 Welcome to the third meeting of the Pentland Hills Regional Park Boundary Bill Committee of 2015. Everyone present is asked to switch off mobile phones and other electronic equipment as they affect the broadcasting system. Some committee members may consult tablets during the meeting because we provide meeting papers in digital format. I would like to welcome Christine Graham and Colin Keir to today's meeting. Christine is a member in charge of the bill and Colin is an MSP with an interest. Before we move on to today's business, I'd like to clarify my remarks at the meeting on 29 October that Christine Graham mentioned. I was referring to paragraph 30 of the financial memorandum which states, the bill could have small but direct financial implications for Scottish natural heritage, Scottish water, NHS Scotland and farmers and individuals with agricultural holdings within the Pentland Hills range and small business enterprises. Our only item of business today is evidence on the Pentland Hills Regional Park Boundary Bill. Our panel represents objectors, potentially affected by the bill and I welcome Richard Henderson, chair of Ballerno Community Council, Michael Jones, Fairlyhoke Carlops and Hemi Steichs, representing David and Jane Gilchrist, Engleston Farm. It's my intention to allow Christine, Graham and Colin Keir to question witnesses after members have concluded their questioning. We'll now move to questions, unless anyone wishes to make a brief opening statement. Yes, I'm Hemi Steichs from South Sturford Field Farm. I am representing the Gilchrist family from Engleston Farm, but as a neighbouring farmer I feel that I'm representing my own family and various other farmers and rural people from the community around about us, so I'm representing quite a few voices today. I am here on behalf of the Gilchrist, yes. If I do say a few words, because although the way in which Ballerno Community Council are labelled as objectors, we perhaps fall into a slightly odd position in that we support the park as it stands. We really don't have an interest, I'm afraid, to say in the southern extension, but we are interested in why Ballerno has, despite two approaches, to be included in the park, why Ballerno is excluded. When I say Ballerno, I'm not talking about Ballerno village because it's never been the position of the community council in Ballerno, that Ballerno village itself should be included. We're talking about the southern slopes of the binclans down to the water of Leith. Do you need to expand on that a little, Mr Henderson? Mr Jones? Okay, thank you very much. We'll then move on to the questions. Could I ask if any are aware of any demand for an extension to the Pentland Tull's regional park? Myself totally unaware of any demand for the extension. Mr Henderson? That depends on whether by demand you mean support for or active demand for communities don't tend to, I think, to demand things of this nature, but there is certainly support within the Ballerno community for the park and for the extension of the park. Mr Dikes? My experience is that the public access, our parts of the countryside, are very happy with the access they have and are sometimes surprised at just how much access they already do have and how welcoming the farmers are. I suppose that that takes me on to the next question. Are any of you aware of any demand or pressure in the existing area of the Pentland Tull's regional park that may cause the demand or the support for the extension? I farm at the southern end of the Pentland Tull's and I'm very aware of the footfall of traffic at this northern end and I don't know the farmers from that area quite so well, but I do know that working with such a high number of public going through the land on a daily basis, particularly at weekends, can make agricultural activities quite difficult. We are aware of concerns on the part of the farming community and if I say legitimate concerns, I'm trying not to be patronising when I say that, but I think that when farmers are concerned about the behaviour of people when they are visiting the park, then that is a legitimate concern. There are also pressures on the park, certainly, for mountain bike activities and the like. We think that the park is a facility that is going to come under increasing pressure, particularly if we look at, for example, the assessed plan proposals for increasing population in south east Scotland. A lot of that is in Edinburgh. We think that the existing area of the park will come under significantly greater pressure in time, and that may mean that local authorities have to put more resources in. It may mean that other bodies will be more willing and prepared to become involved in the park. By that, I mean things like the Friends of the Pentlands, but I don't speak for them. A thing like how local village trust may see the pressure on the park as something that demands a response. I live in Scottish Borders, but on the periphery of the existing park in the hills above Carlops, there may be these big pressures on the area of the existing regional park, which there definitely are. We haven't found, for example, a pressure outflow coming our way, and the footfall will be right beside a main access to the hills. The footfall has increased a little bit but not markedly so. You are suggesting the pressures at one end, but not at the end? There is a certain pressure at the hotspots in Pentland Hills—Flottison, for instance—but that has been a hotspot for well over 100 years in any event. It is recorded in the Midlothian census, 1850, of people visit that pretty picturesque glen at Flottison. The main thing is that we have noticed a slight increase, but not a marked increase in the footfall, and it is there for anyone to take, as is it in the southern part of the hills. It is a well-marked network of paths, and they are not heavily used in any way at the moment. Good morning, gentlemen. I wonder if we could move on to the general area of planning restrictions and bureaucracy, of which we have had a certain amount of written evidence put to us. My understanding is that being in a designated regional park does not have any compulsory planning restrictions placed upon it. However, section 48A of the Countryside Scotland Act 1967 states that, where a planning application is made, the planning authority shall have regard to the fact that the area has been so designated when it is considering that application. Matthew Hamilton of Crosswood hill farm states in his evidence that, based on the experience of those already within the boundaries of the regional park, the planning officers often use the park as a reason to turn down planning applications and impose extra costly conditions. I wondered if any of you have any examples you could give us where that has been the case? No, I was going to say that I have no direct experience of planning restrictions. I joined the park as a Countryside Ranger in 1988, and there was a bit of a fuss then that a significant development was turned down, and on appeal it eventually got permission to go ahead. All I can say is that, from observation at the current moment, there are at least, I think, three or four properties being built within the periphery of the existing park on the 8702 side. Are there any restrictions that were placed on and more extra costs imposed on them because they were in the… I am not aware of it. There may have been, but I am not aware of it. I am not aware of any such restrictions, but I am aware that, obviously, Bolerno is an area in which developers have great interest, and there is a significant number of planning applications being made for large-scale housing development around the Bolerno community. My presence here is not actually directed at that issue, but it is the case that one recent planning application for a large-scale development on the south side of Bolerno but Coburn Crescent was rejected on appeal, and certainly the proximity to the regional park was a relevant factor, as was the fact that the area is a candidate special landscape area in the Scottish Natural Heritage Scheme. There is already, if you like, a realisation among planning authorities that certain areas are worth protecting. When one talks about the purpose of a regional park, one is… The words may have been used before, talking about drawing a line, saying that this is an area that is special, which is worth preserving and developing. It is not about piling people in and ruining farming, it is about having a regulated and properly managed approach to dealing with sensitive areas. I do not think that I can add terribly much on the planning side of your question. I do not have many instances or experiences of planning restrictions that have affected anybody within the park, but one area that is similar to planning on my farm is that we have a triple SI, which was designated 20-odd years ago or something. That has caused restrictions to us not only on how we farm that triple SI but on how we farm the neighbouring land to the triple SI. We have quite a large area of ground that drains need to be maintained, and we cannot maintain those drains any more because they drain into the triple SI. Although this does not become a planning issue, it is a restriction that further blankets of bureaucracy would potentially cause on farmland. Mr Dites, given that you are here representing others, could you give us a feel for how that would affect them? Yes, sure. I am representing the Galkrists who are right next door to us, and that particular triple SI does not come on to their land, so it does not affect them, but it is very close to them. They farm a very similar type of land that I do, and it is quite unforeseible what other restrictions would come from being within the regional park. The Galkrists family and myself have both developed some farm buildings and have some holiday business from that. I do not think that the existence of the regional park would have prohibited that either, so there is no change there. I do not think that the Galkrists have put in that submission. They feel that we will be disadvantaged by the boundary extension due to the increased bureaucracy that we would be subjected to. Given what you have just said, on what basis are they based on? I suspect that, if they want to do groundworks or whatever to maintain the ground, there might be further restrictions on how they farm the land. I am not aware of having any plans for housing developments, as far as I know, so I do not think that it can be that that they are alluding to. Can I just move to a slightly different aspect, convener, of the Galkrists' submission? While Mr Dykes is on the microphone, so to speak, I know that they also say that they are very surprised not to have been consulted anyway about this proposal. Can I ask if you were consulted as a potential farmer within the new park area? I am not aware of having been consulted, but I could not say hand on heart that I did not receive something in the post because it is not easy to feel everything that comes through the letterbox. I am sure that if I had been consulted, I would have probably been aware of it, so I do not think that I was. Can I ask if you are aware of any other farmers within the area that you know who have not been consulted or who have been consulted? The general feeling within the farmers that I have spoken to about this is that it all seems to have come upon us from the mist. It just seems to have arrived without very much warning, so we have been a little bit surprised at the stage that we are at now. I am grateful for that, and we can have further questions about that later. What is your view on the argument made by Christine Grahame that the bill only seeks to create a line in a map and therefore does not require local authorities to actually do anything and therefore the bill will not impact on them and others and will not involve additional costs? Mr Dykes? Well, as far as I am aware, the existing regional park is currently underfunded and it is not managing to live up to the support that it set out to in its initiation, so I do not see how you can possibly make the park three times the size and not incur more costs. I think that the biggest flaw with this is where the funding is going to come from if it really is going to come at all. From a land owner's point of view, the fear would be that it gets designated, but it does not have the support and the funding to give the supposed benefits to the land owners. Given that, Mr Henderson? I have never seen that this is being an option. I think that progress does mean that we are actually going to be faced with this whatever happens. Is it going to impact on local authorities? I think that Christine Grahame is right in saying that it does not have to, but what you do is create an expectation. Once you create an expectation, it does not necessarily mean that that is going to be met simply by local authorities. If I go round Bolognau, I say, what do you think of the regional park? They would say, well, it is up there. To access it from Bolognau, if it is being long-winded, you will cut me short. You have to go up a winding road, which is highly dangerous, so if I try to go up there, excuse me, I had young children in a push chair, I would not go up there for it. If I bring the park down, then I have a greater chance of actually getting people into it, getting a core path, satisfying a demand, a need, a wish, I think, for people actually to access the countryside. That is what lies behind the bill. I would agree that Christine Grahame is saying that it does not actually have to mean it. It will mean expenditure, but the sources of that expenditure of that funding are actually going to be quite important. I think that the sources of that funding need not necessarily be confined simply to local authorities. There are other sources of funding that can be accessed and would be accessed. Are you able to identify that additional funding, Mr Anderson? I would have thought that charitable funds—I mean, I am not talking about there being particular vehicles in place at present, but local trusts have access to funds for small-scale expenditure. Clearly, we are required for central expenditure in the fund in order to co-ordinate the activity that is going to arise elsewhere. However, that may be different from having funding on rangers. It is the central core of bureaucracy that makes the thing work. I am afraid that I was a bureaucrat, but you do need that. If you do not have that, you are not actually going to be co-ordinating anything. I would like to supplementary on that, if I may. I was very interested, Mr Anderson, to use that word, expectation, because that is what I raised last week in our session two weeks ago. Christine Grahame rightly says that this bill is about drawing a line on a map. It is not about the bureaucracy, planning or anything else that lies behind that. It is about drawing a line on a map to allow exploration of all of these other issues. I accept that that is the intention of the bill. However, I think that there is an argument that I would be interested in your views on this, that if you formally increase the boundary of the park, so you have a headline there, Pentlands National Park, Pentlands Regional Park, doubled in size or whatever the headline is, that creates an expectation. That expectation then brings about the extra pressure that you have already referred to, because the expectation will inevitably bring actors a type of magnet, increase the pressure and the more pressure you have, the more the immediate demand for funding to try to deal with that pressure. Is that a fair equation? It is an equation, but I would not necessarily agree with it. If you look at the other pre-existing pressures that are rising, the concentration of development in the southeast of Scotland and in Edinburgh is going to mean that there is going to be a larger population mass needing recreational activity. I am not talking about the southern extension of the Pentland Hills. I am talking about what is there at present, and I am talking about the inclusion of the Bolero area as part of that area to be managed. That increased pressure of expectation is going to have to be catered for. It is 30 years since the Pentland Regional Park was set up. This is the opportunity now to set the pattern for the future. This is the opportunity in which you set the line on the map. Yes, the expectation is coming. This will focus the expectation into that area. That is problematic, but if you do not have a scheme that is going to manage the pressures of farming and recreation, then you have a recipe for some chaos. That is, I think, that the fear is that you get a chaotic solution rather than a managed one. I feel that I have got to just ask one more supplementary on that. Thank you. I can tell you one of the other questions. No, I think that it is really interesting to debate this, because I hear what you are coming from, and I can totally understand from the Bolero perspective what the pressures are and why you have the concerns that you have. Are we not in danger of putting the cart before the horse here in terms of extending the boundary designation without having done any of the other discussions at all? You have got expectations that you increase pressure without having anything else in place. Is that not a danger of taking the approach that this bill is going to take? Clear danger. I am not very sure what happened to the recommended feasibility study. If it happened and I missed it, I apologise if it did not happen, then it should have happened. You would do things in a rather more planned process, but if you look at it in terms of where is the opportunity, the opportunity is now. If you have to do the work afterwards, then that makes life more difficult. Are you going to wait another 30 years for that opportunity? I suspect that it will not happen, and I suspect that the pressures that we are talking about are going to arise far sooner than 30 years from now. Thank you, convener, and I could also ask Mr Jones. Mr Ferguson has encapsulated almost exactly my feelings that once we draw the line on the map, if that goes through, the line will be drawn within two years anyway. Once that line is there, it will be published on OS maps and so on, the green band round. People, perhaps through pressure at the existing park end, will say, oh, we are not going to flot us in today, we can't, there is no space, we can't park, let's go further south. I think that the fact that it's there will attract people, and as you use the word, expectations, yes, I believe so. Many will, I think, come just out of curiosity, oh, never realised this was here, sort of attitude. In our own case, we expect perhaps an increased footfall, but that's neither here nor there. We could expect the nosy motorist to come up our road and see what's up here, oh, I believe there's a reservoir at the top and so on, that will be nice. So, there will be this slightly increased pressure, but with no one to manage it. The existing regional park, I believe, really arose with public pressure. If you call that a demand, that was a demand from the public that we need space and we need managed space. And to my understanding, that was largely the origin of the first section of the park. From there, I don't know, and what I am worried about is that there will be an intermediate cost, not very large, admittedly, to the councils because they will be duty bound once the act goes through to carry out the consultation that doesn't appear to be carried out so far. They've got to contact every person with an interest in the land, every land manager, every household and so on. That's all going to cost money and I think the supplementary notes quoted a figure of 20,000 between the councils, I assume, to carry out that exercise. So, that's a small cost, but it's the start. If the councils cannot manage within the two years to find funding or to provide funding themselves, the line is going to be drawn anyway and with nothing to back it up at all in management terms. I think to manage a regional park you absolutely need rangers with feet on the ground and out there most of the day, as was the case when the current park first started. Also, we worked longer hours and we worked in the summer up to eight at nine. It didn't shut down at half past four in the afternoon. I think that that's vital important because we had many, many faced contacts which increased general public education, albeit a slow process. I move on to my second question. Stay with yourself, Mr Jones, because I think that you have an interest. Are there additional access or habitat protection benefits in the extended area of the park? Are there additional access or habitat protection benefits in the extended area of the park? I think that you had some views in your consultation on that. That's right. Again, it comes down to informing people of your SSSI, for instance. It's not a thing. These SSIs don't have a fence around them—the big signpost saying, you know, this is an SSSI, be careful. I think some protections would need to be introduced just in general terms. I mean, ground nesting birds in general, they've actually visibly diminished in our area, P-wits, curlews, these sort of birds. I could not specifically blame that on public pressure. I think there are many other reasons for that. I think that there is some protection, but again, it comes down to people who know what they are doing and can patrol the area and guide the public. If the land manager has a problem, they can be consulted and perhaps help to ease any pressures. Does Mr Henderson or Mr Dikes wish to comment on my question? I am not as well versed on the natural issues as Mike is, but I think that the general public probably doesn't appreciate the extra pressures that they put on the flora and fauna of extra footfall in these areas, and particularly at very sensitive times, as Mike said, with the ground nesting birds and so on. They could be walking through the countryside as responsibly as they possibly could be, dogs on leads, but they still don't realise the pressures and disturbance that they are causing. I don't think that I could usefully add anything. Mike, you've got a couple of questions that you'd like to ask. Thank you, convener. My first question is for Mr Henderson. I'm trying to get an understanding of what you feel are the benefits to areas that are adjacent to Ballerno within the current park. Of course, the policy memorandum sets out the general headings of benefits, and I think that that would apply to paragraph 20 of the policy memorandum. Somewhat, I saw what I hadn't thought of before, was a better engagement. If one talks about the engagement of the local population with the park, because of that disjunction at present, it's only about two miles, but there's a disjunction. Because of that, I think that there is less of an engagement that there might otherwise be. If you've actually got the park right on your doorstep, then it's likely to have a better connection with the population and better engagement there. I think that there is a real prospect of sustainable development economic benefit for a community, like many communities on the periphery of the cities. Ballerno memorandum is at the end of a 10-mile corridor with not the best communications in the world, and commercially we've got not much there. If you have got—if I use the word honeypot, please don't take it wrongly, but if you've got a honeypot of the pendulums, then you can develop things locally, which are going to service those who are going there. I'm going to further cause anger to my colleagues here if I talk about cycle hire and that sort of thing, because these are the kind of activities that are going to come. It doesn't matter whether we want them or not, they're actually going to come. Having this focus within the community means that you can generate economic activity in an area that is really, for most practical purposes, a dormitory. The other benefits, I suppose, are being set out if you look at Edinburgh Council's original submissions and, indeed, Christine Grahame's original consultation, including the lower slopes of the pendulums. They were there on the basis of environmental benefits. We have seen evidence from the mountaineering council talking about the periurban pressures around Ballerno making conclusions of this area within the proposed extended boundary desirable. There are people from the outside looking and there's nothing to do with Ballerno saying actually it makes sense to create this green corridor from the city out into the park. I've mentioned earlier the access from the village to the park and the road access. Just now, most people are going up by car. There are some people who will walk up, but the road access, walking up the road, on what Edinburgh Council designates a core path, is putting them on a highly dangerous road, which is really quite busy not just with visitor traffic but with farm traffic and traffic going up to service the local water treatment plan. There are real benefits, we believe. We've heard from other witnesses the concern about the extra costs involved in extending the park and also that the current funding is not sufficient. Would you not be a bit concerned about the effect on Ballerno if increased footfall and so on and yet there weren't the resources available to help manage increased footfall? My underlying proposition is that this is coming anyway. I'd rather be looking at this with a line on the map and the prospect of assistance rather than no line on the map and no prospect of assistance. I think that that is the fundamental difference between us. Thank you for that. Just one final question for you, Mr Henderson. You mentioned earlier that there was some potential for development pressure in or around Ballerno. Did more housing or did it pick up correctly earlier on when you said that? As you will know, the Edinburgh Council's local development plan is currently with the Scottish Minister's reporters unit to look at. That includes some development in Ballerno, but in the run-up to that, we have had something like an application for something of the order of 1,300 houses in the Ballerno area. It is seen as a desirable place to live. The way to kill it off being a desirable place to live, of course, is to load it up with people so that nobody can actually get out of the place. That is a policy issue. There is a lot of pressure on Ballerno, but we see that it is important that Ballerno should flourish as a community. There are a lot of things going on in Ballerno. We want those to continue. We see the Pentlands as a benefit and as yet underappreciated benefit for the people who live in Ballerno. I take it from what you have said that you would see that level of housing development is unwelcome. Do you feel, therefore, that the inclusion within the park would help to protect you against from this unwelcome development? If you look at the Edinburgh Council's original position on this, it was said that you do not need the park because you have the candidate special landscape area. I have already said that that was taken into account by the reporter in looking at the Coburn Crescent appeal. For anything south of the A70 in Ballerno, that argument probably does apply. How effective it is depends upon the planning system. We have already seen contradictory appeal decisions in Ballerno, with a decision affecting the north side, where a development for 120 houses was allowed on the basis that it was manageable within the community. We have got these pressures. The special landscape area would affect the southern side. Edinburgh said that that is sufficient protection, if you like. The other way of looking at this is—I know that you have referred to development. Behind your question is that Ballerno community council only wants this in order to stop housing development. If that were behind it, I would have to say that it may be a factor, but it is not the factor. If you want a community to flourish, you have got to actually create the circumstance in which it can flourish and identify the Pentham Hills regional park as a focus on which you can begin to get people to concentrate. I would hope that you would get volunteering and contributing to that. That is what I see as a future within our area. Thank you very much. That is very useful. My next question is for Mr Dikes. Bearing in mind that you are here on behalf of Mr Gilchrist, there has been a suggestion that extending the park boundary might have an effect on the value of their land. Would you care to comment on that? It is a very difficult thing to quantify, but there is no doubt that, from a farming point of view, you would rather farm outside a regional park than inside a regional park, because I cannot really see any benefits to a farm of being in the regional park. You mentioned the effect of the SSI in terms of your ability to drain adjacent land, and obviously that is an effect on the productive capability of the farm. Is there anything specific that you can point to in these proposals that would impact on the productive capability of the Gilchrist farm or any other farm? No, there is nothing specific in the bill, because it is a very broad-spectrum thing, but we just know through experience that this blanket or labelling or classifying of land is bound to bring the restrictions somewhere down the line. On the other side of the coin, you mentioned that you are involved in tourism, and the neighbouring farm is also involved in tourism. Do you see any benefits to that farm, diversification, and that side of your business in the proposed extension that might have negative impacts? I do not think so. Mike has pointed out that we live in a very beautiful part of the country already, and both my tourism side of things and the Gilchrist were just utilising under-used buildings and creating holidaylets, and people that come. We have a big number of repeat customers now and they love the area. I do not think that the regional park would enhance that, but equally, I have to admit that I do not think that it would detract from that either. When I am on the microphone, I would just like to clarify one point. In Richard's last comment, he suggested that we might incur further anger from ourselves with the suggestion of bicycle hire shops and so on, but I think that it would be timely to point out that the people that I am representing myself, the Gilchrists and the other farmers in the community, are by no means against public access. We are not standing here to shout against public access. All of us, without exception that I am speaking on behalf of, have done things in recent years to enhance and embrace public access without any monetary benefits to ourselves, so we do appreciate public access and actually enjoy welcoming public access, but we feel that the designation of a regional park is really a pointless exercise because the public access is there already and we cannot see any fundamental benefits to us as farmers and landowners by designating it as a regional park. Equally, we do not see many great benefits to the public either unless it can really live up to the funding expectations that would be created, and I think that that is where this proposal is really on rocky ground. Mr Henson raised an important issue of volunteers—voluntary input. Obviously, the less well-funded any designated area is the more it is going to depend on voluntary input to keep up core paths on that sort of activity. It is quite relevant in this case. It brings me to—I believe that there is an organisation, Friends of the Pentlands, not Friends of the Regional Park, Friends of the Pentlands, so presumably they cover areas outwith the existing regional park. I just wondered, A, if you can confirm that, and B, whether you can give an example of the sort of work that they do outwith the actual regional park boundary. Of course, I am not here on half the Friends of the Pentlands. I know some of the Friends of the Pentlands, and I know that they do very good work. I know that when we spoke to one of them about the regional park, they said, well, we actually cover the whole of the Pentlands. So, yes, they are talking about the whole of the Pentlands. What work they are doing outside of the regional park, I am not sure. I know that they have recently completed a path from Cout Newton up across the A70. I am trying to remember when that was and what the impact of that would be, mind you. It is because that would be outside of the park, but they are trying to increase access into the park. This was from a Cout Newton village from the station. Do you have any other examples of what they have done outwith the existing park area? I have a better idea of being at you on the ground, but my understanding—I am a member of Friends of the Pentlands, although I am not totally supportive of the concept about the Pentland Hills extension. They have done a lot of work, along with Tweeddale paths and local people from West Linton and so on, re-waymarking the network of paths that already exists in the proposed extension area. They have renewed gates. I think that they have replaced one or two bridges that have been washed away over the years. They have put signposts. That brings me to another point about this particular area. It is very different in character to the northern end. In the northern end, there are dramatic hills. In some instances, the West Kip, East Kip and so on—these volcanic stumps—can be quite dramatic, and they are the higher hills of the two hearts. Once you get out into the middle of this area, it is just blanket moor with these paths. The signposting is often a tall post on the skyline, and you aim for that. One of my worries is that if you draw the line on the map, and that is the extension to the regional park, the expectation attracts people. We have already had people quite often lost in the existing regional park when fog comes down. Out in the middle of the southern extension, if fog comes down, those people should really have a compass on the map, otherwise they are going to be very lost. I have a little bit of experience with the Friends of the Pentlands, and I have worked alongside some of them. I was involved with the Upper Tweeddale Path Group and Friends of the Pentlands when we put in a lot of user-friendly equestrian and cycle-friendly gates and so on. That is when I realised that many of the landowners are quite accepting and welcoming of public access, particularly when it is well managed, as the Friends of the Pentlands have tried to do. I think that they do very good work. Some of that work allows a degree of visitor management to take place, despite the fact that it is not in a regional park. There is a huge amount of visitor management from a farming perspective that is good. I would reiterate that the Friends of the Pentlands have done great work on that front. Thank you for your evidence. It is very interesting. You might not think that I am on the side of the farmers in this instance, but I cannot really address the Balernau stuff, because I am not giving evidence today, but I will in my evidence session to the committee about the reasons why Balernau is not included. I want you to pick up on a few things. First, I am looking at the definition of a regional park as an extensive area of land, part of which is devoted to the recreational needs of the public. That is it. I think that we have also got the stage to accept that this is an enabling bill. It just is a line on the map. There is nothing in here about management, about people having to contribute and so on. Would you accept that? Apart from the initial set-up cost of £20,000, any of you, yes? I accept exactly what you are saying, but I think that is the weakness in the bill that has been presented. I am aware of that. Can I say that, having done that, are you aware of why I have a two-year delay in the bill coming into force? What do you think I have got behind that? I assume that you are giving councils or whichever bodies intend to take over the management of this area, giving them two years' breathing space to search the funding and set up the infrastructure that it is going to require. Do you think that any of this will happen either in the northern part or in the southern, even if it is not in a regional park? Do you think that any additional resources will be put into maintaining any additional pressures on your part, as well as the northern part, if I do not do this? What is your feeling? The council has already contributed an element of funding, which I think is their duty anyway, to keep rights of way open and this sort of thing. You were going to say something. You said that you want to relabel it and then deal with the funding thereafter. Do we accept that? I think that the answer to that is no, we do not, because by doing that you have already relabelled the land that we farm and own and live on and manage. What difference do you have to anything that you do in that farm, whether it is drainage or planning or anything? It is already making a difference to what we are doing by classifying some of it as a SSI. That is a different matter. You just mentioned SSI. No, SSI is something completely different. I have defined a regional park. If I raise the point with you, my point I am making is that parking your SSIs, which are in force anyway, does this make any other planning obligations and duties on the farms and landowners there? We are not sure, but the chances are that it probably will encourage restrictions and, as has been suggested, will definitely encourage more expectation. Can I deal with the consultation? I beg your pardon. I wonder if I could just say that the par excellence of this bill is aspirational legislation. As you have said, this is a line. We want somebody to fill it in. That is what it does. There is nothing wrong with aspirational legislation. The regional park would not actually be being talked about at all just now if it was not for this bill. That is what the bill provides. It provides the opportunity. I know that you do not agree on whether Balano should be in, but it provides the opportunity for me to say to you that it should be. I am very interested in why it is not, but it should be. I also ask for consultation. I know that, on behalf of the Gilchrist, in your written evidence, we are surprised not to be consulted in any way that we feel that a proper consultation should be undertaken. Were you aware that, if you read the explanatory notes as a section on consultation, which was substantial by me, and are you aware that in the Government's response, not that they are friendly towards me in this, but they say that I consulted widely about this? I was not aware that you consulted widely, but obviously the people I represent did not feel that they had been consulted. Can I ask if you are in the NFU? You can. I am not. Are you? Yes. Can I ask you if the NFU did not put anything out, because I consulted widely with them in advance of the legislation and also once the bill was put forward? Can I ask if the NFU knows if they put anything out on this? Obviously, the people I am representing did not consult with the NFU. Can I just assure you that it was certainly done in advance and at the time the bill was put in? Can I come to the issue of pressure? Do you think that people know when they are moving from one part of the Pentland hills, the part that is designated as a regional part, and the part that says that when you access via carlops or the southern part, are they aware in the main that they are going into some other kind of place? I do not think they are. That is why I raise the question why you want to increase it in the first place, because it does not make any difference to the public. On that same note, are the public aware when they are moving from one farm to another? And what biosecurity measures are they taking at that time? As I say, I am very sympathetic to your issues about people using the countryside in an uninformed fashion. Would you accept that the purpose of my bill is, as they say, to draw a line on the map? It is aspirational, that is all it is enabling. But that behind it in a period of two years, or I might think about extending it to three years, behind it is to push local authorities and other charitable organisations into proper assisting yourself in maintaining the management of the hills through proper wardens and so on, and therefore not incurring the kind of issues that you have raised. Do you see that a tangential purpose of my bill is to galvanise that? We have met before, Christine, and I think we said then that we perhaps share some of your visions in what you are trying to achieve. The fear factor for us is that you have drawn this line and then you have got to try and do the difficult bit, and the difficult bit is going to be the bit that we cannot see as being feasible or possible. I think part of the reason why there is objection from the people still outwith the regional park is because those that we have spoken to within the regional park feel that it is failing to live up to its promise and would prefer it had never come at all. Do you accept that, as has been raised by Mr Henderson, that having raised this issue, I have therefore raised the profile of what exists and is underfunded, that it has looked at the failures? I know that there were promises in the 80s and 90s to landowners and farmers. Do you agree that this has raised the profile and that, in bringing this bill as an enabling bill forward, if it were to be enacted in two or three years' time, it would do the same kind of driving thing to bringing in finances, otherwise it will all wither and you would be put under further pressure? Raising the profile of the underfunding is all very well, but again, that is the easy part. The difficult part is finding the funding that is required. Therefore, if we cannot find the funding for the existing park as it is, how are we going to find funding for a park that is three times the size? Are you aware that it has already led to other issues and other funding sources being raised in the northern part of the park and that these are already in train? Are you aware that that has already happened? Is it going to fill all the holes? It is a beginning. Before we move on, I will go back to a comment that Mr Henderson made, where he suggested that we disagreed with him on something. We do not—this committee has not made a decision or taken a view on anything, so we do not agree or disagree on any of the views that have been espoused so far. My choice of words may well have been inappropriate and for the word I apologise. Thank you very much. Thank you, convener, and good morning to you. My interest here, to remind people, is that prior to actually during my first year as an MSP, I was still a councillor and was indeed the chair of the regional park management committee for over a couple of years. I am interested in just a couple of things. I welcome the comments made by Mr Henderson. I look forward to reading more about what he is looking for, but it is really directed towards Mr Dikes. Just a couple of things. Obviously, you have had a discussion with the committee on whatever. A couple of things that you have really said that got me going. What makes you say that you just find my note somewhere? It was something on the lines of work that you felt might be hindered by being in a regional park through bureaucracy. I was wondering what examples you could give of that. Examples that I have said, and I know that Christine said, to triple the size of a different designation. That is a different thing, but it is a part of the regional park because I at least have a background within the regional park. I am not aware of anything that has happened at the north end, so I would like just for you to give me an example of what you think might be a problem with the redesignation. When we were designated with our triple SI, we did not know further down the line all the implications. I cannot tell you all the implications that will come from being in the regional park, but there is an example of a designation, a conservation designation that further down the line caused us restrictions on what we do. I do not have a crystal ball. I cannot tell you exactly the nature of any restrictions that will come from being in the regional park, but with past experience working on the farm, I would suggest that there probably will be some. Given that I am very interested in this, having been a former convener of that and not being aware of anything that has happened in the northern park, could I maybe ask you to perhaps enlighten us through a letter afterwards or whatever of any example that you feel? What if I am merely asking for the example? If I was going to give you an example, then it is not a bureaucratic restriction, but I know that farmers at this end of the regional park basically cannot really do any work at the weekends because there are so many people up and down the hills and trying to herd their sheep is just about impossible. Is that not an argument for some help from finding a way to... Is that not an example of where you actually do require help from the likes of a properly funded ranger service and whatever? Well, if the properly funded ranger service were to be available, I think you might find that most of the landowners and farmers would welcome a lot of the proposals within this bill, but our fear is that the bill goes forward and then there is no funding and no ranger service and nothing there, so you have created the increased footfall of traffic without the support that is required to maintain it. Thank you very much to the witnesses just before we go. Is there anything anybody else would like to raise that they haven't had the opportunity to say so so far? Mr Jones? Okay, Mr Henderson? Mr Dykes? Just one more note on my... that I haven't brought up here is the different nature of the farms in the southern end of the Pentlands to the ones at this northern end and we're constantly reminded on a daily basis about the dangers of livestock, particularly cattle, and there's a far heavier population of cows and calves in the southern end of the Pentlands, too. If you increase the number of public walking through that ground, then who's responsible for their safety? Even now you've read in farming articles, you've read letters from the public and they take exception to farmers having cattle in fields that they want to walk through and I think that just changes the... makes us realise the changing perception of the public when it comes to access onto farmland, so health and safety would be an issue coming through the types of farms that we have at the southern end of the Pentlands hills. Okay, thank you very much. I'd like to thank all the witnesses for their evidence today, that was very helpful. The next meeting of the committee will be on Thursday 19th November when we will take evidence from Dr McLeod, Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform and Christine Grahame, the member in charge of the bill. I look forward to it and I now close the meeting. Thank you very much.