UKH

I saw this article today about an ammendment to a planning law going through the Scottish Parliament that will make it a requirement for hill tracks for sporting purposes to require full planning permission.

https://theferret.scot/wightman-hill-tracks-highlands/?utm_source=push

Fine, good idea but the report then goes on to note that planning permission is not required for hill tracks for agricultural or forestry purposes. Why not? A blight on the landscape is a blight on the landscape?

A long story! Tracks which are claimed to be for forestry or agriculture have, historically, enjoy Permitted Development Rights which means that, up until a few years ago, they could be bulldozed without reference to any public authority. It was clear that many tracks in the hills which were claimed to be for agriculture were, in fact, for shooting purposes, tracks for which have always needed full planning consent. After years of campaigning by environmental groups, the Scottish Government finally agreed that there was problem and brought such tracks under the Prior Notification system in 2014. This means that estates must advise the relevant planning authority before constructing such tracks and the planning authority can exercise some limited control over them, although they still have Permitted Development status.

Over the past three years, a sub group of Scottish Environment LINK has been monitoring the Prior Notification system for such tracks; this has involved scrutinising literally hundreds of applications and commenting on/objecting to a number of them. This monitoring has led to LINK considering that the new system is still inadequate and that all agricultural tracks should require full planning consent. A report to this effect will be published in September, following which LINK will campaign for change. Andy Wightman's amendment to the Planning Bill reflects these ongoing concerns.

There are also significant problems with hydro tracks but these already require full consent so that is a totally separate issue.

If people want to see better control of the tracks which continue to blight many of Scotland's finest upland landscapes, then we would encourage people to email their MSP (you can find you MSP here - http://www.parliament.scot/msps.aspx ) saying something along the following lines:

'I am very concerned that new and often poorly constructed hill tracks continue to blight Scotland's world renowned upland landscapes. Andy Wightman MSP is putting forward an amendment to the Planning Bill which would ensure that such hill tracks are subject to greater legal controls. I am writing to ask you to support this amendment'

George Allan (North East Mountain Trust SCIO 008783)

Page 14 in Scottish Mountaineer http://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk/html5/reader/production/default...

In Sunday's Herald http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16584911.call-to-crack-down-on-hill-trac...

Thanks George.

Reading this again though, I understand the amendment only refers to land used for sporting purposes or land inside a national park. What about land that is not used for sporting purposes and is outside a national park?

Eric

Andy Wightman's proposed amendment also covers areas covered by various environmental designations. Tracks in National Scenic Areas already require full consent. Taken together, this covers most of the areas people going to the hills are concerned about.

I'm not sure why Andy Wightman has framed the amendment as he has but there are two overriding criteria when doing so- a) Is the amendment legally watertight? (he'll almost certainly have taken advice on this) b) Is the amendment likely to be one which commands the support of a significant number of MSPs. There are signs that better control of tracks will have the support of many MSPs.

Even if we can get the law changed and agricultural tracks do require full consent, that obviously doesn't mean that new ones won't be approved in many circumstances but there will be much better control. Ultimately what is needed is for planning authorities in their local plans to state that there will be a presumption against any new tracks in certain areas. The Cairngorms National Park is the first authority to be moving in that direction. Another development which would be a huge step forward would be for the areas covered by Scottish Natural Heritage's Wild Land Map to be put on a legally binding footing, along with restrictions on various developments in those areas. The Scottish Government is opposed to giving legal status to the Wild Land Map at present; however the more people who make clear to politicians that Scotland's finest landscapes are being eroded (landscapes which bring people, and so jobs and money, into the Highlands) the more likely it will be that politicians will support further change. 

George

Thanks George,

I'll send off an email to my MSP as you suggest.