Charging plans for the New Forest’s recreation car parks
Charging for New Forest recreation car parks
Some weeks ago, the verderers were told of the existence of plans to charge for the use of all 130 recreation car parks across the Forest. I say “existence of plans” advisedly, because not a word of detail was released. It was also implied that anyone leaking a hint of this scheme would face a fate worse than gibbeting at Bolton’s Bench, so the verderers subsided into discreet silence.
Clearly some councillors who serve on the national park are a good deal less squeamish about defying such gagging orders and by early February they had released the story resulting in a small storm of protest on Facebook. The cat was well and truly out of the bag and at the court committee on 19th February, Forestry England (FE) decided to allow the verderers a sketchy outline of the plans together with answers to questions.
Even then a strict embargo was imposed until the beginning of March on anything said in the meeting. That deadline is now safely past allowing me to make a few observations on the objective and planning of the scheme. All this secrecy is perhaps rather unfortunate and silly, but of course FE wanted a good bite of the cherry before the inevitable opposition had time to muster its forces. It had not anticipated a leaky national park membership. Perhaps King’s House was right to expect an ill-informed backlash from sections of the public, to judge from some of the nonsense written on Facebook.
Leaving aside the question of FE’s procedures, I should say straight away that if the government is unable or unwilling to manage and finance the New Forest properly, I can see no objection to asking visitors and other users of the car parks to contribute towards the costs. Those users receive an immense benefit from the Forest and its car parks, while the New Forest runs at a considerable financial loss. Someone needs to pay for the collection of mountains of litter and flytipping, making good widespread vandalism, repairing the worn and dangerous car park surfaces and the, admittedly feeble, policing of bad behaviour by visitors.
Car park charges, like camping fees seem to be a sensible idea. I will not like having to pay them, but if the charges prevent the bottom of my very small and ancient car from being knocked out on the tank-training grounds FE calls car parks, I might even be better off.
Where I do part company from FE and its scheme is over the planning and preparation for the works. Most of the answers to the verderers’ questions were vague or unconvincing, and worst of all were the responses relating to the shunting effect of parking charges. If you charge high enough fees for leaving a car in a designated park, there will inevitably be attempted evasion as motorists seek convenient and uncontrolled alternatives.
Pressure will have been shunted from the car park to a nearby unsuitable location. FE has, to a limited extent, considered this. It will seek traffic regulation orders to prevent parking on the highway, while at the same time physically preventing verge parking by ditches and posts. It might just work, but only if it is a comprehensive scheme covering the whole of the Crown lands and more. We are very far from that at the moment, especially with a target date for charging only a year away. Just a few miles of verges have so far been protected and I imagine that over a hundred miles may need work. Half the world now seems to drive Range Rovers or the equivalent, making nearly every Forest verge vulnerable.
Unfortunately, protecting Crown verges is likely to be only the first step in any effective scheme and it could lead to huge and damaging consequences as pressures are displaced onto neighbouring common land. Throughout the New Forest, and more particularly in those portions adjoining the Crown lands, there are hundreds of acres of attractive and free verge and other parking on common land. Hyde Common, Gorley Hill, Hatchet Green and parts of Ibsley and Rockford Commons are just a few examples. Much of this land is owned by the cash-strapped National Trust and local authorities where management is already minimal and once looked-after protective works are in ruins. The public owners might, in theory, be willing to join the scheme – given enough money – but will FE pay for the works and subsequently manage them? Even if these large bodies can be induced to take part, there are innumerable little patches of privately owned common and verge which are wholly unprotected.
If asked to put 50p in a meter, most will probably not bother to evade the new charges, but at £5 for a morning’s stroll in the Forest, it could be a different matter. A visitor bringing the dogs and the children to the Forest for the day from Southampton might be tempted by the miles of quiet lanes and driftways in Minstead which would give him free parking and still a thoroughly enjoyable Forest walk. On the other side of the Forest, the Somerley estate sold off miles of roadside strips, mostly to adjoining householders, and these would be a prime target for the exploding populations of Ringwood and Fordingbridge. There is hardly a part of the Forest devoid of charge-evasion opportunities. Those who don’t know about them will be quick to learn.
Next in this scheme there needs to be considered the necessary infrastructure to manage the parking charges. I think there is general agreement that the actual imposition of charges will not require the consent of the court, but everything else will. There will be notice boards, meters (cashless or they would not survive 24 hours in the lawless nighttime environment of the parks), power cables, ditching and so on. For such major works a formal presentment will be needed. I would not expect such an application to be rejected, but it has been left very late in the day.
Finally, there is the question of permits and exemptions for those working in the Forest. They include commoners, contractors, agisters and officials of all sorts. It is not clear if there will be permits for individuals, permits for particular vehicles or some sort of identification disks like the old yellow ‘Forestry Commission permit holder’ windscreen stickers. All, of course, are open to various forms of abuse. One of my colleagues questioned what would happen with a commoner’s family including several children all with their own vehicles and their own stock on the Forest. I am not sure that he obtained a reply. There was an indication that annual or other long-term permits might be available and that is likely to be a comfort to Forest residents used to walking their dogs in the Forest several times a day. Will there will be differential charges according to the location of parks, with those in remote areas charged higher than the suburban honeypots – or vice versa?
So where do we go from here? Dozens of questions remain unanswered or inadequately answered by FE. Worthy as the scheme’s ultimate objective may be, it will inevitably be met by a storm of public protest inspired by the old national park theory – “It’s national, so it belongs to us and it’s a park so we can do just as we please in it”.
A rare chance to improve the Forest’s tranquillity
It is very unusual that the verderers consider plans by big business or public authorities which would actually improve the tranquillity or appearance of the Forest. Once or twice in the past, electricity suppliers have decided to put obtrusive power lines underground and that has been very welcome news. More usually the Forest is threatened by mobile phone masts, huge sporting events and trails or, as occurred recently, commercial exploitation in the form of food sales from vans operating from car parks. An application in February, however, provided an opportunity for a significant improvement across a wide swathe of the Forest from Ashurst to Brockenhurst. Network Rail is applying to the highway authority to close two small un-manned pedestrian or bridleway crossings. They are not in themselves offensive and are little used, but they give rise indirectly to a huge amount of noise in a largely quiet part of the Forest. For safety reasons, train drivers are obliged to give a ear-splitting blast of their sirens as they approach the crossings. This goes on hour after hour throughout daylight and can be heard for over a mile in all directions through woods and heath.
I am sure that the effect on the Forest of this noise is not something that particularly troubles Network Rail. Its concern is with the very real danger that such unprotected crossings pose to the occasional careless walker who is brave enough to use them. No doubt they are also worried about the mental stress on any driver so unfortunate as to run down a person on the crossings. Trains using these lengths of line are travelling at 80-90mph. The verderers were provided with nearly 50 pages of analysis, photographs and statistics explaining the concerns.
The first of the two crossings is south of Ashurst Lodge at Deerleap. Here there was once a railway worker’s cottage to the west of the line, presumably dating from the 1840s. No doubt the crossing was needed for operational reasons and to allow its occupants easy access to settlements to the east. The cottage was burnt out in the 1960s (when I photographed it). In those days this was a full vehicular crossing. Thereafter, it was only used by the odd walker, but the proposals contain a horrifying account of one occasion when a train driver had to apply his emergency brakes to avoid killing a couple who were strolling across the line. Maximum speed here is 90 mph. Things are particularly dangerous when trains are approaching from both directions at once. Its retention for recreation is unnecessary as there is a good safe bridge 600 metres to the south on a popular visitors’ route.
The second crossing is in Frame Heath Inclosure at Woodfidley Cottages. Presumably these also were built by the railway, although I think they are now privately owned. Here the crossing links only two large plantations and must once have served some railway purpose. Somehow, in these deep woods, the sirens seem particularly intrusive. Here again, there is a good bridge only 650 metres to the north east.
Network Rail’s figures show only a handful of users daily and I am not surprised. I have on a couple of occasions used the Woodfidley crossing for a railway-related verderers’ site meeting and, despite the attendance of Network Rail staff, I felt distinctly uncomfortable when crossing the line. Once, on a surveying project, I crossed at Deerleap and that too was unpleasant.
The verderers welcomed the closure proposals, but asked that locked gates should be retained for use in the event of livestock getting onto the line, as occasionally does happen, disrupting train services.
