The National Trust: one small step for man, one giant car park for mankind.

[pwa]

Interesting thought that, coach excursions. Coaches trips like that are now a rarity but as a child they were an event. Why though would anyone want to use a coach when, as they do now, they have their own transport? There are reasons for wanting to use a coach but limited ones, IMHO.

They were popular backintheday due to cost (I also suspect people are less tolerant of other travellers these days, but it's probably a chicken/egg thing).

Recent governments have made private motoring highly affordable, with public transport lagging behind [and our taxes paying for the disparity, mainly]. Imagine if the current £2 bus fares were extended to private coach hire schemes e.g. to NT properties?!?


All these things can be changed. They are all the result of choices - by individuals, councils, government etc ...

But would you bother visiting an NT property if it meant having to make your way to a coach park, sitting on a coach for an hour and a half to arrive at the venue at a time chosen by the organisers, then only being able to leave at a time chosen by the organisers, and having to repeat the coach journey, and get back home from wherever they drop you? Or would you choose to do something enjoyable instead? I'd give it a miss and take the dog for a walk instead.

And maybe that is the way forward. Visit fewer places and find more to do at home.

[mattheus]

But would you bother visiting an NT property if it meant having to make your way to a coach park, sitting on a coach for an hour and a half to arrive at the venue at a time chosen by the organisers, then only being able to leave at a time chosen by the organisers, and having to repeat the coach journey, and get back home from wherever they drop you? Or would you choose to do something enjoyable instead? I'd give it a miss and take the dog for a walk instead.

And maybe that is the way forward. Visit fewer places and find more to do at home.

I've done lots of similar trips. e.g. getting a train on Advance fare - thus fixing the times - to interesting places to walk around for few hours.

Took a similar bus-trip to a glacier on the rest day of an Austrian walking holiday.

It's funny how people make decisions!

[pwa]

But would you bother visiting an NT property if it meant having to make your way to a coach park, sitting on a coach for an hour and a half to arrive at the venue at a time chosen by the organisers, then only being able to leave at a time chosen by the organisers, and having to repeat the coach journey, and get back home from wherever they drop you? Or would you choose to do something enjoyable instead? I'd give it a miss and take the dog for a walk instead.

And maybe that is the way forward. Visit fewer places and find more to do at home.

I've done lots of similar trips. e.g. getting a train on Advance fare - thus fixing the times - to interesting places to walk around for few hours.

Took a similar bus-trip to a glacier on the rest day of an Austrian walking holiday.

It's funny how people make decisions!

I dislike travelling in a car, but I hate sitting on any kind of bus or coach. I have never been able to get comfortable, even for just a short trip. Trains I can tolerate, and even enjoy if the view is interesting. On the whole though, the journey to an NT property, or something similar, is an obstacle to me going there. If it is a car journey I will weigh up the dislike of having to drive against the expected enjoyment of being at the venue. If it is a coach journey, no destination holds a high enough attraction to make it worth my while.

[Tangled Metal]

I understood that National trust is a quasi state charity in that all property once donated is held in trust for the country. That's everyone. As part of a legally binding framework they are not able to sell anything they have accepted to take on.

Sources of property gains include HMRC for property paid in lieu of death taxes, donations of land in people's wills, etc.


The national trust can only get more bloated with property needing to be kept not less. Unless it stops accepting property, land and all other assets other than money. In some ways they're in a bind. They really need x account of money a year or they can't protect what they've got.

[Nearholmer]

My take on coaches is:

- bus outing with a convivial group, good conversation on the bus, maybe stop somewhere nice for lunch and a beer, interesting place to visit: brilliant, where do I sign-up?

- scheduled trip on National Express: avoid like the plague!

The former sort of outing used to be common, but is now a lot rarer unless one is an avid football supporter.

[Carlton green]

Interesting thought that, coach excursions. Coaches trips like that are now a rarity but as a child they were an event. Why though would anyone want to use a coach when, as they do now, they have their own transport? There are reasons for wanting to use a coach but limited ones, IMHO.

They were popular backintheday due to cost (I also suspect people are less tolerant of other travellers these days, but it's probably a chicken/egg thing).

Recent governments have made private motoring highly affordable, with public transport lagging behind [and our taxes paying for the disparity, mainly]. Imagine if the current £2 bus fares were extended to private coach hire schemes e.g. to NT properties?!?


All these things can be changed. They are all the result of choices - by individuals, councils, government etc ...

But would you bother visiting an NT property if it meant having to make your way to a coach park, sitting on a coach for an hour and a half to arrive at the venue at a time chosen by the organisers, then only being able to leave at a time chosen by the organisers, and having to repeat the coach journey, and get back home from wherever they drop you? Or would you choose to do something enjoyable instead? I'd give it a miss and take the dog for a walk instead.

And maybe that is the way forward. Visit fewer places and find more to do at home.

I can’t say that that model of existence appeals much to me and, as I has changed from that over decades, it doesn’t appeal much to others as some state of perfection. In terms of family life coaches were enabling relative to walking and buses but significantly constraining relative to personal transport. Indeed a lot of journeys just wouldn’t be practical if they could only be done by coach, but as in the past we would aim to get by with what we could manage to do and go without some usefully life enhancing travel.

[pwa]

On the whole, the NT is a very good thing. But for many of their properties, only for those with the means to pay for entry. Yearly membership can make sense for folk doing a lot of visits, but with few NT venues around here I'd never get the value out of it. And paying for a one-off visit is not cheap. If you are on a low income, forget it.

[mattheus]

On the whole, the NT is a very good thing. But for many of their properties, only for those with the means to pay for entry. Yearly membership can make sense for folk doing a lot of visits, but with few NT venues around here I'd never get the value out of it. And paying for a one-off visit is not cheap. If you are on a low income, forget it.

And ironically, they are the people least likely to own a car.

Of course we could say the same thing about much of our great outdoors. Much easier to pop up to the Peak District if the forecast is good, abandon your car (for free) by a convenient footpath and stroll up a nice hill.

[mjr]

Recent governments have made private motoring highly affordable, with public transport lagging behind [and our taxes paying for the disparity, mainly]. Imagine if the current £2 bus fares were extended to private coach hire schemes e.g. to NT properties?!?

All these things can be changed. They are all the result of choices - by individuals, councils, government etc ...

It's not just governments who have done that. The NT has encouraged private motoring too, with car parking included with membership and no equivalent gift to people arriving bike, foot or mass transport. Even if you were in a position to gather your fellow visitors and hire a bus to visit Trelissick together, you can't because there's only car parking. The Trelissick map also shows no cycle parking, nor does OSM. Streetview shows six racks but images are dated 2014 so who knows if they're still there?

This can be changed and it blooming well ought to be! Local to me, Norfolk has a parking standard which planning application approval should be conditional on, which sets out number of spaces and also sizes and quality (no wheelbenders or dog rings). Responding to planning application consultations requesting refusal of applicants who have failed to comply is tedious but often successful, either getting an amendment adding parking or a conditional approval requiring it to be added. So a first step would be to check your local planning council (usually borough/district-level) to see if they have. If so, respond to relevant planning applications to remind them to require it. If not, ask your councillor(s) to adopt a standard.

But the National Trust probably doesn't apply for planning permission ever so often, and it won't deal with the subsidised member car parking, so please write to NT HQ and ask about it. If you have a local NT property apparently without cycle parking, contact its managers and ask: my nearest one (which is not all that near!) and my most-visited one both have cycle parking now

[Bmblbzzz]

Coach trips are still fairly popular, mostly aimed at "seniors" to use the jargon. Here's a list from a local operator, I don't know if any are going to NT properties but you get the idea:
https://www.eagle-coaches.co.uk/day-tri ... -our-trips

[Bmblbzzz]

Worth bearing in mind there are basically two types of NT properties: country houses and similar "destinations", where you go for the scones and the "Bridgerton" atmosphere; and areas of countryside, where there is neither of these things.

[horizon]

One solution that the NT doesn't appear to have considered is variable pricing/admission fees: Sunday afternoons would be full price while Wednesday mornings could be substantially less. At the moment there's no incentive (other than a dislike of crowds) not to go at the busiest times.

The NT's membership admission structure means that this could be done, obviously, on the actual admission price (£14.00 plus £5.00 parking in the case of Trelissick) but also on their membership prices: for example, the current £84 per year could be reduced to say £55 but exclude Sunday admissions.

Coach passengers BTW, AFAIK, get no reduction. Seniors do (after a few years) but there is no incentive for them not to visit on a Sunday or in school holidays. If parking really is the issue, then cyclists should certainly get in for half price (or pay far less for their membership).

[drossall]

I can understand their stance (I am an NT and also English Heritage member (used the Tesco bonus for that )). They need to make a large income to maintain the upkeep of the properties. This is probably the best way to do it.

They are a charity, and that can have some "funny" consequences. The trustees are obliged to use the assets of the charity to deliver its declared charitable objectives as effectively as possible. They are not generally allowed to deliver other worthwhile aims, or the objectives of other charities, unless those are in line with their own.

So, I'd imagine that turning down the income available from more car parking and hence increased footfall, in order to promote environmentally-friendly travel, could, in some circumstances, expose the trustees to intervention from the Charity Commission.

[horizon]

So, I'd imagine that turning down the income available from more car parking and hence increased footfall, in order to promote environmentally-friendly travel, could, in some circumstances, expose the trustees to intervention from the Charity Commission.

The provision of further car parking would be against their own objectives as it would affect the setting of the house and garden (also the concern of Historic England). It would be quite interesting if the NT claimed that their duties lay exclusively in conserving the properties they own while they were free to despoil the surrounding countryside and encourage damage to the environment due to car usage.

[mattheus]

So, I'd imagine that turning down the income available from more car parking and hence increased footfall, in order to promote environmentally-friendly travel, could, in some circumstances, expose the trustees to intervention from the Charity Commission.

The provision of further car parking would be against their own objectives as it would affect the setting of the house and garden (also the concern of Historic England). It would be quite interesting if the NT claimed that their duties lay exclusively in conserving the properties they own while they were free to despoil the surrounding countryside and encourage damage to the environment due to car usage.

Good point, In fact it's right there in Drossall's link (thanks!)

Charitable objects
THE PRESERVATION FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE NATION OF LANDS AND TENEMENTS (INCLUDING BUILDINGS) OF BEAUTY OR HISTORIC INTEREST AND, AS REGARDS LANDS, FOR THE PRESERVATION (AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE) OF THEIR NATURAL ASPECT, FEATURES AND ANIMAL AND PLANT LIFE.

[their upper case, not mine!!!]