In December, the Welsh Assembly Government finally gave the go-ahead for Kemble’s take-over of the Llanbedr Airfield. Now only the matter of planning permission has to be resolved before Kemble can, at last, begin operations. This will involve either an application for change of use, which will be considered by the Snowdonia National Park Authority’s Planning Committee, or the granting of a Certificate of Lawful Use by their legal department.The Snowdonia Society has vowed to continue their campaign to torpedo Kembles efforts to bring the airfield back to life, but here is the opening of an opinion piece on the Snowdonia Society’s website by Rob Colllister, one of the society’s trustees:
So, the first battle over Llanbedr airfield has been fought and lost. The Assembly Government will lease the land of the old RAF base to Kemble Ltd and the Snowdonia National Park Authority will without doubt grant permission for it to be re-opened as a civilian airport. From it tourists will be able to take scenic flights over Snowdon and politicians and businessmen will look forward to flying to Cardiff or Dublin. Out of this lamentable affair, two depressing truths emerge.
If we set aside the unsubstantiated claim that Llanbedr airfield is about to become an ‘airport’, what are the ‘depressing truths’ that the Snowdonia Society alone seem to be lamenting? In Rob Collister’s view these are Assembly Government’s lack of doctrinaire rigour in its commitment to save the planet and an ambivalent attitude on the part of some Welsh politicians towards the role of national parks.
The latter point is, perhaps, the more disturbing. There is little doubt that there is some political pressure to re-asses the role of the Welsh National Parks, and that this could lead to a relaxation of planning controls which would change their character radically. It would seem that Mr Collister, who worked at the Plas y Brenin mountain activities centre before becoming a free-lance mountain guide, does not realise that the recent activities of the Snowdonia Society are playing into the hands of the politicians who would like to see this happen.
The society’s ill-considered campaign to prevent the airfield being used for its original purpose has caused delay and un-necessary expense to a project that has the wholehearted support of both the Assembly Government and residents of the Snowdonia National Park. It has also done great harm to the standing of the Snowdonia Society which, under the directorship of Rory Ffrancis, managed to shed a reputation for nimbyism and gain the respect even of its opponents. This was made possible by demonstrating that it was a strictly non-political, non-doctinaire watchdog that judged each issue on its merits.
Each of the Welsh National Parks has a society similar to the Snowdonia Society, and these are supposed to represent the interests of both locals and visitors. If these organisations become involved in campaigns that only have the support of members who live elsewhere – and are unlikely to fully understand the issues – then this is going to make the task of politicians who would like to see the national parks either greatly changed or even abolished far easier. They can point to an organisation like the Snowdonia Society as a focal point for single-issue campaigners who are only concerned about their own agendas and indifferent to needs of local communities that may suffer as a result of their activities. Even worse, the societies will no longer have a credible voice with which to represent the vast majority who place a high value, both economically and in terms of amenity, on the benefits of national parks and have no wish to see them changed.
Here is the last paragraph of Mr Collister’s article:
Returning to Llanbedr, we need to recognize that as a Society, despite the sterling work of Alun Pugh in questioning some of the government’s assumptions, we were out-gunned. In terms of both climate change and the purpose and meaning of a National Park, the case against a new airport was overwhelming, but in a democracy it is votes, or potential voters, that sway politicians. The hundred or so names on our on-line petition did not compare favourably with over 1000 signing a paper petition in support of the scheme, even if such latter petitions are notoriously unreliable. We need a mechanism for mobilizing our members on issues like this. I, for one, did not sign the petition. I’m not sure that I even knew about it, let alone how to go about signing on-line (though I am learning now!) We need to collaborate better with other organizations and we need to find a way of eliciting support fom all those climbers, walkers, canoeists and mountain-bikers who love Snowdonia and do care about specific issues, even if they prefer not to commit to membership of this Society or any other campaigning body.
By focusing on doctrinaire environmental issues, as this article makes clear, the society has departed from its original purpose; protecting the well-being of the area for both residents and visitors. Anyone who has followed this controversy will be in no doubt that it is climate change, and a knee jerk reaction by activists to any mention of aviation, that has driven the society’s anti-airfield campaign.
Mobilising the support of ‘climbers, walkers, canoeists and mountain-bikers’, the vast majority of whom are visitors to the park, will do little to enhance Snowdonia Society’s influence. Unless the society has a secure support-base within the communities that make up the national park, it can very easily be written off as an organisation that represent only its own very narrow interests. This would only benefit the enemies of the national parks.
By contrast, on-line petitions are clearly paragons for democratic reliability, especially when any idiot can sign one from any part of the planet.
The Snowdonia Society clearly doesn’t have public support in Snowdonia, which is why it lost. They should get over themselves.
John
Given that the Snowdonia Society were acting in conjunction with the other Welsh national park societies, it seems improbable that the lack of response to their petition was entirely due to people not knowing about it.
A large proportion of the signatories were actually from South Wales. Only Gwynedd, where people would be aware of the real issues rather than dependent on the society’s version of events, seems to have failed to flock to the colours. Sadly, Rob Collister’s article suggests that lessons are unlikely to be learned.
A lot of charities and voluntary organisations are being hijacked by climate activists – this is just one example of many.
It’s worrying when people start to think that their own hobby horses are more important than democracy or other people’s legal business.
Jack Hughes
I very much doubt if the present leadership of the Snowdonia SOciety is representative of the views of the membership as a whole.
It will always remain a shameful reality that the “Snowdonia Society” expensively delayed the re-opening of this fantastic asset – clearly without the support of its membership. I suspect the “Society” is not a members group with “Snowdonia’s” wellbeing at its heart, more the political wing of a small “nimbyist” megalomanic clique that want to dictate to others what they can and cannot do. The real sadness is the way in which people remain members of a society that clearly has scant disregard for the people it claims to support and represent! The people of Mid / North West Wales appear to realise the value of this asset and want to see its continued use as an airfield. I wonder how many of the 100 ish signatories have ever actually been to this part of Wales, let alone have any idea of the real issues facing its population right now. As a less than regular visitor to this area at present, I hope to be a regular visitor to this airfield, spending money and delighting in the best scenery this side of the sun.
no,the real sadness is that no one cares
Alex:
I think that a lot of people do care – very much – and remain members of the Snowdonia Society for that reason. There is no sense in just walking away from a problem like this; that doesn’t solve anything. In the past, the SS has made a very real contribution to the welfare of the National Park and I for one hope that it will do so again in the future. For the time being there seems to be a tendency towards extreme environmental dialectics within the organisation, but no doubt that will pass.
I recently received an appeal which the ‘chair’ has sent to all members in an attempt to canvas support in a financial crisis. A shortfall in income is requiring the society to use capital in order to stay afloat. Although this is blamed on the collapse of the stock market, the circular has little to say about the trend in subscription income, other than that the subscription will be increased. One eminently popular and sensible member of staff has been made redundant but, surprisingly, the director (on whose watch this crisis has occurred) is to remain in post, albeit on a part-time basis.
With luck the Snowdonia Society will be too preoccupied with its own problems for the foreseeable future to create problems for the very communities whose interests it should be serving. It should also have learned a lesson about launching high profile campaigns based on fashionable political correctness and spin, rather substance and popular support, while ignoring the basic necessity of competent financial management.
The ‘Campaigns’ page on the Snowdonia Society web site no longer mentions Llanbedr Airfield, but I fear that over the coming years a high price will be paid for the damage that has been done to thier reputation.
I have moved a number of recent comments to an new thread about the airfield here:
Llanbedr Airfield: whose interests are the Snowdonia Society representing?
Please put new comment there, not here.