UKH

With the end of the Mend Our Mountains crowdfunding drive fast approaching, Sir Chris Bonington has described National Parks as an "essential part of who we are" and called for us all to take responsibility for them.

Read more

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

As much as a respect Sir Chris Bonington, I don’t agree with this at all. We (uk tax payers) already pay a substantial amount of money each year to maintain and improve our national parks. Why are we being asked to pay again?

I wouldn’t object if the National Park Authorities didnt waist a substantial amount of the money they get . The reason why funding is being cut is to try and force them to run more efficiently, and someone else stepping in with a bag full of free cash just means they can carry on waisting it.

In reply to rogersavery:

I hope you aren't suggesting that each NP doesn't actually need it's own nice big hq building, CEOs, independent shops, cafes and supply chain... ?  

In reply to rogersavery:

 

Proper fat cats.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Wanna 'mend the mountains' ? Simples. Get those wolly maggots off our fells. Stop selling the image of sheepwrecked hills on shortbread biscuit tins and 'cuddly' Herdwick sheep in National Park Shops! I resent paying for yet more stoney footpaths when it is so well documented what is the real cause of damage on our mountains! C'mon Sir get behind the real issues!   

In reply to flowerpot:

Have to agree, totally. This is just ‘fiddling while Rome burns’.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

How far away is the situation that those who contribute to the upkeep have access to the fells and any one else is denied? I certainly don't approve of payment for the right to roam.

In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

I think public funding of the Royal Opera House was £28 million in 2010. LDNP funding in same year was around £7 million. Don't think you'll get in the opera for nowt

I in no way approve of the way NPs are run, or charging people for access. However we (as taxpayers) don't exactly pay through the nose for them.

In reply to Ridge:

“However we (as taxpayers) don't exactly pay through the nose for them.”

thats right, but we don’t really “pay through the nose” for anything single thing that tax payer pays for.

Except tax!

stop the waste on all public spending and you could probably half the average persons tax bill

 

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

And even if we paid a reasonable amount of tax (say around 5% total for paye/ni/vat/fuel duty etc) then the current situation is like:

you paying me in advance to cut your lawn.

i don’t do it as I’ve spent the money down the pub.

your neighbour takes pity on your over grown lawn and comes round, knocks on your door and asks for money so he can cut it.

 

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

As a friend and climbing-partner of Chris for many years, it is a pity, but many people do not agree with the Lake District path-building programme. That is one reason why the money has not been raised. Fux the fells and the NP write their own publicity that is never challenged. The shortfall in funding illustrates the opposition.

DC

In reply to rogersavery:

As I understood it we're being asked to make up the shortfall from cuts. If the government are cutting spending then they should reduce taxes to reflect that.

 

So what evidence is there that they're wasting it? And simply cutting funding to force them to be more efficient doesn't seem like a smart way to fix the problem. I would think that this is more likely to simply be Tory rhetoric. Much of Tory ideology is all about cutting public spending where ever they can and then trying to privatise everything.

 

In reply to stp:

“If the government are cutting spending then they should reduce taxes to reflect that.”

Or alternatively, either a cut in taxation or cut in borrowing, or no raise in tax

”What evidence is there they are wasting it”

their planning department is a classic example - it’s a joke - accepting applications that don’t need permission, doing site visits when they acknowledge that the application doesn’t need permission, placing planning restrictions on applications that they cannot justify - repeatedly turning down applications and then passing them with no justification on their change of position, rejecting applications claiming they don’t meet the legal requirements when that actually do, being unable to answer a simple question on a listed building consent application (“what colour do you want me to paint my windows”) - this had cost implications to them, the cheapest option being for them to tell the applicant the colour they were thing of.

 

Monsal trail is another example - they have a multi million pound budget for the monsal trail - if they made it into a public bridal way that would reduce there spend by 50% (just to clarify, it is not currently a public bridal way or public foot path, it is privately owned by the Peak Park who could sell it to the railways tomorrow if they wanted)

 

“Cutting funding to force them to be more efficient doesn’t seem like a smart way to fix the problem”

i can’t think of many other effective ways, but I’m open to suggestions.  Most people look at where money is being wasted when money is tight.

 

 

In reply to stp:

Do the UK national parks really need their own individual CEO and hq? 

Why are the majority of their tat shops and cafes stand alone, even though they sell nearly the same stuff? A fridge magnet of malham probably comes from the same producers as Derwentwater, but I bet they've both got individual contracts, orders and supply chains. 

In reply to rogersavery:

Surely it's no different to giving to charities like the British Heart Foundation or Cancer Research UK. A substantial amount of government funding from tax goes into medical research via the Medical Research Council and the subsidies to the Universities' research departments, yet charities such as BHF and CRUK still ask people to give more and many, many people are willing to do so for a cause they feel strongly about. Why do you have a problem with the Mend Our Mountains campaign doing the same for our landscapes? Or would you actively discourage giving charitably for those causes as well? I remember as a child hearing people question whether the peat around Cwm Idwal and the Glyders would ever recover from the vast amounts of footpath erosion yet since the stony paths were installed by the NT and NP the recovery of the peat has been incredible and I, for one, am happy to give a little bit more voluntarily to help maintain an environment from which I derive immense joy and happiness. To be honest, I feel its the least I can do to help In the face of rapidly increasing usage and ideologically driven slashes to public funding. 

In reply to Francis Hardy:

As far as I am aware the government has no legal obligation to give the those charities you mention. If they did then I would expect that to be paid for out of my tax contributions and yes I would be reluctant to give further charitable donations if the charities concerned had a long history of wasting the money the tax payer had already given them.

In reply to summo:

“Do the UK national parks really need their own individual CEO and hq? “

Given the budget they have and the responsibilities they have (certainly the Peak Park authority act as a local authority in lots of ways), then actually I would think they do need a CEO and a local hq - but with the Peak Park, do they need Aldern House? Probably not - I’m willing to bet the running costs are twice what the would pay for a more suitable modern office

In reply to rogersavery:

But much of what each park hq does is already mirrored or duplicated in their respective county or shire council offices. They could easily share more resources in terms of man power and infrastructure.

Their annual grants from central government vary between 3 and 10million. Not peanuts, but I bet there are middle managers or project leaders in large corporations dealing with those kind of figures too. 

1 hq. 1 CEO. 1 finance dept. Then have deputies and regional finance departments in each much smaller hq in the parks.

Lakes, Yorkshire Dale, north York moors  are now practically one land mass. But still all managed independently. Telephones have been around a few years now, it's not like everything is done face to face. 

 

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Personally I'm more than happy to contribute. I certainly don't agree with everything that the LDNP does (as an example) but am happy to contribute for the overall good. Same kinds of issues are happening in schools with parents being asked to fund for shortfalls (I speak as a youth worker). It is a tricky balance and complex issue but my motto in life is that if I can help and support others (wisely I mean!) then I will. No disrespect to other points of view.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I firmly believe the Lake District National Park have lost touch with why they were setup in the first place.

They seem to be completely driven by the need to drive more and more visitors to the Park so they can generate more revenue. Given the cutbacks in funding from government, this would be sensible strategy for a commercial business wanting to grow and develop, however, the National Parks shouldn’t be run like this, this strategy it massively conflicts with the conservation role the National Parks Authority has.

 

The fux the fells/mend our mountains campaign is one example of their misguided approach to conservation.

For example: Their justification for building a slabbed and stepped path on Great Gable was “it helps guide walkers to the summit”!?! … They couldn’t use their normal excuse of “we had to do it due to erosion” since a lot of Great Gable is covered by loose and broken rocks! So fux the fells used the cairns to build another ugly artificial track.

 

Unfortunately the National Parks seem to be able to do whatever they like.

 

In reply to DavePS:

Can hardly believe all these posts. Do you seriously think loose and broken rocks somehow make a robust and sustainable major path!!??  The simple fact is the traffic is too much for some paths in our national parks, especially the busiest fells in the Lakes  and repair was and is required. I can understand those supporting  the need to learn the best practice from path building, as some stone paths do seem better built to withstand water erosion than others, but you either build the path or stop the people walking in such large numbers. 'Fux the fells' is ignorant sloganism for people stuck in the wrong century. 

Mend our Mountains is attached to specific projects across all the National, Parks  and is only a small proportion of total ongoing repair work. It seems to me to have done quite well in raising money in these austere times and hasn't finished yet.

In reply to Offwidth:

No one is objecting to path building or maintenance. It's the fact that so much more taxpayers money could be spent on such projects if the national parks as a whole were more efficient in a number of ways.

Yes, some are better than others. It was discovered a number if years ago that skilled or at least well trained builders, do better path work that lasts compared to well meaning volunteers. Quality counts when it comes to combating the elements and traffic.

In reply to summo:

Even with no austerity and perfect cost management some of the National Parks would struggle to keep up where path improvements  have become necessary due to severe erosion. Mountain walking is quite simply booming. Some chose to grumble, nimby like, stuck in some past era and others put money in to help fix things. Most UK internal charity spending shouldn't be neccesary if the state did a perfect job, especially the billions in funding cancer research. I'd prefer we move away a little from this inefficient US style attitude and improve state funding levels but until then, things like Mend our Mountains are a very positive stopgap.

In reply to summo:

Yes I am... ...the current fetishism with building over-engineered paths in wild places is utterly insane!

It is a hugely costly intervention, which is frequently not actually necessary (at least to the degree it is undertaken), and which causes more problems than it solves. For every example of very necessary path repair (e.g.: parts of the Pennine Way across peat bogs) there is another where intervention was not required (parts of the Llanberis Path up Snowdon for example). It has got to the stage where minor, and relatively inexpensive, remedial measures to combat erosion are not enough, and the path must look paved, uniform and neat. These are self defeating, as you will observe if you spend any time watching people interact with them; walkers are frequently (and very sensibly) choosing to walk to the side of the paved routes, especially in descent, or in wet/icy conditions.

Furthermore, 'repairs' that are (allegedly) designed to facilitate walkers can have quite the opposite effect for horse riders and mountain bikers. Your Fix our Fells is the same as someone else's Bugger our Bridleways.

In reply to Angry Bird:

You're contradicting yourself. You acknowledge such paths can be a benefit. I certainly strongly support the principle of stone paths in what is otherwise a broad and growing eroded slope. I'm angry path work has sometimes wasted money on  poor design and construction. I've protested against inappropriate path work (like the destruction on a path to the upper dewent). I agree all user groups need to be consulted. So where do we differ other than emphasis?  In particular Mend our Mountains involves specific examples across all NPs where help is really needed.

In reply to Angry Bird:

I forgot to add that the Cut Gate Peak project in MoM  is being partly led by the mountain bike community.

https://mendmountains.thebmc.co.uk/donations/cut-gate/

Another project is a bridge

https://mendmountains.thebmc.co.uk/donations/exmoor-great-bradley-bridge/

In reply to Offwidth:

I don't think so, but there's obviously nuance in what I've said that may be lost on anyone determined to see this in purely black and white terms.

I do, but "can be of benefit" doesn't mean they are always are, and as noted are frequently not of benefit in the examples cited.

I don't know... ...who said we have to? I have my opinion: you have yours. It would be strange indeed if we had nothing in common!