THIS REPORT RELATES COUNCIL TO ITEM ON THE AGENDA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES COMMITTEE

6 SEPTEMBER 2001 NOT EXEMPT

LOCH LOMOND AND THE NATIONAL PARK DRAFT DESIGNATION ORDER CONSULTATION RESPONSE

1 PURPOSE

1.1 To comment to the Scottish Ministers on the proposal for the designation of the new National Park for Lomond and the Trossachs.

2 SUMMARY

2.1 This is the last consultation on the establishment of the National Park and focuses on boundaries, powers and representation. The progress towards establishing the National Park is welcomed, however it is recommended that the Council argues for the inclusion of Killin as an area within the National Park, and argues for the exclusion of Loch Earn and St Fillans. It is also proposed that the Council again seeks confirmation that the Scottish Executive will ensure that the National Park is wholly and adequately funded with no adverse impact on local authority capital or revenue budgets.

3 RECOMMENDATION(S)

3.1 That the Council welcomes the continuing progress towards the designation of the new National Park for Loch Lomond and the Trossachs.

3.2 That the detailed comments based on this report are submitted by the Director of Environmental Services as the Council’s response to the consultations being carried out by the Scottish Ministers on the Draft Designation Order.

3.3 That the Council seeks early confirmation from the Scottish Executive that the National Park will be centrally funded, and its establishment will have no adverse impacts on capital or revenue budgets.

4 CONSIDERATIONS

Background

4.1 Stirling Council and its predecessors have been a long time supporter of the establishment of a National Park for the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\ENVIRONMENTAL\REPORTS\EQ20010906-EQ195MS.DOC area. The Council responded to the consultation on boundaries and powers carried by SNH, acting as “reporter” on the proposals for the National Park, (Stirling Council report 8 March 2001). In that response to consultation, the Council’s position on the area was that it should be restricted to the core area. Comments on the other aspects of the powers and responsibilities have largely been reflected in the Draft Designation Order. The detailed response to be submitted is given in full as appendix, however the following paragraphs deal with those areas of most contention.

Area of the Park – Boundaries.

4.2 There are 3 contentious parts of the Park, where it is considered that the boundaries proposed by the Executive in the designation order would not be in the best interests of the National Park, the respective communities, or the Council; these are considered individually below (see attached Map). The criteria for an area to be included in the National Park, specified in the National Park Act , sect 1(2), are:-

a) Outstanding national importance because of natural, or combination of natural and cultural heritage. b) Distinctive character and coherent identity. c) Designation would meet the special needs of the area and would be the best means of ensuring that the National Park aims are achieved in a co-ordinated way.

The aims of National Parks are specified in the Act as: - a) Conserve and enhance natural and cultural heritage. b) Promote sustainable use of natural resources of the area. c) Promote understanding and enjoyment (including recreation) of special qualities if the area. d) Promote sustainable economic and social development of areas communities.

4.3 Killin and east Glen Dochart - this area is excluded, and it is recommended that the Council argues for its inclusion in the National Park, because it clearly meets the criteria for inclusion; it is also argued that the inclusion of Killin will add to the quality of the National Park; operationally the Park and Council boundaries should coincide.

4.4 Loch Earn and St Fillans - this area is included, and it is recommended that the Council argue for its exclusion from the National Park, because it does not meet the criteria for inclusion. It is also argued that as this area is of separate cultural and administrative character, that its inclusion would lead to unbalanced representation, confusion and poor service delivery. The argument for the inclusion of Loch Earn is founded on the management of the water body, and a convincing case that this is less easy or unachievable through other mechanisms has not been made; a similar argument could be made for Loch Tay.

4.5 Port and Lake of ; this area is included. It is recommended that the Council does not argue for either the inclusion or exclusion, but questions the wisdom of including this area which is not fundamental to the integrity of the new National Park when there is opposition from the local community.

4.6 There are some local boundary positions which may not be the most appropriate or effective. These may be identified by local community and Members. An example would be the Pots of Gartness, where the hamlet is

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\ENVIRONMENTAL\REPORTS\EQ20010906-EQ195MS.DOC excluded. These will be considered for inclusion in the Council’s response in consultation with the Local Member and Chair if necessary.

Representation

4.7 With the addition of part of Perth and Kinross Council’s area, the representation of the Council on the National Park Authority reduces from 5 members to 4, (one of which is to be a “local” member), to allow a member from Perth and Kinross to become a member of the Authority. Given the size of the population, which Stirling Council represents, within the Park, the number of members is democratically disproportionate, given that Stirling Council area will include 56% of the population and Perth and Kinross 2%. Appropriate Local Authority representation is essential in that the Park Authority with limited powers will require to work in partnership with the Council if it is to fulfil its obligations.

Powers

4.8 The powers of the proposed Park Authority are similar to those of the previous consultations, and include all planning powers except structure planning. This accords with the Council’s previous position, and no comments on this aspect are proposed.

5 POLICY IMPLICATIONS

5.1 The establishment of the National Park for Loch Lomond and the Trossachs has long been an aim of the Council. The reduced representation of the Council on the Park Authority would be contrary to the Council objective of encouraging local democracy. The inclusion of part of Perth and Kinross within the Park and the exclusion of the Killin area would not be in the interests of Quality Service Provision, or in creating a “natural” unit for tourism and visitor management purposes.

6 CONSULTATIONS

6.1 None outwith the Council; the Scottish Executive is undertaking this consultation exercise, including public meetings throughout the area.

7 RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

7.1 None consequential on the subject of this paper, but the establishment of the National Park will have some resource implications for next years revenue budgeting.

8 BACKGROUND PAPERS

8.1 Environmental Quality Committee Report - 24 February 2000

8.2 Stirling Council Committee Report - 8 March 2001

8.3 Stirling Council Committee Report - 28 June 2001

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\ENVIRONMENTAL\REPORTS\EQ20010906-EQ195MS.DOC Author(s) Name Designation Tel No/Extension

Mick Stewart Head of Planning & Ext 2958 Environmental Strategy

Approved by Name Designation Signature

David Martin Director of Environmental Services

Date 24 August 2001 Reference

N:\DEMSUPP\NEWDECISIONS\ENVIRONMENTAL\REPORTS\EQ20010906-EQ195MS.DOC