UKC

NEWS: Meeting to Discuss Future of Stanage

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 UKC News 22 Oct 2014
A busy February day at Stanage, 4 kbIn early November the Stanage Forum are holding an open AGM to discuss the Peak District National Park Authority's outline proposals for the funding and management of the North Lees Estate, which includes the iconic Stanage Edge. If you have a view on how Stanage is run now, or want to discuss how things might be done better in future, this is your chance to be heard.

Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=69245
 toad 22 Oct 2014
In reply to UKC News:

Enforcable parking charges, can't see how it won't happen, and I don't think it would be the end of the world if it did.
I've loads of respect for HF's good work, but this line

"If this meant installing substantial parking infrastructure and signage then the much prized unspoilt landscape might suffer, according to the BMC's Peak Area access rep Henry Folkard."

is overegging it a bit. Particularly when the article is illustrated with all those paragliders
1
 dr_botnik 22 Oct 2014
In reply to UKC News:

i start work at 2pm that day... could someone post here how the meeting goes/what the major proposals are/etc. Many thanks.
 Neil Williams 22 Oct 2014
In reply to toad:
I think it's utterly bizarre that the processes in this country for parking charges are so complex and cumbersome that there exist pay and display car parks that are legally optional.

FWIW, adding charges (the same figure) at all the Stanage car parks might have the benefit of spreading out the parking better, such that you are more likely to be able to park near where you wish to climb.

I'd add that if at all possible (wouldn't be at all the sites) pay on exit is preferable - the National Trust are using such a system (non-barriered and camera enforced) at some of their sites in the Lakes and it works well. Card payment also appreciated. Pay by phone pretty useless due to lack of signal...

Neil
Post edited at 11:32
 Adam Long 22 Oct 2014
In reply to toad:

I guess the problem is not so much the changes to the car parks - I wouldn't be strongly against additional Pay & display machines - but enforcement is a different issue. The verges around the Plantation car park are already much used by folk trying to avoid charges, and similar casual parking exists on verges all over the place - it's not really comparable to the narrow walled lanes in the Lakes.. To force users to use car parks you'd have to white line or bund (as is done NW of the Popular end) the entire road. Not such a problem on quiet days but on busy days you lose all that overflow capacity.

It's important to understand that the current situation is a compromise reached through much discussion in the past, following the initial introduction (and vandalism) of machines and bunding of the popular end road. If more machines were to be accepted it would be important that users knew the money was going directly back into the estate rather than the general Park coffers.
 deepsoup 22 Oct 2014
In reply to toad:
> Enforcable parking charges, can't see how it won't happen, and I don't think it would be the end of the world if it did.

The P&D charges at the Plantation already are enforceable. Whatever legal wrinkle it was that prevented the PDNPA from enforcing them was resolved years ago. They're still not routinely enforced because it wouldn't be cost effective. Most people do pay, and it's reckoned that the cost of enforcing the charges would outweigh the likely revenue.

A big +1 to Adam's comments. I wouldn't object to P&D machines at the pop end, but I probably would object to the other work that would be necessary to make them viable.
In reply to deepsoup: That's interesting. Do you have a link or some further reference to the fact that the charges (or do you mean the p[enalties) are enforceable? I looked into this recently and came to the conclusion they weren't, similar to penalties by the likes of Parking Eye and NCP etc when you overstay at Aldi or wherever.

 Simon Caldwell 22 Oct 2014
In reply to Frank the Husky:

There's a copy of the relevant by-law displayed next to the pay & display machine in the plantation car park. I didn't pay, because the machine wasn't working. If it had been then I'd have joined all the others parking on the verges, as £4.50 for an unmanned car park is taking the piss.
 Simon Caldwell 22 Oct 2014
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Card payment also appreciated.

Not by me - I don't take a credit card out when climbing, too much hassle involved if it gets nicked. Whereas it's easy to climb with a £10 note in your pocket.

I don't mind paying for parking if the charges are reasonable - like in Scotland where they're mostly £2 or 3 per day. When it gets like the Lakes where it's £7 or more for an unmanned car park then I'll do everything I can to avoid paying. I can park for less than that in city centre car parks that are monitored by CCTV.
 Jimbo C 22 Oct 2014
In reply to UKC News:

The only viable income from Stanage without carrying out further development is car parking charges. The charges in the plantation are a bit steep and personally I use a 'buy a ticket sometimes' policy. If the charges were reasonable, say £2 all day, and applied equally to the three main parking sites then I would be inclined to pay every visit.
 deepsoup 22 Oct 2014
In reply to Frank the Husky:
> That's interesting. Do you have a link or some further reference to the fact that the charges (or do you mean the p[enalties) are enforceable?

I don't I'm afraid. I tried to find something online when the same question was asked on here a while ago and failed utterly.

Unlike Aldi or NCP though, the PDNPA is a (kinda sorta) proper local authority and so, I presume, able to issue a genuine Penalty Charge Notice as opposed to a bogus "Parking Charge Notice" invoice-disguised-as-a-parking-ticket type thing.
 Simon Caldwell 22 Oct 2014
In reply to Jimbo C:

> If the charges were reasonable, say £2 all day, and applied equally to the three main parking sites then I would be inclined to pay every visit.

Ditto
 deepsoup 22 Oct 2014
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Likewise. I generally don't pay at Surprise View, because the card-only machine is just such a faff. (It isn't card-only because of any consideration of 'convenience' afaik, it just no longer takes cash because the machine was getting broken into ridiculously frequently.)

At Plantation I generally do pay. Not always full whack, admittedly. I'm with Jimbo C.

May I suggest you could also take Jimbo C's line?
Given that the charges aren't currently enforced, rather than parking on the verges outside the car park stay in and just pay what you feel is reasonable. £2 in the coffers is better than nowt, and your car is certainly better in the car park than wedged up against the wall opposite on that long-suffering verge.

Here (again) is where I think Adam L makes a good point. If it was clearer that the money is going directly towards the upkeep of the estate, maybe climbers would begrudge paying less. (Then again, maybe I'm underestimating the tightness of climbers.

Just out of interest - how many of us are aware of the 'honesty box' at the popular end?
It collects almost nothing, but if it were better known that the money isn't just disappearing into a hole in the ground and does (eventually) get used to do good things, would more of us drop a couple of quid in?
 Simon Caldwell 22 Oct 2014
In reply to deepsoup:

> May I suggest you could also take Jimbo C's line?

I don't visit Stanage often enough for that to be possible, but do this already on my local crags, at Brimham.
 Neil Williams 22 Oct 2014
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Notes also acceptable, though I would prefer both notes and cards were accepted. What isn't acceptable is requiring people to carry large quantities of coins to pay exact money for parking.

As an alternative I would accept the idea of "pay any time within one week after parking via our website", as I believe the Dartford Crossing will be switching to.

Neil
 Offwidth 22 Oct 2014
In reply to deepsoup:

The lack of income from the Popular End is pretty clearly because large numbers of mainly local climbers dont want to volunteer to pay. The income is so terrible that its nonsense to suggest that many people dont know. Anecdotally things would improve loads if the income was ring fenced for Stanage but not as much as it maybe should, as climbers as a group are mean. I still think free parking should be available somewhere within reasonable walking distance for those who can be bothered to get up early enough or climb late enough. The raising of verges to stop roadside parking and other actions to force drivers into car parks is also expensive, who will pick up that tab? Will people park at Burbage or on the A57 and walk in making those already busy areas fill more quickly.
 Chris Craggs Global Crag Moderator 22 Oct 2014
In reply to deepsoup:

> The P&D charges at the Plantation already are enforceable. Whatever legal wrinkle it was that prevented the PDNPA from enforcing them was resolved years ago. They're still not routinely enforced because it wouldn't be cost effective. Most people do pay, and it's reckoned that the cost of enforcing the charges would outweigh the likely revenue.

Are you sure about that? I once read somewhere that if the penalties aren't displayed on the machine they can't be enforced, and that appears to be the case with many of the car parks in the area,


Chris
 deepsoup 22 Oct 2014
In reply to Offwidth:
> The lack of income from the Popular End is pretty clearly because large numbers of mainly local climbers dont want to volunteer to pay. The income is so terrible that its nonsense to suggest that many people dont know.

I'm not so sure. The honesty box is easy to miss. And perhaps more to the point, it's not at all clear how often (or even whether) the money is even collected. Dropping a coin in does seem very much like chucking money into a defunct wishing well.

> I still think free parking should be available somewhere within reasonable walking distance for those who can be bothered to get up early enough or climb late enough.

That's not really a question of getting up early though is it? What that means in effect is 'locals' - those of us who are lucky enough that getting up early to drive to the crag means arriving early at the crag.
 deepsoup 22 Oct 2014
In reply to Chris Craggs:
> Are you sure about that?

Um.. Honestly... no.
I'm sure.. ish. I believe it was confirmed at the Stanage forum open meeting held in Hathersage a few months back (on a frustratingly glorious sunny Sunday). Could be mistaken though.
 Offwidth 22 Oct 2014
In reply to deepsoup:
I am absolutely sure large numbers know and dont pay as I know of hundreds of climbers who know the box exists from BMC area meetings and climbing friends and thats a tiny subset of Stanage climbers and very few of those pay regularly. I see no great issue in benefitting locals slightly and if you are not local you can always get up really early or overnight park to bivi in the caves (which is tolerated).
Post edited at 14:27
 Simon Caldwell 22 Oct 2014
In reply to Chris Craggs:

> Are you sure about that? I once read somewhere that if the penalties aren't displayed on the machine they can't be enforced, and that appears to be the case with many of the car parks in the area,

The penalties are now displayed by the plantation car park machine
 Simon Caldwell 22 Oct 2014
In reply to Offwidth:

> The raising of verges to stop roadside parking and other actions to force drivers into car parks is also expensive

and given that the car parks are usually pretty full anyway, doing this would require the construction of more of them. Perhaps this is what Henry means when referring to the increased visual impact?
 Chris Craggs Global Crag Moderator 22 Oct 2014
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Cheers, I'll check it out next time I am there.

What about The Surprise and Curbar Gap - any ideas if the same is true there now?


Chris
MattDTC 22 Oct 2014
In reply to UKC News:

It would be interesting to know what the financial situation is. What the annual income, out goings and short falls are. I wonder what how big a sum of money we are talking about.
 Simon Caldwell 22 Oct 2014
In reply to Chris Craggs:

No idea - last time I parked at Surprise I found it was card only, and didn't have one, so haven't been back. Always park down the road for Curbar.
 petellis 22 Oct 2014
In reply to UKC News:

Has the future of this iconic site really come down to a few parking charges?

If Stannage was just left for a few years it would disappear into the silver birch and become green.

I can't see why the charge isn't so cheap as to make it not worth avoiding the charges, for me that would probably be between £1 and £2 I think.

Perhaps they should look at some more radical options, e.g. close the roads nearby to motor traffic and then offer a park and ride service?
 Graeme Hammond 22 Oct 2014
In reply to UKC News:

Personally I would be only in favour of parking charges if they were reasonable and were going straight back into protecting, and managing the estate, not the fat cats in the office. Apparently the cash strapped national park has recently sacked its director and appointed a new person at a higher salary!

At the area meeting someone suggested the same thing as I was thinking that if there was an annual carpark pass of say £20 to the north lees estate hopefully also some of the other climbing carparks in the area such as the burbage and surprise view and the money was ring fenced for going straight back into managing the land. Then if there was a reasonable flat rate of £2 for upto 24h parking (although I think overnight parking is banded or discouraged currently). This solution would probably bring in alot more money from occasional visitors and also locals. A support stanage car sticker for the annual permit was suggested. Of course this would be open to all users such as walkers, bikers etc. The verge at high neb that everyone currently parks on should be converted to a proper flat parking area similar to that the popular end with the green matting. This could help spread the load and increase capacity of the parking.
 rogersavery 22 Oct 2014
In reply to UKC News:

Ok so they need to increase the car parking charges so they can cover the cost of raising the curbs to make people park in the car park??

The way I see it is Stanage was gifted to the people (ie us) and is looked after by the peak park, who pay for its upkeep with tax payers money (ie us)

Can someone explain why we are having to pay extra fees to park at a location we already own and already pay for?

If the peak park stopped p!ss!ng around waisting money on other things they wouldn't need to increase the revenue generated from the north lees estate.

As UK citizens we should be automatically entitled to free access to our natural resources ie crags, rivers and hills

Ok so parking could be a problem, but that's what we pay the high ways agency (county council and peak park) for already
Ian Carey 22 Oct 2014
In reply to UKC News:

The Peak Park, as with most public bodies, is having it's funding cut. In 2010/11 it received £8.3 million and this year £7 million. Most parks have had similar drops, apart from the South Downs, which has gone from £7.3 million to £10.6 million. Further cuts are inevitable (apart from maybe the South Downs!). The Chief Executive earns circa £70,000, which although clearly a lot of money, is probably a bit lower than the average for such a job and budget.

The car parking charges were controversial when introduced in the mid 90s (as I recall) and not much has changed. But does it really matter? Access to Stanage is not being restricted and some of the proposals may actually improve the view by restricting where cars can park.

Whilst it is regrettable that further parking charges may be introduced, we will still be able to climb for free. I often have to pay to park in Hathersage, but it hasn't stopped me going there (or the many others who also do so).
 BedRock 22 Oct 2014
In reply to UKC News:

Could we adopt a USA model where you pay to enter national parks like th eGrand Tetons and Yellowstone?
 tallsop 22 Oct 2014
In reply to UKC News:

What about campaigning for a bigger budget for the Peak District? The Arts council invest around 25 million of government and national lottery money in the royal opera house, and 26 million on Covent Garden. The PDNP attracts a more diverse range of people and a variety of interests.

All I can see are folks talking about pay and display machines, but are these (realistically) going to generate the sort of money the PDNP needs? I very much doubt it. Let get off our arses and fight for what we love!
 popebenedictus 22 Oct 2014
In reply to UKC News:

It does seem ironic to charge the public to use an area that was gifted to the nation when there are commercial organisations making money either directly or indirectly from use of the national park.

Does anyone know if there may be a proposal or an idea to licence commercial organisations eg. walking, climbing, mountain biking etc to use the North Lees estate or similar venues for commercial ventures? After all these organisations have free use of the area and are making money from it (unlike personal visitors)?

 Šljiva 22 Oct 2014
In reply to Offwidth:

> I am absolutely sure large numbers know and dont pay as I know of hundreds of climbers who know the box exists from BMC area meetings and climbing friends and thats a tiny subset of Stanage climbers and very few of those pay regularly.


I have no issue with paying a few quid but I've never seen this (or if I have, not realised what it is) nor heard of it until now, I've parked up there plenty of times.

 TobyA 22 Oct 2014
In reply to deepsoup:

> I'm not so sure. The honesty box is easy to miss.

I've parked there a number of times, and driven past more time, since moving to the area in August and can honestly say reading your post it the first I've heard of it! Where is it? It must actually be a bit hidden?
 Offwidth 22 Oct 2014
In reply to Šljiva:

You are probably in the majority there. However enough people do know to dispel the myth its all about this. The annual income is paltry, so much so i was joking with Chris the Tall of this site he must be one of the major contributers.

When we are talking about land gifted to retain public access the Peak Park need to do much better. Public engagement has been patchy and at times very disappointing, arrangements secretive (the need for commercial confidence is stretched to a point it looks like an excuse to cover a lack of real engagement). 70k for the chief exec sound low until you put it context they would never struggle to fill the role even if the pay was cut and that most public sector workers have pay frozen for years apart from the senior management classes.... this is terrible leadership in times of financial difficulty.
 Offwidth 22 Oct 2014
In reply to TobyA:
Just inside the wall on the left at the southerly gap. Its been well publicised at BMC Peak area meetings and plenty of other locals know. Most who know must chose not to pay.
Post edited at 21:43
 Babika 22 Oct 2014
In reply to UKC News:

Can someone actually explain what we need a lot of money for Stanage for?
I'm not being facetious, I just genuinely am not sure what the dire shortage is supposed to be funding?

I'm not a great fan of big stone paths marching up the hillside so if its to fund lots of paths then I'm not very enthusiastic. If its to fund a load of officials somewhere then I'm also not a great fan.

If its genuinely for Stanage and the charge is hypothecated then OK

And btw I paid at the Plantation on Saturday (£3.50) but had no idea there was an honesty box at the Popular End. I'm not sure that anyone from my (London based) Club has ever mentioned it /seen it/contributed to it either.
 Skipinder 22 Oct 2014
In reply to Babika:

Someone has obviously decided to bolt this over-rated place at long last
 andi turner 23 Oct 2014
In reply to Babika:
I often feel the same way. It seems to be a similar story on the roaches. "Footpaths" always seems to be the cover-all for funding. I've never quite worked out where all the money goes.
 john arran 23 Oct 2014
In reply to tallsop:
> What about campaigning for a bigger budget for the Peak District?

By cutting as much tax-payer support to services like this used by a wide variety of people and enforcing pay-as-you-use (i.e. flat rate) regimes, the government is effectively reducing the rate of taxation for higher tax rate park users, albeit by a small amount. Not hard to see why this is a popular tactic for funding services at present.
Post edited at 08:10
MattDTC 23 Oct 2014
In reply to UKC News:

Having read the thread (and I include myself in this), there appears to be no public knowledge about how much money it takes to run the North Lees estate. I had a quick search online but found nothing. What are the sources of income and expenditure, and how much are they?

Surely without this knowledge, making well intentioned suggestions like parking fees may well be an irrelevant drop in the ocean compared to what is required. Without some info it's an exercise in futility asking for peoples opinions.
 Babika 23 Oct 2014
In reply to john arran:

Well we all get an opportunity at the ballot box next May......

Do people think widely about the impact on society / environment? Or selfishly about their own backpocket?
I think we know the answer...
 Babika 23 Oct 2014
In reply to MattDTC:

Totally agree.
 Neil Williams 23 Oct 2014
In reply to Babika:

You *could* argue that driving to national parks is to be discouraged?

Neil
 Martin Hore 23 Oct 2014
In reply to MattDTC:

Absolutely agreed this debate is very poorly evidence-based without a statement of what it costs to run the North Lees estate and where the money goes.

In principle though, I favour a balance between tax-payer funding and user funding. I don't think it's right to ask the general taxpayer to fund entirely something most of them will never use, but equally, we need any charges to use the facility to be set at a level that permits visitors of all incomes to visit.

With others I object to paying £4.50 just for a car park with no security, but assuming that I've at least one climbing partner in my car that's no more than £2.25 each for the day. I'd be quite happy to pay that for a day's climbing if I was confident that all the money was going to maintain the facility I'm using. Thin end of the wedge as regards free access, I know, but it's a nettle we may have to grasp.

Martin

 Offwidth 23 Oct 2014
In reply to Martin Hore:
The adults say they cant tell the children commercial in confidence information. They tell you just have to trust them.
Post edited at 11:56
 andrewmc 23 Oct 2014
In reply to popebenedictus:

> It does seem ironic to charge the public to use an area that was gifted to the nation when there are commercial organisations making money either directly or indirectly from use of the national park.

No one is going to be charged to use Stanage.

It is not unreasonable to have to pay for parking. You don't have a right to park. There are good arguments why driving to and parking in national parks should be discouraged, anyway. Car parks are remarkably expensive to build and maintain.

If you don't like the parking charges, just walk further.
 toad 23 Oct 2014
In reply to Offwidth:
> The adults say they cant tell the children commercial in confidence information. They tell you just have to trust them.

They don't do themselves any favours with this attitude, though I suppose with enough effort it should be possible to put some figures on their costs - nothing that goes on at North Lees is unique.

I think the important thing to remember that North Lees is more than just Stanage, and it's the whole area that the park have to fund/gain income from. I think the car park fees issue was probably focussed on partly because of my early post, and more pertinently because this is probably the thing that is closest to climbers hearts.

FWIW, I worry about the "it's ok to pay providing the money just goes to pay for my particular interest" - It's a bit like choosing what services your taxes pay for, it just doesn't work. (i've a bit of experience of hypothecated legacies and the like)
Post edited at 12:17
 climbwhenready 23 Oct 2014
In reply to andrewmcleod:

Yep. Arguing that chargeable car parks is a restriction to access is a bit like saying having no toilets restricts access... neither of these are access issues. What could become an access issue is an area becoming unclimbable due to lack of funds due to these things not being charged for, but that's a separate debate (and in this case, it's not clear what the money is being spent on).
 Simon Caldwell 23 Oct 2014
In reply to andrewmcleod:

> Car parks are remarkably expensive to build and maintain.

So hopefully nobody is considering blocking off road-side and verge parking, and building new car parks to cope.

> If you don't like the parking charges, just walk further

So you park a bit further away, the authorities notice this and either close that parking as well, or introduce charges there.

 Lukem6 23 Oct 2014
In reply to UKC News:

I can see heavy benefits to banning verge parking and enforcing pay and display.
maybe a free car park in or around Hathersage or other meeting places, allowing pepole to meet and car pool. might even encourage carpooling from further afield. so to summarise

- Less people climbing at Stanage, meaning less queuing, less wear on the crag and less wear on the approaches.

- More traffic to on other crags that might benefit from more traffic, more exploration.

- More money to the National park resulting in better care to the moorland, better access conditions and hopefully better facilities, and more jobs for locals. (hopefully)

All at the cost of a few pounds well its cheaper than an indoor wall and a millions times more fun.

Maybe Burbage and Froggatt could do with the same. Nail me to a stake but I would place a toll both at the cattle grid nearby.

I believe in free access for all but does that really have to be in a motor vehicle to the base of your route? is it not caring for the environment we love if you choose a further walk in or contribute to the land managers for road access.
MattDTC 23 Oct 2014
In reply to popebenedictus:

> It does seem ironic to charge the public to use an area that was gifted to the nation when there are commercial organizations making money either directly or indirectly from use of the national park.

As I've raised before, commercial ventures should surely pay for the rights to use public landscapes to make money. The problem is I can't see that this would be a major revenue stream for the estate, but then again what would be? Clearly nothing obvious or the PDNPA wouldn't be in this position. This is the inherent problem with spaces that aren't geared towards making money when confronted with right wing policies. Maybe (in part) the answer is not how to find more money, but how to make the estate less cash dependent, but this invariably makes the area less user friendly and accessible so ends up unpopular. But without some ball park figures to work with, it's all conjecture.

 Simon Caldwell 23 Oct 2014
In reply to Lukem6:

Where would you build your free car park to avoid it being a blot on the landscape? If building it had the effect of reducing visitor numbers, then how would it be anything other than a drain on resources?
 hamsforlegs 23 Oct 2014
In reply to UKC News:

In don't think it's reasonable to expect to park wherever and however with little cost/enforcement for the indefinite future. It only takes a bit of imagination to realise that, given the total number of visitors, this will lead to the entire area being gradually trashed or overrun. Upgraded car parks or enforcement measures may well be ugly/expensive, but they may be the lesser of two evils. I would expect any responsible estate management strategy to give serious consideration to deterring parking in the area. I don't know what the answer is, but I wouldn't object to schemes to provide better shuttles and centralised parking around the Peak, or even just to access the estate. It would make my life less convenient, but could protect the area more broadly. I do also think that an annual pass system could work and might encourage locals to contribute a bit?

The commercial confidentiality issue is deeply frustrating. There must be huge levels of expenditure just to monitor the estate and to manage vegetation, drainage, paths, legal and access issues etc. It would probably help to set some of this out in public. On the other hand, the public would also have to get used the facts that:
a) some people are well paid for managing these assets
b) some contractors make profit by providing services to them, and
c) mistakes are sometimes made

Howling with derision about any of the above won't help to encourage better management, though transparency and constructive criticism may well do.
 hamsforlegs 23 Oct 2014
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

A free car park would be a blot on the landscape. There are plenty of those. At least it would be a bit further away from the crag than the developing chaos that you see around Burbage and Stanage on busy weekends? Again, I don't know that it's the right answer and would love to see some detailed feasibility studies and financial information.

If it helped to keep visitor numbers at a level that made estate management, well, manageable (less erosion, less impact on vegetation to be monitored and mitigated, less litter to worry about, fewer user conflicts to consult over, fewer legal issues with user groups, visitors and surrounding landowners etc etc) it could well be something other than a drain on resources, though personally I would prefer parking to come with a fair price tag. And, ideally, a coffee van...
 James FR 23 Oct 2014
In reply to UKC News:
This scheme never got implemented then?: http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=67004
Post edited at 17:05
 robw007 24 Oct 2014
In reply to MattDTC:

I completely agree that we are all in the dark without a full understanding of what incomings and outgoings we are talking about here. What is the scale of the shortfall - if there is one - can it be solved by discussions about car parking/commercial payments for usage/re-design of coffee shops etc?

We could all be wasting our energies here when we haven't been shown the overall programme parameters?

We stated this some months ago at the BMC meet at Maynard Arms - Ive still to see any figures. Good intentions from the Peak Park are fine - but we need to now the scale of the problem before we start to discuss how to solve it.
 RoyStone 26 Oct 2014
The PDNPA 2014-15 post-cuts budget is available here:
http://www.peakdistrictceo.co.uk/pd-files/Appendix-1-2014-15-Budget.pdf

Looks like the overall deficit will be £63k, deficit for North Lees Estate projected £13k

Also looks like Pay&Display car parks make about £9k each per year but many are at railway stations or honeypots. How much would Plantation make?

Note that North Lees Estate includes a 470 hectare farm which should collect a payment under EU Basic Payment Scheme (what was the Single Payment Scheme). This could potentially dwarf a £13k amount. It is usually impossible to get SPS/BPS amounts disclosed but North Lees is publicly owned so perhaps Freedom of Information request would work? Anybody know?

 robw007 27 Oct 2014
In reply to RoyStone:

Doyst - really useful to get some sort of quantities in to the debate. We need Peak Park to verify that 63k figure.

Also agree that the Farm subsides need to be declared - if we are being asked to involve ourselves in this discussion all information needs to be assessed.

So Peak Park - what deficit (if it is a deficit) are we actually talking about? Once we know that we can discuss how best to close the gap in a fair and equitable way.
diane123 31 Oct 2014
In reply to RoyStone:

The EU Basic Payment Scheme requires BPS entitlements to be held in order to claim money from the scheme, the tenant farmer holds the entitlements in this case not the Peak Park so it is my understanding it would not fall within the realms of a Freedom of Information request.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...