Transport Scotland has gone silent about its plans (see here) to upgrade the A82 along Loch Lomond since the Helensburgh and Distict Access Trust (HADAT) lodged a complaint with Audit Scotland about the process last summer (see here).  It is good to see that HADAT is keeping up the pressure, both with its petition to the Scottish Parliament asking for an alternative route to be considered (you can sign here) and with wider publicity such as this excellent letter published in the Herald last week.

Why, one might ask, doesn’t Loch Lomond deserve to be protected every much as Killiekrankie?  This post will consider the impact the proposed upgrade would have on ancient woodland and will argue that as a result of new Scottish Government policy Transport Scotland’s proposed route now needs to be changed.

One of the reasons the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Authority (LLTNPA) used ten years ago for introducing the camping byelaws was the alleged impact that campers had on ancient woodland.  The presence of ancient woodland was used to justify the camping management zone along the west shore of Loch Lomond, the same corridor of trees that would be affected by Transport Scotland’s proposals to upgrade the A82 between Tarbet and Inverarnan!

The hypocrisy and double thinking of the LLTNPA in respect to protecting the west shore of Loch Lomond has been breathtaking.  Four years later in their National Park Partnership Plan they committed to supporting the proposed upgrade with no reference to the impact this would have on ancient woodland, on the spurious grounds that it would enhance opportunities by the public to enjoy the landscape!

The claim that the camping management zone had served to restore tranquillity to the loch was nonsense: most of the campers along this section of shoreline were anglers who had every reason to keep quiet. But while advocating tranquillity, the LLTNPA was also supporting the construction of a faster road which would inevitably result in………… more noise!

Parskwatch has previously highlighted the LLTNPA’s failure to evaluate the impact Transport Scotland’s proposals to upgrade the A82 in terms of its statutory duties to protect the landscape etc  (see here),  but I had not appreciated how the LLTNPA appear to have manipulated their Trees and Woodland policy to make it easier for the proposed development to go ahead:

Note how the west shore of Loch Lomond has been left white, in other words this is a strip of land where the LLTNPA sees NO opportunity for creating further native woodland despite the fragmented blocks of ancient woodland along the shore shown in their map above and despite claiming the vision in their strategy would:

“Result in a strengthened native woodland habitat network across the National Park at all scales, allowing a wide range of woodland species to disperse, recolonise and migrate more easily”

The LLTNPA has also set out its vision for how it proposes to tackle the nature crisis, called “Future Nature”, which in my view is even more useless (see here).  It contains just two references to woodland and not a single mention of the Atlantic Rain Forest.  As is usual with the LLTNPA it contains no concrete proposals, let alone anything which would help restore the oak woods on the shores of Loch Lomond.  The whole vision is meaningless spin.

 

National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) to the rescue?

Happily for those concerned about the future of the National Park, many of the LLTNPA’s policy failures have now been made redundant by NPF4, policy 6 of which reads as follows:

The implications of this in respect of the proposed A82 upgrade is the LLTNPA now needs to avoid endorsing any route  that leads to “habitat fragmentation”.  Moreover they need to revise their Trees and Woodland strategy to explain how they intend to improve the “ecological connectivity” of the ancient woodland sites along the west shore of Loch Lomond!

The actual policy, which supersedes all previous policy adopted by the LLTNPA and Transport Scotland starts as follows:

This should cause both Transport Scotland and the LLTNPA to have a major re-think about the current proposed route, which has basically been adopted because it was thought to be the cheapest option.  What price nature?   With the LLTNPA about to launch a consultation on its a new National Park Partnership Plan, now would be a good time for them to abandon their support for the shore route and call on both Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government to come up with alternative proposals.

It is almost six years since the then Transport Minister, Humza Yousaf, announced that the A82 between Tarbet and Inverarnan would be widened to 7.3m (see here). Scottish Governments since then have ramped up their rhetoric about tackling the nature and climate emergencies and now appear more prepared to put their money whether their mouth is.  NPF4 has already had some impact in the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park, forcing Flamingo Land to amend their planning application at Balloch to exclude further areas of woodland (see here).  The same principles now need to be applied to the West shore of Loch Lomond.  Will the new First Minister now be prepared to admit he made a mistake and ask Scotland to develop an alternative route for the A82 for nature’s sake?