Rural Affairs and Islands Committee 03 December 2025
As members know, I am standing in for Ariane Burgess, so I will speak to her amendments, Ross Greer’s amendments—because he is at the Education, Children and Young People Committee—and my amendments. I will try to get through them succinctly.
Amendment 201, in the name of Ross Greer, would specify
“protecting and enhancing the special quality of the area’s landscapes”
as one of the national park sub-aims. The bill will remove the term “special qualities” from the third aim in the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000. Amendment 201 is intended to add balance back into the aims, recognising the importance of landscape and visual impacts. The amendment is backed by Action to Protect Rural Scotland and the Scottish Campaign for National Parks. It builds on the Scottish Government’s work to recognise and promote special landscapes.
Amendment 206 would extend the Sandford principle beyond national park authorities and apply it to other public bodies. Currently, under the Sandford principle, a national park authority must prioritise nature conservation when it comes into conflict with other subordinate national park aims. That is an important principle that delivers conservation.
The bill as introduced imposes a duty on ministers, councils and other public bodies to
“have regard to the National Park aims”,
so it is a logical extension that, when we impose that duty, we also extend the prioritisation of the aims within the Sandford principle. For example, it would make no sense if a planning decision was considered by a park authority and refused on the basis of the Sandford principle—if, in other words, priority was given to conservation above other interests—but that ministers, when considering a planning appeal, did not also have to have regard to nature as the top priority.
09:45Amendment 207 would require a public hearing when a planning application in a national park is appealed. That reflects the special nature of planning decisions in national parks, with hearings acting as an opportunity for ministers and reporters to hear directly from experts. They could be local residents who are experts in the national park, as well as subject-specific experts who can advise on the potential impact of development proposals.
Amendment 208 would require national park board members to have “public-facing contact information”. That is a small step, but it would improve transparency and trust in national parks. It is odd that Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority is the only planning authority anywhere in the UK where members, including those who have been directly elected, are not directly contactable by those they represent.
As a matter of good governance, it should be possible for people to be able to contact board members directly without authority staff acting as a filter. There might be issues that are directly related to the staff, about which residents would need to get in touch directly with board members to raise a concern. I live in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park. It seems odd that, a couple of years ago, I was asked to vote to elect my directly elected board member for the local area but their contact details are not available if I want to make a representation to them.
Amendments 212 and 213 seek to impose a multiplier regime for fixed-penalty notices that are issued for byelaw violations in national parks, reflecting that repeated offences ought to carry increased penalties. That is in line with other multiplier fining regimes that we have in low-emission zones, for example.
I will move on to my amendments in the group. The introduction of the proposed new duty in section 5 relating to national park aims is welcome. However, the form of words that is proposed is “have regard to”. Amendment 62 would strengthen the duty on ministers, park authorities and public bodies so that they would have to “actively further” national park aims, which is a more action-focused form of words. There would be an active duty on public bodies to take all reasonable steps to further national park aims. That underlines the importance of avoiding harm, which is a statutory aim of the national parks, and of seeking to further conservation and enhancement of the natural and cultural heritage of an area. A stronger duty could help to improve progress in delivering the aims and help to deliver new statutory biodiversity targets.
National parks have a major role to play in addressing the climate and nature crises. It has been suggested by stakeholders that any area that is proposed as a new national park should demonstrate how the designation would contribute to meeting nature recovery or climate targets. Amendment 64 proposes to do that by adding a new fourth condition for designating a national park area.
Amendment 65 would specify the nature and role of the reporter for a new national park proposal. The National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 sets out that the reporter is a role for NatureScot, but ministers should have the flexibility to appoint whichever person or body they believe to be the most appropriate. It might be appropriate to choose a reporter who is skilled in conducting inquiries and public processes, with NatureScot taking a slightly different role. For example, it could feed in its expertise on the natural environment at an earlier stage when the proposals are being drawn up, rather than being the reporter, which would allow NatureScot to promote its expert view on nature conservation, access and landscape and, if appropriate, to support the benefits of a national park in a specific area during the debate with local communities. NatureScot could become a statutory consultee should ministers see fit.
Whichever body or individual takes on the reporting role, the 2000 act currently sets out procedures but very few exceptions as to how a reporter should conduct its work. Reporters should be required to produce recommendations independently, and those recommendations should be evidence based and developed for the benefits of the people of Scotland, both current and future generations.
Amendment 27 would require ministers to review the potential of expanding the boundaries of the two existing national parks. The current boundaries of Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park arguably do not follow the natural geography of the surrounding areas and landscapes. Loch Tay and Loch Earn are bisected by park boundaries that follow old council lines. National scenic area landscape protections around Strathearn sit outside the park, and the park board has no responsibility for planning decisions. It seems odd that towns such as Comrie and Kenmore are not gateways to the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs park from the east. A boundary review would provide an opportunity to build on the success of our two existing national parks and to see whether there are opportunities to expand them.
I move amendment 201.