The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 660 contributions
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 27 November 2024
Maurice Golden
Thank you for that. From the evidence that we have received, it appears that part of the issue is that there are no discernible benefits relating specifically to a national park. That applies even to some of the aspects that you have mentioned, such as dementia centres—Kirrie Connections, for example, is not in a national park area. There are also bike trails all over Scotland that are not the direct result of a national park. What, in your view, are the benefits that can be gleaned only via a national park?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 27 November 2024
Maurice Golden
Would you envisage a Galloway national park as having some of the facets that the other national parks have, such as Aviemore and Loch Lomond Shores?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 13 November 2024
Maurice Golden
Thanks for that. With onshore wind projects, for example, we have found that Scotland is broadly supportive of them until they are close by. It might be quite interesting to consider that same element in any further research on national parks.
Obviously, the consultation period is just starting, but I am interested in the vision for Galloway national park, in particular, and in how communities can assess whether they want it for their area. Is the vision very similar to those of the existing national parks, or is it slightly different?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 13 November 2024
Maurice Golden
I repeat that the NFUS has said that
“existing national parks have failed to make a positive contribution to farming and crofting.”
What is different about the proposed Galloway national park that will change that, or will farmers and crofters in Galloway make the same assessment?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 13 November 2024
Maurice Golden
I am a little bit concerned about closing the petition when we have not yet seen the guidance that the Scottish Government has published. We could write to the Minister for Public Finance to seek further information on when that guidance will be published, an update on work to progress proposals for raising the current 50MW threshold to allow planning authorities to determine more applications for onshore wind farms, and more information on what consideration the Scottish Government has given to ensuring that support is available to members of the public who wish to participate in public inquiries.
I fear that we are reaching the end of our involvement with the petition, but there are still some actions that we could undertake.
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 13 November 2024
Maurice Golden
I have a final question. NatureScot’s website says that
“farmers and crofters do not face any additional bureaucracy within National Parks”
and that they can receive additional support. However, NFU Scotland has said that the majority of its members feel that
“existing national parks have failed to make a positive contribution to farming and crofting.”
What is your response to those concerns?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 13 November 2024
Maurice Golden
Thank you, convener, and I welcome the witnesses to the meeting.
I will start at the beginning. When the existing national parks were assessed, what sort of evidence was sought or research conducted to inform whether a new park should be put in place?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 13 November 2024
Maurice Golden
I am slightly confused. Is the consultation about various iterations of the Galloway national park, including its geography and the infrastructure that it might house, or is the consultation about whether the park should or should not go ahead?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 13 November 2024
Maurice Golden
I think so, but it leads me on to what is quite a concerning aspect of this issue. How can communities make an assessment of whether they want something when that thing is not defined? For some people, it would be beneficial if the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park did not have the Loch Lomond Shores centre, while others might want something of that scale, because of the economic benefits. By the time that you have layered on proposals on climate change and biodiversity, there might be a number of quite compelling but competing visions for what the Galloway national park would do.
Did you consider doing the consultation in two parts, first, by gaining views, and, secondly, by showcasing those views to communities so that they could decide what might be delivered as a result? Does that make sense?
Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee
Meeting date: 30 October 2024
Maurice Golden
From the evidence that we have heard so far, it strikes me that perhaps the starting point in all this is to have a definition of a national park and what it should achieve. For some people, it might be a pristine landscape without any land management, in which case, biodiversity will undoubtedly reduce. Loch Lomond and the Trossachs clearly has lots of tourism—Loch Lomond Shores has amazing facilities to attract tourists—but then the national park did not want more tourists to go there. Before we get to the stage of presenting to the people of Galloway, we need a starting point as to what we are presenting.
Nick Kempe has touched on this, but, based on the two existing national parks, is there an adequate definition of what a new national park might look like and what the experience would be for both visitors and local residents?
10:15