The LDNPA own around 4% of the land in the Lake District and claim that selling off the land was not about making cash, saying that the sales are "part of the Lake District National Park’s ongoing sales and acquisitions review to make sure our properties are managed effectively within the current financial climate. The proceeds of any property sales will be reinvested into improving or maintaining other national park properties we own. This work is in support of the agreed vision and plan set out with our partners to jointly manage the national park." and given that the authority have "safeguarded and strengthened public access where it already exists and included other special conditions to protect the special qualities." it would appear to both make money and save ongoing expense without any impact "on the ground".

While the economic arguments may support the disposal of the property the LDNPA's duties and responsibilities go beyond the limitations of economics, if they didn't we'd have a zip wire from Honister and a cable car up Helvellyn. That the proceeds of any sale are going towards "improving and maintaining other National Park properties"  demonstrates that those properties also need subsidising......in which case the economic argument surely calls for their disposal too. The ownesrship of property goes beyond the bare economics and indicates both an intent and a message. If relying on planning control and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act alone are sufficient to "care and preserve" an iconic property then you have to question why we have invested further responsibilities in a National Park Authority.

The statement "This work is in support of the agreed vision and plan set out with our partners to jointly manage the national park" shouldn't be allowed to go unchallenged either. What agreed vision? What partners and what's this about "jointly manage"? Has the intention to sell Stickle Tarn specifically ever appeared as part of an "agreed vision" and if so where and agreed by who? As for "jointly manage" surely the management of the National Park is the LDNPA's responsibility not a joint responsibility? Was there any consultation on the decision.....meaningful consultation with specifics of exactly what was to be sold not some vague catch-all of "unspecified properties" or similar? Was there a meaningful public consultation with the public or was it just with the unspecified "partners"?

The purpose of National Parks in England and Wales is to "Conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage" and "Promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the National Parks by the public". One has to ask if this is the message the sale of a property as iconic as Stickle Tarn sends out. If the LDNPA doesn't see its purpose as being a land owner on behalf of the public then where does its purpose lie? Education and Promotion perhaps? How does "we care so much we're selling it" educate that National Parks are important or promote them? If we can't say one of the most popular and visited tarns in one of the country's most popular National Parks is worth keeping in public ownership how can we say our National Parks are being promoted? With Visit England, Visit Cumbria and countless other similar sites we're already getting promotion anyway. That just leaves planning and if all the National Park Authority really does is administer planning you have to question whether we need a National Park Authority.