UKC

An application will soon be going before the planning committee of the Lake District National Park authority to build a paying tourist attraction on an iconic Lakeland fell between the unspoilt valleys of Buttermere and Borrowdale.

The controversial proposal is for a zip wire running from near the top of 648m Fleetwith Pike to the Honister Slate Mine visitor centre on Honister Hause.

Dan Bailey reports at http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=57124

In reply to UKC News: sad face

In reply to UKC News: Wire cutters and angle grinders at the ready.

In reply to UKC News: How do you register opposition to the scheme?

In reply to UKC News: Looks like great fun!

In reply to ericoides:

I think it may be too late. The public consultation period is over. There was a large thread on this a few weeks back. Have a search for it, or have a look at the LDNP website planning section.

In reply to Monk:

quote planning reference number 7/2010/2092:

Kevin Richards
Planning Services
Lake District National Park Authority
Murley Moss
Oxenholme Road
Kendal
Cumbria LA9 7RL

Email: planning@lakedistrict.gov.uk

In reply to Monk:

Thanks, was going to rephrase my query hence its absence.

In reply to ericoides:

http://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?the...


OR

http://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/index/planning/planning_licence_agreement-se...

and put the planning reference number in 7/2010/2092

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Thanks. That seems to work. I received an immediate reply stating: "Thank you for your email. Someone will reply to your email as soon as possible. However please note this inbox is only checked once a day."

In reply to Monk:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=414822

In reply to UKC News: I note the application description includes:

2) Retrospective permission for a zip wire at Bull Gill including part deviation route of the existing Via Ferrata

So Mr Weir had already begun constructing his theme park without planning approval or public consultation. Nice.

In reply to Monk:

Planning officers can (and should) accept representations right up to the date it goes before the planning committee. If you leave it too late, your comments may not make the report but they will still be presented separately to members.

In reply to Alyson:

Yes, but that's today...

In reply to Monk: Be f*ckin great fun though won't it boys. The hill is littered with crap and has been since they started mining up there. One more cable to go with the countless snapped rusted and bent ones that scatter that hill isnt gonna change the look of the place a great deal. I guess none of you have been trying to clean up the mess up there before now? At least its a useful cable!!!!

In reply to CragRat11: Agreed - looks awesome.

In reply to CragRat11:

I totally agree with you, except for your last sentence. Have you thought about what the noise will be like as people slide down the wire?

In reply to Fredt:

"Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!"?

In reply to Monk: Actually, it's not on the committee agenda for today:

http://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/lake_district_docs95/2010_08_04_schedule_sum...

In reply to James Jackson:

"Phaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrkkkkkk!!!"

In reply to Alyson:

Fair enough. The article says it's today, and my first thought was "why wasn't this made a news item a few weeks ago when people could actually react?"

In reply to UKC News:

the valleys may be 'unspoilt' but the fell isnt and hasnt been since they started working it. I wouldnt mind betting that a lot of the people opposed to this are fine about taking things like ski lifts up to enjoy a day in the alps in winter or at the very least sit in their cars to get to the fells .

In reply to Monk: It's likely that it was originally scheduled for today - these things get delayed if there's a lot of public interest or if the decision proves particularly tricky! Either way, it's clearly still worth writing in if you have an opinion.

FWIW, policy NE1 of the Lake District Local Plan protects the character of the open countryside, and policy NE4 protects the character of the fells. So if you feel the character would be altered by a zipwire, those are the policies to quote. The Local Plans are soon to be replaced by a LDF but are still being used as far as I can make out.

Full details of policies here:

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/wps/portal/genpub_DevelopmentPlans/?PpActi...

In reply to shaun stephens:

I love that defence.

It comes up so often.

Hey we trash this bit, so let's trash that bit. What better justification for the total destruction of wild places, anywhere.

You are right though, we are all hypocrits, including you and me.

In reply to UKC News:

I'd love to have a go on it.

No, but wait.

We can't have tourism and locals jobs created otherwise the Lakes would become a tourist trap.

In reply to The Lemming: Good point. Lets put a big ferris wheel up there while we're at it. Ooh, and a Burger King.

In reply to Alyson: Well spotted Alyson, that was a deliberate mistake to see who was paying attention. The earliest that the committee can now consider this application is their meeting on 1st September; however they cannot confirm this until much nearer the time. The good news is that this gives people a chance to register their views for or against the proposal. You can do so by emailing planning@lakedistrict.gov.uk and quoting reference no. 7/2010/2092

In reply to shaun stephens:

It used to be unspoilt. They then spoiled it by mining. It later became less spoilt when the mines (mostly) closed and nature began to return. The latest proposal is an attempt to begin to spoil it again.

And the claim that it would create winter employment is dishonest - it would be the first thing to be closed in poor weather. Much more employment would be created by encouraging events like the OMM, but Mr Weir doesn't make money from these so wants them stopped.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Exactly. Previous damage to the countryside does NOT constitute a precedent justifying further damage.

In reply to mrjonathanr:

In any case, the summit of Fleetwith is comparatively 'unspoilt' i.e. similar to many other Lakeland fell tops (cairns, paths etc.). The quarried area is quite a way down the slope and at the top of Honister Hause. So the wire would really change the character of a new area - it wouldn't just add to the quarry clutter. This needs to be opposed - as Friends of the Lake District point out - http://www.fld.org.uk/honister-zip-wire-proposal-threatens-fleetwith-pike.h... - it's also about the precedent of allowing 'attractions' to be put in what are by our standards 'wild' areas.

If people are objecting then it would be worth also reminding the Park Authority of the statutory purposes of national parks, and in particular of their duty to put conservation before public access:

"(a) Conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the National Parks, and

(b) Promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the Parks by the public.

Section 62 requires that:

(2) Any relevant authority shall have regard to the purposes, and if it appears that there is conflict between (a) and (b) above, shall attach greater weight to (a)".

SteveC

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

I have to say I agree with you 100% Mick (and I realise that this is not normal!)

How will one zipwire encourage winter tourism? It wont.
It may make the owner some cash from people already there (assuming the weather is good enough for it to be open and people to want to use it) but he is deranged if he thinks it will bring floods of new visitors to the Lake District.

Si

In reply to UKC News:
Having been on a similar thing in the French Alps (the "fantasticable") I thought it was great fun and had very little impact on the surrounding environment. There was a small wooden hut at the top with a chunky A-frame and anchor system and then a similar thing at the midway point and the base. I understand that you don't want to wreck places like the lakes but then they can't exist as monuments and playgrounds just for climbers from far away to visit for a weekend and then bugger off the locals need to make a living. If done correctly this could be a good venture.

In reply to UKC News:

Looks like fun.

In reply to gethin_allen: They are called National Parks, not Local Parks. Decisions made within them need to be weighed up for the good of the whole country, that's why they're designated as such. Yes, the local economy is very important but a development which changes the entire character of a felltop while only creating an extra couple of jobs is probably not the best way to support that.

In reply to UKC : Wlliam Turner will not be happy, he'll have to update his painting...

http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?workid=14722&tabview=image

In reply to gethin_allen:
Damming all remaining lakes and tarns for hydro-power would also create employment (rather more than Mr Weir's theme park), as well as helping with the good old carbon footprint. Would you support that as well?

In reply to gethin_allen: Having seen such things in the Alps, I know why it is so important that we don't replicate that in the Lakes...

In reply to gethin_allen:

Locals need to make a living, this will NOT give them one. I would bet you a tenner you would not give up your job and take up one there as you would be laid off for six months a year.

As to being a benefit to tourism, it will be a detractor, people go to the lakes for the scenery and Alton towers for fairground rides.

In reply to UKC News:

It does look fun but it's inapproriate for a national park just as it would be inapproriate to string one off the top of Salisbury cathedral. The job creation is minimal - if any - and out of all proportion to the damage caused. Mr Weir is what is politely called a maverick entrepreneur and anyone who thinks he will stop at a zip wire, anymore than he stopped at the Via Ferrata, does not know the guy.

In reply to Jim Walton: storm approaching from innominate tarn

In reply to gethin_allen:

Have you ever been to the Lakes? It's quite popular with tourists.

In reply to Papillon:
Have you ever been to the Lakes? It's quite popular with tourists.
yes, and Indeed it is.

The sad thing about a lot of tourism is just how little the average tourist adds to the economy of the places they visit arriving with a car full of everything they'll ever need.
Per head average camper climber coughs up for a couple of nights on a site (~£14) and a few pints and a meal in the local (~£15-20) and complains about how expensive everything is while sitting there in a £300 goretex jacket swinging £500 worth of climbing gear about.

Re: National parks are there for the country not the locals, If all the locals cleared off I wonder how long the countryside would stay in a state that people would actually want to visit.

As I said above, If done correctly it would be fine with little more visual impact than running a telegraph wire.

In reply to Jim Walton, Looks like the painting already has the Wembley Arch in it.

In reply to gethin_allen:

Your average tourist isn't a camper climber. Your average tourist spends a lot of money to spend a small but precious amount of free time in a beautiful place.

Do you think turning down a planning application for a zipwire off a mountaintop will make the locals clear off?

It's about more than just visual impact. It would change the character of the fells and the way they are perceived, and would undermine the value we place on wild places.

In reply to gethin_allen: You seem stuck on this idea that currently all Lake's tourist are climbers, which gives me the impression you don't know the Lakes very well. The Lakes caters for the whole spectrum from hiker campers to rich Japanese Beatrix Potter enthusiasts, all of whom like the Lakes just as it is.

In reply to Papillon:
I was just using the Camper/climber tourist as an example seeing how this is supposedly a climbing forum. I've been to the lakes for many reasons including walking, climbing cycling and work.

Others seem stuck on the idea that people visiting the lakes are highbrow enough not to see something like this zipwire and think something along the lines of; that looks great fun lets have a go.

Perhaps the planners should consider adding a clause to any approval that the development should be constructed in a manner that it can be entirely removed and the place returned to it's original state if after a review period certain criteria are not met.

In reply to UKC News:

I spent 2 months in NZ where they have a healthy balance of adventure sports and nature.
It would be interested to see how it would look, if they have done a photoshoot mock up of it.

But i'm generally for it.

I head to the lakes about twice a month, walking, climbing, camping, mountain biking etc.
This could be a great addition to the lakes, keeping it up to date and increasing the variety of people and sports taken part.

The increase in the number of MTB trails were probably objected to by some, but they have helped more people enjoy the lakes...

In reply to Stuart Wildman: I don't think you can compare NZ and the situation there.....NZ has a population of 4 million and a land area larger than the UK. In comparison, the Lake District is one of the few remaining less developed parts of England and already has over 8 million visitors each year.

The areas in NZ that are developed for adventure sports aren't National Parks. Many of those areas that have been developed for adventure sports have a very different character and look very different from what they did 10-15 years ago.

In reply to gethin_allen:

>As I said above, If done correctly it would be fine with little more visual impact than running a telegraph wire.

Aye, but a telegraph wire with hundreds of chavs per hour sliding down it. Somewhat changes the prospect of a nice day out on Fleetwith Pike doesn't it.

In reply to gethin_allen:


Not me.... some of these places look like good fun

http://tinyurl.com/33y7lbs

In reply to UKC News:

Not the most bias free article i've ever seen.

i am against the idea due to the noise impact it will have. You can already hear those going over Bull Gill - both the screams and the noise of the zip wire but it's not too bad to be honest. This would be much worse i am guessing and is why i am against it.

Visual impact wise you'd do well not to complain about it spoiling a beautiful area etc. It's a massively managed mining landscape that has thousands of tons of mine spoil all over it and tons of metal rotting away all over the hill sides. I have had a very hard job in the past pointing the VF out to people, even when there are 20 odd people on it, so i'm not sure there is a visual argument to be had.

Mark Weirs arguments are spurious to say the least. This will not provide more jobs for local people or keep the mine going through Winter. The mine is inaccessible during proper Winter weather - certainly to most tourists. It will make an already successful business even more so and take money away from others in the area. At his prices tourists are spent up by the time they've visited the mine and done the VF :0)

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

I take your point Mick but this hillside already has a track running 3/4 of the way up it that's big enough to get mining machinery up there. There is also the miners walkway + VF.

This is why i think people complaining about destroying nature etc. will not get much sympathy from the planners. Pointing out that his reasons for building it are less than realistic may make them listen.

How much more money does the man need ?

There are plenty of local activity providers who will lose out if this goes ahead. However as i am one of them i can't use that argument really without revealing an obvious vested interest.

He ran rough shod over planning ( and various other issues i have been told about but don't want to commit to print ) with the VF and his working practices are not great - i can say that as i have worked for him and it's my opinion i never want to work for him again - he doesn't 'need' this slide and neither will the local economy benefit from it.

In reply to biscuit: Sorry, what's the bias?

In reply to Stuart Wildman:

If the proposed zip wire was out of sight/sound in a forest then I doubt there'd be as many objections. It's the fact that it's on top of a mountain that's the main problem.

In reply to UKC News:

Looks like brilliant idea !

In reply to SteveC:


Get your Map out Steve, the top anchor point for the cable is at least 500 Meters from the summit of fleetwith, just above ashgill quarry (black star on OS 1.25000 Map)

Cheers Adam

In reply to UKC News:

However, on the brightside, by chopping the abseil bolt on SCS, a little has been done in addressing the balance.

In reply to SteveC:

All of us climbers who use the area damage it. I've been climbing in Borrowdale today and the crags are worn to shit with footpaths everywhere so how can we all pretend that all we ever do is protect The Lake District?

I agree that it doesn't make it ok to do whatever we choose but whats to say that our impact is less destructive than The Slate Mine activities????? Hypocrisy in my eyes! There is space for people who aren't just climbers and walkers and to be honest thats probably the best place for it, on top of a hillside that is covered in spoil and crap.

Do you think about this stuff when you place a bit of gear in a worn out, polished crack or throw your rope round a dying tree?! Doubt it.

In reply to CragRat11: There is an important difference between activities which have a cumulative impact on an area (walking, climbing etc) and activities or developments which alter the character of an area. Hundreds of walking boots may have more of an impact, over a greater area, than a mobile phone mast plonked on the top of Great Gable would - but that doesn't make the latter ok.

In reply to Alyson: Well I guess you and I should stop walking on the fells and climbing on the crags then eh!

In reply to CragRat11: I think you've missed my point. Those are not activities which alter the character of the area.

In reply to Alyson: I would argue that huge motorway sized paths everywhere do alter the 'character' of the area.
What 'character' does the area around the mines have exactly anyway? Its hardly an unspoilt beauty is it. And believe me if it was I would be opposing it too. Why not develop it a little to make use of the damaged hillside rather than just opposing everything because it doesn't suit your ideal image of our wonderful national park.

In reply to biscuit: Someone's reasons for building something don't come into the decision when assessing a planning application.

Decisions on planning permission are made depending on the impacts of the proposed development, versus the benefits of the proposed development. Whether someone's reasons for building it are to make a lot of cash or to run as a hobby on the side aren't really relevant when you're determining the relative impacts and benefits of a proposal.

A stronger stance for objecting could be the unsustainability of a tourist attraction away from settlements that provide all the other facilities and services that visitors require and expect. And the fact that people will have to drive to the zip wire to use it - should we be promoting additional vehicle trips? Traffic impacts, the landscape impact of any additional carparking....those are the sorts of things that the planners will be considering.

In reply to CragRat11: And why is the cumulative impact of thousands of walkers and climbers any more acceptable than someone sticking up a cable on top of hill?

In reply to CragRat11:

Why not decide that in a National Park the aberrations of our ancestors should be recognised as such and we should attempt to return damaged landscape back to it's natural state? You don't have a lot of nice countryside in England so I find it difficult to understand why many think it's OK to bugger it up further. The Lake District is hardly short of money after all.

In reply to CragRat11: That's a non-argument. Either you're leading towards a situation where no one is ever allowed to set foot on a hill, or towards one where you build a theme park and hotel on the summit. You're saying that because one thing is tolerated, there is no argument for refusing anything else.

I have already explained about the character of national parks and mountaintops, I shouldn't have to do it again. I'm sorry if you don't understand.

In reply to Removed User:

I don't understand what you mean by this part of your comment?

In reply to UKC News: The controversial proposal is for a zip wire running from near the top of 648m Fleetwith Pike to the Honister Slate Mine visitor centre on Honister Hause.

I can't wait for a shot on this.

In reply to Alyson:

Why exactly does this make the former ok?

In reply to Alyson: What I am saying is;
1. I personally don't agree that it would spoil the environment.
2. I don't see why you feel it is ok to oppose this when you bugger up the environment in your own way anyway (like we all do).

{{{{{ I have already explained about the character of national parks and mountaintops, I shouldn't have to do it again. I'm sorry if you don't understand. }}}}

You are being patronising as f**k and having an argument with you is just a waste of time.

In reply to Monk:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=414822&v=1#x5909413

In reply to CragRat11:

At no point was I talking about the environment. I was talking about the CHARACTER of the area - making a decision on how we choose to use wild upland places. We have very few of them in England and this planning application is about more than just a stretch of cable, it's about whether we will allow structures to be built on hillsides for the recreational enjoyment of the paying few.

As Mick has already said, there's a very insidious creep of development going on. At some point in the past, the decision was made that it was ok to quarry there. If you then use the quarried landscape as your baseline, instead of an unspoilt fell as your baseline, you justify a via ferrata. Then because you have a via ferrata you justify a zipwire. Then because you've spoilt the place so much already, a shelter for people waiting to use the zipwire is ok. Then once the shelter is there, it doesn't really matter if it serves tea and coffee and sells a few books.

Saying that the area is already damaged so it doesn't matter what else we do is a short-sighted approach.

In reply to CragRat11:

If you really can't see the value in trying to preserve the landscape in some parts of the country then there is little point in discussing the matter. The Lake District is a national park that has been set up to with the aims of preserving the character of the landscape while allowing for quiet enjoyment. The proposed development would go against both aims. If you don't like the idea of National Parks then write to your MP but you will find most people disagree with you.

How can this ridiculous, crass, money making zipwire scheme be even considered seriously by the Planning Authority?

I find it incredible, that an area whose beauty, remoteness and inaccessibility have been appreciated by thousands might be subjected to hordes of day trippers seeking cheap, easy, fast thrills. To appreciate any mountain evironment, you must learn to coexist with it and love it. It's a lifelong learning experience, not a day trip to a concrete car park, a cafe with trinket shop built in and a fairground ride!

I'm all for promoting the appeciation of our wilderness areas, but we must do this by educating people about the wilderness experience. Allowing people to learn to love the slower-paced, but more intense and long-lasting experiences that come with outdoor activities like walking, cycling, fell running and climbing.

Regardless of the empty protestations of the commercial body that is the Cumbria Tourist board, this is the thin end of the wedge. One only has to look at the poor Peak District. I lived there as a child. Now, I find it profoundly depressnig when I visit.

The money makers would pave the entire country and use it as a car park/theme park/gadren centre if they could. The ultimate attraction for bored, media-sated, physically inactive urbanites seeking false experiences.

In reply to Animal: "this is the thin end of the wedge." Too right, it makes proposals to tarmac a bit of the track from Pen y Pass up Snowdon small potatoes. Where do people draw the line on this stuff? Once a bit of wilderness is gone ... it's gone ... pretty much for good. A zip wire down a Lake District fell is bonkers; fairground antics belong in a fair ground. What would Mr. Wainright have said?

I'm impressed. I emailed a protest to them specifically about the issue, but didn't use the planning ref number.

They emailed back an acknowledgement of it as a letter of objection to the correct application, and said that it would be considered by the committee.

Get your emails in!

In reply to Chris_Mellor:

It could be argued that Mr. Wainwrights books are one of the major influences that increase visitor numbers with all of the associated issues that they bring

In reply to timjones:

Perhaps the BBC would be interested in making 'Zip-Lining in Wainright's Footsteps with Julia Bradbury". I think it would work well, particularly if interspersed with 'Hovis advert style' narration from some of AW's books.

In reply to CragRat11:

Exactly the same argument could be used to support the building of mobile phone masts and wind farms on every ridge and summit, all of which would bring far more money and jobs to the local area.

In reply to CragRat11: I don't think Alyson is patronising you, just surprised you don't seem to get her points...

Paths exist for a variety of reasons and have done for centuries eg many are sheep runs etc. Yes, use of paths has a visual impact of a sort.

Sticking a zip wire station on Fleetwith is something completely different and I struggle to see why you are trying to equate the two...

In reply to Bella:

I was alluding to the argument that is often heard in Scotland that such and such a development "would bring much needed employment to the area blah, blah, blah..".

While jobs are always welcome the Lake District it should be borne in mind that it gets so busy on occasions that they have to close the roads to Keswick because it's full. This suggests to me that:

a) The income from Tourism is substantial.
b) They don't need to and shouldn't be trying to attract any more tourists.

In reply to UKC News: As a local who has a need to travel regularly between Grasmere and Glenridding, I wonder if we might get permission to build a cable car from the A591 across to Ullswater.

Now that really would be worthwhile.

If we could have the mid station on the summit of Helvellyn, it would save all those people the trouble of climbing it. No wear and tear on the fell and you wouldn't even have to change out of your stillettos to enjoy the view.

Maybe even put a cafe and shop up there as well.

In reply to CragRat11: I don't think Alyson was being patronising at all, I think you were just looking for an arguement.

On the issue of the zipwire, I believe it should be opposed as should any NEW development in the Lake District that has a negative visual impact on the setting.
When the mine was started the area was not a national park, planning regulations were very different.
What is the point in having national parks if we ruin them with masts/cables/turbines?
The concomitant damage created by walking and climbing is unavoidable,less significant and can often be reduced or reversed by good management of the area

In reply to Martin Haworth: I have objected on the grounds that the Honister Pass won't deal with the resulting traffic and that there might be some seasonal work, but otherwise all benefit goes direct to Mr Weir, to the detriment of everyone else.

In reply to Martin Haworth:

Nice point about being reduced and reversed, having some experience with masts and cables i can honestly say it will take a few days to remove all trace of this zipwire.However, If you look at the twinkling lights of Selafield in yonder distance... its lasting impact will be there for thousands of years.

In reply to gethin_allen: Having seen the fantasticable zip line in the alps i agree that the visual/sound impact of one of these zip lines on it's own really isn't a big deal, as the cabin and platform at the top are minimal. But the general area of the pre la joux has a massive cafe, car park and requires regular tourist buses in and out...so what additional impact will the zip line have in the long term?!

But from an environmental point of view, surely it's better keeping the kind of tourists who want to treat the national park as a theme park (and they already exists in there droves!), in one area which has already had a significant amount of human impact through mining, at least it will keep them away from the genuine wilderness areas which need protecting and preserving.

In reply to UKC News: Just noticed in the application that they are planning to use explosives!! Note in the environmental impact document.

In reply to d8vehinton:

Has the bolt been chopped ? - if so has the person who did it consider what the landowners want and the BMC Lakes area meeting decision - or just do their own thing.

In reply to Sarah Finney:

they can 'go ape' in Grizdale forest already..

In reply to CragRat11:

After having gone to one of Borrowdale's most accessible crags last night - Falcon Crag - may I comment that the path up there from the car park going up to Wathendlath has nearly all but disappeared - some crags are worn to shit (Brown Slabs, Wodens Face and more) - but Falcon does not seem to get many takers these days.
Admittedly last night was a bit iffy from a weather point of view and when I was belaying my lad whilst he was doing the main (traverse) pitch of Illusion - I was looking at the storm clouds on Causey Pike and Skiddaw - but luckily tey passed us by and I did not have to second the traverse in the pouring rain (which came later !)

In reply to Sarah Finney:

Except they cant just 'beam in' to the mine. Those roads are too busy already.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

Or less politely - a tw*t.

In reply to Chris F: If his set-up is dangerous then that's an issue to take up with the relevant health and safety boards...if he's just an arsehole making a good living as an entrepreneur i hardly think he's unique, as being that way is often what makes these people succesful.

In reply to Offwidth: helicopter flights next?

In reply to subalpine:

Ellis Butcher of Cumbria Tourism says, "We will not be promoting similar developments elsewhere and in no way do we see this as the thin end of a planning wedge", but would you trust anyone who uses the phrase "diversified tourism offering"?

In reply to ericoides: I like the meaninglessness of that quote! Of course it's not the thin end - the quarry was the thin end. The via ferrata is the bit in the middle and the zip line is the really fat end near the rind. (I am of course assuming the planning wedge to be made of cheese.)

In reply to Alyson: I dont honestly see why people are being so precious about this, considering the environmental impact man has had on the lakes over the last few thousand years.Deforesting the upland fells, introducing trout to Tarns and the good old rhodedendron...etc

All this guy is doing is following a simple business model that thrives in other parts of the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zip-line

In reply to Alyson:

Strictly speaking, cheese or no cheese, it should really be the thin edge of the wedge

In reply to muppetfilter: If you look over the thread, I bet you struggle to find anyone who's getting precious about the environmental impact.

The lake district is very much a manmade environment/landscape but it's one which is valued by millions of people for certain characteristics. Yes, the glacial valleys are neatly divided up by dry stone walls and dotted with farms and villages; yes, the fellsides are kept clear of encroaching woodland by grazing sheep; yes, the fells are crisscrossed with paths and walls and speckled with cairns. All of these things were true when the lakes was designated as a national park, and they are PART of why the area is loved. We don't have true wilderness in England but we have a few hilltops where people can peacefully enjoy the landscape. What is up for debate is whether a zipwire has a place in that landscape, and everyone is entitled to their opinion on that.

My bet is that the planners won't find strong enough reasons within the legislation to turn the application down but I hope I'm wrong.

In reply to Alyson: Just a quick question, ever been on a cable car/pommel/gondola on a peak in a true wilderness mountain area of another country?

If you havent then i will accept your arguments wholeheartedly.

In reply to muppetfilter:

Sorry but that is a complete red herring - just because I use existing infrastructure (and potentially encourage the construction of more - supply and demand etc) does not mean that I support construction of that infrastructure elsewhere. Nothing hypocritical about that, just a recognition of current situations being different in various locations.

In reply to muppetfilter: Ah, so because other countries deem it acceptable we should do it here? Follow that argument to it's logical conclusion and we'd have a train up to every mountaintop in the world, each with it's own summit café. I've flown from an airport too, does that mean an airport is acceptable anywhere?

My personal opinion is that I wouldn't like to see this application given the go-ahead. I don't think the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. You are entitled to see things differently.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:My point is that we the british walking and climbing public and i include myself in this, are very quick to bemoan the way that some people use the hills for their enjoyment. Yet we are ok when it comes to doing it in someone elses back yard , ie the alps. The fells around the mines are not natural wild areas and havent been for a long time this is an area created by the men who mined there and the zip wire from my understanding will be placed in these areas.

In reply to Toreador:



I am not claiming that it will create winter employment just that we are ok with using such things elsewhere for enjoyment

In reply to SCC:

Again my argument is not that it will provide winter employment!!!!!!!!!!!!

In reply to UKC News:

I personally don't see why a high excitement factor zip line which will be used by thousands of under privileged groups, scouts and tourists can possibly detract from the enjoyment of a load of bumbling old has been wainwright bagging ramblers shuffling up a few sheep tracks. They'll be too busy farting about with their lek pointing sticks and dipping crusty old flapjacks into their rotten smelly flasks

In reply to Cragrat Rich: all well and good but the tosser has diverted mine drainage and now amazing icefalls dont form as readily as in the 90s

In reply to muppetfilter:

Either you're really thick or you're trolling - I can't think of any other reason behind such childish thinking.

You don't go around making sweeping generalisations of the 'if somewhere else has done x/you've done x elsewhere, it follows that it's perfectly ok to do x here/you can't complain if others want to do x here'. It's ludicrous - to put it in a context you might understand, what you're suggesting is akin to saying that if you've clipped any bolt anywhere you have no grounds to object to a Right Wall being turned into a 6c clip up.

Have you never heard of judging each case on its merits?

In reply to Cragrat Rich:

I agree with my fellow cragrat!

In reply to UKC News: You guys can argue about it all you want and outweigh the benefits and whatever else you are all talking about and act like you care or whatever, but you can't deny the fact that it would be great FUN!

In reply to UKC News: mark wier again proves that he is a complete t.. in between calling the OMM a hill side morgue he dropped in the advetisement about his via farretta. now he intends to turn the lake district into alton towers, claiming itswhat the area needs for tourism, bullsh..t, the area needs to be left how it is, not turned into a fun park to line certain peoples pockets, i for one, am not sure how the hell he got permission for the hidious orange sign he put up on the slate mine, a complete eye sore., the un spoilt land scape in england is drastically shrinking we dont need people like him coming up with crap business ideas like this. if you want a zip line go to "go ape" whats next???? applying for planning permission to build the uks highest big dipper???? the sca fell express!!!!

In reply to UKC News:

Not going to bother reading all the views and the young cragrats will soon learn that one day, when they get old, that there is more to the mountains than just rock climbing.

It would seem to me that the way to defeat this will be to keep an eye out for the planning application and then object on planning grounds based upon the local and national park plans.

Does anyone have a link to those documents.

In reply to BazVee:
>

Why?

If you did you would find the answer to your request. Lazy git

In reply to BazVee: Aye, all linked early on in the thread!

In reply to BazVee: They're both on the website www.lakedistrict.gov.uk You need to look up the relevant national policy statements too, like Planning Policy Statement 7 - do a google search for it.

In reply to BazVee:


Have you read the news report by Dan?

Try here: http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=57124

In reply to UKC News:
Any retrospective planning objections going in for the train up Snowdon?

In reply to dickie01: There isn't currently any way to object retrospectively to a planning application. A decision to grant cannot be reversed. The only right of appeal is by an applicant if they've had a refusal,

In reply to Alyson:

It can be if there has been an irregularity in the process.

In reply to CragRat11:

Cragging must be in a sorry state these days if these "cragrats" are anything to go by.

There's more to life than a quick, cheap, commercial, and entirely predictable thrills.

If you want fake thrills (which are in fact nothing of the sort, being fully regulated, safety checked and insured), then just stick to theme park rides.

You really need to get out more. And I mean that literally.

And all the arguments that because the landscape is not entirely pristine, then we should now feel free to f*ck it to death? Pathetic. Why not just pave over the entire country then?

In reply to ericoides: Fair point. I've no experience of that and would have to look into it further.

In reply to UKC News: There is certainly room at this once industrial site that was once full of miners, wires, trolleys, blasting etc to have a single zip wire giving fun for thousands. It is not a precedent for other zip wires, as each plan is treated on its merits. Climbers, who enjoy the mountains in their own way, should allow others to enjoy them in theirs.
A related plan would be to allow people to go upwards to the top of a mountain, perhaps Fleetwith Pike or neighbouring Dalehead, to experience the wonderful views from the top. Perhaps, a monorail or cable car system. Old people and disabled people can never have this experience. It is possible in Scotland at Aviemore, and on Snowdon, but not in the Lakes. It would help the Adventure Capital concept by making this adventure possible for all.

In reply to freddym:

So they can never have this experience except in other places where they can already have this experience?

In reply to freddym:
It is not a precedent for other zip wires....

...It is possible in Scotland at Aviemore, and on Snowdon,


So why would this not be precedent when you, in the same post, use two other similar preceding developments in support of it?!

In reply to MG: My thoughts exactly!

In reply to freddym: Old and disabled people have restrictions on what they are able to do.

That's the bald fact of life.

When I'm old and (even more) demented, I won't be able to crank any way gnarly radical tinies. Or ride my bike in the Peak District, or hike up Helvelyn. These things happen.

In reply to UKC News:

sounds superb,cant wait .who do you write to support the project

In reply to Sarah Finney:

Quite, doesn't mean he isn't a tw*t though.

In reply to shaun stephens:

Mark Weir is.

In reply to muppetfilter:

By that reasoning, if you've ever driven over the St Bernard Pass then you've no right to oppose the construction of a road from Borrowdale to Wasdale over Sty Head!

In reply to Alyson: I think you miss my point

In reply to dickie01: well go on then don't be shy?

In reply to dickie01: No I get your point. If we haven't objected to one thing we have no right to object to anything else. The precedent has already been set. Let them pave over everything. I think you miss my point, that these decisions are not easy to reverse.

I'd object to the Snowdon Mountain Railway but unfortunately I'm 114 years too late.

In reply to nbonnett:

Go into the cafe at the mine and sign one of the many petitions floating around. Look carefully and you may see some comedy Viz-style sabotage entries.

In reply to mani555:

Stop the commercial links or they'll ban you.

In reply to Trangia:

Yes dead right lazy g1t and lifes too short.

In reply to Bella:

Thanks just being a lzy g1t after the link that would take me straight there ... have enough property related letters after my name to understand the basis of a sound objection.

Anything other than PPS7 that might be relevant?

In reply to BazVee: Are you an especially slow reader? You seem keen to avoid looking through a not-terribly-long thread! I've already posted a link to the currently adopted Local Plan for the lake district - available on the planning portal - and highlighted the relevant policies.

In reply to Alyson:

what 130 posts too much else to do ... might have a look later.

In reply to BazVee: Everything you need is in the first 20 posts

In reply to BazVee:

If you have all those property related letters after your name, then surely you know already which PPS's and other policies or guidance are relevant?

Not all of the Local Plan policies are saved, so there' no point basing an objection on the ones that haven't been saved. The list of saved policies should be on the same webpage as the link to the local plan though.

In reply to UKC News:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/uk/lakedistrictandcum...

In reply to UKC News: I can't help but think that they are twisting Wainwright's words:

“I think Honister quarry is a sad place now,” says Wainwright, who died in 1991. “After all the activity that’s been spent here, men laboured for all their lives on these crags and now it’s just like a graveyard.”

he is using this quote to imply that he would want a 1km cable zipping honister theme park's customers from the top of fleetwith to make it seem less like a 'graveyard'.

In reply to UKC News:
The hearing's now been put back to October 6th
http://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2010/08/18/honister-zip-wire-hearing-put-b...

"This is a complex and detailed planning application and more time is needed to assess the possible impact on the landscape by the proposed development."