This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
The National Trust are piloting a paid licensing scheme for outdoor activity providers and event organisers. The BMC are worried. We've asked both organisations to make their case.Read more
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
Don't some of these places require payment of (IMHO) steep entrance fees anyway (for eg Gibside about 9 quid a pop)?
Don't some of these places require payment of (IMHO) steep entrance fees anyway (for eg Gibside about 9 quid a pop)?
1
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
My biggest concern is this;
What would you say to anyone worried that licensing sets a precedent that other smaller landowners might follow, piecemeal?
The National Trust is not the first or only organisation to license activity on its land. The Royal Parks, United Utilities, Forestry Commission and Peak District National Park Authority all use or are exploring the use of licenses on their land.
(Disclaimer - I have no financial interest in the matter (I'm not a ML/trainer or someone who is likely to use one), I'm just concerned about open access to the countryside.
My biggest concern is this;
What would you say to anyone worried that licensing sets a precedent that other smaller landowners might follow, piecemeal?
The National Trust is not the first or only organisation to license activity on its land. The Royal Parks, United Utilities, Forestry Commission and Peak District National Park Authority all use or are exploring the use of licenses on their land.
(Disclaimer - I have no financial interest in the matter (I'm not a ML/trainer or someone who is likely to use one), I'm just concerned about open access to the countryside.
4
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
People are legally required to pay to use National Park Authority car parks, so you can get fined for not paying. However, because the National Trust is a charity, National Trust car park 'fees' are technically donations, so you are not legally required to pay to use them and you cannot be fined for not paying.
I wonder if it will be the same for these National Trust 'licences'? Technically, they can only ask for donations?
People are legally required to pay to use National Park Authority car parks, so you can get fined for not paying. However, because the National Trust is a charity, National Trust car park 'fees' are technically donations, so you are not legally required to pay to use them and you cannot be fined for not paying.
I wonder if it will be the same for these National Trust 'licences'? Technically, they can only ask for donations?
2
3
In reply to Andy S:
Do you not think it might be behaviours like those you mention that have lead to this trial measure.
To me, this looks like an extension of the ice cream van concession. Luigi pays the NT to make money by selling his wares on NT land. Plastic Breadbin, Awkward Bind and the rest are now being asked to do the same.
Silly me, I forgot, this is climbing, its different because it is what we do.
Try telling that to the federation of ice cream men.
Do you not think it might be behaviours like those you mention that have lead to this trial measure.
To me, this looks like an extension of the ice cream van concession. Luigi pays the NT to make money by selling his wares on NT land. Plastic Breadbin, Awkward Bind and the rest are now being asked to do the same.
Silly me, I forgot, this is climbing, its different because it is what we do.
Try telling that to the federation of ice cream men.
7
1
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
I already refuse to pay for parking and theres no way my activities will be licenced, I'm simply not going to pay it. Nobody else I know working the outdoors will pay it because the profit is already a pitance. The NT has become a revolting organisation and this will backfire gloriously. These licences will generate zero money from small operators.
I already refuse to pay for parking and theres no way my activities will be licenced, I'm simply not going to pay it. Nobody else I know working the outdoors will pay it because the profit is already a pitance. The NT has become a revolting organisation and this will backfire gloriously. These licences will generate zero money from small operators.
Post edited at 18:44
10
6
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
The biggest issue to the end consumer would be the passing on of the cost. If this has to be paid by an instructor, it would have to be passed on to the clients, in an already difficult market to make a strong margin on. Therefore, instructors will simply have to take clients to other areas, often areas less set up to take significant numbers, and therefore, potentially have larger environmental impacts.
It also sets a huge precedent for other to try and charge as well. Even if you are on a designated public right of way and therefore cant charge. And the potential of having some things except, e.g. education/teaching, it opens up a huge mine field of issues. Who will police this on NT land, and if other private land owners try and charge, who polices them so they dont try to enforce charges where they shouldnt?
The biggest issue to the end consumer would be the passing on of the cost. If this has to be paid by an instructor, it would have to be passed on to the clients, in an already difficult market to make a strong margin on. Therefore, instructors will simply have to take clients to other areas, often areas less set up to take significant numbers, and therefore, potentially have larger environmental impacts.
It also sets a huge precedent for other to try and charge as well. Even if you are on a designated public right of way and therefore cant charge. And the potential of having some things except, e.g. education/teaching, it opens up a huge mine field of issues. Who will police this on NT land, and if other private land owners try and charge, who polices them so they dont try to enforce charges where they shouldnt?
2
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
NT. Not really what they appear to be. They have never get into the business of managing land (for the Nation) / property to make a loss on it. The disappearing money party set a precedent for all public, quasi public bodies and charities to expand revenue streams by begging bowl or by cudgel. Someone voted for these charlatans.
NT member here.
D
NT. Not really what they appear to be. They have never get into the business of managing land (for the Nation) / property to make a loss on it. The disappearing money party set a precedent for all public, quasi public bodies and charities to expand revenue streams by begging bowl or by cudgel. Someone voted for these charlatans.
NT member here.
D
4
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
Ironically 3 peaks which has probably the most impact in the Lakes in terms of disruption to locals and overuse of an area would fall outside as it's a charitable event.
Ironically 3 peaks which has probably the most impact in the Lakes in terms of disruption to locals and overuse of an area would fall outside as it's a charitable event.
3
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
I can see how this could work on the NT estates like Killerton in Devon, and also see the need to manage major events which impact on others, but "activities" in the "Lake District" is to broad.
And what about land covered by the CROW Act?
I can see how this could work on the NT estates like Killerton in Devon, and also see the need to manage major events which impact on others, but "activities" in the "Lake District" is to broad.
And what about land covered by the CROW Act?
1
In reply to Andy S:
Are NCP and council car park fees 'donations' as well?
> However, because the National Trust is a charity, National Trust car park 'fees' are technically donations, so you are not legally required to pay to use them and you cannot be fined for not paying.
Are NCP and council car park fees 'donations' as well?
1
2
In reply to Steve Woollard:
The CROW Act specifically excludes people running organised events, or wanting to use the land for "any commercial purpose" from the rights of access it grants to individuals. So there's nothing there to prevent charging outdoor activity providers and the like for access.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/37/schedule/2
> And what about land covered by the CROW Act?
The CROW Act specifically excludes people running organised events, or wanting to use the land for "any commercial purpose" from the rights of access it grants to individuals. So there's nothing there to prevent charging outdoor activity providers and the like for access.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/37/schedule/2
1
9
In reply to deepsoup:
true, altho defra guidance is that most instructional uses count as educational, i believe. NT appear to have been ignorant of this when designing their "pilot" scheme (which is a heck of a big pilot as it covers 1/4 of all land in the lake district!)
> The CROW Act specifically excludes people running organised events, or wanting to use the land for "any commercial purpose" from the rights of access it grants to individuals. So there's nothing there to prevent charging outdoor activity providers and the like for access.
true, altho defra guidance is that most instructional uses count as educational, i believe. NT appear to have been ignorant of this when designing their "pilot" scheme (which is a heck of a big pilot as it covers 1/4 of all land in the lake district!)
2
In reply to neal:
Ongoing thread link for those who missed it:
http://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/t.php?n=638215
The BMC report on the matter is linked in the OP.
Ongoing thread link for those who missed it:
http://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/t.php?n=638215
The BMC report on the matter is linked in the OP.
I would not mind to pay a National Park. Entrance fee or per day spent like other countries do. Especially if there would be some service for that. Like log books there you sign in and out and they would look for anyone who's not back in time.
But NT? They really just another bureaucratic monster.
But NT? They really just another bureaucratic monster.
1
6
Yet more evidence that the National Trust is principally about marketising nature. This should come as no surprise, as all public institutions are being pushed this way by the deep-set decay of neoliberalism. The rationale goes:
1. Nothing is of value, unless it generates capital; nothing can be provided, unless it generates profit.
2. If land is to be conserved, it must pay its way.
3. So, let's put in gravel trails and amenities, expensive campsites and car parks, to conserve the land.
4. And the more successfully we market the land, the more we'll be able to expand our services (our colonisation of natural places).
4. People must pay for this privilege.
But, land is not a commodity -- it should be held in common, not hoarded by the feckless, inbred aristocracy (as much of it still is) as a playground for their pompous forms of animal cruelty, nor by so-called "guardians" like the NT, who "save the land" by transforming it into a Disneyesque "experience" for the middle-class to prance around in 4x4s and Rab jackets.
What we need is land for the people, open to all people, and cared for by the people. Instead we get vicious cuts to public services, such as council-run countryside management services, because "we've got to tighten our belts", whilst the capitalists hoard their wealth in Panama...
This news shows how deep austerity goes.
1. Nothing is of value, unless it generates capital; nothing can be provided, unless it generates profit.
2. If land is to be conserved, it must pay its way.
3. So, let's put in gravel trails and amenities, expensive campsites and car parks, to conserve the land.
4. And the more successfully we market the land, the more we'll be able to expand our services (our colonisation of natural places).
4. People must pay for this privilege.
But, land is not a commodity -- it should be held in common, not hoarded by the feckless, inbred aristocracy (as much of it still is) as a playground for their pompous forms of animal cruelty, nor by so-called "guardians" like the NT, who "save the land" by transforming it into a Disneyesque "experience" for the middle-class to prance around in 4x4s and Rab jackets.
What we need is land for the people, open to all people, and cared for by the people. Instead we get vicious cuts to public services, such as council-run countryside management services, because "we've got to tighten our belts", whilst the capitalists hoard their wealth in Panama...
This news shows how deep austerity goes.
18
2
4
In reply to nutme:
Parking charges are the easiest way to do that. If you're there longer, you park more. And they are in a sense means-tested, as those of the most limited means are probably not driving and thus aren't paying them.
> I would not mind to pay a National Park. Entrance fee or per day spent like other countries do.
Parking charges are the easiest way to do that. If you're there longer, you park more. And they are in a sense means-tested, as those of the most limited means are probably not driving and thus aren't paying them.
3
In reply to Neil Williams:
You may have public transport in Milton Keynes, however the further away from major centres of population you go - and the National Trust properties we mean here are, by definition, well away from the major centres of population - the less public transport there is.
To get to these places will mean almost exclusively private car/minibus.
You could cycle, however as rail transport limits the number of bikes per train somewhat drastically, you would have to drive somewhere first, and then "de-bike".
You could walk, but would need a considerable amount of time (days) to get to many locations.
These latter options would militate against any but the very fit who have considerable free time to visit without the use of private cars.
You may have public transport in Milton Keynes, however the further away from major centres of population you go - and the National Trust properties we mean here are, by definition, well away from the major centres of population - the less public transport there is.
To get to these places will mean almost exclusively private car/minibus.
You could cycle, however as rail transport limits the number of bikes per train somewhat drastically, you would have to drive somewhere first, and then "de-bike".
You could walk, but would need a considerable amount of time (days) to get to many locations.
These latter options would militate against any but the very fit who have considerable free time to visit without the use of private cars.
In reply to fred99:
Depends to some extent which NT properties - I thought we had deviated towards National Parks, and it is certainly true that the Lake District has, at least in high season, a more than reasonable bus service. Though I'd like to see it improved substantially with subsidy and a restriction (perhaps by way of a congestion charge or a ban on free parking) on private cars in the Park more long-term.
Depends to some extent which NT properties - I thought we had deviated towards National Parks, and it is certainly true that the Lake District has, at least in high season, a more than reasonable bus service. Though I'd like to see it improved substantially with subsidy and a restriction (perhaps by way of a congestion charge or a ban on free parking) on private cars in the Park more long-term.
1
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
Looks like the National Trust are expanding their remit again in a manner which is wholly commercial and that rubs against it original reason for existing, and the National Parks reason for existing.
It doesn't pass the "sniff test" (it smells wrong) although on the surface it appears arguable either way. They seem to creep their remit and authority more and more widely and before you know it they have created something that is fact. They can't charge for access to a right of way, nor to 'open country' under the CRoW Act 2000, so at what point does their idea of fees attach?
So can any of the budding lawyers out there tell me if you can invoke "proprietary estoppel" or "implied trust" in this case. After all we've been climbing in these areas for a long time now.
Whatever the case don't believe them when they say 'pilot' and
We must fight at every point
Looks like the National Trust are expanding their remit again in a manner which is wholly commercial and that rubs against it original reason for existing, and the National Parks reason for existing.
It doesn't pass the "sniff test" (it smells wrong) although on the surface it appears arguable either way. They seem to creep their remit and authority more and more widely and before you know it they have created something that is fact. They can't charge for access to a right of way, nor to 'open country' under the CRoW Act 2000, so at what point does their idea of fees attach?
So can any of the budding lawyers out there tell me if you can invoke "proprietary estoppel" or "implied trust" in this case. After all we've been climbing in these areas for a long time now.
Whatever the case don't believe them when they say 'pilot' and
We must fight at every point
1
In reply to Neil Williams:
The problem with expecting people to only use public transport within the Lake District, just as was proposed for Snowdonia, is that such transport will not be available early in the morning, late at night, fully throughout the winter and so forth.
Picture the scenario where a number of people (greater than a busload) are waiting in the middle of nowhere when the weather is atrocious, and the one and only final bus turns up.
Who gets on it ?
Who gets to stay the night and risk hypothermia ?
Do we leave the DofE kids behind as they were last to arrive ?
What if it's 2 or 3 groups of DofE and between them they exceed the busload ?
Do those who are left behind phone for Mountain Rescue or the Police ?
Do the MRT/Police have a vehicle that can take 15, 20 or more - should they therefore be expected to have such a vehicle ? - who's going to pay ?
All in all, I believe such a proposal is short-sighted, and assumes that people go out and return at well-regulated and previously booked/arranged intervals - which simply doesn't happen.
The problem with expecting people to only use public transport within the Lake District, just as was proposed for Snowdonia, is that such transport will not be available early in the morning, late at night, fully throughout the winter and so forth.
Picture the scenario where a number of people (greater than a busload) are waiting in the middle of nowhere when the weather is atrocious, and the one and only final bus turns up.
Who gets on it ?
Who gets to stay the night and risk hypothermia ?
Do we leave the DofE kids behind as they were last to arrive ?
What if it's 2 or 3 groups of DofE and between them they exceed the busload ?
Do those who are left behind phone for Mountain Rescue or the Police ?
Do the MRT/Police have a vehicle that can take 15, 20 or more - should they therefore be expected to have such a vehicle ? - who's going to pay ?
All in all, I believe such a proposal is short-sighted, and assumes that people go out and return at well-regulated and previously booked/arranged intervals - which simply doesn't happen.
In reply to fred99:
I don't believe existing public transport to be adequate for that purpose, for what it's worth. If I were in a position to propose such a scheme, it would involve a substantial increase in service. A good way to look to fund it might be something like a "tourist tax" on nights camping/in hotels - this is the usual way the Swiss manage such things.
The Swiss approach is that groups larger than a certain number, 10 I think, must reserve their journey in advance with the bus company.
A taxi? But realistically, the kind of service level I am talking about would have crowds dispersing far earlier than the last bus - for which pub kicking out time might be a sensible time.
Why on earth would MRT/Police need to get involved? There are taxis, and people are capable of planning, provided the service is good enough.
It is very easy to plan a day's hiking, climbing etc around an hourly bus service. You'd perhaps be surprised (or not) how many students etc do it. And I do it with my Scouts all the time, and it's perfectly viable with existing services. With the kind of increased service that would become affordable by way of everyone using it, it would be even more so. And it'd be goodbye to the terrible traffic jams the Lakes encounters much of the time.
FWIW I would not envisage a Zermatt-esque total ban - that would be too difficult for locals, and there are cases where a vehicle really is *necessary* - you mentioned DoE - supporting that is much easier with a minibus, and in any case a full minibus is near enough public transport and probably not to be discouraged too much. I'd envisage a hefty per-day congestion charge, and large car parks at a few entry points for those not arriving in the area by public transport. It could also be considered as an option that the charge would be payable only when using the roads on that day, so drive to your hotel/campsite, park up and enjoy the less polluted and less crowded Park by public transport, bicycle and foot.
Interesting you mention Snowdonia, as it'd be even easier to do it there - there are fewer roads and a smaller number of massive tourist honeypots.
Neil
> The problem with expecting people to only use public transport within the Lake District, just as was proposed for Snowdonia, is that such transport will not be available early in the morning, late at night, fully throughout the winter and so forth.
I don't believe existing public transport to be adequate for that purpose, for what it's worth. If I were in a position to propose such a scheme, it would involve a substantial increase in service. A good way to look to fund it might be something like a "tourist tax" on nights camping/in hotels - this is the usual way the Swiss manage such things.
> Picture the scenario where a number of people (greater than a busload) are waiting in the middle of nowhere when the weather is atrocious, and the one and only final bus turns up.
>> Who gets on it ?
>> Who gets to stay the night and risk hypothermia ?
>> Do we leave the DofE kids behind as they were last to arrive ?
>> What if it's 2 or 3 groups of DofE and between them they exceed the busload ?
The Swiss approach is that groups larger than a certain number, 10 I think, must reserve their journey in advance with the bus company.
> Do those who are left behind phone for Mountain Rescue or the Police ?
A taxi? But realistically, the kind of service level I am talking about would have crowds dispersing far earlier than the last bus - for which pub kicking out time might be a sensible time.
> Do the MRT/Police have a vehicle that can take 15, 20 or more - should they therefore be expected to have such a vehicle ? - who's going to pay ?
Why on earth would MRT/Police need to get involved? There are taxis, and people are capable of planning, provided the service is good enough.
> All in all, I believe such a proposal is short-sighted, and assumes that people go out and return at well-regulated and previously booked/arranged intervals - which simply doesn't happen.
It is very easy to plan a day's hiking, climbing etc around an hourly bus service. You'd perhaps be surprised (or not) how many students etc do it. And I do it with my Scouts all the time, and it's perfectly viable with existing services. With the kind of increased service that would become affordable by way of everyone using it, it would be even more so. And it'd be goodbye to the terrible traffic jams the Lakes encounters much of the time.
FWIW I would not envisage a Zermatt-esque total ban - that would be too difficult for locals, and there are cases where a vehicle really is *necessary* - you mentioned DoE - supporting that is much easier with a minibus, and in any case a full minibus is near enough public transport and probably not to be discouraged too much. I'd envisage a hefty per-day congestion charge, and large car parks at a few entry points for those not arriving in the area by public transport. It could also be considered as an option that the charge would be payable only when using the roads on that day, so drive to your hotel/campsite, park up and enjoy the less polluted and less crowded Park by public transport, bicycle and foot.
Interesting you mention Snowdonia, as it'd be even easier to do it there - there are fewer roads and a smaller number of massive tourist honeypots.
Neil
Post edited at 14:26
1
In reply to Neil Williams:
- this is the usual way the Swiss manage such things.
Even if we did adopt such, what happens when people turn up expecting a bus, then find it's pre-booked.
Last buses in this situation are much much earlier - I believe at the Roaches it was 8 p.m., then moved toward 6.30 - not exactly late in mountaineering days.
If you have a group of kids which could fill 2 or 3 taxis, many possibly with the onset of hypothermia, do you honestly think that your average taxi driver(s) could cope.
The terrible jams I have seen are down to organised groups all turning up at a honeypot location on such as a bank holiday or half-term, and then driving along at a crawl in a minibus or convoy, with the navigator apparently not knowing where they are going.
It could also be considered as an option that the charge would be payable only when using the roads on that day, so drive to your hotel/campsite, park up and enjoy the less polluted and less crowded Park by public transport, bicycle and foot.
So how does the system know that you're not on the road - would every holiday home or car park have a some system, and how will it work - the mountain areas are not renowned for super-fast internet connections, or do you envisage all the roads being dug up to lay cables.
And when they went to try it they alienated all those businesses that were located anywhere except where the bus companies/bureaucrats in SOUTH Wales wanted the car parks.
It was shouted down by the locals, not just by the visitors.
- this is the usual way the Swiss manage such things.
> The Swiss approach is that groups larger than a certain number, 10 I think, must reserve their journey in advance with the bus company.
Even if we did adopt such, what happens when people turn up expecting a bus, then find it's pre-booked.
> A taxi? But realistically, the kind of service level I am talking about would have crowds dispersing far earlier than the last bus - for which pub kicking out time might be a sensible time.
Last buses in this situation are much much earlier - I believe at the Roaches it was 8 p.m., then moved toward 6.30 - not exactly late in mountaineering days.
> Why on earth would MRT/Police need to get involved? There are taxis, and people are capable of planning, provided the service is good enough.
If you have a group of kids which could fill 2 or 3 taxis, many possibly with the onset of hypothermia, do you honestly think that your average taxi driver(s) could cope.
> It is very easy to plan a day's hiking, climbing etc around an hourly bus service. You'd perhaps be surprised (or not) how many students etc do it. And I do it with my Scouts all the time, and it's perfectly viable with existing services. With the kind of increased service that would become affordable by way of everyone using it, it would be even more so. And it'd be goodbye to the terrible traffic jams the Lakes encounters much of the time.
The terrible jams I have seen are down to organised groups all turning up at a honeypot location on such as a bank holiday or half-term, and then driving along at a crawl in a minibus or convoy, with the navigator apparently not knowing where they are going.
It could also be considered as an option that the charge would be payable only when using the roads on that day, so drive to your hotel/campsite, park up and enjoy the less polluted and less crowded Park by public transport, bicycle and foot.
So how does the system know that you're not on the road - would every holiday home or car park have a some system, and how will it work - the mountain areas are not renowned for super-fast internet connections, or do you envisage all the roads being dug up to lay cables.
> Interesting you mention Snowdonia, as it'd be even easier to do it there - there are fewer roads and a smaller number of massive tourist honeypots.
And when they went to try it they alienated all those businesses that were located anywhere except where the bus companies/bureaucrats in SOUTH Wales wanted the car parks.
It was shouted down by the locals, not just by the visitors.
In reply to fred99:
Usually you can cram a few more people on. And the advantage of the booking system would be that the bus company can shuffle its fleet to ensure capacity is available.
People do cope with this kind of thing every day using buses, you know!
I'm proposing an improved service which would be part of the funding package.
You're talking situations that are heading towards needing ambulances.
I run Scout activities using public transport all the time, as we don't have a minibus. It takes planning, but it really is not difficult, I can assure you.
You can't have been to the Lakes much, then.
In London it works by having cameras around the place. You wouldn't realistically need all that many - it mostly works on an honour system with penalties for not paying for the day you are using. You can even pay the next day, so not having the facility to pay when on a remote campsite wouldn't matter so much - pay when you're somewhere with a signal or in a town.
I don't know how it was planned there, so I can't really comment on how effective that specific plan was. I'd envisage locals having substantial discount, possibly even 100%.
> Even if we did adopt such, what happens when people turn up expecting a bus, then find it's pre-booked.
Usually you can cram a few more people on. And the advantage of the booking system would be that the bus company can shuffle its fleet to ensure capacity is available.
People do cope with this kind of thing every day using buses, you know!
> Last buses in this situation are much much earlier - I believe at the Roaches it was 8 p.m., then moved toward 6.30 - not exactly late in mountaineering days.
I'm proposing an improved service which would be part of the funding package.
> If you have a group of kids which could fill 2 or 3 taxis, many possibly with the onset of hypothermia, do you honestly think that your average taxi driver(s) could cope.
You're talking situations that are heading towards needing ambulances.
I run Scout activities using public transport all the time, as we don't have a minibus. It takes planning, but it really is not difficult, I can assure you.
> The terrible jams I have seen are down to organised groups all turning up at a honeypot location on such as a bank holiday or half-term, and then driving along at a crawl in a minibus or convoy, with the navigator apparently not knowing where they are going.
You can't have been to the Lakes much, then.
> So how does the system know that you're not on the road - would every holiday home or car park have a some system, and how will it work - the mountain areas are not renowned for super-fast internet connections, or do you envisage all the roads being dug up to lay cables.
In London it works by having cameras around the place. You wouldn't realistically need all that many - it mostly works on an honour system with penalties for not paying for the day you are using. You can even pay the next day, so not having the facility to pay when on a remote campsite wouldn't matter so much - pay when you're somewhere with a signal or in a town.
> It was shouted down by the locals, not just by the visitors.
I don't know how it was planned there, so I can't really comment on how effective that specific plan was. I'd envisage locals having substantial discount, possibly even 100%.
Post edited at 11:47
In reply to Neil Williams:
To use examples of how things are done in London, and expecting them to be translated into the great outdoors - Lakes, Snowdonia, Pak District et al - shows that whilst you know all about computers indoors (that is you say your job), you are not as well versed in what happens in the great outdoors (as you say you are a mainly indoor climber).
The locals didn't want the system because whilst they would have had access personally, they wouldn't have had a job, and their friends/relatives would have had to pay to visit them (with no way of proving their visitors cars were parked for the entire visit off the public highway).
Groups may make plans, but they go wrong.
I have helped numerous groups off the hills over the years, including one group of scouts who didn't get off the hills until 1 in the morning, and they had a Scout Leader with them.
Sh*t happens, and any transport system must accept that.
Furthermore when it goes wrong in the great outdoors, it's got the potential for far greater danger than missing the last bus in Milton Keynes.
To use examples of how things are done in London, and expecting them to be translated into the great outdoors - Lakes, Snowdonia, Pak District et al - shows that whilst you know all about computers indoors (that is you say your job), you are not as well versed in what happens in the great outdoors (as you say you are a mainly indoor climber).
The locals didn't want the system because whilst they would have had access personally, they wouldn't have had a job, and their friends/relatives would have had to pay to visit them (with no way of proving their visitors cars were parked for the entire visit off the public highway).
Groups may make plans, but they go wrong.
I have helped numerous groups off the hills over the years, including one group of scouts who didn't get off the hills until 1 in the morning, and they had a Scout Leader with them.
Sh*t happens, and any transport system must accept that.
Furthermore when it goes wrong in the great outdoors, it's got the potential for far greater danger than missing the last bus in Milton Keynes.
3
1
In reply to fred99:
That I mainly climb indoors, which is true, does not mean I do not have extensive experience of the Lakes, Peak and North Wales as a hillwalker and Scout/Leader, from my childhood in the North West and up.
My point stands. The car is ruining our National Parks. We can and should do better.
That I mainly climb indoors, which is true, does not mean I do not have extensive experience of the Lakes, Peak and North Wales as a hillwalker and Scout/Leader, from my childhood in the North West and up.
My point stands. The car is ruining our National Parks. We can and should do better.
In reply to Djdbebsjdjsbsk:
To get back to the topic of the thread from the fascinating one of sustain able transport
I feel that its not 'their' land; its my (and your) land that they are holding in trust. But that's just me.
They have no right to charge for use of RoWs but they CAN prevent access to CRoW 'open country' for 'commercial activities'. Unfortunately, whilst we have had a lot of re-assurances about the benign nature of the legislation and its interpretation there seems to be no case law about what such a commercial activity 'is'.
And there is the possible NT argument that they are not charging for access but charging for the issuing of a license as a means to preserve the land and manage numbers. Weasel words I know.
So if John or Jane Smith run a Scout troop, teach Outdoor Activities at a local College, do some freelance navigation instruction at weekends and are helping some mates prepare for their ML assessment they could do exactly the same activity, with exactly the same numbers and the same environmental impact on four different days. And only one of those days needs a license. That's a nonsense.
On the face of it they can only either seek to prevent access or prosecute for trespass after the event. However they could invoke National Trust byelaws which could involve magistrates court and fines. What is worrying is that the government is contemplating taking the enforcement of byelaws away from magistrates and using a system of fixed penalty notices!
I can't help wondering about the liability issues possibly faced by a landowner who effectively charges for the use of their land; would they be deemed to be responsible for the safety of participants?
> They can't charge for access to a right of way, nor to 'open country' under the CRoW Act 2000, so at what point does their idea of fees attach?
> So can any of the budding lawyers out there tell me if you can invoke "proprietary estoppel" or "implied trust" in this case. After all we've been climbing in these areas for a long time now.
To get back to the topic of the thread from the fascinating one of sustain able transport
I feel that its not 'their' land; its my (and your) land that they are holding in trust. But that's just me.
They have no right to charge for use of RoWs but they CAN prevent access to CRoW 'open country' for 'commercial activities'. Unfortunately, whilst we have had a lot of re-assurances about the benign nature of the legislation and its interpretation there seems to be no case law about what such a commercial activity 'is'.
And there is the possible NT argument that they are not charging for access but charging for the issuing of a license as a means to preserve the land and manage numbers. Weasel words I know.
So if John or Jane Smith run a Scout troop, teach Outdoor Activities at a local College, do some freelance navigation instruction at weekends and are helping some mates prepare for their ML assessment they could do exactly the same activity, with exactly the same numbers and the same environmental impact on four different days. And only one of those days needs a license. That's a nonsense.
On the face of it they can only either seek to prevent access or prosecute for trespass after the event. However they could invoke National Trust byelaws which could involve magistrates court and fines. What is worrying is that the government is contemplating taking the enforcement of byelaws away from magistrates and using a system of fixed penalty notices!
I can't help wondering about the liability issues possibly faced by a landowner who effectively charges for the use of their land; would they be deemed to be responsible for the safety of participants?
2
In reply to C Witter:
Right, so as long as we aren't using Stanage as a playground for anything pompous, aren't middle class, didn't arrive in anything with four wheel drive and aren't wearing Rab jackets that's OK with you is it?
> But, land is not a commodity -- it should be held in common, not hoarded by the feckless, inbred aristocracy (as much of it still is) as a playground for their pompous forms of animal cruelty, nor by so-called "guardians" like the NT, who "save the land" by transforming it into a Disneyesque "experience" for the middle-class to prance around in 4x4s and Rab jackets.
Right, so as long as we aren't using Stanage as a playground for anything pompous, aren't middle class, didn't arrive in anything with four wheel drive and aren't wearing Rab jackets that's OK with you is it?
3
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...