Interesting article on the BMC website...
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/national-trust-activity-licence-update
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/national-trust-activity-licence-update
National Trust Pilot Scheme
- Thread starter timboggle
- Start date
yes I can see that is worrying for you - good luck with a challenge - thank goodness for the right to roam in Scotland!
In the south it looks like we face fees for doing a DoE Assessment in the New Forest or The Slindon Estate near Chichester.
Plus Birling Gap on the South Downs Way near Eastbourne.
The National Trust is supposed to be a custodian of the land for the people. This is a slippery slope.
My national trust membership with not be renewed.
Plus Birling Gap on the South Downs Way near Eastbourne.
The National Trust is supposed to be a custodian of the land for the people. This is a slippery slope.
My national trust membership with not be renewed.
The purpose of the National Trust is to *preserve* lands and buildings. Not necessarily to provide access. Don't get deceived.
Members own the Trust, we have not been asked if we want this licencing. Upland paths etc are worn by more than groups under instruction. The most damaging thing will be the inference that charging for access to the countryside becomes acceptable.
Access was the prime motive of most of the pioneers of the Trust for land, building preservation was part from lofty motives and part to provide a way out from the burdens of ownership of country houses by the aristocracy. But access was insisted upon in all the deals with house owners.
I will be raising this to the attention of the Scout Association, with a strong recommendation that they oppose this move. Where the association is unable to provide their own qualified activity instructors, Scout groups rely on external commercial providers to lead their activities such as climbing, walking in remote areas etc. This move will increase costs for young people to undertake activities - of course totally against the National Trusts stated aim "to look after places for ever, for everyone". Charging for access is inextricably contrary to the preservation of land for everybody.
It is clear this proposal, at least as currently set out, have very little real driver other than a generator of revenue. I have more sympathy for an argument that very large scale events - e.g. some of the larger of the organised 'Three Peaks Challenge' events place a burden on the upkeep of paths etc, for which the receipt of revenue would go some way to offsetting. Smaller groups however, are generally less able to pay, and have less of a (potentially) damaging effect on the 'preservation' of the land.
But even charging only for events that breach a set participant numbers threshold has problems, as these events by their nature, often primarily use public rights of way, for which it would be unlawful to levy a charge to utilise.
Yet another ill thought through proposal by an organisation that disgusts me more and more as the years go by......
It is clear this proposal, at least as currently set out, have very little real driver other than a generator of revenue. I have more sympathy for an argument that very large scale events - e.g. some of the larger of the organised 'Three Peaks Challenge' events place a burden on the upkeep of paths etc, for which the receipt of revenue would go some way to offsetting. Smaller groups however, are generally less able to pay, and have less of a (potentially) damaging effect on the 'preservation' of the land.
But even charging only for events that breach a set participant numbers threshold has problems, as these events by their nature, often primarily use public rights of way, for which it would be unlawful to levy a charge to utilise.
Yet another ill thought through proposal by an organisation that disgusts me more and more as the years go by......
"Members own the Trust" = 
the national trust for scotland has just announced, after "carefully reviewing all options", that the new focus is "preserving buildings" =
these organisations are run BY establishment figures FOR establishment figures & their own gratification - the overall idea is good, the practice stinks.
the national trust for scotland has just announced, after "carefully reviewing all options", that the new focus is "preserving buildings" =
these organisations are run BY establishment figures FOR establishment figures & their own gratification - the overall idea is good, the practice stinks.
I would not use the word interesting but call it disturbing and worrying and typical. ''Pilot scheme'' is usually just a phrase to soften any opposition to it in practice. It is important to remember that if you have to apply for a licence to use National Trust land then they can also refuse your application as well, and by their own admission the licence will come with certain conditions (that should properly be called ''restrictions'') that the applicant will have to abide by, so if you don't you will either be refused a licence or have an issued one revoked. Perhaps the next step would even be to issue fines for breaking the conditions of the licence. This licence proposition begs serious questions, it states it will apply to all commercial activities no matter how big or small where money is exchanged, small being particularly worrying, so someone taking a single person on say a mushroom foray or a days climbing or even a navigation exercise with map and compass will have to pay the NT a share of their earnings, this will impact on the small time operator who causes no cost to the NT whatsoever. Will certain places eventually become exclusive zones open only to fee paying licence holders that can afford it. Sadly this proposal reflects the English mentality and obsession with exclusion through revenue.
It should be remembered one of the key reasons for co-founder Octavia Hill to form the National Trust was to gain access to land for people to enjoy (she was concerned with people having public access to open land particularly the poor).
Many properties came into possession of the National Trust due to the introduction of death duties, many aristocrats could not afford to pay those death duties so they left their estates to the National Trust on a tax-free preservation scheme on condition they could continue to live on the estate themselves rent free, the trust agreed provided public access was allowed (incidentally some got round this by accepting and receiving public funded money but only allowing public access by ''appointment only'').
It should be remembered one of the key reasons for co-founder Octavia Hill to form the National Trust was to gain access to land for people to enjoy (she was concerned with people having public access to open land particularly the poor).
Many properties came into possession of the National Trust due to the introduction of death duties, many aristocrats could not afford to pay those death duties so they left their estates to the National Trust on a tax-free preservation scheme on condition they could continue to live on the estate themselves rent free, the trust agreed provided public access was allowed (incidentally some got round this by accepting and receiving public funded money but only allowing public access by ''appointment only'').
Have a look at the FAQ, http://www.outdoor-learning.org/Por... Event Activity Licence FAQs v 7 Nov2015.docx
As far as I can see it basically says if you are making profit on our land, we should get something towards maintaining the land. Which seems fair enough. It does however say that other charities can't be given free access as it would affect the trusts charitable status. That's a sticky point. The FAQ also doesn't explain how recurring events such as the mushroom man suggested above, does he get as licence for the year? Do the D of E lot get one licence that covers everyone? Lots of questions and I'm not directly affected, but I don't see a problem with the basic idea of the trust having a slice of profits made on "their" land.
Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
As far as I can see it basically says if you are making profit on our land, we should get something towards maintaining the land. Which seems fair enough. It does however say that other charities can't be given free access as it would affect the trusts charitable status. That's a sticky point. The FAQ also doesn't explain how recurring events such as the mushroom man suggested above, does he get as licence for the year? Do the D of E lot get one licence that covers everyone? Lots of questions and I'm not directly affected, but I don't see a problem with the basic idea of the trust having a slice of profits made on "their" land.
Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
"our land" is what it is, and we'll all be directly affected if this particular wedge, of which this is the thin end, is allowed to be driven in. We all need to wake up and stop this, 'cause when it's gone it'll never come back.
Charging is creeping everywhere. Have you seen the controversy about Park Run where charges are being introduced in Little Gifford Park for the weekly run? Charge for it seems to be the idea in so much of what used to make England, I don't know about Scotland, a civilised nation. Watch this space for the resurrection of the idea of charging for access generally to national parks. And, some on this forum will think it a good idea partly because it might keep the "riff-raff" out.
I am amazed that more people are posting about under blankets than discussing what amounts to the beginning of charging for access to the countryside.
Ah, the national trust. The largest private landlord in the country, with its tea towel image, which stole the land from the rest of us. A sordid history of the eviction of entire villages, starvation and murder, all collectively wiped from the national memory.
I often have exactly that sentiment when reading some of the more, shall we say "frivolous", posts; nothing wrong with those, the forum is after all about gear etc.
The problem comes when you want to post about something like the subject of this thread, how do you do so whilst respecting the no politics rule - it is politics, plain and simple.
As a mod I don't really think this counts as politics. It's about a very large landowner, a charity set up to hold land and estates in trust for the nation charging for access. Anyone charging a fee for their time will be swept up in this net.
I think there is a risk that the thread could go political for example blaming a class distinction, landowners being true blue etc. If that happens then the thread will be closed but I'll ask Tony if he thinks this is within the spirit of the rules.
I totally agree with the comments above and have quoted them because they are worth repeating. The topic is a serious matter seemingly treated with apathy. Boatmans comments are very valid and I echo them strongly. I suspect many will moan loud enough when it's too late if fees are actually introduced. It is easy to write a thread which gets lots of attention all you have to do is mention certain names or television programmes and the replies will flood in, sadly a serious thread about proposals for access to NT land being limited to fee payers receives little more than apathy. This proposal has very serious consequences and concerns about the public having or being denied free access to open land.
Another very important point, who on earth is going to check these licences once issued, is the NT going to employ people to wander around their land and have the power to stop and ask people to see their licence, and what power will they have if you do not have a licence, they will not know who needs a licence or not so will they be able to stop anybody at all just to check if they should have one, will the licence checker have the legal powers to kick you off or fine you if you don't have a licence. I seriouslty doubt the NT would go to the expense of employing folks to wander their land and check licences, they would most likely seek to gain an army of volunteers. When I am enjoying a peaceful day in the countryside I really do not want to be stopped and asked what I am doing so I can be judged wether I need a licence. The matter raises a whole load of questions and seems unworkable to me, I am very strongly against it and consider the proposal morally repugnant.
