BMC update on National trust land licenced activity proposals

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Offwidth 06 Apr 2016
The BMC have released a useful looking update on this issue:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/national-trust-activity-licence-update

Link to the previous thread:

http://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/t.php?t=634688&v=1#x8237010
In reply to Offwidth:

Concerning times. The NT are in danger of appearing to operate on a purely business model and potentially leading the way for other landowners to do the same. Well done to the BMC for raising their concerns.
OP Offwidth 06 Apr 2016
In reply to L'Eeyore:

There are issues to be faced though. We want our beautiful places to be open and free but they do need funding for upkeep from somewhere.
In reply to Offwidth:

> There are issues to be faced though.

Agreed, I'm just glad that organisations like the BMC are there to represent my views.

> We want our beautiful places to be open and free but they do need funding for upkeep from somewhere.

Getting political now, but the funding should come from voluntary donations, if we lived in a world where people looked after the wider world we wouldn't be having this discussion. I really don't want to be walking up a hill in 20 years time protesting about my right to wonder - surely the UK has got past that sort of ideology.

 toad 06 Apr 2016
In reply to L'Eeyore:
> Getting political now, but the funding should come from voluntary donations,
.
This is the root of the problem - statutory funding has been slashed to unsustainable levels. Funding has to be found elsewhere, and some of that will come from voluntary sources. Unfortunately taking groups onto NT land could be considered a voluntary activity. The NT can't let such an income go by, just because we see ourselves (maybe rightly, maybe not) as a special case. Should the NT treat professional outdoor recreation differently from, say, their grazing tenants? They contribute to managing the landscape people visit, and contribute to the local economy, but they are still expected to pay.

Unfortunately (as we've seen time and again with threads about parking charges) people are reluctant to contribute voluntarily, or if they are, their idea of a reasonable payment is usually less than the real cost. The Tragedy of the Commons is old news now, but the problem remains. If the state can't or won't pay for the upkeep of this land, then someone else has to.


if we lived in a world where people looked after the wider world we wouldn't be having this discussion. I really don't want to be walking up a hill in 20 years time protesting about my right to wonder - surely the UK has got past that sort of ideology.

No, I think that the idea of exclusive or privileged access is pretty much ingrained in parts of society, I think we will always have to be on our guard against people wanting to rescind or restrict our access. And running parallel to that is a reluctance to adequately support the management of those places we do have access to, often by the very people who value that access.

And no, I haven't a clue how to sort this mess out
Post edited at 14:08
OP Offwidth 06 Apr 2016
In reply to L'Eeyore:

Can you explain that second point a little more clearly?
OP Offwidth 06 Apr 2016
In reply to toad:

I'd agree with all of that.
In reply to Offwidth:

I think Toad has explained my views far better than I could.

I'd just like to add that I think the NT view is a further regressive step in the commercialisation/economic value of everything.

As a charity I think the NT should be campaigning for voluntary support rather than enforced financial support - whether that idea is feasible or not I don't know.

P.S. I think the whole subject should get wider coverage, especially on UCK/H
In reply to L'Eeyore:

We're working on an article!
 jonnie3430 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

As far as I can tell from the article, the nt is proposing that anyone that is paying for instructors on their land pays 3% to them. I don't have any issues with this, it doesn't impact me as i don't pay for an instructor and I do feel that activity groups do larger amounts of wear on the environment due to their activities and their clients than climbers do and should mitigate the damage.
OP Offwidth 06 Apr 2016
In reply to jonnie3430:

... and the BMC point out they cannot legally do this in certain cases (like staying on public rights of way).
 olddirtydoggy 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

Personally I can't stand what the NT has become. It needs stripping right back to the basic function it was designed to do. The bigger it gets, the more money it will eat up. It's got involved in some projects I strongly disagree with.
2
 Andy Say 06 Apr 2016
In reply to jonnie3430:

> I don't have any issues with this, it doesn't impact me as i don't pay for an instructor and I do feel that activity groups do larger amounts of wear on the environment due to their activities and their clients than climbers do and should mitigate the damage.

I do. It depends a lot on the nature of the 'land' under consideration. If it is classed as 'Access Land' under CRoW then all recreation on foot is legitimate.

And just what is an 'activity group'? A climbing club meet? A navigation course? A first aid course? And why do they do more damage to the environment than a similar number of proper 'climbers'?
2
 Andy Say 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

We have been here before with the United Utilities proposals for issuing licenses for 'activities' on their land about 10 years back. Guy Keating from the BMC and myself were involved in initial meetings with UU. Looks like the NT has taken that 'scheme' as their blueprint. But what UU found was that it was unpoliceable and they quickly retrenched to only asking for license applications from car rallies, fell races and other 'major' events.

NT don't have the resources to enforce these suggestions.
 Geordie Jeans 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Offwidth:
Owning a small outdoor company I decided to voice my concerns about this to a ranger I know in Langdale. He spoke with his boss' and has reassured me that they will NOT charge groups of 12 persons or less (even if you have the occasional group of 14 you will be spared). Also he stated that no child groups will be charged. This in my mind leaves only large adult groups.

If this is true it would result in little or no concerns for most outdoor groups. While this is great it also makes no sense to me at all seen as though most traffic/wear and tear is down (in my opinion) to the massive coach loads of kids in groups of 20+ all turning up to ghylls/crags at the same time.

An example is the many coaches that come to stickle ghyll in langdale every day to do the scramble. I see organisations that bring 3 coaches of 20+ kids all at the same time to get in the ghyll in three teams of 20 all together. This is just overcrowding and spoils things for everyone else. The guys at the NT who clean the toilets at stickle ghyll and look after the car park must get sick of it.

I just wish the big players would put a bit more thought into overcrowding and used a bit of common sense when it comes to organising their groups and choosing a location. Maybe then we wouldn't be in this situation.

Although I hope that what the ranger said is true I can see both sides.

My real issue is that this scheme is being piloted over the next 6 month and yet the NT have neither afore warned us nor published anything. Therefore outdoor companies are left to speculate. Is this just going to suddenly come into play and if so what happens to the bookings we have already taken. Do we then have the potential reputation harming task of having to get in touch with all our customers and charging them more, or do we take the hit ourselves after the devastation of storm Desmond? Would we have to cancel groups we've already agreed to run due to a rota system being put in place to minimise traffic?
Post edited at 18:16
 JimmAwelon 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

Interesting that there are no welsh locations in the NTs list of 21 pilot properties. I doubt if you could say that there is not the pressure on their upland estates in Wales - eg Carneddau, Glyderau, Hafod y Llan (Snowdon). So perhaps they have been horizon scanning and seen something on open access law in the pipeline in Wales to stop them in their tracks?
OP Offwidth 06 Apr 2016
In reply to Craig McMahon:

Name and shame. The BMC green guide is clear about such blatant monopolising practice as being bad. In the Peak most groups are pretty well behaved these days. Probably mostly down to trained good practice but part protection of reputation.
 olddirtydoggy 07 Apr 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

Just refuse to pay........
In reply to L'Eeyore:

>protesting about my right to wonder

Great typo. It's almost like your spellchecker has a soul.

jcm
 summo 07 Apr 2016
In reply to toad:
> This is the root of the problem - statutory funding has been slashed to unsustainable levels. Funding has to be found elsewhere, and some of that will come from voluntary sources.

or manage the land so it provides an income.

> . If the state can't or won't pay for the upkeep of this land, then someone else has to.

same old argument as above, there is no reason why land can't be made to pay it ways, with different farming methods, forestry etc.. only the NPs are in the way.

> if we lived in a world where people looked after the wider world we wouldn't be having this discussion. I really don't want to be walking up a hill in 20 years time protesting about my right to wonder - surely the UK has got past that sort of ideology.

it is a self inflicted problem. You have a reasonable populated area that is than classified as precious in a NP or AONB, you tie the land owners hands so they can't make changes that could bring more income in, then complain when the landowner spots another revenue line.

The forestry commission charges people for group use of it's land for sports and events already. Pretty bad really, state owned and open access laws etc..

 MG 07 Apr 2016
In reply to summo:

I think most people quite like having NPs.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Wonder/wander - They are words that I have to stop and have a think about the correct spelling. In this instance I knew the correct spelling but thought the alternative was better (it doesn't often happen that way though).

Thank you for saying my internal spellchecker has a soul
 toad 07 Apr 2016
In reply to summo:

I'm not quite sure what your point is, are you saying that landowners should be permitted to charge for commercial users? I'm also confused about the reference to NPs - The National Trust have many areas within their pilot project that aren't within NPs.

Are you saying that statutory protection prevents landowners from using their land as they like, or that such status protects access? As it stands, our NP legislation is primarily about protecting landscapes and the visual aesthetic, rather than ensuring access. There are still many parts of our national parks where access is severely limited, but can be viewed from the roadside.

And of course the statutory conservation/ planning bodies and the NT are entirely different in their goals and constitution. FWIW, the conservation bodies have a long history of either charging for access or restricting access to a (paid for) membership. The NT are slightly different in that they have some underpinning in legislation, but that isn't quite relevant here- it's unlikely the NT would wish for a relaxation in the planning system in protected areas so that they could (for example) run quad safaris or plough grassland for oilseed rape.

Typically any form of alternative land use relies on exclusive use of that land, be it to prevent crop trampling or to allow shooting parties. Also that very exclusivity has a financial premium - land with unfettered access commands a lower price than the equivalent land with no such rights.

Sorry if this doesn't answer your point, but I wasn't entirely sure what they were!
 summo 07 Apr 2016
In reply to toad:

my point was that the landowners within NPs, or tenants of NT land are hugely restricted in their practice, primarily through the desire to maintain the land as some kind of living museum. Everyone moans about the rich lords and grouse moors, over grazing by sheep etc.. but then when somebody talks about changing the landscape to produce other incomes they get shouted down, as though the view is some kind of national treasure etc..

There is no reason why you can't have open access and still have profitable land be it a field, forest, etc.. it works in any of the Nordics. If it was some national law in the UK to have true open access, then there would no premiums attached to land prices due to the level of access on it.

The notion of a group being charged for access, be it by a charity like NT or the state via Forestry Commission is totally wrong and a massive step in the wrong direction.
 toad 07 Apr 2016
In reply to summo:

ah, ok, I see what you mean. I think the first point is particularly important, and fits into the rewilding debate as well. There needs to be some sort of conversation about land use and landscape and the NT and the various Friends of.. groups need to consider their position wrt landscapes set in aspic.

I'm not averse to charging in some instances for use of the countryside, but this is probably what any conversation between the BMC and the NT should consider, rather than an absolute opposition to any charging. I appreciate this might be a minority view.
 Andy Say 07 Apr 2016
In reply to L'Eeyore:

> Wonder/wander - They are words that I have to stop and have a think about the correct spelling. In this instance I knew the correct spelling but thought the alternative was better (it doesn't often happen that way though).

I had the same thing with 'wether' / 'whether'. Then I found out a wether is a castrated ram and I never mis-spelled again.

 Andy Say 07 Apr 2016
In reply to toad:

> I'm not averse to charging in some instances for use of the countryside, but this is probably what any conversation between the BMC and the NT should consider, rather than an absolute opposition to any charging. I appreciate this might be a minority view.

No problem for charging for campsites, organised events etc. But this scheme was started by a NT officer in the S.E. who saw that there were loads of professional dog-walkers using gated estates in his area and decided that there should be a revenue stream. I can't name names but NT staff in the Lakes (for example) acknowledge that it is unworkable on their patch and just won't happen.
 toad 08 Apr 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

It's interesting that on the NT facebook page there were a fair number of posts protesting/ enquiring about this, but no response from the Trust. By contrast someone asking about dog walking gets an answer straight away. Wonder if they are hoping this issue might go away if they ignore it.

 cas smerdon 14 Apr 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

Are they going to stop every group of 2 or more people walking on the hills and ask if any of them have paid to be accompanied?

If someone is partway up a multi-pitch climb bringing up 2 seconds will an NT enforcer solo up and ask to see if you have a permit?

Do small groups who have paid to be accompanied because they are new to the outdoors cause more erosion than groups of friends who have not exchanged money?

I can see that organised events like fell runs or three peaks could cause extra damage and could be licenced but it would be hard to police small groups.

Will they be paying to provide mountain rescue on their land? After all if you charge for use there follows responsibility. Or horror of horrors will they actually charge mountain rescue to go onto their land? What happened to free access.

The masses from the Kinder Scout Mass Trespass will be turning in their graves ( or hobbling up there now with their zimmer frames!)

Maybe they need to create more car parks where they can charge. It is hard to park in a lot of areas.

 callwild 15 Apr 2016
In reply to Craig McMahon:

I hope this is true Craig as I have only seen the Trust letter which says All who receive payment.
First the implication that the Trust are vetting leaders for suitable experience before giving a license is worrying as it is not their place to do this or check that suitable insurance is in place. This is a 1st step before making everyone in the hills have liability insurance. again not the landowners job to impose this.
Secondly the notice says when applying the leader must submit risk assessments and details of their route. this is completely impossible for the mountain leader or guide picking their clients up in the morning before making a choice dependent on weather and ability.
It would be better to call this a Tax not a Licence and clearly state that is was collecting money for repair work from groups not a licence for all who take money. there are so many exeptions such as educational needs that it will be impossible to run.
 neal 18 Apr 2016
In reply to summo:

Landowners (including the NT) are paid very handsomely by the tax payer supposedly for managing their land for the public good (in reality they often do very little that they wouldn't otherwise do). Landowners in the Nordic countries are also heavily subsidised, and i doubt much of the agriculture there is any more profitable without subsidies than it is here. I agree about not preserving in aspic, however.
 neal 18 Apr 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

As well as being totally impractical, poorly thought-through, and probably counter-productive in terms of raising revenue for the NT (I certainly will never contribute to any of their campaigns again if they continue with this), this licensing scheme is deeply worrying because of the precedence it sets, which could be used by other landowners to gradually erode access rights. I paste below an extract from an email I sent to the NT explaining these concerns (as a member, perhaps not for much longer). I should say I don't work in the outdoors and have no financial interest here:
_____________________

"... I know that access to open country is protected for non-commercial activity, so this scheme doesn't *at present* affect ordinary walkers and climbers. However, those rights were hard-won, are incomplete, and only exist by the grace of parliament. They could easily be overturned (or more likely, progressively eroded) on the whim of this or any future government. Now, I'm sure that you will say that this is not the Trust's intention. However, it does not matter whether it is the Trust's intention, what matters is that this scheme sets a very dangerous precedent that could be exploited by other landowners to undermine or restrict access to the countryside (something that many landowners have only ever grudgingly accepted). The National Trust, because of it's unique legal and cultural position, has huge influence, and consequently a responsibility to be very careful in how it acts.

Let me sketch a plausible hypothetical scenario to illustrate my point:

Let's say the NT rolls out this licensing scheme for commercial activity. Other landowners follow suit (after all, the NT does it, it must be OK). Then these other landowners say that they need to apply similar schemes (maybe without payment) for other organised non-commercial groups (for environmental reasons of course) initially on non access land. Then they want to do it on access land, and the government agrees: after all, it's to protect the environment, and who can object to that? Mountaineering club meets, even informal walking groups like the one I lead walks for are drawn into the arrangements. Then (only in particularly sensitive areas initially, of course) they start requiring individual climbers to be licensed, to attend environmental and safety trainings (as already happens at Range West, albeit for quite particular reasons). Then they start requiring us to sign in and out each time (all for the environment and safety, of course! Who could argue with that?) Then they start requiring climbers to prove their competence. And so on, and so on.

Each of the steps described above are quite small, reasonable-sounding. It's not hard to imagine governments of any political persuasion acquiescing - after all, it follows the general trend towards the bureaucratization of everything, and the monetization of the environment. In a way, it doesn't matter whether they ever start charging for access - that's not the biggest concern: before we know it, access to open land has been formalized, bureaucratized, and the reasons many of us climb or walk (which are often not primarily about exercise, or 'challenge', but the less tangible benefits of escape) have been killed off...."
 summo 18 Apr 2016
In reply to neal:
> Landowners (including the NT) are paid very handsomely by the tax payer supposedly for managing their land for the public good (in reality they often do very little that they wouldn't otherwise do). Landowners in the Nordic countries are also heavily subsidised, and i doubt much of the agriculture there is any more profitable without subsidies than it is here. I agree about not preserving in aspic, however.

are they paid handsomely, or are they paid by CAP to simply make farming profitable, because food sells for too little in the UK shops? If milk is bought by a supermarket for less than it currently costs a farmer to produce it, even at todays diesel prices, then it is tax payers via Brussels than are providing the farmer with a living, not the consumer who drinks the milk they produce.

Farmers don't have much say at all in how they manage their land in terms of receiving the money from CAP that keeps the banks at bay though. Most would prefer things to be much different. A new version of CAP comes out and farmers have to modify what they do, or have less income, which usually means more debt, especially in dairy.

Norwegian farmers are subsidised a little higher by their own government, than they would if they were in CAP. But, despite animals being indoors a little more than most of Europe, they have one of the lowest uses of antibiotics and other drugs in their animal chain of all European farms. So perhaps animal welfare and quality produce has a price? They also value maintain an independent supply within their own country as much as possible.

Sweden/ Denmark follow standard CAP, with no extra money from government coffers. Denmark's welfare standards are base level EU, but their antibiotic use is very high, so I don't touch Danish meat. Sweden has higher welfare standards that the EU baseline, which are checked by no notice inspections and their antibiotic use is similar to Norway ie very low.

Finland, it all starts to go a bit further down hill from there on in, but again they don't subsidise they farmers above CAP, so they effectively get the same as the UK? Iceland, no idea.

Farming is more profitable in Sweden, Norway or Denmark simply because all food costs more to buy. Meat for example is probably twice the price for the cheaper cuts than the UK. You would never get a frozen chicken for £2 or 3, orr mince for a couple of quid a kilo, it costs over twice that even for the cheap stuff. But, a fair proportion of people here take some national pride and will pay more for local stuff. I think it's because of the right to roam etc.. which most people do, there is a greater connection between people, the outdoors and their food chain.
Post edited at 11:20
 bpmclimb 03 May 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

On the list of objectives provided by the NT, the bit about revenue comes at the end (John Arran pointed this out very early on in the other thread, but I think it bears repeating). It's obviously the most significant factor - do the NT really believe that providers aren't going to notice it so much if they slip it in at the end? I hate that sort of thing: it's a disingenuous and feebly transparent attempt to manage perceptions - and, in my case at least, it's had the opposite effect from that intended.
 callwild 10 May 2016
In reply to Offwidth:
I have tried to track down how this all may impact the individual provider of activities be it guide or instructor.
All the letters and information say it includes ALL activity providers yet I heard rumours that didn't.
Through the Association Of British Mountain Guides I got news that it may not include groups of less than 25 people and that one should contact their local National Trust rep.
I tracked down the Lake District Rep and he is Garet Field at gareth.field@nationaltrust.org.uk
So any direct enquires should be addressed to him in respect to The Lake District.

The reply I recieved from him did not address any of my questions directly but he did issue the following statement which for The Lake District at least does appear to not require individual intructors , guides or small activity providers to be licenced in any way.
Phew, at least that is a reflief so why don't they issue an official statement?

"Local picture
In the Lake District we have been running a licensing scheme for a number of years. We have licenses in place with event organisers and local activity providers across the Lake District.
We license providers when;
a) The customer sees a direct link between an activity and the National Trust. Examples of this include; Ghyll Scrambling which is booked through our campsites, or archery sessions that we promote at Wray Castle.
b) A provider wants to create a base on National Trust land. Examples of this include; storing a canoe trailer in the field at Fell Foot, or using part of a tenants£ field for a marshal point as part of an event.
c) They are running a large mass participation event that could have a big impact upon the landscape. Here we want to make sure that what providers are doing is reasonable in protecting the landscape, the local community and that our responsibilities relating to protected land are covered. Examples of this are Keswick Mountain Festival and trail running events."
Post edited at 12:24

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...