Official Report 976KB pdf
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-15634, in the name of Lorna Slater, on a safe, accessible and sustainable Holyrood park for the 21st century. The debate will be concluded without any question being put. I ask members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak buttons.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament welcomes the recently published Strategic Plan for Holyrood Park; recognises what it sees as the benefits of the park to people, nature and heritage; notes the support for the vision for the park, set out in the plan, of an evolving landscape combining human action and natural processes to create a fundamentally sustainable 21st century landscape that responds to the climate emergency, community aspirations, and natural and heritage conservation priorities, all while retaining and strengthening its iconic status for Edinburgh and Scotland; understands that the legislation relating to the park was passed in 1971, and notes the belief that it is in desperate need of updating to meet the new vision for the park, as set out in the strategy; further understands that the implementation of the strategy will aim to conserve and restore nature in the park, refresh the network of paths and trails, provide a safe place for people to gather, meet, play and relax, and will explore opportunities to expand active travel within the park, and notes the belief that all of these aims would be furthered by ending through motor traffic in the park.
17:10
I thank those members who have stayed late today to participate in this debate.
Holyrood park is a really special place. From when I first arrived in Edinburgh and used to hike up Arthur’s Seat twice a week as a way to get some free regular exercise, through the Covid pandemic, when a weekly circuit of the park was a chance to have a safely distanced chat with a friend, and including those periodic fits of cardiovascular ambition that seize me every few years when I decide that I am going to train up to run all the way around the park, and right up to now, when I have it on my doorstep every day at work, Holyrood park is intertwined with 20 years of my life, and that is true for tens of thousands of people.
Holyrood park is the specific and direct responsibility of Scottish ministers. The legislation that applies to the park was set out in 1971. Scottish ministers have delegated responsibility for looking after the park to Historic Environment Scotland.
Holyrood park is a complicated place. The whole park is designated as a scheduled monument. It is a site of special scientific interest, two of the features of which were in unfavourable condition when they were last assessed in 2007 and 2013, and one of which has not been assessed since 2001.
The part is used by athletes, families, commuters, dog walkers, cyclists and bird watchers. It is a rat run for city traffic. It hosts events, millions of tourists and even a few MSPs and parliamentary staff taking their lunchtime exercise.
On the point that the member made about the park being used as a rat run, does she have any data on the reasons why motor vehicles use the park, and a breakdown of the users of those motor vehicles?
I do not have that information, but the member is quite right that that is information that we need to have. What is clear, though, is that the park is being used as a through route by people travelling not to the park to enjoy it but through the park as a way of, presumably, avoiding Edinburgh traffic.
There are two themes to my speech today, on which I hope to hear from other members and the minister. The first is about improvements that can and should be made to the park as soon as possible to improve the experience and safety of park users and visitors. The second is a plea to Scottish ministers to put in place the intention and resources to implement a long-term plan for the park. That includes the provision of sufficient human and financial resources to undertake the further work that is proposed in the Holyrood park strategic plan in a timely and effective manner.
I think that that work must include an update to the primary legislation concerning the park, and I think that it should involve a consideration of whether care of the park should be placed with a dedicated local organisation with the remit and resources to take care of it properly. I will come back to that point.
On immediate and pressing matters in the park, I was grateful to the 150 local residents who joined me at a community meeting on Monday evening to set out their concerns and priorities for the park. I also thank Sarah Boyack for coming along to that, as well as several Edinburgh councillors. One person who attended that meeting said to me:
“It’s the first time someone has asked me what I think.”
I will write up the feedback more formally for Historic Environment Scotland, but, at the meeting, the top priorities were suggestions to improve nature in the park and to improve active travel. There were many people calling for cars to be slowed down, traffic to be reduced, or for cars to be banned altogether except for disabled access. There was an enthusiasm to support activities in the park—everything from football to boating, marathon running to dog walking and cycling—and many people were concerned about the tension between visitor numbers and activities and their effects on wildlife and nature. There were repeated requests for pedestrian crossings, dropped curbs, improved signage and other measures for safety and accessibility, and there was a widely held desire for better public transport to and within the park, with connections to the city and Lothians.
Those are all sensible and reasonable concerns. All of those matters will require consultation and they will require funding. Will the Scottish Government resource this project properly, especially with regard to quickly establishing a credible business plan for the park, so that work can get started?
The most loudly voiced concern at Monday’s meeting was about the restrictions that are currently in place on the Radical Road and how they are in conflict with the Scottish people’s right to roam.
That brings me to my second point. Is the legislation covering the park fit for purpose and is Historic Environment Scotland the right organisation to be managing it? Is it right that the entire park is a scheduled monument, putting it out of sync with the right to roam and with how a public park might reasonably be expected to operate?
The HES employees and rangers whom I have met are truly excellent professionals and I commend their work. However, I fear that they have an impossible job. They are stretched much too thin and do not have the resources that are needed to tackle Holyrood park’s challenges properly. We do not know exactly how many people visit Holyrood park in a year, but estimates are in the millions—maybe even 5 million. Compare that to the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park, which hosts about 4 million visitors a year and has an annual budget from the Scottish Government of £13.9 million, or the Cairngorms national park, which hosts 2 million visitors and has a budget of £8 million. I was not able to find information on exactly how much HES spends on Holyrood park in a year, but with £74 million from the Scottish Government, it has to manage over 300 properties. That averages out to less than £250,000 per property.
The strategic plan for Holyrood park mentions 21 HES employees who support the park, but those same 21 also look after other properties in Scotland. Compare that with a staff of 110 for the Cairngorms national park and 137 at the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park.
Reimagining Holyrood Park is a massive and complex project, involving scheduled monuments, SSSIs, a busy commuter route and a tourist venue, starting from a state of eroded paths and very damaged nature. The slow response to issues such as the closure of the Radical Road and the delays to publishing the strategic plan, however welcome that plan is, give the impression that HES is hopelessly under-resourced to take on that work.
Holyrood Park, with its millions of visitors, its complex landscape and its variety of users, needs resources and democratic governance that are much more comparable with those of a national park.
We have an opportunity to reimagine Holyrood park, and I hope that the Scottish Government will step up to the challenge.
I look forward to hearing from other members this evening.
17:18
I pay tribute to Lorna Slater for bringing this motion and subject area to the Parliament for debate.
I have a long attachment to Holyrood park. My best pal when I was very young used to live on Royal Park Terrace, and going into Holyrood park was an almost weekly occurrence. Anyone who has grown up in or moved to Edinburgh and feels attached to the city has a connection to the park. The skyline of Arthur’s Seat is something that moves us, inspires us and unites us on a daily and yearly basis.
Of course, Holyrood Park is connected to Leith, which I represent, and is used by many Leithers and those who live in the north-eastern part of our capital city.
I note the proposals in the strategic plan, and I have taken a lot out of it as I have looked through it. However, I did not support the motion, because I feel that I need to examine the situation a bit more carefully.
A lot of the recommendations in the strategic plan—for example, on the Radical Road, rock fall and improvement of the public paths—are powerful, and raise issues to be pursued.
An issue that is perhaps more contentious, and on which it is difficult to strike a balance, is the traffic question, on which other members have commented. How do we ensure, on the one hand, that we improve opportunities for active travel while, on the other hand, enabling people to connect across our capital city?
I have spoken in the Parliament previously about the campaign in which my father was involved to stop an inner ring road being built through Edinburgh, which would have decimated parts of Edinburgh, including, in particular, my constituency and that of the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture. Since that period, however, we have really struggled, in the capital city, to get the balance right in respect of connectivity: increasing pedestrianisation and opportunities for active travel while also having effective motor vehicle routes that enable efficient transport through the city. That is partly because we have clogged up the bypass, which has caused a lot of issues—anyway, I digress.
My point is that for people who are travelling from the centre to the east, the avenue through Holyrood park is quite an important way through for drivers, in particular as Salamander Street, in my constituency, is so congested. Those are areas to consider, and it is good that we have this opportunity to talk about it.
Lorna Slater is right to highlight the 1971 regulations. Her point is connected to a broader point that is pertinent to other parks in our capital city, which are regulated through primary legislation. The City of Edinburgh District Council Order Confirmation Act 1991 is relevant to that question. The 1991 act, for good reason, prevents certain forms of development in a number of parks, including Princes Street gardens and Leith links.
As a representative, I have seen various proposals—whether it is Leith Athletic Football Club wanting to upgrade its changing rooms; the ambition to have a skate park in Leith Links; or things that other organisations, such as Street Soccer Scotland, have wanted to do in the past—that would, if they involved new buildings on Leith Links, require a piece of primary legislation to be passed by the Parliament. That was most recently done in 2014, so that a statue of John Rattray, who invented the rules of golf, could be erected on Leith Links. If we are going to consider a piece of primary legislation relating to Holyrood park, we might want to broaden it out and see whether modernisation is required with regard to how we regulate development and change in parks across Edinburgh as a whole.
Whether it involves Holyrood park, Leith Links or Princes Street gardens, there are improvements that we could make, and want to make, but we do not want to be in a position in which an act of Parliament requires to be passed each time that that happens. There is then a question of delegation to the local authority—as long as it does not, once again, come up with the idea of building an inner ring road.
17:23
I congratulate Lorna Slater on bringing the debate to the chamber. I grew up in Edinburgh and spent a great deal of time in the park, so I recognise the sentiments that are expressed in her motion. There is no doubt that the wide open spaces, the stunning scenery and the beautiful wildlife provide an oasis of calm in the midst of busy city life, or when commuting.
When I used to stay over in Newington, I had the pleasure of cycling in, and I often saw MSPs and staff running through the park. Lorna Slater is right, therefore, that we should seek to protect and nurture the park and I, too, welcome the strategic plan. I also welcome her call to strive to achieve a park that is safe, accessible and sustainable, and which benefits people, nature and heritage.
I am, however, disappointed at the throwaway mention in the final line of the motion that:
“these aims would be furthered by ending ... motor traffic in the park.”
In her remarks, Lorna Slater failed to justify that proposition evidentially—although, commendably, she conceded that there is a massive lack of data in that area. I think that her proposition comes across as a solution in search of a problem. She has given us no data on pollution, which is a pity, as there could have been an interesting exercise around the negative and unintended consequences of Edinburgh’s draconian low-emission zone moving traffic around.
Would Liam Kerr agree that we need to consider that a lot of people drive to Holyrood park in order to walk around it, and that there is currently a lack of connectivity in terms of bus routes? There is only one bus route that stops in the right place to enable people to access the park.
That is an important point, which I intend to return to because it is so important.
The lack of data—Lorna Slater conceded that we do not have the data—on why people use the park is relevant. For example, we do not have data on accident statistics or on what the users of the park think. I concede that Lorna Slater talked about a meeting in which she said that local residents were present and gave their important views. However, the users and the local residents are not necessarily the same people.
To go back to Ben Macpherson’s point, I note that Lorna Slater also conceded that we do not have data on why people are driving in the park, who they are and how they can be broken down. Absent that data, I can only make similar assertions. The road through the park serves as a convenient and scenic route connecting the city centre of Edinburgh with areas such as Duddingston village. If cars are banned, residents will presumably be required to take a lengthy detour to reach places such as Meadowbank, Abbeyhill, the city centre and Leith Walk. That wastes time and creates unnecessary extra traffic, both stationary and moving, which in turn increases pollution in areas where the urban environment will prevent its dissipation. Data on the destinations of traffic through the park would, therefore, be welcome.
Secondly, my colleague Jeremy Balfour tells me that banning cars will significantly hinder the ability of disabled people and those with mobility issues to enjoy the park. For those people, a car is not a luxury—it is the only way that they can get about. Jeremy Balfour made the point to me that such a ban tells disabled people—these are his words, mind—that they are not allowed to enjoy the same access to that beautiful space as those who do not struggle with mobility.
Will the member take an intervention?
Will I have time, Presiding Officer?
Yes. Briefly, Ms Slater.
I am grateful to the member for taking an intervention. I was clear in my speech that the requests from people at the community meeting were to ban cars except where they are needed for disabled access. Car Free Holyrood is campaigning to stop a through route for cars, not to stop people driving to the park in order to enjoy it. I want to be clear on that point.
I take the point, but Car Free Holyrood describes itself, in the very first line of its website, as
“a group of local residents”.
That goes back to my point that we are talking about a much wider group. The views of those residents are extremely important, but we have to look at who the users are, and we do not have data on that.
On that note, I thought it was interesting that the briefing to members from Ramblers Scotland said that two thirds of people responding to the consultation that led to the strategy that we are discussing mentioned difficulty accessing routes and areas of the park. That will not be solved by closing the road.
It is a pity that Lorna Slater has put an unevidenced—and, some might say, ideological—demand for closure in what is an otherwise reasonable motion. It comes across as ill-thought-through prejudice that potentially has negative consequences for many park users.
Like Lorna Slater, I welcome the strategic plan and I hope that it achieves its vision for promoting a safe, accessible and sustainable park, but I hope that her vendetta against private motor vehicles, both in the park and more widely, is consigned to history.
17:28
I, too, congratulate Lorna Slater on bringing the debate to the chamber, because the park is important—indeed, it is vital—for people, nature and heritage. As others have said, the park has incredible views across the city, and it is an important resource for people, whether they are using it for exercise or looking to explore the nature, heritage or geology of the park.
I thank Lorna Slater for holding the consultation on Monday this week to continue the discussions that have been on-going—for years, I have to say—about the future of the park, how visitor experiences can be improved and the challenges that need to be addressed. This is not the first time that communities have been consulted. Last December, we had an excellent meeting with the Edinburgh Geological Society, Ramblers Scotland, the Cockburn Association, Mountaineering Scotland and ScotWays. The focus of that meeting was the urgent need to reopen the Radical Road, a vital part of the park’s history that has now been closed for years. Strong arguments were put forward to call on Historic Environment Scotland to invest in making the park safe, in order to allow people not just to access the incredible views from the Radical Road but to access and explore the geology of the park. At Monday’s meeting, the point was made forcibly that nothing had happened since that meeting last year. There is a bit of frustration because, although people get consulted, there is a sense that we need more action.
Another important point that was made on Monday was on the need for an inclusive approach involving local schools in the park, given that it is a superb resource, which would give young people access to the park and, thus, benefit their education. We could perhaps do with better signposting so that people can maximise the benefits of visiting the park and understand its nature, heritage and geology.
Tourism opportunities were also raised at Monday’s meeting, as they have been on regular occasions. Historic Environment Scotland notes in its park strategy that the park raises £1.8 billion a year in income generated, which is a huge amount of money. That is a big part not just of Edinburgh’s tourism offer but of Scotland’s tourism offer.
There is a huge amount that we can be proud of, but there are some key issues, such as the legislation needing to be updated, as has been mentioned by several members. I look forward to hearing the final analysis of Monday’s meeting.
The points made by Ben Macpherson summarised the challenges of maximising walking and cycling and ensuring access for people with disabilities—points that have been made from around the chamber—as well as the issue of traffic, which is controversial but really important to get right. The idea of banning traffic in the park has been raised on numerous occasions over the years, and it is hotly debated by local residents. I declare an interest as a local resident. I will not say exactly where, but members can probably work it out. I cycle through the park extremely regularly.
Like the constituents who have written to me, I regularly see heavy goods vehicles and commercial vehicles, which are not allowed to drive through the park. However, there is no monitoring or enforcement of the rule about HGVs and commercial vehicles not being allowed, which adds to the number of vehicles going through the park and creates a sense of unsafety, particularly when big vehicles pass one another, as the road was not designed for that.
We need a more joined-up approach and, speaking as a former town planner, I think that we need more of a strategic approach. As Ben Macpherson has mentioned, we need better public transport. Since the meeting that we held in December last year, the number 12 bus has now been running on a Sunday and further into the evening, although that does not really meet the needs of people in the area. We need a strategic approach and an enforcement approach.
One issue that has been raised several times is that of financial support for Historic Environment Scotland. Its staff have to do a huge amount of work, and there is an issue around the nature of what we need to get fixed in the park. Northfield and Willowbrae community council’s submission to Historic Environment Scotland’s consultation contains some suggestions of practical changes and improvements to walking and cycling in the park that could be done now and do not need to take a decade. It also suggests access steps up to St Leonard’s.
You will need to bring your remarks to a close, please, Ms Boyack.
We have had lots of debates on the issue; we need action. I hope that the cabinet secretary will pick up on the points that have been made about funding, legislation and a strategic approach being taken with the city council to work on traffic solutions so that, if we come back in six months, we might have a group that works to support the park and to make progress.
Thank you, Ms Boyack. We will need to move on. I am conscious that the carol service in the Parliament commences at 6 pm, and we do not want to do anything that would delay it. Many visitors are coming along to it this cold evening—hopefully travelling by public transport.
17:34
I thank Lorna Slater for bringing the debate to the chamber. It is two decades since we opened this building, but this is probably the first debate on Holyrood park. That is surprising, because the park and the Parliament are so intertwined.
The park has inspired generations of people who live, work and play around it, and it has huge cultural significance. Sir Walter Scott wrote these words about the park many years ago:
“When a piece of scenery so beautiful, yet so varied,—so exciting by its intricacy, and yet so sublime,—is lighted up by the tints of morning or of evening, and displays all that variety of shadowy depth, exchanged with partial brilliancy ... the effect approaches near to enchantment.”
That is the view from the windows of our Parliament today. It is enchanting. We see the ever-changing light on the crags that marks the passage of the days and the seasons.
Recently, I have become reacquainted with the park. I am on a bit of a health kick and have started trying to run round Queen’s Drive in the early mornings. It is astonishing how many people are out running, walking, cycling and wheeling. The park is so well used.
As I puff my way up Queen’s Drive under the crags every morning, I am struck by how polluted that stretch of road is during rush hour. I see a number of cars going past that are clearly non-compliant with the low-emission zone. As I am running along, I feel my chest start to tighten. I do not have the data that Liam Kerr perhaps wants, but I have a sense of the fumes and particulates affecting my lungs. As a member of the cross-party group on lung health and an air quality champion in the Parliament, I am concerned about my health and the health of people running through the park at that time. I ask members in the Lothians and local councillors whether it is appropriate that 8.5 million car trips pass through a park such as this every year. I do not think that it is. There needs to be a better balance. [Interruption.]
I am not sure that there is time to take an intervention, is there, Presiding Officer?
There is no additional time, but it is up to the member.
I am sorry, but I would like to continue.
If one goes to other global cities that have iconic parks, such as Central park in New York, they will see that they have in place traffic restrictions and speed enforcement. The aspiration of a car-free Holyrood is a good one. It is disappointing not to see more consideration of what restrictions and limitations could be included in the strategic plan.
As I continue my morning run up the hill past Dunsapie loch, other things strike me, as well. There is a lack of interpretation for visitors. Given the extent of the archaeology, geology and history, and the protected nature sites in the park, there is a story to be told, so it is disappointing not to see more interpretation provided.
I also see that the footpaths on Arthur’s Seat are pretty wrecked. That is not surprising, given the huge number of visitors who enjoy the park every year. However, there is a need for investment and for the strategy to consider those things.
Finally, as I head back to Holyrood, I pass the gates that are currently restricting access to the Radical Road, which have been in place since 2018. They are clearly out of place. We need the Radical Road to be reopened. I would like HES to provide a clear timetable on that in the new year.
HES has taken a very risk-averse approach. We have seen that with the high-level masonry programme, which has partially closed many attractions across Scotland. We are talking about a public path that is prone to rockfalls. There is learning to be taken from elsewhere—such as from our national cycle network—about how to manage those risks. HES could learn from Sustrans about how to open up the Radical Road in a responsible way. It is good to see that commitment in the strategy.
Again, I thank Lorna Slater. I look forward to seeing the improvements that will come, I hope, when I am out on my morning run in the years ahead.
17:39
I, too, thank Lorna Slater for bringing the debate to the chamber.
I am the constituency member for Holyrood park, and I am very passionate about the future of this iconic space, with it being used well for all of us in our capital city. However, I point out, as others have done, that it is a key link—a key route—through the city centre for my Edinburgh Eastern constituents. We need to take that into account when we are having this debate. Since the consultation was published last year, I have been inundated with constituents’ concerns about the perceived threat to this key commuter and business access route. We need certainty that Holyrood park will continue to be an asset to the people who live here and do business here, and to those who want to visit here.
Through thoughtful planning, consultation and practical measures, I believe that the co-existence of road users, walkers and cyclists in Holyrood park can be balanced. That has managed to be done in other areas. Major cities such as Copenhagen have proven that practical and not ideological solutions can drive meaningful environmental improvement by promoting the co-existence of residents, businesses and tourists. When I was lucky enough to visit Copenhagen last year, I got the sense that it is a city that values all its citizens, whether they are pedestrians, cyclists or car drivers.
I will highlight a couple of constituents’ comments that were sent to me by email. One constituent said:
“The consultation openly avoided asking the questions on road closure and is flawed. It is designed to draw responses on nature’s health history and all the benefits the park holds but is designed to show these are incompatible with vehicle access. This is not the case, and both can co-exist especially as it closes at weekends when commuting reduces.”
Another constituent said:
“I’m growing frustrated by road closures in the park, taking away my ability to drive up there whenever I’d like and enjoy the views as I have done since a was a child.”
To ensure community buy-in, we have to promote community involvement. I think that Liam Kerr made that point when he said that we have to listen to residents right across the city and take their views into account. We need to engage with residents, including my constituents who use the park and the road system in the park, as well as cycling and walking organisations, to ensure that we get a decision-making process that works for everyone.
A traffic survey that was done in September 2021 took place when many people were still working from home after the pandemic. I do not think that that indicates a way to solve the issues around road access in 2024 and beyond, now that people are being encouraged back into the city centre to work, shop and enjoy hospitality.
Will the member take an intervention?
Do I have time, Presiding Officer?
There is no additional time. It is up to you.
I do not think that I have time—I am sorry.
There are many ways to enhance environmental sustainability, including through the promotion of walking, cycling and the use of electric vehicles where necessary, but I feel that we have to take on board the fact that people are absolutely fed up of being dictated to when it impacts their ability to live and work in their own city. We need to take that point on board. We have to work with residents and businesses, not against them, to ensure that the future of Holyrood park is one in which there is a balanced co-existence that enables all users of the park to feel valued in Scotland’s capital city.
17:43
I want to close the debate by thanking Lorna Slater for lodging the motion. I recognise and welcome her on-going engagement on this important issue and her interest in the future management of Holyrood park, the north-west of which is in my Edinburgh Central constituency.
As we have heard from the various testimonials from esteemed colleagues across the chamber, Holyrood park means many things to many people. It is a place to connect with one another, our nature and our history; it is a place to inspire us and to spark physical activity and creative energies; and it is a place to educate us, to demonstrate the powerful volcanic geology beneath our feet and, sadly, to show us the impacts of climate change.
It is important that the balance of elements that makes Holyrood park so special is maintained. The many combinations of meaning that people experience during their visits add depth and complexity to the management of the park. Those management responsibilities are handled by Historic Environment Scotland on behalf of Scottish ministers, as Holyrood park is a property in care.
As was discussed earlier, HES published the strategic plan for Holyrood park in September 2024. That clearly defines the purpose of the park in terms of positive impacts on health, wellbeing, climate and economic factors, and in terms of community connections, shared history and local and national identity.
The plan also recognises that Holyrood park is an important element of the tourism offer for Edinburgh. The park, which contains a mountain in the city, provides a unique and outstanding visitor experience that enables tourists and residents alike to connect with nature and their shared history right in the heart of the capital.
It will never be an easy task to manage such a popular central site, especially one such as Holyrood park, which already has a wealth of designations, from sites of special scientific interest, listed buildings and conservation areas to world heritage site status and scheduled monument protections. However, significant legislation is in place to ensure that such a unique site is managed appropriately. Those regulations and designations are carefully followed by Historic Environment Scotland while it endeavours to deliver an accessible and diverse asset for the people of Scotland.
Any suggested changes to the legislative protections for the park will, of course, be considered in due course, following due process and collaboration. I encourage colleagues who have an informed interest in the matter to share their views with me and the Government, as I will then share those views with Historic Environment Scotland, which I will meet early next year.
I very much welcome that offer. If the cabinet secretary could raise with HES the issue of HGVs and commercial vehicles in particular, that would be superb.
I will be happy to do that and to raise anything else that colleagues wish me to raise. I am happy to give that assurance.
As I stated earlier, the park means many different things to people and, as such, it is important to note that the strategic plan was not crafted in isolation and then enforced on unsuspecting park users. Historic Environment Scotland conducted extensive face-to-face public and stakeholder engagement, and it ran an online citizen space public survey and consultation, which took place over 12 weeks, from September to December 2023. That work gathered just under 5,000 returns—I have no doubt that some of the members in the chamber today were included in those returns.
The returns were then analysed, and the resulting consultation report was published in September 2024 and can be found on the Historic Environment Scotland website. By carefully examining those varying views, Historic Environment Scotland has been able to use an evidence-based approach to consider how the park is currently used, the perceived issues and priorities for the park and how park users see the role of the park in the context of Edinburgh, both now and in the future.
As we have heard, one issue that elicits divergent views is traffic management in the park area. I am fully aware that there are still issues to be addressed with regard to the park, and the strategic plan does not include a final movement strategy for it. Such a strategy is being developed by Historic Environment Scotland in collaboration with the City of Edinburgh Council, and it will align with the council’s “City Mobility Plan 2021-2030”. In addition, detailed surveys will be required to inform the plans for future traffic movement and active travel to ensure a sustainable future for the park.
I am pleased that Historic Environment Scotland is engaging with the local authority and Police Scotland to consider the implications of future proposals, as well as ensuring that further research and development will take place with park users and residents. In considering traffic management in the park, Historic Environment Scotland is looking at ways to make it easier and safer for people of all ages and abilities to choose healthier and happier travel options that will allow them to continue to access and enjoy that high-quality public space.
Similarly, access to geological features in the park should be permitted where it is safe. I know that there is a real risk posed by rockfalls, especially around the Radical Road and Samson’s Ribs. That risk to the health and safety of park users, rangers and contractors needs to be carefully assessed and managed to ensure that Historic Environment Scotland is able to meet its legal responsibilities for public safety. Although I appreciate that there can be frustration at such measures, it is paramount that the highest priority be given to the health and safety of all park users and workers.
In summary, although there are still areas of on-going work, overall, the creation and implementation of the strategic plan is welcome, as is the on-going community involvement and consultation. Historic Environment Scotland continues to navigate the delicate balance of connection between our communities, our natural world and our history. I take the opportunity to extend my special thanks to the small team of Historic Environment Scotland rangers and parks ground staff who do such excellent work covering the on-the-ground services for everyone who enjoys using the park.
I reiterate my thanks to Lorna Slater for her interest in Holyrood park, and to Historic Environment Scotland for encouraging park users to share their views and help to shape the future of the park. I am so pleased that Holyrood park continues to offer such rich opportunities for our local community, our understanding of history and our experience of nature, right here in the heart of our capital city.
Thank you, cabinet secretary, and thank you, members, for your co-operation with the time limitations this evening. That concludes the debate.
Meeting closed at 17:50.Air ais
Decision Time