Letter

I would like to thank you for this opportunity to express my views and have completed and enclosed the response form with all my further comments attached on separate sheets.

I am a keen hill-walker and occasional climber and visit Snowdonia a few times a year. I also organise meets for the uk.rec.walking internet newsgroup (Usenet) and as a group have been to Snowdonia three times in the last year and a half.

We like the choice of walking from just about any location within the Park, complete our walk safely and return sometimes to our start point or to another point where we have previously left a few cars to return in. After the days walk is done it is back to the local campsite and then to one of the local pubs for an evening meal and to remain there for a few hours enjoying our own company in surroundings we like. At the end of the weekend we would have spent our money on evening meals each plus various drinks in the local pubs, a visit to some of the local shops for groceries and outdoor equipment, and also refilled our fuel tanks for the journey home.

I, as many people, would agree with most of the ideas behind this strategy. The chance to reduce pollution, reduce erosion, and to help build a more sound sustainable economic structure for local communities, both for the present and for the future. Our National Parks are few and they are environmentally fragile places of abundant splendour. We need to take care of them, we need to preserve them and to ensure that future generations are able to experience that which we sometimes take for granted: the natural beauty of our lands.

Reply 1.

(1.1  to 1.4) It briefly and basically describes the document as a whole. I agree with the need for integration between both the public and private sectors to aim towards a sustainable approach.Yes Snowdonia is renowned internationally for its outstanding landscape but not for its facilities.

(2.1) The comparison of economic returns to the local community is made between Snowdonia and the Lake District. This is quite simply because of the integration between the private and public sector, between each town and village large or small. The Lake District has a much higher economic return to the local communities as the entire National Park has been aimed and ‘given’ to the tourist.

(2.2)  The private motor car is by far the most accessible form of transport available to people and given the easy accessibility of the park from any direction there is bound to be, as with the Lake District, a large number of day trippers.

(2.4)  Traffic levels throughout the park have never been a problem to myself or anyone else I know, I would go as far as to say that there is no traffic problem and that an increase of 20 per cent over the next twenty years is quite a minor amount.

(2.5)  On the information supplied, it is my view that environmental damage due to the amount of vehicles driving around the park will increase. This will be more from the large amounts of pollution given out by the massive increase in buses travelling on the roads, and not from the individual cars. As for noise, visual blight, fly parking and congestion, any significant noise from vehicles cannot be heard when having walked two to three hundred metres away from any road. The only way to stop all vehicle noise is to remove all traffic. The visual blight, in my opinion, does not exist as with the previous point, and it makes no difference if vehicles are parked alongside the road or travelling along them, they are still there. 'Fly parking', in my opinion, is not a problem; I have seen very few cars poorly parked causing a danger to passing vehicles or pedestrians (these few people should be penalised, but not everyone). Congestion would increase as more vehicles will be pushed onto the roads for longer periods of time, as people will less likely want to stop if having to pay to do so and will prefer to just drive around more and view the scenery. All of this will increase any environmental damage - more vehicles will be on the road, which will increase traffic noise and increase visual blight. The added huge car parks - either multi storey or open football pitch size - at the gateway towns will be a considerable eyesore.

(2.6  to 2.8) These figures I can well believe and something does need to be done if an environmental and economical sustainability is required but not this way, not by attempting to force people in to a system, which they will dislike.

(3.1) It is an impossibility for tourism not to have an impact on the area in an environmental and cultural way. A National Park is an area of land designated for the purpose of: conserving and enhancing natural beauty and amenity; providing appropriate opportunities for outdoor recreation; and for promoting the social and economic well-being of the local communities. Tourism detracts from that by enticing even more people to visit the area and in so doing will cause environmental problems such as pollution and erosion. Together with this is the cultural change of local communities by the opening of facilities not usually associated with such an area, for example, bed and breakfast accommodation, hotels, craft shops and fast food vendors. Traditional establishments that have been around for generations will disappear as they will not be required by the tourist, for example, various forms of farming and blacksmiths. These changes will continue and increase as more and more people visit the Park.

(3.2.1) Developing tourist facilities and services at all the places listed will have an environmental and cultural effect in the exact way you have stated against doing.

(3.2.2 to 3.2.3) To establish an improved and integrated bus system I agree with but not at the cost of the use of the motor car (and eventually at the cost of losing visitors).

(3.2.4) Cycle route network. A good idea and I hope this one will succeed.

(3.2.5) A definite way forward in reorganising car parking facilities in the core mountain areas and the gateways is to provide small and more frequently placed car parks. Car parks, such as those in the Lake District and other National Parks in the UK plus others in the USA etc., are small and many, all well hidden by landscaping of one form or another such as earth banks, dry stone walls or trees that fit in with the surrounding countryside. The car parking fee for these other National Park is free, which is something that helps attract people to the area. Someone who does not have to pay for parking will have an increased amount of available money to spend in many local shops, which in turn helps the local economic outlook, whereas imposing high car parking fees will detract the visitors’ available cash. I know from personal experience that having to pay for parking, coupled with the time limit imposed in that car park, reduces the feel good factor people have and this in turn puts them off that extra purchase that is usually a "Oh I shouldn’t really but I'll treat myself". The income for the smaller villages, hamlets and the individual small businesses will decrease. People will be herded into the gateway towns where they will spend whatever amount they wish to, minus the amount they have paid for parking and probably less than that, due to being put off at having to pay in every car park stopped at. This, coupled with the fact that people will be less likely to stop at the smaller villages and hamlets to spend a little either because of the parking fees, or simply because of the inconvenience of having to hop off the bus to browse, and then have to wait for the next.

(4.1 to 4.3) These basic proposals I agree with and is exactly the type of facilities and services available in the Lake District.

(4.4 to 4.9) The reorganising of car parking facilities. As reply to 3.2.5 with the addition:

• Hill-walkers, climbers and most of the outdoor pursuit fraternity can and do use the park at all times of the year. In fact, some use it more during the winter months when undoubtedly the bus times would be less frequent. When I head for the hills and mountains I, like most other people with outdoor pursuit in mind, start my day at ‘out of the way’ places; places where buses would not be able to take me. The thought of having to walk two, three or more miles just to get to where I would like to start would be more than enough to put me off walking that route, plus many others I would have in mind. The only other alternative open to me would then be to head off on a route from one of the various bus stops. This would create the problem of having informed friends or relatives of my whereabouts in case of an accident I would then have to somehow contact them to inform them of any changes.
• Another problem would be the overflow of people doing exactly the same routes from bus stops and this would create severe erosion in these few areas. Not for me thank you. I like to frequent the ‘out of the way’ areas to get away from the 'rat race' and the crowds of people that go with it. If there were to be frequent bus stops than at current, to enable people to access more of the hills, journey times would be greatly increased.
• If buses were to run from early morning, e.g. 6am, to late evening, e.g. 10pm, at regular intervals, 365 days a year, it would be far from an economical service. Just imagine all those nearly empty and empty buses trundling around in mid-winter. The costs would have to be passed on to either (or more likely both) the visitor or the local taxpayers, the latter of I am sure would be none too happy about.
• There are also the added safety issues that a park & ride timetable would create. Hill-walkers and climber quite often enjoy being out on the mountains late into the day, but with the knowledge of the last bus of the day looming they may be forced to hurry a descent in order to catch it. Hurrying downhill in any weather could have at worst fatal consequences. A walker in wet clothing; instead of being able to quickly change into dry clothing from their car would have the wait first for a bus, and then endure a wet and progressively cold journey to the relevant gateway before being able to change into anything dry.
• What happens with a minor injury. The minor type that just requires a car to quickly take the casualty to hospital. Do we wait for the next bus? Do we try and find the nearest pay phone to unnecessary call out an ambulance?
• Would buses be capable of taking large items of outdoor equipment such as expedition size rucksacks, climbing gear, canoes even.
• What happens if the last bus is missed. Does that person then have to walk to the gateway town where their car has been parked.

(4.10) answered in 3.2.5

(4.13) Taken together, these proposals, in my opinion, will partially take away any high quality experience to the visitor. This strategy and the partnership of the various organisations involved as a whole seems to have forgotten the visitors that belong to the outdoor pursuits fraternity; the number of people involved in outdoor pursuits is quite a high proportion of the visitors that the Park receives each year and by pushing us out will only help to reduce commercial and business opportunities for the local communities. People, and I include myself in this, will vote with their wheels and just simply go elsewhere.

(6.1)  I agree fully.

(6.2) I agree except the park and ride system should run alongside and not at the cost of the motor car being able to park in any car park for as long as personally required.

(6.3) I disagree with O3.1, O3.3 for reasons as above. I agree with the other points especially O3.4 as the local residents, more than any visitor, will feel the force of any strategy that is finally put in place.

(6.4) I agree fully.

See comments contained in heading letter.

Next Observation

Back