Welcome to the second meeting of 2015 of the Pentham Hills Regional Park Boundary Bill Committee. Everyone present is asked to switch off their mobile phones and other electronic equipment as they affect the broadcasting system. Some committee members may consult tablets during the meeting. This is because we provide meeting papers in digital format. I would like to welcome Christine Grahame to today's meeting as a member in charge of the bill and also Colin Kear MSP as in attendance. Both will be allowed to question the witnesses after the committee has given us their questions. Our only item of business today is evidence in the Pentham Hills Regional Park Boundary Bill. Our first panel represents local authorities affected by the bill and I welcome Alan McGregor, regional park manager, City of Edinburgh Council, Chris Alcorn, principal planner, planning and economic development, West Lothian Council, James Kinch, Land Resources Agent, Midlothian Council, Ian Aikman, chief planning officer, Scottish Borders Council, Malcolm Muir, countryside and green space manager, South Lanarkshire Council. Under the Parliament's Standing Orders committees cannot meet at the same time as the chamber, therefore the meeting must come to a close at 11.35 at the latest. It would be helpful then if members could keep their questions brief and if responses could be concise. Due to time constraints, we will move straight to questioning without opening remarks. This will allow everybody an opportunity to contribute. As I said, it is my intention to allow Christine Grahame and Colin Kear to question witnesses after members have concluded their questioning. I would like to start off by asking the witnesses if any of them are aware of any demand for an extension to the Pentham Hills Regional Park. Does anybody like to kick off, Mr Kinch? We have not received any particular demand as council officers for an extended regional park, but we might not be the natural people to be spoken to. Is there any other councils that have received such a demand? We do not have a search board as we have not. Obviously, as a planner, we normally go through the planning process and these matters are identified through main issues reports such as the SES plan or the local development plan. That has not been an issue that should be of particular relevance to the Borders community. As far as I have planned, I should go as we have had no indication of demand. Thank you very much, Mr McGregor. From the City of Edinburgh Council's perspective, no direct demand. However, in its capacity as managing the existing regional park, there is a recognition that the recreational usage of the Pentland Hills extends beyond the existing boundary. However, that has not been expressed directly in terms of a demand to extend the boundary at this stage. Thank you. Mr Alcon? I am from West Lothian side. Some of the Scottish Borders recently just conducted our main issues report. The Pentland Hills was in there and there was no substantial response other than, I think perhaps, Curt Newton community council were split whether they thought that it was a good thing to extend it or a bad thing, but they are splitting a number of issues. They have been a member of community councils and I don't know how that works. That is the only organisation that mentioned the extension of the park then? Yes. Thank you very much. Mike, would you like to? Thank you, convener. Good morning. I am interested in exploring, in the first instance, how effective the current park is in meeting its various objectives to retain the character of the area, protect and enhance it, and to encourage responsible access and so on and so forth. How effective is the current park in meeting its objectives? The current park is approximately 27 years now since it has been designated. There is a fair track record of providing visitor management services within the northern area of the Pentland Hills. I guess to an extent that is for others to judge in terms of how effective it is. I am speaking in my capacity as working for City of Edinburgh Council, that is the current lead authority for the existing park. We have certainly endeavoured over the period to provide effective visitor management services and the core of that is around catering for the visiting public, around access points, footpaths, rights of way, signage and waymarking, visitor centres, providing information and advice for visitors about where to go, how to enjoy the Pentland Hills in a responsible fashion. There is about 27 years of incremental work in that regard. If you visit the existing regional park, I would like to think that that is fairly evident, that it is a managed landscape in terms of the facilities that are there for visitors so that they can enjoy the countryside responsibly on top of the existing land uses, such as farming, military training and water supply. That has been the idea all along, to provide a level of service to assist visitors to enjoy the hills responsibly while managing the landscape and also the impact on the existing land uses. Any other witnesses here to comment? I will move on, convener, to my next question, which is really to ask to what extent, if I am interpreting what you have said is largely positive. The next question I have really is to explore whether or not the area currently outwith the park, but within the scope of this bill, to what extent those objectives may or may not already be being met in that area. Perhaps all or any of the witnesses might care to comment on that. Pick up from Scottish Borders side, obviously, in the area in which the proposed extension is in the Borders. We have a series of core paths, promoted paths and obviously there are a series of environmental designations within that area. In terms of the environmental quality of that area and in terms of people's access to that area, that is already available at that moment in time and obviously we are balancing that provision within the balance of the rest of the borders in terms of the large area that we deal with. There is access there already, so would the designation of the park actually change that or assist or aid in meeting those objectives? I think that in many cases they are being met already. From the cytonic perspective, we don't concur with that exactly. We have core paths in the area and we actually can't see what real advantages there would be to public access or to natural heritage protection under the regional park designation that can't be delivered under existing legislation. Of course there is a matter of resources. It depends on the scale of facilities that it would want to put into an area such as that, but that has to be tated by the presence of significant populations. We understand for the regional park designation at the Edinburgh end our main populations where there are health challenges, etc. tend to be up on the fringes of Glasgow and around there and this is a very peripheral area for them. There was even a side of things, very small extension proposed it's only around about 22 square kilometres, six or seven properties, a couple of farms, one business, Scottish Water have the reservoir that they're looking to sell. First to commission, Scotland have a number of woods that they're looking to sell. No core paths, one right of way. Probably the key thing from our side is there's an area of special conservation, Creegangar moss, quite a large moss, right down in the corner of West Lothian as it puts on to Scottish Borders in South Lanarkshire. So it's really a very, you could say, the remotest part of West Lothian. We've had a number of wind farm proposals, particularly in that area. Scottish ministers refused Foghill last year. That farm is now up for sale. So in terms of recreational impact, if the wind farm had been there, there would have been a significant change, but now that that has receded, there's very little pressure we see on that area. There's no plans. We have no budget to spend anything in that area. Thank you. If I could just have a brief follow-up here, because into my shame, I suppose, that I've never been to this park, I represent the Highlands and Islands in my enormous straveg about the Highlands and Islands, but as I do so, I try and sometimes put myself in the mindset of a visitor, a tourist to that area, to try and gain some kind of understanding from that perspective. So if I were to, now as a result of this bill, and sitting on this committee, I'm going to make a particular point of visiting the park, but when I visit the park, and when I then go and visit this other area, is there anything as a visitor any difference that I would notice in terms of my experience? I mean, I appreciate this is difficult territory. It's maybe a bit subjective. I'm more fitting to ask, I don't know, a poet to write about this, but I'm sure Wordsworth would have covered that adequately, but you understand what I'm getting at. What difference would I notice as a visitor? We just addressed that briefly. There's a phrase in one of the existing aims of the current regional park, which refers to the essential character. I think as a starting point that essential character is an important thing. The current aims of the existing park is not to turn the upland landscape and the Pentland Hills into anything other than it is, which is a working landscape largely farmed. People have been walking there for many years, and there's an essential character to a visit to that area that is of import itself, and that's the value of the recreational experience. I would imagine that, should a boundary extend further into the southern hill range, that essential character would be the essence of what the park would be attempting to try and conserve and look after for current and future generations. In a sense, it would be subtle, and I would suspect that the facilities and the level of visitor management that would be provided in an extended area would be sensitive to that essential character. It's subtle. Great. Thank you. I would like to come in. If I could have a brief supplementary convener. Good morning, gentlemen, by the way. I find that quite interesting, because what we've determined, I think that it was Mr McGregor who described the current park as providing a slightly more managed recreational environment if I can put it that way. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but an increased level of management, I think, was the phrase that you used. I can absolutely understand the need for that where there is the pressure that would come to being in very close proximity to a city where the current park is, but pressure being the operative word that I'm looking at here. Now, everybody else has mentioned the current legislation on access, on co-paths that provides a level of management, but sort of unmanaged rather than managed in a way that something in the regional park would be. And the question I'm really going to ask is, in the area that is being proposed, is the pressure of recreational use such that an increased level of management is required in your view? I'm from Southland, I'm sure, no. Well, Ian, you can't see any pressure there at all. That answers my question. Thank you. A couple of questions. Thank you very much, convener. I could ask a general question to all the witnesses about finance, which is obviously one of the key aspects. Obviously, the committee have read all your evidence with lots of interest. Can I start with the existing situation that we have? Across the board and local authorities and beyond, finance is obviously a big constraining factor, and we all appreciate that. Perhaps the witnesses could tell me a little bit more, then, about the problems, constraints and opportunities of financing under the existing regime. Can I start with Mr Alcon, on my right, on my left? Obviously, we have only 10 per cent of the existing park area and it's part of the memo of understanding. That was drawn up in 1986. The proportion of the budget is related to that, so I think 15,000, 16,000 is what we spend at the moment, so maybe half a ranger's post. In the context of our access budget for the whole of West Lothian is 60,000 capital budget. We used to have a revenue budget of 32,000, that's recently been halved to 16,000 again for the whole of West Lothian. In this particular area, again, no core paths, so the priority has not been in this area at all. Currently, we actually don't have an access officer in post hoping to recruit one, but that's been three years now. The existing settlement, which the council has just agreed for three years, doesn't make any provision for any expansion or additional staff or additional resources for access or environmental works in this area at all, let alone the existing park. Will you say then that you're not meeting some of the current objectives that you set yourselves, or you just, as your head, just above Ballwater in terms of how the finance operates for your particular authority? Just in relation to this area, we also have a chair of Harperig Reservoir Local Nature Reserve management committee that involves residents, landowners, land managers, and their view is that they have quite a few issues there and, supported by the City of Edinburgh Council and the Ranger, we're able to work through the management plan for that area. Again, because of the visitor pressure being light in that area, it's mainly farm-specific environmental issues rather than a large number of visitors. Without the council contributing to the park and the staff resource from Edinburgh in that natural heritage service, working in that part of the park, our existing countryside services couldn't provide that range or cover in that area. Thank you, Mr MacGregor. From Edinburgh's perspective, I would imagine that this is similar for the majority. All of the existing partners is no surprise that local authority budgets are under very strong pressures at the moment. The current funding arrangement depends on the three local authorities providing revenue funding to provide an integrated service in the existing park. No surprise that that is under pressure, and I would say yes to the question about are we keeping our head above water? I would say yes. However, historically, there has been a decline in the overall budget for the park in terms of staff numbers, staff input and funding that's available for projects in doing things on the ground. There has been a challenge. However, I think that there is still a credible service provided thanks to the continued partnership from the three local authorities, but it is the case that that is a challenge to maintain. As we look ahead to the following years to come, I think that that will continue. At the moment, we have a credible and viable service for the existing park, but it is a challenge to maintain. You are the lead authority, aren't you? Do you find that there is any creative tension with your other colleagues in terms of whether we have spent that but you have not? Local authorities do not get exactly the same funding segment. Is there some tension there that you can reveal to the committee today? We have a management group for the regional park at which officers from all three authorities attend. We discuss regularly the programme of work that we are doing. I would say that the concept of the park is that it is managed across local authority boundaries through the work of the management group and the work of the joint committee through the annual reporting that we have for our outputs on an annual basis for the budget that we have. I would say that we make a pretty good job at managing it as a whole, and the output is reasonably fair across all local authority areas. Thank you, Mr Kerr. The Midland Council contributes in the region of about £60,000 annually to the Pentland Hills Ranger Service or Pentland Heritage Service budget. Largely, what Alan says is quite right. The service is keeping its head above water in terms of the staff. What we all recognise is that what we call the infrastructure of the hills, i.e. the path system, is something that is very costly and maintained and the budgets are not available for that at the moment. We are looking at other mechanisms between the local authorities to be able to fund that. That is an on-going process just now, so it tells you two things. One is that the service is doing a good job, but secondly, it does not have the budget and resources between all the local authorities to fund all the path works that they require to keep to make the whole path network sustainable. That is very, very costly. We might know what that is going to cost you over the next five years, so maybe that brings some perspective to it. That is very helpful. Thank you, Mr Muir. We have no budgets committed to the area of the extension at all. Over the past five or six years, I think that we have dealt with a couple of minor rights-of-way issues as we would do anywhere across the council area. We have assisted the friends of the Pentlands with moving a footbridge about four or five years ago, and we helped them with a leaflet last year to the tune of £200. Apart from a small expenditure of staff time and the odd help to community groups, there is not much else. In terms of the area, I think that we have provided some information on an estimate of the costings, which I think is something like £5,000 a year or thereabouts that we spend within that area in terms of core pass and promoting pass. Obviously, that has taken out of our wider budget for the whole of the borders because we will be covering more than 4,700 square kilometres of area with a long range of footpaths and such that we maintain. The core team that we have which are five access ranges and two pathways provide support within that wider area and provide support on occasion in the park area. However, there is no specific budget for that area. The broader budget that we have is used as necessary. That was a very broad estimate of what we think we have spent within that area on a manual basis. My final question is if I can move on to the proposed extended park. What funding sources would be available to each of the witnesses for issues such as parking, signage and path resurfacing? I appreciate that you would need to use some creative accounting perhaps to find some of that funding. As I mentioned earlier, it is existing for West Lothian capital revenue which has been agreed for the next three years. We are in year 2 of the three-year agreed cycle. Other than using the likes of the Central Scotland Green Network Trust we tend to do a lot of our green access type works. The issue with a lot of external funding is the match funding element of it. It is increasingly difficult to find a match, be it 20 or 50 per cent. Perhaps there are a number of community development trusts adjacent to the extension area of Curt Newton Community Development Trust and West Scotland Harbour Community Development Trust. They have access to funds but we are not picking up at the moment that they are looking at this area because the existing financial settlement that we have has not allocated any internal money towards this. Other than the likes of SRGP, it gets bandied around a lot of time. I believe that not only a million but it covers a whole of Scotland. It takes officer time to apply for these external grants and then let alone manage them. As I said, finding a match funding for it is increasingly difficult. Chris said that SRGP is available to land managers and local authorities to carry out works on land. Potentially heritage lottery fund. However, those things are all related largely to capital works perhaps for path improvements access, infrastructure and that type of thing. The challenge for the existing park is to apply to an extended part would be the bread and butter the in-day out visitor management services the management and upkeep of access points car parks, information visitor centres as appropriate staff on the ground to advise visitors and deal with conflict resolution dealing with farmers and landowners on issues that they have with access on their land. All of that is very much bread and butter routine service provision which is quite difficult to see how that would be provided at local authority, revenue funded service provision within the current climate is difficult to see how that might be extended at this stage. It is important to see that distinction between potentially there is money out there for works on the ground on a project by project basis but the on-going bread and butter services fall back to a revenue budget pressure for local authority. Funding sources correctly there is normally a matching element to be required isn't there and secondly there would be an opportunity cost charge in other words you would have to allocate staff to go away and work out how to do the application and if you are doing that you are taking them away from other tasks so there is two factors there and there is matching in staff time to do these various applications. Indeed and the staff time is spent both on project management as you just described but also the provision of visitor management services on the ground for public and farmers and landowners. Thank you Mr Kinch. I think Alan is right. The second issue of revenue funding for on-going maintenance management is a trick that would need to be sorted out and I am not quite sure how they would address that and it would be probably the local authorities to my right that would need to do that. In terms of capital funding I think that that is probably a little bit more straightforward I think that the local authorities if they are good, if this bill goes through and they can work with the groups like the Friends of the Pentlands and other organisations in order to get money they are quite often more funders and more likely to give funding to independent organisations and not local authorities so that would be one of the ways I would be looking to get money into the Pentland Hills for car parks and improving the past system. Thank you Mr Muir. I can see no flexibility whatsoever in our existing core operational budgets for this area of work. They are very very small we deliver a fairly extensive and I like to think quite innovative programme but it is largely based on supporting and empowering communities and other groups and developing partnerships for people like NHS Lanarkshire so most of our operational delivery comes through these sorts of streams we have nothing like that really focused on this area as I said it is very peripheral from what I would call our core populations in terms of health improvement and while we are more than happy to continue to work with the Friends of the Pentlands on things like infrastructure improvement in the same way as we do with groups all over South Lanarkshire I cannot see where any additional revenue funding would come for that area and we would not see it as a priority. Malcolm has just said from our perspective that we are incredibly tired of having spent most of yesterday going through further budget trimming there are a number of budgets and of the access is one which is vulnerable in many respects we have a limited team that covers a wide area and lots of core paths and Scottish National Trail and the rest of it we would have to be diverting in our key priority areas in terms of central borders in terms of Berkshire coasts and where we have the pressures from population and access to an area which again is peripheral to us where we do not see that there is the recreational need the demand within that area in the border so I just echo what Malcolm said in his presentation Thank you Just a very brief one or two view on the possible source of funding understandably, so of others but I just wondered if you can confirm the amount of SRDP available through the Improving Public Access pot which I think is what we are probably talking about here it has actually been reduced from what it was and is now about 1.2 million a year I think over the next five years it cannot be confirmed by anybody it can't be confirmed It is not My understanding is that it averages out at 1.2 million a year over five years for the Improving Public Access pot which is what I think we are looking at so it is it would be useful to find out I think because if it is a reducing amount it clearly adds to some of the pressure Okay thank you, Allie you've got a question Yes, I think it's probably almost been answered but we're talking about revenue costs Has anybody done an estimate of what the increased revenue costs would be in the park would be increased in size and if not could the cost be met from existing budgets and I think I know the answer to that one already It's my understanding that that detailed estimation of what additional revenue costs might accrue has not been carried out and I think that speaking from City of Edinburgh Council's perspective makes it quite difficult to assess the likely financial impact I think that there perhaps is a requirement for a little bit more detailed perhaps not feasibility but detailed investigatory work looking at what level of service provision might be envisaged for an extended regional park and in building up from that you'd start to be able to estimate the likely revenue required to provide those services to date that work hasn't been carried out As far as we again that is one of the concerns that we have raised in representations in terms of the lack of clarity in terms of the park itself and how it's delivering and its issues in terms of the financial position its organisation, its governance and such like. How that then translates to an extended area so our view is that there needs to be significant work in terms of looking at the park the extended park before we can actually get to a position where we know what the implications are going to be so if we don't think there is that clarity there to enable us to support it Sorry, does anybody else want to comment? Yes, I agree with that again we found nothing in the financial memorandum that would actually allow us to make reasonably accurate predictions And the second part of my question I mean I think you've already given us a picture that the current budget is pretty well stretched in terms of providing the objectives that you're required to do so I take the second part of my question it basically could not be covered out of current cost Certainly not within existing existing budgets now Okay, thank you very much Could I just ask Mr Aitman further to his sponsor and to the points he made in his objection you talked about the future staffing cost could you maybe give us a little bit more detail about what you think those staffing costs might be I think that's where we're saying that we don't have the clarity as to what the nature of the proposal is in terms of the organisation what the staffing costs will be what are the implications of the proposal and that's why we're raising concerns We have a small team as I've mentioned we have five access ranges and two wardens and we have a budget for the whole of the borders of £409,000 of which 236,000 is our staffing cost and we've highlighted spend budget to do that We've obviously got a large area to deal with with a lot of miles and kilometres of footpath so we don't, at the moment until we know what the potential implications are we can't make an assessment as to whether we can deal with that in terms of our existing budget and indeed as I've highlighted even our existing budgets are likely to be trimmed through the next year we're looking at sort of year one to five of the most significant cuts coming our way so there are views that we don't have enough information to make the assessment as to whether we can deal with it in existing budgets and as we go on over the next five years that budget is going to be reducing again so what are the additional pressures that this may bring so again it's just going back to the point we have a lack of clarity Do you have any idea of any fuel for what sort of extra services you may be asked to provide if this extension goes ahead well there's reference to a warden but is that in the submissions in the papers but we don't again until you know what the organisation will be what are we expecting from it until you've actually had a detailed analysis as I've mentioned before of the proposal and how it is going to work I don't think you can actually come to that you can come to that conclusion you'll be making a guess essentially as to what it would be one of the suggestions had been the possibility of moving to a trust model the members of the panel like to give me their views on whether a trust model might work for the extended part in terms of both governance and helping to relieve financial pressures Mr Muir you need to know where the core funding for the trust was going to come from because exactly the same principle supply really and there's usually with these trust an expectation that the local authorities are co funders to some extent and there is no money Does your name anybody else have a different view? Mr MacGregor Not a different view, it was really just to reiterate that there was a meeting of the existing Pentland Hills regional park joint committee in January of last year to address this issue and we had some input from Scottish natural heritage and others looking at what sort of models operate to provide similar services elsewhere and a discussion was held around how that might translate to the regional park and how it might translate to an extended regional park the consensus at this stage is that while there are potentially some benefits from a trust type model it does require local authority core funding typically and the issue about providing revenue funded services on the ground again remains a challenge whereas a trust based approach may be quite good at bringing in external funding from other sources that are not necessarily available to local authorities for infrastructure works on the ground the day in, day out visitor management services tend to be again revenue funded and difficult to sustain that on a longer term basis with a trust model one of the outputs from those discussions however was and it's a project just now that we're looking to try and get off the ground which is to work with existing trusts to actually increase the amount of work that we're doing on some of the footpaths and the access infrastructure in the Pentland Hills so we're looking at working with Edinburgh and Lothian's green space trust potentially caring gorms outdoor access trust to try and get a project off the ground to raise funds and deliver upland footpath improvements and leave out investment in that in a way that we've not been able to do before now the model there is not setting up a new trust bespoke to the regional park but actually to work more constructively with existing trusts leaning on what they are good at to actually provide improvements on the ground so that's one example of how working with a trust type model may work the feeling at this stage however is that to provide the whole integrative management of a regional park either existing or extended trust-based model is unlikely to be effective in the longer term Okay, thanks very much Is anybody else have any comment to making that? If not then my last question is a pretty straightforward one Can I ask each of you in turn if you would support the bill if there was no additional funding available Mr Aitman? There's no funding available? No Mr Muir? No Mr Kinch? I need to get approval from the council on that extra funding we would go ahead Mr McGregor? No however the caveat would be where would that additional funding come from and there may be further work needed to explore where that additional funding may come from whether it's from Scottish Government whether it's through other sources but the answer to the question is no without additional funding no we've been able to support it Thank you, Mr Rolff the position being that at the moment it's not been an initial short-term plan for financial aid it's not an existing financial strategy so there's not support at this stage Thank you very much Christine, would you like to ask? Yes, thank you very much I'm going to go back to the bill itself and the bill has one simple aim I ask you if you would agree with this it is simply to extend the boundary in the Shentland Hills Regional Park and does it on road outlines or subject later if local authorities wanted to tweak it over two years that's all the bill does would you agree? It simply extends the boundary I can't see anything in here about local authorities having to pay anything about management it just extends the boundary Extends the boundary but then what does that achieve? Thank you for that That's a good point and so my point is from something if I go to you Mr Aitman that you said as you said the designation I think I'm paraphrasing and it was also said by South Lancer that it would make no difference so it's neutral in terms of just moving it it makes no difference what you're already doing It would be a line on the map if there's no governance if there's no provision to actually deliver anything if you're just saying it's a line on the map it's a line on the map Exactly What is the point of that? Can I put this to you as well that although it's simply a line on the map it takes us to all this interesting debate and it's part of it but tangential to what it does about the additional funding if local authorities were required to do something would you agree with me at the moment that the arrangement between the existing local authorities is contractual? If the bill were to succeed and given that it's got a two-year period of running if it gets royal assent in that period although it's not the purpose of just extending the line it would be possible for local authorities and others to negotiate to discuss and so on and to come to other contractual arrangements amongst themselves or indeed with other organisations and charities it's possible you would agree if nothing happened in that period then nothing's gained and nothing's lost we've just put a line on the map is that correct? You have put a line on the map yes My point I'm making about this is that this debate is very interesting about the additional funding and of course I'm interested and I've attended many meetings about additional funding but we've got a Pentland Hills regional park which isn't the Pentland Hills regional park because it doesn't take in the whole range so first of all by doing this we'd bring in the entire range and we'd put that line on the map and what I'm trying to ask you gentlemen is that I see this as an enabling bill it sets out a format sets out a boundary for you within which if you are minded and I'm absolutely aware of the difficulties of budgets across local authorities focus can be put on how this can be managed the northern part and the southern part but what I'm asking of you gentlemen is to look at the bill just as it is and you say I would oppose this that's what I'm hearing from you there's no funding well you're opposing a line on a map and if it's just a line on a map why oppose it? If you put a line on a map there's a public expectation that something will be delivered and obviously at present if the bill doesn't go through look the authorities could come to the same arrangements and actually promote it if they felt there was a need to do so so from my point of view unless you go through that exercise that's the question of two councils to my left it says in the policy objective of the bill that it's about the long term it would be guided by the regional part principles aims would that mean then that would be more responsibility to two councils to just now have limited or no responsibility and would that therefore bring with it an extra cost I think there's the potential and again I have to say at this stage it's potential because we don't have clarity as to what the implications of that would be but there is certainly potential for that Mr Muir I mean I take the point but any form of boundary or any form of designation does generate some sort of expectation among actual and potential users and importantly among those who manage the land in the area as to the level of infrastructure and the quality of infrastructure that will be put in place at present I could not see us being in a permission in a position to commit to landowners to maintain the sorts of infrastructure that they discuss in their responses to this paper I'm looking at the actual cost because I want to get to it because it is the bill we're just discussing nothing else not how it's managed later, anything else and on the actual cost boundary being changed it's pretty well peanuts it's very low amounts 2000 you mentioned possibilities of wardens possibilities of car parks and the financial memorandum but they are just possibilities the actual cost would simply be information to the public is that not correct I mean I'm actually asking you here on the evidence on the bill and that's it boundary change what would it cost you that's it which is very important and very interesting actually is not pertinent to this bill there's nothing in here that says you have to set up another management arrangement there's nothing in here that says that you have to come to some contract or there's nothing that compels local authorities to do anything other than they're doing just now it simply puts the line on the map and that's why I'm concerned that what we're not discussing is this bill just reflect that the position with the existing regional park and the underlying legislation is as you describe it doesn't actually provide any duties on local authorities to do anything but it provides powers under which integrated management can be provided so I agree there's a range of levels to which additional services may or may not be provided on what they may cost at a later stage and so I agree there's a discretionary level of input that might be required at a later stage You see, I'm interested that I mean you give me a sort of I'm trying to find the polite words Mr Aikman I'm trying to get to the point of this of saying to you I appreciate your concerns all of you, I appreciate funding difficulties that's why the bill is drafted as it is that's why it doesn't make any compulsion on local authorities to do anything that's why it doesn't have anything about touching on management that's why it's simply a line on the map enabling over a course of two years if it can be achieved a different management setup and to encompass the entire range if that doesn't take place and the bill has passed it'll still be a regional park but there's no compulsion on local authority so I allay your fears gentlemen that you're suddenly going to have these demands made upon you as it has to be consensual amongst you all it can be at present that's the point, it can be if we in our communities feel there's a desire and need a pressure for this type of facility we can come together to do that and there has not been that desire of the need to do this so there is no need to put the line on the map in the first place respect the communities go to the planning office to tell them interesting things they've come to me about it and you know people like the west linton ramblers and in fact if I take in your parts of the world in carlops it puts itself as the gateway to the Pentlands so there are advantages to it and they can do that already through the promoted paths that they have thank you okay do you have any more questions Christine well I just hope that the gentleman would agree with me on the map and the costs are as designating the financial memorandum and all the other issues are extraneous to this particular bill and I would ask them to answer that one by one as you did if I may convener the question is as thoroughly as I can so the other funding things are extraneous to this bill in terms of the response of it I've already made I'll stand by the response that I've made I'm not convinced that the witnesses can answer that question completely because we're getting some information that says that there would be financial commitments by being regional part we'd rather look into that before I ask witnesses to commit themselves to something that might be erroneous I beg your pardon convener, I'm just asking is that the financial memorandum that's being challenged? that's we've got a briefing here that says it but we'll discuss that I'd rather take me back as I've never raised with me previously Colin, have you got any questions for the witnesses? Thanks for that convener and I think first of all just to explain the reasoning for me being here is between 2007 and 2012 I was a member of the Pentland Hills regional park management committee and from 2010 to 2012 I was in fact the convener of that committee and I'm here really in the background that I have and I have to say that I'm a little bit disappointed in the way things are I would going back I would sort of ask Mr McGregor I was my lead officer at that point if you could confirm what we were looking at with the certainly declining funds but also the representation of the regional park has not been a full range was certainly prevalent amongst those visitors who were visiting the park and also the fact that the relationships that were built within the park is a living breathing organism not just in terms of the visitor numbers and those people using the park for that purpose of recreation certainly in terms of the management of the park over the years grew to be a large success and if you could confirm it I would take me on to a second question after that Ark was originally designated the back in the days of the regional councils the concept was always to include the entire hill range because it's a landscape feature it's an integrated landscape feature the entire hill range and also the way in which people enjoy recreation in the Pentland Hills looks at the whole hill range people use the whole hill range as things stand it has different characteristics north and south people enjoy recreation in different ways and with different levels of intensity but the entire hill range is an integrated landscape feature and a place where people visit was always the kind of concept and the discussions that we had around what we've provided within the existing park boundary and some of those benefits to the entire hill range and there would be merits in that that's putting to one side everything that we've said about where local authorities are just now in terms of funding pressures and budgets and what we can and can't do but as a concept a regional park covering the entire hill range has many merits and I think that continues to be the case notwithstanding the pressures that local authorities find themselves under in terms of service provision so could you perhaps agree with me and perhaps the others may wish to comment that given the as has been pointed out by everyone that there is an acceptance of strains on local authority budgets that this bill actually may give us the opportunity as a stay in order that we could indeed find the option of the correct management model to take this on further because my fear is that if we lose this the old pressures of those people coming to the park as visitors and those people who work in the park in terms of business those old strains and stresses will come together and I know that in the park that we dealt with we had not just the farmers, the visitors but we also had the Ministry of Defence and you have all these different pressures so that we could have a management function on a light touch working with a consensus in a consensual fashion has proved highly successful and we should really give ourselves time to find this new model therefore trying to take the strains of local authorities Clearly from a managing authority City of Edinburgh Council's managing authority for the existing park I couldn't say that is or isn't achievable in terms of a negotiated position with the five local authorities about providing service However, certainly what we could do is contribute positively with reference to the 27 years of experience within the existing park which has a track record there's been successes there's been some challenges but there is a track record there to show what a regional park can deliver and some of those lessons could usefully be applied to providing service across a bigger boundary and would be very happy to contribute positively to those discussions However City of Edinburgh Council as a lead authority doesn't have a locus by itself to influence the outcome of that clearly of our negotiation at a later stage So just going back to the final point or really is the first point does this bill not give us that leeway to try and find a new model that can be found in that time consensually I would ask everybody having heard what we've heard On many ways in the dark about access by diversity, habitat whatever in the extended area and the staff and revenue and capital consequences from that So it's a bit like voting for Christmas and not completely clear what those issues would be and going into a new territory of a trust that ain't broke doesn't seem to be broken at the moment don't fix it concerned that local authorities may then lose involvement in that trust number of trusts we've seen have struggled a number of trusts in these sorts of environmental issues have struggled to retain staff and struggled to provide services in these times Worst the points have already been made I just want you to comment to respond to Mr Keogh I don't think the answer would be it may but it has the potential to do that but I think we have to have reference to the position that we find ourselves in at this stage but it may Final thing I would just say that in my opinion this time is required simply to hold the discussions to see if this is possible and the line in the map aspect that comes across is perfectly valid and I don't think it's worth preserving and looking for an option that could take this forward You've made your position very clear Alec, you want to come in If I may, I admire Christine Grahame's tenacity and reasoning in trying to find time to look at a different model but the only different model I've heard being suggested is a trust model and I have some knowledge of trusts but I'm no expert but I wonder if anybody can tell me a trust model and if you take local authority funding out of it that still doesn't depend very heavily on publicly funded bodies SNH, Forestry Commission Visit Scotland Can anybody highlight an example that doesn't depend heavily on the public purse? Not solely but heavily particularly for revenue funding I'm not aware of any and I just wondered if you are with your experience because I do think that that has some bearing on what we're looking at Have you just one last question for Mr McGregor and it comes from the question by Conker Could you give us an indication of the actions that have been taking over the last 27 years and speculate about whether similar ones would follow a new area if there was an extended park? The starting point as I understand it for the suggestion that the regional park should be set up back in the it goes back to the 1970s that's when the process started and the starting point was it was a landscape that people came out and visited and visited in numbers people were looking to enjoy the Pentland Hills and that in itself was creating opportunities but some pressures a large farming environment urban fringe particularly near to the Edinburgh area and there were issues that actually needed to be managed and that very much sort of drove the initial designation of the park there was something to be managed there was opportunities and there was pressures to manage and looking at an extended park down into the borders in South Lanarkshire it would be different and it would be sensitive to what the opportunities and where the pressures are I think it's fair to recognise that some areas are under greater pressure and are visited more heavily other areas of the Pentland Hills are much quieter have a very different character to them and that would need to be respected in terms of the week Clarify for me then when the regional park came into being what actions you had to take because you became regional park because of the expectation that was put on you about becoming a regional park? Yes, at that stage it was very much about providing management, a level of management services visitor and countryside management services and at the time it was a countryside commission for Scotland that funded the regional park fairly heavily and that carried on through to Scottish natural heritage funding as well up till relatively recently so the expectation was not just to create a designation for a designation's sake but it was about public recreational enjoyment of that upland landscape and the expectation was very much that services are provided to enable public enjoyment but also to provide support for the farming and land owning community who live and work in the hills and to integrate the two together and that was very much the ethos it's about service provision and the boundary and the park designation was a precursor to enabling that service provision so that's they do go hand in hand they do go hand in hand Okay, thanks very much for now coming to the end of our session so I'd like to thank the witnesses very much for their time this morning and for their full responses and I now close the session for five minutes to allow the next panel to suspend the session for five minutes Thank you Can I welcome the second panel representing the key stakeholder organisations we've got in front of us Robert Barre from the National Farmers Union of Scotland and grade policy officer environment Scottish land and estates Janice Winning, operations manager Scottish national heritage and Helen Todd, the campaigns and policy manager Ramblus Scotland I'd like to start off by asking the same first question of this panel Are you aware of any demand for an extension to the Pentland Hills regional park Helen Todd, could I start with you? No, not in the southern part of the park although we are aware that there are some pressures at particular times of year in the existing park at honeypot sites and also pressures for events throughout the year Okay, thank you No, we're not aware of any demand at all No one's come to us expressing demand for an extension of the park Mr Barre We see no demand for the park at all and from the far-mide point of view vehemently opposed to extending it on the past performance Okay, thank you very much My next question has already been answered by yourself Mr Barre I ask if you think that an extension of the park is needed to help me aims such as protecting the landscape and encouraging access, co-ordinating multiple uses of the land in the areas currently outside the park Do you want to come back in Mr Barre? I just feel that the park at the moment the management has dropped off very significantly over the years The education that we used to do has all dropped off and without that I don't think that we should be looking at extending the park I feel very much that if you designate the park as Christine mentioned earlier put a line on the map that will encourage people to go there therefore increasing a need and if we haven't got funding to comply with that and to work with that it's going to cause more bother for all the land managers in the area Can I just ask you a question about anticipated additional revenue costs if the park was extended Do you have a view on this? I don't know if you've heard the previous panel's answers We've got a very strong view in that as I've already mentioned the original park has been depleted over the years and we see the services getting depleted along with it as the need for the service grows by the increased number of people coming and we feel there should be a feasibility study to show where the funding is coming from because it's obviously not coming from councils You mentioned this and your objection is a individual as well We don't see how the objectives you mentioned you talked about protecting the landscape encouraging access and co-ordinating different land uses and in this context we're talking about the potential conflict between access takers and existing land management We don't see how any of that will be achieved simply by extending the boundary simply by creating a new line on a map to achieve any of those things would require resources funding management so it's difficult to see how the bill would achieve what it aims to achieve at the funding model You mentioned is the extension necessary for landscape protection allowing for recreational opportunities I don't think it's necessary because there are existing policies in place which allow for landscape protection and for enjoyment of the hills and enjoyment of the natural heritage I think that there were opportunities for more for a slightly more landscape protection slightly more opportunities for managing the whole of the Pentland hills range for nature and for people and for recreational enjoyment and having that land area managed but those opportunities could only be recognised really with full local authority support and stakeholder buy-in and from the consultation responses it's quite obvious that we don't have those final elements Can I ask you to explain the legislative protections that are in place already? The protection is through the local authority planning policies through their landscape designations to protect the Pentland hills the area of the Pentland hills and also Thank you very much Natural heritage designations protected through local authority planning policies I gave a fairly blunt answer before saying no we hadn't come across any particular desire from our members and others but we started from the position of the principle of the landscape as it is and we were very much involved in the Kangolm National Park extension into Highland Perthshire and as you recall there the geographic extent of the Kangolms was severed by a political boundary and that's the principle we've taken here that if you were to start from scratch looking at a Pentland Hills regional park you would look at the whole hills that you said earlier there is a merit in that there's been a lot of talk about visitor management, visitor pressures but actually you could split that around and say what opportunities there are there are obviously lots of people at one end of the park not so many visiting the others and as well as the pressures and the management that requires it also brings a lot of economic benefit to businesses around that area so where pressures might be seen as bad news or we have to repair the past we have to make sure that people are managed and of course there are land use concerns there these are also opportunities as well and I just wanted to refer to one of the studies that was mentioned in the papers for this meeting that the council had done a study about the social return on investment because it wasn't mentioned earlier for every pound they put into the Pentland Hills regional park they get up to 13 pounds in return on social investment so that means the health benefits that people get the volunteering skills that people learn and so forth so these are not inconsequential benefits that could be spread to other parts of the park okay thank you very much Dave thank you convener I think Helen Todd has just touched on my question which was that Rambour Scotland have said that in the longer term economic opportunities will open up to businesses in the new section of the park and those will offset any additional funding required in the short term can I ask what the other witnesses think about that statement could start with yourself Mr Barre if you just look round the park at the moment as it stands I think you'll find that there's very few businesses that have actually jumped on the bandwagon and used the park for their you know their means of business I think Swanson's about the only one that's using that all the rest are you know that there are numerous pubs that were around the area and they've all closed I think there's only one left that's two maybe we're on the periphery you thank you for that Tim, angry? yeah I think there's a bit of a mismatch in the in the randdler statement in what they're suggesting in as much as to it will be private businesses that potentially accrue benefits if those opportunities are there to be had but to manage the park requires public funding input so you know it's fine that increased investment may provide some business opportunities and maybe offset in other ways but we still need to find that investment and it doesn't appear to be there at the moment I think the other thing is that there's nothing particularly stopping people taking advantage business advantage of the southern part of the Pentlands regional park at the moment if they want to recreation businesses could be using that area some will be but it's not clear that by bringing that area within a regional park that that alone that in itself would create additional opportunity I think those opportunities are about location about accessibility about the types of activity people want to carry out in that area and if that demand existed I can't help but feel in that it would already be happening there's no huge barrier to that happening at the moment I think that there might be some small opportunities for rural economic development and businesses based on tourism but they probably would be relatively small scale and perhaps limited to certain communities like West Linton have to be more of a gateway to that southern part of the park there is a model elsewhere in Scotland the Loch Lomond Trossach's countryside trust where businesses within the national park can voluntarily provide income for the actual running of the park and I suppose that's the business model which we would like to see contribute to the wider infrastructure and things but it would require many businesses to reach the revenues that are required Thank you. I move on to my second question to give Helen Todd a speaking part you mentioned in your submission about the importance of our trust model and how that might work in an extended Pentlandsill regional park could you explain to the committee how you see the trust model working? I don't think I have anything else to add from what was discussed earlier because as certainly different models have been discussed within the joint committee already I just know that we don't have expertise in this I'll be quite frank but I do know from seeing the Upper Deeside Access Trust become the Cairngorms Outdoor Access Trust and as Janice mentioned the Loch Lomond Trust starting up this is more and more a model for getting access management funded we're seeing it throughout Scotland and just to add to that at the moment there isn't very much recreation taking part in the extended area of the park that's absolutely true I've tried all over the place to look for examples of where I could go for a walk there really aren't that many promoted routes I think there would be a real potential for this discussion and an extended boundary to add to the opportunities for promoting that area a lot more and think oh gosh how can we get people to come here it's a really nice place where can they go for a walk because it's not just about building paths it's actually telling people what's there already and I don't think it's well known what's there already notwithstanding your comments about the trust model do you think the trust model in any way would help with cost cos obviously that is a key aspect of our earlier discussions because there's a lot of different funding sources out there and obviously the focus is so much on local government what can be provided centrally but there are a lot of other funds just to take an example Pentland Hills is absolutely teeming with cultural heritage so the heritage lottery fund might be an example it's nothing as easy and it all takes staff time I recognise that but I'm on the Scottish Outdoor Access Network committee as is Ann and we recently had an event looking at different funding sources and the wide range of opportunities there that local authorities in partnership with communities and others can tap into is growing I would say I'm just going to ask other panel members then about what their view is of the trust model going to start with Janice Winning Yes, SNH gave advice to the joint committee and we talked about the different trust models around Scotland and the pros and cons and there are cons for different there are pros and cons for different models and I think the conclusion from the joint committee was that to set up another trust would actually clutter the landscape as it were of the trusts that are already operating within the Pentland Hills we have the Edinburgh and Lothians Greenspace Trust and the Central Scotland Green Network Trust and the Friends of the Pentlands all who are able to access external funding and carry out projects on behalf of visitor management in the park so to have another trust layered on top of that which competes for funds might not be the best best use of time and money and that we would be better working with the existing trust to deliver some of the projects that we wanted and hence SNH has put money up front to say that we are willing to help fund a path development project taken forward by Edinburgh and Lothians Greenspace Trust with advice from Ken Gorm's Outdoor Access Trust I think you've partly answered the question I was going to ask you which was the obvious point could you then ask the existing trust to have an extended role on an extended park so they could access other money funds through their trust role Yes, I think that is a possibility and in fact the Friends of the Pentlands can operate across the Pentland Hills fully at the moment Yes So instead of creating something new we can use the good skills we have very well with the good work carried out by existing trusts That's very useful, thank you Anne Gray I'm not an expert on trust but I'm certainly aware of other ones that have operated fairly successfully throughout Scotland the Ken Gorms Outdoor Access Trust others have struggled and haven't quite got their model right but on the whole I think it's a valid thing to look at My slight concern, hesitation with trusts is that the revenue funding for them tends to still come from some element of the Scottish public purse and the Scottish public purse across the board is under pressure so it would be interesting to see how even existing trusts cope with that pressure from main funders There's certainly a successful lever in capital funding and at match funding capital funding but that requires the basis of staff and offices and all the revenue funding that sits under that pulling together capital funding work No harm in looking at it certainly within the existing park but I think it feels a little bit carp for the horse to look at extending the boundary before we've explored how it can be funded trust model certainly could be one option but we'd want to see that work done and to be confident about it before the extension was put in place and I think certainly it should be looked at in the existing park and explored there before we look at the idea of applying to an extension That's very helpful Mr Barr I don't know enough about trust I'm afraid but what I do see is trying to get funding for what we have at the moment friends of the Pentlands I know a lot of them quite personally they're lovely people they do a great job but they struggle to get volunteers to do administrative work at the moment and how would they go if they were handling an awful lot more money the other point I'd like to make is that the Pentland Hills sits and looks over a good part of the financial district of Edinburgh and there's never been very much money from there for any of the projects in the past and I can't see that changing in the future We shouldn't start calling the Royal Bank of Scotland National Park or Standing Life National Park I sit and watch the money that's been spending from my house I think on that note I'll better hand back to the convener I wish he'd handed back a couple of seconds Ask Alexquist Moving on to a slightly different topic I think you all heard the previous session a number if not all of the witnesses said it was quite difficult to answer some of the questions because of the lack of detail and further knowledge of what would be involved and all of that type of thing and indeed in I think it was Westlothian in their submission highlighted the need for basically what I mentioned a feasibility study if this was to go ahead to look into the ins and outs, pros, cons and all the rest of it and many people said that SNH was probably the best place to sorry not many people Westlothian suggested that SNH was the best placed body to carry out that study so can I ask what your view of that is whether there has been any initial work done on the feasibility including the financial feasibility of a park and where SNH stands on this if I can Yes, we're aware of that call for SNH to carry out a study without full local authority support it wouldn't be right for SNH to carry out work that didn't have the support from all the local authorities for taking forward the park and that really became apparent from the responses to the consultation instead what we tried to do was focus on the financial security and management of the existing park and that's why we looked at the trust the models of different trust arrangements so instead of feasibility we were looking more at security of funding looking at the existing park to see whether a funding mechanism could be could be found that also then could roll out to an existing park in future years should that be the case so and also again looking instead of feasibility on it's difficult to know what resources would be required because of the demand that would require visitor studies and we don't have funding for that or the resources to do that at the moment within SNH or within the park because in order to work out the costs we need to work out what the demands and facilities might be so it's a very difficult thing so we moved away from feasibility more to sound financial management and money for projects I hear exactly what you're saying and forgive this question it's born out of ignorance on my part if there were to be a feasibility study who would initiate that where would the original call come from I think it would come jointly from all the local authorities that were involved and they would be putting the finance behind it as well they'd be putting the finance but sorry, I don't mean to be flippant and that may be sounded a bit flippant what you're saying is that you have concentrated so far not so much on feasibility studies as how the existing park could be made to work better and if necessary if the security for that can be put in place possibly extending it thereafter is that fair sorry thank you very much thank you representing the Highlands and Islands I get a number of letters from constituent farmers crofters concerned about issues of conflict between them and walkers and people using the countryside in a recreational sense and there's a particular case that comes to mind from a crofter on the island of Iona who was driven mad I must say you're nodding your head and so the first thought that occurs to me has asked the question about any conflicts that have arisen in the park over the last 20 odd years is that these issues are not unique to parks but I just wonder what conflicts that have been in the park to date what is that implied in terms of management and resolution of the conflict or any of these conflicts and what are the implications in terms of conflict for extending the boundary just bearing in mind though that this may not be unique to this park in this situation I haven't got enough time to go through all the conflicts Christine will tell you she's been up to visit and I would extend the invitation if anybody wants to come up and see the park we can show them round and show them a lot of the conflicts I'll just list a few my main one and I'm right on the doorstep of Cullington which is there's a lot of dog walkers use the hills below and above the park designation line so we have a terrible amount of sheep being worried by dogs just this week I had one sheep turned off reservoir with a dog which was totally out of control by the time I got there dog and person had gone and reporting these matters to the police I've been moaned at and told I should report every case to get the statistics up but you know you couldn't do it it would just take too long the other areas of conflict are the uses of the park honeypots have been mentioned already and on a glorious Sunday during the summer trying to get a combine or a tractor past some of the parked cars in the area is just die, not impossible the other problem I see is that I find the people that use the park have changed over the years you know you go back to late 70s early 80s when I was a young boy in the farm the amount of people that were walking in the hills were usually bird watchers or just people out for a walk they all knew they didn't need a countryside access code they knew the code of conduct and they were more helpful than anything else but these people have moved and they're probably in the part of the hill that we're wanting to extend the park into peace and quiet but I find the people that are coming now are more cyclists, horse riders families out for a walk just in the countryside and it's through ignorance we get the problems people climbing fences, dykes and the small amount of damage they cause it mounts up over the times so these are very few of our problems thank you any witnesses get any comments I think the areas of conflict tend to be the areas that you see right across Scotland so it's things like gates not being left as they were found dogs, whether that's dog fouling or worrying sheep littering, gates blocked and the more people you have recreating in an area the more you see these types of pressures in areas where you've not got the same pressure they tend to be less obvious certainly in the existing regional park I think the ranger service has been instrumental in managing those conflicts and it's not just the ranger service but the ranger service can help put infrastructure in place that helps with the management whether it's dog poo bins whether it's better paths and people tend to once they're on a path stick to a path and wander less whether it's information about existing land management about not letting your dog worry sheep all that kind of understanding education and infrastructure can be built up and put in place by a decent ranger service the existing ranger service has come under pressure and it's finished a bit in recent years and that's a great shame I think in the extension area it remains to be seen the type of pressure that would exist in that extension area certainly if one of the aims is to encourage access and active efforts put into that you would expect more people and therefore you would also need a ranger service and facilities in that extended area I think if you saw the type of increase that you might expect in recreational activity in an extended park that needs to be accompanied by something that helps to manage that pressure I think it's already been said by Ann but I'd like to repeat that the natural heritage service within the park provides an excellent mechanism to manage the conflicts of user groups and recreational pressures on land management activities and they do that through advice and information and lots of promotion and they're doing a really good job at that Can I just follow up then briefly on that though because if they are doing a very good job why then does Mr Barr have the concerns that he's expressed a few minutes ago Well there will be incidences the odd incident which escapes the ranger activity but hopefully over time they will become less, not more that would be a question for the regional park to answer but I'm not aware that the pressures are increasing I understand what Mr Barr just said that from his perspective the pressures have increased over the years that was my interpretation of what he said and I'm bound to take those concerns seriously and I'm not doubting anybody's intent and I'm sure everybody has excellent intentions but what I'm interested in is what can we learn about and I think there's an inevitability about those pressures people wish to use the countryside more we're going to see this increasing you know whatever Mr Barr may feel about it those pressures are not going away given that we're all here given that we're discussing this subject is there anything new that any of the witnesses can bring to the table in terms of how we manage these pressures better and what opportunities does this bill present in terms of shedding light on our understanding of how to do that there is perhaps nothing new that can be done this is not something that's obviously just an issue in the Pentland Hills regional park as you mentioned it's widespread across Scotland and yet as a society it's our desire to see more people taking exercise to be enjoying outdoor recreation more often because we just know the benefits that comes to health as well as in some places economic benefits for those rural communities as well so it's a national government priority to have more people getting into the countryside as well it's one of the national indicators in the Scottish performance framework so this is a national priority therefore we continue to make the cases in our organisation for more national funding to be spent on access staff authorities and so forth so in terms of as Anna's mentioned if you have Pentland Hills regional park you then have ranger services who are able to give that level and certainly in some of the documents for this committee meeting it was mentioning that some of the benefits that landowners get is that they do have a slightly better, higher level of service from the local authorities because of the Pentland Hills regional park management so yes it's an ongoing problem it's about educating the wider society but at the same time we don't want to stop people from coming out into the countryside and it has to be recognised as a national priority and therefore funded okay and just finally my final question community if you don't mind I just wonder Mr Barr I think touched a very interesting point when he said that the nature of the people countryside has changed over the years and I wonder if my management were kind of almost destroying what it is that attracts people to the countryside I'm thinking of Wordsworth's poem when he started off I wandered lonely as a cloud and so to what extent are we actually destroying what it is people are actually seeking from the countryside when we attempt to manage this situation I think that perhaps get to the heart of the conflict that goes on people want to recreate in the countryside and they want to recreate sorry is that last question now mate he's got his water and land management goes on in the countryside foods produced, timbers produced all sorts of activity economic activity takes place and the two things don't naturally always sit that well together they can where recreation is light the whole thing can be managed quite well but I think there is if you like the countryside is the factory floor of farmers and foresters and so on and people are coming to recreate an outside pressure coming into that I guess over the years the type of recreation that happens has changed so we didn't mountain bikes have come about I think from probably about the 1980s late 80s early 90s onwards before that mountain biking wasn't something that was done in any great numbers and that plates is a different type of pressure on the countryside and I think also urban society has shifted we become a more urbanised society and people have less of a natural connection to the types of things that go on on the countryside so as Bob said earlier people perhaps naturally have less of an understanding of the type of land management activity that takes place so there's a whole range of factors that maybe contribute to why that conflict might be more prevalent now than it appears to have been in the past and it might just be that more people are getting out into the countryside and that's no bad thing for health and for lots of different reasons but it does mean that we have to give some support to those that live and work in the countryside that gain a living from being in the countryside and that live in the countryside and want a bit of privacy when they're out there and that does require management that requires resources we need to whether it's by providing waymarked routes so that people avoid potential areas of conflict whether it's through education and things like rangers services whether it's about providing facilities for dog walkers and that sort of thing so it's not impossible to manage those conflicts but it does require a resource Thank you Would you like to come on? I'll follow up to that and it really stemmed from my colleague Mike Mackenzie's question about how you can better manage the pressures that Mr Barr was referring to and in terms of this bill the designated area of a regional park you are creating something of a magnet for people to come and enjoy the facilities within that national park whatever they may be and it is the number of people that increase the pressure that requires the management and the resource to avoid the conflict Is that roughly the equation? That's absolutely right So potential danger of increasing the designated area within a regional park without having the resource to manage the pressures to me would suggest that you might diminish the existing park within which there is a degree of management if that degree of management doesn't isn't replicated in the rest of the park as well Is that a reasonable concern? The resource is too thinly so if the existing resource needs to manage the new resource as well you could spread the whole thing too thinly or you concentrate on the areas of greatest pressure which are probably the existing park because it's closest to Edinburgh and you don't therefore provide opportunities in the extended area and assuming that there is an increase in people wanting to use it which is a reasonable expectation if you do create a new boundary and extend it I think you do raise public expectation I think they will expect to go to that area and see waymarked routes and see the other things that you'd see in the other part of the park you potentially disappoint the people that want to recreate and you also don't provide the support that land managers need to make the whole thing work I think I'm fine with that I don't know if anybody else wants Yes, please just a couple of points you've raised there the Rangers service I've got to commend them they do a great job for what they have but 4 o'clock in the afternoon the schools get out the kids all arrive, there's no Rangers there the Rangers service stops at 4 o'clock it's funding restraints I'm sure there's now very few Rangers covering the whole of the area it's a massive area to cover so they're not always going to be on hand when they're required the biggest problem I see is the education we've lost the educational side of the Rangers service they used to take school classes round and educating the young people on how to behave in the countryside that no longer happens that's not just the Rangers service that's all over, that's schools all over Scotland but the point I really wanted to make was that I've seen what's happened in our existing regional park why the increase in pressure has spoiled the wildlife and the habitat areas we have Penali for instance there's what they called sanctuary wood where there were a lot of bird watchers went there to watch all the birds now there are so many cyclists and dog walkers going through it the rarer birds just aren't there any longer they've moved I'm seeing the same Scottish Water have now opened all the reservoirs to the public because they're not used for drinking anymore and all the woodland round these reservoirs is exactly the same Harlaw is just walking down Prince's street some days Cloverine is exactly the same and these are my concerns that the people that used to enjoy the wildlife side of it have had to move further afield to see the rarer aspects of it to some of the periphery of our regional park and possibly into the area that we're speaking about and we're soaking up the pressure and I think something needs to be done about that to keep it where it is because if we move it we're just really pushing the pressures further out Okay, does Christine, do you have a question? Can I ask you both the seven con and the witnesses now if we can try and keep up everything as concise as possible? I can see the time, thank you convener thank you very much for taking me to your farm I thought you were trying to cause a by-election by perching me next to a precipice but I gave you the benefit of the doubt but I absolutely accept everything you have said about in particular of interest to me is the changes over the decades and the changes in the usage and so on Now having ranted a wee bit about what this bill is actually about which we all accept is just a line on the map it doesn't put any obligations on local authorities or the MDFs to do anything in particular and it wouldn't come into effect for two years after Royal Assent so let's just pop that there because that's all it does but tangential to that because I was well aware of the difficulties of the existing park can you tell me since I brought this proposal forward has this made any change in the focus on the various agencies on the existing park has this had any kind of has it been a bit of an agile and provocateur with regard to that? Yes I think it has as Janice has said already we've had a meeting with the joint committee talking about trusts more funding that comes in the better as far as I'm concerned but I'd like to see the regional park as it is being a success before we try and expand it when you talk about your line, Christine I feel the line is a provocateur for bringing more people in and if the councils are not there to soak up the pressure who is the farmers, the landowners and the land managers they're going to have to people will see that we have two types of park well we have three types of park there's Benally Public Park Benally Country Park Benally Regional Park but you ask any member of the public and they won't know the difference Can I just say Robert you've made the point for me I don't think people would realise when they're moving from the current regional park out with it but there is a difference as we're aware and we know in the management of the two parts Can I ask therefore what you're saying is absolutely correct but do you feel there would have been I shouldn't really ask a question I don't know the answer to I'm going to ask it anyway Do you feel that there would have been any movement about the financing and concerns and the highlighting the pressures on the current park the way it has happened had I not brought forward this bill There was always going to be restraints put on funding which always creates discussion about it but yes it has acted as a catalyst to get things moving I think I don't know if anyone else wants to respond to that particular line because my point I'm making is in making a delay for two years which is very specific if this were to proceed through the various stages then to royal assent and delay it for two years is that at the very worst outcome things would remain just a line on the map neutral and perhaps shrinking budgets to the what was the former part but in that two years it would also exercise it's not the point it would exercise that pressure about funding not just for the existing the whole park itself given that we're looking decades ahead it's nothing has changed in decades so far so putting it to a like that would you I don't know if you would comment on that if you think it would have the same kind of this went through with therefore focused minds on feasibility sites whatever you like to do for that two year period but if this does it go through none of that will happen It certainly has the potential to do that even if in the basic case of just mapping what's already there in terms of carparks and so forth and we've heard from the other local authorities that there are already core paths and other routes within that area which they are already managing and natural heritage sites as well so it would be a case of just mapping what's there already at the very least and seeing perhaps where some improvements could be made maybe if a carpark could be extended or what have you I think we need to have we need to be much clearer about a funding model before the bill proceeds I have to say I think the danger is that we can't at the minute from what the local authorities have said they can't see a particularly viable way forward in terms of a funding model and if we do two years down the line get to the state of an automatically extended park which is what the bill proposes whether the authorities can agree or not then the danger is that we do raise public expectations we have a new extended park and yet those expectations can't be met because we don't have the funding to meet them and I think as I said before you either then people go out and don't get the facilities that they think and they're disappointed and the landowners and managers don't have the support of the local authorities of arranger's service and they have to deal with the pressure of those additional people so I think I really strongly feel that we have to be much clearer about the funding before this goes forward Can I just challenge on expectations? See that's the other panel members if they want to speak first then you can come back in but we are getting close to the end of the session Certainly the consultation and the bill has focused minds but I think local authority pressures budget pressures would have been such that we would have had to have a look at funding mechanisms anyway and look at how we were going to fund the infrastructure within the park on a longer term basis so that we would have focused minds but it would have happened May I return? It's just that you say it raises expectations I've had this thrown at me before but Mr Barr you made the point that people don't know when they're moving out of a regional park and into different kinds of parks it's just countryside to them it may be the informed people like ramblers but for punters and so on going out with a family they don't really know so I don't know whether you disagree Ms Gray that she says it raises expectations because according to you it makes no difference at the moment That's not quite what I was meaning what I was meaning was I don't think it makes any difference to the different type of park but the word park as soon as you put a line on the map and it says park they feel they can do what they like in it and use it as a public park, regional park country It's just actually from Robert and Anne seem to be making my case for why we need a regional park more than anything else and the fact that if we carry on the way we're going with the unsustainable model that the present park has this minute in time we're going to have a situation where it becomes a free for all and in four, five years time and everything's collapsed it doesn't matter which part of the earlier on the local authority is going to have to go out and do something to help because there will be stresses as the numbers invariably rise so, given the fact that there's a two-year time period for this and you talk about expectations rising all that given the threat at the end of it where local authority finances might be at that point where the present setup is unsustainable who knows, certainly I felt that in my day that was very very difficult to come through and we're not going to get into a situation if we don't knock heads together over the next couple of years and actually force local authorities to talk to each other facilitate the information and to find the model don't we think we're going to end up in this position where there will be almost extreme measures have to be taken at that time to stop people using the land in whichever way they want I think there's nothing to stop people spilling out into the whole of the Pentlands range at the moment if they want to the access rights give them that ability so there's nothing to stop them using the whole of the range for recreational purposes if the demands there local authorities may well have to look at how that's facilitated whether they do provide an extended range of service whether they do look at upgrading and improving paths whether they do put in signage all the other things that might come with that we don't need an extended boundary line to make that happen that should be driven by demand but I kind of suspect actually that people that the demand is at the top end of the Pentland Hills regional park because it's so accessible from Edinburgh from the bypass and from other surrounding places we would have to do something to really encourage people to use the southern end if we wanted to spread that demand out and that requires resources it doesn't require a line on a map to change it requires us to identify that we'd like to push people down there and spread the load and find the funding to do that I don't know whether people are willing to move that far whether they want to focus on the existing regional park for the recreation or not I think that the trouble for me with the bill is that it does raise all these questions and that's a completely legitimate discussion to have but let's have the demand figures the feasibility, the funding first before we go as far as just putting an arbitrary line on a map I think that there are some issues that are quite fundamental and it's a case of are communities in the borders or anywhere else for that matter not expanding their communities over the next few years? They probably are but we from what we've heard from the local authorities do not necessarily see the demand for recreation in those areas in the borders, in South Lanarkshire coming to that southern end of the park I don't necessarily accept that as a premise I have to say I would really just like to say that the and I hope that there is some agreement because I know Robert from my days in working the pen ones but I do think that there is an element in time for what I've heard saying there is a need for management the stuff that has been done in the old park has been really good but we just don't want it in our patch down here I don't think that's true at all nobody here is saying that access shouldn't occur in the southern end of the Pentlands or that people don't want others to land owners and others living there don't want people to enjoy that countryside but I think one, it doesn't necessarily need the boundary line to change for that to happen but what it does need is resources and financing if we're going to make that happen because there is potential for clash and we need to minimise that and make it work but I don't know can we just bring this to a close please, I have one question I'd like to have a panel and we are getting to the end of the session so thanks very much Conn this is basically for you Ms Winning could you give me an idea of the additional responsibilities of this extended area if it is designated as part of the regional park sorry, the additional responsibilities on if that extended area became part of the regional park on local authorities and cells and whoever responsibilities, I think there would be additional requirements for visitor management at what scale would depend on the level of demand in order to reduce one of the solutions for conflict resolution is to ensure that we have the correct infrastructure there so that we can manage people fast on their mountain bikes and separate them from those people who want to take quiet enjoyment of the countryside and so there will be resources required to create that infrastructure to prevent conflict does anybody else have any views on that just endorse what Janice has said okay, thank you very much on that case then we'll just draw this session to a close I want to thank the panel for their time and their evidence and that is a meeting officially closed thank you