|
I’m
communicating with you to say that I disagree with several aspects of this
strategy statement. If enacted it will cause me personally and my family,
plus the climbing club whose meets I currently arrange, to spend much less
time in Snowdonia and contribute much less to the local economy. These
effects run counter to the stated aims of the strategy.
My
family and I travel privately to Snowdonia once or twice a year to stay in
a local hotel and enjoy mountain walking. My friends and I travel two or
three times a year to Snowdonia to enjoy climbing and mountaineering. All
these journeys are made using private motor vehicles from the London area.
The use of public transport to and within the area is not feasible for the
two or three day duration and purposes of these visits.
When
travelling to Snowdonia we wish to get to our destination with the minimum
of inconvenience and fuss and, once there, to travel at times we please
and to places we please so as to enjoy our visit’s aim. We do this
responsibly and aim not to inconvenience Snowdonia residents or other
visitors. We value, and value highly, the wild and undeveloped nature of
Snowdonia.
We
regard waiting for public transport and the use of public transport as a
very poor alternative to the ease and convenience of our own private
transport arrangements. We regard any new developments in the national
park as regrettable because its wild and undeveloped state is a vital part
of its attraction. It is nearer to London than the Lake District or
Scotland for mountaineering visits but not as close as the south west
peninsula coast Devon, Dorset
and Cornwall - or the Peak District for climbing purposes. I make this
point to indicate the choices possible in climbing and mountaineering
destinations in the UK.
I’ll
now comment on particular points in the consultation draft to show how the
conclusions in the opening paragraph above are arrived at. The draft’s
paragraph numbering is used.
1.1.
We do not want an alternative to our private transport unless it is
better. Anything that involves longer journeys, transport mode
interchange, more expense, more total journey time and restrictions on our
mobility is a disadvantage to us.
2.2.
We spend increasing amounts of money year on year in Snowdonia. The Beacon
climbing wall attracts our visits. The climbing equipment shops in
Llanberis, Capel Curig and Betwys-y-Coed take our money. The cafes and
pubs and hotels in the area benefit from our visits. We would resent
strongly any initiative aimed at trying to fleece us of more money by
restricting our mobility.
Map
1. We sometimes stay in the Llanberis Pass but climb or mountaineer in the
Ogwen valley. It is a single journey for us presently. With your plan it
would be two because of the bus change at Capel Curig. It means more time,
more inconvenience and restrictions to bus operating periods. Often we
like to go early, very early, and return late.
3.2.2.
We often go to less popular mountain areas so as to enjoy their relative
remoteness and loneliness. Your initiative concentrates on the popular
areas and will do less for the areas we frequent thus further
inconveniencing us. As for the popular areas they will become more
populated and more developed rendering them even less attractive to us.
4.5.
Parking expense for us would rise and we would receive no benefit from
this compared to our current state. Indeed we would be incommoded by the
parking restrictions.
4.7.
The restricting of roadside parking would severely limit our ability to
climb or mountaineer wherever and whenever we pleased in Snowdonia. We
would regard this as a strong infringement of our personal freedom
compared to the situation in the south west Peninsula, the Peak District,
Lakes District and Scotland.
4.13.
The initiative would offer a much lower quality experience to our visits
and would substantially lower the reputation of the area in whatever
communications we had with others. Both results are directly opposite to
your emboldened conclusions in this paragraph.
5.3.2.
Our visits would face less choice, not more. What the initiative proposes
to offer we do not want. We will have new options but existing ones are
taken away and the new ones undesirable.
5.9.
Your first sub-paragraph here is plain wrong for us. The scheme will
detract from our visitor experience by not meeting our requirements. Your
last point fails to recognise that we would require improvements on the
transport ease and convenience offered by our private transportation
before we will give it up. If Snowdonia becomes an inconvenient and
unsatisfying place to travel to and within for our climbing,
mountaineering and recreational visits then we shall simply go elsewhere.
In
section 6 Strategic Aims,
Objectives and Targets various
specific objectives are listed. Here I comment on some of these.
02.7.
This makes the point that ‘transfer between different types of transport
will be convenient and easy.’ Not for us, not at all. We will be
exchanging a one type, one journey mode of transport, the car or van, for
several types and several journeys. This is a retrograde step. Journeys to
and within Snowdonia will be more inconvenient, take more time, involve
more effort and cost more money. There
is no benefit to us whatsoever in any of this, none at all.
03.3
This discusses reducing opportunities for ‘unofficial and informal
parking.’ Why? So as to increase visitor spend in the gateway towns and
so as to help fund the public travel arrangements. But this decreases our
personal freedom. We might for instance, spontaneously wish to climb at a
crag on Tryfan whilst staying in the Llanberis Pass. It will involve two
bus journeys there and two back. We have to go when the bus chooses. We
have to go to and from actual bus stops. We do not want this restriction
on our travel.
An
essence of wild places is freedom from the restrictions, rules,
regulations and crowded inconveniences of urban and developed rural
environments. Your initiative detracts from this freedom.
If
it is carried out we will come to Snowdonia much less.
Your
Appendix 1 provides a policy context. Here I comment on this.
A
basic principle stated there is that
‘The individual should have a realistic choice of travel methods
and accordingly should not be dependent on the private motor car for
mobility.’ On the contrary, the individual and groups visiting the area
should have a realistic set of travel choices and not be dependent on the
provision of public transport only for the mobility necessary to carry out
the aim of their visit to the area. This set should and must include
walking, cycling, riding horses and using private and public transport
with the reasonable provision of facilities to encourage them to do so
Car
and van-borne visitors are the life-blood of Snowdonia. By restricting and
inconveniencing them through adherence to your stated basic principle you
will encourage them to go elsewhere
Your
Appendix 2 mentions ‘EXISITING PROJECTS’ (your spelling!). Here I
comment on this.
In
Cwlwm, Glaslyn (your spelling!) the area will ‘be enhanced by the
addition of installation art.’ No it will not. We go to Cwm Glaslyn to
enjoy its wildness and soaring natural grandeur. It does not need
‘installation art’. It needs preserving as it is for posterity.
That means minimal and virtually invisible path erosion repairs, no
buildings, no signs and no signs whatsoever of civilisation beyond the
sheep-farmed landscape and whatever people happen to be there.
In
summary, the contents of the consultation draft indicate to me that my
family and the climbing club I belong to should prepare to spend far less
time and therefore less money in Snowdonia because of the authorities’
attitude towards personal private transport and parking. Leave us alone to
carry on doing what we are doing and consign your scheme to the litter
bin. |