NATIONAL PARK STAUS

[novus ordo seclorum]

Early in March The Executive will announce the creation of a new National Park. It is most likely that it will stretch from Mallaig to Crinan, inland as far as Loch Awe and include Jura, Scarba and Mull.
National Parks in Britain have three aims:
# To preserve and protect the natural beauty of the landscape.
# To provide a place for recreation and enjoyment.
# To protect the social and economic well-being of people who live and/or work in the National Park.
National Parks are managed by a National Park Authority which is controlled by a board made up of local people and representatives of local and national government. The board's remit is to:
# Provide information services.
# Manage traffic and provide car parks.
# Signpost and maintain footpaths for walkers.
# Provide wardens to help visitors.
# Buy land to preserve the landscape.
# Control the design of new nuildings.
# Manage and plant woodland.
# Advise farmers and landowners.
# Encourage job creation for local people.

[Minimum]

Sounds like a lot of money is needed for all this - where's it coming from?

Lots more coaches down our way then?

More jet skis echoing around Toberonochy?

Such fun!!

[NickB]

Inasmuch as it will result in tighter planning controls.

Then again, it might be a bad thing because it results in tighter planning controls . . .

Perhaps the Park authority will adopt a 'new houses for locals only' regime such as that adopted in one of the English National Parks (I forget which one) and currently being considered by the Caringorm park authority.

You can't hope to preserve the place in aspic like some kind of Brigadoon, so a National Park may be a good compromise, stopping bad development and promoting good development, with an emphasis on housing and jobs for locals. The downside is that house prices will definiitely rise even faster than the current rate.

- Nick

[Pentlandpirate]

with an emphasis on housing and jobs for locals. The downside is that house prices will definiitely rise even faster than the current rate.

Don't worry, they have a solution for providing new, well built, modestly priced housing.

They are called flats. And they are building them everywhere.

[Pentlandpirate]

More seriously:

There was talk of it, but actually there are no restrictions on who can buy property or live in the English Lake District National Park.

You get a few pros and cons for National Parks in the following link
http://www.amblesideonline.co.uk/people.html

[wasseventhseil]

[To preserve and protect the natural beauty of the landscape.
# To provide a place for recreation and enjoyment. ]

That sounds like "playground" to me, from what I have heard the desicion is being made by a group of 24 quango members in Edinburgh.Having attended some of the early forum meetings about the Firth of Lorne MSAC I am not very hopeful about the outcome of a National Park, there seemed to be few representatives of the major public bodies involved who had a clue about either where they were or what they were doing.

I think as usual the people most affected will be lowest down on the financial and social ladder, as J. MacAlister of Mallaig & N.W. fishermans Assoc. said(I'm paraphrasing here), soon the only endangered species on the west coast will be local people.

Is it not down in Devon where the have a percentage of housing that can be sold as 2nd homes ??

Good idea about the flats,some 2 story farmhouse style biuldings separated into flats is not such a bad idea.......
[/quote]

[Minimum]

An excellent article, Pentland Pirate. Plenty to think about there!

It's bad enough living in a conservation area with all the restrictions that are imposed on us regarding improvement to our properties for life in the 21st century, let alone yet more restrictions on what we can and cannot do.

I did enjoy the point that an excess of tourism has damaging environmental and social effects. And even more approved of the definition of "ordinary citizen" (permenant & only home in the area).

Perhaps the most relevant bit was the suggestion that any proposed developments might "be crushed at birth by National Park priorities, backed no doubt by an articulate minority of the resident retired who have entered local councils and amenity groups in order to prevent "unwanted" development." Isn't this something Nick & Seventheil have mentioned in previous discussions?

(Reminder to self: Send mother-in-law off to PP tomorrow!)

[elephantseal]

Nice to read in today's Oban Times ( 'Mallaig says no to Marine National Park' , p.4) that there is a proper discussion beginning about the pro, and more likely negative of a national park being foisted upon us.

To quote John Hermse, the secreatry of Mallaig and Northwest Fisherman's Association
"People from the Butt to Barra Head and Cape Wrath to the Mull of Kintyre have all shown dissollusion at the rather biased SNH consultation which as always carried the rather subliminal message that marine parks will be an accolade to the chosen area, and this from a body that is supposedly giving an unbiased view to to the minister. It is important to let the silent majority be heard and listened to "

Here here! While I am not against, in principle, the idea of designations for truly vulnerable areas (in terms of landscape or species) I think it is a very sorry road we will be heading along if the Firth of Lorne becomes a National Park. The consultation by SNH does indeed smack of a decision already made - i.e that parks are wonderful and anybody who says otherwise is living in the yesteryear and needs to get with 'the conservation programme'.

There are sufficient desgnations already in place, which if they were monitored or enforced properly, would more than suffice. A National Park structure would encase the area in a shiny coating (and probably thousands of 'interpretation boards' at each lay-by for people too lazy to even get out their cars) but do very little for the real problems that affect the area, as well discussed on this website.

[wasseventhseil]

Thank goodness! a purveyor of common sense, National parks seem to have a very wide remit. Unfortunatly each of their strategy's seem to be at odds with the idea of a national park.

At the end of the day it is another tool in the tourist trap, one we seem to have fallen into, after all there is nothing ecological about eco-tourism.

I also note that the meeting was so unimportant that it was pushed back to page 4 by the important news that Oban High School had held a production of "Grease". Well done the O.Times for editorial exelence and investigative journalism, perhaps if the Duke of Argyll had been in attendance it would have merited a front page spread!

[elephantseal]

I was pleased to see today (Oban Times) the George Lyon MSP has called for a delay in the executive's descision on the MNP to let more consultation take place. To quote from the article

' Fishing representatives feared for their livelihoods and islanders feared they would have little say in the management of a coastal and marine national park '

Well now, funnily enough should one turn to the letters page of the same paper they will find an angry letter from a resident in Balloch describing how the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park has only 20% (5 out of 25) of their board members directly elected by the local population (none of whom have to actually live in the park area). And the remaining 80%? - you guessed it - appointed directly or indirectly by Scottish Ministers! Hurrah for Local Democracy!

Let's drop the silly MNP concept now and actually work with the democratic bodies we have - executive, council etc to bring in new people to Argyll while retaining this wonderful place we live in. The West Highlands were never about countless quango bodies telling people what they can and can't do - they are a place where there is enough room for everyone to be happy and productive.

STOP THE MNP!

[wasseventhseil]

Another warning from the media, this time from the second home loving Herald news paper ,seemingly a study carried out by two universitys have found that over the next 20 years if things continue as they are in the Cairngorms there will be an 80% increase in retirees moving to the area.
coupled with a 30% drop in people under 36.
Property has already started its meteoric price rise and they reckon they would have to biuld approx 160 houses every year to provide "affordable " housing for young familys. As usual this is being ignored by Rhona Brankin and the emphasis is still on houses to buy rather than to let............



too right STOP THE MNP!!!!

[elephantseal]

So let's summarise;

Huge increase in already overpriced houses
Almost certain lack of local consultation
Increase in beaurocracy levels

And add your own options;

More 4x4's?
Car Parking charges for any piece of tarmac bigger than a few sq. m.(aka N.T.S. etc)
Luxury golf course? (aka Loch Lomond & Trossachs)


Sounds wonderful. The idea just gets better and better everytime I think about it! Ho hum

[wasseventhseil]

Just heard Garry.granma's favourite.Robertson's show on Radio scotland another gem from within the MNP debate....I fear for this area,I think we are about to become a marine theme park with interpritation centres every where.....hopefully we can stop this going ahead before its too late.

[elephantseal]

I thought Worther's Original were Grannies favourite. Maybe Gary Robertson is sweeter.

I heard a bit of the discussion too. Nice to hear the Mull bongilees getting their voices heard on how many thousands of interpretation boards they think they need.

[Minimum]

I see from the Cirmgorm National Park report that any future housing development inthe area should include affordable housing for those living and working in the park area.

And for those of us who approve of inclusion for everyone, a recent article in the Big Issue explains how a new social partnership has been set up with the Cairngorm Park to make it accessible to people who have not traditionally visited it, in this case the homeless folk. It seems there may be some positive outcomes after all!

[wasseventhseil]

Is that affordable housing to buy or let.......?
Mabey we should extend social inclusion to the SNH, I do not see many homless or underpriveliged persons working for them.
Unless being from the home county's and having a degree in "enviromental studies" while wearing a jumper knitted from hemp counts..........