UKC

Be aware that 11 cars were issued with fixed penalty notices yesterday for parking on the verge on the right as you approach Malham village from Gargrave even if the car was fully on the verge and not touching or straddling the double yellow lines. A bit harsh in my opinion, but legally the verge is part of the highway!

In reply to PB@BH:

Thats the same Police cash generation department that sat in a mobile speed trap on the A64 near York while half the city was flooding and being looted.

In reply to PB@BH:

The area covered by double yellows extends from the middle of the road to across the edge of the road and extends upto the private land. So if there is a public park or verge, you can still get a ticket.

This is what I was told by the traffic bloke when parked on the verge a
having just got a ticket.

In reply to PB@BH:

I hate paying to park and will walk many miles to avoid paying.
However as you approach Malham all the cars parked on the verge do spoil the approach to this beautiful location, also cars parking on the grass will bugger it up.
So IMHO all the cars parked on the verge should be ticketed.

In reply to Lenin:

I guess you haven't been to Malham on a day when the NT car park is full and the overflow carpark isn't open.

In reply to PB@BH:

It was bad on Sunday , if you want to park it's a case of beating the walkers to the parking spots.

Unfortunately they get up earlier than most sports climbers .

Looks like the pre-climb latte frappo cappuccino with a creatine topping will have to be enjoyed in one of the local cafes , instead of in bed if you want to park .

In reply to midgets of the world unite:

Or even when the overflow carpark is open in which case you are presented with a field full of cars on the approach, no different at all from the alternative in terms of aesthetics

In reply to midgets of the world unite:

Yes I have. It means that Malham is at capacity, and that I should have got my fat arse out of bed earlier.

In reply to nbonnett:



Or go to The Depot

In reply to PB@BH:

Er.... why does everybody park at Malham? The Dales are a massive area. I cycled though with my son and was astonished at the numbers of cars, I thought there was an early agricultural show or something happening but apparently it was just a normal Sunday, albeit the first really fine one of the year.

In reply to Lenin:

So if you agree with the aim of not cluttering up the view/reducing congestion why do you hate paying?

In reply to Rigid Raider:

Umm because of the Cove?!

In reply to Bulls Crack:

Because I am like most people and pretty self centered really.

In reply to midgets of the world unite:

Why not park up near Malham Tarn and walk back down? It's not far.

In reply to PB@BH:

If you don't want parking fines and speeding tickets, stick to the rules. Most of us manage it!
Malham can easily get full and indiscriminate parking ruins the aesthetic appeal of the place.

In reply to midgets of the world unite:

I go to Malham at least once a month during week days and despite the car park being empty there us almost always cars on the verge. More a case of people being tight than no room to park.

In reply to Rigid Raider:


because the local trusts and NP would never allow anyone to build another car park in practical location or publicise it, that might prevent them from charging so much for their parking or reduce revenue in their shop. It's all about business, not giving people access to the outdoors. I wouldn't be surprised if people in the shop there called the police and said the cars were obstructing traffic, unless they were heading out for ice cream, there just wouldn't be a police car up that way on a routine patrol.

Better to go up the top and park in peace near the tarn and walk the same loop round Malham & Gordale. Or even Kilnsey area and have a longer walk along the tops on the old farm tracks.

In reply to Dax H:


and why not, everyone funds the national parks through their taxes, why pay twice?

In reply to summo:


It comes back to your old response, they don't pay enough through taxes. Actually, this is one area where top up payments at the point of use to meet the gap (car parking charges) doesn't seem unreasonable!

In reply to The New NickB:

nope, nothing to do with paying enough tax. More the general lack of efficiency within the NPs and their policies, on which the public who fund them have no say.

Parking and toilet charges should be at cost. Not to subsidise the two people working in a little shop that turns over very little money, or the layers of management, or the fact that all the NPs could be centralised and run more efficiently, thus saving the cost of many heads of each NP etc... Look around the country at each NP's headquarters, how big they are etc.., that is where your money is going.

If the money went primarily on rangers, wardens, the environment, education and maintenance I would agree with you.

In reply to summo:




Whilst I agree with much of what you say, the fact is there is a problem of capacity. If too many people go to Malham they actually spoil what they actually went for in the first place.
How do you mange this. If by parking charges, it could be said that is unfair and discriminates against the less well off. If by capacity of parking, it could be said that discriminates against those who live farther away, who have paid just as much tax,
How about this, ban retired folk from Malham at weekends and bank holidays, because for sure they can go at quieter times.
Ban climbers, they spend little, a case could be made they spoil the view and there is an objective danger of rockfall.
Make a huge car park at Long Preston or wherever and make people take a Bus in.

In reply to summo:
I think you are very wrong in your assessment of National Park policy and personnel. the car park does provide valuable revenue for them..and why not?

In reply to Bulls Crack:

This from YDNP Tourism Strategy

Parking in formal car parks, which are generally well-screened, is encouraged and the
county councils have worked to eliminate roadside parking at a number of locations. The
National Park Authority runs a network of ten car parks, with additional car parks provided
by the District Councils and major attractions. Revenue generated by the National Park
Authority-owned car parks provides vital funding for conservation and recreation work in
the National Park.

In reply to Bulls Crack:


I'm very aware of np policies, having dealt and lived within one for years and been a parish councillor. Valuable revenue, only to fund their inefficient and rarely in the interest of resident style of management.

Some parks are better than others, peaks is a good example, others are dire in terms of efficincy and effective use of taxpayers money and office. Do a tour of York. Dales np offices and sites. Then you will see where the money has gone, that is why they desperate to extend their boundary to meet the lakes, bigger area, more money from the government to keep their inefficient organisation on the road.

All the parks should be merged, they do almost the same things, under same legislation across England, but feel the need to have their own hq, bosses, supply system for shops etc. I know a regional manager in a park and some of the stories of waste and mismanagement are staggering.

In reply to summo:

>rarely in the interest of resident style of management.


Do you feel that residents should have a priority in how National Parks are run.

In reply to summo:

So the money from car parks is not used for 'conservation and recreation work in the National Park.'? A quick foi would show you how there money is spent or presumably its here: http://www.yorkshiredales.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/621476/ydnpafi...

In reply to Bulls Crack:

I agree with summo.

A quick look at the accounts does not explain if the monies spent are just on the bollocks wasteful management of 'conservation and recreation work in the National Park.'

In the 70's and mid 80's you could always usually park for Malham Cove at a road widening near the last houses. A couple of hundred metres walk up the road then a muddy path to the crag. I do not think the big car park in the village existed then.

So, which came first? The improved path to and around the cove or the yellow lines and Pay carpark?

In reply to Rick Graham:

A massive increase in car numbers since the 1970s ?

In reply to Rick Graham:
In the 70`s and 80`s Malham was busy, but there are a lot lot more cars nowadays and the cars are bigger, so literally take up more room, never mind all the pensioners in camper vans.

In reply to Lenin:


yes, UK national parks are not some vast wildernesses like in the USA etc.. or museum for town folk to visit on a Sunday, they are populated areas, people have to live and work within them, who have no say over the extra regulations that come with them. You think when they filled the gap between YD and the Lakes with another park, the residents had any real say or vote on it? The YDNP planning panel, who make the final decisions have many people on it who don't even live in Yorkshire, how can that possibly be fair on the people the decision impact?

In reply to Bulls Crack:


there is no follow through of funds though, as their headline titles don't break down what the money actually goes on , it just says things like 'environmental conservation', 'promoting conservation', what was physically spent on the ground, how much was staff, big buildings, heat, light etc..

In reply to summo:

But it is a National Park. It comes with many advantages but also disadvantages. It is not your Lake District or Yorkshire Dales but ours, everyones.
Slightly off topic, but a little hobby horse of mine, personally I would like to see some of the farmers who dispoil these areas evicted, there is one at the end of Wast Water, and more than one in Langdale.

In reply to Lenin:

It isn't really ours, "National Park" is a designation of an area, it doesn't signify who owns the land.

In reply to summo:
"The YDNP planning panel, who make the final decisions have many people on it who don't even live in Yorkshire, how can that possibly be fair on the people the decision impact?"

Incorrect, sec of state has final say.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Yes your correct, and there are multipicity of owners. Aristocratic Landlords such as the Devonshires, Lowthers, Dalmain and the one at Muncaster, United Utilities, National Trust, private farmers often subsidised by taxpayers. The way a lot of owners came by these estates is not quite as clear cut a you or me buying a house.

In reply to Lenin:

I like the story, possibly embellished, of Jim Perrin ( ? )being challenged by an estate worker at a crag.

JP Who owns the crag then?

EW Lord .....

JP How did he get to own it?

EW His ancestors fought for it.

JP I will fight you now for it, then.

( Jim kept on climbing. )

Edited to protect the innocent.

In reply to Lenin:


Not true the landowners have no say over the designation, which impacts everything they do. NP's aren't everyones, do you pay the leases, mortgages etc.. on all that land?


those farmers were there long before the tourists. Perhaps they would prefer to see the back of tourists?

In reply to Lenin:


every single person who owns a house in the NP is also a landowner though and things like the planning rules impact them just as much as a big estate. The big estates or companies have the funds to fight the NP in court, average joe has no say. You clearly have a thing against the Lords etc.. but 100 if not 1000s are small family run and owned farms and tenancies.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


true, but what percentage of NP planning disputes go to that level?

In reply to summo:

I know it's true, I was correcting your mistake. I'll let you Google for numbers, you could Google and check if it's a different proportion to outside NPs.

In reply to summo:




Maybe but it would be economic suicide . The visitor economy dwarfs farming which is also supported via Basic Payment Scheme and, majorly in NPs. agri-environment grants.

In reply to summo:

A huge amount of homeowners have moved there, are offcomers, they chose to live in a national park (my main experience is DalesLakes) so if they do not like the regime they should not have purchased. As to the "small family run and owned farms and tenancies." as a small business owner I do have much in common, but they do get subsidies and they do benefit from being in the NP with many commercial opportunities and the NP does protect the value of their properties in many ways, though obvoulsy they will be inlikely to be selling fields off to Wimpey for an estate anytime soon.

In reply to Lenin:


A huge amount of homes that are vacant for 75% of the year aren't incomers but lets. But there is a vast population of multi generational families living in the dales for centuries, I was one example of them when I lived there. There is progressively less, because they've been effectively priced out the market by holiday lets/2nd homes. When 2 up/down terrace in YDNP can cost you between £140-200k, yet earning are often averaging £15-20k, few locals can afford to buy once NP status has been awarded.

A farm in an NP gets no special treatment as far as CAP goes, but it does have a whole pile of extra NP regulation that restrict how it operates.

NP protects values of properties? It is hindered by the planning regs preventing often need expansion and changesto bring them up to speed with their none NP competitors. The lack of available building land bothers the locals, they would rather sell some off and build affordable housing, but the NP won't allow this in many cases. The NP is trying to freeze time and maintain NPs as a museum preventing any progression.

In reply to Bulls Crack:


NP farmers don't get any extra money from CAP, but their hands are tied in numerous ways, there have been no shortage of article lately picking wholes in the landscape management tactics of NPs.

If a Lakes or Dales farmer were to reforest their land, in 2 generations time his or her grandkids would be very grateful for the financially viable forestry business that doesn't need either CAP or tourists to survive.

In reply to summo:


I thought the Forestry Commission basically made no money on forestry?

But reforestation would probably be welcomed by many for environmental reasons; much better than the near ecological desert of sheep-grazed barren grassy hillsides...

In reply to summo:

"A huge amount of homes that are vacant for 75% of the year aren't incomers but lets. But there is a vast population of multi generational families living in the dales for centuries, I was one example of them when I lived there. There is progressively less, because they've been effectively priced out the market by holiday lets/2nd homes."

And who sold the properties? Who made the holiday homes? You can't flog off properties and then complain about the nasty people you sold them to.

In reply to summo:


Not really sure of your point there.
As Sir Chasm says, no point locals selling houses to off comers, then whining that the young cannot afford them. Classic cake and eat it syndrome.

In reply to Lenin:


they aren't moaning about that, it's the youngster who can't afford to stay, even if they could find work, there is no where to live. There are plenty homes, but most are holiday lets that sit empty for over half the year.

In reply to andrewmcleod:


plenty money to be made by good long term sustainable management and the forests can still be multi use. I'm getting roughly £50 a cubic metre for good spruce at the moment, price is as high as it's been for over a decade. Pine is similar too.

In reply to summo:


But whats your point? Who sold the houses to the holiday letting people. And what more right do those youngsters have to have a house in the NP than anyone else. On another thread IIRC you had scant empathy for someone moving 1000 miles from Syria, now its all wrong for some child with the benefit of a first world education to maybe have to move to Penrith or Bradford and not live in a NP.

In reply to summo:

Current woodland grants are part of EU funding and whilst NP farmers don't get extra support they get support which in places allows marginal hill farming to survive. I'm not saying its a bad thing if you want your landscape to look a certain way eg unforested in the Lakes. And whilst forestry might provide some with a living the visitor economy supports far more.

In reply to Bulls Crack:


most of this is down to the choice of the people, they want cheap food on the supermarket shelves, so they indirectly pay the real cost of the food production, via tax, via the EU CAP scheme. Simple solution there.

Forest the NPs, again a simple choice, keep the pretend unviable museum for city folk to gawp at, or turn NPs into a proper natural environment that also provides the people living there with better paid work than seasonal tourist stuff. Sadly the city folk have more votes and say, so nothing will change.

In reply to Lenin:

my point is the people living in an NP are disadvantaged in terms of housing etc.. the planning rules on extensions, improvements, new builds are harsh and beyond the say the locals. Unless a property is sold under a covenant which is rare, there is nothing to stop people on far higher wages from London etc.. buying smaller houses as second homes. Just because they might look pretty when you visit and NP, don't presume life's a dream for those in them, NP status is often curse more than a blessing.

In reply to summo:


Are you paying attention? Who sold them the houses in the first place. Furthermore from your other postings it would seem you embrace a Neo Liberal Free Market world, and that means that money/power from one place, in this instance you state London etc (and elsewhere) effects people far away. In your case its a few grand on a house Kirby Malham, in Aleppo its a Barrel bomb down your chimney.

In reply to Lenin:


I am thanks, people often sell houses when they die, not really their fault or if they move to for work; not always their fault either. So gradually over time, thousands of houses have become holiday lets. A few grand on a house in an NP, you really haven't looked in any estate agent windows in the Lakes etc... have you? This has nothing to do with Syria, or the government of the day. It is national parks management and policy I disagree with.

In reply to Rick Graham:

This story was also attributed to Lord Barnard of Raby Castle in County Durham.I first heard it as a lad over seventy years ago.

In reply to summo:

Socialist Utopian for Me'n'mine, Market Otherwise ?