[Closed] National Park Tax

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

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.

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

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?

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 ?

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'.

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.

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

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.grough.co.uk/magazine/2012/04/20/cash-strapped-national-park-pays-650k-for-caravan-site-to-save-landscape

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