1. The Macaulay Institute Aberdeen
Final Report:
A Critical Review of Local Landscape Designations in
Scotland
Dr Alister Scott and Peter Shannon
Socio-Economic Research Programme
Macaulay Institute
Craigiebuckler
Aberdeen
1

2. Contents
1. Introduction 4
2. Aims 7
3. Local Landscape Designations: Policy Background 7
4. Local Landscape Designations: The English and Welsh 11
Experience
5. Local Landscape Designations: The Scottish Experience 13
6. Methodology 17
7. Results 21
8. Discussion 51
9. Conclusions and Further Research 58
10. References 63
2

3. Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the funding of this independent research from the
Macaulay Development Fund.
Special acknowledgement is made to Scottish Natural Heritage and their staff who
allowed access to internal material and offered valuable advice throughout the
project.
Finally thanks are due to those local authority staff who participated in the project.
3

4. 1 Introduction
1.1 Landscapes play an important part in our lives, shaping our national, regional and
local identities, affecting our quality of life and providing the context within which social and
economic development takes place.
1.2 Within a UK context it is the uplands and coasts that have been particularly favoured
by policy makers within National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Gold and
Burgess (1982) criticise this bias and argue that more local and accessible rural
environments, although experienced by a majority, have been neglected. At the local level it
is the distinctive identities of landscapes with particular associations and interactions
between people and place which are of significant value and which are increasingly
contested in the face of competing pressures for change. The strength of attachment to
these ‘ordinary’ places and landscapes frequently only emerges when they are threatened by
change. Familiarity and experience with landscape have long been recognised as important
factors in perception studies by Burgess et al (1988) and Penning-Rowsell (1982). As
Tapsell (1995) acknowledges, the most valued open areas are often the familiar ones which
play a part in people's daily lives and experiences.
1.3 The town and country planning system is the principal institution used to resolve
competing interests in the landscape. This is achieved primarily through a system of
designation and associated policy development recommending restraint through which
elected planning committees ultimately adjudicate. However, today designations are
increasingly questioned as to whether they represent the best and most equitable means of
deciding the kind of landscapes stakeholders really want and value (Scott and Bullen, 2004;
Welsh Assembly Government, 2004).
4

5. 1.4 This research responds to local authorities and other stakeholders’ concerns
regarding the status of local landscapes and the current mechanisms in place for their
conservation and enhancement. Whilst there is a general policy presumption against
development in the open countryside there are Local Landscape Designations (LLDs) which
provide the main focus of the research. Widely used by local authorities since the 1960s as
planning tools for landscape management in the UK, they remain significantly under-
researched and misunderstood by public, planners and policy makers alike (Scott and
Bullen,2004; Scott, 2001). Yet, in theory, they offer an avenue within which local landscape
priorities can be identified and realised in policy terms.
1.5 As landscape management tools, LLDs sit beneath the national tier of designations
(National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Green Belts and National Scenic
Areas (Scotland)) and arguably provide complementarity as local and flexible frameworks for
landscape protection and enhancement (Scottish Natural Heritage and Historic Scotland,
2005).
1.6 Local designations, in comparison to their national counterparts1, have largely
operated on a top-down presumption of perceived value with little research or evaluation into
their efficacy and additionality in planning practice, especially given the strong general
planning policies of constraint currently operating in the wider countryside.
1.7 This neglect is curious given the significant reservations from government and
national agencies in their published guidance on LLDs for their future use and development
(ODPM, 2003; 2005; Rural Development Commission 1998; Scott and Bullen, 2004).
Furthermore, the fact that LLDs sit within what some people consider to be an increasingly
complex suite of designations impacting upon the UK raises wider issues about the need for
rationalisation of designations more generally (Bowen Rees, 1995; O’Riordan, 1983).
1
For a detailed review see Scott and Bullen (2004)
5

6. 1.8 Previous research from Wales raised questions about the role, consistency and
appropriateness of LLDs, given their impacts on the wider countryside and reported upon a
perception of ineffectiveness of such designations in planning and landscape enhancement.
Crucially, the lack of public awareness and involvement in LLD designation and management
was identified as a major inconsistency given their alleged local imperatives (Scott and
Bullen, 2004).
1.9 This report considers the Scottish experience where, for the first time in the UK,
comprehensive guidance for local landscape designations has been published by Scottish
Natural Heritage and Historic Scotland (2005). This research, funded by the Macaulay
Institute can be seen as a useful adjunct to this guidance by providing the opportunity for an
in-depth assessment of LLD theory and practice across a range of rural and urban local
authorities.
1.10 The report begins with a general policy review of local landscape designations with
particular analysis of the Scottish experience and legislative background. The core of the
report focuses on the results of primary and secondary data obtained from all 32 local
authorities in Scotland, together with an assessment of the recently published SNH/HS
guidance (2005).
6

7. 2 Aims
2.1 Four key aims lie behind this work
• to identify and explain current approaches to LLD use and designation;
• to critically assess LLDs as planning and landscape management tools;
• to provide a preliminary assessment of the efficacy of current guidance for LLDs;
and
• to assess what role, if any, LLDs might play for the future.
3 Local Landscape Designations: Policy Background
3.1 Scott and Bullen (2004) provide a critical review of the wider context of landscape
designations in the planning system and the development of local landscape designations
from English and Welsh perspectives.2 Their narrative reveals how landscape protection
initially focussed on protecting upland landscapes, reflecting key personal biases inherent
within the Dower and Hobhouse reports and enshrined in subsequent legislation for national
parks in 1949 (Shoard et al, 1982a). Here the approach to landscape protection, widely
practised for the rest of the century, was one firmly rooted in “drawing lines on maps”.
3.2 Designation provided the security and tool for planners around which policies of
constraint could be developed, positioned and strengthened, albeit with questionable
success as agriculture and forestry lay outside formal planning control and were able to
effect significant and detrimental landscape change (Shoard, 1982b).
2
The paper uses the term ‘non-statutory designations’ which has been changed to ‘local landscape
designations’ as by default all policies and designations in the development plan are seen as statutory.
The term ‘local landscape designations’ is therefore less ambiguous.
7

8. 3.3 The guiding principle behind designation was that particular landscapes were
deemed more ‘special’ than elsewhere based on key criteria of importance and sensitivity.
Such ‘landscape elitism’ was widely contested by key stakeholders and land managers,
particularly given the perceived negative implications of designation on rural development
activity. However, there is emerging evidence that this wholly negative view might be
changing. For example, the clamour for inclusion by communities in the Scottish national
parks and the low level of protest in the roll out of NATURA 2000 flows from the increasing
recognition that designation can bring benefits to the area from different funding regimes at
European, national and regional levels.
3.4 However, towards the end of the twentieth century designation was slowly being
challenged through the development of a new conceptual approach to landscape that
focussed on ‘landscape character’. Landscape was seen “as an area, as perceived by
people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human
factors” (Council of Europe, 2000: Article 1). This placed the emphasis on management
prescriptions that tried to protect or enhance the character of any particular landscape
thereby shaping a broader, and arguably more inclusive approach to landscape planning and
management.
3.5 The European Landscape Convention recognises the importance of “protecting,
managing and enhancing landscapes” with signatories to the Convention agreeing to include
development and management issues relating to landscape in public decision making
processes. Unfortunately, the UK government has not signed up to this yet.
8

9. 3.6 The main focus of UK work has been the national programme of Landscape
Character Assessment (LCA) which has been undertaken in different ways across Wales
(LANDMAP) (Countryside Council for Wales 2001) and Scotland/England (LCA)
(Countryside Agency/Scottish Natural Heritage 2002). This programme has enabled all
landscapes to be surveyed and described in terms of their key characteristics, though at
present there is a risk that this will remain as a domesday style record. Further work has
ensued looking at landscape capacity, tolerance to change and landscape quality, albeit with
variable results (Scott and Falzon, 2004; Nottingham Consultants, 2004; Swanwick, 2003).
3.7 The different approaches inherent with landscape designation versus landscape
character approaches are summarised in Box 1. The fundamental difference is that
landscape character assessments are more inclusive across all landscapes with a degree of
dynamism and integration that is absent from traditional designations of landscape
importance that tend by their very nature to be hierarchical.
3.8 Boundary issues are also fuzzier where character is concerned. The impact of a line
in a designation has much more significance than a character boundary. This brings sharply
into focus the methods and tools involved in the boundary process as well as recognition that
such decisions can be politically motivated, as evidenced in the recent designation of the
Cairngorm National Park (Illsley and Richardson, 2004). However, as Jones (2002) has
stated, “landscape character does not preclude the development of designations thereafter”.
For example several local authorities in Wales have used LANDMAP LCA as a basis for
subsequent LLD designation citing the method as a means of providing greater rigour to
designation (Scott and Bullen, 2004).
9

10. Characterisation Designation
Purpose Describes all landscape character Identifies special landscapes in the
types in the local authority area. local authority area.
Scope Provides a basis for distinguishing Identifies more discrete areas of
different landscape character types landscape considered to be of higher
and identifying landscape sensitivity. merit and which may comprise a
combination of landscape character
types.
Approach Based on an assessment of defined Based on an assessment of
landscape features. landscape importance.
Outcomes Informs development of general Informs development of specific
landscape policies and guidelines planning policies geared towards
for all landscape character types. enhanced protection and
management of particular areas.
Treatment Boundaries are based on landscape More precisely drawn boundaries are
of character areas and are more defined by a range of criteria,
boundaries transitional in nature. including landscape character, visual
envelopes and topographic features.
Box 1: Landscape Characterisation and Landscape Designation Compared (Source
SNH/HS (2005)
10

11. 4 Local Landscape Designations3: The English and Welsh
experience
4.1 The development of LLD policy in England and Wales began in 1973 when the
Countryside Commission issued guidance to local authorities when preparing Areas of Great
Landscape Value (Cobham Resource Consultants, 1993). Thereafter, there was an advisory
vacuum with little guidance until the Policy Planning Guidance notes of the late 1980s (PPG
7 the Countryside and the Rural Economy). More recently, Planning Policy Statements (PPS)
emerged, where PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) explicitly addressed LLDs
(ODPM, 2005 par24-25).
4.2 This planning guidance was rooted in caution-
24 “The Government recognises and accepts that there are areas of landscape
outside nationally designated areas that are particularly highly valued locally. The
Government believes that carefully drafted, criteria-based policies in LDDs, utilising
tools such as landscape character assessment, should provide sufficient protection
for these areas, without the need for rigid local designations that may unduly restrict
acceptable, sustainable development and the economic activity that underpins the
vitality of rural areas.
25 Local landscape designations should only be maintained or, exceptionally,
extended where it can be clearly shown that criteria-based planning policies cannot
provide the necessary protection. LDDs should state what it is that requires extra
protection, and why. When reviewing their local area-wide development plans and
LDDs, planning authorities should rigorously consider the justification for retaining
existing local landscape designations. They should ensure that such designations are
based on a formal and robust assessment of the qualities of the landscape
concerned.”
4.3 Scott and Bullen (2004) in their research in Wales found that such caution was not in
evidence with an ad-hoc approach to LLDs which raised various questions as to their overall
effectiveness, signalling a need for more research and policy debate given their potential
impacts in landscape management and planning. Of primary concern was the mechanisms
by which LLD boundaries were drawn, the rigour of methodologies used, the lack of archival
information on the initial development of the designation, the different roles LLDs performed,
11

12. the lack of public awareness and involvement, the lack of consistency towards planning
applications in LLD and the wider countryside, the lack of formal evaluations of their
effectiveness, the lack of joint working across unitary authority boundaries and the lack of
boundary reviews.
4.4 On the positive side, however, the development of LCAs through the LANDMAP
exercise was seen to provide the necessary rigour for designation which some local
authorities had pursued. Scott and Bullen (2004) suggest there was a strong case for
tailoring LLDs towards a more community-led role in keeping with the locally based nature of
the designation, where additionality and clarity could be better identified. Here, the Local
Nature Reserve concept was seen as useful model to emulate.
4.5 Their key conclusion, however, was over the emerging tension between planners and
others over using the more radical landscape character assessments as the prime decision
making tool versus using such assessments to improve existing local landscape
designations. This had led to a mixed and inconsistent picture across Wales with some
authorities abandoning LLDs whilst others had re-invented them.
3
For a full review please refer to Scott and Bullen, (2004)
12

13. 5 Local Landscape Designations : The Scottish Experience
5.1 In Scotland there is a different history and legislative background to LLDs. This is
discussed in some detail below as it provides vital context to the current research reported
here.
5.2 The first piece of Scottish guidance lay with Circular 2/1962 which set out actions that
local planning authorities should take where outstanding scenic areas required special
consideration under the Planning Acts. All local authorities were to survey their areas to
identify “areas of great landscape value (AGLV) which can be described as vulnerable in the
sense that there are or may be pressures for development that may affect them in one way
or other”.
5.3 For each area identified, local planning authorities were to prepare a written
statement of the general character and quality of the area, definition of the boundaries and
policy for control and phasing of development. Significantly, there was no further guidance
until 1999 when National Planning Policy Guideline (NPPG) 14 indicated that planning
authorities should avoid the unnecessary proliferation of local designations. Nevertheless, it
confirmed the continuing relevance of AGLVs and other local landscape designations
alongside new methodological developments of landscape character assessment. It stated
that boundaries should be clearly defined and justified in development plans. The guidance
made it clear that AGLVs were at a level in a hierarchy below national designations with clear
implications for the level and nature of protection.
5.4 More recently, Planning Advice Note 60 addresses local designations including
AGLVs. It suggested that local designations were “of most value where they form part of a
wider landscape and habitat framework and contribute to the realisation of Natural Heritage
Strategy, LBAP or Local Agenda 21 objectives to enhance the quality of urban living and help
13

14. make an area more attractive as a location of economic activity” (par. 39). This more
positive and strategic role represented an interesting shift in view from the more cautionary
statements elsewhere in the UK.
5.5 With specific reference to AGLVs, PAN 60 suggested that a single tier of sub-national
designations should be sufficient for practical planning purposes, with areas selected
because of their importance beyond their ‘immediate locale’. It also recommended the
preparation of specific development guidelines to safeguard their landscape character.
5.6 Guidance published by SNH and HS (2005) builds from this national policy
framework. At the outset the report states that “local landscape designations are a well-
established and valued approach to protecting and guiding change in areas of particular
landscape importance” (1.1). Here there is explicit recognition of the value of LLDs and the
guidance sees no tension between an all landscapes approach via the landscape character
assessment process and the revitalisation of LLDs through three interrelated roles: as
accolades, through policy development and as management tools.
5.7 The interesting observation from this viewpoint is that designations are seen as
providing something extra that an all-landscapes approach cannot, a theme observed in the
Welsh study where some planners were reluctant to relinquish the traditional security of lines
on maps in favour of a more integrated approach for fear of increased development pressure
and loss of countryside. Scott and Bullen (2004) speculated that it was the economic
determinism of planning committees with respect to interpretation of planning policies that
was instrumental in driving this response.
14

15. 5.8 This 2005 guidance is highly significant as it represents the only substantive
document on LLDs in the UK and it therefore demands closer inspection. Its remit is to:
• promote greater understanding and support for local landscape designations
among local authorities, the public and other key stakeholders;
• reaffirm the role of local landscape designations as part of an ‘all landscapes’
approach and define the circumstances when they could be used;
• secure greater consistency in the selection and use of local landscape
designations by local authorities; and
• clarify the relationship of local landscape designations to the wider family of
Scotland’s landscape designations.
p6
5.9 The guidance provides a useful checklist for local authorities to consider LLD
designation based on a range of different criteria that includes:- landscape character
(typicality, rarity, condition); landscape qualities (scenic, enjoyment, cultural, naturalness);
landscape criteria (significance, representativeness and relative merit); and practical criteria
(need, integrity and support, including public support). These criteria bear more than a
passing resemblance to the Countryside Commission criteria for designating AGLVs
originally published in 1973 (Scott and Bullen, 2004).
5.10 However, the process and methodology by which particular landscapes are valued
and assessed for LLDs is seen as a matter for local authorities themselves to decide upon, in
partnership with experts and stakeholders. The guidance argues that a national framework
is inappropriate as these are essentially locally derived designations and the use of a “one
size fits all” approach would be problematic (3.9-3.10). Therefore a menu driven approach is
favoured which local authorities can adapt to local circumstances. The guidance does stress
the need for transparent and rigorous methods to be employed so they can be defended
under cross examination at public local inquiry and here there is specific mention of the role
of pilot capacity studies such as in Cupar (Fife Council, 2004). It also recommends the need
for improved strategic management of LLDs through better arrangements for cross authority
working and co-operation where LLDs are near or cross boundaries, the need for systematic
reviews of boundaries and improved community involvement and awareness in LLD
designation and management.
15

16. 5.11 In terms of planning policies the guidance also makes some key recommendations
which reflect the focus of LLDs as positive landscape management tools rather than negative
”no development zones. Furthermore, there is a role for Supplementary Planning Guidance
covering issues such as design and capacity, which could steer quality applications in these
areas. Other tools such as management statements and complementary designations such
as regional parks are also seen as having a role to play in changing the traditional negative
outlook of LLDs.
5.5 In terms of best practice, development plan policies should recognise the positive
contribution that appropriate development and other land use change can often make
to the landscape character and qualities of the designated area. Nevertheless, some
development and land use change will be inappropriate for such areas. Development
should therefore generally only be permitted within a local landscape designation
when
i) it will not have significant adverse impacts on the special character or qualities
of the landscape of the area;
ii) the social and economic benefits of the development are considered to be
more than of just local significance in the context of the local authority area.
For development that meets these tests, the location, scale, design, materials, and
landscaping should be of a high standard and, where appropriate, should seek to
enhance the special qualities and character of the landscape.
SNH/HS (2005):24
5.12 Certainly the national guidance provides a useful template upon which to base our
research method and deliberations.
16

17. 6 Methodology
6.1 A letter was sent to all planning directors within the 32 unitary authorities in Scotland
(Figure 1) outlining the aims of the research and requesting interviews with key development
control and forward planning staff. A copy of the interview schedule (Box 2) was included so
as to allow officers adequate time to prepare and collate the necessary information and
documentation prior to the interview.
Special Landscape Interview list
1. Explain the purpose of the research
a. To examine the role and effectiveness of non statutory landscape designations as planning and landscape management
tools
2. Any response made to the SNH study on role of NSD for guidance 2003/4
3. What designations affecting landscape exist within the county
a. Include all designations (hierarchy) Conservation areas, NSA, Green Belts (Need maps)
b. What designations do you have NOW that are non statutory (landscape) and others e.g. nature
conservation/community. (Define non statutory as designations confirmed and under the sole control of the local
authority independent of any other agency )
c. What non stat designations have you had in the PAST
4. Extent (For each non stat designation (NSD))
a. Are there maps of these designations
b. Area of land of these designations
c. Predominant land use/type
5. Definition (For each NSD)
a. How do you define it (compare)
b. How is the designation defined (refer to stated policy if possible)
c. How does it fit in with the other designations
d. How does it fit in with neighbouring authorities (is there are strategic approach)
e. Ensure we have all relevant extant development plan policy numbers that are relevant to NSD) If possible the whole
development plan and/or other strategies (the landscape strategy is a key documents )
f. Try to compile an up-to-date list of the relevant plans that are passed, prematurity, (take care to get SP and LP updates
6. Designation (For each NSD)
a. How were they designated (and when) (give criteria if possible)
b. Have the boundaries reviewed at any time
c. Role of public/community involvement in the process.
7. Differences between (NSD) and policies in development plans for wider countryside
a. Additionality in policy emphasis or planner perception between NSD and WC
b. What happens when a planning application falls in a NSD are there special procedures invoked for development
control staff
c. Do you have a process of informal negotiation with developers to advise about NSD (have you any figures to quantify
how many applications were prevented)
d. Level of development pressure in NSD vs. WC
e. Use of planning tools to achieve NSD objectives ; conditions vs. refusals
8. SWOT analyses PROMPTS
a. Are all NSD viewed the same here or are some better than others
b. Especially whether the designation is understood by the developers and local community and local members
9. Role of landscape character assessment
a. Is LCA changing your perception about the role of NSD
b. How are you using LCA to guide landscape management in your county (more NSD vs. Abolishment)
10. Future
a. What are your strategic plans for NSD (are they being proposed in development plans
b. How do you respond to landscape elitism vs. landscape character tension
Box 2 Interview questions sent to planning officers in advance of meetings.
17

18. 6.2 Fifteen authorities agreed to an in-depth interview (Table 1). For most interviews two
members of the planning staff (development control and forward planning) were seen, but in
some authorities three officers were interviewed in order to include staff responsible for
landscape management. Semi-structured interviews lasting around two hours were carried
out between January and May 2005. They were taped, transcribed and subjected to
thematic content analysis. The interview schedule (Box 2) sought to capture both interview
and documentary evidence. The attitudes and perceptions of officers relating to the role,
efficacy and future status of LLDs as planning and landscape tools were elicited as proxies
for planning practice, while documentary policy analyses of development plans were
undertaken to indicate the theory.
Council Method of survey GIS data Available
Aberdeen City Council Face to Face Interview Full
Aberdeenshire Council Face to Face Interview Full
Angus Council Face to Face Interview Full
Argyll and Bute Council Questionnaire Full
Clackmannanshire Council Questionnaire Full
Comhairle nan Eilean Siar Video Conference Full
Dumfries & Galloway Council Questionnaire Full
Dundee City Council Questionnaire Full
East Ayrshire Council Face to Face Interview Full
East Dunbartonshire Council Questionnaire Full
East Lothian Council Questionnaire Full
East Renfrewshire Council Questionnaire Full
Edinburgh City Council Face to Face Interview Full
Falkirk Council Questionnaire Full
Fife Council Face to Face Interview Full
Glasgow City Council Face to Face Interview Full
Highland Council Face to Face Interview Partial
Inverclyde Council Face to Face Interview Full
Midlothian Council Questionnaire Full
Moray Council Questionnaire Full
North Ayrshire Council Face to Face Interview Full
North Lanarkshire Council Face to Face Interview Full
Orkney Islands Council Video Conference Partial
Perth & Kinross Council Questionnaire Partial
Renfrewshire Council Face to Face Interview Full
Scottish Borders Council Questionnaire Full
Shetland Islands Council Telephone Interview Full
South Ayrshire Council Questionnaire Full
South Lanarkshire Council Questionnaire Full
Stirling Council Questionnaire Full
West Dunbartonshire Council Questionnaire Full
West Lothian Council Unable to respond due to lack of time Partial
Table 1: Information approach for authorities participating in LLD research
18

19. 6.3 The remaining 17 authorities were contacted by telephone to secure their
involvement in a follow up questionnaire prioritizing spatial data to build up a comprehensive
geographic information database about LLDs but with the opportunity for comments on LLDs.
One authority was unable to respond due to lack of staff time.
6.4 Complementing the data obtained, we were also able to analyse the written
comments of 27 local authorities received by Scottish Natural Heritage as part of their
consultation on LLDs which provided the basis for the 2005 guidance.
19

20. 27
23
Scottish Council Areas
13
1 Aberdeen City
2 Aberdeenshire
3 Angus
4 Argyll & Bute
5 Clackmannanshire
6 Dumfries & Galloway
20 7 Dundee City
17 8 East Ayrshire
9 East Dunbartonshire
2 10 East Lothian
1 11 East Renfrewshire
12 Edinburgh City
13 Comhairle nan Eilean Siar
14 Falkirk
3 15 Fife
24 16 Glasgow City
7 17 Highland
18 Inverclyde
4 19 Midlothian
30 15
5 20 Moray
21 North Ayrshire
18 31 9 14 12 10 22 North Lanarkshire
25 16 22 32 23 Orkney Islands
19 24 Perth & Kinross
21 11 25 Renfrewshire
29 26 Scottish Borders
8 26 27 Shetland Islands
28 South Ayrshire
Rural 28 29 South Lanarkshire
6 30 Stirling
Urban 31 West Dunbartonshire
32 West Lothian
Crown copyright Ordnance Survey.
All rights reserved. 0 25 50 100
Kilometres
MLURI Licence No. GD27237X 2005.
Figure 1: Map of 32 Unitary Authorities in Scotland
20

21. 7 Results
27
Partial Spatial Data
Council Areas
Historic Gardens and Designed Landscapes
Local Landscape Designitions
Future Removal of Local Landscape Designations
23
13
Scottish Council Areas
1 Aberdeen City
2 Aberdeenshire
3 Angus
4 Argyll & Bute
5 Clackmannanshire
6 Dumfries & Galloway
17
7 Dundee City
20
8 East Ayrshire
9 East Dunbartonshire
2 10 East Lothian
1
11 East Renfrewshire
12 Edinburgh City
13 Comhairle nan Eilean Siar
14 Falkirk
3
15 Fife
24 16 Glasgow City
7 17 Highland
18 Inverclyde
15 19 Midlothian
30
5 20 Moray
4 21 North Ayrshire
31 9 14 10 22 North Lanarkshire
18 16 22 32 12 23 Orkney Islands
25 19
21 11 24 Perth & Kinross
25 Renfrewshire
29 26 Scottish Borders
8 26 27 Shetland Islands
28 South Ayrshire
28 29 South Lanarkshire
6 30 Stirling
31 West Dunbartonshire
32 West Lothian
Crown copyright Ordnance Survey.
Scottish Natural Heritage 0 25 50 100
Kilometres
Local Authority copyright see Appendix 1
Figure 2: Map of LLDs across Scotland
21