Letters: The true duty in the national park

Members of national park authorities appointed by the Secretary of State are there to represent the national interest in the conservation and enjoyment of national parks, and not to represent the views of particular organisations.

The public interest in national parks is substantial given the millions that visit them each year and remembering those who cannot visit but nevertheless cherish the knowledge that the parks are protected for future generations. National parks are also entirely funded by the taxpayer.

The planning system is one of the most important tools in delivering national park purposes of conservation and recreation.

It is not there, as Peter Annison appears to claim, solely to meet the needs of local residents, important though these are. It is there to ensure that a balance is struck between these needs and to ensure that the special qualities of the park, such as natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage, are not damaged by inappropriate planning applications.

Any member of a national park authority is legally entitled to hold office, for example as chairman. The important qualities for a planning committee chairman are knowledge and experience of chairing committees and a sound knowledge of national park purposes and planning policies.

Since 1995 all local authorities have had a statutory duty to have regard to national park purposes in their decision-making. So members appointed by local authorities will want to take their responsibilities, to the statutory national park purposes as seriously as members appointed in other ways - and of course many do.

The interest of the national park is paramount for NPA members and team working, rather than the pitched battle that Peter Annison so colourfully imagines, is what achieves that.

VICKI ELCOATE

Director, Council for National Parks,

Lavender Hill,

London.

Sir, - Peter Annison's letter (D&S, Aug 18) is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. He is simply wrong in his main premise.

Councillors from both county and district councils are not appointed to the national park authority as representatives of their councils but in their own right. In my view, as a serving member, every member, whether elected or appointed by the Secretary of State, should seek to balance the interests of the nation with those of the local community.

This is also in essence what responsible members of any planning authority should strive to achieve. This is often a difficult balance to strike and, with divergent views among members, it is unsurprising that conflicts arise from time to time.

Those members who, like me, voted for Jerry Pearlman did so because of his wisdom, expertise and experience which commands respect even among members who may not usually agree him. It seems to me that Kevin Lancaster, as an elected member, and Jerry Pearlman, as an appointed member, will bring the required balance to the planning committee as chairman and vice-chairman.

Peter Annison cheapens the point he makes by his perjorative reference to Jerry Pearlman's long-standing involvement with the Ramblers' Association. The Ramblers, like all other park users, have an interest in the park, an interest which deserves to be aired on the authority. The quality of Jerry's work in this field was nationally recognised recently by the award of the MBE.

I might also point out that Peter Annison himself was for a term appointed by the Secretary of State as member of the authority. The specific remit of appointed members is to take into account national as well as local interests but Peter's failure to be re-appointed for a second term probably reflected the fact that his advocacy of the national interest was too often absent. Given this, it is a bit rich of him to start lecturing other members on their responsibilities!

NIGEL WATSON

St Matthew's Terrace,

Leyburn.

Sir, - Re Peter Annison's letter (D&S Aug 18 "Offensive offer of park chair"). I have no comment on the main burden of his letter ie chairmanship of the planning committee but I am somewhat perturbed by the implications of Dr Annison's remarks on the duties of councillors.

Certainly they have been elected to represent the interests of their constituents but these can sometimes be conflicting and then, as representatives not delegates, they must use their own judgment. We may personally disagree with some of their decisions but that is democracy.

Moreover, while they have been appointed by the council to sit on the national park authority as our representatives, we should remember it is a national park. I would therefore expect them to consider national as well as local interests - after all 75pc of park funding comes from central government

JILL M FOX

Peggygarth,

Thoralby,

Leyburn