Car Park Study
4. PUTTING PRINCIPLES INTO PRACTICE - DEALING WITH THE SPECIFIC ISSUES RELATING TO THE MHC CAR PARKS
Pricing policy
Q1. How will pricing policy interact with parking patterns outside MHC's car parks (roadside, villages, and towns).
There are currently four methods of payment in MHC car parks. Individuals pay £1.50 for what in effect is an all "day ticket" to park at any MHC car park; alternatively they have a season ticket costing just £20 or if they live in the immediate local areas where Community Charge payers are precepted to pay a contribution towards the costs of the MHC, they can purchase a pass from the Conservators costing just £1 (basically an administrative fee) - for unlimited use. Fourthly they can ignore the signs and if, on the relatively unlikely chance they get caught by car park wardens, they can pay a retrospective charge of £1.50, hardly a strong deterrent to make sure appropriate payment is made.
Compared with most other countryside recreational sites in the UK, these are modest fees. £2 is generally the norm in most National and Country Parks. Some modest increase, say to £2, is not likely to be a problem, in that people who are already paying the fee of £1.50 are not likely to become fee dodgers as a result. However any increase in the shorter term which is higher than this will cause progressively strong resistance, especially among local users, leading to more roadside parking and illegal parking. On the other hand this would almost certainly boost sales of the season tickets and the £1 local precept ticket. There would also be the benefit of more people being prepared to walk from the town, especially if it was cheaper to park in town, and routes to the Hills were properly signed from the town centre.
Application and enforcement (using local traffic wardens) of on-road parking restrictions in areas close to car parks would, however force even reluctant payers to pay the extra fee, though at a stage above, say, £3, political resistance would become increasingly manifest, and the Conservators, as members of the local community, are likely to be strongly affected by this, especially as letters begin to appear in the local press.
Bus use is unlikely to be boosted significantly, however, by high car parking charges, as the single bus fare between Malvern and British Camp on the 144 at £1.60 is already more than a day's parking and a flat fare for two on the Hopper at £5.50 is more than the highest imaginable increase even at British Camp.
Q2 Should MHC change all day/all car park ticket arrangements ?
All day parking for a single fee is a great convenience for the visitor who wants to visit more than one site within the MHC's jurisdiction or go for a short walk, enjoy a famous view or visit a pub, or just want to use a loo. On our visit on 24th March a good deal of this behaviour was noted. It would require a detailed survey of car parks, noting number plates, to have an accurate assessment of how people use car parks for what is sometimes described as "site-hopping", that is staying for a short time at several sites, and whether this is mainly done by local people with passes or season tickets, or visitors from further afield who are buying a single day ticket and using it at two or more car parks. Without a measure of how common this practice is, and who is doing it, it is impossible to ascertain what the impact would be.
If it is the intention of MHC to reduce site sipping and thereby adding to traffic pollution, then charging a fee for a stay at each car park has much to commend it - though it would not affect the holders of local passes or season tickets. However, it would also be difficult to enforce, as someone would have to scan the displayed ticket carefully to ascertain where it was issued, though issuing different coloured tickets at each car park could enable this to be done fairly easily - always assuming that tickets are available in different coloured paper. Given the high percentage of repeat visits and local visitors to the AONB, changing visitors habits would be difficult to achieve, especially among older visitors who would deliberately or otherwise claim not to understand the new rules. Older people who simply stop at various viewpoints would claim to be penalised, and there is likely to be backlash from traders, who again would claim that short stay business was being driven away. This is not to suggest that this course of action should not be pursued, rather that there needs to be a clear understanding of what level of site hopping does in fact occur, and who is doing it, before action is considered.
It may be better to have a timed system of ticketing - namely a £2 ticket valid for up to four hours (which covers the average visitor stay) and a £3 for over four hours, thus covering the needs of all-day walkers who effectively take a parking place out of use for most of a day. Clearly displayed time tickets would be easier to check and as this system is common to most public car parks (including those in Malvern) it is more easily understood and more likely to be respected.
Q3 Should all car parks be the same price? Could an 'altitude' charge be introduced? Could this help congestion and increase income?
In classic economic theory, the availability of parking space at certain car parks such as British Camp or Black Hills is a commodity for which demand exceeds supply and the pricing mechanism is a way of matching the two.
Where this mechanisms fails to work is that demand is both seasonal and highly weather dependent. So demand at British Camp on a wet and windy day in January is likely to be minimal but on a fine August Sunday afternoon infinite. This would then suggest a pricing system which was less in the low season but increased significantly in the peak.
Unless prices at the busy car parks are significantly higher, behaviour is not likely to be affected until the point is reached where visitor and local community backlash begins to be a factor, which far from solving the problem could make matters worse as visitors begin to leave the cars in any available on-road or roadside space.
Given the suggested short and long stay price differential outlined in Q2 above, maximising revenue may be best achieved by better information provision, primarily a well designed leaflet, which warns visitors when certain key parks are likely to be full, and directs them at such times to other car parks, including the high capacity and probably under used parks such as North Quarry Park and Earnslaw Quarry. This might even have to include signs at the approach roads and at the car parks entrance themselves, manned by stewards, directing visitors towards alternative parking destinations. This would itself reduce pressure of overuse at the key locations and deter people from parking on the verges if they felt people were in the area. Again the times of worst pressure are probably no more than 3-4 hours in the middle of the day, between (say) 11am and 3pm.
The one car park where there is opportunity to look at something a little more radical is at North Quarry where usage appears to be low and capacity could be as high as 100 cars (together with an overflow opportunity in the adjacent Tank Quarry) . Assuming the Hills Hopper was a little more frequent (i.e. an hourly, or even a half hourly, park-and-ride shuttle between North Quarry and British Camp) then visitors could be offered a £1 discount off a single or family ticket, effectively bringing the charge down to £2 or £1. The Hopper could also be rerouted to serve one or more town centre car parks where capacity is available on Sundays.
The transformation of the Hills Hopper from what is a skeletal service to one which can be a genuine park-and-ride alternative is beyond the scope of this study, but could almost certainly qualify for funding from the Countryside Agency's Wider Welcome Rural Transport Partnership scheme.
Q. 4 Visitor passes - are they the right price? Should they be for more than one year? Is the distribution system adequate?
By any yardstick, £20 for unlimited access to the core areas of the AONB for a season is a splendid deal, especially as by so doing visitor can be made to feel that they are making a useful contribution to the conservation work of the MHC, though in practice if full maintenance costs of the car parks, including vandalism, is taken into consideration, the "profit" from car park operation is much less than it seems.
If prices of day tickets are increased as suggested in Q1, there will be a good case to increase the season ticket after the day tickets are increased, as these will now represent even better value for money, to £25. Given the fact that costs were increased to £20 from £15 only a year ago, this may be politically sensitive even in 2003. This increase may depress sales slightly in the short term, but they will recover fairly quickly as the new price differentials are understood. Higher rises than this will again run the risk of backlash.
A year seems an exactly the right period to offer the deal, and the annual renewal gives opportunity not only to issue a new "disc" but to give season ticket purchasers a newsletter about what is happening on the MHC land, including projects financed by their contribution. Even more importantly such a newsletter can provide information to influence behaviour, including why it is a bad idea to take a car to British Camp or Black Hill on a Sunday afternoon when there lots more space at North Quarry or even Earnslaw Quarry. Other choices can also be highlighted, including the availability of Sunday bus service 144 and the Hills Hopper (offering excellent opportunities for park-ride-and-walk days out along the main ridge), or even for taking a direct walk from Great or Little Malvern, returning by bus. Annual Pass holders - residents and visitors alike - are key stakeholders who need to be brought into the fold, potential members of the recently established "Companions of the Malvern Hills" as well as providing a valuable database for MHC which can be accessed when required.
As far as we can judge the distribution systems from the Conservators Office or the Malvern or Ledbury TICs works very well, though these outlets should be advertised at car parks and in promotional literature. It is important for reasons stated above to retain names and addresses as this is an important data base, including a source of visitor surveys and even a recruitment pool for future volunteers.
Q.5 Residents' passes - are they the right price? Should they be for more than one year? Is the distribution system adequate? Should some smaller car parks be restricted to local residents?
Local residents are almost certainly not covering their administrative costs in terms of staff time, paperwork, printing etc, and increasing the £1 charge to £2 (even in the light of recent increases) would seem reasonable, especially as most of those paying the £2 will be perceived by members of the local community and pass-holders as coming from outside the area. However an accurate breakdown of these costs, per permit, should be provided, to respond to the inevitable complaints in the local press and in the Conservators' own post.
A year seems a reasonable interval for renewal discs as it is for Visitors, and the same criteria should be adopted in terms of retaining what is a valuable database and ensuring regular communication with a strong client base.
The one car park where Residents should (with the disabled) get priority is at Beacon Road. This is a narrow and difficult car park along a cul-de-sac road, which at the time of our survey on March 24th was being abused by people parking on the access rather than paying even the modest current charge of £1.50. Some traffic management and rationalisation is required here - see next section. Giving local people and the disabled priority here will be seen as an important concession at a time when tougher attitudes to casual off-road parking have to be imposed.
The semi-permanent use of the car parks by local residents which seems to be occurring in the lower part of Beacon Road and at the entrance to North Quarry - where local householders appear to have claimed the entrance as "theirs" presumably ignoring the 23.00 curfew - needs to be rationalised. If it is agreed that this usage should be continued, special marked reserved areas should be designated and an appropriate annual rental for use of the space claimed.
Q.6 Pricing for different vehicle categories - ticket prices for motorcycles, coaches, horseboxes.
We have nothing but anecdotal evidence to suggest that motor cyclists probably don't pay anything for their usage of the area. The answer might be to set some areas aside in some of the larger car parks for motor cycles and charge a flat £1 fee, ticket to be retained for inspection if challenged.
Coaches have a minimal one coach parking space available near British Camp, which should be used for setting down and picking up only, with a longer stay car park available at Priory Road North in Malvern at Malvern Hills DC rates. This could be combined with promotion of an easy, interpretive walk from British Camp to the centre of Great Malvern for school and other groups, encouraging a refreshment stop in the town. If demand is higher than the two current spaces, temporary on-road or off-road parking could be arranged.
Horses and horse boxes are a different issue, being difficult to manoeuvre and not compatible with making use of limited car parking areas. It is suggested that the approach should be for the Conservators or AONB Partnership to identify farms at key points on the bridleway network, preferably away from the main ridge of the Hills, where, for an appropriate payment to farmers, horse boxes and vehicles can be parked in safety and security, to allow riders to access suitable circular or even linear routes.
Q7 Currently there are car parks on the hills where no charge is levied (generally not MHC) - should this be rationalised?
There is little doubt that as far as visitors are concerned, there needs to a be a single, unified car parking "system" on the Hills so they know where they can take their vehicles whether for an hour or a full day visit, and leave them in reasonable safety, understanding exactly what the payment system is.
Free spaces on private land can never entirely be eliminated, but as a principle, informal parking areas on public land, including highway verges in the major hot spots, should either be closed - by means of stone boulders, ditches or wooden dragons' teeth - or incorporated into the system by means of charging, or, as at the Hayslad spring on West Malvern Road, be accepted as a short stay facility.
For example, the 24 spaces on Jubilee Drive (full when inspected on 24th - after the church service) needs to be chargeable (churchgoers excepted) with a standard metred system, as it is clearly being used by visitors, some of whom could be staying there all day. Likewise Tank Quarry, which would appear to be lightly used, needs to be seen to be operated under the same jurisdiction as the adjacent as North Quarry
What is more complicated are the overflow areas, for example at Black Hill or Castlemorton Common, which need to be contained and rationalised, so it is quite clear on what land parking is permitted and to be paid for, and on what land parking is forbidden. Again full extent of the problem must await more comprehensive surveys, but much will depend on good quality information to direct people to the right places..
Enforcement policy
Q.7 Ticket dodgers - should they be fined, and if yes, how much? Should they be pursued for non payment?
The current policy of the Conservators towards users who do not pay their charges can only be described as benevolent. If you are caught - and anecdotal evidence is that many people regard the current system as little more than an honesty box - the worst that happens is that you have to pay your £1.50 within a defined number of days. This is hardly a strong deterrent against non-payment, and if attempted in other forms of public or private activity such as on trains or buses, it would certainly result in fairly significant avoidance of payment.
What the loss of this income is as a result of non-payment is hard to define, (and we are not aware of any data to support average levels of avoidance) but it is difficult to believe that it is as low as 10-20% as suggested from limited surveys, unless indeed there are a very high proportion of local residents and season ticket holders who are remarkably honest in their habits. We also suspect that many people find other places to park where payment, let alone fines, is not an issue, including on roadside verges or places, as on Jubilee Drive, where parking seems to be free despite it taking place on an extended lay-bye which is in fact MHC land. In other cases there is even strong deterrents against paying, such as a fairly extended walk to the nearest ticket machine, a requirement which all but the most scrupulous are likely to quietly ignore.
KMP's estimate is that a minimum of £14,000 of extra income could be gained by a combination of ensuring all users paid the relevant charges and from fines from non-payers. This may be an underestimate.
Malvern Hill District Council adopt a simple but effective system for their car parks. Anyone found parking without the relevant, up-to-date ticket is immediately fined £20 which if not redeemed by cash payment within 7 days, is increased to £40. Such a system is standard in most urban and many rural car parks. This invariably works, but the occasional non-payer is eventually be pursued through the courts using the services of a local solicitor.
It is recommended that MHC adopt the identical system
Q.8 Out of date residents' passes - should there be a fining system?
Residents who do not renew their passes should be treated in exactly the same way as other non-payers and the relevant fines should be imposed.
Q.9 Disabled badge holders may assume that, contrary to the terms of their badges, they do not have to pay - how can this confusion be avoided? Is the parking charge worth collecting given the number of people involved?
The question of disabled badge holders is an emotive one. People with disabilities are not necessarily on low income and abuse of privileges are common. On the other hand prosecution for non-payment can lead to very negative publicity in the local press and from pressure groups.
As a compromise solution it is suggested that the MHC might wish to consider allowing Badge Holders to park free of charge at one car park (Beacon Road - which, it is suggested, should become an exclusive Local Residents and Disabled Car park) but charge them a standard flat rate of £1 at other car parks.
Q.10 Verge parkers - what can be done about them?
The verge of a public highway is part of the highway. Parking on the verge is therefore legal, unless it compromises safety (usually indicated by a single or double white line in the centre of the road) or causes an obstruction. However if a Traffic Regulation Order (under the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984) is in force, including single or double yellow lines, or even a rural clearway which does not require yellow lines only small repeat signings - an appropriate solution for Jubilee Drive - parking in such an area is a criminal offence. Local Traffic wardens can be employed to ensure regulations are met. Under current legislation such wardens have to be employed and empowered by the local police force, (except in specific "parking control zones") almost as a kind of special constable. Most police authorities are reluctant to so because of extra costs, but if a relevant authority which could include MHC or MHDC, were prepared to pay the relevant salary and other costs, the Police authority is more likely to accept this arrangement. The ideal solution would be to combine car park duties with traffic warden duties, so that a single employee on duty can attend to both on and off-highway parking matters.
Where the verge is adjacent to MHC land, creating some form of physical barriers including low ditches, (as at Castlemorton Common), well placed rocks or dragons' teeth will help prevent vehicles simply drawing off the road and parking on the adjacent land. However, such measures must be executed so that a car is not to cause a safety hazard, nor to allow vehicle owners to sue MHC for causing damage to their vehicles.
Q11. Motor cycles - how can a ticket system work here?
A standard £1 charge for motorcyclists is recommended to be imposed for all day parking, with, in the larger car parks, an area of say six bays laid out for motor cycle use. Users will be asked to retain their tickets for inspection rather than displaying them on their machine. This makes enforcement difficult, but the threat of inspection is likely to act as an incentive.
Q.12 Who should enforce policy? Should an outside agency be employed for some, if not all, car park duties?
At the moment, an MHC Warden combines her general countryside duties with that of car park warden and cash machine emptier. Given the range of tasks and responsibilities such a countryside manager has for the Conservators, we doubt if this is a wise use of an important resource.
Two other options are to employ a commercial organisation such as KML or to seek partnership with another public agency, in this instance Malvern Hills District Council.
We would fully endorse the view that using a commercial agency has its difficulties, most notably potential public relations difficulties in enforcement cases, lack of direct control over staff, and indeed the wider issue of income being diverted into the private sector.
Discussions with Malvern Hills District Council Officers have revealed that Malvern Hills Council not only have the capacity to undertake the enforcement and cash collection work, but changes in local arrangements have released some spare staff capacity which might otherwise result in job losses or redundancy.
Malvern Hills DC car park wardens could therefore not only provide regular patrols to cover all eight car parks in the Hills, regular emptying of machines, and the issuing of enforcement notices, but deliver regular site surveys to provide data such as vehicle counts. This data, which is currently non-existent, is essential for any future traffic and visitor management strategies. Another huge advantage would be the introduction of a single system for Malvern Hills DC and the MHC parks, albeit with different pricing regimes, but a common fine collection system. Residents passes and season tickets could also be sold at MHDC outlets. Promotion of the network of car parks, signing of routes to the Hills by car, by bus and on foot from the town centre could be developed as an integral whole, all of which could help to reduce car dependency and provide tangible benefits as visitors are encouraged to spend money in the town centre rather than arrive and leave without any contribution.
In effect this would be an Agency arrangement between the MHC and Malvern Hills District Council. It is beyond the scope of this study to determine exactly what the costs and terms of reference would be, except to suggest that it would be more than amply covered by the recovery of unpaid charges and fines, and any additional income raised would benefit both MHC and Community Charge payers of Malvern Hill in terms of income raised through the Agency arrangement. MHC would also benefit by being able to accept continuous advice from experienced, professional MHDC staff on such issues as the cost and maintenance of pay and display machines, legal issues, surface treatments, maintenance issues and security.
Design of car parks
Q.13 Are the car parks adequately signed off the public roads?
The simplest answer to this question is indeed not. In almost every case there is little or no signing off the public highway. Where such signing exists it is in the wrong place (e.g. attracting people into the Lower Wyche quarry where there are few or no facilities).
Most of the cars parks we visited are discreet to a point of secrecy, and only the site of a ticket machine or a small green sign indicating the £1.50 charge (impossible to see at more than 20 mph) being a clue to what is there. A sign, for example saying North Quarry which in any case faces the opposite direction to that of visitors coming out of Great Malvern town, tells the visitor nothing. There is no information available in Malvern, nor signing from the town centre.
In most cases, a visitor to the Hills would face complete bafflement and is only likely to find somewhere to park by noting other parked vehicles and joining them. The one exception to this situation is at British Camp, where the massive visual impact of the car park conveys its own message. This partly explains why British Camp is so heavily used, and why it quickly reaches saturation.
No doubt this results in much of the aimless driving around looking for somewhere to park noted in the AONB Management Plan.
No doubt, too, the policy of discreet car park signing has evolved through a worthy, if sadly self-defeating, effort to minimise the impact of unnecessary signage in otherwise attractive locations. However, a public highway with lots of randomly parked cars is not an unspoiled rural location. Standard DTLR approved small blue signs, in both direction at each and every one of the main car park access entrances from the main road network, is clearly essential and will help to reduce some of the confusion and aimless visitor movement, which is surely a more serious problem than allegedly intrusive signs. Signing on the highway is a highway authority responsibility and a suitable clear signing strategy from Great Malvern needs to be devised in partnership with the two main highway authorities.
Q.14 Could signage be used to direct visitors to less used car parks and if so how and at what cost?
There is little doubt that a coherent signing strategy would increase the use of the less used car parks and thereby reduce pressure on the over-used ones. Until a detailed study is undertaken, it is difficult to assess the capital costs of such signs, and whether, for example existing posts could be used or separate posts need to be erected at given locations, but assuming around 20 signs were required, together with erection costs, the total cost is likely to be in the order of £4,000 - £5,000. How great a contribution would be required from MHC for this, or how much the two highway authorities could meet from their existing budgets would have to be explored further.
Q.15 Collection of money: who should do it? Is it a single person activity?
This issue has been dealt with by Q,12 above. The collection of cash, its banking and security would be dealt with by MHDC in precisely the same way it deals with its own car parks, with cash either being paid directly into MHC account or a repayment system based on receipts less agency costs being established.
Q16 Should some car parks be unsigned for use by locals?
The one car park which would appear to qualify for this treatment, to be shared between Disabled Permit holders and Local Permit Holders is at Beacon Road. Such an arrangement would allow the disposal of a ticket machine, which currently insufficiently serves this long linear car park, which could be used (and similar income gained) at what is now a free 24 place car park at Jubilee Drive. This car park would remain unsigned, but appear in the suggested guide to transport and parking on the Hills.
Q.17 How when one car park is full, can the overflow be encouraged to find and use other car parks?
Information should be available to visitors in Malvern (in the form of a well produced leaflet referred to below) to indicate that both British Camp and Black Hill are heavily used and there are good alternatives at peak times.
At very heavy periods of peak usage, it may be necessary to have a volunteer warden presence at the busiest car parks, to direct visitors to where capacity exists (e.g. from British Camp or Black Hill to Earnslaw or North Quarry/Tank Quarry) with the development of a shuttle bus to link to popular sites. Such a scheme needs much fuller investigation and discussion as part of a wider Visitor Management and Traffic Strategy for the AONB.
Q.18 How to improve road safety, especially at British Camp?
The situation at British Camp, with the main, very busy A449 through the centre, is best described as dire. The situation on the B4218 at Wyche Cutting is almost as bad. The current attitude of the two highway authorities is that until there is a death or more than one injury, action is not a priority.
This is unacceptable on both safety and environmental grounds. There is a clear case for some form of traffic calming on both roads and pedestrian facilities, such as a central island, at both points.
However the best way of achieving this is through a more comprehensive Visitor Management and Traffic Strategy for the whole AONB which could identify key points for action at British Camp, Wyche and elsewhere, which could be developed, as elsewhere in protected landscapes throughout the UK, via the LTP Process. We urge early discussions with the two highway authorities and Malvern Hills District Council to start this process.
The issue of security is one to be addressed at all eight car parks. In some respects improving appearance and getting greater use of the car parks will itself act as a deterrent - car crime flourishes when no one else is around. However, at the most vulnerable car parks, such as North Quarry, Tank Quarry and perhaps Earnslaw and West of England there may eventually be a case for establishing a CCTV system with video recording. The mere presence of the camera, working or not, will significantly reduce casual crime and car theft. How this would operate and who should monitor requires further investigation, but if Malvern Hills DC was also considering such a system, a joint initiative could be developed.
Q.19 How to improve traffic flow in car parks?
Each car park has to be looked at on its own merits, but it is notable that three of the large quarry car parks, Earnslaw, Gardiners, and North Quarry are huge, circular areas without any kind of marking. Use of "herringbone" style car parking bays, using logs or old timber (secured by stakes into the ground) to mark out bays, could increase capacity significantly at both North Quarry and help create a central parking area, whilst marked bays to ensure efficient nose to tail parking plus some central parking at the other two quarries would both increase capacity and at the same time given both area a moiré user friendlier feel.
Q.20 Are the car parks as good at providing information as they could be?
Only two of the car parks, British Camp and Black Hill, have any kind of information provision in the form of attractive interpretive panels, which have little visitor management information as such, and certainly no reference to public transport. Signing at all car parks is either poor or no existent not only to the car park, but from the car parks along key trails.
The opportunities that the car parks offer to welcome visitors and influence behaviour on the Hills are largely being missed. There needs to be a communication strategy in place as part of the proposed Visitor Management and Traffic Plan, which will develop the "Welcoming" role of car parks, linked to effective signing of key trails, public transport routes (Hopper and regular services) and other local facilities. Providers of such facilities might be encouraged to contribute to the display, providing it did not become too much like advertising as a result. Integral to this will be good quality printed literature, in a strong corporate house style, which also emphasises messages relating to long term sustainable management of what is a priceless national asset.
Q.21 Designs to encourage people to buy tickets
The siting of car parking meters is important in terms of being very noticeable as people arrive in their vehicle and within easy walking distance of where they park, and preferably forming part of a key welcoming and information point - Black Hills is in fact a notable good example, though not in terms of access for people using the overflow areas. There also needs to be a discreet reminder at main vehicle and walking exit areas "Have you paid and displayed ?", and details of the penalties for non payment ought also to be clearly, even prominently, displayed.
Q.22 Are parking meters in the best places to be seen/ broken into?
The more car parks are used by the law-abiding public the less likely vandalism of machines is to be a major problem. However, this remains an issue of concern in isolated locations, and frequent emptying with notices to indicate they are emptied every evening (whether this is strictly true is another issue) is likely to help. Well positioned prominent locations are likely to score both on usage and reduced vandalism. KML note with approval how the current machines are built into stone surrounds to discourage vandalism. Solar-powered machines can occupy a more varied choice of locations (see below) and for that reason are more adaptable than conventional machines.
Q.23 Can the aesthetic landscaping of the car parks be improved and if so, at what cost?
The quarry industry of the Malvern Hills has bequeathed to the present generation what might seem a heaven sent opportunity in terms of hidden locates in which to conceal several hundred cars without huge visible impact on the landscape. However old quarries are also bleak, and at times dangerous places in terms of rock fall. Their enclosed, somewhat claustrophobic nature can also provide a cover for anti-social activities, including car crime, which in turn can deter usage. Tank Top Quarry, (owned by WCC) for example is a perhaps classic example of a car park and picnic site which is seriously underused for these reasons.
There is little doubt that in order to make the main large quarry car parks more welcoming places a great deal of money will have to be spent, in terms of marking out parking places, (logs staked into the ground will also reduce the appeal of the car parks as skid pans for local boy racers), planting areas to soften hard lines and keep visitors away from rock faces, picnic areas, signing of trails, provision of information, viewpoint benches; Earnslaw Quarry top car park for example, offers superb views if there was anywhere to sit.
It is impossible to hazard even an educated guess at the costs involved, and it is likely that a programme of improvement will have to be planned over several years to achieve high standards at all eight car parks under the Conservators care.
Sources of funding for such improvement could include Landfill Tax (assuming that there is a landfill site within 10 miles of the Hills), Aggregates Tax and the Environment Action Fund; as a charitable body the MHC are eligible to source funding which would not be available to local authorities.
Servicing car parks
Q.24 Are the current accounting categories correct for monitoring the effects of changes in car park policy?
Current accounting categories are useful for giving an indication of single day visitor usage of car parks, in terms of general peaks and troughs, and the split between the eight locations in the AONB. It does not reflect patterns of local or season ticket use.
A much more detailed survey is required of visitor behaviour, which is best achieved by surveying actual usage of official and unofficial car parks by all users at key times of the day and differing weeks of the year, to establish patterns of visitor use. Such information as weather conditions, public events in the area etc needs also to be recorded as part of the survey.
Q.25 Collection of money: who should do it? Is it a single person activity?
As suggested above, this should be a Malvern Hills District Council activity based on an agency agreement with MHC
Q.26 Enforcement of fines: should this be done by another agency?
As above.
Q.27 Service contract on meters - is this adequate? Should there be a trained individual at MHC who can deal with faults?
As above, also dealt with on an agency basis with MHDC and in the light of officer experience.
Q.28 Could solar panel meters increase income across more car parks?
Solar panel metres could offer many major advantages to MHC, including provision of extra meters where power supply provision is problematical, e.g. on the other side of Jubilee. They also give out the right kind of sustainability messages to the public in terms of low, renewable energy consumption.
A briefing note which includes the cost of such metres, and some major suppliers, is attached at Appendix Two.
Q.29 On Castlemorton there is a voluntary car park attendant who earns a proportion of parking fees collected. Could this be better managed?
We understand that this activity has now ceased with the departure of the individual concerned. How collection is best handled should form part of an overall visitor management strategy for Castlemorton Common which is dealt with in the next section.
Car parking on Castlemorton Common
Q.30 Proposal for managing parking on this common and reduce off road parking.
Hollybush and Castlemorton Commons are described in the MHC Management Plan (Zones 4 & 5) as " a unique and important landscape" of open, unfenced common "bounded by irregular areas of enclosed holdings of cottages and farms, with small fields, orchards, dense hedgerows and numerous hedgerow trees. A complex vegetation mosaic, which also varies in scale locally, diversified the open aspect of the grassland; encroaching scrubs, naturally regenerating trees, damp bracken hollows and pollarded trees……"
Much of the area of a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and also a Special Wildlife Site
It is noted that cars are often driven onto the common, creating some erosion and unofficial tracks. Roadside parking also causes serious erosion and damage and to counter these impacts, small roadside ditches have been dug to keep cars on the highway. Within the areas are key honeypots such Berrow Down, the Mill Pond (a particularly lovely informal parking and picnic area) and the dramatic Gullet Quarry
Dealing with car parking in this whole complex and very special area of the AONB must be seen as part of a wider visitor management and nature protection strategy for the area, and cannot be dealt with adequately within the framework of this limited study. What is clear, however, is that indiscriminate parking and driving over extensive areas of these two commons is totally unacceptable on both landscape and nature conservation grounds. During our brief visit it was clear that there was significant erosion and damage, tyre marks, with evidence, on Berrow Downs of visitors themselves having a miserable time of it as vehicles and their occupants were clearly bogged down in places in soft ground.
On the other hand we sense that this informal use of the area for passive recreation is seen as "traditional" among local communities, a relaxed way of using the landscape which has gone on for generations.
Nevertheless such usage is unacceptable, and the Conservators are quite right to have limited its use. It is noted that over 500 cars, at peak times, are sometimes parked on the Common, clearly submitting this sensitive, ancient landscape to pressure well beyond what would be the "limits of acceptable change".
An overall Management Plan for the two commons is required as a matter of urgency. Car parking at Castlemorton and Hollybush needs to be determined not by demand, whether traditional or otherwise, but by the carrying capacity of the area. This will require the formalisation and designation of certain areas for car parking, ideally areas where because of topography visual impact is minimalised.
Such car parks should differ very considerably in appearance from the more urban car parks on the main hill area. They may have some hard standing, or "grasscrete" for the heaviest used areas, but remain rural in feel, and use made either of ditches or grass covered earth mounds, and appropriate small scale landscaping to soften impact as well as to prevent further traffic penetration on to the common. Mounds would conceal parked vehicles, yet still allow people to enjoy what would be an otherwise unspoiled view across the common from a parked vehicle. Local walks could be signposted (though not necessarily waymarked) from the car parks, and interpretive panels erected help to explain the special qualities of the landscape and its natural features. And why it needs protecting from too many feet and tyres.
How many of these cars parks and how many car parks spaces should be created should be determined not by peak demand, but by what is defined in the Sustainable Tourism Strategy as the carrying capacity of the area. They also must not be too large. Obvious places are the Mill Pond, Berrow Down and Hollybush which are already used for existing parking. Size should not be too large, no more than say 40 places, with the options of extensions for (say) another 20-30 places at times of highest demand.
The Mill Pond, as well as being an existing popular picnic area, is already attractively laid out, though reduction of the numbers of cars parking on the slope south of the hard core track down towards the pond might be considered, as this would increase available picnic area and recreational space and reduce visual impact.
Berrow Down suffers problems of vehicle erosion onto the common, and will need some careful treatment and screening to prevent further incursion onto the common, as will the informal car park at Hollybush Common west of the church (see next section).
There are restrictions on exactly what structures can or cannot be erected on Common Land and we assume that this is an area where the Conservators will have expert knowledge and be able to determine appropriate solutions within the constraints of Commons legislation.
One small parking area (about 10 spaces) which ought to be taken out of use when opportunity permits, is the Gullet Quarry, a very special and dramatic location which is currently misused in the evenings by anti-social and occasionally rowdy elements. Ideally this cul-de-sac road should be closed from the cross roads to vehicular traffic leaving it as a place for pedestrian use, and for interpreting a remarkable geological feature. There are special problems of restricting vehicular access at the moment linked to the concerns relating to the occupant of a nearby cottage and her access rights as well as her anxieties, justifiable or otherwise, of people passing on foot, but these problems will eventually have to be overcome and planned for accordingly
All these car parks should be chargeable, and use of solar powered pay and display machines, supported by enforcement, would seem the way forward. Details of suitable suppliers and costs are at Appendix Two.
Car park study index
