Proposal for a National Park in Southwest Scotland: report

Section 4: The arrangements for the proposed National Park if Ministers decide to proceed with designation

95. This section of the advice considers the detailed arrangements for the National Park if Scottish Ministers decide to proceed with drawing up a draft designation order for consultation. Overall, there was less detailed comment on this part of the consultation compared to the questions on the principle of the National Park and further work will be needed to develop some of the detailed arrangements for the National Park.

The area of the National Park

96. Based on our assessment of the area (see Annex E for details), we consulted on three geographic options – as follows:

Option 1 - ‘Hills and coast’

Option 2 - ‘Hills and extended coast’

Option 3 - ‘Hills, coast and countryside’

Of these options we consulted on, the largest area proposed was the most popular with those who expressed a view on this question, with views on Options 1 and 2 more even. A similar pattern emerged from suggestions made at the consultation events. Of the 30 hand drawn maps of the area submitted, 8 were variations on Option 3, though 8 were of the Galloway Forest Park area.

Table 10: Option area preference by aggregated support / opposition to the proposal - Surveys

Preference	Overall		Support		Oppose		Undecided		Blank
Option 1	575	11%	212	10%	326	12%	35	21%	2	8%
Option 2	432	8%	358	16%	46	2%	27	16%	1	4%
Option 3	1649	32%	1497	67%	99	4%	47	28%	6	25%
Don't know / no opinion[5]	1208	23%	91	4%	1073	38%	42	25%	2	8%
None[6]	200	4%	-	0%	196	7%	4	2%	-	0%
Other[5]	30	1%	15	1%	8	0%	7	4%	-	0%
Blank	1136	22%	56	3%	1062	38%	5	3%	13	54%

Table 11: Option area preference by aggregated support / opposition to the proposal - Public consultation events

Preference	%
Option 1	5
Option 2	4
Option 3	19
None of the above – I’d prefer another option	2
None of the above – I don’t know at this stage	3
None of the above – I don’t want a National Park	29
Did not take part in the exercise	38

97. The respondents who preferred Area Option 3 believed that that the larger area would maximise the landscape and habitat diversity within the proposed National Park and extend its benefits to more communities. About a quarter of these respondents also felt that Option 3 offered the greatest potential economic benefits and offered more opportunity for conservation and efforts to tackle climate change. All three local authorities were in favour of the largest option with both Ayrshire councils seeking consideration of extending a larger National Park covering more of their areas.

98. Nearly 20% of responses that stated a preference for Area Option 1 felt that a smaller Park area would reduce the negative impacts on the surrounding area. Some were strongly of the view that areas of agricultural land and major settlements should be excluded, with a smaller National Park area focusing on the most outstanding areas of natural heritage. This option was also preferred as the ‘least-worst’ scenario by those who opposed the proposed National Park, and we would anticipate would have scored more highly if many more of those opposed to the creation of a National Park had expressed a view.

99. Very few detailed comments on the options were received (circa 3% of all responses to this question) with broadly similar numbers of respondents raising issues with each option. The most commonly made comment was about the benefit of extending the boundary to include coastal and marine areas within the National Park, and specifically to include all of the Luce Bay and Sands SAC, Wigtown Bay Local Nature Reserve and marine area of the three National Scenic Areas. Another theme was the inclusion or exclusion of more intensive agricultural land, with the latter being preferred. When specific settlements were mentioned, more respondents (two to four times more) supported including rather than excluding that settlement. The exception to this is the summary consultation on excluding the Ayrshire settlements. A number of suggestions were also made for extending Option 3 eastwards to include Mabie Forest and Moniaive as well as Annandale and Eskdale and the whole of Dumfries and Galloway.

Boundary considerations

100. Over 50% of respondents who responded to this question considered that the proposed principles were a good basis for drawing up a more detailed basis for the boundary with a third suggesting that they were not. Some specific boundary recommendations were put forward, such as including or excluding certain settlements or features.

101. Several responses focused on landscape features and their suitability for developing a boundary. Such responses were primarily made by supporters of the proposal. Several participants suggested that rivers and watersheds would make logical landscape boundaries, however some also cautioned against using rivers due to their propensity to move over time. The complexity of drawing up a Park boundary at the coast or foreshore was a particular focus. In particular, responses touched on what agreed reference points should be used at the coast, as well as the merits and practicalities of extending the Park extent further into the marine environment.

102. Other responses suggested that boundaries should avoid splitting communities, farms, land parcels and other smaller administrative units such as school catchments and council wards. Others also proposed that the Park utilise existing designation or administrative boundaries in drawing up its extent.

103. A number of alternatives to a rigidly bounded, contiguous Park area were proposed, including developing interlinked but separate areas, extending Park operations beyond the boundary (or using a ‘fuzzy’ boundary) and allowing the Park extent to develop over time.

104. Responses from the renewables sector emphasised the need for very careful consideration of the boundary to ensure compliance with conditions of the Act.

Reporter conclusions on the area of the proposed National Park if Ministers decide to proceed with designation

Discussion

105. On the basis of the consultation, we have examined the merits of two options for the area of the National Park further: Option A - a core “Hills and Coast” area similar to but smaller than Option 1 proposed in the consultation and Option B - an extensive “Hills, Coast and Countryside” area similar to Option 3 proposed in the consultation. Indicative maps of both options are presented in Map 3 and Map 4 below. More information on the methodology for their selection is detailed further in Annex E together with a brief description of their indicative boundaries. At this stage, we have as Reporter discounted Option 2 on the basis that this was least popular. While including the entire coastline of the area is attractive as Option 3 recognises, drawing a meaningful inland boundary for it would be a significant challenge and raise similar issues to Option 3 considered further below.

106. Both of these area options cover all three local authority areas with details provided below. Option A is a little smaller than Loch Lomond & the Trossachs and Option B is a little smaller than the Cairngorms though with a population larger than both existing National Parks combined. It is notable that a large proportion of the area of the core Hills and Coast is in public ownership and recognised for its natural heritage value.

Table 12: Area option details

Option	Size of area (km2)	Area of Local Authority in the Newest NP option (km2)		% Designated (SSSI, NNR, SAC, SPA, Ramsar, NSA)	% Area Public Land	Population
A - Core	1564	Dumfries and Galloway	1173	15.6%	51.5%	12,700
		South Ayrshire	264
		East Ayrshire	120
B - Extensive	4178	Dumfries and Galloway	3308	14%	25%	61,402
		South Ayrshire	715
		East Ayrshire	139

107. As noted earlier, we have not had any comment which makes us reconsider the analysis of the proposal against the conditions of the Act that we previously presented alongside the consultation. While very different, we consider that both these area options will therefore meet the conditions of the Act for Park status, subject to detailed finalisation of their boundary.

108. The merits and drawbacks of each option are as follows.

a) The core “Hills and Coast” area is of high natural or cultural heritage importance, contains a large area of public land and has the least impact on commercial farming, forestry and renewables interests across the area. Some of the communities in the area are more supportive of a National Park and consulting on this option may open up a more positive debate in nearby communities about whether they would want to be included. While the area would provide a strong focus on upland management and the transition to sustainable forestry practice, it would not include much coastline (less than half that of Loch Lomond & the Trossachs National Park). Improved provision for visitors and their management would focus on the Galloway Hills, though a wider approach would be needed to ensure pressures on its surrounding communities were also managed effectively.

b) The extensive “Hills, Coast and Countryside” area includes all the significant areas of high natural or cultural heritage importance across the region, including its whole coastline. The large geographic scale of the area would bring the most benefit in terms of the potential for nature recovery and it would also spread the economic benefits of the National Park across all of the communities of the area. The inclusion of this length of coastline would provide the National Park a clear focus for demonstrating leadership in coastal management. This scale of National Park was favoured by most of the responses which favoured a National Park, including Dumfries and Galloway Council. At the same time, it is a large and complex area for a National Park to make a difference across without a significant budget, it is unclear what difference a National Park could make to farming and forestry practice without some changes to funding and regulation and is not favoured by the farming, forestry and renewable sectors. The choice of this area would require the development of a new national wind farm policy specific to this National Park area.

Reporter Advice

109. The choice of the proposed area is guided by the three conditions of the Act, but it also needs to be informed by Scottish Government priorities and the views of communities and businesses within and surrounding the area.

110. In principle, we consider that the larger option would offer the greatest potential for nature recovery and also spreading the economic benefits arising from National Park status across all the communities of the area. But in practice we doubt whether a Park could give equal priority across such a large and complex area. Its ability to influence farming and forestry practice except through voluntary approaches is also limited. The funding required for it to make a difference would also be significant. We also appreciate the concerns being expressed about the inclusion of productive farming and forestry sectors within a National Park despite the limited evidence of impact from existing National Parks. If large areas were included, strong reassurance would be needed on the value the future National Park Authority would place on supporting these key sectors. Careful consideration would similarly be needed on renewables and particularly onshore wind farms and related grid infrastructure. While the Scottish Government has proposed to make changes to NPF4 to allow for new large-scale renewable infrastructure to be located in new National Parks, such a change may not be needed if the proposed area does not impact on future patterns of development.

111. In including the key elements of the hills and coast option we consulted on, the core option would include the area with the strongest value for its natural heritage and its contribution to the special qualities of the area; it would include communities most in favour of considering Park status further and it would have least impact on the intensive dairy farming, commercial forestry and renewable interests. Much of the area is already in the ownership of Scottish Government and its day-to-day management by Scottish Forestry would ensure that multi-purpose forestry management could be successfully embedded into the ethos of the Park.

112. In terms of the area, we therefore propose as Reporter that the core option (Option A) is developed further if Ministers decide to proceed with developing the draft designation order. A map of this area and its indicative boundary at 1:100,000 scale is presented in Map 3 and described further in Annex E.

113. We consider that such an option would also provide a clear role for the GSA Biosphere Reserve which would continue to operate across a much wider area. There is also a strong case for refreshing the management of the National Scenic Areas learning the lessons from the previous management strategies by Dumfries and Galloway Council.

114. At the same time, we recognise the support from those in favour of a National Park for the larger area of Option B to be considered and the positive arguments made for it in terms of the range of benefits it could bring to people and nature across the region. All three local authorities also are supportive of this largest option (though as noted earlier Dumfries and Galloway reserved their opinion on the principle of the Park itself). If Ministers favoured this option, we suggest that a zonal approach was taken to the National Park which differentiated between different areas of it in terms of their importance for nature. While building on the zonal approach established as part of the Biosphere Reserve, we do not think its threefold approach of core, buffer and transition zones should be used. Instead, we suggest the zones differentiate between:

a) High Value Nature areas (amber). The parts of the National Park area of highest value and priority for nature, landscape and recreation (e.g. the Merrick wildland area, the Silver Flow European designation, Cairnsmore of Fleet NNR and the coastal zone including the three NSAs and Caerlaverock NNR);

b) Nature recovery areas (blue). The parts of the National Park area with greatest potential alongside existing land-uses for nature-friendly practices and innovation (e.g. native woodland expansion, peatland restoration, grassland management and improving river ecosystem health); and

c) Nature Network areas. The rest of the National Park area where potential for nature networks can be realised alongside existing land-uses.

115. While purely indicative at this stage, Map 5 illustrates how this zonal approach could be developed in practice.

Powers and functions of the National Park Authority

116. The framework for the powers of the National Park Authority is provided by the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000. These include:

a) a range of general functions and powers provided by Schedule 2 of the Act;

b) a range of countryside functions and powers provided by Schedules 3 and 5 of the Act;

c) the town and country planning functions conferred under Section 10 of the Act; and,

d) any additional functions and powers that are stated in the designation order, including for example the access functions and powers conferred under part 1 of the Land Reform (Scotland) 2003 Act.

117. With the exception of the National Park Partnership Plan, all the powers and functions for a National Park Authority in Schedules 2, 3 and 5 of the Act are drawn from existing legislation for local authorities and other public bodies. A summary of these general functions and powers is shown below and we sought views on whether there are other powers and functions which could be considered for this proposed National Park.

General functions and powers of a National Park Authority:

• General
• provide advice and assistance
• undertake or fund research
• give grants
• enter into contracts, accept gifts, form or promote companies and partnerships
• fix and recover charges for goods, services and facilities
• Management
• enter into management agreements and make bylaws and management rules
• establish nature reserves
• buy and manage land either by agreement or by compulsory purchase
• general arrangements for access, provision to make access orders and access agreements, acquire land etc.
• improve waterways for recreation
• protect and maintain rights of way
• request road traffic orders from the Scottish Ministers
• Services
• provide information, education services and facilities for the purpose of promoting the
• special qualities of the National Park by the public
• provide or promote leisure facilities in the National Park, and to encourage people to
• visit the National Park
• provide campsites and provide food etc in the National Park.
• provide recreational, sporting, cultural and social facilities and activities in the National Park

118. If enacted, the proposals now set out in the Natural Environment Bill will add the ability for National Park staff to issue Fixed Penalty notices in relation to National Park bylaws. They also provide for all future National Park Authorities to have access powers and functions if this is required.

Town and country planning

119. The Act provides the following options for the National Park Authority’s planning function:

a) to be the planning authority for the National Park with responsibility for both development planning and development management for its area

b) to be treated as the planning authority for the National Park, but only in relation to development planning

c) bespoke arrangements for the planning function that are set in the designation order.

120. In the consultation paper we set out a number of options for more bespoke arrangements for the planning function.

121. Responses to this question were mixed. Just over 40% of responses were opposed to bespoke options proposed for development planning and management and just under 40% were in favour with the remainder undecided or did not know.

122. The three local authorities were very clear in their views that the planning function should remain with them, with the National Park Authority having consultee arrangements on both the local plan and development management. Two of the three councils considered that existing local plan arrangements were sufficient and that there was no need for a separate local plan for the Park area; only one of the councils proposed referral powers to Scottish Ministers on cases where the National Park Authority objected to a proposal that the local authority was minded to support. Irrespective of who performed the function, the additional costs needed for planning services within the Park area as a result of changes to EIA regulations was also noted. Where they expressed a view, land management interests were extremely concerned over the National Park having any planning function because of the extra cost, delays and regulation they considered this to mean.

123. In contrast, some respondents, including both local and national environmental groups, argued for arrangements similar to the existing National Parks, with most in favour of the National Park being responsible for the local plan and making decisions on key proposals (akin to the Cairngorms arrangements), though some also made the case for the National Park to be a full planning authority (akin to Loch Lomond & the Trossachs arrangements).

Access, recreation and visitor management

124. Both the existing National Parks are Access Authorities and undertake this key function for their areas, including preparing a core path plan for their area, managing a local access forum, upholding access rights, providing advice to land managers and promoting the Scottish Outdoor Access Code. Given the third aim of National Parks is to promote the understanding and enjoyment of the area, we proposed that a similar role may be appropriate for the proposed Galloway National Park, though the detail of it will depend on the area which may be selected for National Park status.

125. Responses to these questions were mixed. In terms of the technical survey, nearly 46% of responses who expressed a view on this specific issue were opposed to the National Park Authority becoming the access authority for its area with nearly 41% in favour and 13% undecided or did not know. Equally, nearly 45% of responses were opposed to the National Park Authority drawing up the core path plan for its area with 37% in favour and 18% undecided or did not know. In contrast, nearly 47% of responses were supportive of the National Park Authority employing its own ranger service for its area with 40% opposed and 14% undecided or did not know.

126. The three local authorities were generally content with the National Park Authority having these functions, subject to further detailed consideration on the implications for them and other current service providers. Additional funding was also key. The scope for a Park-led access forum to provide advice beyond the Park area was suggested by Dumfries and Galloway Council. Similar supportive views were also expressed more strongly by local and national environmental and recreational groups. The need for the National Park Authority to have responsibility for rights of way as well as core paths was also suggested. When they expressed a view, land management interests were content with the current arrangements even though they also recognised a range of current access and visitor management related issues.

Forestry and onshore wind development

127. Forestry and renewable energy are important land uses which will play a major role in meeting the aims of the National Park. While the policy and regulatory framework for them is a matter for the Scottish Government and its agencies, a National Park Authority would need to work closely with these sectors in drawing up its Park Plan in ways which supported their long-term success. To help achieve this we proposed a range of consultation arrangements for the National Park Authority in relation to forest management plans prepared by Forestry and Land Scotland; regulation and funding decisions made by Scottish Forestry; and energy development proposals dealt with by the Energy Consents Unit in the Scottish Government under the Electricity Act. We also saw merit in the National Park Authority and Forestry and Land Scotland jointly producing a management plan for the Galloway Forest Park.

128. Responses to these questions were mixed. 44% of responses were opposed to the statutory consultation arrangements proposed with 44% in favour and nearly 17% undecided or did not know. Support for these proposed arrangements were strongest from local authorities, and from local and national environmental and recreational bodies. In view of their stated opposition to the proposal, the representative bodies for forestry and renewables interests did not comment on the detailed arrangements but comments from individual forestry and renewables businesses highlighted the additional time and costs for them of slower decision making as a result of these proposals. The additional costs of forestry regulation due to the changes to EIA regulations in National Parks has also been raised in discussions with both Scottish Forestry and Forestry and Land Scotland.

Further powers and functions

129. Relatively few responses were generated by this question, with most comment on further powers and functions focused on the role of the proposed National Park in land management – for example though supporting implementation of the regional land-use framework and the new requirements for whole farm and estate plans through future agri-environment and forestry funding. As with the existing National Parks, it was expected that the National Park Authority would help facilitate place planning by communities within its area. Given its coastline, the need for it to be a consultee on marine planning was also suggested.

130. In contrast, those who opposed the principle of the National Park expressed concerns over what they saw as the unnecessary duplication of powers, increased regulation and a disconnect between the National Park Authority and local organisations and businesses. The desire to rework and innovate existing agencies was seen as more preferable than establishing a new National Park.

Reporter conclusions on powers and functions of the National Park Authority

Discussion

131. Reflecting the polarisation of views on the principle of the National Park, there is at this stage little consensus on the detailed arrangements for the powers and governance of its National Park Authority. Those more supportive of the proposed National Park either considered similar powers and functions to the existing National Park Authorities would be appropriate or sought different options which retained more of the role for existing organisations. The need for further detailed discussion was also highlighted by the three local authorities and others, with further engagement with both Scottish Forestry and Forestry and Land Scotland also essential.

132. The National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 was designed to allow for different approaches to the National Park Authority to be explored for each area proposed as a National Park (with wider changes to the model of National Parks more generally possible for coastal and marine National Parks). The development of both the existing National Parks drew heavily on their predecessor arrangements – Loch Lomond & the Trossachs developed from a regional park with a subject local plan and recreational management focus and the Cairngorms from a voluntary partnership of stakeholders which led to the development of the area’s first non-statutory management plan. In contrast, a mix of arrangements are in place for the proposed area and it is right to consider if this suggests that a different approach to the model of National Park Authority is needed.

133. In undertaking our analysis, we have examined two options based on input received during the consultation. As the Reporter, we were particularly cognisant of the views of the local authorities who would have a key role in working with any National Park Authority.

Option A - A National Park Authority with powers and functions similar to the existing two

134. This Option might include:

a) Development planning - A National Park Authority would have sole responsibility for the local development plan for the area.

b) Development management - A National Park Authority would have responsibility for all or some of the development management decisions for its area.

c) Access, recreation and visitor management - A National Park Authority would be the access authority for its area including preparing a core path plan, managing a local access forum, upholding access rights, providing advice to land managers, promoting the Scottish Outdoor Access Code and running its own ranger service. It could also have responsibility for rights of way.

d) Forestry and renewables – A National Park Authority would be a statutory consultee for forest management plans prepared by Forestry and Land Scotland; regulation and funding decisions made by Scottish Forestry; and energy development proposals dealt with by the Energy Consents Unit.

135. This option is tried and tested and is generally seen as working well across areas which are larger than being considered here and involve more local authorities. 13 of the 15 UK National Park Authorities have full planning powers with only the Cairngorms and the South Downs National Parks being the exception though both of these are the development plan authority for their area.

Option B - A National Park Authority with powers and functions different to the existing two

136. This Option might include:

a) Development planning - A National Park Authority would have responsibility for a bespoke (subject) local development plan for the area drawn up under S16 of the Town & Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended). It would also be a statutory consultee for the three local development plans prepared by the local authorities. Development planning staff from the three local authorities could be seconded to the Park Authority to prepare this subject local plan.

b) Development management - A National Park Authority would be a statutory consultee on development proposals which have significant implications for the implementation of the National Park Plan. The few cases where an objection from the National Park Authority cannot be resolved would be referred to Scottish Ministers for determination.

c) Access, recreation and visitor management - The Park would play a central role in the planning, co-ordination and investment needed for recreational and visitor management throughout its area, with a National Park advisory group established to guide detailed priorities and action and resolve operational issues. Both the National Park Authority and the local authorities would have full local access authority powers, with the detail of how these are undertaken to be agreed depending on the final decisions on the area of the National Park.

d) Forestry - The National Park Authority would work closely with Scottish Forestry and Forestry and Land Scotland on the regulation, funding and planning of forestry across the National Park area. If the larger area was selected, it could work with Forestry and Land Scotland to draw up and implement a management plan for Galloway Forest Park. If the smaller area was selected, the strategic planning of Galloway Forest Park would be subsumed into the National Park Plan with separate forest plans retained for dealing with the planning and management of the public forest estate.

e) Renewables - Development management decisions would remain with the local planning authorities and the Energy Consents Unit. The Park Authority would be a statutory consultee on proposals and work closely with renewable companies to shape their investment plans on nature restoration for community benefit within its area.

137. This option is innovative, more specially tailored to integrate with the existing arrangements for the area and would seem to reflect the ambitions of the local authorities. It is also more in keeping with public sector reform with the additional budget required because of National Park status going into collaboration and strengthening existing services. Care would be needed in finalising the approach to ensure that the international recognition of Scotland’s National Parks by IUCN was maintained. To provide a common brand for the National Park, consideration would be needed to be given to how the potential range of ranger and other visitor management services were branded within Park. This would have parallels with differentiation between the branding of the Cairngorms National Park which is separate to the branding for the Cairngorms National Park Authority.

Reporter Advice

138. The National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 provides a common framework for all National Parks designated in Scotland. Whatever arrangements are put in place for the additional functions and powers of this National Park Authority, it will be important that they are as simple as possible, add value to the operation of the functions and powers of existing public bodies and focus on the issues that matter to this National Park area. Good working relationships between the new National Park Authority, the local authorities, Forestry and Land Scotland and other national and local organisations will also be critical.

139. Provided the national policy and regulatory framework for National Parks remains the same across Scotland, different models for the operation of their National Park Authorities can be developed. While it is important that it retains the key characteristics of the existing National Park Authorities to ensure the international recognition of Scotland’s National Parks by IUCN is maintained, further deliberation on the detail of the powers and functions for this National Park Authority could be merited to test whether Option B is appropriate in full or in part. If alternative approaches are progressed, we suggest that a review of the success or otherwise of these new arrangements should be made after the first 10 years of the new Park’s operation.

140. We note that the changes proposed in the Natural Environment Bill, if passed into law as drafted, would further strengthen the duties of public bodies including local authorities to have regard to National Park aims and to further the implementation of the Park Plan. We think this change would provide some safeguard to support elements of Option B.

141. Section 17 on agency arrangements and joint operations of the existing National Parks (Scotland) 2000 legislation also allows for functions to be transferred between the National Park Authority and other public bodies and vice versa. One approach might be to give the planning and access powers to the new National Park Authority which are similar to existing National Parks and for it to then delegate them back to the local authority to undertake on its behalf. Changes could then be made if required once experience of these arrangements in practice has been gained. Such an approach was tested in the development of the planning arrangements for the South Downs National Park.

142. The contribution of land management to the special qualities of this National Park is significant and the National Park Authority would need to develop a positive partnership between it and the farming and forestry sectors. Given the concern raised by land managers around the perceived disbenefits of operating within a National Park, we suggest that the scoring of new agri-environment and forestry arrangements should give greater weight to applications to land managers within National Parks. This was the case previously for considering access funding in the previous Scottish Rural Development Plan and would bring Scotland in line with funding schemes operating in National Parks across the rest of the UK.

Governance and staffing

Size and make-up of the Board of the National Park Authority

143. The Board of the National Park Authority is the decision-making body of the National Park and is directly accountable to Scottish Ministers for its actions. The framework for representation on the National Park Board is provided by the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000. This framework:

a) sets the maximum size of the National Park Board as 25 (although to date, it has always been smaller than this in the existing Scottish National Parks);

b) provides for a minimum of 20% of the National Park Board to be directly elected by those living in the National Park area;

c) provides for Scottish Ministers to appoint 50% of the other members and for local authorities to nominate the remaining 50%; and,

d) ensures that a minimum of 60% of the Board’s members are likely to be ‘local’ (defined as either people who live in the National Park area, or who are a councillor for an electoral ward or community council any part of which is in the park area).

144. The approach requires at least one representative from each local authority within the National Park area. For the existing Scottish National Parks, some of the electoral wards for directly elected members extend over more than one local authority area.

145. The size and population geography of the area has important implications for the number of directly elected members and the share of local authority nominations. This in turn has implications for the size of the National Park Board. While further detailed work will be needed to calculate the precise populations for the preferred area of the proposed National Park, we proposed two scenarios in the consultation as shown in Figure 2 below.

146. Both these options mean that two thirds of the Board’s membership would be likely to consist of local representatives (depending on who the local authority decides to nominate), with one third of members directly elected by local people living in the National Park area.

147. Overall, approximately 40% of respondents to the three surveys do not support either of these options with around 31% supportive and 17% either unsure or did not know. A further 12% offered no answer. The tendency to reject these proposals was strongest in the technical survey at 48% of all responses. The main reasons for objecting to these proposals were the need for more local representation and/or fewer appointments from outside the area by Scottish Ministers. It may also be that people objected to these proposals as part of their opposition to the principle of the National Park – the overwhelming majority of those who objected to the Board options strongly opposed the proposal itself.

Text for the graphic below:

12 Board members

4 members directly elected by those living in the electoral wards covering the park area

4 members appointed on nomination of local authorities (2 Dumfries and Galloway, 1 East Ayrshire, 1 South Ayrshire)

4 members appointed directly by Scottish Ministers

Area Option 1 Board of 12

15 Board members

5 members directly elected by those living in the electoral wards covering the park area

5 members appointed on nomination of local authorities (3 Dumfries and Galloway, 1 East Ayrshire, 1 South Ayrshire)

5 members appointed directly by Scottish Ministers

Area Option 2 and 3 Board of 15

148. Responses from both people and organisations who supported the possible options and those who opposed them all, agreed that local representation should allow for the final decisions of the Board to be determined locally. The responses from supporters of the principle of the Park note the importance and value of national appointments bringing different expertise and perspective to the Board. They also emphasised that a national voice was important given the longer-term funding for the National Park by Scottish Government.

149. There were also comments about how each local authority should be represented and in what quantity with South Ayrshire Council seeking greater representation. Dumfries and Galloway Council noted the need for the Board to be made up of appropriate numbers of local members to reflect both local accountability from directly elected members and local representation via the local authority which would continue to provide key services in the National Park area and also represent communities of place and interest outside it. Like others, they also suggested the need to increase local membership and support through reducing the number of direct appointments made by the Scottish Government or by ensuring that those appointed lived or worked locally.

150. Calls for a smaller Board were more common than those for a larger Board, especially among opponents of the proposal. Strong views were expressed in the responses and there was evidence of potential confusion on what the proposals meant in practice, including on the role, independence and renumeration of Board members. Many of the suggested Board compositions would also contravene the National Parks Act framework.

Reporter conclusions on size and make-up of the Board of the National Park Authority

Discussion

151. The framework provided in the legislation provides a balance between community, local authority and national interests which are all seen as essential for the effective governance of the National Park.

152. Both local accountability and representation is provided by directly elected members and local authority appointments who make up the majority of members of the Board. We consulted on two options that would both increase the share of directly elected members compared to the existing National Parks. Increasing this share further while maintaining reasonable balance of representation from local authority nominations would increase the size of the Board significantly. This does not seem proportionate or cost effective particularly if the powers and functions of the National Park are different from the existing ones.

153. The experience from the existing National Parks and other regional public bodies such as SOSE shows that national appointments can bring valuable expertise, experience and perspectives to a Board. In the case of the existing two National Parks, Ministers seek to appoint national appointments with either subject or geographic knowledge or both, and as a result they often appoint people who live and work in the area, as shown in the Cairngorms where at times up to 80% of the National Park Board have been made up of people who live and work in the area. There is possibly scope for further public sector alignment if the national appointment process for the National Park Board considered appointing members already on the boards of existing public bodies such as SOSE; SEPA, NatureScot or the existing National Parks. Care would be needed to reduce any real or perceived conflicts of interest that could arise.

Reporter Advice

154. While recognising the strength of arguments made on this issue, we consider it should be possible to find a way forward within the existing legislative framework that balances the calls for strong local representation with the value of national input. During the draft designation order phase of work, it would be important to increase awareness, understanding and discussion of the possible Board arrangements, for example by sharing more information on the lived experience of being on one of the Boards of one of the existing National Parks.

155. Further work to finalise the size and make-up of the Park Board would be needed once final decisions on the area of the Park were made. If the core “Hills and Coast area” was selected then we consider that a Board of 12 members or fewer would be appropriate given the likely population of the area. If the extensive area were chosen then a Board of at least 15 members or more would be required depending on the detailed arrangements for powers and functions of the National Park Authority.

156. Given the concerns raised locally, we would strongly recommend that Scottish Ministers look to appoint people with relevant knowledge of the area or who live and work in the area. The scope to draw these appointments from the Boards of existing public bodies operating in this part of Scotland could also be explored further.

Areas of expertise required by the National Park Board

157. The majority of survey respondents agreed with the proposal for the Board to have expertise in nature, farming and forestry, though responses to the technical survey produced a more mixed picture.

158. A long list of other areas of expertise were also suggested including climate change and sustainability; land use and planning; community and rural development; biodiversity and conservation; renewable energy and green infrastructure; legal and regulatory affairs; economic and financial management; public health and wellbeing; access, recreation and tourism; technology and innovation; cultural and heritage preservation; and marine conservation. The need to involve young people on the Board was also noted.

159. A long list of suggestions for National Park sub-committees and advisory groups was also generated by the responses.

Reporter conclusions on areas of expertise required by the National Park Board

Discussion

160. While there is strong support for including expertise on nature, farming and forestry on the Board of the National Park, there are also a wide range of other suggestions made. This illustrates the challenge for a Park Board more generally given their very wide-ranging remit. Similar challenges would be experienced by the National Park Authority when it begins to scope its structure of sub-groups and advisory fora.

161. As well as relevant expertise of national appointments, experience of governance on Boards and similar governance arrangements would clearly be useful. For all prospective candidates, the personal and leadership qualities they bring to the Board are equally important.

Reporter Advice

162. It would be important that appointments to the Board demonstrate the importance that the new National Park Authority would place on nature, farming and forestry. While the two often go hand in hand, this is as much about representation as expertise. The latter could readily sit at staff level in the National Park Authority or other bodies. The track record of the existing National Parks suggests that this representation can be achieved in practice through putting this into the designation order for this National Park. This may be needed given the significance of productive farming and forestry interests in this area. These topics are likely to be relevant whatever area is selected but particularly so for the extensive option.

Timing of direct elections

163. Of the relatively few responses to this question, the leading proposal was that members should be directly elected before placing appointees, with a smaller number of responses suggesting that elections should happen after appointees are publicised. Others suggested that elections should take place at the same time as local or national elections, or else at the same time as the other two National Parks.

Reporter conclusions on timing of direct elections

Discussion

164. This is quite a technical question compared to the others with little substantial comment generated from it.

Reporter Advice

165. We recommend that the results of direct elections to the Park Board are made prior to local authority nominations and Ministerial appointments. To make this work in practice would require careful planning and also a suitable timescale between designation of the National Park by the Scottish Parliament and its legal establishment date.

Staffing arrangements

166. Schedule 1 (13) of the Act requires a CEO to be appointed but leaves open what other staffing arrangements are put in place. This part of the consultation sought views on the level of staffing required by the National Park Authority itself and the scope for using existing public bodies to deliver National Park functions.

167. Many responses to this question reflected on the need for more detail on the area and powers and functions of the National Park Authority before this could be considered further. Local authorities and other public bodies with responsibility for regulation also emphasised the need for additional staff resourcing for them to deliver the additional requirements which come with National Park status. The challenge of recruiting suitably qualified and experienced staff, particularly but not exclusively to professional roles in areas such as planning, legal and finance with the need to avoid organisations competing for these roles was noted.

168. Those in support of the proposal felt sharing corporate functions with the public sector in general may work along with a National Park perhaps giving funding to existing agencies and other voluntary and business organisations to help with the work of a National Park. The importance of integrating the work and staffing of the GSA Biosphere Reserve was also highlighted, along with creating jobs for local people and businesses.

169. There was little commentary on the level of staffing required with equal numbers commenting that the suggested 25 was too few or too many depending on the model of National Park Authority adopted and its powers and functions. It was noted that a significantly larger staff resource would be needed if the Park Authority had direct responsibility for access, recreation and visitor management. There was recognition that a National Park Authority’s role in liaising, collaborating and joint working with many diverse agencies would need sufficient staffing to produce a more focused approach.

170. There were a range of comments raised by those opposed as to why existing agencies could not be properly funded to achieve the aims of a National Park without the designation. Calls were also made for additional resourcing for staffing in key services which could be placed under greater pressure by National Park designation such as health, mountain and sea rescue, and the police.

Reporter conclusions on staffing arrangements

Discussion

171. As many responses have identified, this is a difficult question to respond to in detail without knowing what either the area of the National Park might be or the powers and functions of the National Park Authority. Nevertheless, there appears to be an appetite for a different approach to this Park Authority that is more in keeping with the public sector reform agenda and the need to make public funds go further.

Reporter Advice

172. The Scottish Government is placing greater priority on public sector reform and a range of proposals is being developed to take this forward. Reducing duplication, increasing efficiency and sharing resources between public bodies makes sense in terms of making public funding go further, but it also adds value in terms of delivering better outcomes locally. As a place-based approach to public sector delivery, National Parks would seem to be well-placed to contribute to this agenda and should be at the forefront of new thinking if the designation of this National Park was progressed.

173. Further detailed consideration will be needed on the scope to achieve these ambitions with the designation of this National Park. Greatest potential to deliver public sector reform is most likely if the powers and functions are retained by existing bodies with the National Park Authority instead focusing on strategic planning, co-ordination of activity and making partnerships work effectively. If the approach taken is more similar to the existing two National Parks, there may still be scope for sharing corporate functions with the existing National Park bodies as well as offices and equipment with Forestry and Land Scotland or other relevant public bodies operating in the area. With three National Parks, a single National Park agency or service could also become a more viable option to consider provided the existing governance arrangements for each National Park were safeguarded.

Key steps to ensure a new National Park operates in ways which are inclusive of ethnic minorities and other protected characteristics

174. Responses to this question were mixed, though there was general recognition from most respondents that the National Park should give positive encouragement to under-represented groups as well as proactively engage and consult with community organisations. A higher proportion of those opposed to the National Park felt the existing approach and protections were fine and that no further steps were needed to ensure inclusivity of ethnic minorities and people with protected characteristics.

175. The need for Board membership and staffing of the National Park Authority to include equality, diversity and inclusion expertise was noted together with the need for a Park Authority to proactively engage with a range of Disabled People’s Organisations and Access Panels and protected characteristic groups. Some suggested that at future stages of National Park development, the following aspects of accessibility and inclusion for disabled people would need to carefully considered: pathways, seating, buildings, toilets, transport, information and signage.

Reporter conclusions on inclusion of ethnic minorities and other protected characteristics

Discussion

176. This was an area of general consensus with a range of positive ideas and suggestions made for what measures could be put in place to ensure that a new National Park Authority complied with and demonstrated good practice on the equality duties placed on all public bodies.

Reporter Advice

177. This is an important issue for a National Park Authority to get right and there is considerable experience from the existing two National Parks to draw on in this area, including the Board membership, staff expertise and the establishment of advisory groups as such as the Cairngorms for all forum.

178. Further consideration should be given to how underrepresented groups can contribute to the next stages of the development of the proposed National Park, building on the work NatureScot has undertaken as Reporter. This should include closer working with the existing groups and structures established by the three local authorities. A shadow Park for all group could also be considered as part of the transition arrangements.

Name of the National Park

179. Less than 20% of all survey respondents agreed with the proposed name, “Kingdom of Galloway National Park”. Many responses questioned the rationale behind the inclusion of “Kingdom”. By far the most common alternative suggestion was “Galloway National Park”, though calls were also made for a name such as “Galloway and Carrick Forest”, “Galloway and Southern Ayrshire” or “Galloway and Ayrshire National Park” which Ayrshire communities could more readily relate to. Many supporters of longer, more geographically descriptive names acknowledged the likelihood of these being shortened to “Galloway National Park” in common usage. VisitScotland also noted the need to market test the name with potential visitors to it.

Reporter conclusions on the name of the National Park

Discussion

180. The name of the National Park is important for many reasons, and particularly for allowing both local communities to identify with it and for potential visitors to be attracted to visiting it. For these reasons, the best choice of name can only be finalised when the extent of the National Park has been decided.

Reporter Advice

181. For now, we suggest the following names should be considered further depending on the area option selected:

a) Core - Option A - Galloway and Ayrshire Hills National Park

b) Extensive - Option B - Galloway and Ayrshire National Park.

182. The revised name should also be tested again as part of any further consultation. VisitScotland and the South of Scotland Destination Alliance should be consulted further on the branding implications.

Other issues and sources of evidence to inform further assessment

183. There were a huge range of topics highlighted in response to this section, though there was very little said which had not been stated in response to earlier questions. Very few additional sources of evidence were cited – exceptions included the GSA Biosphere State of the Biosphere 2012-2022 report and the review of the economic and climate implications of the proposed National Park by Scottish Renewables. The need for a more detailed Health Impact Assessment building on the one prepared by NHS Ayrshire and Arran was noted.

184. Those opposed to the proposal expressed concern over the costs involved in a National Park, the lack of funding for infrastructure and services and a dissatisfaction in the consultation itself, including the lack of a referendum. Many also stated their view that a National Park would not create sustainable jobs but would result in greater bureaucracy.

185. In contrast, those in favour reiterated their support for the establishment of a new National Park. A significant number see the opportunity to have a new National Park model as well as the chance for the Park to work closely with other organisations, as well as the positive economic impacts a National Park would bring and the opportunity to influence policy in the area