Last summer the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National ParK Authority (LLTNPA) advised those who had responded to its much delayed (see here) Outdoor Recreation Plan (ORP) tthat it had decideded to incorporate it into the next National Park Partnership Plan (NPPP) (see here). The draft NPPP is to be considered by the LLTNPA Board today, prior to being issued for consultation, uses the term outdoor recreation just twice (and one of those is in the references).
The paper introducing the new NPPP (see here) fails to make any mention of the commitment to include the work done on developing the OR in it. Instead, it sets three new priorities reflecting the Scottish Government’s changing agenda, restorIng nature, a low carbon destination and a greener economy/ sustainable living. There is no explanation of how these new priorities relate to the LLTNTPA’s statutory duty to promote public enjoyment of the area. Those aims are only mentioned in passing in the NPPP.
Then in a sleight of hand that, if accepted, will enable the LLTNPA to renege on it’s outdoor recreation commitments entirely, the paper says the NPPP only contains high level proposals and no details! The detail from the ORP, which the LLTNPA said would be in the NPPP, magicked away!
I will consider the NPPP and what it says about outdoor recreation in more detail once it is issued for consultation but meantime here is a flavour:
“In some places, where climate and nature considerations need to be given greater weight, action will be required to restrict visitor demand where capacity is an issue. At the same time, we will need to develop and invest in more services and infrastructure in popular places.”
This isn’t consultation – the places where the LLTNPA thinks nature and climate need to be given greater weight are not mentioned – but top down solutions from management. Instead of improving public transport, so people can go for a walk in the countryside, this apology for a National Park would prefer to restrict visitors.to a few popular places where it and others can take the money in.
Got it in one, Nick! No detail!! Fundamentally, LLTTNPA spout aims/visions ad infinitum but appear to be totally inept when it comes to how they will be carried out in actuality. Examples of this include the Trees and Woodland Strategy, Revised Outdoor Recreation Plan (Active Park, Healthy People; Outdoor Recreation Delivery Plan) and Future Nature. Just what do the ‘hierarchy’ of LLTNPA do other than pen-push and produce expensive picturesque documents? According to Simon Jones, Director of Environment, nature in The Park is in crisis. One has to ask what the ‘management’ have been doing all these years?? The only finite plans LLTNPA appear to be capable of producing these days are rules and Byelaws. First came the Loch Lomond Byelaws ( which are currently being updated / increased / augmented); Camping Byelaws and now apparently Visitor management / curtailment. Including the Outdoor Recreation Plan (and it was not as inclusive as it claimed) in the Partnership Plan is one way of changing the goal posts. Changing the goal posts muddies the waters, which in turn makes it difficult for anyone (including themselves and especially the ever changing make-up of the Board) to track success or failure of LLTNPA’s so called visions or plans ( delivery or not!)
Is it beginning to dawn that none of this has anything to do with “improving the environment” for anyone except the elite who would prefer to be able to enjoy it without the proles cluttering it up?
I’ve always despised that term “Outdoor Recreation.” That’s the carpet they sweep the salmon and freshwater fisheries under. I’ve always wanted the legal status of the salmon and freshwater fisheries properly acknowledged and the NP have done everything in their power to obscure and conceal that. Old WDC habits die hard. They literally do not want people to know what their legal rights are. It would not be a case of them providing legal advice. That is a solicitors job. They could just point to the legal information in the public domain, like I did in the local press, and add a disclaimer that it’s not legal advice. That would enable people to find out for themselves. But no we can’t have that. Let’s keep everyone in the dark. You could not make it up. One time, at a meeting in Clydebank and after I’d given him shed loads on the salmon and freshwater fisheries, Gil Paterson MSP got up and declared, “There’s no fisheries here.” I was out of my seat. The nutcase was literally standing on the Clyde Salmon Fishery District. Another time the SNP were in the Town Hall, betting no one had a clue about the Clyde. They actually said it, “Oh! Shit. He knows.” Then there’s Labour. They could not keep a goldfish. Meanwhile, the Big 4 on the East Coast are loving it. I’ve got it in writing from A Wallace then of the Assoc of Salmon Fisheries Boards. “No appetite on the Clyde.” They died and went to heaven with all the extra funding and support they got due to the dereliction and neglect this end. People here really believe “there’s no money for it” because of the lies they’re told. I joined the Tweed Foundation to find out how things are done. We’re a total joke. Ask anyone in salmon and freshwater fisheries in Scotland and they’ll tell you the same thing. It’s “Carry On Angling.”