Plans to create a new National Park in North East Wales risk undermining farming businesses and stretching already pressured rural services, the Farmers’ Union of Wales has warned.
The union has submitted a fresh consultation response to Natural Resources Wales after extensive engagement with farmers living and working within and around the proposed boundary of the Glyndwr National Park.
While recognising the importance of landscape protection, the FUW said the proposals raise serious questions about practicality, funding and long-term impact.
If approved, Glyndwr would become Wales’s fourth national park, stretching from the coast near Prestatyn in Denbighshire, through Flintshire and Wrexham County Borough, and into the north of Powys.
The FUW warned there is still uncertainty over how a new National Park Authority would be funded and governed, questioning whether proposed Welsh Government grants and local authority levies would provide long-term stability.
It warned that additional financial responsibilities could place further strain on local authorities, with knock-on effects for services relied upon by rural communities.
The union also questioned whether a new designation is needed at all, arguing that many environmental and landscape objectives could be achieved through partnership approaches and existing policy mechanisms without introducing another layer of regulation.
Farmers have raised strong reservations about the potential impact of National Park designation on planning and development, warning that experience from existing designated areas shows processes can become more complex and time-consuming.
Farmers said this could slow essential farm building projects, diversification plans and compliance with current regulations at a time when many businesses are already operating on tight margins.
As farming businesses prepare for the transition to Wales’ Sustainable Farming Scheme, the FUW said members are keen to ensure any new designation does not introduce further barriers or inconsistencies in planning policy.
Concerns were also highlighted about restrictions on on-farm renewable energy developments in some National Parks, which the union said could limit opportunities to improve efficiency and contribute to wider environmental goals.
Additional warnings were raised about potential impacts on local housing markets, particularly affordability for local families, young farmers and multi-generational farm businesses.
While acknowledging the economic value tourism can bring, the FUW warned that increased visitor numbers could intensify pressure on rural infrastructure, including parking, road safety, emergency services and rural crime, unless additional resources are put in place. Without adequate resourcing, members fear these pressures could increase costs and disruption for farming businesses.
Tim Faire, chair of the FUW Land Use and Climate Change Committee, said: “There remain significant unanswered questions about how a new National Park would be funded and managed over the long term, and what the practical implications would be for farming businesses and local communities.”
He warned that many rural areas were already under strain. “Many rural areas already face pressure on infrastructure and local facilities, which may struggle to cope with the additional demands that a National Park designation could bring,” he said, adding that “further regulations and restrictions could also hinder farm development and diversification”.
Faire said the union supported protecting landscapes but questioned the need for a new designation. “While we fully recognise the importance of protecting our landscapes, we believe the current National Landscape designation already provides a strong foundation,” he said.
“Future land management objectives are likely to be more effectively achieved through local engagement and existing policy mechanisms – without introducing another costly and complex layer of designation.”
With consultation responses now submitted, pressure is growing on ministers to explain how a new National Park would be funded and governed, and why an additional designation is needed without placing further strain on farming businesses and rural Wales.
