UKC

Just seen this posted on Facebook:

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-dartmoor-national-park?

Does anyone know the source of this information? How would this work in relation to the CROW act? As it's on a reputable petition website I am inclined to believe their claims, what do others think?

If it turns out to be a viable threat to an extraordinary part of our country, please sign.

In reply to The Green Giant:

No idea - and who signs a petition on so little information? 'Transfer to central government for privatisation' hmmm - can't see anything obvious on Google and why to Devon CC ? It' not theirs. All sound a bit addled

In reply to The Green Giant:

Couple of points:
The Dartmoor National Park like other NPs is not publicly owned. Virtually all of it is in private ownership, with Open Access via CRoW, hence the closure of Vixen Tor to the public as it is not subject to CRoW.

The DNPA is already part of Devon County Council for administrative purposes, and I believe that the so-called "privatisation", as with the recent transfer of rescue helicopter provision from the military to the private sector and after-hours medical services, is to privatise some if not all of the various services and functions of the NPA, leaving it purely as a CC planning authority, which it already is by its very title. Still a crazy idea in my opinion.

I have signed other petitions from 38 Degrees including the one against the selling off of the National Forest, so it is an issue that definitely needs watching but also accurate statements and information from those opposed not muddled allegations.

In reply to The Green Giant:

Thanks for bringing this up Alex and thanks for the clarification Iain, it had me rather confused too.

In reply to Iain Peters:

The DNPA is a separate administrative entity though with legally defined duties. What are they looking to privatise?

In reply to The Green Giant:

I'd guess it's like all the other recent scare stories, making out that somehow selling off fully protected land will cause the protection to be lost.

It won't. Access is secure. Development is not allowed. There is no problem.

In reply to The Green Giant and others: My advice these days would be to actively ignore any petition or headline that decides to use the word 'privatisation'.

As in this case, it is almost certainly going to be factually dubious, (e.g. 'contracting out' is NOT 'privatisation') overly sensational, alarmist and highly biased.

Thankfully UKC is still home to enough educated individuals that such scare mongering is generally met with well-informed and factually accurate dabate.

In reply to Bulls Crack:

I stand corrected: "Dartmoor National Park Authority is a special purpose local authority created under the Environment Act 1995." Before 1995 it was under County Council admin.

Some of the functions of the DNPA that could be "privatised" or contracted out might be Visitor Services including their Visitor Centres, car parks owned by or leased to the DNPA, ancillary retail products and services such as publications and catering. Selling off the comparatively small areas of land they actually own might be considered.

However to say that Access is secured and Development not allowed is too simplistic. Some CRoW agreements can be reviewed after 10 years, and as a Commoner with grazing and other rights I can tell you that the farming lobby is extremely powerful. In actual fact only just over 50% of the area of the Dartmoor National Park has Open Access. I am absolutely committed to the principle of Open Access but often find myself in a minority of one in commoners' meetings. It is the same with Planning: development rules have been eased considerably during the last 5 years as the perceived necessity for further housing and industrial development increases. In that respect, properly managed appropriate small scale development in some of the villages within the Park might prevent them from becoming rich men's ghettos or holiday homes.

In reply to The Green Giant:

Someone recently linked this petition on my facebook. I had a google and spent half an hour looking at various bit of info, but couldn't find anything which in anyway relates to "transfer to central government for privatisation and exploitation". Although the wording is so vague that could be interpreted many ways.

The main issues that seemed to keep cropping up were changes to the planning regime and how they might impact development within the park. Most info was 2/3 years old and probably related to changes to national planning policy and introduction of the NPPF back in 2012.

I'm all for bringing attention to actual threats to any NP, but this seemed to have no basis, so I duly ignored it.

In reply to Iain Peters:


Only if it ceases to be open country as defined by the Act, surely?

In reply to Iain Peters:

Cheers Iain and others for clearing that up! Did look a bit fishy.

In reply to climbwhenready:


Which is exactly what has happened in the dismal Vixen Tor saga. Sadly all our National Parks are subject to the vagaries of politics, money and vested interest. Last weekend's Countryfile featured the Peak District and new proposals for commercialising some aspects of the Authority's functions due to the massive cuts in public sector funding with more to come. Where this will all lead it's hard to tell, but if you'll forgive the pun, our wild spaces and crags are caught between a rock and a hard place and although I think this particular FB appeal is ill-advised and in some ways scaremongering the threats to our freedom to roam are arguably greater today than they were back in the 1930s.

In reply to The Green Giant:

Same things happening in the Lakes, stickle tarns up for sale if you want it

In reply to lukerockwalker:


and if you do buy it then you won't be able to stop people accessing it, you won't be able to build on/around it, but you'll be responsible for maintaining it. So if it happens then the LDNPA has some extra money, are relieved of the maintenance costs, and access/protection are unchanged. You'd think the "outdoor community" would be supporting this, but no, knee jerk reactions abound.

In reply to The Green Giant:

Sounds like standard 38 Degrees political scaremongering.

In reply to The Green Giant:

It is important to make a distinction between the National Park (the protected landscape) and the National Park Authority NPA (the planning authority for that protected landscape).

It is the National Park Authority that is subject to the cuts, like all of the other NPAs. This might mean that services to the users (both visitors and inhabitants) of the National Park are reduced but it would take legislative change to affect access, wilflife protection and planning laws.

If you don't want Dartmoor NPA to lose staff and reduce its service to users, sign the petition. If you are worried about access and the like I wouldn't bother.