We must remember the officials who will be analysing the responses are adept at manipulating data to suit their own arguments

I quote from the Northern Snowdonia Study, Chapter 4: The Community Perspective – my italics

• Para 4.25: All respondents had received a copy of the Issues Report and so they were familiar with the options being considered to alleviate existing parking problems and enhance the benefits accruing from tourism.  It was to be expected, therefore, that park and ride schemes and the notion of establishing gateway locations would feature prominently in the discussion. In practice both topics were raised spontaneously at all six meetings.
• Para 4.26: Respondents’ views on the principle of developing more ambitious park and ride schemes varied – as did their understanding of how schemes might be developed.  Despite this diversity of opinion, we believe that it is possible to classify respondents into three distinct groups – those who rejected the notion entirely, those who favoured the principle but foresaw significant barriers to implementing it and, finally, those who favoured the principle and were of an open mind on the prospect of success.  For reporting convenience we have termed these three groups the rejectors, the unconvinced and the open minded, and we set out briefly below some of the arguments which they advanced in support of their own particular point of view.
• Para 4.27: Rejectors: A small minority of respondents was opposed to the notion of developing new park and ride schemes within the Northern Snowdonia area – principally because such schemes would restrict personal freedom and might give the impression that visitors were not welcome in Snowdonia. These respondents were very much in the minority and their views might have been coloured by misleading press articles which implied wrongly that an outcome of the study might be to ban cars completely from the inner study area.
• Para 4.28: The Unconvinced: This group was much larger, probably accounting for about one half of all respondents. In essence, members of this group considered that the principle of establishing improved park and ride facilities, however laudable in theory, was not really practical. Some wondered whether it was realistic to expect significant numbers of visitors to transfer from their cars to a bus. The habit of using a car was well established, and it was feared that motorists would be very reluctant indeed to opt for what they might consider to be a less convenient alternative. Concern was expressed about the cost of establishing an effective park and ride service, and it was feared that a substantial subsidy might be needed from the public purse in order to under-write such a service.
• Para 4.29: The Open Minded: This final group of respondents was somewhat smaller numerically than the group that we have labelled ‘the unconvinced’. However, we formed the impression that several of its members had spent some time considering the strengths and weaknesses of the park and ride concept. Theirs was not simply an intuitive ‘top of the mind’ reaction, and we believe that their articulate and positive comments auger well for the future. Several of these respondents prefaced their comments by saying something had to be done to improve traffic management in Snowdonia. In their view, serious problems were already occurring and these were likely to get worse. Imaginative and radical solutions were called for if they were to be overcome, and they believed that a frequent and reliable public transport service would be attractive to the visitor.

You notice no figures are given regarding the total number of respondents and which category they were allocated. 'About half' were unconvinced which when added to the Rejectors amount to a clear majority against. If they had listened then to what had been said we would not be going through the whole process again.

When this current round of ‘consultation’ is concluded, based on the above example, we can safely predict that most of the observations made by people objecting to this scheme will fall into the Rejector and Unconvinced categories. They will therefore by definition be discounted.  We must not allow them to get away with such an analysis this time.

The planners expect substantial opposition. Indeed they call for ‘Bravehearts’ and ‘Strong Minds’.  They are determined to dismiss opposition and feel confident that they can weather the storm and implement a £7+ Million scheme without jeopardising an already fragile economy. "The project has the potential to have a significant impact on the local economy"  - it does indeed,   will they accept responsibility when visitor numbers have dropped, tourist businesses have gone bankrupt and lives have been blighted?

What happens in a democracy is that people vote and every individual vote counts.  Perhaps the root of this particular problem is that the Snowdonia National Park Authority is not a democratically elected body and this view was vigorously expressed at some of the public meetings in this round of ‘consultation’.  Indeed this same point was noted in the study,

• Para 4.42: Although it was stressed at the start of each meeting that the study was being funded by a large and diverse client body, many respondents seemed to regard the Snowdonia National Park Authority as being behind the proposals*.  This organisation was often the butt of criticism at the focus group meetings, especially from tourist operators and the farming community.
  the sentence in the report is not complete so this is my guess at the missing words.

Here is a positive point that will get much local support - Something must be done to make the Snowdonia National Park Authority more accountable.  Too often they have listened but not heard or should I say heard but not listened. We have no confidence in them and no-longer trust what they say.

 Next Observation

Back