UKC

I've just spotted that permission has been granted to the LDNP to convert the Walna Scar car park into a pay and display, with 58 marked bays, which is quite annoying with regard access to Dow, I'm not sure when construction will start but thought people may be interested to know.

In reply to ebdon:

Think there was a thread about this relatively recently

In reply to ebdon:

This has been contested for some time, but the weasels have won - yet another nail in the coffin of Lake District traditions for the local youth who will now be denied harmless car access free at the point of use in their own back yard. They were not doing any harm and for generations it has been a traditional entry to climbing and the hills for those of limited means.

Two useful contacts who are members of the National Park Authority are Dave Fletcher, who is a FRCC member, and Tony Lywood, local climber. Have spoken to Dave about this issue.

There is nothing good to be said about the way the Park Authority runs this area. Cash generation and noses in the trough are king. F-ck the locals. Don't try to tell me this does anyone any good - especially the young. They should stop messing with people's lives and do something about the bracken.

From their website:
davidfletcher@lakedistrict.gov.uk
01229 860234

Tony.Lywood@lakedistrict.gov.uk
07789886015

In reply to Dave Cumberland:


>


The traditional method for those of limited means is on a bike or using their thumb, anyone who can run a car and afford a climbing rack is not so limited that they cannot afford £7 for a days climbing. If they are tell them to park at Torver and walk up past Tranearth.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

Agreed, this is quite sad. Less trips to Dow for me.
However, I could be persuaded this is a good idea if every penny were to be spent on Bracken control, it's pretty terrible at the mo. Just back from a crag in Langdale, wading through shoulder high bracken and that's on the path!

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

So you're saying the Walna Scar Car park is a fundamental requirement for local participation in outdoor sports?

It knocks off a few minutes, and a steep bit of tarmac, from Coniston I grant you


nfo on how and what the Park spends it £ on here : http://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/810350/LDNPA-Sta...

In reply to Bulls Crack:


And how do you think the residents of that end of Coniston will feel after a few months of everyone parking in Coniston instead ?
It is quite probable that this will simply mean the car parking moves elsewhere, and to a worse location for both the walkers/climbers and residents.

In reply to ebdon:

Does anybody know whether the machines they put in will accept card payments? As car parking charges rise ever higher, coins are becoming less and less convenient as a means of payment.

In reply to ebdon:

Well they need to recoup some of money they spent getting that UNESCO status.

Now they can focus on drawing in even more tourists, increase the demand for holiday lets and squeeze out a few more locals.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

This sort of decision is thin end of an already fat wedge (of cash). Sorry but this money won't be spent on improving anything much and make no mistake this heads ever further towards a true charge for access to the Park.

Who knows, maybe this is justified, maybe we can't afford anything much after health, education, social care and the like. In which case then OK let's charge at point of use. Great outdoors only available if you can afford the ticket?

It all fits together well though, healthcare increasingly only available to those who can pay for it, the same rich who get a clear run at a quieter more exclusive Park.


....all the above a total exaggeration of course, well for the next 5 years or so anyway. After that, well let's see.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:


The last time I parked there - sensibly - some tit blocked me in. In lieu of waiting an unknown amount of time or cutting their handbrake cable, I drove out as slowly as possibly over the rogher rocky ground and put a hole in my sump.

I've got no problem with a well maintained car park that costs money to use, and if I did I'd just walk up from Coniston, as I normally do anyhow.

Either way "messing with people's lives" is a bit OTT...


Total agreement

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

"Local parking, for local people"..... it's a bit "League of Gentlemen" isn't it Dave? And what counts as a local in your eyes.......I don't like the bracken though and I hate paying for parking as much as the next (local or not) person!

In reply to tmawer:


There could be merit in a NP residents parking pass though. With say a few car park slots at shops/supermarkets for pass holders etc..

Pay for parking isn't likely to increase shop traffic in coniston, if you've paid to park prior to climbing, you won't pay again down the hill and you aren't likely to walk down and back up the road just for an ice cream or a few groceries. The whole scheme is purely for NP revenue and their own agenda.

In reply to ebdon:

If these are similar to the P&D machines in the Peak that the PDNPA have put in, I don't think there's any way they can enforce the charges so if you feel strongly, don't pay. In my experience, nothing will happen.

In reply to summo:


Which has been cut vastly in recent years. If we want NPs, they need funding somehow. I think a "weak" pay for access isn't such a bad plan - rather than awkward fees at each car-park, how about an annual pass for £xxx that gets you parking everywhere, and may be other bits such as visitor centre access. This wouldn't prevent children etc from enjoying the NPs as they won't drive anyway, and for residents would probably be less than current multiple fees.

In reply to MG:

Because its a regressive tax that affects people on low incomes much more then high incomes which is totally against the principles of NPs which should be equal access for all.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

Is this right? I thought that the pdnp had recently got a contracter to start enforcing the charges at plantation and suprise view?

In reply to ebdon: That may be the case, but I've never had anything.

In reply to MG:


Do we even need NPs? Most nations have them to protect remote wild places because of their flora, fauna etc... The UK has then because city dwellers cherish what is in the main, green mono culture meadows and over grazed heather moor land.


I think the tourists should pay, but those people who are born in them, work in them etc.. have no say, why should they pay too? When the two NPs land grabbed and merged what say did the locals have on a life changing event for local workers and businesses?

There are annual passes already. But in places like the lakes you would need NP, NT, FC and council passes... as there are so many varied bodies controlling car parking.

I think all the NPs should merge. Centralize management, hqs, national conservation policies. There will be little local quirks, but they don't need nice big individual hq buildings, CEOs etc..

They control the planning and use of 1000s upon 1000s of hectare yet are in some instances run by well meaning individuals, but not necessarily the most skilled or professional of folk.

In reply to ebdon:

the peasants can walk up from t' town

In reply to ebdon:


I don't think that is a principle but regardless, as I noted, it would affect those with cars mainly, not those without, who will generally have less money. Crude, but better than endless fees at different car parks, I would say.

In reply to summo:

I agree. Everyone should get free local parking. Oh wait...

In reply to MG:

It isn't a tax, it is a fee for the use of a piece of land with your car on it, which can't be used for another nicer purpose while it has a car on it.

The only objection I have to P&D is needing loads of coins. Sort that (accept cards) and I'm fine with it.

In reply to XXXX:


The NPs parking fees are used to maintain tourist facilities etc.. It's not the same as a council in say Manchester charging parking, which then goes into the same coffers as council tax, benefiting all residents.

Trying being an old or disabled person or a parent with young kids living in an NP, getting parking near any shops in peak season etc... you learn to go very early or last thing at night, not always practical.

In reply to summo:

I am a parent with young kids living in a national park.

In reply to Neil Williams:


Or by sms. Or app. If you are away longer than planned you can top up without having to walk back. No cash to rob or collect, machine to vandalize.. . Just a sign post.

In reply to ebdon:

Not been the lakes for years for that very reason ! Costs more than ever to get there then Silly ammounts to park at every car park around ! Go to work all week pay your bills pay your taxes then pay to use your own country side - My Grandfather spent 2 years in a German prison of war camp and nearly starved to death ! He said he went to war so i (we) could live free , he used to say get out there and enjoy the countryside , that's what I fought for !!!!
Who are these people who think they own the country side ?¿

In reply to J1234:


Is that 'officially' the daily rate for this corner of our 'World Heritage Site'?

In reply to ebdon:

My understanding as a local is that the LDNPA requested Rydal Estates as the land owner to formalise the parking at the Fell gate to reduce encroachment onto the common. That IS an issue, as where does it stop.
Problem is that the formalisation costs money and therefore they will be putting P&D machines on site. The Car Parking, we understand will be managed by LDNPA as part of their commercial arm - they look after several other organisation's car parks.
The number of spaces IMO is wholly insufficient - it's not uncommon for in excess of 150 cars to be "parked" in the area west of the fell gate.
Coniston Parish Council objected on several fronts, mainly that the access wasn't the best for formalised parking, what happens to the cars that won't fit? They'll quite possibly either park in the passing places, or abandon them inappropriately, making access for Farmers, quarry vehicles and MRT difficult.
This will have a knock on effect in the village in terms of parking, although on a plus, it might help some of the cafes out as a lot of people may well bypass the village altogether.
There was a question mark over the process and the eagle eyed / in the know folk may have noticed that the grant of panning permission went through and a subsequent Application for Lawful Development Certificate for use of existing land as a car park had to be made to allow the planning permission to be implemented.
The details of the application can be seen on the LDNPA Website under reference 7/2016/5577, showing all the design statements etc and the responses.
I believe work is scheduled to start some time in 2018.
It has been suggested that any excess profits made on the car park could be donated to good causes e.g. Fix The Fells, MRT, Projects in the village etc., but as yet this has not been explored as far as I know.

In reply to J1234:

I don't know about this particular car park, but often the problem with paid parking is that they decide to lock the gates up at a time when they won't make any extra cash from the parking anymore. While it's fine for a lot of people if you are climbing in the summer until dusk you might return at 10pm ish to find your car locked in. They also like to leave the car parks locked when they can't afford the staff to give you parking tickets, e.g. Easter Sunday etc which is also frustrating.

So if you are going to fight on this one rather than trying to stop the charges why not try to make sure that the car park can be used 24/7 and all day parking fees are reasonable?

In reply to descender8:


Stay in one place per day then, it's better for the environment as well.

All these people banging on about how it keeps the poor and the locals off the hills are using that as an excuse, the NPs are used almost exclusively by well off middle classes. Sure there is a a case for increasing participation for the less well off demographs but it's not parking fees that's keeping them away.

How the money is subsequently spent is obviously some that needs to be kept an eye on.

In reply to Glyno:


Been in Bohuslän, Sweden and probably spent less than tenner in a week on parking. Including 48hrs overnight parking when I left the car to go over to an island as a foot passenger, plus an evening in the honey pot of Smögen.

The UNESCO site at tanum(bronze age stone carvings) had free car parking, visitors centre, toilets, activities and tours.

In reply to ebdon:

Parking should be free, but limited to 2 hours max.

In reply to ebdon:

When they started putting p&d in Aussie surf spots, the locals epoxied the coin slot.

In reply to summo:



I can't think why a country of <10million people would have a different attitude towards parking to one of 60 million with a smaller amount of countryside.

In reply to Tyler:

Perhaps they should discourage any more visitors if the lakes is too busy for it's parking capacity, rather than try to price people out of it. Population has nothing to do with, it's visitor numbers. The lakes car park run at max capacity so should be very cheap if scale was a critical factor.

In reply to Tyler:

In reply to Glyno:


About that for Public Sector/NGO. Top of Honister Pass the NT/ LDNP car par charges £7 ish, slate mines Private sector £4 or £5 right next door

In reply to summo:

Local places for local people. Get out of my village.

I always assumed Walna Scar was named because of all the firepits and tyre tracks. Apparently not.

At least now the damage will be contained.

In reply to XXXX:

Rightly or wrongly vehicles have been prohibited on Walna Scar except those with a right / need of access - Farmers, Quarry & MRT for about 5 years now, so the tyre tracks should be fewer.

Right enough there are fire pits as it's become cool to have parties alongside it, where illicit drugs are a common feature.

In reply to summo:
Maybe that's what they are trying to do for this particular piece of ground by.....


You don't think there's a correlation, or that uk doesn't have greater non-resident visitor numbers than Sweden?

Or another way to look at it would be that they are running at capacity so investment is needed to increase capacity. Not like you to advocate cost pricing for services

In reply to Dell:


Thats a bit pointless, if you are visting such a place you will want to stay longer!

In reply to summo:



My NP residents parking pass for the Peak District costs £25 per year, £40 for non residents. If they work out the same scheme for the Lakes, then less than £1 a week (across 45 car parks in the Peak) is pretty good value.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:


My point is more that it's tough finding space to park as much as the cost. Most NP car parks aren't where residents wish to shop etc.. but shrinking the car parks near the hills will push more cars into the already choked towns and villages.

In reply to ebdon:

Why do people think they have some inalienable right to store their private property on publicly owned land ?

In reply to Tyler:

You can't really compare like for like, I agree. But there are elements that UK parks could steal from other nations, if they want to improve the environment and aren't simply trying to ram as many folk into NPs to gawp at a couple of centuries of landscape abuse.

Top end of bohulsän, koster islands. A NP and nature reserve with lots of historic stuff related to fishing. Motorised traffic is banned, visitors walk or cycle. Traffic free llanberis pass or langdale ? To get the boat there, parking is free or about £3/24hrs depending where you park. Free park and ride to boat. So one field in nant Peris for all cars, nominal fee or park further out and it's free.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Well "people" are the public so I guess they can choose to see it as a right if they want.

In reply to summo:

I think you should lay off the Monbiot a bit. A rather key difference with Sweden is the population size in the UK. There is huge pressure on space in many of our NPs, which need managing somehow.

In reply to MG:


So you manage it by pricing people out of it? Expand the national park of the lakes and dales, then get UNESCO status, pushing up housing prices, limiting future developments... etc... great model to be proud of.. all for what?

In reply to summo:


Well you may not like the NPs but millions do. For what? Relaxing, walking climbing, painting, whatever. Of course developments are limited - that's a key point of NPs existing!

In reply to MG:


Millions may like the NP's.

But many do not like the way they are run on our behalf.

In reply to Rick Graham:


What makes you say that? Whinges about car-parking aside.

In reply to MG:

Car parking and housing policies are the ones that affect me personally.

Self serving, empire building jobsworths. I told them that in my last letter to them

I broadly agree with DC on most issues but think "locals " could live anyway between John O Groats and Lands End.

In reply to Rick Graham:



>

What was that bloke called, Tiplady, I would love to know how much pension the LNDP has been paying him every year for the last 10 years.

In reply to MG:

Housing policies, business development, lack infrastructure improvements, a landscape that increase flood risk, lack of environmental variety.


Realistically, if you are pretty comfortable off or a wealthy pensioner then the parks are great. For many others NP policy is just a hindrance, all to maintain a weekend playground.

In reply to summo:


I think you are largely misunderstanding the purpose of NPs.


Who does it hinder? And yes, they are in many ways a playground, something rather important I would say rather than to be sneered at.

In reply to MG:


No, although the UK model differs to that in just about any other country.


Try living in one as I don't think you'll change perspective unless you are close up to it.


It's not sneered at, but maintaining the play ground shouldn't be to the detriment of those living and working in an NP.

If they shed the Victorian mind set, the parks could provide a more varied landscape for wildlife, better infrastructure like 4g for businesses, more housing for locals and all with better paid employment opportunities etc.. but instead folk obsess over some wordsworth description of bleak hills, or paintings by people like Turner.

In reply to summo:

My house is 300m from the boundary - close enough for you?


It has to be in some ways. OTOH the income from.tourism will dwarf any downsides overall.

In reply to MG:

I am astounded you see them as positive given your proximity. But were are all different.

In reply to summo:
If I go left, I am in a heavily built up, semi industrial increasingly urban area. If I go right, I get open space, pleasant villages, climbing, walking etc etc, maintained as a largely a result of NP planning and rules. I want both. Why would I object to the NP?

In reply to MG:

What about those who live in the middle of a large park. Poor local transport, near zero broadband, expensive and insufficient Housing, limited employment... what do they get out of maintaining your picture postcard? The 3 northern England parks are now pretty much coast to coast and 40 or 50+ miles deep. Even the narrow corridor left has bits that are aonb etc..

In reply to summo:

Endless opportunities to sell accommodation, food, drink, guiding etc etc., As well as largely carry on any other business as elsewhere.

In reply to summo:


You missed out the tyranny of the national park planning regulations, which when we bought our house made the replacement of 37 windows, 28 of which date from 1627 a really daunting prospect. Couldn't afford to get someone in, so I did every one myself to Peak Park conservation regulations through a very cold winter. However in retrospect I'm glad I had my arm twisted rather than getting Everest in.
We've got minimal broadband, no Satellite because of the line of protected Ash trees at the top of our land. A 60 mile round trip commute every day to work etc etc. What do we get out of it? Well, mostly living in a beautiful national park and an evening walk up to Froggatt for a climb or over to the Moon in Stoney.

In reply to fred99:

Doubt it - parking is restricted in Coniston and if its a reasonable price people will use it.

In reply to MG:


That'll why the national parks are just full of 20 something year old local kids who stay after their education, the well paid employment opportunities know no limits!!!

In reply to JeffCarroll:

Oh my God - don't give money to fux the fells, they have done enough damage as it is. Ludicrous project. Paths unusable 9 months of the year.
DC

In reply to summo:

Umm, yes it would! Plenty of thriving businesses around here.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

Your house has 37 windows!!

In reply to MG:


Yes, but very small

In reply to MG:


Curious, but a thriving business doesn't mean people are paid enough to live near where they work. The average South Lakeland wage is £18k, average house price is £225k.... Windermere / ambleside area the average rises to £375k....

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

Fair enough but you get the gist, put the profits back into the place rather than their arse pockets..

In reply to JeffCarroll:


If only that could be arranged!
DC

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:


Given the FC is charging £45 a year purely to park at Whinlatter, (e.g you still have to pay down the road at Dodd Wood etc), I expect the LD will want to charge significantly more.

In reply to summo:

So what do you suggest then?
By the sound of it you want some housing estates built to ease the housing problem.
Then you want some business parks built to provide employment.
The people will need entertainment so we will need retail parks and and things like cinemas etc.
Best stick in a hospital too to look after all the people.
It's no longer a nation park it's now a small city.
Do we build this city next to your house or far enough away from you so that you can still enjoy the beauty and solitude of living in the park but have the benefits of all this infrastructure close to hand.

In reply to Dax H:

Perhaps the national parks are at capacity tourist wise? They need policies that allow an improvement in the natural habit, ie less moorland, less over grazing... if that makes them less attractive and house prices fall, then it's a bonus for locals. A more varied landscape would generate more non tourist related and better paid employment in the future.

Yes some sensible building on lakes towns perimeters with clauses for only local workers as residents would be good too.