It’s an ugly bug, and it’s also a controversial one.

That’s because its most northerly home in the UK is about to be covered in concrete.

The slender groundhopper, which looks like a dark grasshopper, has been found near Aviemore in the Cairngorms, where developers have just won permission to build a huge new housing estate.

Its survival is threatened, and wildlife groups are upset. But the issues raised by the fate of this humble insect are not superficial: they go right to the heart of how we treat our natural heritage.

In giving the go-ahead to up to 1500 new houses at An Camus Mor earlier this month, the Cairngorms National Park Authority has stirred up a hornets’ nest. It is precisely the kind of major development that environmentalists say should never be allowed in a national park.

They argue that as well as endangering the groundhopper, the housing scheme will threaten wildcats, otters, red squirrels, badgers and several bird species. It will also damage the landscape, they say, and put more pressure on vulnerable mountain areas.

The park authority voted by a narrow majority to reject advice from its own officials to limit the number of houses to 1100 to prevent “unacceptable” environmental damage. The authority also ignored a recent report by Scottish Government planning officials which concluded that the development breached national planning policies, and wasn’t justified.

“The approach to housing policy characterised by An Camus Mor will trash the park,” warned Bill McDermott, chairman of the Scottish Campaign for National Parks.

“I don’t think that Scotland values its national parks. Unfortunately, any economic development, particularly in the Highlands, is regarded as a good thing.”

Critics pointed out that such development was unprecedented in UK national parks and would never have been allowed in other countries’ parks (see below). Its approval cast doubt on the whole purpose of Scotland’s parks, they said.

“This decision raises fundamental questions about the future direction of Scottish national parks,” said Dave Morris, the director of Ramblers Scotland.

He criticised the park authority for ignoring advice from its officials, suggesting that it would be more likely to side with developers in the future. “At the core of this problem is a fundamental flaw in the Scottish national parks legislation,” he argued.

There are too many people on the park boards who reflect local rather than national interests, and according to Morris, that needs to change. This applies to both the Cairngorms, established in 2003, and Scotland’s other national park, Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, set up in 2002.

Those who run the national parks, however, take a different view. Duncan Bryden, convenor of the Cairngorm National Park planning committee defended the development decision. “We’ve been told by the community that they need new housing and we have a major challenge to deliver that,” he told the Sunday Herald.

He stressed that the final number of houses permitted to be built could end up being less than 1500. “We will be crawling over the masterplan with a fine-toothed comb,” he said.

“Scottish ministers have said clearly what they expect from national parks and we are trying to balance the needs and requirements”.

The Scottish Government highlighted An Camas Mor as an “exemplar” of the kind of vibrant sustainable community that the country needed. “The national parks are places in which people live and work and a balance needs to be struck between competing demands,” said a Government spokeswoman.

In Loch Lomond and the Trossachs there is growing concern about the scenic damage that could be done by new wind farms. And there is alarm about the largest industrial developments so far planned in a Scottish national park – a gold mine.

An Australian mining company called Scotgold has applied for permission to extract quartz from the hillside at Cononish, near Tyndrum. The rock will then be crushed to extract gold dust, leaving up to half a million tonnes of waste to be stored in artificial lagoons.

This is perhaps the trickiest application to have confronted the park board to date. It is strongly backed by some locals, but equally strongly opposed by environmentalists.

According to Gordon Watson, the park’s director of planning, the challenge was to balance the park’s first aim, “to conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage”, with its fourth aim, “to promote sustainable social and economic development”.

The park board is due to make a decision on the gold mine on August 17 and 18. Whichever way it goes, it will be crucial in shaping the future direction and nature of our national parks.