Observation 2: Freedom to choose - Snowdonia Statement  - 21/1/02

In view of the fact that the proposers have now conceded lack of consultation and are inviting comment on the fundamentals, lengthy criticism of the basic data may be less than constructive, although it is all we have to go on. The analysis documents use mathematics and methodology on a base that is flawed (i.e. 1.8 Northern Snowdonia Study "time and budget did not allow for any primary data of visitor patterns or perceptions etc" !)

We support regeneration and improved bus services but observe that the present concept would almost certainly impoverish the experience and tourism itself. Our objections are outlined elsewhere and need not be repeated, except to say that confiscation of access is a policy diametrically opposed to the friendly and more profitable suggestions here.

1. "Snowdonia is not just a piece of beautiful countryside. It is also a living and working environment for a network of small rural communities that bind Snowdonia together. This rare combination of landscape, wildlife habitat, community, culture and language is unparalleled". [Sir Anthony Hopkins] (Northern Snowdonia Study preface)
   Far from supporting a foreign initiative this calls for a local one. The basic focus of this scheme is the superlative scenery. Most of Britain is deeply envious.
   It is reiterated in every community that incentives are inhibited by the Park Authority and closer scrutiny suggests this has always been the case. The businesses do not lack wit or stamina.
   There are only four main roads in this scheme, all trunk roads, and almost all their length is clearway, either in fact or in safe practice. Provision for the tourist is minimal, much of it in the form of cut-offs from road improvements not planned in response to tourism. To confiscate this access is to rob us of what little remains. The reverse policy is the solution, opening up whole new areas.
2. Parking is always projected as a ‘problem’. Such a mind-set describes most matters in a negative light. It is not hard to hide or disguise parking. The cars go away, tarmac does not; we do not need the fixtures and furniture of urban designs. Comparisons with urban norms and charging are misguided; Snowdonia belongs to another ethos. Furthermore, charging for car parking presumes that money can be spent twice. What is spent in car parks cannot also go to the commercial outlets. (eg when car parking charges were increased at Ogwen Falls the spend in the Café decreased - when charges were subsequently reduced café income rose) N.B. It is a commercial fact that happy people spend more.
   Perhaps, above everything, it should be noted that the people who that equate Chester or Zermat with Snowdonia are hasty to impose a ‘client’ label on all of us. The concept is aggressively without identity and is undiscerning limiting definition to money. It is an imposition from ‘out there’, not an organic development of a caring community that has something particular and indigenous to share with us.
3. We have the goods, the expertise and dedication; the gap must be in the interpretation and the facilitating. Hospitality empowers others to feel confident and valued, and in this enriched experience they reward their hosts more fully. Exploited people have mistrust, a sense of commercial sameness, a lack of cultural warmth. Such commercial extortions are progressive and in their lack of identity contrary to the home-grown. Reversal of concept should form the basis of a new initiative. The obsession for Objective 1 funding may have become a persuasion that has caused us to lose the plot. Strong communities present even more than their organisational skills and should control their own fortunes without borrowing the mechanisms that do not reflect their identity. We need a hospitality that shares, not a scheme that excludes, judges and controls.

   ---

Next Observation

Back