Linn o' Dee parking charges
In issue 20 of The Scottish Mountaineer, we carried this short report on the introduction of car parking charges by NTS for use of the car park at Linn o' Dee. We are interested to hear the views of our membership on this question, and Neil Reid has contributed the article below to start things off. Please add your thoughts by completing the
form at the foot of the page.
Linn of Dee
Car Park
Following on from recent consultations, the National Trust for Scotland has outlined its plans for improving the Linn of Dee car park, and for introducing a parking fee of £2 per vehicle per visit (coaches £10) on a pay & display basis. As at other Trust properties,
parking will be free to NTS members displaying a current sticker within
the vehicle. The Trust will monitor the scheme and would welcome any
comments from visitors. Nearly all respondents in the consultation
exercise welcomed the improvements to the car park and gave general
support for parking charges on the principle that income generated be
used to fund the associated facilities, footpath repair and
maintenance, and other conservation work at Mar Lodge.
|
Neil Reid writes:
I note in the most recent
Scottish Mountaineer a small article (see
above)
seeming to welcome uncritically the introduction of parking charges at
the Linn o' Dee car park. Surely some closer consideration is due here.
First: was there any consultation prior to the
installation
of the pay and display machines? I visit this area fairly frequently,
yet had heard nothing, and even on a trip just a month earlier there
was no indication of what was coming. I don't know what planning
permission is necessary in our much vaunted newest national park, but I
would have expected more openness in advance of such development with
major implications.
In one fell swoop the NTS - holding the land in trust
for the
people of Scotland - has done what none of the previous private
landlords dared try: started charging for access to the mountains.
It claims justification for the charge by saying the
money
goes for upkeep of the car park and support for its conservation work
on the Mar Lodge Estate. In fact, as it admits itself, the car park was
paid for by Scottish Natural Heritage and grants from the EU. Upkeep is
minimal.
As for its work on the estate: so far its policy on
footpaths
is inconsistent and highly questionable. While work to correct erosion
on some stretches of path was necessary, other sections which displayed
no erosion have been renewed with the currently in vogue over-wide,
bright red grit paths which are visible from miles off. (And I have
personal experience of this area over a period of some 35 years.)
The climbing and walking world is also rife with
rumours that
long term plans are to remove all the mountain bothies in the area,
despite their integral role in Scotland's climbing heritage.
Neither of these policies - indiscriminate path
meddling or
bothy removal - are ones which I wish to support, and reaction to the
NTS' past mismanagement of Glen Coe suggests I am not alone.
I and many other have been raised to look on the
mountains as
our heritage and birthright, despite occasional attempts at obstruction
from landlords. I do not think I have abused that right and I have no
intention of helping fund a body whose record with mountain properties
is far worse than my own.
Quite apart from my personal objections to NTS'
competence in
land management, there is a wider issue. In the recent and ongoing work
the MC of S regarding the access bill, there has been an assumption
that access should be free. Okay, at the moment you can park at the
roadside, but I have no doubt the NTS will address that loophole very
shortly: once they do, since the Linn'o Dee is the only practicable
acess point to much of the Braemar side of the Cairngorms, there will
be a de facto charge for anyone wishing access without an extra 8 or 10
mile walk-in from Braemar. It may only be two pounds (at the monent)
but it sets a very dangerous precedent.
I would urge everyone to oppose this charge.
YOUR COMMENTS
Mick Greenshields writes:
What is needed are more carparks
around the hills the cost is not issue the fact are your car is safe.
Ian Ferguson is prepared to accept the charges:
I am not against paying to park
a car. It
costs to park a car in cities and towns,why should it cost nothing to
park a car in the countryside if someone is providing parking places?
Neil Reid's personal objections to the NTS are irrelevant as is his
'wider issue'. The freedom to roam on the countryside is the real
issue. The cost of accessing this freedom is another or should one
expect free tranport to the hills to access this right?
Bruce Strachan opposes charging:
The cost is not an issue post is
blinkered to say the least!!!
Say you`re unemployed and use the car park for daily
excercise, where are you going to find the £14 a week?
Surely a national body should consider EVERYONE? not the
above average wage earners for whom money is no object.
This is indeed a worrying precedent, if unchecked I see
this
going the things are in Wales/Lakes with some car parks charging
£5 a trip to park.
The removal of Cairngorm bothies began years ago, but
must be
halted many of us have great memories of bothy nights all over the
Gorms, the NTS must not get away with complete sterilisation of our
history.
Neil Reid writes:
With respect to Mick
Greenshields, I'm not aware that car parks per se make cars any safer.
However there are already pay and display machines at
Linn of
Dee, Glen Clova and Loch Muick, setting a very tempting precedent for
Coire Cas, if not other areas.
There's also the problem that, once people pay fees they
expect something in return. It's not too fanciful to see a toilet block
and, who knows, a visitors centre, following at the Linn o Dee, the NTS
citing visitor demand as justification.
This idea of paying for access to the hills is bad
enough, but
if it proves to be the thin end of the wedge we're all going to feel
pretty silly when the next generation of hill-climbers ask what we did
to protect the hills and wild places.
Richard
Spencer writes:
Parking Charges are NOT access
charges! I'm
much intrigued by the unemployed man who drives to Linn o'Dee for daily
exercise - wouldn't a push bike be healthier and cheaper? My NTS sub
could be viewed as a Car Park season ticket, and cheap at the price!
Doug has a story to tell:
'In one fell swoop the NTS -
holding the land
in trust for the people of Scotland - has done what none of the
previous private landlords dared try: started charging for access to
the mountains.'
On a recent vist home (Strathspey) I, along with a
couple of
others parked at the Loch an Eilein carpark on Rothiemurchus estate and
were asked to pay 'per head'. This seems very much like charging for
access rather than parking and I know the estate recieve a huge payment
each year from SNH to help with management. Seems similar to the NTS on
the other side of the hill.
ps we refused to pay, and from the comments of the car
park
attendent weweren't the first (we did offer to leave our address if Mr
Grant wanted to contact us)
Scot Tares writes:
This is an extremley worrying
trend. A car
park has recently been built at Invercauld Estate complete with public
toilets. On my last visit there two weeks ago I refused to pay the
£2 charge resulting in a note being posted on my window
stating
"my £2 fee would help towards the maintenance of the car
park". I
didn't ask for the car park in the first place.
Those who go to the mountains regularily will end up
finding
other parking spaces. I do this already in Glen Clova where I park in
the small quarry before you come to the main car park and at the
forestry commision car park at The hermitage in Dunkeld where the NTS
have also introduced £2 charges. The NTS has a long well
documented history of failing Scotland's landscape and the people who
treasure it.
It is well known that if a car park is put in place,
people
will use it, creating a honeypot (Shiehallion anyone). As it becomes
more popular, so the size is increased, toilets are added, the surface
is macadamised to prevent the four wheel drive brigade damaging their
precious Tesco run abouts. And in turn charges are introduced. Like a
vicious circle, more people arrive and expect to have the mountain
experience handed to them on a plate,eg the funicular, rather than put
some effort into it. Before you know it Derry Lodge has been opened as
a visitor centre and the urban sprawl has eroded just a little further
into our precious wild environment.
This is all blatantly a money making excercise, of which
only
a small proportion will be put back into the maintenance of the car
park and surrounding paths. Our wilderness is not a commodity that can
be used as a money making device.
Dave Gray writes:
Like Neil I have used the Mar Lodge Estate
for many years and I can remember previous landlords and their approach
to land management, remember the path on the South Top of Beinne Bhuird
and bothies mysteriously burning down? The path has gone as part of the
Trust strategic plan for paths. To say that the NTS approach to paths
is patchy and questionable is to ignore the reality of the situation,
there is a ten-year strategic plan for paths on the Estate. I have seen
it and it details every path on the estate and the plans for it.
The main thrust of my post relates to the suggestion
that the
NTS plan to remove all bothies. I feel that this rumour may have
originated from myself as a result of an approach I made on behalf of a
group of Aberdeen climbers re the Garbh Choire refuge/bothy. At the
time [beginning of the year] the Estate responded they were minded to
remove the bothy in the long term and that before we went ahead with
any work we would need to discuss the issue. I should stress that there
are no immediate plans to remove it and as a matter of fact I was at
Mar Lodge today to discuss the possibility of repairing the structure
next year. If the Estate removes the bothy it would be many years from
now and after wide consultation. My understanding is that there are no
plans to remove any bothies for the Mar Lodge Estate; this
understanding is as a result of asking the question directly to the
NTS. I have also been involved, with many others in bothy maintenance
on the Estate and again we have had no problems and do not foresee any.
I am not here to defend the Estate or support their
every
move but my first hand experience over the past few years since the NTS
took over does not support the statements made by Mr Reid and I can
only go on first hand experience.
and adds:
Neil should have made direct contact with the estate and those active in bothy maintenance on the Estate before
making his comments. The rumour about bothy closures is factually incorrect as is the statement re the paths. There is a ten year path plan in place. Most hospitals in the UK now have parking charges such charges are sadly now a feature of modern life. As for the comments
made by others re the NTS performance, visit the Estate and contact them directly before rushing to judgement.
Nigel Brown writes:
The point about the Mar Lodge Estate is surely that it isn't just another NTS property; it is a sizeable chunk
of the most sensitive and prized remote area in Britain. Access to it
should be both low key and free. The casual tourist who just wants to
spend a few minutes at Linn of Dee, the local who sees it as a regular
haunt, the day hillwalker, the backpacker; all should be able to go
there and just do it, without being filched for a fee. The car pack as
it was was fine. The NTS seems to be getting into charging supermode;
witness building a new centre in Glencoe then charging those who park
to go in. If they can charge at Linn of Dee, then anyone can charge
anywhere; I for one want to be able to access the hills without facing
a mandatory ticket machine when I get there. I don't mind contributing
by other means; I maintain an NTS membership despite living in Wales
and so can still park at Linn of Dee free; it's the principal here
which is wrong.
The question about legality is interesting; surely a
proper planning was needed?
Neil Reid replies to Dave Gray (above):
The suggestion that I should
have gone to the
NTS before raising concerns about the future security of bothies is
quite valid - but I did, and have yet to receive a reply. Nor have I
seen any official NTS response to either of these concerns (parking
charges and bothies). Surely the MCofS website is not an unreasonable
one to expect the NTS to look at now and then, representing as it does
a large body of hillgoers.
As to whether my comments were 'factually correct' or
not: I
reported the existence of widespread rumours of plans to remove
bothies, and those rumours do exist - I would be only too happy to hear
that they are groundless and would invite the NTS to say so and clear
the matter up. Nor can I withdraw my comments about the
pathbuilding/repair: I would be surprised if there wasn't a plan, but
that doesn't mean it's all good or all makes sense. Much of the work is
very worthwhile and well executed, but that doesn't mean we should give
blanket approval.
And parking charges? Two wrongs don't make a right:
just
because they charge you to park in hospitals doesn't mean it's right to
impose a de facto charge for access to the Cairngorms. It's wrong and
it should be resisted.
PS Pity I seem at odds with Dave Gray on this. From his
references to work on the Garbh Choire bothy he seems to be one of the
good guys.
More news from Dave Gray
Bobs Scotts has burnt down, we are planning a
web site and appeal to raise funds to repair it. Now the NTS will be
judged by their actions, will they support its rebuiding or has my
faith been misplaced? Time will tell....
Norman
Murray wants to lend some support:
I am a hill walker from Aberdeen
and did use
Bobs 2 to 3 times a month. Would love to help to repair it as would my
friends and my son who has had many happy times at Bobs. I find it very
funny that two hill walkers go out looking for wood at 10.30 at night.
If there is anything me and my fellow hill walkers can do to help
repair bobs or we can try and raise money please contact me at norman@abzmurray.fsnet.co.uk
or phone me on Aberdeen 01224 561181.We could do a sponserd walk
through the Lairig Ghru.
ONE VERY SAD HILL WALKER
Neil Findlay says:
Someone has got to pay for all
the new paths
being replaced on the estate.Who uses the paths in the main? Hill
walkers. How dose the estate get some cash off us? Carparking fees.
Shurley two quid is not to bad.
Ian Johnston has to report:
I happened to park at Linn o'
Dee just as
the charges were being introduced. The sign containing plans and
information shows that a toilet block will indeed be built, as wellas
an "interpretative structure", (a noticeboard with a roof). The plan
clearly stated that "charges would be introduced once work is
complete". What actually happened was that the parking meters were the
first item to be installed. NTS has a chequered history when dealing
with open land - in the past the Trust has tried to manage it's
mountain properties in a similar manner to it's castles, which doesn't
work.
I believe that a little transparency would be helpful,
both by
NTS and the Invercauld estate, who have introduced charges at the
Keiloch. NTS are a public body, and are subject to audit. The revenue
raised by the parking charges, and detailed information on how it is
spent would make me feel happier about the charge. I'm an NTS member,
and intend to ask the Trust about this.
For more comment and information, see The Angry Corrie (Scotland's
finest hillzine).
Graeme
Tweedie writes:
I have been a hill goer for 35 years and
have used the car park at Linn 'o' Dee on many occassions,in fact long
before there ever was a car park, when everyone parked at the side of
the road either at the Linn or at the Derry Gates. Surely the whole
problem has been created solely by the huge increase in the volume of
motorists compared with 15-20 years ago. The only real solution is for
us all to go back to using public transport and do what all us
Aberdonian teenagers did before we could afford a motor and walk in
from Braemar, or if you were lucky enough to know some of the locals,
cadge a lift to the Derry Gates! I don't think anyone can blame the NTS
for trying to provide something that we all use whether or not we agree
with the principle. We must also remember that if we all parked on the
verges the nuisance this would cause to the people who have to work in
the area.
Mark F writes:
Scot Tares (above) says he
didn't ask for the
car park but there he was using it. Invercauld was up front long before
they built the car park in asking people who were parked along the road
and on the Keiloch road their opinion on being charged for parking if a
car park and toilet block were built. The NTS on the other hand is a
different story. I use the area on a regular basis and had no warning
about the parking charges. So long as I can see where the money is
going, I'll be happy enough to contribute.
Chris Rouse writes:
I do not agree with the
charges,but we should
not just blame NTS. They are only following a lead set by others such
as Invercauld. The great danger is that access will only be from
carparks in future and to ensure their use and receipt of payment all
the verges and other areas now used will be fenced (again as at
Invercauld)
We should not say that because we pay in towns where
land is
valuable for other purposes, that it is acceptable to charge in rural
areas.
A major concern is a space to park without causing
problems.
If Landowners can see a source of income they will close free areas.
Dave Gray has another comment:
Just a thought, but when we were
at the Glen
Muick car park we arrived without a coin for the meter, we arrived back
2 days later to a note on the screen and nothing else. So far as I am
aware there are no fines or clamps in operation. I guess for those that
really object you can always not pay, can pay wont pay type of thing?.
Scot Tares also adds to his earlier comments:
In reply to Mark F, the reason I use the Linn
of Dee car park is because it is there. I don't expect to have to pay
for it, and as yet have not. I have had the same response as Dave Gray
above, and just had a note fixed to my window. As far as I am concerned
none of the land owners involved have a legal right to charge and as
such have no legal right to fine or clamp. I may stand corrected on
this, but until I do, I will continue as usual. I often take my dogs
for a walk around The Hermitage at Dunkeld, this is a five mile drive
from my house, but one I do 3 to 4 times a week as I enjoy the area and
I consider it local. Now that a £2 parking charge has been
introduced this would be an average of £32 a month to park
here. Its almost cheaper than that for me to park in the centre of Perth
everday for a month. Thankfully, there is also a forestry commission
car park in the same area, where car parking is free of charge, and
which I now use. What's next a charge to use bothies on NTS land to pay
for maintenance, a charge to walk on NTS or private land to cover
public liability insurance.
Where does it end?
Anthony Dyer writes:
I live in Lancashire and with
the Lake Disrtict as my usual stamping ground, I've seen car parking charges rise from about £2.50 a couple of years ago to £6 today. Whilst I didn't mind paying £2.50 two years ago, I draw the line at £6 - that's useful pub money! These days the savvy Lakeland motorist can still find free parking - residential streets, laybys, anywhere apart from properly managed parking spaces.
£2 may not seem a lot of money to some folk on this message board. But it's main purpose is simply for landlords and
authorities to get a foot in the door on the whole issue of rural car parking charges. Once the majority folk find it acceptable to pay for parking, it won't be long before we see £6 charges being imposed
at Linn of Dee.
Richard
Spencer joins the debate:
Scot Tares is a regular user of
the NTS car
park at the Hermitage. If he pays £32 a year, let alone a
month,
he is daft! An NTS member gets a windscreen sticker that lets him park
in any NTS car park (and NT down south too).
Daniel Wells writes:
Apart from the fact that in The
Lakes the car
park fees are a rip-off, they are not implemented in a way that is
friendly to walkers. The reasons for my comment are as follows. You
have to pay in advance. The parking fee is graded such that you pay
e.g. £2 for up to 2 hours, £4 for up to 4 hours,
£6
for up to 6 hours etc. Obviously you do not want to pay for longer than
you are going to stay because the charges are so expensive. It can be
difficult to estimate in advance how long a walk will take, even if you
don't get lost! Whilst you are out walking you do not want to have to
worry about whether when you get back to your car you will have a fine
to pay or that the car will be clamped, just because you underestimated
how long your walk would take.
This example illustrates that the land owners are
grabbing money without any concern for their customers.
Scot Tares comes back:
I agree with Richard Spencer. It
would indeed
be daft for myself or anyone else to pay £32 a month for car
parking at The Hermitage, which is why I don't. As I said, I use the
forestry commission free car park, which is only half a mile up the
road. Any other time I use a car park, such as that at Invercauld I
refuse to pay. As yet I have only had polite reminders stuck on my
windscreen. The reason I use the car park is because Invercauld have
put big boulders at the roadside to prevent parking there and any other
parking on the roadside I feel would be a danger to other road users.
This is the thin end of a very big wedge and from comments regarding
parking charges in England if we accept them now, it won't be long
before it'll be too expensive to go up the hills.
PS. re joining the NTS and getting a window sticker.
Firstly
for a number of reasons I refuse to support the NTS. Secondly, would I
then be expected to get a season ticket from Invercauld estate, and any
other landowner who might decide to start charging. It might end up
being cheaper going to Tannadice on a Saturday, heaven forbid.
Chris Rouse writes:
Invercauld Estate are now
proposing a new car park at Aucallater which will also mean a
£2 charge as at Keillor.
Craig, who will otherwise remain anonymous, writes:
The Glen Doll car park has been
running it's
meter for several years now even before it became a National Park. Yet
Angus Council run free car parking throughout their main car parks.
Therefore I have never payed at the meter. The erection of a few signs
and the closing down of the campsite doesn't justify the fee in my eyes.
andrew e writes:
Paying for parking in the hills is an anathema to me. One of the reasons I go to the hills is to get away from the petty worries and concerns of everyday life, and to be faced with it here too makes me unreasonably annoyed: do I have the appropriate change on me etc. Bodies like the NTS receive massive public funding grants from the lottery, EU & government. National parks are funded by the taxpayer to promote conservation and public access. I already pay income tax, council tax, VAT etc - more than enough to not feel guilty about not paying more just to leave my car somewhere for a few hours. If the NTS start bringing city concepts like pay & display machines to our wild hill country I suggest it won't long before the city concept of wanton vandalism of pay & display machines also follows it. Not that I could condone such a thing of course but a bit of wishful thinking never hurt anyone.
Tony Baker writes:
I estimate my 600 odd munros-
from Edinburgh
- have cost an average of around £40 each (don't tell my
wife!).
An extra £2 per day is neither here nor there. However I am
not
happy for it be used for "improvements" such as ripping up
long-standing bikeable tracks such as up the west side of the Dee from
White Bridge. Although I'm a member of the NTS, I feel they have a
better record with buildings than with land.
Ian is brief and to the point:
NO car parking charges!!!
Paul Russell doesn't agree:
Why is there such a debate over
the payment
of a whole £2.00 for car parking and/or access to the hills,
in
my opinion it doesn't actually come down to the payment it's about
people moaning for moanings sake about the payment. In practise, the
car parking fee will not increase to £6.00 - it's not logical
and
wouldn't be practable in the long run. Of all the people who are
complaining how many use the toilet facilities at Linn of Dee or Loch
Muick - if you say you never have you're lying - who do you think pays
for this facility to be built and maintained - mr invisible man. Get a
grip, stop complaining, pay the £2.00 - less than a pint of
beer
- and enjoy the hills.
Adrian Manson writes:
I am against the car park charges. I am a student who is studying during the day and then working every night of the week so I can sustain myself. My wages pay for things like road tax, insurance, fuel and MCofS membership. Everyone in life is wanting money off us and they will use any excuse to do it. I work so I can do my hobby at the weekend and as everyone knows the mountains dont come too us. I am proud of my nation and love to show it off so lets not spoil it by trying to squeeze every penny out of its countrymen/woman and visitors.
Margaret Fowler writes:
As a native of Dunkeld I can assure Scot Tares and others there was always an honesty box at the Hermitage before the ticket machines appeared, also if Mr Tares and others joined the NTS he wouldn't have to worry about paying at any of the NTS car parks and properties this may not be much more than the £32 he says it could cost him a month. This membership would also entitle you to use it at National Trust car parks and properties. I for one will be grateful for the toilets at Mar Lodge car park as a woman it isn't quite so easy to pop behind a tree!
More and more people are going walking not necessarily Munro bagging but just taking pleasure in the countryside, car parks are being made as they are needed. If estates are making car parks at their expense surely it isnt unreasonable to ask us to pay something towards their upkeep, the Forestry Commision do this at Glen Doll and other places.
Jim Gray writes:
Maybe there could be an icecream van pitch made avalible as well and sell candyfloss and iceceam ! That would be
magic ! jees only The NTS could get money from us to buy Mar lodge and charge us for the privilge of parking , Any chance their might be a
chance of a free pass to the house if we produce a parking ticket! Dont think so!!!!!!! I wont be Paying to park after
giving them some of my Taxes!!!!
Margaret from Leeds writes:
This is all well and good but
when I make my
annual pilgrimage in February I will still have to pee at the side of
my husbands landrover as the toilets are invariably locked for the
winter. A good job I don't have a problem with this.
News of a
new parking fee at the 'Cobbler' car park at Succoth (here) brings more
comments:
Neil Reid:
Bob Smith's article in the news
section,
about parking charges at Arrochar, sgows that this is not a problem
which will go away. Is it not time the MCofS took a higher profile on
this? Fair enough, not everyone is opposed to parking charges at hill
access points, but from this thread it would appear the vast majority
are - or are at least concerned about the situation. So far the MCofS
seems to have adopted a very hands off policy. Is this justifiable
considering its claim to represent climbers and walkers?
Dougie Strathie reports:
I was at the Succoth car park
last week and
they havent got the pay points "wired up" yet. Wouldnt be quite so bad
if the cash went to the Arrochar Mountain Rescue funds then at least
our cash would be being used properly.
Graham Forsyth:
With income tax,road tax,council
tax,vat and
national insurance etc, I think I pay enough money out without having
to pay the national trust to park on land that belongs to us. I don't
pay to park in towns and am certainly not going to start paying Nts or
any-one else for parking beside the hills. Whats their next trick going
to be? tollbooths through the estate.
Nigel Griffiths:
Surely locals could have an
exemption ticket for display in their vehicle?
Paul Russell:
£1 for a full days car
parking cor
thats really expensive isn't it ? It's nearly the same price as a Mars
Bar ! Take it Graham has a lot of parking tickets if he doesn't pay to
park in towns ! Please wake up to the real world and move with the
times.
Graham Forsyth again:
Re Paul Russell: When in town I
use a bike or
my feet (those things attatched to your legs). If the real world means
accepting everything, then you can keep it. A man with no principles,
who follows the flock. Paul must be a MSP. I would lay of the mars bars
Paul. To many and you might have trouble getting out of your Chelsea
tractor at the Linn of Dee car park.
Stephen Kerr:
I've kipped a few times
overnight in a motorhome in this car park. I take those days are gone?
caccarnbeag:
This thread is fascinsting. It
always saddens
me that those very individuals who are so opinionated and vocal about their enjoyment of the great outdoors, do not feel compelled or morally obliged to contribute to its conservation. Do these people believe that these estates and properties magically look after themselves? If you
don't wish to contribute then fine, stay away but do not impact the countryside with your footfall then resent any responsibility for its protection.
Oh - and for the record, the NTS is a charity. Contibutors should at least get their facts correct.
Paul Russell:
Thank you Stephen and
caccarnberg - you've restored my faith - oh and by the way i'm not an msp, and don't eat mars bars !!
Neil Reid:
In response to caccarnbeag, I wasn't aware only sheep were allowed to enjoy the countryside, and that disagreement with parking charges meant I wasn't allowed to sully the hills with my dirty, dirty feet. You assume too much if you accused people opposed to
parking charges of not contributing to the upkeep of the countryside. I do, and will continue to do so, but I chose not to support the NTS which, charity or no, has a poor record with regards to protecting our countryside, seeming to be far more at home with bricks and mortar, preferably of the stately sort. Your comments are sanctimonious to say the least and a disgraceful attempt to stifle debate.
Alex Smith:
I agree that if the money went to the upkeep of the hill(s) I'd be happy to pay. Instead it's another stealth tax by my an arm of government. I like walking, that's why I go to the Cobbler. I'll simply park in Arrochar and walk out to Succoth, then up the hill. I'm not paying any more taxes. And Paul and caccarnbeag - do you really have to be so rude?
Dave:
Neil, in the interest of debate
your off the
mark re the NTS if you look at Mar Lodge Estate. Their record there
over the past decade has been very good and stands up well alongside
other estates in Scotland
Neil Reid:
In answer to Dave, I'll agree much of my prejudice against the NTS and land mnagement has to do with their previous record in Glen Coe, and it's maybe not fair to judge them on actions that now date back a good number of years, but I do reserve the right to be dubious about some of their path-building work: places where they've started where there was erosion, but then continued well past what was necessary - while ignoring other parts where erosion is getting worse. There is also, of course, their introduction of a de facto access charge (which is what prompted this debate in the first
place) at a car park that was already in existence. To be fair, I'm sure their record does stand up well compared to some other estates, and I'm sure they have done much that is good, but that doesn't mean everything they do is right. At least they haven't told me I'm not getting to go up the hills unless I agree with them, so there's that in their favour!
Alexander Simpson:
I sometimes wonder at the economics of these car parks. Do they employ a warden all year round to check tickets? how much did it cost to surface the car park? how much will it cost to maintain the ticket machines which will, as we all know , be vandalised? Administration of the whole debacle??? 300 yards around the bend you can park for free. If they put a machine there, Arrochar will die economically. A bit of sense would go wrong. Too late now though.
Patrick Price:
The issue is not about £2 which anyone who can rope a car together can afford, but about the ethic of charging for access - at Linn of Dee, Invercauld,Glen Muick there are no other
options if you want to park responsibly. Anyone who accesses the hills
responsibly/regularly is well aware of the conservation and maintenance
issues and we all contribute as we deem fit either financially or with
our time - the important point here is having a choice of how we
contribute - I for one will never give money to an estate that
continues to put in and upgrade hill tracks without even bothering to
go through the proper legal planning process. We have an old and fine
tradition of free access to our hills in Scotland - for those who take
this responsibly it is a fundamental right and part of the hill
experience - let us not go ruin it.
John
Allen, former Secretary JMT Schiehallion Group:
Braes of Foss Schiehallion - car
park charges
Thank you Hamish Murray, Forestry Commission, for your entry into this public debate. The John Muir Trust have long relied upon the FC's goodwill to maintain this site, toilet block (summer only) and all, but seem unable to come to the table to discuss the problem at the highest level. JMT needs to talk to FC, and the other local land managers, to come up with a joint solution to the overall parking problem in the area as a whole. JMT should stop trying to go it alone here, vaunting lofty principles but letting FC take the rap for a problem JMT (and Schiehallion) creates. They are good at pronouncing on co-operation and partnerships when it suits them, but I don't see much of that here.
John Allen, former Secretary of JMT Schiehallion Group.
Euan Mcilwraith: producer out of door BBC Radio Scotland:
Neil Reid: I am looking at this issue for BBC Radio Scotland. Perhaps you might want to get in touch
Francis Hagan:
Went up to the Succoth carpark for the first time since the charges were intoduced to take a friend up into the mountains for an overnight pitch near the bealach. It was his first time out in the mountains under canvas and as he was the driver (I usually take the Citylink bus) the 2 days were spoiled for him due to the absurd ticket option which did not allow a multi-day stay. As a result he fretted about a £40 fine (as advertised on the board) and persuaded me to pull off early on the second day so he could get back to the car and buy a second ticket . . . To say I was disgusted would be an understatement.
Denis Harper:
If in the 'hot' parking spots there is pressure of numbers and the landowner at his own cost puts in a car park which benefits everyone, I can't see an objection to a small fee, say, 50p but if you raise this to £2 or more then this scabby piece of tarmac or bulldozed wasteland will be hauling in around a hundred pounds a day. If it's a local authority, then it's already been
paid for by the tax payer and any extra is an imposition. To argue that it's only walkers who use it so why should the rest of the couch athletes pay is like me saying, 'I don't play football, why should I pay for the upkeep of the council pitches'.
Here in The Pentlands several car parks have been made and, height of stupidity, all are surrounded by trees. Well meant no doubt but, on noticing the many small piles of shattered window glass, most people now go elsewhere. I refer particularly to Threipmuir and Cauldstaneslap parks where criminals can work in peace, unseen by passers-bye.
Another stupidity is the placing of large boulders at the edge of our highways to force people into a, usually too small, car park. Last time I went up Ben Ledi parking was forbidden on the road, (a wide, safe verge,)and parking over the bridge seemed to be reserved for mountain rescue. Needless to say most people sensibly ignored the restriction.
It all goes to prove that there are very few situations in this world that are improved by the intervention of a 'civil' servant or planner.
Colin Edwards:
I think the car park fee is too low - The higher the car park charge the better! And it should be enforced with clamping etc; all with one aim - no not to line the pockets of the estates or NTS (who are a charity and so the land has not already been paid for by tax payers) - to reduce the number of unnecessary car journey's people make in this country, or at least make you all think twice.
It saddens me to see car after car in the same area with only one or two occupants, have people no longer found a way to double up? To share perhaps a journey from the nearest village or town. Denis Harper - Ben Ledi is only a short walk from Callander, why not add it to your day out rather than take the place of the Mountain rescue spaces - and where do you think they should park when coming to drag your sorry hide off the hills once you've twisted an ankle?
People on this site protest their love of the hills and environment, and in the same breath insist they have a right to drive and park wherever they want, adding to the congestion in rural areas and carbon emissions in general.
Why don't you all sit and think for a minute about what you are saying, and then take long hard look at who owns the Scottish countryside and how you can help them protect your future interests.
Sue Riches:
Car park charges are essentially a charge for access and go entirely against the Land Reform Act 2003 - has this piece of long-awaited and enlightened legislation been conveniently forgotton already? It also would seem to indicate that the National Park authorities are focused on making a fast profit (the only other thing they have done to date is build shops/restaurants etc where we can spend more money). Perhaps we need to bring in international park management which actually understands the ethos of conservation, access and enjoyment behind creating a national park. In Luss as well as Succour, we cannot now enjoy the hills without a hefty charge: please note in Luss parking is at an hourly rate, and I am told the same is true of Succour - a hillwalker will now pay £6-10 per day for the enjoyment which used to cost him nothing. So much for encouraging a love of our countryside, and healthy exercise! It just means we won't go to these money-grabbing places any longer, and the local economy WILL then suffer. This issue does need to be addressed and quickly.
David
Paterson:
if the money raised from the charges goes to helping pay for the up keep of the area then i would not mind paying
David McV:
Yawn. Leave lobbying about car parks to the AA. Go by train or Citylink.
John Eccles:
Those who complain about the £2/3 charge should careful.A friend and I who recently arrived separately at Succoth,in our general chat, inadvertently started off up the Cobbler without paying and displaying..!
Result.. £40.00 statutory fine for each car.On a similar occasion in Fort William the council simply requested the missing parking charge.It now looks like we are firmly raised to cash cow status.
Guy Hansford:
When anyone
challenges our use of the hills, we say that we are good for the local economy. If we set off with our own food and drink
and a full tank, the local economy loses out. I'm happy to pay (or show my NTS sticker) and to drop in at a local hostelry.You don't just get parking at Succoth: you get a staircase all the way to the back of the North Peak. Drive a bit further along the road and go up like a mountaineer.
Alan Bell:
A factual point about the car parking charges at Luss and Succoth. These are being charged by Argyll and Bute Council. They are not being charged by the National Park Authority or by the Forestry Commission who own most of the Arrochar Alps. So far as I am aware none of the cash from these two car parks is being invested in any way in management or maintenance of access provision beyond the car parks. This is a significant contrast to the Deeside car parks where the landowners making the charges do have very real overheads for footpath maintenance. If you don't like the Succoth or Luss Charges you can take it up with the elected Councillors in Argyll and Bute who have voted to implement them.
Another factual point. Access rights under the Land Reform Act do not include motorised access. Car parking charges are therefore not connected to our legally enshrined right of access. Access by foot and by bicycle remains completely free.
Chrissy McKay:
I had just parked at the Braes of Foss car park to set off for a two-day exped up Schiehallion & for wild camping - then I saw the sign forbidding overnight parking. So I had to park along the road (on the verge, not in a passing place) anyway. I don't see any sense in forbidding use of a car park overnight, as access rights include night-time hillwalking & wild camping away from roads.
Neil Reid:
I'm always quick to see the dread hand of officialdom restricting our freedoms, but I think the no overnight parking signs are really aimed at travelling folk, to stop them setting up camp in laybys/car parks. I've ignored these signs before (not by setting up camp there, I hasten to add) and never had any hassle. If you're in doubt a phone call to the local police or council might clear things up - it certainly seems a better plan to leave a car in a recognised parking place rather than the verge.
Jim Willsher:
I'd happily pay £1 for car parking, as I think it's a useful facility - imagine how useful the same facility would be if it were near Lawers village, where parking is legendary!
£1 is an acceptable amount, in my eyes. But I would NOT be preapred to pay £3 or £4 or £5 for a day-ticket, which is the price that some authorities want to charge.
£1 has been set correctly, and I would not object to paying it.
G Paterson:
I arrived on 8th Aug at 7am for an early hike up the Cobbler. The ticket machine said not in use but the signs threatened large fines for not paying in the 9am to 6pm zone so I had to go to the other car park. Clearly not well thought out.
Ian Wilson:
I'll pay a quid or two for a spot of hard standing where I can safely leave my car. I quite like to think that the local Polis might come by and worry if my wagon was still there after three days. (That's 'worry about my whereabouts', not that I hadn't paid - just to be clear)
Money - I'v ended up not having the £2 in change/coins etc. Intending to pay but unable. I believe HMQ has the same problem up the road at Balmoral ;?) Normally a bit of a slog back to buy a paper with a tenner just to get some silver. I'd be really annoyed to be fined £40 unless I had ignored the convenient change machine adjacent to the toilet block.
'Improving' the hills with tracks and paths - you can't really - just leave them alone. These kinds of developments are always justified at least in part by saying that it will 'improve access' or 'open up the hills to a wider range of visitors'. But the whole point is that they are difficult, hard and dangerous in parts. Having learned, trained and practised, you achieve something accessing remote areas. One reward is solitude, tranquility and the company of likeminded people.
Limiting the number and nature of people accessing them is good, because it gives everyone who is the slightest bit interested something to strive for. Sanitisation (that's different from 'sanitation') is an invidious trend that results in obesity. Pip pip
Oliver Francks:
Here's a novel way of looking at it - how about we accept that access to the hills, for the long and short term good of the hills and hence our enjoyment of them, needs to be controlled and paid for in some way since we can't all go at the same time, with this infantile idea that "it's free", because if we do we'll ruin them.
Don't accept that? Don't care less if we ruin them? Then of course - let's go ahead and build loads of "free" car parks near access points so hoards of people can denude the last bits of relatively wild scenery we have left.
Who pays for these car parks...well we all do if their cost comes out of tax money from the EU etc. Is that fair? Probably not when you think about it! Why should a large majority who never go to the hills have to pay for car parking for the relatively few who do?
Easily solved all this really - at least if you give a monkeys about our countryside; Those who go pay - and in allowing parking only in designated places and charging for it ,we can limit the number of people accessing and therefore the amount of damage done to, any one zone.
Charging for that parking should reflect the cost of accessing the hills and oh yes there is a cost; an environmental cost which could be very effectively offset if it were calculated realistically and the money charged, in accordance with the pressure placed on any one area of the hills, put back into those hills. I mean conservation work only of course; paving the hills red or any other colour should not be an objective.
Basically if you care about the hills you'll be willing to foot the bill for accessing them and might even consider staying off them sometimes too. If you just see them your personal patch or as one more area to throw your litter into or let your dog foul, you won't!
As for those doing the charging.. if their doing it for the right reasons all well and good. However, (and here's where people get right fed up and stop paying and rightly so) all too often one can only wonder at where the money spent is going, since there is little or no evidence of it getting out of the pockets of those doing the charging and onto the hill or even into the car park.
Jan:
If you charge for parking people will park on verges. Happens in the Peak District all the time.
We are going away this weekend and will be parking on the side of the road. Why? Because we want to sleep in our campervan and don't want to share a site with a bunch of kids for £40 for two nights and we can't use the carparks because they are no overnight use.
I used to wild camp but I can't now because nowhere permits overnight parking UNLESS I park on a campsite and then don't actually camp --- what is the point of that?
Ken Wright:
I find it difficult reconcile the different points of view re car parking charges, other than there are those in favour and those against it. Putting it bluntly it appears there's a lot of "belly aching" going on about a very simple matter. The NTS as presumably owner and if not certainly custodian of the land have the legal right to charge whatever fee they so wish. What they do with the income is also a decision which they are entitled to make. That they say they will use such income to improve their local path network is certainly commendable, and yes I'm not a member of the NTS. So I say to those who criticise the charges, stop your moaning. Given that most of you spent thousands purchasing your vehicles in the 1st place it beggars belief that you would complain about the odd pound or two.
On a lighter note members of the club of which I am but a humble office bearer, were some time ago faced with a similar situation. Rather than "witter" on about what the council had done re charging the populace for the use of it's car park we bought a bit of ground and built our own. Result we in the club are all happy.
|
