
National Park Combined Feedback
This page contains the combined feedback from all of the people who responded to our questionnaire about a National Park in Dumfries & Galloway. It is organised into three sections, one each for people opposed to the National Park, people who support it and people who are undecided.
We received 55 individual responses (several people sent in multiple responses). 17 in support of the park, 32 in opposition and 6 undecided. These responses have been collated into a document which will be submitted to NatureScot during the formal consultation period.
The comments below are as we received them. No changes have been made to their original content, spelling or grammar.
People who oppose the National Park
What advantages are there for Borgue and D&G in the proposal?
- There would be no advantages that I can think of and if there were any, these would be cancelled out by the disadvantages.In trying to be proactive, the only advantage may be some extra cash for the region and on current government funding this isn`t likely to materialise, for example government grants for new forestry has been cut.
- None whatsoever
- There’s no advantage to the residents of Borgue there is enough interference with or day to day livelihood already by people who do not know how the working of the land at the moment and would like to impose their views
- None
- I see very few advantages for Borgue in the current proposal, certainly no job creation or uptick for the local economy.
- I can see very few advantages – this area is already swamped with tourists & it’s very seasonal which isn’t great for the workforce or lack of it.
- No direct advantages for Borgue and Galloway at all.
- None whatsoever Roads not fit for influx of visitors, or hospitals . Hospitality closing or going part time due to lack of workers . Planning would be worse than now , locals priced out of property market , BCC don’t want any more holiday homes from locals at minute
- I can see no advantages
- No advantages
- No advantages, leave Borgue as.it.is, Land of Milk and Honey.
- No benefits for the area in any way unfortunately tourism isn’t going to provide high paying jobs and the rest of us suffer when just trying to do our jobs
- In my opinion the National Park proposal will offer no advantages to Borgue or D&G.
- As I have ticked NO that would suggest that I do not see any advantages.
- None as I can see, just more bureaucracy that will govern the area. Also unnecessary expenditure.
- None
- None that I can see.
- None
- None
- We do not want a national park this area is doing well as it is
- For me, none. Maybe increased house prices for those that may wish to sell.
- None
- No advantages for Borgue whatsoever
- No advantages. No park wanted
- This is a very badly thought out proposal with no costings
A National Park will clutter the roads in Galloway and create nothing of value
There needs to be a proper joined up plan with infrastructure upgrades first & foremost.
Until then, put this plan on hold. - none
- Can’t really see any
- None
- No advantage
- Brings more visitors to the area therefore better for economy…
- None
What disadvantages are there for Borgue and D&G in the proposal?
- Too many to list. The main concern is that Borgue and the rest of Galloway`s tranquillity would be ruined with no funding to cope.
- Roads are shocking as it is without the bigger influx of people this would bring the same with our hospitals. We would end up with even more 2nd homes or Airbnb something BCC seem to be set against Locals would be priced out of the housing market More traffic , more unreasonable access to farmers land , and motor homes dumping their waste.
- No, there’s no money for it & it will restrict any economic development in the area forever.
- More interference than we already have from incomers who wish to impose their views
- Big disadvantages in increased unmanaged visitor numbers in camper vans and caravans clogging up the roads with increased litter and waste. Secondly, potential restrictions on local good producers (farmers) with an added layer of red tape to deal with.
- Seasonal visitors with no understanding or responsibility about a working rural environment. Burdenesome restrictions on farmers & food production. Unaffordable housing for young families & more retired elderly people who will need support from already overstretched social services.
Farmers have tried to diversify at massive expense & current restrictions have put them in more debt. - Unmanaged tourism, increased pollution & waste and unnecessary red tape for local businesses. The money would be far better used for local infrastructure, keeping local schools open and building more affordable housing for young families.
- Lack of affordable housing , more 2nd homes
We should not need a NP to get the roads up to standard
More littering & dumping of waste from motor homes
Access rights on farm land already being used irresponsibly, this would make it 10times worse for farmers - I feel that tourism is already over reached and this proposal would only add more to our poorly maintained infrastucture.
- More traffic, busy roads, parking problems.
Not respecting the countryside - It is being forgotten this is.a working parish, not a place for the retired idle rich. Businesses will be at risk of closure due to planning burocracy. Our roads can not cope currently so how will extra visitors and .mobile homes cope with narrow roads and.abundance of pot holes as.there is no guarantee funding will be spent on maintenance. House prices will rocket as any properties advertised will be snapped up as 2nd homes, driving our young people and families away, food will become scarce if farming is driven out of Dumfries and Galloway, this is a prime food producing area. Have a look at other NPs reports where campervans are renowned for overnight parking in fields and blocking gateways, so not paying for their stay. NHS cannot cope currently so how will they deal with more A&E plus shortage of beds, right now single rooms are being doubled up. The hospitality establishments are having to close completely or part of the week due to lack of.staff, a NP will not make any difference to rates of pay for hotel staff.
- Do all the locals want to have to pay for parking in all the towns with the money not guaranteed to stay in the area, and don’t think they won’t put parking charges every where
- Even more holiday properties, property prices increasing and preventing local young people from buying homes, excessive traffic on small local roads, more people parking motorhomes and camping overnight in unsuitable places, more litter and bags of dog poo spoiling the countryside, even more difficulty booking places to eat out, problems finding staff for the low paid jobs that tourism offers.
- -Current road infrastructure region-wide is not fit to carry the vast increase in tourist traffic that would come hand in hand with becoming a NP. Many of the roads are barely fit for purpose at their current level of use, not to mention parking in some local towns, e.g. Kirkcudbright, is impossible a lot of the time during the Summer months – this will inevitably impact on use of local businesses.
-Local people are already finding it near impossible to afford housing in the region – NP status would inevitably worsen this problem with an influx of (even more) retired people and more properties being bought for second homes, holiday lets etc. This does very little to contribute to the local economy and contributes next to nothing to local communities – the demise of so many local schools being a prime example of this.
-Some supporters of the bid claim that NP status will bring with it increased employment opportunities for the area – I would disagree with this. Bar a very small number of ranger-type jobs directly related to the running of the park, I could only see the majority of any new jobs which would arise being in the hospitality industry e.g. restaurant/bar staff, cleaning jobs etc. – i.e. relatively low paid, low-skilled and likely very seasonal jobs which will offer poor prospects for career progression. NP status and the inevitable extra layer of bureaucracy which will come with it will also threaten to stifle the development of those businesses who will provide much needed jobs for young people e.g. jobs in the agricultural sector. The area does also struggle to attract and retain professional people as it is, however I fear NP status would exacerbate this problem by putting people off moving to the area in the first place as most people will not want to live in a tourist ‘hotspot’, let alone one which doubles up as a retirement home with poor road infrastructure, no affordable housing and falling numbers of local schools.
-I fear that contrary to what a lot of people will think, a NP may actually pose significant environmental risks to the region. Vast increases in tourist traffic will inevitably lead to more littering, more pollution, more wildlife fatalities on our roads as well as well-known problems associated with holidaymakers choosing to camp e.g. parking up campervans in undesignated spaces, disposal of toilet waste, fire-setting etc. - More fairness and understanding towards Farmers. They have a job to do.
- More bureaucracy that will govern the area. Also unnecessary expenditure.
- Dumfries and Galloway is the only area in Scotland which has the A75 Euroroute running though it. The Euroroute commences in Northern Ireland uses the ferry to cross the Irish Sea and then continues via the A75 onto the M6 and various motorways until it reaches the continent. This means that there is heavy traffic on the road 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and 365 days a year. It is already not fit for purpose and the visitors and tourists will only bring additional traffic to a road already struggling. There have been four accidents on or near the A75 alone this week.
Borgue itself is a quiet village with many single track roads in its vicinity. Unfortunately the majority of visitors/tourists bring cars or 4 x 4 vehicles towing caravans and appear to be unable to use passing places or reverse when meeting other vehicles. This also applies to motor homes.
GNPA have written in their proposal that the National Park would bring jobs and prosperity to the area. How is this going to happen? From what the residents in other National Parks in Scotland have said, the National Parks in their areas have only brought 2nd home owners, misery, rubbish and disrespect for the locals. No new jobs have come to fruition. Locals cannot afford to buy houses and have to move away. How is this going to be any different in Dumfries and Galloway.
Our local cottage hospitals have closed and D & G R I A & E Department can barely cope without the influx of additional tourists. Our Mountain Rescue Service will also come under additional pressure. - Dumfries and Galloway is the only area in Scotland which has the A75 Euroroute running though it. The Euroroute commences in Northern Ireland uses the ferry to cross the Irish Sea and then continues via the A75 onto the M6 and various motorways until it reaches the continent. This means that there is heavy traffic on the road 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and 365 days a year. It is already not fit for purpose and the visitors and tourists will only bring additional traffic to a road already struggling. There have been four accidents on or near the A75 alone this week.
Borgue itself is a quiet village with many single track roads in its vicinity. Unfortunately the majority of visitors/tourists bring cars or 4 x 4 vehicles towing caravans and appear to be unable to use passing places or reverse when meeting other vehicles. This also applies to motor homes.
GNPA have written in their proposal that the National Park would bring jobs and prosperity to the area. How is this going to happen? From what the residents in other National Parks in Scotland have said, the National Parks in their areas have only brought 2nd home owners, misery, rubbish and disrespect for the locals. No new jobs have come to fruition. Locals cannot afford to buy houses and have to move away. How is this going to be any different in Dumfries and Galloway.
Our local cottage hospitals have closed and D & G R I A & E Department can barely cope without the influx of additional tourists. Our Mountain Rescue Service will also come under additional pressure. - Very unpleasant to live in a National Park.
Increased beaurocracy and planning regulations. - More pressure on already inadequate infrastructure.
Acceleration of trend towards larger, more intensively farmed land holdings. - It will not do any good and will make planning of any kind even more difficult
- The increase footfall is detrimental to biodiversity and wildlife.
It is becoming clearer that planning and buerocacy would be increasingly onerous.
For D&G council the potential costs would appear detrimental considering the budget deficit.
Finally the divisiveness of the the NP issue is toxic to a small rural community. - More bureaucracy and control especially with regard to planning
Promises of more housing not fulfilled in existing national parks - Just leave Borgue as it is. The national park will not help anyone young or old. We need a referendum on this National Park proposal. Yes or No so simple
- More interference from busy bodies who do not understand living in Borgue and the livelihoods of working farms trying to make a living from the land.
- Increase tourism on infrastructure that is already not fit for purpose.
Increased bureaucracy on farmers.
House prices will increase beyond the reach of any young people in the area.
Only low paid jobs will be created in the tourism business which will
Not attract any young person to work and stay in the area resulting in more young ones moving away - Increases house price for locals wanting to stay in the area. This make families move away.
Increased tourism in an area not well step up to deal with any extra traffic on the roads (A75 and small backroad). - Increased traffic, clogged up roads, money wasted on out of touch eco consultants
- extra regulation
- Likely rules and regulations will be made by a body, the majority of whose members won’t be elected by local residents.
Likely restrictions on building that will push up house prices.
Does little to provide a supply of well paid jobs.
May well put pressure on service infrastructure. - Infrastructure isn’t there to cope with the tourism that we have so things will be worse if there is an increase of tourists. House prices are likely to rise markedly which means that many local people will be unable to afford a house in an area where there are many low paid jobs. Our roads suffer with the amount of traffic that travels on them at present snd this will get worse.
- Planning decisions
More people on farmers land disrupting their work - Brings more visitors to the area but with that busier roads which A75 cannot cope with. More holiday homes instead of homes for local people.
- 1 More traffic, 2 more littering, 3 more pressure on sewage systems and the excess ending up in the sea,4 more red tape for local businesses, 5 house price rise
What key issues would you want a new Park Authority to address?
- The money should be used develop local infrastructure, roads and schools and put back into the local economy
- Info structure roads and health care as A&E can barely cope at the moment without more visitors
- Improve the infrastructure first. This means upgrading the A75 to dual carriageways where possible, assessing the viability of reconnecting the railway line from Dumfries to Stranraer, then with improved infrastructure there will come increased investment and a more sustainable economy.
- Infrastructure – roads, railways. Affordable housing. Investment into new businesses & respect for locals. A cap on the number of 2nd homes . Transport – more buses needed.
- Fix the infrastructure – road upgrades and improved bus services – before going ahead with the National Park.
- Less access to farm land
Dogs on leads at all times - They need to make good use of.funding not like other NPs using the biggest % of funding for NP salaries. Councils and Scottish government have huge overspend it is most unfair if a NP is allocated money from a source that local government could use. If it goes ahead proper use of funding must be set and not. make mistakes like other NPs.
- Government would be better off spending moey on infrastructure and if they get it right people will come with out the label of a national park
- Provide proper jobs and housing for genuine local people especially young people. Provide more overnight parking for motorhomes and ensure that they do not park in laybys or on the roadside or at Carrick. Provide toilet facilities to ensure that people are not littering the area in the way they currently do when parked at places like Carrick. Make clear what the countryside access code really means, that you can’t just walk or camp wherever you like. Stop people parking on single track roads where they cause a hazard to traffic and pedestrians and prevent farmland emergency vehicles from passing. Provide rubbish bins so that residents’ bins are not filled with dog poo and tourists’ rubbish. Ensure that the dark skies are protected.
- I work with an extensive and diverse proportion of the local community and have not yet spoken to one person who is in favour of a NP. In fact I have been quite overwhelmed by the strength of feeling against a NP from the most unlikely of people! I don’t think we should even be considering the NP proposal being approved at this stage or suggesting any kind of compromise for “if the Government decides to go ahead…”. It’s a straight ‘NO’ from me and, as it would appear, a hugely significant number of others!
- Roads – Dual the A75.
- More fairness and understanding towards Farmers. They have a job to do. No other industry has the public walking all over it as they try to work.
- With all of the Government financial cuts that have been made and continue to be made at the cost of infrastructure, health and education and social care, this is nothing more than a costly vanity project that does not benefit all.
- Address nothing as they are a law unto themselves.
- Affordable housing and jobs (which the GNPA have said will be forthcoming)??
Residents to be on the Board of the authority to prevent the GNPA being run by incomers. - Affordable housing. Jobs for the young people to prevent them moving away from the area.
- By the time the ‘Park Authority’ have paid themselves and had their photo opportunities there will be neither the time nor the money to do anything useful: e.g. well-paid jobs to make projects work and wildlife management control of badgers who are causing such damage to hedgehog populations.
- Roads.
- This should not be an issue as it should not happen.
- Existing national parks in Scotland have not worked well for local inhabitants
- Repair all road first
- Hope it doesn’t go ahead as the divisions caused will make for bitter unrest.
- Keep the National Park away from the coast – there is only 1 small B road and it will be a nightmare
- Stimulating well paid employment.
- Tourists need to be educated about “The Country Code”. Many cause a great deal.of damage through ignorance or thoughtlessness. Television adverts require to be made informing the public about clearing up mess, not leaving rubbish or broken bottles around as human rubbish can hurt animals. Inform tourists about how to drive on country roads and tell them not to park in passing places. Ban campervans and large RVs that cause frustration as the travel wry slowly o the twisty Roads.
- Roads
NHS - Infrastructure..A75 needs upgrading. New homes for the extra employees required to accommodate the extra visitors.
Any other comments?
- I personally found the whole consultation process to date by the GNPA to be very bias, undemocratic and self interest. For example, a speaker at the latest drop-in at Borgue declared that the Cairngorms have commenced some house building in the area which is a rarity! and prices would start at £400,000 !!!!?????
- Also canvassing School`s !!! some would say this amounts to child abuse!!
- We have a lovely unspoilt area as it is , why change it ??? Hospitality are struggling as it is to get workers. Locals & families will be priced out of the housing market
- We were not consulted properly with advertising in the local newspapers nil as to when the public meetings were held
- The current proposal is based on outdated data and does not reflect the views of the wider population in Galloway, not just Borgue. Several people have commented on the negative experience of the Cairngorm National Park and its excessive budget for administering the Park which could be better used to encourage local families to continue to live in the area with the advantages of keeping local schools open and all the associated benefits. We need a proper open debate about this, particularly with the younger generation as it will affect people in the area for a long time to come.
- All stakeholders need to have honest conversations together about the future of the area.
- Very concerned about the proper lack of consultation so far.
- Have said enough, hope some heed will be taken to Borgue people’s feelings.
- Speak to people who live in other National Parks and learn how it has affected them. Learn from the mistakes made in those places.
- Personally I have found reading the first-hand experiences of people living in other NPs both very eye-opening and worrying. I think we need to take heed of their warnings before we fling the doors to our beautiful corner of the world wide open and watch on as the inevitable damage is done to local families, businesses and our environment.
I support the call for a regional referendum as I feel some of the initial consultations leading to this bid were carried out, likely deliberately, in a relatively under-the-radar way which has evaded so many local people. As a result, I am worried that the true views and opinions of D&G residents have not and will not be recognised. - Let us hope that the Galloway National Park does not go ahead.
- What the GNPA has got to remember is that Galloway was shaped by farming/traditional farmers and forestry re wildlife etc. Since the “Right to Roam” Act there has been a noticeable decrease in wildlife due to the visitors/tourists and their dogs, who incidentally do not take their dog poo home with them and have a habit of leaving in a bag on a hedge, bush or tree.
I feel that it would be a mistake for D & G to become a National Park. - The Biosphere, the coastal path network both have been examples of inaccessible individuals sitting in offices thinking they can create projects with the stroke of a pen. There is no thought for maintenance. The National Park will be more of the same.
- No national park
- A national park would mean house prices would rise even further beyond the reach of young local working people
- We need a referendum. NO NATIONAL PARK
- Hope the feelings of unrest don’t continue as it will be unsettling if it goes ahead. The whole proposal was submitted very underhand only consulted those they thought were in favour and now they are surprised at the reaction of the true residents of Galloway.
- No National Park
- If so many local people have objected this far, perhaps the out of touch politicians and eco groupies should listen to genuine concerns and put this plan in hold until there has been a proper open and o honest discussion, instead of regarding people who might be against the current proposal as ‘gainsayers’ .. local residents of Borgue wish to preserve their way of life and resent incomers deciding what is best for them …. Leave us alone.
- A National Oark us not a good idea for this area as it will hinder what farmer can do on their land. Land should be used for food production not growing an abundance of quick growing trees.
- Leave it as it is
- A proper vote for local people to say yes or no. That is the only way they will know for definite.
People who support the National Park
What advantages are there for Borgue and D&G in the proposal?
- Puts Galloway on the map. Provides an internationally recognised brand that local businesses can but into. Attracts inward investment, broadens the case of the local economy and encourages people to move to the area to live and work. Makes the local bus service viable.
- National Park are known as a brand the world over and will bring much needed investment to our area. We have the lowest wage in Scotland with an ever increasing aged population putting pressure on the NHS. The food system is broken 96% of all food in the world is controlled by 6to9 massive cooperations who are poisoning the people , the land and the oceans.
- Protect the land and prevent over development encourage biodiversity
- Protection of the areas natural resources, biodiversity and community.
- Becoming a National Park will mean that we will be able to reverse the marked decline in biodiversity in Borgue, Galloway and Scotland. Becoming a National Park will mean that additional funding will be available for more nature-friendly farming practices and will also mean that the smaller farms in the area can be assured of their future. Becoming a National Park will give our children a reason to stay and the jobs to stay for. Funding will also be available for generating community wealth in the village (shop / hostel / cafe etc) so that jobs can be created in the village and wider area
- Raise the profile of Dumfries & Galloway. Encourage people to live, work and visit here.
National Park status will encourage more investment in the area. D&G needs more employment opportunities, especially for younger people.
Huge potential for businesses supporting outdoor activities – aquatic activities in lochs, rivers and sea, walking, climbing, cycling on roads, gravel and trails.
Opportunities for guided trips, instruction, equipment sales/rental, visitor accommodation and hospitality businesses.
Support for sustainable businesses aligned with the aims of the UNESCO Biosphere and D&G Council’s climate and biodiversity commitments. - More visitors, therefore more jobs for locals, improvements of inflastructure
- Increase in revenue.
Put D&G on the map-Amey May invest in improving the infrastructure for the region.
Potential investment and employment.
Protect the environment. - I believe that a National Park would bring more work and job security to the communities within the boundaries of the National Park.
- Towns on the periphery of other National Parks (Dartmoor comes to mind), are thriving. These businesses are not just seasonal.
- Supporting local businesses, esp pub which is vital for the community but barely viable without tourism income. A real win win.
- More opportunities for businesses and individuals.
- Environmental – protection of ecosystems and attention to diodiversity
Jobs – through direct employment by the NP and indirectly through (modest) growth of visitor numbers. - A National Park will raise the profile of Dumfries & Galloway – its varied landscape and unique history. The designation offers opportunities and encouragement for people to live, work and visit the area. National Park status will encourage more investment in the area leading to more employment opportunities to support both the park’s activities, the increase in visitor numbers and other associated business ventures, and also to meet the needs of a potential increased local population. National Park status will also give access to resources for investment projects, not available to the Council or local communities, to provide enhanced infrastructure / facilities / services for both visitors and residents alike.
- The wider area badly needs major investment. D&G really does feel like the forgotten corner. While a National Park cannot solve all of our problems, it can provide a framework for future development. This is a once in a generation opportunity to deliver positive change and halt decline.
A strategic approach, backed by national Government which brings all relevant stakeholders together, has to be better than the current fragmented nature of many of D&G Council’s interventions.
National investment will bring greater national and international visibility. We need a stronger year round tourism offer which attracts more people to new high quality businesses. The seasonal nature of much of the current offer is not sustainable. Too many businesses have closed or reduced their services because they are not economically viable. Local people will also benefit through employment growth and more social and leisure opportunities.
Local priorities must be increased provision of affordable housing and supporting young people to stay in the area. The two are obviously linked. We have the most ageing demographic in the country. Without targeted action to address the impact of that, the region will almost literally die within a generation. National Park status can be used positively to address key local issues. - A more diverse local economy and a tool rfor regeneration and repopulation. The current NPs are almost the only parts of mainland rural scotland that are not rapidly depopulating. A vehicle for attracting more funding. Good jobs in nature and infrastructure. The other parks directly employ more than 100 people each. That would be huge for Galloway and give young people a reason to stay and move here. Change! We can’t keep ignoring our rapid decline. We have to do something different. This gives us options.
- Amazing opportunity.
Advantages will be for a coordination of effort to protect the uniqueness of the region, the biodiversity of the region, the economic development of the region, work to help the future prosperity and wellbeing of the regions inhabitants and help manage the use of the region by locals and visitors. - Help to protect the special and varied biodiversity of the area.
Some controls on large scale industrial farming, which would help to preserve both the natural and cultural history of Borgue by avoiding extensive destruction of the natural landscape that is special to this area.
Aid with advice and fund raising to invest in environmental issues.
A National Park would encourage people to move to the area, including specialists in professions we are short of (e.g. dentists, doctors, teachers).
Creation of jobs of all levels which would bring welcome employment to the area.
An increase in the number of visitors to area, which would increase income to the county and thereby increase the prosperity of the whole population, particularly enabling those who cannot presently afford their own home to do so.
Existing businesses, especially those in the tourist industry, would flourish with more visitors and new businesses would be attracted to the area, bringing an increased workforce with them.
Park Rangers would be beneficial by ensuring the protection of wildlife in the area, and controlling any unwanted visitor behaviours.
What disadvantages are there for Borgue and D&G in the proposal?
- Almost no disadvantages that are not anticipated and expected to be dealt with . Some may chose not to make the most of the opportunities it provides but they are unlikely to be disadvantaged.
- Doing nothing but opposing it .
- Transport congestion lack of infrastructure
- Lack of infrastructure to accommodate an increase in footfall and vehicle traffic
- None
- Issues with numbers of holiday let properties or second homes can be addressed by changes to planning regulations, short-term rental control areas and property taxes.
Increased tourist traffic will need to be managed and more facilities will be needed for overnight stays, electric car charging etc. Some of this is already being developed in Kirkcudbright and several Galloway Forest Park locations. - More stringent planning regulations. More restrictions and red tape for farmers
- Concerns regarding second home ownership. Lack of affordable homes(outbid) and rental properties even professional people unable to find rentals when coming to work in the region.
Concerns with regard to increase in rubbish left by more visitors.
Possibility of not following the countryside code. Dogs off lead, faeces not uplifted and taken away(not left), gates not left open/closed.
Increase in traffic. There are many horse riders and horse carriage drivers in the area. Vehicle drivers not adhering to the 10mph/2 metre distance rule of the Highway Code. - Impacts to already strained public services.
Additional traffic on narrow country roads.
Potential impacts to residents of the National Park, e.g. potential introduction of parking charges and difficulties in finding parking spaces when visiting towns like Kirkcudbright. - Increase in second homes. Increase in traffic. Some will have no respect or understanding of countryside rules- dogs on leads, gates not left as found, rubbish etc.
A tartan Disneyland is not what is wanted. - Overall very few. Sensitive visitor management is probably the key to managing the issues.
- None in my view. I am aware that farmers have concerns about inceased bureaucracy, but believe that there are adequate reassurances on this.
- The consultation process itself has created a particularly threatening antagonism to the idea of a National Park. The designation will bring many challenges but these can be mitigated through careful and collaborative management. The key disadvantage would be lack of support for the Park Authority and widespread disregard for its aims and objectives, undermining the potential of making the National Park a success.
- The proposals and consultation process have produced a toxic situation within our community. There’s a tangible split between some landowners & farmers and other residents. I fear that people will feel they have lost or won whatever the final decision. Much work will need to be done to foster stronger links across the community. For the greater good of the whole area and environment, people need to work together effectively.
The immediate Borgue area may not benefit directly in the short term. However, the economic and social benefits which should be delivered over time will affect us all. We need to consider the whole region and not just our corner of it. Without changing the bigger picture, nothing locally will improve. - The division this binary approach to the issue has not been helpful.
- If the region does not fully engage with the opportunity, the NP ambition will be wasted.
Infrastructure investment is also needed and NP cannot deliver improvement on that issue
Lack of coordination of work in the region with the NP. - I cannot think of any disadvantages locally or to the county as a whole. There will be an increase in footfall, but I do not believe to the level that would cause a nuisance. Galloway is not in easy reach of any large conurbations like some of the overcrowded existing National Parks, so the number of day trippers would be kept to manageable levels.
What key issues would you want a new Park Authority to address?
- Provision for affordable housing. Effective ranger service to support visitors, land owners and communities. Maintained network of core paths. Overnight parking areas to tackle inappropriate motorhome parking.
- Potholes , poor internet , poor public transport, worst planning department in Scotland, need a total change mindset What can you do for Borgue and D & G ,Benefit system broken too many choosing to stay on benefits as better of than working. Taxing small businesses and swamping them in red tape where large multi national companies not paying tax, Plastic massive problem, no respect
- Address current farming practices protect the natural biodiversity of the area
- Maintain control on the over exploitation of land resource and subservience towards the farming industry.
- Creating more affordable housing in rural communities and reducing the number of empty / holiday / second homes. Funding to help keep vital village services open (the pub / school); ensuring that health services remain local and accessible. Footpath signage and maintenance. Safe cycle and walking routes along narrow country lanes. Ensuring that our rivers and beaches are not polluted. Funding for nature friendly farming practices.
- Support the building of affordable housing in key areas. There are many existing properties that could be converted to houses or flats, e.g. Royal Hotel in Kirkcudbright and schools that have been mothballed or closed. Churches are being sold off in prime village and town locations. There are many derelict or empty buildings in rural areas that could be restored and re-purposed.
Improve the Core Path network and segregate cycle paths in some busy areas. Well-signposted footpaths will help keep walkers separated from farming activities.
Improve access and facilities in popular areas such as Glen Trool, Balcary Bay and other coastal locations.
Develop access, facilities and footpaths in less visited areas such as the Rhinns of Kells and the Rhins of Galloway to provide more options and spread out visitor numbers.
Improve the mobile phone network, especially when landline phones are phased out over the next few years. - Keep wind farms to minimum. Potholes. Keep beaches clean
- To conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area.
To promote sustainable use of the natural resources of the area.
To promote sustainable economic and social development of the area’s communities. - Ensure that public services are upgraded to meet demands.
That funding is made available to ensure countryside roads are properly maintained.
That residents existing rights, e.g. free parking, are protected. - Improved infrastructure. Affordable housing- even my veterinary practice had difficulty getting a property to rent for a new member of staff. Second homes have knock on effect in many ways to the local community.
Affordable public transport. Encourage business and industries to the area, not just hospitality and tourist related jobs. These are low paid and seasonal. - Visitor management
Helping those farmers who want to transition to a different business model
Identifying pinch points and helping to resolve them - Environmental – monitoring (and action) if there are any threats to the environment and biodiversity
Cultural heritage – Example: if the NP had been in place, might they have co-ordinated action and fundraising to secure the Galloway Hoard for Kirkcudbright, rather than it being acquired by Edinburgh – it could have been a major asset for the town, bring in significant visitors and revenue all year round.
One-off Opportunities – Example: if the NP had been in place, might they have co-ordinated action and fundraising to secure Barlocco Island in perpetuity for the nation when it was for sale recently.
Coast – uniquely in Scotland, the NP will cover the coast, and special measures should be taken to protect that.
Planning (may be controversial) – I would favour the NP having fairly strong powers with regard to planning. - – focus on community well-being and cohesion
– underpin economic growth to develop local businesses and create job opportunities
– champion progressive land use, in partnership with landowners
– tackle the development of affordable housing and manage the provision of visitor accommodation
– promote sustainable tourism and outdoor recreation
– protect the natural and cultural heritage of the area
The Park Authority needs a majority of local people on its Board. - Improvements to roads and increased public transport and cycling options will be required.
While we need more higher spending visitors all year round, they won’t come back or recommend the area if the basic infrastructure isn’t good enough. However, this is a long game. It will take years to deliver real benefits. Long term funding must also be available for wider improvements. Funding should not just be available for specific National Park initiatives. However, hopefully the National Park will act as a catalyst for wider investment in the area. - Housing – the other National Parks have ambitious strategies to create more affordable housing. We need family homes for long-term let especially. I would also like it to look at the number of empty properties as well as new builds to bring those back into use. Making more of our natural heritage. We have the third highest concentration of neolithic sites in the UK but very few people know about or visit them. Meanwhile they are big attractions in Argyll and Orkney. I’d also like them to contribute to improving paths and walks.
- Aging population strain
Economic development
Nature protection
Landscape protection
Access paths and outdoor areas - Protection of the natural environment. Particularly some controls on the destruction of the landscape by large scale industrial farming, which damages both biodiversity and the beautiful scenery for which Galloway is famous. It is also important to look at protecting the cultural heritage of the area – Galloway has a wealth of ancient sites and artefacts that may be damaged by industrial land flattening. The Galloway hoard is just one of the many very special cultural treasurers discovered in our area.
Green energy – the best use of the area for renewable energy projects.
Managing tourism in a controlled and sustainable fashion so that the beauty of Galloway can be shared with as many people as possible without damage being done to environment.
Advice on grants and fund raising initiatives available to help with all aspects of sustainable economic and environmental growth, including for local businesses and for the farming industry.
Any other comments?
- This is once in a lifetime opportunity to deliver a lasting and positive benefit for Galloway
- It must be led from the bottom up and not repeat mistakes made in other National Park worldwide
- There is no infrastructure to support an increase in footfall and vehicles
- For the past two hundred years, Borgue has often been referred to as “the land of milk and honey”; it was a place with a “sense of place”, a place where farming co-existed with nature. Sadly, the rate and scale of change and increase in industrial scale dairy farming has changed the description of our landscape to “the land of milk and slurry”. It is not a description to be proud of and we should be ashamed of the state of the countryside we are passing on to our children and grandchildren.
- Increased mechanisation and industrialisation of some farming sectors is leading to loss of local jobs, destruction of landscape features, degrading of the environment through increased chemical application, more heavy traffic on our rural roads and reduced biodiversity from planting of monoculture crops. A National Park should encourage funding to enable farmers to make a good living through more environmentally friendly farming practices.
Agricultural land in D&G is being acquired by outside investment companies for dubious developments of carbon-offsetting and commercial woodland projects. In a National Park, these should be subjected to a more rigorous consultation and approval process. - Do not waste money on a National Park. Give money to D&G to spend on the roads.
- With all of the Government financial cuts that have been made and continue to be made at the cost of infrastructure, health and education and social care, this is nothing more than a costly vanity project that does not benefit all.
- I have family that farm on the edge of Dartmoor National Park. It has been noted that the towns on the periphery are thriving.
Increase in traffic during peak holiday season. - Overall, despite many fears around the proposed national park, I believe that it would be overwhelmingly positive for the area in general.
- This is our opportunity to bring long term investment into the area
- I support the NP covering the maximum area.
The proposed name is daft – call it “Galloway National Park”.
Whilst the park Authority structure may involve people with the necessary expertise, I believe it would be more useful to have specific representatives from the main sectors with a significant interest: farming, nature/environment, tourism. (One might also add forestry, housing, marine environment, fisheries, energy/wind.) These would need to be representatives from local organisations, not national appointees. - We are all local residents, bringing a wide range of knowledge, skills and expertise to the community. We should all be working together to respect and harness our collective experience in order to make our community flourish.
- Please keep the King and Royal Family out of the name of a new Park. Galloway National Park is fine.
Let’s work together across sectors and communities to shape and deliver a National Park which truly delivers benefits for us and visitors. - As a community we need to share a vision for what Galloway should be whether we are a National parknor not. Galloway has to change or it will die. That means some who have had a very comfortable life for a long time making accommodations for others to grow and develop. We have to find ways to make moving her less of a gamble for young families. It paid off for us but very few people are willing to take that risk or even think of Galloway as an option.
- Feel the area is very run down and having the NP can help create management and maintenance plans, this is an amazing opportunity.
Lots of fear and rejection around is based on personal opinions of other NP experiences. Whilst past experience does provide lessons, we must remember to make progress. We have the opportunity here to create a unique park for Galloway and we should not miss that opportunity. - Whatever the outcomes of a new National Park, I think it is important that Galloway does something to help itself. Whilst it is a beautiful place we have all chosen to live in, it does suffer from the problems found in other rural areas of Scotland, and some of these are worse in Galloway than other similar areas. Doing nothing is therefore not a option, and I believe the case made by the National Park Association is strong and credible, and can only bring benefits to the area. With a positive attitude many benefits can come with the establishment of a National Park, and it is important the whole community gets behind the proposals so they can be shaped to benefit all the residents of Galloway and South Ayrshire.
We have to remember that the money being offered by the Scottish Government is only for a National Park, and is not being made available in any other form.
People who are undecided about the National Park
What advantages are there for Borgue and D&G in the proposal?
- There is the potential to attract funding for the management of issues such as job creation, housing provision, control of over development (by farming, renwables, commercial forestry, tourism etc). This funding might be governmental or it might be private investment that comes from the publicity of being a National Park.
There is the potential to streamline the management of the planning process which is involved in all of the above rather than them being decided by disperate entities. - Not sure if there are any in Borgue although maybe there is scope in some way for better facilities for tourism. Not sure about the rest of D&G.
- The long-term benefits of an environmentally sustainable environment.
The possibilities of future job opportunities, in tourism, but more importantly in other areas related to the environmental and economic growth of the region. - Hopefully bringing more fulltime employment opportunities to the wider D&G area
- Whilst there is potential to attract new business to the area, there is no guarantee of this, and no guarantee of the infrastructure upgrades that would be necessary to facilitate this.
- Maybe it can slow down what a Woodland Trust Policy Paper indicated in 2024 i.e. that: A recent study of ‘Biodiversity Intactness’ ranked Scotland 212th out of 240 countries on a scale of biodiversity loss. The most recent State of Nature Report for Scotland shows that one in nine species in Scotland is threatened with extinction and that 43% of monitored species have declined strongly in the last decade.
- Generally, I’m not sure that tourism is the best route to development (overpopulation problems in Skye in the summer, the pressing need to reduce our carbon footprint) but given the overall context – poverty is one of the biggest issues in D&G, local businesses are struggling for both customers and workers, D&G Council is looking to make substantial cuts to services and seems to have abdicated all responsibility for dealing with controversial planning applications – life in D&G currently does not serve a substantial proportion of the population well.
A NP would provide a level of investment otherwise not available and the ability to attract matched funding form other sources. A NP board would be an alternative pathway to addressing some of the region’s problems, eg low cost, sustainable housing, or a joined-up public transport system (as in the Lake District).
A NP could have the ability to set up hubs for different activities using, and developing over time, existing infrastructure (eg cycling or historical) which would distribute visitor numbers and income round the region.
A NP might result in better protection for the environment, although available evidence suggests this is not always the case.
What disadvantages are there for Borgue and D&G in the proposal?
- The worst situation would be to have another layer of management without the funding. If there is not the funding to make positive change ( build houses, enable new employers to establish, improve the infrastucture, offer additional / alternative wealth creation to the agri / forestry / renewables lobby) then the situation would be worse – a lot of salaries and more red tape with no real positives.
If being made a National Park attracted more tourists, traffic, second homes etc without the ability and finance to manage those changes then it would have failed. - For Borgue and other rural areas the negatives will be if there are too many restrictive rules for farming. For D&G in general restrictions on development that might help housing, employment etc.
- Currently, the apparent split between the farming community and the wider community, as illustrated by reactions to the current proposal.
The focus on growing the tourism industry without any apparent plans for growing the infrastructure of transport, housing, schools and healthcare, so as to provide an environment that could encourage local people to support and benefit from the proposal.
How will visitors get here? Where will they stay? - More vehicles and cyclists using our roads which are already badly potholed roads.
Some Roads which are currently patched up, with potholes soon reappearing. - Potentially ,an increase in visitor numbers without the requisite upgrades to transport links, for which there is no commitment, could lead to increased inconvenience for local people with no tangible benefit. The reliance on uncommited government funding is also a worry.
- The reluctance of the farming community to engage in trying to find a way forward
- There are fears about local services being swamped by tourists but Cairngorm NP has only seen an increase of 30% in visitor numbers over the last 20 years. Tourist behaviour is also a concern but a NP would fund a Ranger Service who would advise and educate to prevent the behaviour we saw after Covid.
There is a danger that any jobs created are more summer-only, low skilled, low paid which will not help alleviate poverty but prolong it.
There is already a shortage of housing – how would workers attracted into the region be accommodated, is there some mechanism which could be used to regulate house prices or sales to ensure that local people are not excluded from the market?
At a very local level, our roads do not have the capacity to deal with high volumes of traffic.
What key issues would you want a new Park Authority to address?
- Money – what will the finances?
Authority – how will the NP and D&G Council be integrated?
Agriculture – how to retain the wealth creation, food production and employment benefits of the industry without allowing some farmers to degrade the biodivesity of the area.
Commercial Forestry – the negative biodivesity impacts of commercial forestry ( which seem to be based almost entirely on the artificial economics of a carbon credit system instead of encouraging lower intensity agriculture).
Housing – second homes and holiday homes in particular, especially if there is no new housing being built. A much more permissive attitude towards housing building should be adopted. Even if this attracts more retired people – all those people provide employment in the service industry. - Not ruining the countryside with motor homes etc. Adequate provision for increased footfall. Properly managed campsites in designated areas. Knock dualling the A75 on the head as tourists do not need to be driving through at 70 mph (nor does anyone for that matter). Perhaps some more overtaking sections in strategic places on the A75.
- More research into the current issues in the area and how to resolve them BEFORE going ahead with encouraging more visitors.
Liaising with farmers to offer information and incentives to move towards more environmentally sustainable practices which will benefit both farming, food production and the natural environment. - Resurfacing of roads
- Guaranteed government funding over an extended period such that spending plans would lead to specific outcomes being achieved.
A commitment that funding would focus on employment on the ground ( wardens specifically) rather than management positions in remote locations ( Dumfries) - The future for young families and the next generation. Talking about an increase in tourism will not encourage young people to stay or return here.
- Land use (to take all the conflicting needs into account); enabling a sustainable circular economy; affordable, sustainable, housing.
Any other comments?
- Yes, the area would need to “up it’s game”. One does not get the impression of very good service. Cafes closing at 3.30 pm, shops due to open at 10.00 but a sign saying 11.30 today when you get there; shops not even open at all but with a telephone number to contact; restaurants with notices saying closed due to staff shortages. If I was a holiday maker I probably wouldn’t be too impressed if I couldn’t get a decent meal or found half the shops shut. Also, places like the activities that were available at Cream of Galloway and Laggan Outdoors are definitely needed again. In the case of Borgue, if the school is not going to be opened again it would make an excellent youth hostel maybe attracting cyclists/walkers but that is a whole other logistical conundrum.
- I feel that developing ways to sustain and develop the natural environment before we lose even more of it, are an urgently given necessity that I fully support. But to attempt to do this without fully including those who farm, forest, grow up, work and live in the area, and without addressing more fully the issues that concern these people, could be divisive and disastrous.
More informed consultation with both local residents and local government is needed before informed decisions can be made. - I cannot commit either way because , as is usual with a central government proposal, there are too many ifs but and maybes. I do not believe the scare stories that we will become like the lakes, but I am also dubious, in these financially straitened times, of anything pinned on unspecified government grants , and wished for commercial investments. I remain to be convinced that the park will engender a wealth of high paid employment
- I do not believe that the funding is available at the moment. I have heard so many people, in the know, say that. I wish that the Scottish Government would be honest and call a halt to the process. With so many essential services in crises is it really the right time to move ahead with this? I believe that nature could be saved by sensible working together not by another tier of non-elected incomers.
- The process for consultation is too vague – there are many uncertainties about what is being proposed and how the NP would work. The possible downsides are very obvious and immediate while possible benefits are much less easy to quantify.
The tenor of the debate has been depressing, we have to be able to discuss controversial issues as a community without the rancour we’ve seen. It was interesting to read an investigation into the running of the “No” campaign in an article in the Ferret recently.
Someone from the NP said at the meeting in June “We’ve had 50 years of the current development model and it hasn’t worked, why not try something different?” – I’ve ticked the undecided box above but lean towards “yes”.