Forum menu
What do people think about paying a charge to enter the Mational Parks ? Presumably there would be a sliding scale for cars, bikes and walking. Can the Parks cope with the current number of visitors, without massive investment ? I think it would get my vote providing the fee was 100% (or as close as) reinvested back into the area and not just skimmed off into the treasuary. But on the other hand it would deter the less well off from 'experiencing' the most beatiful parts of the UK.
No, no and thrice no. It would be a nightmare to administer and there are better and more subtle ways of raising revenue if it's needed.
What's wrong with paying for it out of our taxes? Nice steady income then.
Don't want to have to find money every time I go to a park and prefer to think f them as free, like nature intended.
Do the people who live in the parks have to pay?
And what about the many fairly major transport routes that run through the parks, would you have to pay to use those?
[img] 
[/img]
I pay already, sliding scale premium for tourists cheap for residents. Same as things like forestry car park passes.
How would you administer it for somewhere like the South Downs National Park?
Bordered by some of the most densely populated areas in Britain - bisects the south of England etc etc.
I can see in the States where there tends to be low/no population in national parks and limited access points it woudl work but I can think of dozens of ways of accessing the south downs park just from Brighton and hove.
Clearly there would have to be an exemption for those that lived inside the boundaries and for use of the main trunk roads where absolutely required and no other viable alternatives are available.
How is the conjestion charge in London managed ?
[i]How is the conjestion charge in London managed ? [/i]
Cameras on every road into and out of.
So would I have to pay to travel from Whaley to Buxton?
Along the A6 - No. Past Erwood reservoir (forgot the road name) - Yes
I'd be happy to pay. The easiest way is with parking charges. Trying to put us US style toll barriers is going to be very difficult (too many roads), costly, ugly etc. Parking charges have the added benefit that walkers, cyclists and horseriders don't pay if they don't use their car.
No. No. No. No!
Stupidest idea I've heard in a long time. The issue it is trying to address is a lack of funds/income for farmers and the people who maintain the land, and I totally agree that something has to be done, but this isn't it. Part of the problem lies in the fact that we demand cheap produce on our shelves, so we hammer the farmers on price to the point where we have to subsidise them. Surely a better solution would be to pay a fair price for things?
It would create a middle class holiday retreat.
and why the f''k should we pay to visit our own countryside.
and what isnt sustainable about the countryside.
Stop trying to sustain it and let it adapt to how its being used.
And stop managing most of the uplands for grouse shooting.
Rant over.
Thing is, our National parks aren't really "parks". They are just parts of the country that have a bit of countryside we think is worth preserving. People live there and there is plenty of business and industry going on in them. You cant just fence them off and restrict access.
And what about AONBs - they're sort of like national parks. Should we try and charge to enter them as well?
Pay to drive around Northumberland? No tis a silly idea.
No. Stupid.
James Redbanks was on 5 Live yesterday discussing this. Fascinating and thought provoking guy. He's not advocating a charge for entry to the Parks; he quite rightly highlighted that "tourism" was pulling in 1.1 billion per year yet the people who keep the fells looking how they are have no access to this and are living, in many cases, like "church mice".
Can't wait to read his book.
No. Should be doing everything to try and encourage all members of society to visit them. Lots of other ways to raise money. Also if there were any such scheme it should be equally charged to residents. Some already have enough of a nimby or locals only attitude.
I think you could very easily justify a swinging 'second residence' penalty on the council tax for holiday homes etc
Great
It's taken nearly a 1000 years to get a sliver of access rights back onto the the land taken by our Norman overlords and now you want us to pay ?
Perhaps some kind to implanted (paid for) satellite tracking tag to stop us pesky destructive MTB'rs sneaking in on bridle-paths
JHJ is going to love this
Joking apart, joining the Woodland Trust, lets me a think I am doing my bit
Stupid idea. I live right on the border of the Lake District National Park. So would that mean I'd have to pay to cross the road?
why on earth would you want to
deter the less well off from 'experiencing' the most beatiful parts of the UK
It seems to me the less well off would be the ones with the most to gain from getting out of the towns and cities and into the country.
National parks should be free to enter, definitely for foot/horse/bike traffic. Charging cars or for parking may have some merit but as a lot of people aren't within walking/riding distance then you're effectively charging none locals to visit the parks, which is bad, people should not be encouraged to visit not discouraged.
could they not dodge that by flipping their primary (seeing as how so many MPs do it)I think you could very easily justify a swinging 'second residence' penalty on the council tax for holiday homes etc
You have to pay to use national Trust Properties, either by being a member or paying per visit. As I posted you can charge for car parks, you won't have to pay to cross the road @smet
Ok - Is there any point in defining an area as a National Park, if there are not going to be any 'additional' restrictions beyond those areas immediately outside the boundaries ?
As I posted you can charge for car parks
Don't most car parks charge anyway?
why the f''k should we pay to visit our own countryside.
THIS
You have to pay to use national Trust Properties
So I have to right of access to private property ...who knew.
And your point is ?
Many of us will feel, rightly IMHO, that the countryside belongs to us all [ probably why there are so many ROW] and we should be able to access it for free just like we can with the pavement or Manchester or Northumberland.
No there wouldn't really be. Luckily there are loads of restrictions, not least the restriction on building and development.Ok - Is there any point in defining an area as a National Park, if there are not going to be any 'additional' restrictions beyond those areas immediately outside the boundaries ?
With regards to parking charges,it hasn't worked up here. Ben Nevis path needs £200k a year spent on it to cope with the numbers. Carpark is rammed every weekend from April to October...holds 300 cars at £3 a pop,with all money going on the museum and paths and raises £45k. Linn of Dee carpark,probably the handiest car park in the whole world and the jumping off point for a large portion of the Cairngorms frequently has groups of camper vans overnighting..£7k a year!And people moan if there is nowhere to park or a toilet. As to access to hills,well we are a bit ahead of you Southerners there...(smug mode)
I blame the cyclists and their overinflated tyres.
[i]Is there any point in defining an area as a National Park, if there are not going to be any 'additional' restrictions beyond those areas immediately outside the boundaries ? [/i]
Restrictions on what?
National Parks are defined to preserve an area of countryside for the enjoyment of the nation as a whole, not to define a border that we'd like to stop the riff-raff from crossing by charging them.
Sancho :[and what isnt sustainable about the countryside.]
Very little of the countryside management is sustainable. Most of the work and produce is reliant on some form of petrochemical, or a substance derived from non sustainable sources, to give us the cheap food that we seem to demand.
Back to the OP; the idea is not viable as the NPs are designated as national, but, by and large, privately owned. What are you trying to achieve by charging? As a revenue stream is collected you would then have to plan the spending in the NPs. What are you going to spend it on? Do you want the parks turned in to theme parks? As areas that we as a nation have decided are of national importance are designated and protected by legislation. Taxes are collected and a portion of those taxes are used to regulate and control that park. That is where you can change the uses and protection of the parks, not by restricting access at the most basic level, by charging everybody to enter.
No a million times.
They're funded by general taxation and it should stay that way. Stick parking meters in the car parks if necessary, but a charge to enter the park? **** off.
And as for the idea that people living in the parks should get it discounted / free - why? Your council tax doesn't exactly go towards mowing the grass around Buttermere.
You live in an area of outstanding natural beauty for free and want to charge the rest of the population to enter? Pay full whack like everyone else.
NO!
They were set up for the enjoyment of the public and funding, other than car parks, should come from general taxation.
The government needs to encourage folk to get out and exercise. It's good for the body (what obesity epidemic) and for the mind. Long term, it's saving on healthcare costs so it would be a false economy to put further financial obstacles in folks way.
No. Stupid idea.
Forget your NT, museums etc for a moment... JB hits the nail on't head, it's all about the farmers who look after the majority of the land/landscape.The other groups have a captive audience, members and donators. OK farmers get some support from the Gov & the EU but not enough. Yes there are some "rich" farmers but more are on the bread line and like all other things in the UK getting older and no one back filling. MrsT used to work for the Scottish agg dept, daughters partner is currently wrestling with the new Eng grants system which has turned inti the usual shambles 🙄
I am the son of an ex farm worker, my mum was a dairy maid and my dad's family were farm workers 😀
justinbieber - Member
No. No. No. No!Stupidest idea I've heard in a long time. The issue it is trying to address is a lack of funds/income for farmers and the people who maintain the land, and I totally agree that something has to be done, but this isn't it. Part of the problem lies in the fact that we demand cheap produce on our shelves, so we hammer the farmers on price to the point where we have to subsidise them. Surely a better solution would be to pay a fair price for things?
+1 JB 😆
Ok - Is there any point in defining an area as a National Park, if there are not going to be any 'additional' restrictions beyond those areas immediately outside the boundaries ?
There are a huge number of restrictions in place in NPs. Paying to get in isn't one of them. What would the benefits be?
Why the hell would we want to give farmers any more money than we already do? Apart from the second home owners who have pushed house prices out of the reach of anyone with a normal job, farmers are the only people with any money round here in the Lake District. Many get tens of thousands in 'area payments' before they even get out of bed. And as for this 'guardians of the landscape' bollocks. Ask yourself why there are no wild flower meadows anymore and why there are no fish in the rivers like there used to be and why the fells are devoid of heather and grazed to within half an inch of the ground. Farmers exploit the countryside they don't look after it.
Just as a representation of what you're talking about trying to control access to:
[img] 
[/img]
[img] http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/?a=243104 [/img]
Why the hell would we want to give farmers any more money than we already do?
Spoken to many farmers (the ones that actually make their livings farming) in the Lakes/Peak/Dales etc recently?
Yes I have actually, used to work quite closely with ones around Langdale and Grasmere. Most have spent years of subsidy money on land elsewhere as a pension pot except for one who has a yacht in the med and took several skiing trip every winter. I'm not exaggerating when I say that some of the bigger farms were getting over £100,000 a year under the old headage payment scheme before they sold a single sheep and it's not greatly different now.
and why the f''k should we pay to visit our own countryside.
/thread...
Seeing as sheffield back's right onto the Peak, you'd have the bizzare situation where you couldn't leave the city without paying a reverse conjestion charge (seeing as any route through and out to the East is always congested).
Ditto Snakes Pass, whils't not a major road, is pretty much the quickest way between Sheffield and the east side of Manchester.
The States system works because they're nationalised, the government owns huge ammonts of land over there, ranging from "useless to everyone" and managed by the bureao of land management, through national forrests to national parks. At the extreme end they have designated wilderness, where you can't even ride a bike.
[img] 
[/img]
The States system works because they're nationalised, the government owns huge ammonts of land over there
and also because the permanent population of most of the parks in the USA is very low.
You could also argue that charging is against the very ethos of our parks as one of their stated aims is to 'promote understanding and enjoyment (including enjoyment in the form of recreation) of the special qualities of the area by the public'.