The Concept of Access to the National Parks

[Lat-Literal]

BBC 4 TV - "Tales From the National Parks - Episode 2 - The Peak District"

A war is breaking out in the charming villages of the Peak District, with walkers, horseriders and residents angry at 4x4 drivers and trailbikers motoring up and down the green lanes for pleasure. So an 80-year-old retired primary school teacher decides to launch a campaign to get the motorists banned from a lane in her village of Great Longstone. Over the next few months the campaign snowballs and more and more villages decide they've had enough of the off-roaders on their lanes. Macer filmed for over a year in the Peak District and was granted exclusive access to the inner workings of how the National Park is run. Will the Peak District Park Authority bow down to public pressure or will it side with the off-roaders?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b016psp6

A very interesting programme first broadcast in 2011. I thought, though, that it raised more questions than it answered. While it was easy both to see why villagers wanted the National Park Authority (NPA) to issue TROs on the network of green lanes - something it has the power to do in certain circumstances otherwise the power rests with local authorities - and the NPA was reluctant to do so on the grounds that access should be granted to all people wherever possible, there were at least two areas in which the NPA's stance didn't ring true. Each in its way referred back to the Kinder Scout Trespass which indirectly and ultimately led to the creation in this country of the National Parks of which the Peak District became the first.

One, it was said on several occasions that passage on these routes was supported by ancient rights of way. Those were depicted by the NPA as being part and parcel of the National Parks' ethos on access. But surely those are really two distinct things given the differences in the origins of those rights of way and the creation of the Peak District National Park?

Two, the principal argument seemed to be that just because the trespassers were walkers and those wanting access in current times had vehicles with engines didn't mean that the principle wasn't precisely the same. That we all have to move with the times. I am not sure that the principle is the same. When the trespassers made their point, much land in the area was in the hands of landowners who restricted all public access. Here that doesn't apply. Furthermore, those who use 4 x 4s etc are not inseparable from their vehicles as was often presented. None was being asked not to use the lanes as people. Surely the banning/restriction of vehicles is not the same as the banning/restriction of those people all of whom could walk the lanes as anyone walks the lanes? That what they wanted wasn't balance/equality as suggested but the maintenance of additional rights beyond people without such vehicles?

I was left confused - and surprised that neither of these arguments was made.

[Quarky]

BBC 4 TV - "Tales From the National Parks - Episode 2 - The Peak District"

A war is breaking out in the charming villages of the Peak District, with walkers, horseriders and residents angry at 4x4 drivers and trailbikers motoring up and down the green lanes for pleasure. So an 80-year-old retired primary school teacher decides to launch a campaign to get the motorists banned from a lane in her village of Great Longstone. Over the next few months the campaign snowballs and more and more villages decide they've had enough of the off-roaders on their lanes. Macer filmed for over a year in the Peak District and was granted exclusive access to the inner workings of how the National Park is run. Will the Peak District Park Authority bow down to public pressure or will it side with the off-roaders?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b016psp6

A very interesting programme first broadcast in 2011. I thought, though, that it raised more questions than it answered. While it was easy both to see why villagers wanted the National Park Authority (NPA) to issue TROs on the network of green lanes - something it has the power to do in certain circumstances otherwise the power rests with local authorities - and the NPA was reluctant to do so on the grounds that access should be granted to all people wherever possible, there were at least two areas in which the NPA's stance didn't ring true. Each in its way referred back to the Kinder Scout Trespass which indirectly and ultimately led to the creation in this country of the National Parks of which the Peak District became the first.

One, it was said on several occasions that passage on these routes was supported by ancient rights of way. Those were depicted by the NPA as being part and parcel of the National Parks' ethos on access. But surely those are really two distinct things given the differences in the origins of those rights of way and the creation of the Peak District National Park?

Two, the principal argument seemed to be that just because the trespassers were walkers and those wanting access in current times had vehicles with engines didn't mean that the principle wasn't precisely the same. That we all have to move with the times. I am not sure that the principle is the same. When the trespassers made their point, much land in the area was in the hands of landowners who restricted all public access. Here that doesn't apply. Furthermore, those who use 4 x 4s etc are not inseparable from their vehicles as was often presented. None was being asked not to use the lanes as people. Surely the banning/restriction of vehicles is not the same as the banning/restriction of those people all of whom could walk the lanes as anyone walks the lanes? That what they wanted wasn't balance/equality as suggested but the maintenance of additional rights beyond people without such vehicles?

I was left confused - and surprised that neither of these arguments was made.

Having spent much time in the Peak District in the past, I was in full agreement with the statements at the beginning of the programme that the value of the Park is peace, beauty and open space as far as the eye can see. Off-roaders with huge male egos are destroying this.

Unfortunately, don't have time to view the whole programme, but there did not appear any sensible argument in favour of the off-roaders.

The main issue seems to me, from experience in my local neighbourhood, the huge inertia in getting any authority to act in the matter of footpaths. In the meantime, off-roaders may establish a form of "squatters rights" in regard to footpaths/ bridle paths etc.

[Lat-Literal]

Having spent much time in the Peak District in the past, I was in full agreement with the statements at the beginning of the programme that the value of the Park is peace, beauty and open space as far as the eye can see. Off-roaders with huge male egos are destroying this.

Unfortunately, don't have time to view the whole programme, but there did not appear any sensible argument in favour of the off-roaders.

The main issue seems to me, from experience in my local neighbourhood, the huge inertia in getting any authority to act in the matter of footpaths. In the meantime, off-roaders may establish a form of "squatters rights" in regard to footpaths/ bridle paths etc.

Yes - thank you.

They seemed to want to be there rather than anywhere else as if anywhere else isn't a suitable option.

I'd have thought off-roading would be best suited to old MOD or other private land - that sort of thing.

That is how I have always contemplated it.

[Lat-Literal]

I discovered only yesterday that the Government went out to consultation on the National Parks back in October. Furthermore, that in their "seeking of evidence" via that consultation there was an end date of 18 December 2018. I am disappointed by this. Had I known, I would have contributed. Now it is just a case of watch this space. Quite a while ago, Mr Gove did indicate that he would consider increasing the number of National Parks in England and Wales. I hope he doesn't backtrack - but the history suggests that he might do. Since 1957, only three new National Parks have been created in England and none in Wales - one by the Thatcher Government and then two by New Labour. Hopes were high in Scotland in 2000 when the Scottish Parliament designated two important areas as National Parks - something that had never been achieved at Westminster - but there are no further land based plans there.

[Richard Tarleton]

Since 1957, only three new National Parks have been created in England and none in Wales - one by the Thatcher Government and then two by New Labour.

What do we expect from National Parks? Their most important function is probably as planning authorities. They also do signage and interpretation, footpath maintenance and repair, and a range of other practical functions - but in many of our existing national parks, the primary level of protection comes from elsewhere (e.g. ownership by conservation bodies) and the things which most affect the ecology and landscape lie outside their remit (e.g. agricultural policy and practice). Frankly by the time a new national park comes into existence it has been so watered down and compromised that it doesn't make a huge amount of difference - though it probably makes people feel better. At heart they are bureaucratic constructs rather than land management bodies. You could, for example, declare the Cambrian Mountains in mid-Wales a national park, but as long as they continue to be overgrazed by sheep - grazed by sheep, even - nothing significant will change, they will remain ecologically impoverished, just ask Mr Monbiot. There has been a bias towards uplands in national park designation - if you were determined to create more, I'd go for the Norfolk and Suffolk coasts, though these already enjoy substantial measures of protection by other means.

[Lat-Literal]

What do we expect from National Parks? Their most important function is probably as planning authorities. They also do signage and interpretation, footpath maintenance and repair, and a range of other practical functions - but in many of our existing national parks, the primary level of protection comes from elsewhere (e.g. ownership by conservation bodies) and the things which most affect the ecology and landscape lie outside their remit (e.g. agricultural policy and practice). Frankly by the time a new national park comes into existence it has been so watered down and compromised that it doesn't make a huge amount of difference - though it probably makes people feel better. At heart they are bureaucratic constructs rather than land management bodies. You could, for example, declare the Cambrian Mountains in mid-Wales a national park, but as long as they continue to be overgrazed by sheep - grazed by sheep, even - nothing significant will change, they will remain ecologically impoverished, just ask Mr Monbiot. There has been a bias towards uplands in national park designation - if you were determined to create more, I'd go for the Norfolk and Suffolk coasts, though these already enjoy substantial measures of protection by other means.

Mainly I accept these points although not necessarily the one on sheep about which extensive discussion has been had. I do like them because they make me feel better - and also in terms of consistency and even greater priority than some existing ones, not that I would advocate any removal of status. What springs to my mind is the Cornwall coast, North Devon coast, Dorset coast, Isle of Wight coast, Suffolk and Norfolk coast, Northumberland coast, Cardiganshire coast and Northern Ireland coast. Spot the emphasis! In many cases, it would involve a change from AONB. I note that in Scotland there was just a few years ago a campaign for each of seven further areas to become National Parks including the Isle of Mull. I wouldn't oppose that and would, I think, support all. Certainly I would support the one that is probably the most active today which is for Dumfries and Galloway, coast and not coast.

[Richard Tarleton]

What springs to my mind is the Cornwall coast, North Devon coast, Dorset coast, Isle of Wight coast, Suffolk and Norfolk coast, Northumberland coast, Cardiganshire coast and Northern Ireland coast. Spot the emphasis!

But large swathes of these - certainly the best bits - already belong to and are managed by the National Trust (in Norfolk and Suffolk, the RSPB are major players) and they're already protected by multiple designations - what difference would you expect NP status to make, Lat? I think it's a bit of a red, herring, tbh.

[Dave2002]

I think the concept of National Park is slightly different in the UK from some other places. I note that since the US government has recently been "out of action" - at least as regards manning the National Parks, that the NP at Joshua Tree has been trashed by vandals. Hopefully not really large scale damage, but sad anyway.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/08/joshua-tree-park-closed-shutdown-vandalism-latest

I've not been to Joshua Tree - always wanted to. Maybe someday.

[Lat-Literal]

But large swathes of these - certainly the best bits - already belong to and are managed by the National Trust (in Norfolk and Suffolk, the RSPB are major players) and they're already protected by multiple designations - what difference would you expect NP status to make, Lat? I think it's a bit of a red, herring, tbh.

You are far more knowledgeable than me in these areas and I will be interested in your further comments.

While I am a staunch supporter of biodiversity and the protection and the enhancement of species - and I can even accept things like global environmentalism and recycling within measure - my main interest is in protecting landscapes and even something woolly sounding like scenery. While this aligns, it can end up playing second fiddle to other green initiatives. In particular, I am worried by a line of thinking which is "yes, it all looks fantastic but actually it isn't of especial merit in conservation terms". For many of us, the looking good part matters at least as much if not more. So the RSPB, yes. The National Trust, yes, when it isn't unduly focused on buildings. But what I feel - could be right, could be wrong - is that National Park status does more in this area just by how it is seen which is a step up from AONB and the latter of itself in that "B" specifies beauty.

I do also recognise that National Parks are functioning entities. Peter Owen-Jones brought the working aspects to the fore this week in his BBC television programme on the New Forest. I thought that both he and it were excellent although many forum members would not enjoy his presenting style. I am so pleased the wonderful New Forest was made into a National Park. It still left me with the feeling as a walker who likes vistas that I have never found it to be other than nebulous. In a sense - the vastness, mostly the denseness - it does need television to approach it and even orientate in it both socially and with microscope. Whereas you can stand on Golden Cap in person and say "wow".

[Lat-Literal]

BBC4 - New Forest : A Year in the Wild Wood

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0001y84

(A strange sort of mixture in the presentation, almost at the pagan/mystical end of religion (he is a Reverend as well as a naturalist), but he captured something here; it came with an unapologetic way on pastimes, history, drama and order and a vibe, with genuine, infectious, informative enthusiasm : but it is a coherence that could only be achieved via screen)

I think the concept of National Park is slightly different in the UK from some other places. I note that since the US government has recently been "out of action" - at least as regards manning the National Parks, that the NP at Joshua Tree has been trashed by vandals. Hopefully not really large scale damage, but sad anyway.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/08/joshua-tree-park-closed-shutdown-vandalism-latest

I've not been to Joshua Tree - always wanted to. Maybe someday.

Shocking - I am very sad to hear that, Dave.

[Richard Tarleton]

Whereas you can stand on Golden Cap in person and say "wow".

Golden Cap is of course National Trust, surrounded by Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site, Heritage Coast, Special Areas for Conservation (SAC), etc. etc. - I tell you, it's alphabet soup out there

[Lat-Literal]

Golden Cap is of course National Trust, surrounded by Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site, Heritage Coast, Special Areas for Conservation (SAC), etc. etc. - I tell you, it's alphabet soup out there

I am pleased to hear it.

[Dave2002]

I think that in the UK the designation of National Park is somewhat less than in other countries, though it does impose greater restrictions on planning than areas outside the NP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_park

Note that some of the NP's in the UK are not compliant with IUCN conditions, though some areas outside NPs may satisfy them.

[Richard Tarleton]

I think that in the UK the designation of National Park is somewhat less than in other countries, though it does impose greater restrictions on planning than areas outside the NP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_park

Note that some of the NP's in the UK are not compliant with IUCN conditions, though some areas outside NPs may satisfy them.

Indeed, a useful article. Scotsman John Muir, the man behind Yosemite, is a key figure in the story. The emphasis in national parks elsewhere is wilderness (although the mythology around Yosemite conveniently overlooks the fact that it was lived in by Native Americans for several thousand years until their, erm, removal in the mid 19th century. This mythology only enhanced by the photography of John Ansel Adams).

An excellent book on the history of the philosophy of wilderness is "The Idea of Wilderness - From Prehistory to the Age of Ecology" by Max Oelschlaeger, covering such figures as Thoreau, Muir of course, Aldo Leopold and others.

Our national parks aren't quite the same thing - as I said earlier, they are primarily planning authorities with slightly higher standards than ordinary local authorities.

PS for comparison, here are Europe's national parks - I've visited or hiked long distance trails in several of these, namely Doñana, Ordesa, Triglav, Mercantour, Plitvice - they just serve to underline how much we lag behind. Admittedly we're a small crowded country.....