NT A glimmer of hope?

number14

Full Member
Posts
484
Likes
1,005
SWMBO has been exchanging emails with National Trust regarding opening of car parks for overnight stays. This is the body of text from their latest reply.

"We have been looking into the increasing use of our car parks by overnight campervans. There are a number of factors to consider and, where appropriate, we have been looking into a trial scheme that would operate in a similar way to the Aire system that you mention. To inform our thinking we have also been monitoring the Forestry and Land Scotland 'Stay the Night' trial and also the 'Stay in a Pub Car Park' scheme. Any changes in our car park overnighting policy would follow the successful outcome of a test and trial period and would also require changes to our byelaws and other local legislation."

My view is that any change will be driven by their need for a new revenue stream.
 
Just seen this on facebook



Below is a statement the National Trust have asked to be shared.

"We already welcome campervans and motorhomes at some of the places in our care. However, it’s clear from the incredible response in recent weeks that we need to do more to support overnight stays in our car parks at National Trust places, where we can.

Therefore, we’re working up a plan to allow campervan and motorhome users to stay overnight at more of our places. We’ve been trialling this in the Lake District this year and we’re now considering how we roll this out across selected locations next year"
 
Some time ago, I asked them to let me know if it were possible to overnight in their car parks and told them I was prepared to pay a nominal fee for the privilege. I also said that not being able to overnight was the single factor that made membership nonviable for me. I'm following this development with interest and will be sure to let them know the importance of this factor to me should I join!
 
It's good to hear. The sites that do allow overnighting at present are C&MC C/L's priced at the upper end of the scale. I've tried to book Stourbridge a couple of times but its always been full. They have said I could park in the car park for the same price but without EHU. If they do set up a few aire type units I suspect they'll be quite expensive, as they are obviously considering it as an additional source of income.
 
NT will only allow it if it is financially beneficial , and would stop lt when the freeloaders catch on .
 
Debroos said:
Nevertheless that land was donated for the public to enjoy....
Click to expand...
AIUI, in a lot of cases, the buildings and/or land was donated to avoid death duties (and perhaps expensive upkeep costs) rather than 'for the public to enjoy'. Often, this was the only option available to the family as they had insufficient liquid assets to serve the tax liability. In return, for transferring the estate to the NT and opening up some of that estate to the public, the family get to continue living there in perpetuity and often continue to manage the property on behalf of the NT.
 
There are quite a few people, part of the campaign for Aires, who have written to the NT, as I have.
My point is, that as a NT member or for someone who has paid the price of admission to a property then one night in the car park should be an option.
I worry that they will see it as a money making option and not part of the general provision such as parking for the day that is currently free to members.
Writing to the NT will help if you all do it.
 
antiquesam said:
It's good to hear. The sites that do allow overnighting at present are C&MC C/L's priced at the upper end of the scale. I've tried to book Stourbridge a couple of times but its always been full. They have said I could park in the car park for the same price but without EHU. If they do set up a few aire type units I suspect they'll be quite expensive, as they are obviously considering it as an additional source of income.
Click to expand...
they need a kick in the rite place, on no now is the time. to say good bay. they are only playing at it. okpj
 
GeoffL said:
AIUI, in a lot of cases, the buildings and/or land was donated to avoid death duties (and perhaps expensive upkeep costs) rather than 'for the public to enjoy'. Often, this was the only option available to the family as they had insufficient liquid assets to serve the tax liability. In return, for transferring the estate to the NT and opening up some of that estate to the public, the family get to continue living there in perpetuity and often continue to manage the property on behalf of the NT.
Click to expand...
You have me thinking now, any chance they may dig my garden over and plant some nice flowers for when i retire. 😂 😂 😂 😂
 
GeoffL said:
AIUI, in a lot of cases, the buildings and/or land was donated to avoid death duties (and perhaps expensive upkeep costs) rather than 'for the public to enjoy'. Often, this was the only option available to the family as they had insufficient liquid assets to serve the tax liability. In return, for transferring the estate to the NT and opening up some of that estate to the public, the family get to continue living there in perpetuity and often continue to manage the property on behalf of the NT.
Click to expand...

So who owns the NT?
 
Debroos said:
So who owns the NT?
Click to expand...
The National Trust is a charity. Effectively, it owns itself. Although 'members' pay subscription fees, they are not 'members' in the same way as share-holding members of a publicly owned organisation -- i.e. the NT is not owned by the public.

That said, who owns the NT has little bearing on the point I was trying to make in my earlier post, which is that some (although by no means all) NT properties are in NT ownership under sufferance/duress and the resident family might only 'welcome' the public begrudgingly (not that they would say so in public).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top