Car Park Study
2. THE POLICY AND RESEARCH CONTEXTThe Malvern Hills AONB Management Plan of 1996 remains the key document guiding policy relating to Visitor Management within the whole of the AONB, including those areas of the Conservators land under investigation. This Management Plan itself reflects some important national strategies for conservation, including the government's Sustainable Development: The UK Strategy. However, it is also worth noting that since 1996 key policy documents such as the Transport White Paper: A New Deal for Transport (1999), the Ten Year Transport Plan (2000), The Rural White Paper - Our Countryside: The Future (2000) and the Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act 2000 have been produced which would, if anything, have strengthened the Management Plan's prime objectives in terms of environmental sustainability and managed access to the countryside.
Transport issues in general, and both traffic management and parking receive extensive treatment in the Plan, most notably in 3.10.24 which deals with Recreation and Management Issues, and much of 3.11 which deals with Accessibility and Transport. Parking is also dealt with in considerable detail in this section, and in 3.11.14 it is concluded that the management of car parks and the provision of supporting information for motorists, both on and off site, can have significant influence in regulating visitor movement. How this should be done is fully explored in the Plan, as it is recognised that whilst restricting or "containing" car parking is a mechanism to protect certain heavily used sites from overuse, creating other car parks elsewhere may not provide a solution, whilst even traffic management solutions can themselves be visually intrusive and urbanising in a sensitive location. However, an important objective, MH61, which touches on a core issue of principle for the MHCs' car parks, and which is subsequently fully supported by the Conservators, is to restrict parking areas in and around the main pressure areas to that capacity which already exists, or to small-scale additions where a clear need is demonstrated, or where they can facilitate visitors to provide a clear environmental gain.
The eight key Management Objectives within the AONB Management Plan relating to Traffic Management and Car Parking are listed in Appendix One in the Report.
In 1999 the Malvern Hills Conservators published their own Management Plan, for the land managed by the Conservators. This covers the period 2000-2005.
Not surprisingly this document, though only concerned with part of the AONB, and indeed some small areas of land outside the AONB, closely follows the AONB Management Plan. Primarily it looks at a wide range of planning, land use, conservation and access issues.
Traffic Management is also recognised as being a key issue for the Conservators, who make an important distinction between their own duties relating to traffic circulation and parking on their own land and the issues of management on the public highways which are the responsibility of the three local highway Authorities, Herefordshire Council and Worcestershire and Gloucestershire County Councils.
As the Plan rightly notes "it is unrealistic to separate the two in preparing a cohesive traffic management strategy or the area". Though it is not their prime responsibility, the Conservators would wish to have an influence on the provision of such a strategy. The Plan also notes (which is of particular relevance to the present study) that traffic management has a direct bearing on vegetation management, for instance in the damage caused to vegetation and disturbance to wildlife by vehicles straying off-road, tracks and parking and parking areas.
It is noted (p. 22) that the "main areas reach capacity in peak periods, with car drivers then attempting to park their vehicle on verges and in grass areas. Parking charges are collected from machines, but many visitor avoid paying."
The Conservators' Plan cross references the AONB Management Plan on other major traffic management issues. What is a matter of concern to the Conservators, however is the "policy gaps" identified in the Plan (p. 26) relating to traffic, transport and access issues. These are all highly relevant to the present study and suggest important work that still needs to be done in the Malvern Hills AONB and on MHC land in particular:
- The role of speed restrictions and traffic calming measures in improving the safety of grazing stock and visitors;
- The use of cattle grids to contain grazing territories;
- Traffic congestion on and adjoining key sites;
- Promotion of bus and rail services and the provision of public transport information and key site.
- The provision of information about the Conservators; function at railway stations and parking areas;
- The use of information boards at key access sites as a means of influencing traffic movement;
- The use of highway signing to influence visitor distribution and movement;
- The visual impact of transport signage and street furniture;
- The impact of traffic on the neighbours to the Conservators' land.
The proposed Future Management proposals therefore indicate, among their aims and objectives (14): "To participate in the development and implementation of a sustainable transport strategy for the area."
The Malvern Hills AONB, Malvern and Ledbury Area Tourism Economic Assessment of 1998/99, undertaken by the Research Unit of the Heart of England Tourist Board for the AONB and published in May 2000 emphasises the enormous importance to the local economy of the resource the Conservators in particular have to manage, which includes 1.25 million trippers, 1.11m day trips and 0.14m overnight visitors, spending £28 million in the local economy and supporting 740 jobs directly and 200 jobs indirectly. The report also, by implication, underlines the close social and economic symbiosis between all the Malvern townships with the countryside literally on their doorstep.
The detailed Malvern AONB Visitor Survey of 1999-2000 also prepared by the Heart of England Tourist Board for the AONB JAC, gives a breakdown of visitor origins and activities, with 67% of visitors coming from Worcestershire (46%), Gloucestershire (14%) and Herefordshire (7%), and a further 17% from the West Midlands. No less than 87% were recorded as being repeat visitors, though first time visitors increase significantly among UK touring visitors (39%) and UK overnight visitors (25%) but not surprisingly 68% overseas touring visitors and 78% overseas overnight visitors are first timers. The high percentage of repeat, local visitors emphasises how the AONB is seen very much as a local resource. On the one hand this defines a strong local catchment market for the AONB, but one whose established habits, including short hop car journeys to and around the AONB, will be difficult to change.
On the other hand, walking is the main reason many visitors choose to come to the Hills, around 67% giving this as the main reason for their visits, with "general countryside visit" second in popularity as a reason for coming, noted by around 30% of visitors.
Not surprisingly, modes of transport suggest domination of the private car, with 82 % of visitors arriving in the AONB even allowing for those many local visitors who do walk from home, with only 3% using public transport, though this rises to 5% when residents from the three AONB "parent counties" of Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Gloucestershire are discounted. Less than 1% of visitors were recorded using the Hills Hopper recreational bus service.
This is hardly surprising given the fact that the Hills Hopper, excellent as it is, only operates on a two hourly headway on a limited numbers of Sundays and a single Bank Holiday from the end of June to the end of September. For this reason alone is only likely to be used by dedicated public transport users without any other means of access to the AONB. British Camp and Wyche Cutting have an hourly all-year Sunday service (144); on other days there is virtually no access by public transport to any part of the Conservators land south of Wyche Cutting. In such circumstances 3% of visitors being recorded as bus users must be seen to be encouraging.
A point to note is that whilst only 3% of respondents cited traffic/parking issues as something that spoiled their visit (though this might in fact overlap with "congestion/crowded/people" which also scored 3%), this was jointly the third most unpopular issue after too many dogs and too many cyclists or mountain bikers on the Hills.
It is important to stress that this was not a survey of visitors using the car parks. As far as we are aware, there have been no detailed surveys of car park usage either on the Conservators land or within the AONB as a whole. The 600 available places are not likely to be used evenly. Whilst it is clearly true that at certain times of certain days of the year the most popular car parks are overflowing with all the attendant problems described above, other car parks in less frequented areas appear to remain significantly underused. One interesting fact to emerge from the visitors survey is the popular sites chosen by the interviewing team to carry out their task. Not surprisingly British Camp and Black Hills dominated, with 230 interviews being carried out at these two sites alone, with just 20 interviews collected at North Quarry and a token 2 at Tank Quarry. The Survey Report notes that early in the season neither North or Tank Quarry produced enough visitors to provide "an adequate sample".
It is clearly essential that, as an early priority, detailed car parking surveys spread over differing times and days are undertaken to find out exactly what is the spread of visitors between the eight main car parks and adjoining areas where parking is permitted, plus a calculation of the levels of overflow and on-road parking. At the moment there is little more than anecdotal evidence about exactly what is happening during the busiest periods.
The fourth HETB study relating to visitor behaviour in the Malvern Hills is the AONB Sustainable Tourism Strategy produced in 2001. This is an admirable document outlining research and policy context for sustainable tourism in the Hills. In its reference in 2.10 to the National Policy Context and Transport White Paper the report authors note that the national objective of integration between transport, environment and land use planning at the local level in the Malvern Hills AONB will be achieved through the preparation and implementation of relevant sections of the appropriate Local Transport Plans in the three counties. The authors note:
As one of the key issues for the AONB is the increase in car borne visitors to the area and the comparatively low use of public transport, effective transport solutions necessary to achieve the objectives of this (sustainable tourism) strategy will also need to be included in these plans.
There is also a summary of local community consultations carried out in Spring 2000. This included the fact that even among local people living within easy walking distance of the hills, 75% used their cars to get there and only 22% walked, with 53% also declaring that "nothing" would encourage them to use public transport to do so instead of their cars.
Among significant issues addressed in Section 3 Key Issues within the AONB Influencing the Strategy is Transport Management. The report notes that both the towns of Malvern and Ledbury, despite being key gateways into the AONB, lack integrated signage, transport, parking and dispersal plans for visitors. They note low use of the Hills Hopper even for guests staying in Malvern and Ledbury, (though in fact the only guests who could conceivably use the service would have to be staying on one of perhaps just twenty Saturdays in July, August or September) as well as lack of integration between bus, train, cycling and walking routes to the Hills.
In the Programme of Action (Section 4) the report's authors suggest the importance of improving the ability of visitors to make informed choices through understanding and appreciation of the importance of the AONB as a special landscape and of the vulnerability of the area.
The Action Plan include a whole section on Transport Management Initiatives. What is rightly emphasised in this study is the need for a holistic, fully integrated approach, with visitor education, information, good signage, positive incentives to encourage the use of public transport, cycling and walking forming part of a comprehensive approach to how visitors reach, move around and experience the Malvern Hills. At the moment such a comprehensive approach is clearly not in place.
A tightly focused, if brief study, of specific management problems relating to the eight car parks was commissioned by the Conservators from Karspace Management Ltd. (untitled) in 2001, car park management specialists. This looks at a number of specific issues in terms of signage of the car parks and walking routes from them, siting of pay-and-display machines, pricing policies, revenue collection and enforcement. There are some useful points in that study which are referred to at other points in this study.
What is clearly missing from the review of current policies and strategies, including the Local Transport Plans of both Worcestershire and Herefordshire (Gloucestershire, only occupying the southern tip of the AONB is less directly concerned) is any reference (as suggested in the Sustainable Tourism Strategy) to the AONB and its major traffic and transport problems and opportunities, even though with 1.25 million visitors the AONB is arguably one of the most important generators of leisure traffic in the two counties. There are generalised references in both LTPs to the management of rural traffic, but no specific reference to the problems and opportunities within the AONB as such. As these two highway authorities have responsibility for all the management of all traffic on the public highway, with something like 82% of its 1.25 million visitors being car borne (most of the remaining 18% being locals who walk there), this omission needs to be corrected. A joint Visitor and Traffic Management Plan developed and funded through both LTPs, (probably with one of the two main authorities taking the lead), would access considerable expertise and, equally important, financial resources to tackle specific issues such as the need to control on-road parking, as well as other specific issues such as traffic calming and speed controls, for example along the A449 in the vicinity of British Camp, or the B4218 in the approach to Earnslaw Car Park and Wyche Cutting.
Informal contact with officers within Herefordshire Council have indicated that lack of consultation by either authority with the AONB JAC has been by default rather than design. Neither side has, perhaps, fully realised the importance of traffic management for the AONB within the wider context of visitor and indeed overall resource management. This lack of close co-operation so far between highway and land management authorities partly explains the lack of progress on transport matters within the AONB.
The two LTPs are five year Plans covering 2000-5, and major revisions are not planned until 2004 for the next five year cycle. This would, however, give scope for urgently necessary detailed research to be undertaken and specific proposals to be developed in terms of a Visitor and Traffic Management Plan, which would form part of the AONB Management Plan, but the traffic elements of which could also find their way into the two LTPs for funding proposals. Any complementary measures to improve the skeletal Hills Hopper or other bus services might be developed through the Malvern Hills Rural Transport Partnership with Wider Welcome Funding. Bidding for such funding, for example for a park-and-ride experiment, would be very strongly supported if it could be demonstrated the proposal was part of a wider Visitor Management Plan.
However it is also worth reporting that both local authorities would welcome dialogue with officers of the Conservators and the AONB Partnership to discuss any aspects of traffic problems within the AONB. Whilst major schemes, such as for example traffic calming, Quiet Lanes or sections of rural clearway would undoubtedly need to be funded and developed through the LTPs, if there are specific problems, for example the need for new waiting or parking regulations on roads close to specific car parks, officers are prepared to consider specific solutions sympathetically and, if criteria would be met, to take forward the necessary action even within the current LTP cycle.
Car park study index
