Parallels with the LLTNPA and Flamingo Land
Large numbers of people now appear to have lost confidence in both the Lake District and Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Authorities. There is almost certainly very little overlap between the 56,000 or so people who submitted objections to the Flamingo Land Planning Application and the objectors in the Lakes: the 300,000 who signed the petition against 4 x 4 use and the 16,500 who objected to the Thirlmere zip wire. What the objectors have in common, however, is a deeply felt concern for our National Parks, a belief that they should be different and a preparedness to defend the National Parks against inappropriate tourism developments. That is something both National Parks ignore at their peril.
That public concern is now being reflected in political concern. The parallels between Keswick Town Council’s unanimous vote of no confidence in the LDNPA and the decision by West Dunbartonshire Council to object unanimously to the Flamingo Land Planning Application are striking.
The response of senior staff in both National Parks has been the same, to dismiss the concerns expressed by local democratically elected representatives speaking on behalf of their constituents. In the case of Flamingo Land the LLTNPA planners, in their report to the Board Meeting which would have heard the Application had it not been (temporarily) withdrawn, rejected Councillors’ concerns about the increased traffic in Balloch which would stem from the development. Instead they decided to rely on the views of Council Officers and Transport Scotland, neither of whom were concerned about the increase in traffic, to ignore their own policies on promoting “sustainable transport” and act as if a Climate Emergency had never been declared. This arrogant “we know best” attitude, which twists policy commitments to promote development, is shared by both National Parks.
What is different between the two National Parks, however, is that one of the most prominent critics of the Lake District National Park sits on their Board. Councillor Tony Lywood (Labour), who is also an elected member for Keswick and has helped lead the opposition, was quoted in the Guardian as saying:
“As someone said at the Keswick town council meeting, ‘This is the Lake District National Park not the Lake District Theme Park,’”
Exactly!
It would be nice to think that the example of Tony Elwood will inspire a member of the LLTNPA to challenge their ruling hierarchy, support West Dunbartonshire Councillors and speak out against the swathe of development now threatening the south west shore of Loch Lomond (see here).
At the end of the day, however, if National Park Authorities, whether in England or Scotland, continue to ignore public opinion they risk their political legitimacy. Far from undermining the concept of National Parks, public opposition to our National Park Authorities appears based on concerns that they are not delivering what they were set up to do, which is primarily about conserving the natural environment and enabling people to enjoy this without destroying it. The political challenge is to reform our National Park Authorities so that they start delivering their statutory aims instead of acting, as they are at present, like third rate tourism development agencies.
LLTNP had the makings of a proper NP when Bill Dalrymple was in charge. Then came the colour revolution and the imperialist regime change op when Logan and Cantlay invaded. The whole atmosphere changed. I’ve done loads of engaging and consulting and meeting with Gov staff. So long as your reasonable and show honest enthusiasm for your interest, you’re not there to gossip and spy on people, you can cultivate their trust and enjoy good relations. It’s a nuisance when they’re on short 2-3 year contracts because when they go you have to start from scratch with their replacements. But you could always find plenty to work with constructively. Throughout those times, even if the info was in the public domain, I would never name drop anyone in my letters to the press and not least because that was no use to me to waste time like that. All of that just dried up across the board. But it was very noticeable to me with the NP. The Planning Dept, especially. became very combative. I had won a Local Plan Inquiry to acknowledge the R Leven fisheries in the WDC Local Plan…..which covered the river up to the barrage/NP Boundary. So far so good. Now for all of the discussions/meetings there were about integrated catchment management…the River Basin Management Plans….you might think the NP would just follow suit for the river between the barrage and The Loch ….they were promoting and encouraging all of that. No…they were having none of it and neither was the Reporter who didn’t know the difference between a fish and the fisheries….a human activity and a legal title. Of course, the planners made sure to get distinctions like that thoroughly confused…as did WDC and Glasgow City Council. Really they were just cutting the public out and that made a mockery of all of their PR, sales and marketing talk about “participation.” If that’s coming from one who knows a bit about planning and the likes….random members of the public had to be thoroughly frozen out of the proceedings of LLTNP. And yes…..the tourism budget did look like it was the only budget at times and it was birdseed for the rest.