Last month, the government announced it is to extend the boundary of the Yorkshire Dales National Park into Cumbria and Lancashire in order to boost tourism and support rural businesses. Councillor John Blackie, though, is dismayed

THERE was some good news in the Government’s decision to extend the Yorkshire Dales National Park area by 24 per cent – territory that will come exclusively from over the border in Cumbria and Lancashire.

The good news was that the campaign to oppose the extension – a campaign headed by three county councils, two district councils (including Richmondshire under my leadership), and many parish councils – was in one respect successful. We feared that the extension of the park would a result in a change of the name of the Yorkshire Dales National Park (YDNP) – after all, Cumbria and Lancashire are not in Yorkshire. Such a change would have removed at a stroke the unique worldwide branding/marketing tool that connects with our iconic landscapes in the mind of the potential visitor.

The local economies in the existing YDNP would have been damaged beyond repair given their increasing dependence on tourism, yet a name change was not even in the terms of 2013's public inquiry into the extension. It could all too easily have gone ahead once the decision had been announced.

Apart from this outstanding success, endorsed by the Government's Environment Secretary, Elizabeth Truss, who was forced by our campaign to specifically rule out a name change, the decision leaves us in Yorkshire seriously sold short. It looks like the public inquiry was a whitewash, an exercise in foregone conclusions so reminiscent of consultations by the local NHS.

In fact, I fear the local communities in the Dales have been left completely empty-handed by the minister’s decision.

Any support for the extension of the YDNP was conditional on two hugely important caveats. Firstly, it should be accompanied by additional funding to reflect the increase in area, and, secondly, that the current structure of the local authority membership of the authority should remain and new members added to reflect the newly designated areas.

Much of the funding received by the YDNP from the Government is spent helping farmers who are the foot-soldiers of conservation of our stunning landscapes, as 98.5 per cent of the land in the National Park is in their ownership. They have hosted the National Park on their land for 63 years and they maintain the countryside in the fine condition that our local residents so much appreciate, and the visitors by the million come to enjoy, spending their cash in our local economies sustaining local employment when they do.

If the area of the YDNP is extended by 24 per cent then you will need 24 per cent additional funding to maintain the current levels of support that the farmers within the existing YDNP receive.

Nothing doing, said Ms Truss – although she says there could be jam when the nation’s finances improve. This is blatant hypocrisy from a government which has reduced its global funding for National Parks by 40 per cent since 2010, and promises a cut of at least 30 per cent more in the Chancellor’s Comprehensive Spending Review later this month.

However, Ms Truss did point out the success of National Parks in attracting external funding, so it appears we have entered the era of Government funding them by the National Lottery.

Even more serious for the local communities is the loss of a voice and influence at YDNPA meetings. We can soon expect proposals where North Yorkshire district and county councillors with pure National Park electorates are replaced by those on the very periphery of the extended area.

For example a Lancaster city councillor with 200 electors or a Lancashire county councillor with 475 in the extended YDNP could take the place on the park authority of, say, a Richmondshire district councillor with 1,000 electors or a North Yorkshire county councillor with 4,750 electors. The newcomer could even sit on the park authority planning committee.

But does anybody expect a councillor from Lancaster or Lancashire to know the day-to-day socio-economic issues embedded in, say, a planning application in Arkengarthdale, or to attend a site meeting which involves 120 miles of driving? Especially when their key priorities will be about improving the value of their constituent’s houses, not tackling the ever-increasing exodus of hard working young families from the Dales through the lack of affordable housing.

The democratic deficit implied in the extension decision will return the communities in the YDNP to the dark days in which the authority lived before 1997, before the introduction of localism in the form of local councillors from local communities who arrived to make these key – often contentious – planning decisions which are of such huge importance to their communities.

A loss of money and a loss of accountability equals a bleak outlook for the local park communities in the Yorkshire Dales.

Councillor John Blackie is an Independent councillor. He has represented the Upper Dales at both county and district level for nearly 20 years, and is chairman of Hawes and High Abbotside parish council. He has been a member of the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority since May 1997.