Two Southern Parks for the price of one

Southern Uplands would be a possibility but possibly too big, not culturally coherent and poor east-west transport links? Two Parks, one in the Scottish Borders and one in Galloway (the only two areas of Scotland that have had active campaigns for NPs for some years now), connected by a wildlife corridor and perhaps sharing the same support services, could be feasible. Neither area would need their NP Authority t have planning authority status since both are contained within one local authority area. Their NPAs could have statutory consultation status for planning applications in their own areas and the same status for revisions of Local Development Plans. The Scottish Government could show, with such a configuration, that it listens to grass-roots movements, does not need to spend as much on these Parks as it does on the existing two, is innovative and creative, and understands rural needs in a part of Scotland which would receive a large boost to the economy by becoming the latest two National Parks in the Borderlands (there are already two in the English Borderlands).

Why the contribution is important

We need to 'think outside the box' for innovative ways of achieving the effect of having two new National Parks, for very probably less than the cost of one of the existing Parks.

by malcolmrdickson on June 01, 2022 at 08:49PM

Current Rating

Average rating: 2.5
Based on: 2 votes

Comments

  • Posted by camusfearna June 01, 2022 at 21:59

    I applaud those campaigning for NPs in the south of Scotland for seeking to adjust their proposals to try to deal with one of the key issues, which is whether a national park in Scotland can be said to be meaningful and effective if it is not a planning authority, but the arguments are unconvincing. There is a reference to the proposed national park authorities having statutory consultation status for planning applications in their own areas but would this be for all planning applications and, if so, would that not undermine the role of the two respective local authorities if they were required to consult the national park authority on all applications? And it would require the national park authorities to employ planners to consider applications and offer views, thus duplicating the cost of development planning arrangements in the Borders and in D&G. Also, the proposal that a national park authority be a statutory consultee for applications being determined by Borders or D&G Councils would mean that if the relevant Council determined a planning application contrary to the position of the national park authority the Council would (per Scottish Planning Policy) be required to notify Scottish Ministers to give them the option of calling in the application for Ministerial determination. The argument for the new national park authorities in the south of Scotland not to be planning authorities, but to have statutory consultee status, would actually complicate and add a layer of planning bureaucracy and cost rather than simplify arrangements as those campaigning for this idea might hope.
  • Posted by Prunusavium June 02, 2022 at 09:11

    The Southern Uplands and Dumfries and Galloway are two distinct areas with different cultures and traditions but both traditional farming areas. What exactly would a national park achieve? Just more bureaucracy and burden on the taxpayer. Wildlife 'corridors' are extensive throughout both regions, however, instead of this one size fits all, far better to leave as is and recognise the rare moorland habitat and ecosystems which exist in the Southern uplands, alongside the wooded valleys of Galloway. It must not be a one-size fits all, top down dictat. The historical and cultural elements which have made these areas so attractive in the first place already attract considerable tourism, existing infrastructure cannot cope with more.
  • Posted by Prentice June 02, 2022 at 09:42

    I agree with the above proposal and combining both Parks to satisfy both areas
  • Posted by camusfearna June 05, 2022 at 10:54

    It does not seem sensible to consider the designation of an area as a national park based on matching existing administrative areas which were established for completely different reasons and as areas are very unlikely to meet the criteria required to be designated a national park.
  • Posted by croftercowrie June 05, 2022 at 17:41

    I agree with Prunusavium and camusfearna.
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas

Idea topics