Latest news with #nationalpark
Telegraph
a day ago
- Business
- Telegraph
Peak District tourists could face entry fee
Visitors to the Peak District could be charged an entrance fee to help tackle the national park's funding crisis. Phil Mulligan, the chief executive of the Peak District National Park Authority, said it 'wouldn't need any government funding' if it could charge 10p per visitor. The park, which has around 13 million visitors per year, has cut 10 per cent of its staff in recent months because of what Mr Mulligan called 'declining funding'. He added that there had been a 50 per cent real terms funding cut over the last decade, while the park had grappled with problems such as wildfires and dangerous parking. 'Ever-declining' government funds Mr Mulligan told the BBC: 'We have the pressure of visitors, we have the pressure of delivering for the nation in terms of the ecological crisis, the climate crisis. 'I'm trying to do that with an ever-declining set of government funds, at a time when what's being asked of the national park is more and more. 'I think that [charging tourists fees] is a big discussion that government is going to need to have. But what would be the mechanism for that? I haven't got the powers.' The authority's financial troubles have been blamed on a fixed government grant that has not accounted for inflation or other costs such as the rise in the minimum wage. Mr Mulligan added: 'If [the Government] are going to keep cutting our funding, then there is going to need to be a different way of funding national parks.'
BBC News
2 days ago
- Business
- BBC News
Bute House Agreement: How did the SNP-Green partnership go wrong?
The Scottish government has dropped plans for a new national park in Dumfries and Galloway - the latest in a series of policies driven by the Scottish Greens to have been scrapped by the idea was originally taken forward by Lorna Slater, when she was a government minister under the Bute House Agreement between the two since she and Green co-leader Patrick Harvie were kicked out of their ministerial offices by Humza Yousaf, the majority of policies included in the pact have been marine protection areas to climate targets, changes how homes are heated and a ban on conversion therapy, the agreed programme has mostly been torn the partnership worth it, looking back? And where does it leave the SNP and Greens heading into next year's Holyrood election? Things have changed enormously in Scottish politics since Nicola Sturgeon brought the Greens into government in departed Bute House the following year, and her successor Humza Yousaf barely lasted a year as first it was his decision to end the Bute House Agreement (BHA) which ended his tenure.A big motivation for the SNP in going into the pact was that it would provide stability against votes of no confidence, so it was somewhat fitting that the threat of such a vote forced Mr Yousaf out of office days after he ended the Swinney has since taken the administration off in a different direction with Kate Forbes as his decision on the Galloway national park is just the latest in a procession of policies which underpinned the partnership to have been consigned to take a look through the original agreement documents to check on the fate of some others. Changing climate measures Cracks had started to appear in the pact prior to Mr Yousaf's decision to end it, particularly when the government announced it was dropping its climate BHA had called for a "credible pathway" to hitting the admittedly ambitious 2030 interim target for cutting carbon after watchdogs underlined that this was looking increasingly unlikely, the government decided to do away with the interim goals and move to a system of carbon wasn't the last climate measure to be scrapped either, with ministers also conceding that a target of reducing car use by 20% by 2030 wasn't going to bone of contention at the time was Mr Yousaf's abrupt announcement of a council tax freeze - something the Greens the original agreement was that there would be a citizen's assembly on council tax has never materialised, and the longstanding promises to change how local taxation works have been kicked off into the next parliamentary term (again). One of the biggest pieces of work the Greens undertook in government was Patrick Harvie's heat in buildings bill, which aimed to move more homes to greener systems like heat pumps rather than bill was shelved earlier this year after acting net zero secretary Gillian Martin said it would "make people poorer", voicing concerns that it could increase fuel poverty.A revised version of the bill has since been published, but it stops short of a legal requirement to replace heating systems by 2045. 'Watered down' Mr Harvie was also the minister for tenant's rights, with the Greens central to plans to cap rents and ban evictions during the cost of living the party takes a fairly dim view of the "watered down" system of rent controls currently being considered in the Housing (Scotland) Bill, saying they are not nearly strong proposed bill was the ban on conversion therapy, which the Greens remain keen on - but which SNP ministers would really rather the UK government deal decision to kick that into the next parliamentary term compounded the rift over gender reforms, which the two parties had cooperated over while passing the Gender Recognition Reform Bill in Mr Yousaf decided to drop legal challenges to defend the legislation after it was blocked by the UK government, and Mr Swinney's administration have been clear that they will not be bringing it back. Ending the headaches These policies follow a pattern of the Swinney government being happy to drop particularly controversial same thing happened with a plan to designate 10% of Scotland's waters as highly protected marine areas, which sparked opposition in coastal fairness, a few things had been delivered before the Greens left new National Planning Framework had been finalised, including the BHA requirements for 20 minute neighbourhoods and greater priority for onshore wind it should be noted that Green hopes for an energy strategy which would support offshore wind and marine renewables remain unrealised, given Mr Swinney's government still hasn't published its long-awaited energy strategy. The Scottish government also boosted the Scottish Child Payment, something enshrined in the agreement - although given it is a flagship policy for the SNP, it is likely that would have happened same could probably be said of the £500m just transition fund for the North East and Moray, given it was in the SNP successes included the Fair Work First guidance, which requires public sector bodies which get government grants to pay the real living wage, and a pledge to replace the Scottish Qualifications Authority.A National Register of Ancient Woodlands is being produced, with a target date of 2027, and the promised Natural Environment Bill – aimed at improving biodiversity - has been do feel like relatively small wins, though, compared to what was promised and ultimately abandoned. 'Totemic policy' The decision to end the partnership agreement couldn't have been much more damaging for Humza Yousaf, given he ended up has had consequences for the party's broader policy platform too SNP had also been relying on Green support for one of its flagship policies for the term, the National Care BHA committed the parties to driving forward what it called a "totemic policy", but the Greens eventually joined other opposition parties in rallying against the proposal put down on paper by ministers.A vote at the party's conference went overwhelmingly against the proposal, underlining that it could not make it through parliament - although it was already clear by then that it would be undeliverable in any case, given opposition from key partners like unions, councils and health boards. The future Looking back over the wreckage of the Bute House Agreement may be instructive when we think ahead to the next Holyrood Swinney has sought to build bridges now, with a view to operating in a fractured parliament of minorities next would the Greens work with the SNP again in future?For all that they ultimately got out of the agreement, the smaller party may reflect that they may be able to deliver more by remaining in opposition and driving hard bargains when budget votes are was a budget deal which secured one of their favourite policies which still remains – free bus travel for Greens may also be happy to have more clear water between the parties on policy when voters go to the polls, given they are competing with the SNP for a similar slice of the there is one topic we know the parties do still agree on, which may remain of outsize Bute House Agreement included a pledge to secure a referendum on Scottish that didn't happen this term - but depending on the result of the election, building a "pro independence majority" may well be something which puts the SNP and Greens back on similar ground next May.
Telegraph
2 days ago
- Business
- Telegraph
SNP forced to axe national park plan after farmers' backlash
SNP ministers have axed plans to create a new national park in Scotland following a backlash from farmers and residents. Mairi Gougeon, the Rural Affairs Secretary, told MSPs an official report had concluded that there was not 'sufficient local support to proceed' with the park in Galloway. In a statement to the Scottish Parliament, she said responses to a consultation showed 54 per cent of people were opposed to the plan compared to 42 per cent in favour. Taking account only of the views of residents, 57 per cent opposed the scheme and only 40 per cent backed it. More than eight out of 10 farmers and foresters were also hostile to the park. Ms Gougeon accepted her announcement 'will be very disappointing for those who have been campaigning for a new national park in Galloway over many years'. The Tories welcomed the decision but warned it could take 'years to heal' deep divisions in the area created by the scheme. SNP ministers announced last July that the region in south-west Scotland had been chosen from a five-strong shortlist as the possible site of the country's third national park. The status meant the area would be set aside for conservation, with most of the landscapes and accompanying plants and animals protected in their natural state. A consultation proposed that it be called the Kingdom of Galloway National Park and covers up to 3,400 sq km, or 1,300 sq miles, making it around twice as large as the one covering Loch Lomond and the Trossachs. But farmers warned that it will lead to extra red tape for their businesses and prioritise tourism and visitor access over their needs, thereby damaging food production. NFU Scotland said 93 per cent of its members in the area opposed the plan. A third national park is the latest in a series of commitments made in the power-sharing deal between Nicola Sturgeon's government and the Scottish Greens to be axed or delayed. The coalition between the two parties, titled the Bute House Agreement, fell apart last year when Humza Yousaf, the then first minister, kicked the Greens out of government. The Telegraph disclosed on Saturday that Holyrood insiders expected the plan to be shelved but Ms Gougeon went further by scrapping it altogether. She said: 'While there is substantial support for a national park and what it could deliver for the south-west of Scotland, there is also significant opposition.' Ms Gougeon said that NatureScot had concluded that 'the proposal does not have sufficient clarity, nor has it garnered sufficient local support to proceed to the next stage of designation'. Finlay Carson, the Scottish Tory MSP for Galloway and West Dumfries, said: 'This a victory for common sense and a victory for local people in Galloway and Ayrshire. 'Ever since Green minister Lorna Slater got her hands on these proposals as part of the disastrous Bute House Agreement, the whole process became deeply flawed. It felt like a Green nationalist park was going to be imposed on these communities rather than one that they were initially keen to see.' Liz Hitschmann, co-founder of the No Galloway National Park campaign, said: 'We are very relieved the Scottish Government has recognised the strength of opposition to the imposition of a national park on our region, but the overwhelming response from local people directly affected was impossible to ignore.' Stephen Young, director of policy at landowners' body Scottish Land & Estates, said: 'The decision not to proceed with the Galloway National Park proposal is the right one by the Scottish Government and aligns with the clear views expressed by communities and businesses across the region.' But Mark Ruskell, a Scottish Greens MSP, said the decision was a 'betrayal' and 'the culmination of lack of confident political leadership and the dangerous influence of powerful vested interests'.
Sky News
2 days ago
- Business
- Sky News
Scottish government scraps plan for new national park in Galloway
Plans to create Scotland's third national park in Galloway and Ayrshire have been scrapped, the Scottish government has announced. Galloway was last year chosen as the preferred location for the nation's newest national park. A public consultation was carried out by NatureScot, with local residents, communities, businesses and interested parties invited to share their views on the proposal. Plans for the scheme - mostly in Dumfries and Galloway but also extending into parts of South and East Ayrshire - proved contentious. Supporters argued it would put the region on the map, boost the local economy, and prevent it from becoming a "dumping ground for inappropriate windfarms". However, opponents claimed making it more difficult for developers to secure planning permission for projects would negatively affect economic activity in the area. Other concerns raised included house prices potentially being pushed up, as well as the region's ability to cope with any additional tourism. In an update at the Scottish parliament on Thursday, rural affairs secretary Mairi Gougeon told MSPs that 54% of those who engaged with the consultation opposed the plans, while 42% supported it. Taking into account local responses alone, 57% were found to be in opposition compared to 40% in favour. Proposal hasn't 'garnered sufficient local support' Ms Gougeon said: "Based on the evidence gathered during the investigation and consultation, the reporter has advised that, whilst it considers that the proposed area meets the conditions for a national park set out in the legislation, the proposal does not have sufficient clarity, nor has it garnered sufficient local support to proceed to the next stage of designation." The MSP added: "We have weighed up the arguments for and against the creation of a new national park in the area, taking full account of the potential economic, social and environmental factors, and we have come to the conclusion not to proceed with the designation of a national park in Galloway and Ayrshire. "I realise that this decision will be very disappointing for those who have been campaigning for a new national park in Galloway over many years." There are currently 15 national parks in the UK - two in Scotland, 10 in England and three in Wales. Cairngorms National Park and Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park are the two north of the border. The power-sharing Bute House Agreement between the SNP and the Scottish Greens in 2021 led to the Scottish government pledging that "at least one" new park would be designated by spring 2026. Galloway saw off competition from areas in the Scottish Borders, Lochaber, Loch Awe and Tay Forest. The joint Galloway National Park Association (GNPA) and Galloway and Southern Ayrshire UNESCO Biosphere (GSABP) bid touted the area as "Scotland in miniature" with its "diverse landscapes and stunning coastline, its outstanding biodiversity and rich cultural heritage". What was the public consultation? Ms Gougeon said NatureScot's public consultation ran for 14 weeks from November 2024 until February 2025. More than 5,000 surveys were completed and more than 1,000 people attended events that were held in relation to the plans. Meetings were also held with local authorities and community councils, and with representatives from the farming, forestry, tourism, renewables and conservation sectors. 'Heated debate' Ms Gougeon said public interest in the proposal had "proven to be huge" and generated "both strong support and strong opposition". She added: "At times, the debate has become quite heated." Ms Gougeon said while the designation of a new national park will not go ahead in Galloway and Ayrshire, the Scottish government "remains committed" and will "remain open" to proposals for new national parks in the future. 'Devastating news' Scottish Greens MSP Mark Ruskell said it was "devastating news for the local community and nature". He added: "By scrapping plans for the third national park in Galloway, the Scottish government has slammed the door on the economic investment and new powers this designation could bring." David Hope-Jones, chief executive of the South of Scotland Destination Alliance (SSDA), said the decision was a "missed opportunity to attract sustained investment in visitor management, visitor experience and visitor infrastructure". He added: "In deciding not to back the Galloway National Park, we call on the Scottish government to outline how, through new investment, the same sustainable economic results can be achieved." Campaigners 'relieved' Scottish Land & Estates (SLE) said it was the "right" decision. Director of policy Stephen Young said: "The Scottish government still has an important role to play in shaping a successful future for Galloway by supporting the infrastructure and conditions that rural businesses need to thrive. "We welcome the government's commitment to backing the region's long-term prosperity." Liz Hitschmann, co-founder of No Galloway National Park, said the campaign group was "relieved" with the decision. She added: "There is no question Dumfries and Galloway needs investment in our infrastructure, but it did not need millions frittered away on another layer of bureaucracy which could override local wishes, and the many government-funded organisations in the area need to deliver that investment."
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Peak District entry fee idea put forward
Charging tourists to visit the Peak District could be the solution to "unprecedented" financial woes, according to the leader of the authority running the national park. The Peak District National Park Authority, based in Bakewell in Derbyshire, says it has had a 50% real terms funding cut over the last decade, while grappling with issues like wildfires and dangerous parking. But chief executive Phil Mulligan said it "wouldn't need any government funding" if it could charge 10p per visitor. A spokesperson for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said it was providing national parks with a capital uplift of £15m. The Peak District became the UK's first national park around 75 years ago and is a major tourist attraction, welcoming about 13 million visitors every year. Pressures due to a fixed government grant that has not accounted for inflation or other costs, such as the rise in the minimum wage, have been blamed for the authority's financial troubles. Speaking to Politics East Midlands, Mr Mulligan said: "We have the pressure of visitors, we have the pressure of delivering for the nation in terms of the ecological crisis - the climate crisis. "I'm trying to do that with an ever-declining set of government funds, at a time when what's being asked of the national park is more and more. "I think that [charging tourists fees] is a big discussion that government is going to need to have. "But what would be the mechanism for that? I haven't got the powers." Mr Mulligan said 10% of the authority's staff had been made redundant in recent months in response to "declining funding". "If [the government] are going to keep cutting our funding then there is going to need to be a different way of funding national parks," he added. Alan Graves, the Reform UK leader of Derbyshire County Council, said he would back the idea of visitors being charged "up to £1 just to go there". He added: "[Charging tourists] sounds like a good idea, but we need to be very careful we don't frighten people off. "So long as it's not too expensive, I think people visiting the national park will contribute. Maybe up to £1 just to go there. "The real difficulty is how do you police that... because there's no point in having these expensive cameras to do that. "But in principle, it sounds like it's a good idea." A spokesperson for Defra said: "Our national parks are a source of great national pride which is why this government is providing them with a capital uplift of £15m. "This is in addition to the £400m we are investing in restoring nature across the country." Follow BBC Derby on Facebook, on X, or on Instagram. Send your story ideas to eastmidsnews@ or via WhatsApp on 0808 100 2210. Wildfire warning sign placed in Peak District Plans being drawn up to tackle Peak District parking Park authority announces cost-cutting restructure Peak District National Authority
