Forum menu
The American system works because their national parks ARE National Parks as defined by international standards, i.e. More than 90% or their area is still in a natural state with no man made development. In the UK our so-called national parks are at best Natural Parks under the international definition or more probably the even lesser "area of outstanding natural beauty". They are National Parks in name only.
Some of the American parks are considered so sensitive they have a permit system whereby no more than 2 people per day can be in certain areas. Having seen photos from the summit of Pen-y-an on the most recent Bank Holiday Sunday (a queue of approximately 300 people waiting to take their photo at the summit), I think this might have some merit too 🙂
Something I am surprised we have not yet adopted is the continental stile "tourist bed tax". This is a fee of 1-2 % of the price of any overnight stay, added to your accommodation bill and collected by the community for touristy related stuff like laying on extra toilets, or maintaining car parks and tourist info centres. Certainly here in the BB National Park the Authority has recently closed most of the Tourist Info centres and all the public loos in outlying areas due to lack of funds.
Techypete I've seen some shite in my time but your post is near on the winner.
My mother's side of the family are farming nearly all got out as there's no cash in it. The last generation is her brother after that it's the end of long life of farmer. My grandparents certainly haven't retired with yatchs in the Caribbean or 1000,000s in the blank. There's some wealthy landowners but wealthy farmers are few and far between.
I can only speak from my own experience but there seems to be quite a few very comfortably off ones in my area of the Lake District. The latest craze seems to be personalised reg plates on farm Land Rovers, not something you would expect poverty stricken sons of the soil to be spending their hard earned grant cheques on.
I don't begrudge anyone a living, especially when they work the long hours that farmers undoubtedly do, but spare me the 'we only earn £1.50 an hour for looking after all this countryside for the tourists' claptrap.
National Park Tax
Already pay a Tax for that thanks.
Let's be clear farmers absolutely need our support.
Also you need to think about the politics of just asking for more money from central government. It's much fairer if those using a facility pay towards it's up-keep. Road tolls or an entrance fee is a non-starter. Thats why I suggested car parking charges
A National Park isn't a "facility" 😆
Bed tax is fairly common and might be sustainable at a low rate.
[i]It's much fairer if those using a facility pay towards it's up-keep[/i]
When can I expect all motorways to be converted to toll roads?
I don't want to pay for hospital services I've no intention of using, either.
[quote=mikewsmith ]I pay already, sliding scale premium for tourists cheap for residents. Same as things like forestry car park passes.
Surprised nobody else has commented on the scaling of the park fees in the US which you quoted. 4 times as expensive for 4 people to enter on bikes rather than in a minivan. If 3 of you want to go for a ride in the park it's cheaper to drive a car into the park than ride from home. How backwards is that?
I've just had a quick look at http://farmsubsidy.openspending.org/ and between 1999 and 2008 one farmer in Langdale received € 530,960.50 in subsidies, in addition to any profits made from sheep/cattle sales.
I've just had a quick look at http://farmsubsidy.openspending.org/ and between 1999 and 2008 one farmer in Langdale received € 530,960.50 in subsidies, in addition to any profits made from sheep/cattle sales.
I can't access that but € 530,960.50 over 10 years seems an awful long way short of your £100,000 per year claim.
Oh, plus having accessed it looks like that farm received double the subsidy of any one else in the area and an order of magnitude more than the average - I'd say that it doesn't really lend support to your assertion.
([url= http://farmsubsidy.openspending.org/search/?page=1&q=langdale ]link that works[/url])
As someone who lives in one, absolutely NO.
As already mentioned above they aren't really parks at all, they are working, living landscapes which just happen to have some additional planning protection. Charging people to come here is just going to make it even more difficult for locals to make a living in what are generally fairly low income areas with artificially high property prices.
I'd argue against increased car parking charges for the same reason - it's already happened in the town where I live and local businesses have suffered badly as a result.
With regard to farming I don't dispute there are some wealthy landowners coining the system but equally there are a lot of smaller farms which are struggling - particularly hill farms which in a lot of ways have the biggest potential impact in terms of water management issues and landscape stewardship.
There is no doubt that the way in which farm subsidies are paid needs to change - the SFP system in particular is deeply flawed. A lot of farmers would agree with this but they are stuck in the system.
I don't neccessarily agree with all of it but George Monbiot's article on this subject is worth a read if you haven't already:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2013/may/22/britain-uplands-farming-subsidies
The national parks are ours - we've already paid for them. The idea that they can be reduced to a commodity to be repackaged and resold back to us actually makes me very depressed, and there is a genuine fear that TTIP could make it an even scarier prospect.
I can't access that but € 530,960.50 over 10 years seems an awful long way short of your £100,000 per year claim.
Not anywhere near it at all more like around £30k and there's been hardly any profit sheep and cattle sales for along time. So yeah utter bollocks.
How about a scheme where you get charged during the summer but earn credit during the winter. If you use it all year round, you break even.
Sorry chaps, my mistake, only £30000 a year, hardly worth filling the forms in for. The same guy got £76000 in 2005 and he was a long way off being the highest 'earner'. http://www.whitehavennews.co.uk/news/farm-subsidies-revealed-1.403467#
Sorry chaps, my mistake, only £30000 a year, hardly worth filling the forms in for.
Well a quick bit of mental arithmetic gives the average langdale farmer collecting 39000 euros over the 10 year period you referred to. Frankly, I'd always thought yachts were a bit pricier.
He was a long way from being the highest earner because the highest earners were the massive land-owning estates which were referred to earlier.
A really bad idea.
We should be encouraging people to visit countryside and national parks - our health and wellbeing would improve, so saving money.
For those who live there, we need to support them earning a living from visitors, not more hurdles and barriers.
I regularly have to travel to our two Scottish national parks for work, should I pay each day....
How heck you would administer it...
I regularly drive out of our largest National Park to get to work. Should I have to pay to get home?
unoccupied homes taxes would get my vote.. parents live in a very nice part of windermere ( have for 30 years) next door a fella from cambridge bought the property for 450k and demolished it the next day.. built a millionaires 5 bed home and sold it for 1.1m within a year to someone from Larndon who promtly demolished half of it had interior designers in and now uses it for 3 or 4 long weekends a year.. keeps a rangerover in the garage and gave my dad a cash card so he can sort out the gardening window washing car servcing etc..the air con is on all day every day.. and the lights come on and off automatically.. how the other half live..
Stupid idea. I'm happy to pay for them via taxation.
Anyway, if it's purely about money. Charge entry to the big parks in London, iirc they cost more than the Lakes and it'd be easier to manage entry. (May not be serious suggestion)
marcus - Member
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 ?
National Park Authorities have the same planning powers as 'normal' local authorities. The difference is what they use those powers for. NPs are bound by law to do three things:
The first two are statutory purposes:
1. Conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage
2. Promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of National Parks by the Public
The third is newer and asks Park Authorities to:
3. Seek to foster the economic and social well being of local communities within the National Parks
If there are ever any conflicts between these these the Sanford Principle dictates that 1. takes precedent. Those are very different to what goes on beyond Park boundaries.
Living in the PDNPA I think it ought to be disbanded as the services that it offers are duplicating what is already available from District / City and County Councils. I do have a negative of them as they cost me £2k on a planning application and an appeal.
npa's can devolve planning powers to LA's if they choose to. The south Downs park has done this in some places, in others the LA's won't accept it because it costs them money.
Great question.
Speaking as both a NT member and someone who's not given the OP's question a huge amount of thought thus far, my gut feeling is,
a) National parks should be accessible to all and
b) National parks should be paid for by all.
Given what I pay for NT membership, I'd have though that paying for land access / maintenance out of general taxation would cost buttons a year extra on National Insurance.
No there wouldn't really be. Luckily there are loads of restrictions, not least the restriction on building and development.
Ha Ha Ha Ha. Bollocks. The total inconsistency is laughable, the PDNPA is pretty toothless in anything other than making it hard for people who live here to do anything as they have some notional idea of preserving the landscape in some mythical period of time that never existed. But because the major landowners, mineral extractors and county council have all the power, they exercise what little power they do posses to mess with ordinary people just trying to have a life. (Also amazing how many people in positions of influence over the Peak live elsewhere)
Edit: Oh and if they can't stop 4x4s driving on restricted byways, trying to stop residents getting in and out without paying should be something to behold. So no, not a good idea.
I'm not exaggerating when I say that some of the bigger farms were getting over £100,000
Sorry chaps, my mistake, only £30000 a year, hardly worth filling the forms in for.
I rest my case.
I said 'some of the bigger farms' not every farm in the national park. I still say farmers in the Lake District are already doing very nicely thank you without any more taxpayers money being sent their way. If it was that bad there'd be dozens of farms for sale or let would there not?
Tax payers are already contributing to them.
Not sure about other NP's, but the one around here isn't too popular with those in the park, not sure what benefits we are getting, just a lot of paperwork and misled short term projects. I see more access work going on just outside the park boundary by the council.
Not sure the pay for entry format works, those who enjoy and visit the parks the most are probably a greater support than burden.
I work for an organisation with several tenant farmers and it is hard to say which are the best managed farms. We have some very tidy, productive farms which the families work hard on and reinvest in, which is good. But we also have some that are just holding ground and subsidy farming which are fantastic in conservation, compliance and wildlife markers through neglect.
One farm is a good halfway with award winning hay meadows, but is the one which will never turn an income for the tenants that would allow them to make it their sole job.
Good, that's the sort of thing they should be doing.the PDNPA is pretty toothless in anything other than making it hard for people who live here to do anything as they have some notional idea of preserving the landscape
Again, good. Its a national park. Good to have a wider perspective.Also amazing how many people in positions of influence over the Peak live elsewhere
PDNPA act as the case for the defence, prosecution, the jury and the judge. Even their administration is p*ss poor, because someone didn't include the word "static" in a planning report it cost the taxpayer over £650k
http://www.peakparkwatch.org.uk/news
The PDNPA do nothing to support people who actually live in the park
@nickjb - is my chimney pot shape more important to the preservation than the removal of massive amounts of the landscape itself? Is is it a bigger issue than incongruous buildings being erected (yes I said erected) that are at odd completely with those around them. I could go on, and on, and on with examples showing decisions that are incongruous with the Parks own rationale for existing. It's poorly run, badly managed and dances to a tune other than a democratic one. Re your comment about non residents having a heavy influence - the Peak has been in a state of flux since man settled the hill forts. It's a dynamic landscape understood by those who live in it, how does someone who lives elsewhere understand the economic and social drivers that keep the fabric of the park intact? They don't and it shows in the decisions they make.
Rogerthecat - it looks like we are on the same page