231027DraftFormalBoardMinute

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Draft Minutes of the Board Meeting

Held at The Stag, Forfar

In Per­son

27 Octo­ber 2023 at 1.00pm

Present Sandy Brem­ner (Con­vener) Elean­or Mack­in­tosh (Deputy Con­vener) Chris Beat­tie Steve Mickle­wright Rus­sell Jones Lauren Mac­Cal­lum Dr Gaen­er Rodger Dr Fiona McLean Xan­der McDade Kenny Deans Han­nah Grist John Kirk Peter Cos­grove Ann Ross Derek Ross

In Attend­ance Grant Moir, CEO Dav­id Camer­on, Deputy CEO & Dir­ect­or of Cor­por­ate Ser­vices Mur­ray Fer­guson, Dir­ect­or of Plan­ning & Rur­al Devel­op­ment Andy Ford, Dir­ect­or of Nature & Cli­mate Change James Ade, Clerk to the Board Catri­ona Strang, Clerk to the Board

Apo­lo­gies Geva Black­ett Bill Lob­ban Doug McAdam Paul Gibb

Page 1 of 8

Wel­come and introduction

1. Sandy Brem­ner, the Board Con­vener, wel­comed every­one to the meet­ing, express­ing his sym­pathy and sup­port for every­body affected by the flood­ing. Apo­lo­gies were noted.

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Page 2 of 8

Declar­a­tions of interest The Con­vener noted that mem­bers right to par­ti­cip­ate in the ele­ment of the dis­cus­sion regard­ing gov­ernance of Nation­al Parks and Nation­al Park Author­it­ies had been covered by the Deputy Chief Exec­ut­ive and Dir­ect­or of Cor­por­ate Ser­vices in his advice note issued to mem­bers. There were no declar­a­tions of interest.

Tack­ling the nature emer­gency — Con­sulta­tion on Scotland’s Stra­tegic Frame­work for Biodiversity’

1. Grant Moir, Chief Exec­ut­ive, intro­duced the paper which out­lines the Scot­tish Gov­ern­ments con­sulta­tion on legis­lat­ive changes affect­ing the future of the country’s Nation­al Parks.

2. The Board con­sidered the detail in the Paper and dis­cus­sions took place around the fol­low­ing: a) A Mem­ber raised their dis­ap­point­ment at the lack of men­tion of the pop­u­la­tion crisis with­in the Park (based on decreas­ing school rolls and clos­ing of indi­vidu­al primary schools) with the mem­ber feel­ing ​‘people’ and ​‘place’ have not been fully con­sidered. The CEO respon­ded by stat­ing that it was a nation­al con­sulta­tion rather than one just focussed on the Cairngorms and he out­lined some of the work the Park Author­ity has done to help address pop­u­la­tion issues such as the new com­mit­ment to 70% afford­able hous­ing, also stat­ing that he would be happy to respond to the con­sulta­tion that the Board would like to see more emphas­is around people and place. The Mem­ber agreed that they would be happy with this approach. b) Mem­bers dis­cussed wheth­er the cur­rent first aim should be spilt as pro­posed in the con­sulta­tion. Some argued that work on nature and people needs to be in part­ner­ship and split­ting the aims takes away from cul­ture, cre­at­ing a hier­archy, with con­cerns raised that this change would play into the hands of crit­ics. Oth­er Mem­bers wel­comed the split­ting of the aim, cit­ing the import­ance of Nation­al Parks’ lead­er­ship in help­ing nature, with the cli­mate response cre­at­ing more jobs and bring­ing people back to the Park. Addi­tion­ally, it was raised that by split­ting the aims cul­tur­al her­it­age, would no longer be sub­sumed by nature. The CEO high­lighted it is the Park Authority’s job to achieve all the aims and they are not a hier­archy, no mat­ter the order. It is only if there is con­flict between the aims that great­er weight is then giv­en to the first aim.

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Page 3 of 8

Con­sulta­tion Pro­pos­al 1 – Sup­port this amend­ment to the pur­pose of Nation­al Park Authorities.

1. The board unan­im­ously agreed with the proposal.

Pro­pos­al 2 – Sup­port the pro­posed changes to the Nation­al Park aims and con­sider the final pro­posed word­ing of the aims as an Author­ity when the Bill is drafted.

1. The Board con­sidered the pro­pos­al and dis­cus­sions took place around the fol­low­ing: a) Mul­tiple mem­bers debated keep­ing the ori­gin­al aims as the cli­mate crisis is a people crisis and without bring­ing people along the cli­mate crisis can­not be addressed. Oth­er Mem­bers reasoned that pro­posed aim 2 is refer­ring to cul­tur­al her­it­age which is not refer­ring to people, but his­tory of people’s impacts. Split­ting the aims is not about split­ting people and nature, and tack­ling the nature crisis is try­ing to lim­it the impacts on people. Mur­ray Fer­guson, Dir­ect­or of Plan­ning & Rur­al Devel­op­ment, high­lighted that cul­tur­al her­it­age was defined in the Nation­al Parks (Scot­land) Act 2000 and refers to struc­tures and oth­er remains res­ult­ing from human activ­it­ies from all periods.

2. Xan­der McDade put for­ward an amend­ment to refuse the split­ting of the cur­rent first aim and to main­tain the pos­i­tion adop­ted by the board at its earli­er con­sid­er­a­tion of this point as stated in the paper: ​“The Park Author­ity think that the intent of the cur­rent aims should remain the same but that the lan­guage could be mod­ern­ised and should include a ref­er­ence to nature recov­ery and the cli­mate crisis. The aims should embed the prin­ciples of a Just Trans­ition and the import­ance of cul­tur­al her­it­age should con­tin­ue to be recog­nised”. This was seconded by Elean­or Mackintosh.

3. Fiona Mclean pro­posed the motion to approve Pro­pos­al 2 as per the officers’ recom­mend­a­tion set out in the paper and this was seconded by Steave Micklewright.

4. The Board pro­ceeded to vote. The res­ults were as fol­lows: | | MOTION | AMEND­MENT | ABSTAIN | | — — — — — — — — — — | — — — — | — — — — — -| — — — — — | | Chris Beat­tie | ✓ | | | | Sandy Brem­ner | | ✓ | | | Peter Cosgrove | ✓ | | |

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Page 4 of 8

Kenny Deans		✓
Han­nah Grist	✓
Rus­sell Jones		✓
John Kirk	✓
Steve Mickle­wright	✓
Lauren Mac­Cal­lum		✓
Elean­or Mackintosh		✓
Xan­der McDade		✓
Fiona McLean	✓
Gaen­er Rodger	✓
Ann Ross		✓
Derek Ross	✓
TOTAL	8	7

1. The board agreed with the proposal.

Pro­pos­al 3 – Sup­port the reten­tion of the Nation­al Park ​‘prin­ciple’ as key back­stop for Nation­al Park man­age­ment and it apply­ing to the new first aim.

1. The board agreed the proposal.

Pro­pos­al 4 – Sup­port pub­lic bod­ies hav­ing regard to the aims.

1. The Board con­sidered the pro­pos­al and dis­cus­sions took place around the fol­low­ing: a) Two mem­bers raised wheth­er the ques­tion referred to all pub­lic bod­ies includ­ing Loc­al Author­it­ies, stat­ing they would only be sup­port­ive if it was only nation­al pub­lic bod­ies being referred to. The CEO respon­ded that he would seek cla­ri­fic­a­tion on this from Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment and inform the Board in November.

2. The Board agreed the proposal.

Pro­pos­al 5 – Sup­port pub­lic bod­ies oper­at­ing with­in the Nation­al Park hav­ing regard to the Nation­al Park ​‘prin­ciple’ and request that this is applied to the Scottish

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Page 5 of 8

Government’s Plan­ning and Envir­on­ment­al Appeals Divi­sion and Scot­tish Min­is­ters when it is deal­ing with any plan­ning appeals.

1. The Board con­sidered the pro­pos­al and dis­cus­sions took place around the fol­low­ing: a) Two mem­bers raised wheth­er the ques­tion referred to all pub­lic bod­ies includ­ing Loc­al Author­it­ies, stat­ing they would only be sup­port­ive if it was only nation­al pub­lic bod­ies being referred to. The CEO respon­ded that he would seek cla­ri­fic­a­tion on this from Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment and inform the board in November.

2. The board agreed the proposal.

Pro­pos­al 6 – Strongly sup­port the duty on oth­er pub­lic bod­ies oper­at­ing with­in the Nation­al Park being strengthened so they have an oblig­a­tion to sup­port and con­trib­ute to the imple­ment­a­tion of Nation­al Park Plans rather than hav­ing regard to these plans.

1. The Board con­sidered the pro­pos­al and dis­cus­sions took place around the fol­low­ing: a) A mem­ber raised their sup­port was depended on the defin­i­tion of pub­lic bod­ies. Dav­id Camer­on, the Dir­ect­or of Cor­por­ate Ser­vices and Deputy CEO, respon­ded that in this instance the con­sulta­tion is spe­cif­ic that it includes loc­al author­it­ies. A mem­ber raised that coun­cil­lors con­cerns lie around coun­cil ini­ti­at­ives that may become more com­plic­ated as a res­ult of this pro­pos­al and con­sequently no action is taken. The CEO added that in devel­op­ing the Park Plan Loc­al Author­it­ies are con­sul­ted and the Park Author­ity does not force coun­cils to do any­thing they have not signed up too.

2. The board agreed the proposal.

Pro­pos­al 7 – Sup­port that Nation­al Park Author­it­ies should be able to enforce byelaw breaches with­in Nation­al Parks by issu­ing fixed pen­alty notices rather than refer­ring them to loc­al Pro­cur­at­ors Fiscal.

1. The Board con­sidered the pro­pos­al and dis­cus­sions took place around the fol­low­ing: a) A Mem­ber raised that while they were sup­port­ive they have con­cerns around enforce­ment and put­ting the onus on indi­vidu­als who are not police.

2. The board agreed the proposal.

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Page 6 of 8

Pro­pos­al 8 – The Park Author­ity sup­ports powers asso­ci­ated with rights of way being trans­ferred from Loc­al Author­it­ies to Park Author­it­ies. This would be in line with the Park Author­ity being the Access Author­ity for the area.

1. The board agreed the proposal.

Pro­pos­al 9 – The Park Author­ity sup­ports revi­sions to Man­age­ment Rules with­in the cur­rent legis­la­tion to update them and poten­tially allow a com­pre­hens­ive suite of man­age­ment rules to be adap­ted by each indi­vidu­al Nation­al Park Author­ity to suit the cir­cum­stances in the loc­al area.

1. The Board con­sidered the pro­pos­al and dis­cus­sions took place around the fol­low­ing: a) A mem­ber asked for cla­ri­fic­a­tion of the word­ing ​‘Man­age­ment Rules’. The CEO respon­ded that man­age­ment Rules are with­in the cur­rent legis­la­tion but are out­dated and are of prac­tic­al applic­a­tion only in coun­try parks etc.

2. The Board agreed the proposal.

Pro­pos­al 10 – The Park Author­ity Board sup­ports the exist­ing gov­ernance arrange­ment for the Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity. The Board believes the cur­rent struc­ture and size provides a com­pre­hens­ive approach cov­er­ing both loc­al and nation­al interests and is right for the Cairngorms Nation­al Park.

1. The Board con­sidered the pro­pos­al and dis­cus­sions took place around the fol­low­ing: a) The major­ity of Mem­bers agreed that they felt that there is a good bal­ance between loc­al and nation­al rep­res­ent­a­tion. How­ever, oth­er mem­bers raised that while there is strong loc­al rep­res­ent­a­tion, the nation­al and loc­al bal­ance does not reflect the nation­al money that comes into the Park. The CEO raised that it would be likely that a future Nation­al Park will have a dif­fer­ent make up due to the amount of loc­al author­it­ies that the Cairngorms covers.

2. The Board agreed the proposal.

Pro­pos­al 11 – The Park Author­ity Board does not sup­port a reduc­tion in the size of the Board nor a change in the split of the pro­por­tions from the dif­fer­ent appoint­ment processes.

1. The Board con­sidered the pro­pos­al and dis­cus­sions took place around the following:

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Page 7 of 8

a) The CEO asked if the Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Board was to be reduced would mem­bers agree that redu­cing num­bers to 5 mem­bers in each cat­egory, as sug­ges­ted by the Deputy Con­vener, would be their pre­ferred option. The Board agreed this pro­pos­al unanimously.

1. The Board agreed the proposal.

Pro­pos­al 12 — The Park Author­ity Board sup­ports the elec­tion of the Con­vener and Deputy Con­vener by the Board.

1. The Board con­sidered the pro­pos­al and dis­cus­sions took place around the fol­low­ing: a) Mul­tiple Mem­bers raised that they wanted to see stronger word­ing around the Board appoint­ing their own Con­vener. A mem­ber did raise that they would be happy with the Min­is­ter appoint­ing the Con­vener, in line with oth­er pub­lic bod­ies. The CEO respon­ded that he believed there is strength in hav­ing loc­al and nation­al rep­res­ent­a­tion in the Con­vener and Deputy team.

2. The Board agreed the proposal.

Pro­pos­al 13 – The Park Author­ity would like to see a stronger role and gov­ernance over­sight for the Park Author­ity Board regard­ing pub­lic land with­in the Nation­al Park. This would allow for great­er coher­ence of approach by the pub­lic sec­tor with­in this inter­na­tion­ally recog­nised area.

1. The Board con­sidered the pro­pos­al and dis­cus­sions took place around the fol­low­ing: a) A Mem­ber asked for clar­ity on wheth­er this included the third sec­tor. The CEO cla­ri­fied that the third sec­tor is dif­fer­ent to pub­lic land that falls in our part of gov­ern­ment. b) Mem­bers asked the CEO to add a sec­tion on the poten­tial for pub­lic land with­in the Nation­al Park to be trans­ferred to the Park Author­ity to provide increased loc­al account­ab­il­ity and to drive the link with the Nation­al Park Part­ner­ship Plan.

2. The Board agreed the proposal.

Pro­pos­al 14 – The Park Author­ity would like to see the power devolved to the Park Author­ity to poten­tially imple­ment a core area approach in the Nation­al Park (poten­tially an OECM – Oth­er Effect­ive Area-based Con­ser­va­tion Measures

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Page 8 of 8

approach) that would help to deliv­er on nature and cli­mate tar­gets. This would tie in with the policies and object­ives of the Nation­al Park Part­ner­ship Plan.

1. The Board agreed the proposal.

2. The Con­vener thanked the Chief Exec­ut­ive and all staff on behalf of the Board. He reas­sured the Board that the Con­vener and Deputy will review the final response before it goes to government.

3. Action Points Arising: i. The CEO to add to the Park Authority’s response to the con­sulta­tion that Board would like to see fur­ther word­ing on people and place. ii. The CEO to seek cla­ri­fic­a­tion from Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment on the word­ing of pub­lic bod­ies in ques­tions 7g and 7h and inform the board in November.

AOCB

1. None Date of Next Meeting
2. The date of the next meet­ing is Fri­day 24 Novem­ber in person.