, so that the wheel does not need to be reinvented 40 times; stakeholders with interests in many NSAs can then readily locate sections of direct interest, and identify the relevant aims and outputs specific to each MS.
3. that an external 'cost consultant' be engaged with the remit of ensuring that MS production is as rapid and efficient as possible, and with powers to challenge the need for any over-detailed work or over-lengthy timescales; they should be tasked with optimising the input:output spend ratio (ie. minimising staff and preparation costs, maximising investment on the ground).

Practical experience with the three Dumfries and Galloway NSA pilot Management Strategies shows that while admirably encyclopaedic and meticulously consulted upon, they are difficult to utilise and probably contain far more actions (many very small or aspirational) than could possibly be delivered with staff, financial and partner resources. They also largely replicate each other. The fine detail may be appropriate for internal business management, but is counter-productive in achieving rapid results economically.

Additional comments and concerns

A. Supporting appropriate development within NSAs

We are very sympathetic to the principle that communities in and adjacent to NSAs should be socially and economically prosperous. Not least, we as visitors appreciate good local facilities and want the settlements to be an attractive part of the experience. If a key justification for protecting scenic areas is their economic value to Scotland, then the tourist pound has to be spent, and as far as possible the proceeds should accrue in these areas. We also want to see communities with resident populations, not given over to seasonal use and dead for large parts of the year.

In our response to the Cairngorms Local Plan, we supported the continuation of appropriate development in the populated glens and straths, and indeed went so far as to encourage judicious provision of recreational and holiday accommodation to take pressure off the local housing market.

Where development is appropriate in NSAs, it must be in scale and in keeping with the settlements and the landscape. This is a matter for national planning guidance and for local authority development plans. However, an NSA MS template could set out these general principles, by way of elaborating on the NSA purposes and aims, allowing individual NSAs to vary the emphasis on development relevant to them. In particular we would urge a general expectation that any significant development will bring with it restoration and/or enhancement of the landscape of the NSA.

B. Controlling large-scale and intrusive development outwith NSAs

The present boundaries of the main NSAs are generally pretty clear on the ground as marked visual transitions to scenery which is obviously of very special quality. The surrounding areas have thus not needed such high standards of control, and until recently very few developments have occurred outwith NSAs which have impinged seriously on their qualities. For example, even large hydro or forestry developments tend not to have major visual impacts far beyond their boundaries.

The advent of very large commercial wind energy installations has major implications for the integrity of NSAs. Already, four such can be seen from the Cairngorms at distances of up to 80 miles. Installations in central locations such as above the Great Glen will be visible from 4-5 separate NSAs. In addition, many visitors, recreationists, and tourists value the whole of their trip as a scenic experience, including the route to their destination. We urge that such threats of unprecedented scale should be recognised in the guidance, and that nationally-valued landscapes and their approaches should be safeguarded against such detractors, however far distant they may be. NPPG14 para 16 already flags up impacts on wild areas by development outwith them (and the Whinash decision on a windfarm outwith National Park boundaries in England is a useful example) but the distances involved are now much greater than these envisaged.

C. Viewing our landscape heritage as a whole

More generally, we are concerned that NSAs (and for that matter AGLVs) should not have the undesirable consequence of deflecting visually-intrusive developments to surrounding areas which may still be of considerable landscape value. Several contributors to the NSA consultation seminar made the point that most rural landscapes are valued, without regard to designations, and that a holistic approach to managing our landscape heritage is now needed. We concur.

As the world shrinks, so people increasingly see Scotland as a whole. Many foreign visitors will take in a large part of the country in one tour. Many Scottish people, customarily holidaying abroad, may base their experience of their own country on just a few longer trips. Even the more dedicated recreationists may only ever visit some valued landscapes once. It thus makes ever less sense to restrict landscape protection to isolated blobs, if that permits their surroundings and approaches to become debased (as can often be seen with North American National Parks).

We advocate that NSAs should be placed in context as 'accolade' locations within very broad and diverse landscapes that are viewed and conserved as a whole. Examples might be:

• the whole of the Tweed basin and its surrounding hills and coasts
• the Galloway Hills with the river valleys extending down to the coastal NSAs
• the Firth of Clyde
• Orkney; Shetland

When it comes to our specific interest in mountain landscapes, we have to declare that there is now a widespread national public appreciation of the Scottish mountains as a whole. The recognition of The Munros goes well beyond Scotland and Britain, as is reflected by the large numbers of visitors who come for the hillwalking - even if people only ever ascend a few Munros, they are still appreciated as part of an entity (as against people simply coming to do Ben Nevis). Despite their internal variety, the mountains of Scotland are widely recognised as possessing a unifying character, which clearly distinguishes them from the Alps or Scandes. It follows that the Scottish Highlands comprise a single landscape of at least European importance, comparable with (say) the Pyrenees or the Carpathians.

We would therefore argue that the Scottish Highlands, including all the Munros and principal lower ranges, should be recognised and protected as a whole at national level, in respect of large-scale developments with major and extensive landscape impacts. Since many of the mountain ranges rise steeply from the sea, it would be logical to include most of the west coast and Inner Hebrides in this single perceived landscape. Within the geological Highlands, large-scale developments such as wind energy, transmission line, and telecom installations should be confined to the immediate environs of the Moray Firth, Buchan, Caithness, the greater Aberdeen area, and off the east coast. We are content for the Islands areas (other than the mountains of Harris) to be left to more local self-determination.

Closing remarks

As we have stated, the MCofS welcomes the opportunity to contribute a response to this Consultation. We are prepared to expand on any of the individual points we have raised. We look forward to responding to the final revised document when it is available.

Mountaineering Council of Scotland
Access and Conservation Committee

March 2006