This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
People may wish to be aware that the National Trust are piloting making any chargeable organised event on their land licensable. Climbing (as an organised activity) is noted specifically as included.
http://www.outdoor-learning.org/Default.aspx?tabid=118&Id=777
http://www.outdoor-learning.org/Default.aspx?tabid=118&Id=777
In reply to Neil Williams:
Tucked away as the very last objective is: " Raise donations to support conservation"
I suspect this would better be placed at the top of the list, and also that the word 'donations' isn't strictly appropriate here.
Tucked away as the very last objective is: " Raise donations to support conservation"
I suspect this would better be placed at the top of the list, and also that the word 'donations' isn't strictly appropriate here.
2
In reply to Neil Williams:
As far as I can see only applies to 'chargeable' events. So if you were an guide you might need to apply, but a climbing club organising a trip to Borrowdale doesn't need to.
As far as I can see only applies to 'chargeable' events. So if you were an guide you might need to apply, but a climbing club organising a trip to Borrowdale doesn't need to.
In reply to Neil Williams:
Sounds good. I've got a real horror of mob-handed commercial organised 'events' in the outdoors; perhaps this will limit their growth.
Sounds good. I've got a real horror of mob-handed commercial organised 'events' in the outdoors; perhaps this will limit their growth.
7
In reply to bigbobbyking:
This might depend on the definition of chargeable. It *certainly* includes charities. Arguably a Scout Group, for example, or a climbing club, who had charged for the trip, would be included in the definition.
This might depend on the definition of chargeable. It *certainly* includes charities. Arguably a Scout Group, for example, or a climbing club, who had charged for the trip, would be included in the definition.
In reply to Rob Parsons:
Yes, and I agree with that aspect, but as it is presently written it will also include an SPA taking a pair of beginners out, for instance. And the minimum charge for the administrative aspect is such that it would make such a small trip infeasible unless exempted.
I think it could do with having a minimum numbers rider, or a simple per-head admission fee. And I'd hope that if the individual customer was a member of the Trust they would be exempted from the per-head fee in such cases.
> Sounds good. I've got a real horror of mob-handed commercial organised 'events' in the outdoors; perhaps this will limit their growth.
Yes, and I agree with that aspect, but as it is presently written it will also include an SPA taking a pair of beginners out, for instance. And the minimum charge for the administrative aspect is such that it would make such a small trip infeasible unless exempted.
I think it could do with having a minimum numbers rider, or a simple per-head admission fee. And I'd hope that if the individual customer was a member of the Trust they would be exempted from the per-head fee in such cases.
Post edited at 17:13
In reply to Neil Williams:
It's hard to see how they would enforce that though? An SPA wandering onto NT land with a pair of beginners looks just the same as an experienced mate and two friends. Agree it would be good to have an explicit minimum numbers clause to clarify, as presumably it is aimed at relatively large groups.
> Yes, and I agree with that aspect, but as it is presently written it will also include an SPA taking a pair of beginners out, for instance. And the minimum charge for the administrative aspect is such that it would make such a small trip infeasible unless exempted.
It's hard to see how they would enforce that though? An SPA wandering onto NT land with a pair of beginners looks just the same as an experienced mate and two friends. Agree it would be good to have an explicit minimum numbers clause to clarify, as presumably it is aimed at relatively large groups.
3
In reply to Neil Williams:
I'm sure that sort of thing will be picked up in the feedback. The biggest problem area I can see is big groups on the national three peaks where I can't see they can do anything as its on public rights of way.
I'm sure that sort of thing will be picked up in the feedback. The biggest problem area I can see is big groups on the national three peaks where I can't see they can do anything as its on public rights of way.
In reply to Neil Williams:
I wonder how many of the usual group use crags are actually on NT land ? I guess a fair few in the Lakes but elsewhere ?
I wonder how many of the usual group use crags are actually on NT land ? I guess a fair few in the Lakes but elsewhere ?
In reply to Neil Williams:
It'd have to be a chargeable activity on the NT land though. A climbing club is charging for the hut use, not climbing, so can't see this affecting them
> This might depend on the definition of chargeable. It *certainly* includes charities. Arguably a Scout Group, for example, or a climbing club, who had charged for the trip, would be included in the definition.
It'd have to be a chargeable activity on the NT land though. A climbing club is charging for the hut use, not climbing, so can't see this affecting them
In reply to Offwidth:
I posted it here so people could feed back
> I'm sure that sort of thing will be picked up in the feedback.
I posted it here so people could feed back
In reply to Neil Williams:
Charging for access to Dancing Ledge has had a big impact down here in Dorset. The number of clients at this venue regularly exceeded 150 people (mostly from one or two providers), so some limitation was overdue. However as small commercial provider myself I know of quite a few clubs/ youth groups that have been dissuaded from visiting, which is a shame as this in some ways goes against the National Trusts stated aim for 'access for all', not only those that can afford an upfront fee.
It will also be interesting to see what provisions the NT have made for liability - in charging have they not accepted a greater duty of care? I know that some of the fixed belays used by groups are questionable at best, so where would the NT stand if they failed?
Charging for access to Dancing Ledge has had a big impact down here in Dorset. The number of clients at this venue regularly exceeded 150 people (mostly from one or two providers), so some limitation was overdue. However as small commercial provider myself I know of quite a few clubs/ youth groups that have been dissuaded from visiting, which is a shame as this in some ways goes against the National Trusts stated aim for 'access for all', not only those that can afford an upfront fee.
It will also be interesting to see what provisions the NT have made for liability - in charging have they not accepted a greater duty of care? I know that some of the fixed belays used by groups are questionable at best, so where would the NT stand if they failed?
3
In reply to Rob Kennard:
Probably the same place as the persons leading the commercial groups
>
> It will also be interesting to see what provisions the NT have made for liability - in charging have they not accepted a greater duty of care? I know that some of the fixed belays used by groups are questionable at best, so where would the NT stand if they failed?
Probably the same place as the persons leading the commercial groups
1
In reply to Neil Williams:
Thanks for highlighting this.
Seemed only ever a matter of time before the trust went down this road.
As a small provider of outdoor activities, this will bring an increased workload and more paperwork & cost. The increase in costs will be passed on to the customer thus making outdoor activities more expensive. May also put people off trying new activities altogether. For the Lakes this is terrible as the area is suffering enough as it is due to the winter flooding.
Sad times 😞
Thanks for highlighting this.
Seemed only ever a matter of time before the trust went down this road.
As a small provider of outdoor activities, this will bring an increased workload and more paperwork & cost. The increase in costs will be passed on to the customer thus making outdoor activities more expensive. May also put people off trying new activities altogether. For the Lakes this is terrible as the area is suffering enough as it is due to the winter flooding.
Sad times 😞
2
2
In reply to Rob Kennard:
Assuming that they didn't install the fixed belays I find it hard to see how they could be considered liable for their failure. The instructor that had chosen to use them might well be held liable.
> Charging for access to Dancing Ledge has had a big impact down here in Dorset. The number of clients at this venue regularly exceeded 150 people (mostly from one or two providers), so some limitation was overdue. However as small commercial provider myself I know of quite a few clubs/ youth groups that have been dissuaded from visiting, which is a shame as this in some ways goes against the National Trusts stated aim for 'access for all', not only those that can afford an upfront fee.
> It will also be interesting to see what provisions the NT have made for liability - in charging have they not accepted a greater duty of care? I know that some of the fixed belays used by groups are questionable at best, so where would the NT stand if they failed?
Assuming that they didn't install the fixed belays I find it hard to see how they could be considered liable for their failure. The instructor that had chosen to use them might well be held liable.
1
In reply to Neil Williams:
Do you charge to take Scouts climbing?
> This might depend on the definition of chargeable. It *certainly* includes charities. Arguably a Scout Group, for example, or a climbing club, who had charged for the trip, would be included in the definition.
Do you charge to take Scouts climbing?
1
In reply to timjones:
Mmm, be interesting to see how it would play out in court. Charging for access changes liability in the eyes of the law doesnt it? Regardless of who put the belays in?
Mmm, be interesting to see how it would play out in court. Charging for access changes liability in the eyes of the law doesnt it? Regardless of who put the belays in?
In reply to timjones:
I don't have an outdoor climbing Permit (yet, I'm going to get one at some point) but if I did... yes, there would be a charge. It would be to cover transport etc, but I doubt the National Trust would care - this would however rather depend on the way they word it.
I don't have an outdoor climbing Permit (yet, I'm going to get one at some point) but if I did... yes, there would be a charge. It would be to cover transport etc, but I doubt the National Trust would care - this would however rather depend on the way they word it.
In reply to Rob Kennard:
The size of the fee is also of concern as it dissuades small groups. If it was a fiver a day a head payable on the day, for example, I imagine most organisations would just cough up and pass it on.
Add to that a requirement to submit risk assessments etc...surely *that* must cause them to take on liability?
The size of the fee is also of concern as it dissuades small groups. If it was a fiver a day a head payable on the day, for example, I imagine most organisations would just cough up and pass it on.
Add to that a requirement to submit risk assessments etc...surely *that* must cause them to take on liability?
In reply to Neil Williams:
Brimham Rocks is a venue where organised commercial groups tend to climb regularly. It is a site that has NT staff there, I think, most of the time so I can see this being a place where enforcement would be very easy.
Brimham Rocks is a venue where organised commercial groups tend to climb regularly. It is a site that has NT staff there, I think, most of the time so I can see this being a place where enforcement would be very easy.
In reply to Neil Williams:
We tend to charge for transport and gear hire if necessary. There is no charge for the activity itself, it's no different from an individual chipping in towards his mates fuel and hiring gear from a local shop IMO.
> I don't have an outdoor climbing Permit (yet, I'm going to get one at some point) but if I did... yes, there would be a charge. It would be to cover transport etc, but I doubt the National Trust would care - this would however rather depend on the way they word it.
We tend to charge for transport and gear hire if necessary. There is no charge for the activity itself, it's no different from an individual chipping in towards his mates fuel and hiring gear from a local shop IMO.
1
In reply to Rob Kennard:
I'd suggest that the charge is not for the use of belay stakes etc that have been put in by a third party.
> Mmm, be interesting to see how it would play out in court. Charging for access changes liability in the eyes of the law doesnt it? Regardless of who put the belays in?
I'd suggest that the charge is not for the use of belay stakes etc that have been put in by a third party.
In reply to Neil Williams:
I think it would be useful to get some clarity directly from the NT, particularly around club meets, university, school groups etc. I'm wondering if there might be scope for some UKC investigations/ journalism as it possibly affects a lot of site users
I think it would be useful to get some clarity directly from the NT, particularly around club meets, university, school groups etc. I'm wondering if there might be scope for some UKC investigations/ journalism as it possibly affects a lot of site users
3
In reply to timjones:
IYO, but not necessarily ITNTO, as it were. This is why this cannot be ignored. It is the National Trust's opinion and the precise wording of the eventual policy that counts.
I've brought it to the attention of the Scout Association, hopefully they will feed back as well.
> We tend to charge for transport and gear hire if necessary. There is no charge for the activity itself, it's no different from an individual chipping in towards his mates fuel and hiring gear from a local shop IMO.
IYO, but not necessarily ITNTO, as it were. This is why this cannot be ignored. It is the National Trust's opinion and the precise wording of the eventual policy that counts.
I've brought it to the attention of the Scout Association, hopefully they will feed back as well.
In reply to Neil Williams:
I don't know: I would imagine £5 would be a large increase in cost for say a Scout/Guide trip or a uni club. I imagine less so for commercial providers.
> The size of the fee is also of concern as it dissuades small groups. If it was a fiver a day a head payable on the day, for example, I imagine most organisations would just cough up and pass it on.
I don't know: I would imagine £5 would be a large increase in cost for say a Scout/Guide trip or a uni club. I imagine less so for commercial providers.
In reply to Neil Williams:
The National Tru$t is turning into a money making beast. Some of their projects like the aquisition of commercial businesses, building the hydro power unit on stickle and various other endevours are going way beyond the idea of what they should be doing. It needs scaling back. I personally hate the trust or more what it's become. It's become far too powerful.
The National Tru$t is turning into a money making beast. Some of their projects like the aquisition of commercial businesses, building the hydro power unit on stickle and various other endevours are going way beyond the idea of what they should be doing. It needs scaling back. I personally hate the trust or more what it's become. It's become far too powerful.
6
3
In reply to olddirtydoggy:
Totally agree and more, the legators would be turning in their graves.
> The National Tru$t is turning into a money making beast. Some of their projects like the aquisition of commercial businesses, building the hydro power unit on stickle and various other endevours are going way beyond the idea of what they should be doing. It needs scaling back. I personally hate the trust or more what it's become. It's become far too powerful.
Totally agree and more, the legators would be turning in their graves.
3
1
1
In reply to ceri:
It might be, but it is not an unsurmountable sum. It'd cost more to take them to a commercial artificial climbing wall.
(I never understood at all why cavers are happy to pay for access but climbers not, provided the terms and price are reasonable)
> I don't know: I would imagine £5 would be a large increase in cost for say a Scout/Guide trip or a uni club.
It might be, but it is not an unsurmountable sum. It'd cost more to take them to a commercial artificial climbing wall.
(I never understood at all why cavers are happy to pay for access but climbers not, provided the terms and price are reasonable)
In reply to Neil Williams:
Meanwhile those on the inside profit.
Remember the expression "Free at the point of use" - that is what all Trust property and National Parks are meant to be.
DC
> Sort-of. But that money is going back into its operations, isn't it?
Not at all - it is creating exclusion and denying the original aims of the Trust.Meanwhile those on the inside profit.
Remember the expression "Free at the point of use" - that is what all Trust property and National Parks are meant to be.
DC
4
1
In reply to bigbobbyking:
Club members pay indirectly throw membership fee and may pay to come on the event. For example for transport and/or accommodation.
If wording was 'profit making' that would exempt clubs and charities. But looks like NT want everyone to pay.
> As far as I can see only applies to 'chargeable' events. So if you were an guide you might need to apply, but a climbing club organising a trip to Borrowdale doesn't need to.
Club members pay indirectly throw membership fee and may pay to come on the event. For example for transport and/or accommodation.
If wording was 'profit making' that would exempt clubs and charities. But looks like NT want everyone to pay.
Post edited at 13:28
In reply to nutme:
I suspect they explicitly don't want to exclude large scale charity events, like 3-peaks challenge and the like.
> If wording was 'profit making' that would exempt clubs and charities. But looks like NT want everyone to pay.
I suspect they explicitly don't want to exclude large scale charity events, like 3-peaks challenge and the like.
Post edited at 13:55
1
In reply to nutme:
Read the consultation, they very explicitly *include* charities on the basis that they cannot support selected charities. They may in a sense be right - charities cannot support other charities except in very specific circumstances.
Read the consultation, they very explicitly *include* charities on the basis that they cannot support selected charities. They may in a sense be right - charities cannot support other charities except in very specific circumstances.
In reply to Neil Williams:
The BMC are aware of and have been consulted by the NT regarding this document and their proposal towards licensing so-called commercial providers. There's a lot of detail and some conflicting information in the document and certainly at face value there are aspects of it that the BMC and providers of mountain training across the country would be quite concerned about.
The BMC is in discussion with the NT at a senior level to seek clarification of the document and how it will be implemented and will also be conveying to the NT our concerns that the proposals as outlined in this document could impact on traditional mountain training, instructor led groups, climbers and walkers under instruction, guided parties and so on.
We'll report back, probably via a news article on the BMC website after we have had our meeting with the NT.
Elfyn Jones
BMC Access & Conservation Officer (Wales)
The BMC are aware of and have been consulted by the NT regarding this document and their proposal towards licensing so-called commercial providers. There's a lot of detail and some conflicting information in the document and certainly at face value there are aspects of it that the BMC and providers of mountain training across the country would be quite concerned about.
The BMC is in discussion with the NT at a senior level to seek clarification of the document and how it will be implemented and will also be conveying to the NT our concerns that the proposals as outlined in this document could impact on traditional mountain training, instructor led groups, climbers and walkers under instruction, guided parties and so on.
We'll report back, probably via a news article on the BMC website after we have had our meeting with the NT.
Elfyn Jones
BMC Access & Conservation Officer (Wales)
9
In reply to Neil Williams:
That depends on what we define as NT worthy operations. If it's building paying carparks or buying commercial businesses which take up larger parts of the markets share forcing well established family businesses out of business then no, thats not good at all.
Theres all sorts of countryside authorities and groups now all claiming to have the right motivations and interests. BMC, NT, Ramblers assoc and on and on. Does the countryside need all this management, tax, licence and charges? Human intervention in the past has not done the countryside great good. These orgs are all widening their interests and it should be a matter of concern.
That depends on what we define as NT worthy operations. If it's building paying carparks or buying commercial businesses which take up larger parts of the markets share forcing well established family businesses out of business then no, thats not good at all.
Theres all sorts of countryside authorities and groups now all claiming to have the right motivations and interests. BMC, NT, Ramblers assoc and on and on. Does the countryside need all this management, tax, licence and charges? Human intervention in the past has not done the countryside great good. These orgs are all widening their interests and it should be a matter of concern.
1
2
In reply to Neil Williams:
We could also tell the NT to **** off and go enjoy the outdoors with who and how we like. I don't remember them putting the outdoors there.
We could also tell the NT to **** off and go enjoy the outdoors with who and how we like. I don't remember them putting the outdoors there.
2
In reply to olddirtydoggy:
I think, on balance though, I'm happy the NT own so much land as opposed say to shooting estates or other private concerns.
I think, on balance though, I'm happy the NT own so much land as opposed say to shooting estates or other private concerns.
In reply to Neil Williams:
A lot of the NT land is also open access under the CROW regulations, surely the NT would not be able to charge for access to this?
A lot of the NT land is also open access under the CROW regulations, surely the NT would not be able to charge for access to this?
In reply to Mark Kemball:
CROW doesn't apply to a "chargeable organised event"; it grants access to individuals but I believe commercial activities are specifically excluded.
CROW doesn't apply to a "chargeable organised event"; it grants access to individuals but I believe commercial activities are specifically excluded.
1
In reply to Neil Williams:
Oh ffs, NT.
The tone of their FAQ seems to be aimed at large scale events (£50-£100 admin fee in order to even submit a license application; 6 weeks notice; etc). I would like to charitably assume they're aiming at the huge cross-fell events, not an MIA with a client, but haven't written it appropriately.
Regardless, how would one respond to this "consultation" ? It seems to be stuck on transmit rather than receive.
Oh ffs, NT.
The tone of their FAQ seems to be aimed at large scale events (£50-£100 admin fee in order to even submit a license application; 6 weeks notice; etc). I would like to charitably assume they're aiming at the huge cross-fell events, not an MIA with a client, but haven't written it appropriately.
Regardless, how would one respond to this "consultation" ? It seems to be stuck on transmit rather than receive.
2
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...