UKH

Just recently been up the NF carpark for the first time since last winter. i'm guessing this has been discussed before but:

- a load of the parking spaces have been blocked off 

- they are charging for use (but dont seem to be enforcing) 

- no overnight parking signs - this doesn't seem workable given standard early and late finishes for lots of climbers

- still no toilets 

Feels like the thin end of the wedge of loss of access. Are Mountaineering Scotland advocating for us on this? seems crazy that there still isn't a composting toilet here and access is now gradually being restricted even though it must be one of the most popular hill car parks in Scotland, and we are now expected to pay for it? I'd been thinking last winter that a crowd funder for a composting toilet was well overdue. 

Is our lack of community organisation creating conditions for loss of access? Does anyone know if the Access Officer at MS is engaged on this?

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highlands-islands/5368498/forestr...

This is the last I saw but Im sure some of the locals will have updates to this

glad to see they are putting in a plan to increase the spaces at least!

Climbers as a collective body have taken huge advantage of the Forestry Commission's goodwill in recent years. Poor behaviours have lead to all track keys being withdrawn. I doubt any representation from climbers will be listened to kindly.

If you want toilets and extended parking, this has to be financed somehow, £3 a day is peanuts or for the full old school experience park at the golf club layby and negotiate the vertical bog to get to the dam.

I wonder if the charges are to offset loss of income from no longer selling keys for the track.

What happened?

Yes, absolutely ridiculous.

They just need to get it sorted. A similar setup to that at Fairy Pools in Skye is needed. That approach would also easily fund a part time job or two, if only at Peak Season weekends.

Frankly, I don't know many regular users who would complain about paying for parking in return for a lack of pot holes, sufficient spaces on busy Saturdays and the all essential toilet facilities!

The most ridiculous thing is that toilets have been successfully added to the Glen Nevis parking, so it's easily enough done. 

The lack of really good alternative parking spots for people staying in vans around Lochaber is a wider issue repeated across the Highlands. The car park is not a suitable spot and the regular & responsible van users I know tend to avoid it anyway. However, without some sort of enforcement there will always those take the piss and use it as a full-on base camp rather than just for grabbing 4-5hours kip after a long Friday night drive up from down South.

It's literally decades since I walked across the Golf Course, or even further into the distant past from the Distillery! I don't think either of them will be happy with dozens of mountaineers trying to use their respective car parks. 

Annoyingly, the walk-in from Nevis Range and their massive car park is a good 20mins+ longer, perhaps only 15mins if there are parking dramas at TNF and you end up way down the road. However, with access to a Mountain Bike, or better an e-Bike that would suddenly make sense.

Anyway, I'll be there in around a fortnight and find out how much of a drama it's going to be this season. 

The season before last, the lock broke for the barrier that gave access to the track to the upper car park for key holders (Lochaber MRT, PyB, Glenmore Lodge, JSMTC Ballachulish, CC and a couple of dozen Guides/Instructors). Forestry Commission incompetence meant they didn't have a sensible back-up plan for that situation. A replacement code lock was fitted and "so the story goes" the coded ended up being widely publicised all around Fort William and dozens of additional cars ended up driving up to the top car park. After this the FC decided the whole thing was too much hassle and cancelled all access. It is worth noting that the FC were never particularly keen on the whole arrangement anyway. 

HOWEVER, in the run up to the lock issue, it was very clear that utilisation of the existing Ben Nevis keys was exceptionally high. Many keys were being used 7 days per week. Unusually high numbers of vehicles were regularly at the top car park compared with previous years. After the code was supposedly known to all of Fort William, it was busy but I didn't personally see any additional vehicles that I obviously didn't recognise. Others say that they did see really large numbers but I'm slightly sceptical it was as many as popularly reported.

In many ways it's irrelevant how information about the code was spread around but the narrative of "all the climbers were taking the piss" is worth dissecting. Obviously all key holders AND all Forestry Commission staff were informed of the code. The FC seem to have assumed that since it was unauthorised "climbers" supposedly using the track, it must have been key holders who immediately and recklessly passed out the code to all their climbing mates. That logic doesn't make much sense to me - local Guides valued the access so much they were willing to pay for it, but then decided that loads of others should have it for free? Personally I think they were the least likely ones to share it. However, given the normal practice of getting the person in the passenger seat of vehicles to open the gate, the code would probably have spread steadily. It could easily have been climbing partners, clients, MRT or CC members or local Forestry Commission staff.

Anyway, there is now no more access to the top car park, and it's the long standing local Guides and instructors who are suffering most. The latest update is nothing will change until all planned logging operations in the area are complete which isn't likely until perhaps 2025.

Yup, it's all the Forestry Commission's fault, climbers as always are a shining model of virtue.

The golf club approach uses a public right of way. I can anticipate some entertaining rows if it returns to being the voie normale.

Climbers Vs Golfers, fairly evenly balanced in terms of entitlement and self importance.

Strawman. You know fine well that Mark never said anything like that.

This is one of the reasons why so much online discussion descends into acrimony. If you need to represent someone else's view as part of your reply then do so honestly.

Fair point, I exaggerated Marks view, which in turn did attempt to pass the buck.

There are times when we should take responsibility for our actions. Unfortunately these are becoming more commonplace.

Ben Nevis track key, Range West online briefing, Borrowdale parking, that boulder in Yorkshire who's name I can't remember. Just a few recent examples where we really should be showing some humility.

You present this is a climber thing when it's really just a people thing. 

I wonder if I am the only one who always felt that some people getting privileged access to the upper carpark seemed a bit undemocratic and divisive and that its loss might be no bad thing overall? And I say this as someone who could have potentially got access through the CC.

No overnight parking seems very reasonable to me, especially with the vast ski carpark just down the road.

A reasonable charge seems, well, reasonable to me.

Toilets are clearly very badly needed and have to be paid for somehow.

I disagree, it is a climber thing. Climbers behaviours caused the difficulties and it is climbers who are now complaining about the restriction. The people who can help prevent further restrictions are climbers.

In the first instance that's not entirely true for the NF car park. Other people use it and other groups are involved.

When I say it's not a climber thing, it's a people thing I mean that poor behaviour in the outdoors is nothing specific to climbers. Your posts seem to suggest you think there is something specific to climbers that make them particularly blameworthy? Obviously climbers sometimes cause problems but it's no different from other groups causing problems.

I also don't understand what the sort of collective responsibility you seem to mean would look like. I take responsibility for my actions, governing bodies try to educate in responsible access and people post on social media to encourage it or condemn those who aren't responsible. What would this collective responsibility look like on top of that?

No, I think that was a fairly widely held view, even among some of us who regularly used the keys over the years. 

In more recent years the access was run as a commercial, revenue raising activity by the Forest Commission which is obviously fair enough. Misha's post was a reference to that. However, it was run as closed shop with grandfather rights and no obvious transparency which is absolutely not the way anyone can argue that things should be run in modern Scotland.

The whole issue of whether the "loss might be no bad thing" is FAR more complex. 

Parking issues are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the wider debate about sustainable economic development of the Highlands, and how tourism and specifically "adventure tourism" fits into that. If you think that the numerous local Guides, PyB, Glenmore Lodge etc. are running valuable businesses that generate desirable economic benefits, it's clearly a shortsighted policy that adversely impacts both the health & safety of their staff and the product they sell. If you take a more cynical approach either to the commercialisation of mountaineering in general or with the whole concept of "sustainable tourism" then you may well disagree with the whole premise of the previous argument.

Equally, on this wider discussion, there is a really good argument to be had about how much weight our views (as occasional/regular visitors) should be given. The prevailing paradigm is that local communities should primarily decide how they wish to develop and utilise their local environment. 

Anyway, I don't think that debates about the access and management of the UK's highest mountain, whether on UKC or elsewhere, are likely to end any time soon... 

Answer in the question, perhaps?

Not sure cutting down the surrounding woodland to create more car parking is particularly sustainable.

The issues probably needs wider consideration, could an electric shuttle bus from a less sensitive larger carpark be a solution,  may be with an option to get the bus to the top car park for those that want?

very happy to finance improved access / facilities - either through a pay per use basis, or some sort of crowd funding campaign e.g. to cover the upfront costs of installing the toilet, but - until i was made aware of the plans for increased parking and toilets (eventually) by the other poster it  had so far appeared that we were just being asked to pay for the boulders they'd dropped in previously good parking spaces.

Based on the responses so far it seems like a lot of the issues highlighted could have been better dealt with if the FC had a point of contact to be able to communicate issues with climbers at large. But maybe they already do through mountaineering Scotland - does anyone actually know if MS has a role in this? Would hope it isn't too late for them to get involved and try and improve relations. 

I was never that bothered about the fairness / democracy of access to the top car park, not that big a deal doing the additional walk up / down if you are doing it a few times a month as a weekend warrior, different if you are doing it 5 days week every winter for 10 years. Real shame for local guides to loose access to the top car park - are we going to be a spike in knee replacements in Lochaber guides 20 years from now from the additional descent clocked up through their working life

and just going back to one of my original points, does anyone with knowledge of the day to day  workings / bureaucracy of FC know how feasible engaging with them on installing either a composting toilet, or a maintained portaloo in the winter months would be, off the back of a successful crowdfunder campaign to cover the costs?

in an ideal scenario that sounds good  (although is it not all non native plantation forest around the car park anyway?)  but it also sounds like it would be nightmare to organise potentially involving multiple stakeholders / land owners / the council and what  do you do when you get down from a route at 9pm and the council has decided the last bus was at 5pm? that scenario still feels like it feeds into loss of access.  

Not to mention the fact that the last 10 miles from, say, Fort William, would be a tiny percentage of the total drive for most people so in real terms wouldn't make a hoot of difference to the overall impact of people driving up from Glasgow/Manchester/London etc.

Shuttle bus is a total non-starter in my opinion.

How about an access body (John Muir Trust, MCOFs, outdoor access trust for Scotland etc.) bought the land off FLS (for a nominal fee - can't be worth anything to them!) and set it up properly with reasonable charges, toilets and a sensible overnight stay policy for mountaineers (i.e. one night max stay but overnighting ok).

Er, there are other winter climbing venues...

Since the keys were paid for, it's a shame for anyone who has lost access to the top car park.

But the keys were paid for. So I don't think it was a case of special treatment for some.

The obvious solution would be to extend the gondola over from Nevis range with an alighting point at the CIC hut before continuing to BN summit. This would also pave the way to a decent cafe at the summit.

FW year round locals opinion;

I've been here for 10 years now, and in that time I've never known the access track to either the main car park or upper car park to be in an acceptable state for domestic vehicles to use unless driven at 2mph and swerving every hole. This was with the fee which was being paid directly to FLS for the use of the top car park, which by all means should also have helped fund the main track access to the NFCP (I believe this fee was around £250 per year). So with an average of maybe 45 key holders across the board, that works out at £11,250 per year (x10 is around £112k or thereabouts). I'd have thought with that sort of return investment for the use of a track there would be some sort of pot to put back into what you were getting for the fee. £11k is peanuts in the grand scheme of things regarding road upkeep, but it would be interesting to know exactly where that money was spent. I don't know the intracacies of where this fee would've gone, but in my mind it should be going back into the up-keep of what people are paying to use. 

So, forgive me if I don't believe that the £3 per day or yearly local season fee is at all going to go back into the up-keep of the road or the car park. Never mind that it is in fact now a cess pit of human bodily excrement and a bit of a dump, it's FLS mis-management that has allowed it to get to that state. It's been crying out for some proper development for years and last seasons crap winter (The Ben being about the only reliable venue) and lack of upper car park highlighted this more than ever. It's overrun by motorhomes and van dwellers who will literally pitch for days and days on end, leaving very little room for people in cars to be able to go climbing for the day unless you're there at 5am. FLS don't seem to realise that by closing off several of the spaces along the access road, they're only moving the problem further out for the locals in Torlundy to have to deal with instead. 

Climbers may not have helped themselves along the way, but to blame them outright is just pure nonsense. 

As a reminder the proposals to increase the size of the car park (and install barriers with APNR, but no toilets) are the subject of a planning application ref 22/06211/FUL (https://wam.highland.gov.uk/wam/caseDetails.do?caseType=Application&key...), which is still "under consideration". I think it is still possible to make comments about the application.

Back in April 2023 Mountaineering Scotland confirmed to me that they were in discussion with FLS about the project, which is apparently dependent on a successful bid to the Scottish Government’s Rural Tourism Infrastructure Fund.

More recently I have heard that the project is delayed due to a requirement (not sure from where) that the enlarged car park includes the provision of a certain number of EV charging points, and that the cost of installing these is high. (Off topic, but I assume a few "rapid" charging points are proposed, but it seems to me that many slow charging points would suit the typical users of this car park better!)

For my part I have no problem with paying to park there (and £3/day is very cheap - Nevis Range is £5/day, £15 overnight), provided toilets are installed in the early stages of the project and multi-day parking is allowed. The alternative is that the human waste problem will get worse, and if the no overnight parking rule is enforced, other areas in the locality will suffer from inconsiderate parking.

What's the walk up like from the Aluminium Smelter?

I'm probably biased against as I used to walk up from town through the smelter before I had a car but my memory of it is that it's steep, loose and a reasonable amount further than from NF. 

I'd say it's almost faster to walk up the Pony Track from the Glen and under Castle Ridge than it is from the Smelter. There's also limited parking at the actual track entrance but plenty at M&S although not sure if that's a 2-3 hour max stay. 

Could anyone buy a key?

I wonder if I've walked into a trap here, but I thought anyone could buy a key; it's just that obviously you'd want to be using it enough to justify the fee to yourself. 

Yes and no. About 20 yes ago I was involved in a group which attempted to buy a key. The process was laborious and eventually fell over.

I don't think the cost of the key was designed as a money spinner, more as a deterrent to purchase.

There were cheaper and easier options, join a club with a key, even hiring a guide.

This old argument. A shuttle bus will cover the timing of the majority of users (see the Yr Wyddfa Sherpa) thus reducing parking demand. Make the park and ride cheaper than the high car park, and such incentivisation will mean only those that really need it will use the higher access point (which can remain its current size).

Also worth noting that people manage to make it in time for the uplift (downlift?) in the alps, so in theory they can mange the same on the Ben. 

I've far less experience of the car park than you, but are the majority of those in vans not climbers? Genuine question. 

Why does it matter if they are climbers? Why is this always such a pre-occupation of discussion on here?

There is an issue, which is people, and their cars, and excretia. Focus a bit more on solving the problem rather than bickering over what labels we can apply to those people, and we might make some progress.

Hah! Have you never spent the night in the Midi cablecar station?!

Not 100% sure, but from the retail park car park, at least according to my mapping app, it is at best, no shorter than from Nevis Range.

However, in terms of time, if not effort, for those travelling from the South or West, perhaps one third of the extra 20mins+ each way compared to the NF Car Park is potentially saved by the marginally shorter drive.

From my own personal experience, no not always or exclusively.

The area around the NFCP is a very popular spot in summer and many folk have found the joy of the wander up to the CIC hut or around the forest and is a highlight of visiting FW and the surrounding area. A lot of these folk will stop overnight in their rental vans and motorhomes. It used to be possible to stay at Nevis Range and use the facilities there but now it’s charged per night, less people are willing to pay for it and will use the next closest big space they can find and that just happens to be the NFCP.

My own personal experience is that climbers normally try to find a spot for themselves out of the way, whereas the average person doesn’t seem to mind being surrounded by loads of other people and vehicles. This seems to be more true in summer for whatever reason, climbers vans definitely do take up a big area of spaces in the winter months and that’s also something I think needs managed better. I’d have less issue with vans and motorhomes staying for days if there was actually toilets for them to use. 

Right, but compared to that, having to call a taxi or hitch back to Fort William doesn't seem like that serious an issue? I mean, it's not something you'd want to plan for, but it wouldn't be the end of the world as a "what if we're late back" option.

I don't think I'd be keen to do it several days in a row, but if I were ambling up for a stay at the CIC hut I think I'd take the Smelter track over the Pony - some of it's steepish, but it's all drivable (well, with a Landrover) up to the top carpark so not impossible, and with the spruced-up path to the hut being pretty amenable now it's a more civilised route, to my mind. Parking still might be tricky, of course - I've only done it when coming from town so I've not had to worry

thanks - i'll make sure to comment. Everyone else on this thread please do the same (about the lack of toilets especially!) 

i'm guessing that the requirement for fast charger may well be a requirement in the council local plan for car parks of a certain capacity

Becasue the above posts are a combination of trying to paint climbers as demons and as holier-than-thou car park users. Often those in vans are climbers (at least they were round my way when I lived in the UK). I was interested.

Exactly (and no, I’ve not spent a night at any station - but have had to walk down once)

It doesn't matter whether it's smelter, golf course or forestry commission, the issue has remained the same: facing up to it being at the bottom of the UK's highest mountain and that never going to change. 

Same decision making quality as the helicopter matter. Highest mountain, dangerous trunk road, maritime activity, forestry activity, police station, hospital with respected A&E dept, SAR helicopter activity, ambulance helicopter activity, and no sensible place to land them. Decades of messing about with ideas of how to make the area aeronautically accessible. Oban airport is not very convenient!

I don’t disagree but I doubt the FC took the views of the local community (whatever those might be) into account. They just did whatever they thought was appropriate for their forest management. Although installing toilets would be appropriate…

A shuttle service from the retail park is not a bad idea if it can go to the top car park. It would need to be quite flexible depending on demand. If you miss the return trip you can walk down past the smelter (never been that way but sounds like it’s not a crazy idea). If it only goes to the NF car park I’d just walk from the ski centre. However not sure if that track is open to pedestrians? 

I think we need to recognise that the main business of the Forestry is just that, looking after climbers and other tourists is secondary.

The latest I have heard (CC Comms) is that ops affecting the track to the dam will be ongoing until at least 2025. It could well be these ops which have limited the NF car park.

Parking is available in Glen Nevis and at Achiltibuie.

As much as we might like to be, we are not the centre of everyone's universe.

Don’t disagree though suspect providing access is part of their charter or whatever. That’s why they provide it, presumably. 

Yes, I believe it is.

I don't think Achiltibuie is the word you are looking for.

That would be a very long walk in.

No.its not, you are correct. Can't recall the name Ach something, there is a bunkhouse and a bar there

‘About us

The Forestry Commission increases the value of woodlands to society and the environment.’

In their own words. sounds like a woodland owned by the people for the people. Arms length body or not  

- toilets please to help manage the impact of higher visitor numbers

- nominal charge with the expectation of reasonable maintenance made to the track for access purposes/toilets upkeep

My preference would be no charge. If the UK was serious about investing in outdoor access we should fund it fully. Promoting a heathy lifestyle could save the NHS more money than that car park could make over my lifetime and be a far better investment of the funds regardless.

Achintee

That's the badger, thanks, saves me surfing the Ilfracombe to find it.

I'm not sure that their brief includes the provision of roads and car parks for climbers that are looking for a shorter walk in?

I don't see how describing climbers as entitled and self-important is any better than assuming that they are all bastions of virtue.

Rapid chargers also typically charge "blocking" fees to discourage antisocial charger use. This would obviously be incompatible with a carpark where people will typically be leaving their cars for many hours at a time. Lower power AC charging would be both cheaper to install and more useful to EV users of the Ben car park.

Don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment but it's a car park, not a food bank. If you've managed to buy a car and can afford to fuel it, £3 per day is not a huge ask.

this would be a great comment to add to the planning application: 

https://wam.highland.gov.uk/wam/caseDetails.do?caseType=Application&key... 

I know a lot of people who only managed to get a car by having one donated and know they'll have to get rid of it when it comes to MOT because they can't afford any work at all. They basically work with cars that live in the gap between disposal and write off. They can just about afford to insure it. This includes a few guide friends.

I would, but having looked at the application I can see no reference to the provision of EV charging points so it's not something I could really comment on.

Certainly the residents of Torlundy seem none too impressed with the proposal. Can't say I blame them.

No but I think they are supposed to provide access and facilities that go with that (albeit not necessarily access to the top car park). So a decent car park without potholes and with toilets is a fair ask - which can be paid for, as in many other FC forests. They have visitor centres and cafes in some places but don’t seem to have exploited that opportunity, presumably because they don’t think it’s worth it, or perhaps it’s not feasible given the available space and access via Torlundy, plus competition from the ski centre. 

Yeah, Forestry and Land Scotland (who are actually the relevant people, I think) are pretty clear that as a public body, supporting tourism and access with a view to their broader social benefits is very much part of their remit:
https://forestryandland.gov.scot/what-we-do/who-we-are

You can argue over whether providing free parking or composting toilets offers the best value way of achieving that, but it's far from irrelevant to them.

Fair point, perhaps comparing a car park to vital health care was a stretch. But it would be nice to see outdoor access and heathy lifestyle higher on the political agenda. 

I hope it can all be worked to a reasonable solution, that continues access and manages the conflicts/toilet issues better. 
 

@timjones - kind of missing my point mate. Not everyone who access’s the outdoors is a climber. And not everyone can walk a long way or indeed walk….Especially lazy climbers like me  

From what I can gather. FLS do provide parking, we have been using it and the improved footpaths for many years now. Currently, this parking is being appropriately managed to enable forestry work to be completed. Placing boulders on the car park  approach track is to ensure safe and unobstructed passage for forestry machinery.

Once the work is complete, there are plans afoot to expand the parking.

A temporary inconvenience to enable FLS to go about their business. Hardly the end of the world.

probably in general not frivolous climbers these people with donated cars?

NF carp park probably suffering the same fate wrt vans as the rest of the country.

I haven't been since lockdown but I bet there is a plague of vans. Seem to remember 15 years ago this wasn't a problem but they're everywhere now. The climbers car park at Aviemore ski centre is like 50% vans. This is tolerated by the ski range as long as you stay out of the skiers way and use the lower of the two car parks (Not the nice gravel skiers cp but the icy mud pool just below). Everyone goes down the hill in the evening as well to be fair.

You get the issue with defecation wherever you have people overnighting in a cp with no facilities, Llanberis Pass, NC500 etc etc. No one wants to shit in their van it seems. personally no issue with bagging and disposing of it later.

Yup. Every bloody layby.

Agree. The carp population in the Allt a’Mhuillin hasn’t been at the same levels since there’s been a van infestation in the area. This invasive species outcompetes the local fauna. 

Since I’ve retired I’ve spent a lot of time gadding about in our van. This has not been my experience.

I'm not sure that I am missing your point. Improving access to forests is great but they will be able to provide more if they don't spend money maintaining long roads and car parking for minority user groups that want to access activities outside the forest.

Good trails accessed from parking close to major roads will benefit the health and well-being of far more people including those who don't walk far.

This appears to be about fit and active people who merely want the convenience of a shorter walk in.

I'd never have guessed Suella Braverman was on this forum!

I had a look thro' the proposal documents and saw no signage or mention of this in the attached documents so would tend to think this is bs? Is it in an addendum or ?

You are correct in that EV charging points do not form part of the planning application.

But, as I said above, I have heard recently that the project is delayed due to the EV charging requirement. It might be a requirement of the Rural Tourism Infrastructure Fund grant FLS are going for, but of course it may not be true.

The planning application is now over a year old and not yet determined - that makes me think FLS are behind the delay, not the Highland Council.

Irrespective of the EV charger question, if the planning application is approved to include the barriers and APNR and FLS enforce the "no overnight parking" rule (which of course the barriers & APNR facilitate), that will have significant implications for climbers.

There is clearly a need/desire/nice to have/laziness, however you want to call it from people who would like to get outside. Be that to the north face BN or any area surrounding that car park. removing it will just push the pressures elsewhere. For me this is no different to the van issue. Rant about it all you want regarding lay-bys being full, but active management and providing a solution to the demand is the only way to fix it. IMO

If my last couple of trips to the Lakes* is anything to go by, not only the lay-bys but also pretty much every passing place and when they are full, onto the verges.

Glad I sold the van so aren’t associated with the current antisocial scourge of van-lifers.

* Wasdale and Langdale

Or enforce moderation, Yosemite style.

I didn't say "invasion of vans".

What van you got? It's not everyone in a van but it doesn't take many, if you have two people a day shitting at a popular venue thats 14 a week, 728 turds a year, 7280 turds over 10 years.... and they always use the same spots behind the fallen tree or just up the path out of sight. It is a problem imo and it pisses the locals off round here for sure.

Don’t get me wrong. Crapping outside your van is appalling. Whenever someone asks me what a priority is in a van my number one is a toilet. Thing is the vast majority of vans I see are coachbuilt or PVC’s which have a toilet. I’m not saying it’s not a problem but I’m confused as I don’t see it out and about myself. 
I also don’t see areas overrun with vans. Strange.

One of the best things I've ever done is get a small van about 18 months ago. Another of the best things I've ever done is get a small kitchen bin and a load of small bin liners from Asda (total cost less than £10) to shit in. I just carry it behind the fallen tree or up the path out of sight for a shit. Keep bagged shits in a big bin liner for appropriate disposal later. Problem trivially solved. Guilt free van dossing all year round.

This is pretty much what I do too. I'm unconvinced that van users contribute to excrement issues as much as some seem to think. Even if the van doesn't have a toilet if you're sleeping in a van you tend to plan on having a shit.

Which brings us back to the idea that this sort of issue is a people thing, not a specific group of people thing.

It's numbers and education, not climbers and vanlifers.

Funnily enough, I was climbing on the Ben this weekend and what was the first thing I seen when I arrived at the car park on Saturday morning? Someone wandering off into the trees with some loo roll for their morning crap. 

On the theme of morning rituals, what is now the standard approach for al fresco poohs when wild camping in the UK?  Particularly if pitched on snow?  I picked up some of these on a recent trip to Canada, have not yet used them.

https://www.basspro.com/shop/en/79595

If you can't either bury it at an appreciable depth underground (say about 30cm?) or launch it into the sea, bag it up and take it with you.

Most people, compared to say a few decades ago, have accepted that letting your dog shit everywhere is socially unacceptable. It's weird this does not extend to humans.

I'm afraid I don't think "launching it into the sea" is acceptable on any level. Not much different from "sweeping it under the carpet" and I somehow doubt you do that? I agree with the comparison with dog shit though... 

As a general principle I think we should start getting used to the idea of bagging it and disposing of it properly - but for a solo wild camper caught short I don't see that dumping it in the ocean is materially different from burying it.

I do a bit of yacht sailing and most poo ends up in the sea.

In popular anchorages this is problematic, especially for any swimmers.

Some yachts have sewage tanks, but these are still emptied into the sea.

Yachties & their poo could be viewed as just as bad as people dumping it near carparks?

Are you suggesting that we shit in bags and hang it in trees?

The two are quite different, I think. Burying it at a proper depth is really unlikely to cause any issue and done well will be totally invisible. Lobbing it into the sea is far more uncontrolled and you don't know where its going to end up and who or what might end up coming into contact with your bobbing turd. Surfers, kayakers, kids swimming, creel fisherman...you name it. Its just such poor practice and shouldn't ever be necessary with a bit of forethought.

I think the closest analogy there would be people burying campervan waste on the hillside, which would definitely not be okay (and possibly illegal).

The difference with the solo wild camper is in volume, which is why I don't really see much issue with it ending up in the sea. However if we're going to make one rule for everyone, it should be bag it (or tank it) and take it home.

I was under the impression it was illegal for boats to just dump untreated waste overboard, but it's not my area.

I also use the sea - a sea kayaker - and never ever need to dispose of waste in the sea. I either bury it on land (easy enough to take a trowel) or carry it out. I have swum in a few popular anchorages on the west coast of Scotland and have come face to face with the odd Clyde Salmon / Mersey Trout. Its grim. At least with a tank, the yachts have the possibility of dumping it far out where its impact will be much less. Otherwise, yes, I don't see a difference with people shitting in the NF car park.

Closed for logging operations?

These are great. I've worked on a couple of conservation projects on uninhabited islands, one in Scotland, the other in the tropics, where we used them for all human waste, with up to 12 people on site for months. You can stretch them over a bucket or you can buy a correctly sized seat. They turn liquids to a stiff gel and barely smell even after a week in 30 degrees.

They should be compulsory for places like Pabbay and Mingulay where there are resident climbers for most of the summer.

Last time I was on the Barra Isles, I believe the official advice from the NTS was to crap straight in to the sea (apparently it breaks down pretty quickly in sea water). Not sure whether that is still the case. Obviously bagging it and taking it off the island would be better though.

These are great, and available from Needlesports too. The standard approach is if you are out on your own in the middle of nowhere in an location not often frequented by wildcampers, burying it is still acceptable but bagging out better. However, fi you are camped at Angle/Sprinkling/Styhead Tarn with the other ten to 20 campers, bag it up!

Pretty much what I do when I'm in the van. I use a cardboard crapper but have just run out so will probably move over to the bin. 

I used to climb with a guy who always got his first "movement" about halfway through the walk in. He always carried a lighter to burn the paper. These days of course all the kids are using wet wipes. 

This isn't just climbers, its the same anywhere. I went to a popular MTB venue and there was the same issue. 

The real question is, is there a threat to access? seems to me that anyone would be hard pressed to justify closure of the NFCP unless they are saying Glen Nevis is the only recognised access and climbers aren't a thing. 

You what? Is this a joke that's gone over my head or a trend I've missed?

This is ongoing, with some people, one in particular who is a member of the climbing community making a serious effort to keep dialogue going with the relevant authorities. 
 

Just to remind everyone, the current state of affairs is because of this:

A significant number of people abused the situation.  Behaviour then, and now, continues to be appalling. 
Most are normal and reasonable but a growing number openly state that they don’t care and intend to do what they want. Think of it as the ‘Trump effect’ of parking..
 

Demand and needs changed over the years and because of a lack of connected thinking and an abundance of lazy thinking there are potential bureaucratic stoppers in the way of any solutions.