Outcomes

National Parks for Scotland: Scottish Natural Heritage's Advice to Government

6: The Cairngorms

This section provides advice on the powers, structures and geographic area of a National Park in the Cairngorms

• Issues and Opportunities
• The Principle of a Cairngorms National Park
• Proposals for a Cairngorms National Park
• Powers
• Structures
• Representation
• Area
• Costings
• Next Steps

Issues and Opportunities

6.1 In the consultation paper, SNH proposed that the challenges facing the area provided a strong case for the establishment of a National Park. In a brief review of the history of previous proposals for the management of this area, we noted that all these challenges were of a long-term nature and the source of continued debate and sometimes dispute. These challenges include the following.

• The outstanding natural heritage of the area needs greater care. The national importance of the high Cairngorms plateau was recognised in a subsidiary wildlife report for the Ramsay review, and this stimulated the creation of the present National Nature Reserve. But the special features of the Cairngorms are also found beyond the montane zone, with very high value also attributed to the wetlands, the streams, rivers and straths, and the important remnants of native Caledonian pine. Classification of some of these interests as Natura 2000 sites, and the recent affirmation that the Cairngorms should go forward for inclusion in the tentative World Heritage List, confirm the international importance of the area. The need is not just to care for what exists, but to promote a major effort to enhance its value, as in the proposals for rehabilitation and expansion of the native pinewoods.

• The quality of the outdoor environment is also a major draw for open-air recreation. Indeed, the post-war vision of developing outdoor activities was founded not just on helping the rural economy, but also on giving new outlets for young people in urban Scotland at a time of austerity. That earlier vision has been somewhat overtaken by a more commercial drive in tourism and its use of the outdoors. But the draw of the area has not diminished as it has become more accessible, with the best opportunities in Britain for winter activities, and outstanding opportunities for a variety of other active pursuits on land and water and for the enjoyment of wild places. The challenge here is to ease conflicts between increased recreational use of the area, its conservation importance and the needs of land managers. The aim should be to promote as much use as is compatible with the area’s sensitivity, and to harness the commitment of recreational visitors to care more for the resources they enjoy.

• Linked to enjoyment is the heavy dependence of the local economy on tourism, at least in parts of the Cairngorms, and the tensions which have arisen through continued debate about development, especially for the ski-fields. This economy has to thrive for the well-being of these local communities, but there is a challenge here to build a stronger connection between the management and care of the natural and cultural heritage and those who depend on these outdoor resources for their livelihood, and to promote diversity in the local economic base.

• This is also a working countryside, affected by the same economic pressures as elsewhere in rural Scotland. Although tourism dominates the economy, the sporting estates, forestry and farming still occupy much of the land and contribute to its diverse and valued landscape. The ability to manage land for multiple purposes depends on having skilled people available to do it. Many of them have traditional skills originally developed for farming, forestry and sporting, but current economic trends are changing the opportunities and incentives for people working on the land. We need to provide support and encouragement for a land management programme which will take a stronger role in promoting aspirations for the care and enhancement of the natural heritage and which will benefit the local economy.

6.2 None of these issues and opportunities has been significantly challenged during the consultation and in our view they form a sound basis for developing the appropriate powers, structures and area of a possible National Park in the Cairngorms. However, the responses show that any new approach to the management of the Cairngorms will have to build on the current phase of partnership working and do so with sensitivity and vision.

The Principle of a Cairngorms National Park

 

6.3 In the responses to the consultation, we did not hear any strong 'no campaign' to the principle of a Cairngorms National Park, although most of those in favour qualified their support. Aberdeenshire and Highland Councils support the proposals, albeit cautiously; Angus and Moray Councils do not consider that a convincing case has yet been made; while Perth and Kinross would be content to excluded from the National Park area. The strongest reservations have been expressed by estate-owning interests and by individuals.

6.4 Overall, the ‘yet to be convinced’ lobby is still the largest one, with a general theme emerging of sympathy with the Cairngorms Partnership approach, coupled with a desire to see whether this approach will be effective in the longer term. There may be a number of reasons for this response, including a wariness about external interference, a lack of time or sufficient detail to assess fully the implications, or quite simply the view that the case for a National Park was not sufficiently convincing.

6.5 At the same time, there is also a fair-sized grouping which is clearly in favour of a National Park. This grouping lies outwith the immediate Cairngorms area, but also includes local people with particular interests in conservation management and recreation, and some of the business interests. Some farmers can also see potential benefits from allying themselves with the environmental management work which a National Park offers. But giving National Parks a role in the social and economic development of local communities has also been critical in persuading a range of interests, particularly many of the outlying communities, that the National Park model which we propose offers real benefits.

6.6 While SNH fully supports and recognises the significant role played by the Cairngorms Partnership, we consider that a National Park would provide a clearer and stronger basis to move from a crucial phase of planning and debate to the delivery of the Partnership's strategy. A statutory National Park Body with clear duties and powers and lines of accountability offers the prospect of continuity which the current voluntary arrangements do not. It will be essential to build on the achievements of the Cairngorms Working Party and the Partnership, and the principle of working through partnership between existing bodies and groups should remain a strong theme in the Cairngorms. To an extent, a National Park would therefore be an evolution of the existing arrangements, and time should therefore be allowed for this evolution to occur to ensure that the changes it involves have the necessary local and national support.

6.7 Against this background, it remains our advice that a National Park is now appropriate in the Cairngorms, but it should build on the foundations laid by the current arrangements, rather than being imposed in place of them. For this reason, the establishment of a National Park in the Cairngorms may take longer than that in Loch Lomond & the Trossachs.

Proposals for a Cairngorms National Park

6.8 From the consultation exercise, there is support for a National Park to operate along the general lines we proposed in the consultation paper. In line with the advice set out in the earlier sections of this report, the National Park should therefore:

• pursue the four purposes of National Parks: for the conservation and enhancement of the natural and cultural heritage of the National Park area; the sustainable use of its natural resources; the social well-being and economic prosperity of its local communities; and the enjoyment and understanding of its special values;
• work through a strong National Park Plan, created and put into effect through the involvement of all interests;
• have the general functions and powers identified in Section 4 of this advice; and
• use the specific powers detailed below to take a lead in carrying out some of the core activities (where this is best done by it) and to work closely with those public bodies which at present hold the powers.

6.9 Many of those who responded said that the National Park Body should not seek to duplicate the existing roles of local authorities and other public bodies in the area. We recognise these concerns. To build on the current arrangements, we propose therefore that the National Park Body should have a more strategic approach than that proposed for Loch Lomond & the Trossachs, and with a clearer focus on land management functions.

Powers

6.10 In the consultation paper, SNH proposed the establishment of a National Park Body which would have powers in a number of key areas. Overall, our proposals were broadly welcomed, subject to further clarification of how the arrangements would work in practice. In the light of comments received, our proposals are set out below.

Conservation and Environmental Protection

6.11 Our general proposals that the National Park Body should have an important co-ordinating role in conservation management were welcomed, as was the proposal for its statutory consultee role in relation to environmental protection. We propose therefore that the National Park body should:

• have concurrent powers with SNH to promote the conservation and enhancement of the natural heritage; and
• have the ability to manage land on behalf of other conservation bodies including SNH, Historic Scotland and the Forestry Commission.

Recreation and Visitor Management

6.12 Our general proposals for the National Park Body to have an important co-ordinating role in recreation management were welcomed, subject to further detailed consideration of how it could work in practice with the existing ranger services and other recreation-providers in practice. We propose therefore that the National Park Body should:

• have responsibility for developing a park-wide ranger service which co-ordinates and complements the work of existing ranger services across the area;
• powers to make bylaws, to enter into management agreements and to provide camping and picnic sites, car parks etc.; and
• powers to provide and manage interpretation facilities and relevant visitor information services in conjunction with local tourist bodies.

6.13 Such powers should be part of national policy changes advocated in Section 3 to improve the management of recreational activities on land and water, in line with SNH's advice to Government on access.

Town and Country Planning

6.14 There were divided views on the proposals for planning powers contained in the consultation paper, with substantial numbers requesting further clarification of the proposals or suggesting that the National Park Body should be the planning authority for its area with the full range of plan making and development control powers.

6.15 Within the general framework for National Parks which we are proposing, we remain unconvinced that the more strategic National Park Body envisaged for the Cairngorms requires full planning powers. Instead, we suggest the geography of the area lends itself to the continued delivery of the planning function by the existing local authorities. However, greater commonality, convergence and co-ordination of the work of these authorities will be necessary to improve the quality in the design and broad location of new development across the potential National Park area, and the Park Body will have an important role in making this happen. Joint working between the National Park Body and the local authorities will also be necessary to ensure that the contents of local plans do not overlap unnecessarily with those of the National Park Plan, especially for sections of the local plan which at present enter into land-management issues.

6.16 We propose therefore that the National Park Body should be:

• the principal partner in the preparation of the structure plans covering its area, with each local authority being required to discuss with the National Park Body the proposed contents of the structure plan as it affects the National Park area, to work with the National Park Body during its preparation and to obtain from the National Park Body a certificate of conformity with National Park objectives prior to submission of the structure plan to the relevant Minister for approval;

• the principal partner in the preparation of the local plans covering its area, with each local authority being required to agree with the National Park Body the proposed contents of the local plan, to work with the National Park Body during its preparation and to obtain from the National Park Body a certificate of conformity with the National Park Plan prior to deposit; and

• the holder of referral powers to the relevant Minister for appropriate cases where it objects to a local authority's development control decision.

6.17 In the event of dispute between the local authority and the National Park Body on any aspect of the planning function, we propose that there should first be mediation between the bodies through a joint committee to seek resolution of the case. This joint committee should consist of members of the local authority and the National Park Body. If this joint committee cannot resolve the issue, the matter should be referred to the relevant Minister for adjudication.

Traffic Management

6.18 Our proposals to retain traffic management powers with the local and national highway authorities, but with the National Park Body able to promote traffic management schemes through the Park Plan were generally welcomed. There was also support for the National Park Body to identify key public transport services which need support in order to meet the needs of residents and visitors.

Agriculture, Forestry and Sporting Management

6.19 There was general agreement that land management should be a central focus for the National Park Body and that it should have the expertise, funding and powers to play an effective role in this area. Concern, however, was expressed by some owners and managers of land over the general reserve powers proposed and the more specific requirement to prepare whole farm and estate plans. We consider that this concern can be largely overcome through the availability of appropriate incentives and by the National Park Body fostering a good working relationship with land managers. Part of this involves recognising and supporting the valuable role good land-managers play in sustaining the high-quality environment valued by the public. We therefore propose that the National Park Body should engage formally with relevant Government bodies and land owners in the following key ways:

• the National Park Body and SOAEFD, the Forestry Commission, the Deer Commission for Scotland and SNH should promote a co-ordinated approach appropriate to meet land management needs through a tailored agri-environment scheme for the National Park which is linked to a local forestry framework plan and a tailored WGS, and to proposals for conservation, recreation and sporting and fisheries management;

• the National Park Body should work closely with the owners and managers of land, including non-government organisations in the area, to promote sustainable land use, and the development of farm and estate conservation plans, in line with the arrangements suggested in Section 3; and

• the National Park Body should take the necessary steps to involve all these interests in the preparation and implementation of the National Park Plan.

Social and Economic Development

6.20 There was strong support for the proposal for the National Park Body to have the capacity to influence and promote social and economic development within its area through the National Park Plan. A number of those consulted expressed clear views that this would have implications for a National Park Body's structure, staffing, location and style of working, as well as its resourcing. The need for close working with existing bodies was welcomed, as was the general proposal for the National Park Body to have its own expertise and funding to support community development projects within its area.

Structures

6.21 Our proposal for an independent authority for a Cairngorms National Park was strongly supported and we recommend this approach.

Representation

6.22 SNH's proposal for a body comprising a majority of local authority and community representatives as well as national appointees was broadly supported. A closer analysis of the responses reveals a lesser degree of consensus on the appropriate form and balance of these interests. However, the following themes featured strongly:

• strong support for the majority representation on the National Park Body to come from those who live and work in the area;
• strong support for national representation on the National Park Body and suggestions that this should include a wider regional component;
• support for the majority of representatives to be democratically elected, but less agreement on the appropriateness of either local authority or community councillors for this role;
• calls for direct appointment to the National Park Body of representatives of many sectoral interests, notably recreation, tourism, business and land management;
• some calls for direct election of representatives to the National Park Body by those living in the area; and
• support for the use of community and land-management fora to complement the National Park Body.

6.23 In view of this lack of agreement, we suggest that Government gives further consideration to the best approach to representation on the National Park Body in line with the principles which we have outlined in Section 4.

6.24 Whichever balance of representation is eventually chosen, it will be important that the National Park Body should seek wider involvement by community and other local interests through the use of community and land-management fora and through public agency liaison and technical support groups. To integrate the work of these fora, the option of having each select a representative to the National Park Body should be given further consideration.

Area

6.25 SNH's proposals for the minimum and maximum area of the possible National Park are shown in Figure 6-2 (see inside back cover)

6.26 Views on the appropriate area for a National Park were mixed. Many favoured the approach SNH proposed of drawing the boundaries more tightly to focus on the key natural heritage and informal recreational resources of the area. Others were of the view that the larger area of the current Cairngorms Partnership was more appropriate, or indeed that the principles underlying National Parks should apply all over the Highlands of Scotland.

6.27 In line with the proposals made in the consultation paper, we therefore propose a minimum area for a Cairngorms National Park which is geographically centred on the Cairngorms massif, with its wider environs including the settlements of Braemar, Ballater, Newtonmore, Kingussie, Kincraig, Aviemore, Boat of Garten, Nethy Bridge, and Tomintoul. We consider that there is general acceptance of the inclusion of these areas by these communities and other local and national interests.

6.28 Following the comments on the proposals made in the consultation paper, we have also identified a potential larger area which could be included in the National Park but which requires more detailed consideration to determine the advantages and disadvantages arising from increasing the size. This potential area includes the Drumochter Hills, Laggan, Ben Rinnes and land to the west, parts of middle Deeside, Finzean and the Angus Glens.

6.29 From responses to the consultation paper, we know that the inclusion of these areas is supported by some of the communities and other interests, and rejected by others. While there would be advantages in terms of conservation management, we consider that the strongest case for inclusion of these areas is based largely on socio-economic grounds. Overall, experience suggests that the geography of the Cairngorms massif and its surrounding area will make final boundary selection in these areas problematic. It is important, though, not to extend the National Park area so far that it begins to include territory which is not of outstanding importance to the nation for its natural and cultural heritage.

Costings

6.30 In the consultation paper, SNH referred to previous estimates of the core and key activity costs of previous proposals for the management of the area. To allow for further consideration of our proposals, we have now prepared equivalent costings for the core operating costs which are set out below. These costings are for the third year of operation. While they make a number of assumptions, they are believed to be in the correct order of magnitude given the proposed size of the area, the significant programme of work identified in the Partnership's strategy, the proposed functions and structure of the National Park Body and experience of Parks elsewhere in Britain.

6.31 We conclude that about £1.0 million a year will be required to meet the additional core operating costs of the National Park Body resulting from the administration required to support the National Park Board and extra staff envisaged.

Figure 6.2: Core Operating Costs

Budget	FTE Posts included	Staffing Costs	Other Core Costs	Total Core Operating Costs
		£ million	£ million	£ million
National Park Proposal (by year three)	68	1.38	0.58	1.96
Funded elsewhere	38	0.70	0.29	0.99
Additional funding required for Core Costs	30	0.68	0.29	0.97

6.32 In addition, total gross costs would need to include a substantial element of programme expenditure which could be envisaged for this area over the long term in line with the Partnership Strategy. Further work is needed to determine more precisely what the current levels of public spending are in the area and how far the existing expenditures of public bodies could be expected to deliver this programme. However, in the next few years, we suggest that the National Park Body is unlikely to make much progress in supporting and encouraging the work of other bodies unless a figure in the order of £1.5 to £2.5 million per annum is provided for this purpose.

6.33 It should be noted that these illustrated costs are gross costs and that various forms of existing expenditure and income in the area will substantially reduce the net costs to the principal funding partners of the proposed National Park.

6.34 We conclude that likely total gross costs will be in the order of £3.5 to £4.5 per annum (comprising £2.0 million core operating costs and £1.5 to £2.5 million programme costs).

6.35 We estimate that the additional cost of this National Park in year three could be up to £3.5 million per annum over the existing arrangements (comprising £1.0 million additional core operating costs and £1.5 to £2.5 million per programme costs.

6.36 A National Park which covered the entire area of the existing Cairngorms Partnership would require further core funding and programme expenditure.

Next Steps

6.37 What happens now will be very important in terms of the effectiveness of any new arrangements which are eventually put in place in this area. We suggest that Government should therefore signal its commitment to a National Park in this area, subject to more detailed legislative proposals winning support from both local and national interests. A timetable should be set for the development of these legislative proposals and a body given the task of developing them. Essential elements of this programme include:

• continued dialogue with local communities and other interests to explain the proposals and the implications of National Park designation, and to increase knowledge of the proposals locally;
• capacity-building among local communities and other interests to allow them to participate effectively in the continuing development of the proposals for the powers, structures and area of the National Park;
• the continued alignment through the Cairngorms Partnership of the plans and operations of Government departments, local authorities and other public bodies to ensure that the special qualities of the area are maintained prior to the establishment of the National Park; and
• the evolution of the Cairngorms Partnership into a National Park Body.

6.38 Looking at the experience of the Loch Lomond & the Trossachs Steering Committee in preparing interim arrangements for this area, we suggest that the local authorities and other public bodies in the Cairngorms should be asked to prepare proposals based, if approved, on SNH’s initial advice, with the Cairngorms Partnership asked to deliver the specific elements of the programme set out above.