National Park Lessons from Galloway

I was in Newton Stewart in Galloway a couple of years ago and it’s a pretty run-down place. So, I was surprised when the Galloway National Park proposal was so roundly kick out. My interest is more in the proposal for a new national park in Wales and I’ve blogged elsewhere about the surprising polarisation of views on that one. I thought I’d investigate the Galloway proposal, and I asked ChatGPT to look into it for me. I asked if the objections to the national park were reasonable and grounded in reality. The answers has surprised me and  lays out a clear warning for those supporting a new national park in Wales

“In 2023–25, proposals were brought forward to designate parts of south-west Scotland — including the Galloway Hills, the Forest of Galloway and surrounding communities — as Scotland’s third National Park. The idea was to recognise the area’s outstanding landscape, biodiversity and cultural value while supporting long-term, low-impact economic regeneration in a region that has historically been underinvested and politically overlooked. Despite meeting the statutory criteria for National Park status, the proposal was ultimately set aside following a polarised public consultation process.

Many of the objections raised against the proposed Galloway National Park do not stand up particularly well when set against the reality of how National Parks operate in Scotland. Much of the opposition appeared to be based on perception rather than evidence.

A common claim was that National Park status would restrict farming and rural business. In practice, this has not been the case elsewhere. Farming, forestry, sporting estates, renewable energy projects and rural housing all continue within both the Cairngorms and Loch Lomond & The Trossachs National Parks. National Park designation does not impose a blanket ban on development; it simply requires development to be appropriate in scale, location and environmental impact. There is little evidence to suggest that Galloway would have been treated differently.

Another frequently voiced concern was that National Park status would bring uncontrolled tourism and overwhelm local infrastructure. This argument misunderstands the type of visitors National Parks typically attract. Rather than mass tourism, they tend to draw walkers, cyclists, paddlers and wildlife watchers — visitors who travel slowly, stay longer, and contribute to local economies without requiring large-scale infrastructure. Galloway already attracts this kind of tourism quietly; the real issue is not visitor numbers but a lack of sustained economic benefit to towns such as Newton Stewart.

Fears that National Park designation would dramatically increase house prices also appear overstated. Property values are influenced far more by proximity to cities, transport links and employment opportunities than by park boundaries alone. Galloway remains remote, lightly populated and poorly connected by public transport. While National Park status might have supported modest regeneration, there is little evidence it would have led to rapid or widespread displacement of local residents.

Concerns about increased bureaucracy were more grounded, but not necessarily negative. Additional planning scrutiny is intended to prevent poorly sited or landscape-damaging developments and to ensure that local communities benefit from change rather than being sidelined by it. In many cases, National Park authorities provide communities with more influence over development decisions, not less.

Underlying much of the opposition was a deeper resistance to change and a mistrust of external decision-making. Galloway has long been underinvested and politically overlooked, and National Park status would have brought increased visibility, funding and influence into the region. For some landowners and established interests, this shift in balance may have felt threatening, even if the wider community stood to gain.

From the perspective of low-impact outdoor users — walkers, cyclists, paddlers and bothy users — National Park status would likely have been a positive step. Improved path maintenance, better visitor management, protection for bothies and increased support for small local businesses could all have strengthened the region’s appeal without compromising its character.

Ultimately, the proposal did not fail because Galloway was unsuitable for National Park status. It failed because opposition to change was louder and more organised than support for it. In that sense, the decision represents a missed opportunity for a region well suited to exactly the kind of quiet, sustainable outdoor tourism that already exists there.”

And still Newton Stewart languishes, waiting for what?