Should there be a new national park in north east Wales?

It has been interesting, and at times slightly alarming, to watch the opposition grow around the proposal for a new Glyndŵr National Park in north-east Wales. Much of this opposition appears emotional or even hysterical, particularly given that the proposed area is already designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). As such, it already enjoys the same level of landscape protection as a National Park. The difference lies not in the value of the land, but in how it is managed and resourced.

National Parks carry two additional statutory duties beyond landscape conservation: promoting public understanding and enjoyment, and providing stronger, more coordinated governance through an independent National Park Authority. This brings greater funding, staffing, and long-term strategic planning. Crucially, it also raises the national profile of an area. Increased awareness tends to bring more visitors, and while tourism is not without challenges, it also brings economic opportunity. Every pound spent by a visitor is money that would not otherwise have entered the local economy. For many businesses and residents within the proposed park boundary, this is a clear and tangible benefit.

Of course, more visitors can mean more traffic, parking pressures, overcrowding, and environmental wear such as path erosion. This is the familiar double-edged sword of National Park designation. However, the key point is that National Parks are given more tools to manage these pressures: better visitor management, improved infrastructure, education, ranger services, and access planning. Encouraging people to visit while also having the powers and resources to manage their impact is precisely what National Park Authorities are designed to do.

Concerns about farming and rural livelihoods also feature heavily in the debate. Based on lived experience within an existing National Park, it is difficult to see how designation alone fundamentally changes day-to-day life for farmers or residents. Farming remains the primary land use, land stays in private ownership, and agricultural activity continues. In existing National Parks, farmers are not marginalised but actively represented on park boards and within staff teams. Rather than being pushed out, farming is recognised as essential to maintaining the landscapes that National Parks are intended to protect.

Another objection often raised is the fear that a new National Park would dilute the Welsh language. While Welsh may not be spoken daily everywhere in north-east Wales, it has a strong presence outside larger towns and particularly within farming communities. Seen from another angle, the proposed National Park represents a major opportunity to promote the language. The very name “Glyndŵr” will require explanation to visitors, opening the door to telling stories about Welsh history, identity, and culture. National Parks are explicitly tasked with education and interpretation, making them powerful vehicles for cultural as well as environmental understanding.

Ultimately, the debate should not be reduced to whether National Park status is inherently good or bad. What matters most is the quality of management, governance, and community involvement. A National Park designation is a powerful tool. Used well, it can strengthen conservation, support farming, promote Welsh language and culture, and bring sustainable economic benefits.

The proposed Glyndŵr National Park should therefore be judged not on fear or assumption as typified by many un-researched knee jerk reactions, but on whether it is designed in genuine partnership with those who live and work there. If local voices are central to decision-making, a new National Park has the potential to protect not only the landscape, but the living communities and culture that give it meaning.