Sir, – The letter from Carl Lis, chairman of the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority (D&S, Mar 12), is reassuring in asserting that “there is no possibility that the name Yorkshire will be dropped from the title of the national park”.

However, that does not necessarily mean that additional words will not be added, eg “Yorkshire Dales, including parts of Cumbria and Lancashire, National Park” or a similar indication of its wider geographical extent.

John Blackie, as the consummate politician, is well aware of the advantage to be gained from firing the opening salvo. It is often much easier to nip something in the bud rather than having to pursue a rear-guard action once the process of seeking a name change has started.

Few will disagree with Carl Lis’ view that the areas proposed for inclusion within the national park’s extended boundaries represent some of the most outstanding landscapes in the UK and are thoroughly worthy of the extra conservation protection conferred by national park designation.

However, it is also true that local communities within national park boundaries suffer a democratic deficit. This results from the transfer of development control powers (planning) from democratically-elected local authorities (principally the district councils) to a non-elected national park authority, especially if a significant number of its members neither live nor work within the park boundaries.

Even if the size of the authority membership is increased to reflect and maintain the representation of the new areas (although this is by no means a given), recent changes in planning legislation have already widened the democratic deficit.

Local Plans (which set out the planning policies for each local authority) now form only one part of a broader Local Development Framework (LDF) in which the planning policies are informed and guided by a Community Strategy. This latter document sets out the current and future needs and aspirations identified by the local community to ensure its well being and sustainability. The LDF is a thoroughly sensible and integrated method of attempting to match development to community needs.

Unfortunately the integrated approach implicit in the LDF process breaks down in national park areas because responsibility for the Community Strategy remains with the local councils, whilst planning control rests with the national park authority.

The existing Yorkshire Dales national park boundary already overlaps with five local authorities and at least three more will be added in the extended area.

All the local authority areas within the extended national park may share an outstanding landscape, but it does not follow that they share identical, or necessarily even similar, demographic, social or economic problems.

So, when the national park comes to draw up a new set of planning policies (Local Plan), the best that can be hoped for is a compromise that seeks to balance these policies with the different, and possibly conflicting, requirements as set out in the disparate Community Strategies of the various councils.

This is not how the LDF was intended to work.

John Blackie is right to issue an early warning of these potential difficulties too.

PETER ANNISON Askrigg, Leyburn.