UKC

I went to the Stanage Open Forum today in Hathersage; the issues of interest to climbers were well described here https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=9740 by Adam and Henry, BMC representatives to the Stanage Steering Group which (if my understanding is correct) is the group of interested parties that came out of the first Stanage Forums.

The meeting today was well attended particularly by climbers, but there were plenty of others from the walking-, biking-, farming- and local residents communities. Officers from the Peak District National Park (PDNP) made brief presentations outlining the PDNP's main aims and vision. The central take away for me is their budget has been slashed like so much of the public sector and they don't see that money coming back, so it is all about 'partnerships', to make less go far.

In open discussion car parking was the number one issue at least amongst the climbers there, particularly after the PDNP got rid of the Stanage sticker scheme: a 15 quid 'donation' but allowed you to park for free at Plantation. The PDNP's position was the scheme had been a 'pilot' but now we could buy the GBP 40 park-wide parking permit. I have heard mention of these things but don't know how you buy one and which car parks it actually covers you to use, there seems to have been no publicity about this scheme even for those who might want to pay. Additionally a number of people made the point that they weren't going to pay that much and were not interested in parking elsewhere, only at Stanage!

The PDNP say the charges at Plantation are going up next year and they will begin enforcing the charges (ticketing I guess). Most users seemed to think that this will result in the Plantation car park seeing even less use and even more parking on the verges being done. The PDNP did mention looking at this issue with Derbyshire CC, which might (although being fair, their reps didn't say this...) lead to yellow lines or posts or rocks etc, being used to force people to use the car park.

My impression, and again this is my personal opinion, is that the people from the PDNP at the meeting, saw the strength of feeling on the parking issue from mainly climbers at the forum, as slightly hostile and responded with a bit of a "well, sorry, but that's the way it is going to be" attitude. This did feel odd a public forum: we the public were being told what would happen, not that we were being asked what we thought should happen.

The PDNP people obviously think on a park-wide basis and Stanage and its car parking are just one bit of a much wider whole, but for climbers, particularly those willing to turn up on Saturday afternoon to a public meeting on Stanage, the crag, and how we get to it, looms large in our consciousness. I felt there was some "cross purposes" going on and that is probably the source of it.

If anyone else was there and think my impressions are wrong, please chime in!

In reply to TobyA:

Good thread and thank you for posting

In reply to TobyA:

Hi Toby,
The details for the parking permit is on the Peak Park website. It covers a large number of car parks and is 25 quid for residents, otherwise 40 quid. There's a phone number to call to purchase the pass.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

Cheers Paul. I believe they said the price will be the same for everyone from next year, and perhaps not unsurprisingly that same price is the 40 quid level, not the 25!

In reply to TobyA:

Bang goes my resident's discount! Still a bargain though.

In reply to TobyA:

That seems a rather dishonest spin to put on it, that parking permit has been around for donkeys' years - since *well* before the introduction of the Stand Up for Stanage sticker.

In reply to deepsoup:

I presume what they meant was that climbers weren't buying the yearly permits but the BMC promoted Stanage sticker was bought by many. Now they are stopping the stickers but obviously thinking that people who had bought them will buy the park-wide I'm not certain but I think the Stanage stickers became available around the same time I moved to the UK, so I became aware of that programme and bought one, but I had never heard about the Peak yearly permit until it was mentioned at BMC Peak area meeting. I don't think any of the people I've climbed with over the last few years has one and I've never noticed any info about them for example on the sign boards in the car parks.

It's annoying that the Curbar Gap car park isn't one covered by the permit - I think its NT, or Fairholmes because that's Severn Trent.

In reply to TobyA:

The Peak Park's focus on car parking charges for revenue generation is so lame and lacking in imagination. Where possible they should be encouraging use, not taxing it. They were palpably exasperated at suggestions to the contrary as if increasing charges was the only and obvious way. There are a myriad of better ways to tap up users voluntarily if users felt warm and fuzzy and trusting about who they were giving to...hmmm

The Peak Park choose to hang on to ownership of Northlees/Stanage - they didn't have to. If they lack the finances (or enterprise to raise the finance) in order to manage the estate they could have passed ownership on to a third party who does. Presumably it is still on their gift to do so. The Eastern Moors Partnership shows how it can and should be done.

I noted they had listed as a priority to have a plan for Stanage for 18/19. You'd think they'd have one in place already. Doesn't inspire confidence.

In reply to Dicky Stamp:

I put pics up of the PDNPA's priority list for the next 2 years here: https://twitter.com/TobyinHelsinki/status/911720779905191936

In reply to TobyA:

I didn't realise that - I'm sure they used to cover Curbar Gap a few years back.
(I bought one a couple of times back when they were about 25 quid.)

Doesn't cover the relatively new P&D machines at the Robin Hood (for Birchen & Chatsworth edges) either I suppose?

In reply to profitofdoom:


I agree P of D but what would you know - you're on Curbar?
Taxi!

In reply to TobyA:
It amazes and disappoints me that climbers are so averse to paying for parking to support such a valuable resource in the face of massive government cuts, a lot less than cost of admission to any of Sheffield's climbing walls which people are more than happy to pay

In reply to kevin stephens:

I'm sure that's the case for some, but by no means all. Some, including myself, were trying to make the point that lower fees at Plantation might lead to increased usage - currently it is rarely that busy, which might be something to do with it being £4.50 if you are there for more than I think 4 hrs (I need to check their website for the fees, but that is the all day price). Because all the other parking isn't charged for, people actively avoid Plantation. I made the point that even if costs didn't change using machines that take cards or a phone app might increase revenue - do you have 4 one pound coins and a fifty pence at the ready? I'm hopeless at having cash on me but I don't think that's unusual. We could pay parking and for bus and tram tickets by phone in Finland 10 years ago, maybe earlier.

Anyway, my main point is the Plantation car park is often 3/4 empty and increasing fees seems likely to just amplify people parking (legally) for free elsewhere.

In reply to deepsoup:


They do list them on their website. I think it might cover those, although I don't think I have paid there because our national trust sticker covered that one, although Surprise View also seems to be shared between NT and PDNPA.

In reply to TobyA:

What we need is an "Eastern Grit" sticker/parking-permit covering Plantation, Surprise View, Curbar Gap and the Birchen car park. If that were, say, £25 it would likely be widely supported by climbers.

£40 for a permit that doesn't cover Curbar Gap is going to be less well supported.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Yes, that would be great wouldn't it? But the impression the PDNPA authority officers gave was its not going to happen. Again my impression was this has already been decided. They made the point that the ticket costs were set on a par with car parking nationally - and I can see the sense in that; you might have to pay 4.50 or a fiver to park all day in a city centre or at some major attraction somewhere. But the point I tried to make at least is Plantation car park is competing with some NCP car park in the middle of Sheffield, it is competing with people pulling onto the verge by the toilets, or Hook's Car and Dennis Knoll - the free parking further south and north. If they halved the price would they double the usage? I don't know but it seems worth considering.

In reply to TobyA:
Am I alone in being slightly disappointed that this just comes down to an argument about car parks? Frankly, if the only outcome of the Peak Park's continued reduction in funding is an increase in car park charges then I'd probably count that as a win

In reply to toad:

I don't think that's really fair but I see why you would perhaps get that impression from my original post. The meeting was called the Stanage Open Forum but PDNPA mainly spoke about the entirety of the PDNP with little specific about Stanage and North Lees estate. If you read Henry and Adam's article from the BMC last week, one of the big issue seems to have been new people in important positions in the PDNPA (who we met yesterday) and very little or indeed no institutional memory on their part of what climbers and the BMC (along with other user groups) had done previously, *in partnership with the National Park*, the Stanage sticker being the most obvious. They said it was all about partnerships but didn't seem to be recognising previously successful partnership projects. Earlier this year some voluntary members who sat on the steering group resigned in protest of how the PDNPA was treating the forum post the changes in staff.

And again, it doesn't seem that the PDNPA is maximising income from Plantation because its simply not used that much due to free parking being available, and my guess is that it will get used less if he prices go up more and there will be more problems with roadside parking (one local resident said he lives close to Dennis Knoll so is well aware of how often the road becomes very narrow there due to parking).

In reply to TobyA:

Good stuff starting the thread Toby - and good to meet you there yesterday.

IRT Toad: I'd agree with everything Toby says in his reply, but your post offers a good reflection on how the meeting was conducted. On the surface, the issue of parking did seem to be the focus of the meeting but really I felt that this was just one example of the way in which the Peak Park Authority demonstrated a disinclination to work in partnerships unless it suits them. In their corporate-style presentations at the start (which were about their strategy for the Peak Park as a whole, and only partially relevant to Stanage / the North Lees Estate) they made a big deal of being willing to work in partnership with other stakeholders, but the impression I got as the meeting went along was that this willingness only extended to opportunities to increase their revenue. I do have some sympathy for them that money has to come from somewhere, and central government budget cuts are not going to replace themselves. A good example of where they are willing to work in partnership is with the BMC's Mend Our Mountains campaign. But when it came to discussing local issues (such as the parking at Stanage, discontinuing the Stanage Sticker, who will replace Bill Gordon and the extent of their role etc) they were demonstrably disinterested in debate or shared decision making. Two good examples of this were the statement that the decision about car parking and parking fines are "irreversible" (which, as was pointed out by another attendee, cannot possibly be the case with any decision); and secondly almost every suggestion that was made was discounted. This created an air of hostility towards them, which to be fair, they didn't deal with very effectively by becoming defensive and listening even less. I found it pretty sad to see.

Seeing as parking was the focal point of the discussion, I'd just like to make clear for anyone unfamilar with the Stanage Sticker that this was expressly advertised as a donation to Stanage. I think this is much more palatable to many climbers than paying for parking (it certainly is for me). It meant that your money was ringfenced for improving the accessibility to Stanage, the conservation of the flora and fauna in that area, and was not going to be leeched into shemes such as private companies enforcing parking regulations. This helped to improve trust with the NP authority. This scheme was borne out of and promoted by the Stanage Forum. The fact that this was discontinued by the NP Authority without any consultation shows how far away they are from truly working in partnership. To me, this is at the heart of the issue. The parking charges etc are symptomatic of this.

In reply to TobyA:
I was talking to a random climber group yesterday before we cleared off and the tone from their group was along the lines of refusing to pay and that expanding foam does wonders to meters. Personally I've never paid a parking fine and disagree with vandalism in the strongest possible terms as we have no right to damage things we don't own. I've a nice collection of parking fines in my office drawer, they provide me with much happiness. I just wonder if these authorities have considered the potential baclash?

I'm also interested to know what these costs are that the park authority need to cover. I've never been a huge fan of human management but that doesn't mean us scepticss can't be reasoned with. There needs to be a clearer broadcast of what the money is needed for.

In reply to olddirtydoggy:


It's needed to pay all the people at head office, whose job is to raise sufficient money from the Park to . . . pay all the people at head office.

In reply to olddirtydoggy:


My wife just got a hefty parking charge for overstaying in a shop carpark. What happens when you don't pay them? I presumed ultimately they would sell on the debt to a debt collection agency and they would ruin your credit rating and generally harass you unpleasantly?

In reply to deepsoup:




Robin Hood and Curbar Gap are covered by the Eastern Moors Partnership: RSPB and NT members can park for free.

The PDNP permit covers carparks that are run by the PDNP.

In reply to Andy Reeve:


This is the crunch: income from the Stanage Sticker was ringfenced for Stanage. The park-wide parking permit just goes in to a general pot.

On the one hand the PDNPA call Stanage the "jewel in their crown", on the other hand they're treating it like a cheap pair of earrings jumbled up in a drawer with everything else.

In reply to TobyA:


It probably depends on the policies of the shop. I doubt they have the right to charge you at all. Fines are issued by courts and I doubt they'll take you to court.

Go Outdoors actually sent someone round my house to try to get £90 off me for parking in there car park. I never paid and never heard any more about it.

It's possible they start writing threatening letters to you. Just ignore them. If they pass it on to debt collectors then they'll write letters to you. And then (unlikely) they'll pass it on to bailiffs who will write threatening letters, often written in caps with red borders and other symbolism to make them look urgent and important. But at the end of the day, if you just ignore all of them and never answer the door or interact with them in anyway they'll just give up and leave you alone. (IMPORTANT. Never ever let bailiffs into your house. Once they've been let in once they've got the right to go in again using force if necessary).

Not sure about the credit rating stuff. To be safe if you're thinking of getting a credit card get one sooner rather than later.

In reply to kevin stephens:


Well there's a huge investment and lot of work that goes into climbing walls. From rent of the property, utility bills and high insurance, cost of building the wall, cost of holds, safety checks, route setting and full time staff. And yet the difference is not that much. In fact in some cases it can be cheaper to go to the wall (eg. off peak and lunch time specials).

Stanage is something that was formed by nature at zero cost to anyone and as a natural resource should be free for anyone to use. If people don't cough up and PDNP end up with less money it will interesting to see what happens besides a few job losses in that organization.

In reply to stp:



That's an incredibly selfish attitude

In reply to toad:

Eh? How on earth is that selfish? I'm saying it should be free for anyone.

In reply to stp: I'd have thought you'd be familiar with this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

You can't pretend that North Lees is some sort of open ended resource. You need to pay for the erosion mitigation work, the supervision of the conservation work ( including making sure the ring ouzel continue to be protected), and yes, the car parking provision. Saying it's zero cost is either disingenuous or naive. I hope it's the latter.

I don't think you can treat north lees in isolation, either. I'm not a big fan of ring fencing funding for one specific site or task, but I don't think the park are winning any friends here. I'm a member of a couple of friends groups and this is an archetypal local authority behaviour. They want the credibility of being able to cite local involvement in their fund raising efforts - often it's a prerequisite for accessing certain grants, but they don't want the community interfering in their grand plans so any sign of groups going off message and they will try to freeze them out.

In reply to stp:


It is free.

In reply to toad:
Out of interest, how exactly are the ring ouzel protected? I've only ever seen a handful of signs placed in the locale of their nesting activity.

In reply to kevin stephens:

I've probably only parked at plantation a dozen times at the most but have never seen the pay and display machine working. If it worked I'd pay.

In reply to TobyA:

It doesn't affect your credit rating as they don't really exist. It's only a problem if they go to court but they rarely do. As long as people en masse don't pay them then it will continue in our favour. I doubt you'll be turned away for a mortgage over a disputed parking fine. Never reply to fines or letters unless they have a court date.

In reply to toad:

I remember when those cark parks were just gravel pull ins. Somebody put a gate and some fencing round and suddenly it needs patying for and managing.

In reply to stp:

Nobody's charging you to climb at Stanage, you are right it is totally free. It's only the car parking that is being charged for

In reply to stp:

Are you sure? I think you might have got bailiffs confused with vampires!

In reply to TobyA:

That would certainly encourage me to use pay car parks more often. I often begrudge the use of a dwindling supply of coins (and the faff of replenishing them) more than the actual charge.

Coins only payment for parking made more sense when it was the only feasible option and charges were always well under a fiver. These days, there's no technological reason not to give alternatives and charges have risen to a point where taking a week's worth of change with you probably means a few kilograms of coins!

(Card payments, please. Preferably contactless for speed and ease of use. Apps are all very well but every organisation has a different one with a different long-winded registration process.)

Surprise View is card only - no coin slot

In reply to Luke90:

Ha! I don't think there's much difference, except bailiffs really do exist.

In reply to kevin stephens:

Have you thought about the practicalities of how they'd go about charging for climbing there? Bit of a non starter.

There's no public transport to Stanage so car is pretty much the only option for most people.

In reply to olddirtydoggy:

Good to know. From that it sounds like, in a practical sense at least, paying for parking at Stanage will continue to be voluntary then.

In reply to kevin stephens:


I'm happy to pay 2 or 3 pounds to park for a day somewhere like the plantation. But once it gets to 5, 6, or more then you're paying the same as you would in a city centre with cctv and sometimes an attendant to provide security - and you're getting none of these, just a parking area surrounded by trees to allow thieves to work unnoticed. Charge too much and I'll inconvenience myself slightly to park somewhere cheaper/free.

These season tickets are probably good value if you're a local, but I'm not and £40 per year is poor value.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

It was commented at the meeting that quite often when the Plantation car park is fairly empty the verges have lots of cars scuffing up the ground and causing some obstruction. By enforcing the charges (which they currently don't) this is likely to get worse.

Someone pointed out that they introduced banking around the entrance to to prevent this but at what cost? Many schemes cost more in administration than they accumulate. For those that are happy to pay how much of that charge are you happy to go in head office admin, meter costs and meter upkeep?

The Stanage sticker may not be the complete answer but it was both voluntary and all the money went back into the running of Stanage.

In reply to TobyA:

Good thread and summary Toby.

The main problem from my perspective was the PDNPA gave us nothing to comment on. On the other stakeholder groups I sit on (and the Stanage forum in the past) meetings involve the land manager bringing us up to date on work done and in progress, and to seek comment on planned work. All we got on Saturday was some vague management level aspirations. So when it came to the debate they gave us nothing to comment on. Inevitably parking filled the gap.

In reply to TobyA:

Surely we the public - who are being asked to work in partnership to help save Stanage - need to see the overall land management costs for the area in discussion?

We all need to understand what the costs are we are discussing - what the potential funding gap is and therefore what the possible strategies we wish to employ to help close the gap?

The scale of the problem needs to be transparently communicated - we can then democratically decide the best courses of action to begin to address these issues.

Getting bogged down early on discussing car parking is not particularly helpful for anyone. We need to see the whole picture so we can begin to understand how to work towards solving the problem.

In reply to kevin stephens:


Doesn't amaze me at all; humans behave in all kinds of short-sighted ways when incentives aren't set up right. The situation at Plantation is just downright stupid - a large and not particularly cheap car park next to uncontrolled, free roadside parking. Of course it's always nearly empty! Roadside parking should be prohibited for some distance in either direction - and the price of the parking lowered, not raised. What on earth is the point of raising charges at an empty car park?

In reply to bpmclimb:

The parking fees are in line with national levels. That was what I was repeatedly told, I even mentioned briefly supply and demand but it seems the PDNPA don't seem to think basic economic models are worth considering!

In reply to robw007:





I'm not sure who you are addressing here - climbers or the PDNP.

Firstly Stanage doesn't need saving it needs managing - ideally in as low key and unobtrusive way as possible - balancing the needs of wide variety as users. We dont know if there is a funding gap because there is no plan for Stanage yet and we don't know the combined income from the campsite and rent from North Lees farm and how central costs might be apportioned - lts of scope for fudging there.

The reason there is no plan is that whilst the PDNP describes Stanage as "the jewel in their crown" they don't treat it operationally or strategically as a distinct area with its own profit and loss. I see it as distinct and I think most climbers and hillwalkers and other users do too - it is a long established estate.

Why is the PDNP hanging on to Stanage? - they have never explained. They were going to offer it up to a consortium of interested groups like the successful Eastern Moors Partnership but changed their mind. On the basis of Saturday's performance its high time the management was prised away from the bureaucrats of Bakewell and put in the hands of user groups that actually do genuinely care and are emotionally invested rather than pretend they do.

As for "democratically deciding the best course of action" - forget it - the PDNP is an unelected and unaccountable quango.

In reply to kevin stephens:


Indeed. It's also a cost which can be halved or reduced even further by car sharing. I'm surprised the car parking at Popular isn't charged for - it would be a goldmine (or rather it would help to cover the government cuts...).

On reflection, would the Stanage experience be improved by halving the number of parking spots at Popular? I'm all for access but there's access and then there's Stanage Popular on a nice day... not that I go there these days but it can't be good for the local environment.

In reply to Luke90:

Not specific to car parking, but... Why don't pay machines in Britain give change? Is is just the extra cost? I'm sure people would use them more often and less grudgingly if they weren't (effectively) surcharged for not having the right money.

In reply to edwardwoodward:

Or simply gave you extra parking time for the money spent.

In reply to Dicky Stamp:

I was addressing the PDNP.

If we the public are being invited to take place in some sort of debate to 'save' Stanage then we need to be presented with the facts - not addressed via flashy presentations that dont actually mean anything. We need to see the plan you mention and understand the funding situation.

Ive made this comment previously in BMC area meets.

And I totally agree - the management needs to be made up of groups that use and care for this unique area.

In reply to robw007:

The income report from parking charges across the park is available on the PDNPA website. I actually found that more quickly than I found the information on how to pay for a yearly permit!

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

The retiring legend that is the PDNP Ranger Bill Gordon carries out extensive surveys each year to try and locate every nesting location along the edge, place the signs to try and keep people away from them, monitor the progress of the nest and then remove the signs after the birds have left/hopefully fledged. Without people like Bill, this wouldn't happen and undoubtedly instances of nest disturbances would increase.

His expertise (37+ years) is rightly not free and will be missed.

In reply to robw007:

As I understand it the Stanage Forum is made up of user groups and the Open Forum was a public meeting of the Forum to which the public can attend and the PDNP as Estate Managers were invited to come.

I don't think the PDNP Managers who attended saw it as an entreaty to "Save Stanage" requiring debate but an exercise in ticking the "engage stakeholder" box (ie fob them off) so they can get on with unilaterally deciding whatever they choose to do. The "irreversible" response on car parking policy mentioned above was classic.

In reply to TobyA:

Regarding the 'pay and display' and parking on the verges. Sometimes I don't know how long I'm going to be climbing for, I might head up find that I'm climbing terribly that day and leave. Or I might be having a brilliant day and want to keep climbing by head torch until late. Neither of these days work if I have to decide how many hours to buy, and have the threat of being locked in. So that's why I have and will park outside the plantation car park. Just another angle to it- happy to pay for the stanage sticker tho! As mentioned above, feels as if you're doing something good not just giving your money to an unknown cause.

In reply to BAdhoc:

Also, do you want to pay for a day and then get midged off after 30 minutes because the wind dropped.

In reply to TobyA:
I would be happy to pay for parking at Stanage if I knew that the proceeds were to be used for the management of the estate for the benefit of everybody.