Scotland's New National Park Appraisal Panel: final report

Scottish Borders

Whilst smaller than the existing two National Parks, the area proposed (c. 136,000 ha) was deemed by the expert panel to be of an appropriate size for consideration as a National Park. The panel felt the coherence of the proposal could be clearer, particularly in relation to the River Tweed, which featured prominently in the nomination text, but was much less central to the geography of the proposed National Park area. They also noted the alignment of the proposed area with Northumberland National Park.

The panel recognised that a limited number of natural heritage designations within the area were of outstanding national importance (including SACs, SPAs, SSSIs and 1 RAMSAR site), with the River Tweed being an important Special Area of Conservation (SAC), however the panel noted that the Tweed falls only partly within the boundary of the nomination. The panel recognised the significant cultural heritage importance of the area, with the nomination evidencing a breadth of cultural assets and traditions.

In terms of how a National Park in the Borders could meet the special needs of the area, the nomination lacks a coherent assessment of the vision and opportunities for natural heritage enhancement. It demonstrates a good understanding of the pressures and opportunities of National Park designation for enhancement of cultural heritage. The nomination presents a range of issues relating to the sustainable use of natural resources and the area’s social and economic needs, however there is a lack of specific detail about how National Park designation could help to address these issues.

The role of a National Park in promoting tourism and addressing visitor management issues is not coherently set out in the nomination. It does not appear to take account of wider regional or national strategies.

The nomination presents some issues that are of wider strategic importance and identifies the general role of a National Park, however it lacks specific detail of how a National Park in the Borders would address issues such as climate change mitigation and adaptation and nature friendly farming.

On local engagement, the nomination provides evidence of a significant amount of public engagement over a longer period using a broad range of engagement techniques. However, it was noted that much of this engagement was not current (mostly dating between 2016 and 2022) and that more up to date engagement could have taken place during the nomination period.

The panel noted that local support for a prospective new National Park is partly evidenced, however much of the underlying data is somewhat dated. For example, the nomination cites a public consultation by Scottish Borders Council in 2018 which included a question to determine support for the designation of a National Park in the Scottish Borders. Of 114 responses, 71% were in favour of the proposal, 19% objected and 10% were uncommitted. However, this survey did not relate specifically to the nominated area. The nomination lacks more recent evidence of local support. Support from local businesses and community councils is mentioned but not evidenced. The nomination has not been supported by Scottish Borders Council and a resolution by the Council states that it does not believe that a compelling and cogent case for a National Park in the Scottish Borders has been made^[2]. The panel noted that further public and stakeholder engagement and consultation would need to be undertaken to determine the level of local support comprehensively.

Overall assessment for Scottish Borders nomination: