The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 3706 contributions
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Mark Ruskell
That would make sense. In Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, I think that just about every community now has a local place plan, apart from three that are aiming to complete them by the summer. That local planning, park planning and land management planning should all flow together and be unified.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Mark Ruskell
Do you think that there was a heavy reliance on volunteers? I know that some of the volunteers who were working on the earlier bids had to put their heads above the parapet to propose change, at quite a heavy cost to them. It feels as though, for many people, leading a change would put them in a vulnerable space.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Mark Ruskell
What about the issue of adjusting the boundaries of the existing parks? The Tay forest bid was situated between two existing national parks. Evidence has been brought forward that suggests that the existing national park boundaries do not easily fit with the geography of the area or, indeed, with a lot of the issues around economic development, tourism and regulation of the environment. Would the Government be open to adjusting the boundaries of the existing two national parks, or is that off the table?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Mark Ruskell
Would an aspiration to make an area a food destination and to bring together restaurants, businesses and food producers be seen as a cultural aspect as well as an economic one?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Mark Ruskell
Thinking about the national park plans that we have and their status as planning documents and as the guiding vision for the local area, I am wondering how they could be strengthened through the bill. Do you have any reflections on park plans in particular?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Mark Ruskell
Public bodies obviously have a duty to have regard to those plans. However, there is less of a requirement for private landowners and developers to abide by and deliver the park plan. Do you think that national parks have enough teeth to deliver the objectives of their park plans when it comes to private landowners and developers?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Mark Ruskell
I suppose that the question is whether that is working right now. I think that a £10 million lottery bid is going in for a landscape-scale restoration project where I stay in Loch Lomond and the Trossachs national park, for example, so good things are happening, but some private landowners have not bought into that and there is potentially some conflict with the objectives of public agencies as well.
I am thinking back to where the primacy of the park plan sits in the bill and to whether more reforms could be brought in to strengthen that primacy. For example, is it right that a major development—there is obviously a lot of controversy about the Lomond Banks proposal at the moment—would not automatically go to a public inquiry if it were contrary to the park plan? Where does the park plan sit in relation to such developments?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Mark Ruskell
On another day in this room, we have been considering the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill and the provisions in it for land management plans. How do you see land management plans reflecting the vision of the park and the park plans?
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Mark Ruskell
On the process, do you think that there should be a firmer vision of the proposed national park at the point at which ministers formally propose it? That is a bit ambiguous under the legislation. There was an attempt to get the discussion going locally—from the bottom up and led by local people. Has that worked? Would it not be better, in a way, to have a much clearer vision at the point of proposing the park? The 2000 act does not explicitly require that.
Rural Affairs and Islands Committee
Meeting date: 11 June 2025
Mark Ruskell
Yes—that is difficult. You are asking people whether they want a national park, but when people ask, “What is it?” you are saying, “Well, you decide.” It is a tricky one.
Another point has been raised with me about guidance and how a suggested area has to meet the criteria under the 2000 act. Does there need to be a bit more guidance on that?