Crushing rejection for “half-baked” National Park bid

Members of Scottish Borders Council backed by 27 votes to 2 a recommendation by local authority officers not to support the establishment of a park.

The report to full council cited potential negative impacts, including increased house prices, additional bureaucracy and pressures on infrastructure and services.

Members also criticised the park proposal for not incorporating in its geographical area large parts of the Borders.

Leaderdale and Melrose ward’s Councillor David Parker was scathing in his assessment, saying: “When I read this report I thought ‘thank Goodness someone has ended the madness’.

“This has been a half-baked proposal since its inception. We have had seven years for the campaign group to set out why we should have a Borders National Park and they have consistently failed to to do that.

“In fact is this is not a Scottish Borders National Park, it’s a bit of Roxburgh National Park, with most of the Borders not included in it.

“There has been ample time to develop a business case and the business case does not stack up. I also take exception to the very critical email that was sent by the National Park group last week criticising our officers. Our officers have not made a decision, we make the decision.

“I think the email suggested that the officers response was incoherent. The only thing that is incoherent is the case for a Roxburgh National Park which has not been well-made or articulated and I hope members will end the madness of this discussion.”

Selkirkshire ward’s Councillor Elaine Thornton-Nicol added: “Do I agree that it’s a good idea to create a very small National Park, that excludes half of Hawick, all of Selkirkshire, all of Tweeddale and the whole of the Berwickshire coast – no.”

Hawick and Hermitage ward councillor Annette Smart put forward an unsuccessful motion opposing the recommendation of officers, calling on members to take no action until a “more informed decision” could be made.

She said: “I have not had the chance to put this report and its recommendations to the majority of my constituents and as a consequence do not have their opinions as to whether they support the officers decision.”

The Borders is one of 10 areas nationally to have ‘expressed an interest’ to become Scotland’s third National Park – following on from Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, and the Cairngorms.

Scottish Government has set a deadline for submissions – February 29, 2024 – and stated that applicants must demonstrate “outstanding national importance due to natural or cultural heritage, a distinctive character and coherent identity, how National Park status would meet the specific needs of the area, and evidence of local support for the proposal.”

Aside from the Borders, the other region’s potentially going to throw their hats into the ring are Dumfries and Galloway, the Tay Forest, Lochaber, Skye and Raasay, Affric to Alladale, Glen Affric, the Lammermuirs, Largo Bay and Loch Awe.

But gaining political support for the creation of a National Park in the Scottish Borders was seen as a key objective.

And members of the Scottish Borders National Park campaign group have expressed their disappointment at SBC officers refusal recommendation, campaign spokesperson Malcolm Dickson saying: “This was a bolt from the blue and very unexpected and a little disappointing.”

The benefits of a National Park are seen as supporting the economy and preserving the area’s landscape and cultural heritage in perpetuity.