|
North Knapdale Community Council Achnamara. Bellanoch. Cairnbaan. Crinan. Tayvallich. Coastal and Marina National Park Consultation FINAL RESPONSE FROM NKCC AND CRAIGNISH CC
MEETING OF THE NORTH KNAPDALE COMMUNITY COUNCIL EGM HELD ON 7TH DECEMBER 2006 AT CRINAN HOTEL AT 7.45PM
Present Hugh Semple (Chairman), John Clark (Vice Chairman), Peter Donaldson (Secretary), Jilly Wilson, Tim Hedley, Audrey Martin (A&BC), Kevin Williams (A&BC), and 18 members of the public.
1. Apologies Fiona MacArthur, Gordon MacMillan, Bruce Robertson. Four members of the public (Kay Miller, Will Self, Alec Howie, Tony Bennet)
2. Chairman’s Welcome The Chairman welcomed members of the community, and Audrey Martin & Kevin Williams from A&BC Development Projects Unit. He introduced Audrey Martin, and reminded the meeting that she would be presenting information on the proposed Coastal & Marine National Park (CMNP), as someone who has been involved in the consultation process for some time.
He stressed that A&BC are not the promoters of the park, and that any concerns should be directed towards the Scottish Executive
3. Presentation by Audrey Martin, A&BC Development Projects Unit Audrey explained that her department has been responsible for considering A&BC’s response to the Scottish Executive document “Consultation Paper on proposals to establish Scotland’s first Coastal and Marine National Park”.
A summary of her presentation:
§ The current consultation was launched on 10th October 2006, and ends on 10th January 2007. This is a short timescale for such a complex subject.
§ There will be only one public ‘stakeholder’ event – 13th December in Oban
§ The consultation document covers:
1. Added value and benefits of CMNP. Audrey noted that the key considerations for A&BC will be different to NKCC, and that A&BC consider the CMNP must significantly contribute to social and economic development.
2. Selecting the location. There are 10 possible locations, with 5 ‘strongest candidates’. However, Argyll Islands and Coast and Ardnamurchan, Small Isles and the South Sky Coast are considered the strongest candidates of the five.
3. Functions, power & governance. There are three possible options for governance of the park:
§ Option 1 – CMNP as Planner & Enabler. Planner in this contest refers only to establishing a park plan (not land-based). This is the lowest impact option § Option 2 – CMNP as Planner, Enabler & Manager. This option would allow CMNP to be a consul tee on various issues § Option 3 – CMNP as Planner, Enabler, Manager & Regulator. This is the highest impact option, where the Park Authority would subsume some of the LA powers, including Town & Country Planning within the park.
§ Park Board. The consultation also asks for opinion on the make up of the Park Board. Proposing a maximum size of 25 and made up of a high percentage of local representation as well as nationally appointed members.
§ Resources. A&BC consider it imperative that level of resource requirements are correctly calculated and provided to the Local Authority so that they are able to deliver statutory functions within the park (eg transport, access, waste, leisure, etc)
§ The Next Steps, A&BC has negotiated an extension to the consultation for themselves only (end Jan ’07) in order that their Strategic policy Committee can consider the proposals in January.
If Ministers then decide to proceed there will be a further statutory consultation on a draft proposal and draft orders for the chosen area
Parliamentary approval will then be sought before the Park Authority can be established.
Timescale is for all this to be achieved by late 2008.
The Chairman thanked Audrey for her presentation, and opened the floor to Questions:
1. Have Argyll & Bute Council had time to properly consider the scope of the project and its implications for the community?
There are some parts of the consultation where it is difficult to establish what the implications will be. For example, there is very little detail on the impact of the CMNP on Fisheries, and still questions about the potential added value. Other areas are clearer, such as the options for governance models. A&BC consider that the CMNP could benefit areas within Argyll – particularly on some of our islands where depopulation and struggling economies are an issue – provided management is good. Where there is detail missing from the consultation document, the only option is to compare the proposal to the two terrestrial parks – Cairngorms (CNP) and Loch Lomond & the Trossachs (LLTNP).
2. Can you explain a bit more about the models of governance?
Option 1 represents a ‘light touch’ and would involve little obvious change. It would be very local and low key, reflecting the local community needs. The Park Authority would have no particular powers.
Option 2 includes a management role. This option would enable the Park Authority to actively manage activity within its boundaries. It would probably be a statutory consultee on Town & Country Planning and other community issues and have the ability to manage communities within the park according to their own needs.
Option 3. For comparative purposes, LLTNP represents ‘Option 3’ where the Park Authority has responsibility for Town & Country Planning, and other regulatory powers previously held by the local authority. This is the ‘weightiest’ governance option.
3. Other National Parks in the UK, eg Lake District, are ‘honey pots’ and could be considered ‘double-edged’ swords. That is, good for the economy, but hard for those who live within the boundaries and are inundated with tourists
Other UK NPs are not good comparators. These areas were already ‘honey-pots’, and the motive behind creating NPs was to manage the economy & tourism rather than to promote economic & social development. While economic benefit is a key consideration for A&BC, it is unlikely that here will be a sudden, large, influx of tourists
4. Under Option 2, which is A&BC’s preferred option, what will be the effect for local fishermen?
The consultation document states that the Inshore Fisheries Groups (IFGs) will ‘continue’ to manage fisheries within the park boundaries. However, IFGs are not yet in place in Argyll; those that are proposed would mean that there will be two separate IFGs within the park boundary; it is difficult to say what might happen should the IFGs and Park Authority disagree.
Inshore Fisheries Groups are currently being rolled out by the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department (SEERAD). They are run by existing local organisations, are about 12 groups, and are/will be responsible for the management of fisheries at the local, rather than strategic, level. It is important to note that IFGs are being/will be established independently of any CMNP. 5. Under Option 2, would Town and Country Planning responsibility remain with Argyll & Bute Council?
Yes. Both options 1 & 2 would mean that T&C planning – local plan, applications, development control, etc would remain with the Local Authority.
6. Would this then mean that the existing planning officers would then be working to two separate systems – one for within the park boundaries, and one for out-with?
No. The CMNP Authority would be responsible for developing a ‘Park Plan’. This plan would not be land-based, rather a statement of aims & objectives for the Park. The Local Authority would continue to deal with planning issues in line with the existing local & strategic plans, but with cognisance of the Park Plan, and the Park Authority would most likely be one of the statutory consultees in relation to T&C planning matters
7. Is it the case that there WILL be a CMNP, and that the only issue is its location?
Yes. There is ministerial commitment to the establishment of a CMNP. Neither the original instruction to SNH to suggest candidate areas for designation, nor the current consultation document, ask whether there should be a CMNP.
A political commitment has been made, and the only possible change to that commitment might come if there were a significant change in Parliament following the elections in May 2007.
8. Returning to Fisheries, one of the background documents makes reference to ‘exclusion zones’, is it not obtuse to say that there will be little or no effect to local fishermen. Otherwise, why have the designation?
The text of the consultation document is very light on reference to fisheries. And the problem with stating IFGs will be responsible for management is that there are none in operation in Argyll and it is unclear whether they or the park authority will have the ultimate say. This requires clarification from the Scottish Executive.
9. Does documentation exist regarding the Inshore Fisheries Groups, and where can it be accessed?
www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2005/11/21142645 www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2005/03/sfifs/6 www.scottishexecutive.gov.uk/News/Releases/2005/03/18110413
10. Communities are concerned that the CMNP governance would be similar to existing Scottish Executive bodies where decision making often sits with academics far removed from the area on which their decision impacts. What control would Argyll & Bute Council have over appointees to the Park Board, and what control would the Scottish Executive Have?
A&BC share this concern and are of the opinion that the majority of individuals making up the Park Board should live and work within the CMNP. Existing NPs have a mixture of appointees and elected members.
11. Has A&BC estimated the financial implications if the CMNP were to be within its jurisdiction?
No
12. Is it likely that there will be reduction in the cost of delivering services?
It is impossible to say at this stage what the actual financial implications will be for A&BC as the details have not yet been established. However, resource availability must be one of the considerations for the Scottish Executive.
13. It appears that A&BC is focussing on economic development rather than environmental protection. Why is this?
A&BC’s key considerations will differ from those of individual communities. Environmental Protection is a key driver in the creation of a CMNP, but without added value & benefit to the area (i.e. economic and social development), there is little advantage to the communities living within the park.
14. Do we not already have the mechanisms in place to protect our environment, and to promote Argyll’s natural & social heritage (ie Visit Scotland, SNH, Historic Scotland, etc)? Why do we need an additional authority?
This is a National Policy issue. There is already a National Policy commitment to establishing a CMNP, and ‘our’ job is to make the best of it if the decision is to locate it in Argyll.
15. Will there be a greater influx of tourists to the area, and do we have the infrastructure to cope?
There will not necessarily be a large influx of tourists. Argyll is very diverse and, for example, some areas may want to attract more tourists, and some may want to be more protectionist. These issues would be addressed in the creation of a Park Plan and will reflect the diversity of communities within its boundaries.
There will be a full consultation similar to that for A&BC Local Plan before a Park Plan is adopted and the key will be solid community representation at that time.
16. The impression of the meeting is that this consultation document is extremely vague, and it very difficult to make proper representations when you are not sure of the details you are being consulted about. What is the CMNP actually trying to achieve?
The proposed CMNP is not, and will not be a ‘one size fits all’ model, and many of the details will not be established until an area is chosen, and a Park Plan discussed with the local communities. It is likely to be very diverse to reflect the communities within the park boundaries. However, more clarity is required from the Scottish Executive
The key message is that a CMNP will almost definitely be established, and that it is more than likely to be the Argyll Coast & Islands. It is, therefore, important that the community should make its views clear with regard to governance structure as well as any other representation.
17. The focus of the consultation document seems to be on the coastal and landward implications, with very little reference to marine implications.
This noted, and should be brought up in community response
18. The UK Government is currently considering the implementation of a Marine Bill. Is it likely that the Scottish Executive will slow down the process of creating the CMNP until its consultation process is complete?
There is no indication that this might happen. A&BC was granted an extension until the end of January so that the Strategic Policy Committee could give consideration to the response. There is no likelihood of any further extensions to this round of consultation
19. It seems ludicrous that there is to be only one stakeholder event in Argyll given the geography of the area. The message is ‘we will not consult all the affected communities’
A&BC did request further events but were advised that resources were not available to do this. There is only one event being held in each of the candidate areas.
20. There is a great uneasiness that his consultation process is being ‘rushed’ so that communities are not in a position to make an informed response.
This statement reflects the general mood of the meeting, and further comments included “woolly”, “vague”, “non-consultation”, “why fix if not broken”, “bull-dozing”, etc
21. Is there any statistical data available on the impact of exiting parks – either in UK or abroad – that demonstrate financial gain to the area?
While existing parks are not necessarily directly comparable, work has been carried out and can be found in SNH background documents to the consultation. These can be found on the SNH website
22. Has consideration been given to the economic impact of sailors and other marine leisure activities?
There are no specific questions regarding marine leisure in the consultation document. The Clyde Coastal Forum is addressing this issue for their area, but there is no equivalent body or representation on the Western seaboard.
23. Can we have establish the meeting’s opinion on which is the preferable governance model, and on the potential make-up of a Park Board?
The general mood of the meeting was still why should we have it at all? These questions were not pursued at this stage. The chair asked that everyone give thought to the matter over the holidays, and to let their community representatives know their opinion early in the New Year. NKCC will then submit a response to the Scottish Executive.
The meeting was then reminded that the Scottish Executive will be holding a ‘Stakeholder’ event on Wednesday 13th December 2006 at the Argyllshire Gathering, Breadalbane Street, Oban, starting at 9.15am. NKCC will make sure a representative attends.
The chairman then rounded up the meeting, giving special thanks to Audrey Martin for agreeing to assist with this difficult topic.
|
