Parking and access in National Parks etc.

UKBouldering.com

Help Support UKBouldering.com:

stone

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
1,016
In recent years there has been a large increase in visitors to the Peak (and apparently also to Lakes, Wales etc too). That's great. We all enjoy the outdoors and it's wonderful for others to share that. Increasing access to places of natural beauty should be part of a strategy to improve the calamitous state of our nation's physical and mental health. Compared to the costs (financial and other) of that health crisis, this is cheap.

Rather than responding with increased provision of parking/public transport, laybys have been blocked and there is more ticketing.

That car park in Pembroke where grass grows through sparse cobles, shows how car parks need not be unsightly. It should be possible to have more wild flowers and insects in such car parks than in current typical farm land. The real huge destruction of biodiversity we have suffered has been from the switch from wild-flower meadows to silage grass monoculture. Changes to agricultural practices have vastly more scope for improving/restoring landscape and biodiversity. That blows out of the water any adverse consequences from increased visitors. Visitors, even in their millions can very well be accommodated even in full-on wilderness. Banff and Jasper National Parks in Canada or the US National Parks are good examples.

Yes, I know, people in principle could get a train to Edale and walk in from there. But this is about people of all shapes and sizes and ages being encouraged and welcomed. In Canada's Banff National Park it is easy, even for wheelchair users, to get amongst wild bears and wolves. So we should be capable of facilitating afternoon strolls on Mam Tor or Burbage.
 
Honestly until public transport to the peak improves people will drive, and the situation will get worse

I'd ban overnight vans staying in parking in the national park tbh. Go to a campsite like the rules in font.
 
You've conflated about eight different issues in your post, Stone, which makes picking which one to take issue with first difficult.
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop#:~:text=The Gish gallop (/ˈɡ,them in the time available.)

I'll start by pointing out that you are manifestly comparing apples with oranges. Mam Tor probably gets more visitors in a month that Pembroke gets in a year. Banff receives 4m visitors per year, the Peak receives 26m! That's before you even get onto the differences in terms of landscape and the sheer size on the North American national parks, which dwarf their UK equivalents.

I actually agree that some of the Peak NPs approach to car parks is backwards (eg the double yellow lining of curbar). But some level of control over popular sites is obviously necessary. What are you proposing to do at Mam Tor? Compulsorily purchase five fields, put rubber netting on them all and have it as an enormous car park? At the moment you're simply pointing out problems without engaging with the obvious downsides of solving them. Your suggestion that all we have to do is simply do what other countries do is facile. The Peak is unique because it is surrounded by dense population centres. More broadly, the UK has a high population density (especially England), much more so than other European countries such as France or Spain. As a result the pressure on our NP infrastructure is correspondingly immense.
 
Honestly until public transport to the peak improves people will drive, and the situation will get worse

I'd ban overnight vans staying in parking in the national park tbh. Go to a campsite like the rules in font.
Except that's not the rules in font. They've set up specific bivouac sites specially for camper vans that a free. You don't need to go to a campsite.
 
Except that's not the rules in font. They've set up specific bivouac sites specially for camper vans that a free. You don't need to go to a campsite.
I think there is some sort of scope for these in UK national parks, but it's much easier to make work in continental Europe where there is so much more space. I also think they would, in practice, be kiboshed by concerns over their long term use by traveller communities (driven by attendant racism).

It's also hard to justify more generally in the UK given that living in a van, as opposed to week ending in one, isn't as common here as in Europe. I'd probably reluctantly support a ban on unofficial camping in UK national parks.
 
What are you proposing to do at Mam Tor? Compulsorily purchase five fields, put rubber netting on them all and have it as an enormous car park?
Yes.

Five fields (or ample parking for people who wanted to visit) would still leave almost all of the hill-side free. Most of the time it would mostly be unoccupied but at high demand times there would be lots of cars.

The current situation is utterly dire. Are you saying it is OK to continue with the current situation? If not, what is your proposed solution?

Chatsworth never turns people away due to lack of parking do they?. Chatsworth similarly depends on preserving the aesthetics of the place. They have converted fields over for surge parking capacity.

Seems to me we have utterly different standards when it comes to accommodating visitors to paying attractions. I'm just saying we should similarly accommodate visitors wanting to walk etc.

Edit Googling indicates that even for Chatsworth, Parking can't meet demand. Public transport is what we really need I guess
I still think fields converted with rubber netting should contribute though.
 
Last edited:
My proposed solution is basically that people shouldn't act like such fucking choppers. They can all (presumably) read and write, and have sufficient intelligence to have passed their driving test. If you can't park somewhere, tough shit, you have to go somewhere else. We all know how this works. If we go to a crag and we can't park, we have to make new plans or walk further. If we go to the supermarket and can't park, you don't just ditch the car on the double yellows or on the pelican crossing. It's just shitty behaviour, adding loads more car parks will just worsen the problem. If they want to park somewhere, then get up early.
Where's the individual responsibility in your proposal?
 
If we go to the supermarket and can't park, you don't just ditch the car on the double yellows or on the pelican crossing.
Not to disagree with the thrust of your post, but if Tescos had 10 parking spaces and 10,000 customers per day I imagine there'd be some dodgy parking behaviour and you'd be wondering why they didn't have a few more parking spaces.
 
Fair point, but to stretch this analogy beyond breaking point, as we all know there are lots of supermarkets available, so if one is unavailable we drive to another. That's the missing piece in the puzzle of current UK outdoor culture for me, the unwillingness to change plans/sense that they are entitled to do what they want even if there's nowhere to park. Mam tor is good but there are lots of good walks in the peak!

Obviously you're right though, there are places in the peak and other NPs where parking provision could be improved. I'd even support making the mam Tor one bigger. But I wouldn't support that as the rule of thumb I don't think, because it is essentially skirting the main issue.
 
The recent surges in visitors presumably include many people unfamiliar with the Peak and probably unfamiliar with visiting the outdoors.

My guess is they perhaps think, this week, instead of going to the carvery/shopping_centre/sitting_in let's go for a walk for the first time ever.

That's great, that's what should be encouraged and welcomed. The lack of parking turns what should be a positive change of lifestyle into instead being a nightmarish rebuff. I think that's shameful.
 
This weekend spiralled into chaos for a few reasons , it was a beautiful clear-sky snowy day, weekend, January fitness goals etc, and the car park was closed.
An additional car park at huge expense, that is also closed because it’s full of snow, isn’t going to solve a problem that happens once a year !

But more generally, so we need increased car parking? It’s quite rare to never be able to park somewhere legally and sensible in the Peak. I’d rather see the scrapping of car park fees , to encourage people to use the car parks and not the verges which fill up first.
Arguably the “induced demand” of additional parking would increase problems
 
If we go to the supermarket and can't park, you don't just ditch the car on the double yellows or on the pelican crossing.
This is exactly what happened in the days just before Christmas. Sainsbury's car park was full so people parked on access roads, the side of the roundabout etc. We watched two people just leave their cars in the queue to get into the carpark and go shopping. It was an excellent opportunity for me to talk to my lad about driving behaviour and human nature.
Lots of people don't care and are quite happy to engage in top shelf bellendery as long as there is only a small chance of getting caught/punished.
Similar to parking on the zig zags by pedestrian crossings - it is not unusual for me to get the response "who is going to stop me" when I speak to drivers about this.
 
In the town near me they've started using AI cameras to police parking on red routes. Can't imagine that tech is far off being used in private car parks either. Anyway, I digress.

More generally, mark20 is probably right, it's an unusual set of circumstances which led to this particular set of problems. As for the "nightmarish rebuff", how's that for hyperbole? 😅 Afraid I'm not willing to let people off the hook quite so easily as Stone! Whether it's their first walk outside or not they're perfectly capable of parking properly and hopefully they'll be getting a fine in the post shortly.
 
Arguably the “induced demand” of additional parking would increase problems

Yep. Seems a bit old school asking for more parking within the NP to increase access these days. Peak like the Lakes could maybe benefit more from Park and Rides near the main access routes and useful bus services?

Stone on a quick google Banff NP is $11/day to access, coupled above with lack of population density mentioned above, prob quite easy to knock up a few car parks. I’m assuming you don’t want people to have to pay to access the PDNP?
 
Park and Rides would seem the obvious 'easy win,' a bus from Ambleside to the Old Dungeon Ghyll on the same model as the Pen Y pass one would be a start. Ditto Keswick to Honister. Obviously you'd still need to build a car park but at least it would be on the outskirts of Ambleside/Keswick.
 
Yeh comparing the Peak District with National Parks in N America is nonsense on every level. In NPs with only one access road in and out then Park & Ride or visitor permits seems to work ok (off the top of my head e.g. Yoho in Canada, Ordesa in Pyrenees and most (all?) of the US ones). For people willing and able to walk a bit/a lot further you can still access these for free on foot with no restrictions, or at least could when I went.

Can't see how this model could ever translate to England/Wales where so many people live and work inside the NPs and where you can't restrict driving access. I don't know how much these fines are likely to be for parking like a bellend at the weekend (£50-100?), but for a group of 4 that probably seems like reasonable value for a day out compared with the hassle of driving back to Sheffield and getting a bus to/from once they've already driven out to the Peak and found out all the car parks are full. Even with better public transport I can't see it stopping bellends from being bellends unfortunately.
 
Interesting topic, but there are already quite a few red herrings and strawmen derailing it and it would be better to deal with things as they are!

Stone on a quick google Banff NP is $11/day to access, coupled above with lack of population density mentioned above, prob quite easy to knock up a few car parks. I’m assuming you don’t want people to have to pay to access the PDNP?

Banff NP in Canada is, AFAIK, 100% owned by the government. I.e. all land, highways, car parks etc. This is why its easy for them to "knock up a few car parks" (if they want to). It is also how they can charge an entrance fee.

By contrast the Peak District National Park Authority own 5% of the land in the Peak, most of which is Stanage (North Lees estate), Warslow, and 44 car parks. The National Trust and Water companies each own c. 11% i.e. twice as much. The remaining vast majority of the land in the Peak is privately owned (details here Peak land ownership).

The highways through the Peak are owned and maintained by the local authority (council).

Public transport by bus is operated by a patchwork of private companies, who incidentally have already cut services to rural areas in the Peak (PDNPA State of Park Report).

In light of the above I think its fair to say that the Banff comparison is not valid. Under the current model no one will ever be paying to enter the Peak (who will levy the charge?). Regarding park and ride schemes - great, but you can see the problem, one that Banff simply doesn't have. Who is going to do it?

I suspect that the National Park Authority will not push any solution because they have no powers or money to do so. In actual fact they are part of the problem, as evidenced by the experience of the one bit of land they do own - North Lees (Stanage). Parking at both Popular end and Plantation used to be free. Due to austerity and reduction in funding to the PDNPA they decided to institute parking charges (they may give other reasons!), which has led directly to people parking preferentially on the verges nearby i.e. pushing the problem onto someone else. Although over all the car parks they own it does make them c. half a million quid annually so that's nice.

Taking Mam Tor specifically, all of the land surrounding Mam Nick highway is owned by the National Trust, including the car park - National Trust Land Map . So actually *The National Trust* could do something, if they wanted. No-one needs to "buy 5 fields", they already own them. But the NT probably already do OK from the £8 daily charge from their car park there. If people want to park on the road potentially blocking it is that their problem? No, that's the council's. Perhaps the council will do what they did at Curbar Gap - double yellows down the road, not in consultation with the landowner (NT again). Which will be roundly ignored, as per Curbar. As an aside part of Mam Tor's popularity is due to social media sunrise pics, and also the fact it is very accessible.

Are the private bus companies going to buy up land / landowners start running buses to run park and rides? Answer is obviously no.

Ultimately you have to decide who and what a National Park is for, and then have a joined up strategy. That is basically impossible as things stand.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top