TALKING POINT
Pay and Display
Is Town-style Car Park Charging applicable in the Countryside?
By Colin Simpson
“Someone has got to pay for all the new paths ….. Who uses the paths in the main? Hill walkers. How does the estate get some cash off us? Car parking fees”
“In one fell swoop …… has done what none of the previous private landlords dared try: started charging for access to the mountains”
“I am not against paying to park a car. It costs to park a car in cities and towns, why should it cost nothing to park a car in the countryside if someone is providing parking places?”
“This is indeed a worrying precedent, if unchecked I see this going the (way) things are in Wales/Lakes.”
The quotes on the left are but a snapshot of the comments left on the MCofS website regarding charging for parking at points commonly used for access to hills and mountains. What’s more they indicate widely differing views amongst mountaineers so why is it that we’re now faced with charges and is this or is it not an acceptable development?
Recent years have seen a significant increase in the number of people walking and climbing in the Scottish hills and this has undoubtedly had an affect on the areas where this takes place. More people can certainly have a positive effect – contributing to the local economy and helping sustain businesses such as shops and pubs in areas where the local population alone may not justify them. Indeed Visitscotland figures suggest that walkers (not just of the hill variety) contribute over £400 million to Scotland’s economy each year. However, these same people can have a detrimental effect – causing problems such as congestion and erosion.
Combating congestion
I recently spent a day on Sgurr nan Clach Geala in the Fannichs and as with many hills found it perfectly easy to park in a nearby lay-by. But what happens when 25 carloads want to do the same thing? - some form of “visitor management” may then be required. Fortunately the Fannichs still appear to be remote enough from the large centres of population that parking problems are minimal but the situation can be very different in honeypots such as Linn o’ Dee, Glen Muick, Glen Nevis or Braes of Foss where large numbers of people converge to attempt popular Munros. I remember parking on the road verge in all these areas when the car parks were either too small, too full or both and on occasions this could disrupt traffic, block entrances etc. Remember parking on the muddy road verge opposite Glen Nevis Youth hostel anyone?
Today the sheer volume of cars in these places means this is no longer a realistic option and the solution has, in many cases, been to provide a “better” and generally larger car park to relieve the congestion. Often these are provided by local authorities with no charge presumably because they see walkers as beneficial to the local economy but in other cases private landowners, conservation bodies, trusts etc. have undertaken this work and, more recently, some have also started charging. This has led some people to claim that they “didn't ask for the car park in the first place” and whilst this may be true there are occasions when some action is necessary to prevent or relieve problems such as congestion. But although we are accustomed to charges in cities and towns are parking charges a suitable solution to parking congestion in often fragile rural areas?
Combating erosion or “improving” facilities
In a number of other instances car parks have been provided or extended and charges introduced not to combat congestion but on the basis that these charges can contribute to the provision of additional or improved facilities. “Improving” can be a very subjective and indeed emotive term for us hillgoers - facilities such as toilets and interpretive boards can be an improvement to some but destruction of wilderness to others. And then there are footpaths, probably the most common “improvement” that parking fees are destined to fund.
Take the climbers path to the CIC hut, often muddy and getting wider by the year as walkers skirt the worst sections. Many climbers would love to see this replaced with an appropriately surfaced and drained path and indeed this is a project recently discussed by the Nevis partnership and the Lochaber Mountain Access Group. Here North Face have contributed funds to kick start this particular project but had they not and work was still undertaken - who should pay? One option is to levy parking charges so effectively the user pays. However this same user contributes significantly to the local economy, particularly in areas like Lochaber so is it not reasonable to expect the authorities to provide paths in the same way that picnic areas, beach car parks and the like are provided for other visitors?
On privately owned land the question can become even more complex. As we’ve seen, climbers and walkers provide valuable income to the areas they visit but this mainly goes to establishments such as Hotels, B&Bs, pubs and shops yet the cost of work such as maintaining paths and bridges can often fall on an owner who doesn’t personally derive any of the aforementioned economic benefit – not an ideal situation.
In recent years one local access organisation – UDAT (Upper Deeside Access Trust) has attempted to address this problem in their area. In short their solution has been to enlarge the car park at the honey pot of Glen Muick and make a charge which is then reinvested in path work throughout the wider Upper Deeside area on land owned by a whole variety of landowners. Having a “pot” of money from charges can even help lever in funds from other sources, increasing the amount of work done.
Paying for access?
In some ways the UDAT approach may seem an ideal solution but one further issue remains – are we paying for access?
Parking charges are seen by some as a method of charging for access while to others it is the facility not the access that we are seen to be paying for. Differing charging methods cloud the issue further. At Linn o’ Dee for example the charge is per car and covers an unlimited period recognising that some walkers take overnight trips whereas at Loch an Eilein, Rothiemurchus estate charges per person rather than per car which Doug, a recent contributor to our website describes as being “very much like charging for access rather than parking” Do any city car parks charge per person not per car?
To their credit Rothiemurchus have invested in path work and do monitor the car park which hopefully provides some security in contrast to the situation a few miles away across the Monadhliath at Kilfinnan. Here, as Cameron McNeish described in a recent Sunday Herald “Peak Practice” feature, charges are levied for parking on the verge – the farmer “approached us, chatted for a while then asked us for a pound each for parking” A friend had a similar experience but later queried what they were actually getting for their money since no particular facilities appeared to be provided – not even a car park! Perhaps the Inland Revenue knows more than us – legitimate taxable income, income offset against investment in facilities or simply a charge for access?
In areas such as the Lake District & Snowdonia shuttle buses from nearby villages have been explored as an alternative to enlarging car parks and indeed this idea was even considered as a solution to parking problems in Glencoe. Again charges are made for such services but, if we take this bus, or for that matter any other public transport rather than our car are we paying for the service or for the access?
Right or wrong?
So, two pages on and have we got anywhere? To be honest it’s a complex question with complex solutions so while it’s easy to explore the issues it’s not so easy to have the answers. Is it my place to tell readers what is right or wrong anyway? – we are a membership organisation so really it’s up to you the member to consider the facts and make your own choices but do feel free to let us know your views so we can act on your behalf where necessary.
As a parting thought – how about the solution described by Andrew Coleman of UDAT in a feature in “The Angry Corrie” – "we could all just take “the long walk in”, which everyone endorses but nobody seems to do”!