BBC News - National parks visitors spend £1bn according to report

BBC News - National parks visitors spend £1bn according to report: "However, he added: "People come to the national parks because of the landscape and the people who live there - they don't come because of the national park authorities."

The Authorities do nothing for the communities as far as social and economic wellbeing is concerned, the fact that people visit and spend in these areas is not directly attributable to the existence of a layer of local government, however the effect of a restrictive planning regime costs the regions many more £millions in lost business opportunities, Llanbedr airfield being a case in point!

Simon Hart is a breath of fresh air with regard to the elitist concept of national parks where the less affluent cannot afford to visit and the residents suffer from what international human rights observers describe as ‘soft eviction’ and ‘voluntary resettlement’, the problem with Wales is that well over 50% of the land area is a protected landscape, this is unsustainable and of no economic benefit to the indigenous population.

'via Blog this'

Our national parks are under assault from the Government - Telegraph

Our national parks are under assault from the Government - Telegraph: "Last week, Nick Boles, the trouble-prone planning minister, caused yet another storm when, insisting that England’s 10 parks must not be “museum pieces”, he indicated his intention to relax their strict planning rules. But this would only accelerate a process already taking place, as they increasingly face threats from fracking to roadbuilding, mines to nuclear waste."
*******************

I live within the suffocating boundaries of a national park, the towns and villages were here thousands of years before some twerp from London came along with a map and a pencil to decide where said boundary should be. The landscape the indigenous people created with their stone walls and deforestation isn't going to change much whether it is preserved in aspic or not. The only people who benefit from the protected status are the ones being paid vast salaries for doing the 'protecting', the fact is that we can't afford these Authorities, it is an added layer of bureaucracy that stifles growth and forces the people to leave only to be replaced by the NIMBY types who love to say they live in a national park, retirees from elsewhere in the main.

International human rights observers call it "soft eviction" or "voluntary resettlement", in other words "thank you for protecting this landscape for millennia but you can leave because we are here now" 

40% of England is a protected area, how much of this land do we need? How many poor people ever visit? How many of them understand that the land isn't "National", it is owned by private individuals who struggle to scrape a living off it.

A full review of the legislation and the boundaries of these areas is required, inhabited communities should be ring-fenced with enough space to grow for a few hundred years.

Or better still scrap the designations and just preserve the wildernesses and snowy peaks so that the walkers and climbers, the elite, can say they did this or that in a national park when they get back to their nice jobs and pubs..

'via Blog this'