I have been following this, once again its all starting to look like tails wagging dogs.

---

http://siriusminerals.com/projects/york-potash/ 

Have a look at the artists impression and then try and work out why a single visitor would decide not to go to the North York Moors National Park if the mine were built...

---

Oh but, Vanoord, the artist's impression doesn't show all the massive spoil heaps that spinster ladies from Cheltenham have been complaining about in the local press....... :lol:

Do the large quarries in the Peak District put visitors off?

Is it any wonder this country is on it's arse!

Mining is considered to be an historical industry, something that shouldn't happen in modern Britain.

This problem is not just confined to our cousins in Yorkshire, the same was being said (still is) down ere in Cornwall too. :guns:

---

I once worked at the RAF Museum and remember people within the authority bemoaning of the LOSS of the old raydomes at Fylingdales as they considered it something of an attraction for passing visitors (the much uglier phased array replacement still is to a lesser degree), when you consider the low visibility of Sirius' proposals you really do have to wonder...ok radar does work better if your stick it on a hill and you've got the MoD :guns: putting pressure on to build it, but its the inconsistency of approach that appears so ridiculous. There might be disruption during the set up but I'd like to think, as has been said, that once its in operation its the sort of place that'll attract people for a nosey because its been properly thought out in sustainable manner.
Besides I know some very skilled guys that were able to stay with their families in Yorkshire because places like Boulby gave them somewhere to go when coal went down the pan and given recent developments I'd say more power to Sirius' elbow!

The whole point of this discussion is that some talking head from the National Parks has come up with a loss figure of £40 million to tourism, a figure which is pure conjecture so cannot be proved or disproved so maybe it would have been better not to say it. My last comment on here regarding spoil heaps was written tongue in cheek but unfortunately there ARE people both locally and elsewhere who are of the impression that they're going to have something like a large old coal mine on their doorstep when nothing could be further from the truth. Having looked at the proposed site with its low profile buildings I wonder if there would have been any problem if they were being used by some entrepreneur to propagate tulip bulbs or the like. I think not.
The site is well off the normal tourist route and had it not been for this sort of negative publicity/attitude tourists in general wouldn't even know of it's existence. 😠

The whole point of this discussion is that some talking head from the National Parks has come up with a loss figure of £40 million to tourism, a figure which is pure conjecture so cannot be proved or disproved so maybe it would have been better not to say it.

Unfortunately as you say some people will expect to see massive spoil heaps, which anyone who takes the time to do some reading will realise is far from the case. The national parks on the whole do a marvellous job, but I do wonder if having them as the statutory planning authority for the area they conserve and market is such a good idea. I'm sure they try to be even handed, and in fact are legally obliged to be but I can't help but feel that mission statements and key objectives of the organisation as a whole sometimes overly influence decision making even if subconsciously.
As for radar stations, I probably have been labouring the point but if you can say several thousand tonnes of highly visible concrete and steel is something of an asset (tourism wise) and a year round long term sustainably planned and executed project that will inject money into the area rather than just seasonable spend isn't then you probably shouldn't be involved in commissioning questionable research (trust me I've seen a fair few in the tourism, heritage & museum sector) let alone making the decisions...I'd hope the report is made fully public, I don't mind eating my words if I'm wrong, but I can't see the methodology for its reported contents thus far...

assuming te average visitor spend was £1000 (That will be massively over the real figure), they are saying 40,000 a year will not visit as a result of this.

I think they may be on another planet!

PS

Off the national parks website, the actual average visitor spend is £58, that means they are anticipating a loss of 700,000 visitors a year!!! Time for a reality check I think.

Do the large quarries in the Peak District put visitors off?

Strictly speaking, most of the big quarries are outside of the park and its boundaries were deliberately drawn up to exclude them, but there's the big cement works at Hope, which doesn't seem to stop Castleton from being overrun on a summer's day! Likewise, I doubt the sparring openpits on Longstone Edge have influenced anyone's decision on whether to come to the park or not!

---

Off the national parks website, the actual average visitor spend is £58, that means they are anticipating a loss of 700,000 visitors a year!!! Time for a reality check I think.

The report gives the actual daily spend as just over £26, and the number of lost tourism days as 1.5 million.

If anyone wants to lose the will to live then the whole report is here:

http://www.northyorkmoors.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/336123/Qa-Research-Report-Impact-on-Tourism-of-York-Potash-Development-May-2013.pdf 

Sounds like absolute drivel.

One only has to look at the minimal impact that Boulby has on tourism on the area.

The first failing in the methodology is they didn't show anyone any images!

If they just said to somebody there is a company proposing to build what is probably the largest mine in Europe in the middle of the North York Moors and construct a 40km long pipeline across the moors to Teeside, I'm sure peoples reactions would be somewhat different to showing them a picture of the proposal.

Satistically, he asked 20 people (probably just come out of a pub) "Would you come here if there was a dirty great mine up there ?", three of them said "No", Hence 15%, then he applied that to the (Suspect) figure of income from tourism and came out with his "fact".
There are Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.

Story of this cuntry (sic.) at the moment.

---

Are you all aware of 'the loaded question'

Example: "Would you like the council to make the roads safer for children"

So then you get cameras, road bumps, pinch points etc.

So now let Roy Mandelson- Fellows have a go at this one.

"If large scale potash mining was to comence on the moors, would you be:

a/ More inclined to visit the area
b/ Less inclined to visit the area.

Note the lack of middle road alternatives leaving only the two extremes. I am good at this, could have earned a fortune working for the last government.

---

As has already been stated visitors to the park wouldn't give a second thought to the mine if the Park authority hadn't stage managed all this fuss and publicity. Even now they'd forget about it pretty quick once it was up and running.

We are all preaching to the converted on here, is there nowhere more public we can make our views known?

---

If anyone wants to lose the will to live then the whole report is here:

http://www.northyorkmoors.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/336123/Qa-Research-Report-Impact-on-Tourism-of-York-Potash-Development-May-2013.pdf 

Just started looking at it and spotted a spelling mistake in bold in the executive summary. Doesn't exactly fill you with confidence....

---

Having had a 'good' read I don't think I'll be eating my words; the assumptions in the first half of section 11 about percentages seem particularly duff, net tourist days lost 1,570,651 on a calculated base of 10,133,240; oh please, I suspect a fair few tourism destinations suffering natural disasters didn't suffer that sort of reduction.
The one positive thing I can say is that it was good to see that people questioned appeared more supportive the more information they received; but I can’t help but feel that phrases like “The excavated spoil…will be deposited on site to create bunds and mounding (i.e. long artificial mounds and piles of earth and stone) to conceal the buildings” doesn’t quite give doesn’t quite sound the same as saying excavated material will be landscaped around the proposed site boundary to reduce visual impact, I suspect the researchers would say that they can only put facts in, but as we all know the tone of presentation will vastly change the resulting response…

Now I've had a better look, it's the usual thing - all the nuances and qualifiers in the actual text are stripped out in the summary, which of course is the only bit the meeja can be bothered to read and will parrot figures from uncritically. I found it interesting that several of the consulted groups that I might have expected to come out against it were a lot more measured in their responses, raising areas of concern but overall not being opposed in principle. It's interesting that the Whitby & District tourist association didn't think it would have much impact on their businesses during construction.

Likewise, I think it's disingenuous that there's no mention of the fact the site is proposed for the heart of a mature conifer plantation so there is already screening in place....

---