/ NEWS: Honister Zip Wire Proposal on Hold

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
UKC News - on 11 Nov 2010
Honister Slate Mine with Fleetwith Pike in the background., 3 kbThe future of a controversial proposal to build a zip wire on the flanks of Fleetwith Pike in the Lake District is unclear following the withdrawal on Tuesday 19th October of a planning application by local entrepreneur Mark Weir.

In a further blow to the operation of the visitor attraction Natural England highlighted damage to rare species-rich habitats caused by work already carried out on a deviation of the existing via ferrata route and a zip wire at Bull Gill, the subject of a retrospective planning application.

Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=58791
Beowulf - on 11 Nov 2010
In reply to UKC News: This makes rather amusing reading. He's really pushing for it. http://www.honister-slate-mine.co.uk/10_myths_and_10_facts.asp
summo on 11 Nov 2010
In reply to Beowulf: It's been done to death on here already, but he presents a very good case. Wonder how many of the 300plus complainants live within view of the proposal?
Beowulf - on 11 Nov 2010
In reply to summo: He's more than welcome to build it within view of my house if he wants. His argument that Honister is trashed already so it's fine to trash it some more makes me think he need to visit some real industrial wasteland. Port Talbot anyone?
simes303 - on 11 Nov 2010
In reply to UKC News:

My post has been deleted.

I will rephrase it:


GOOD. The bloke was very rude and arrogant towards our group when I was there last.


Does that pass your censorship rules?
999thAndy on 11 Nov 2010
In reply to summo:
I don't live within view of the Amazon rain forest but that doesn't mean it's OK to chop it down.

And yes, I was one of the objectors, mainly because I think the guy's a full weight forehead trombonist.
Monk - on 11 Nov 2010
In reply to 999thAndy:
> (In reply to summo)
> I don't live within view of the Amazon rain forest but that doesn't mean it's OK to chop it down.
>

Exactly.

I have no opinion on the man himself, and would never oppose anything on grounds of personality, but I'm not at all convinced by the 'local jobs' argument, and I don't particularly like the precedent this may set.

sasmojo - on 11 Nov 2010
In reply to Beowulf: Not having a dig at you, but what is amusing about it? I think from what he has put there it is "possibly" a resonable application and some of his points about the use of the mine are quite good. There are no doubt more facts that the NPA will have.

As climbers, walkers and bikers, we seem to forget that we add to the scarring of the places we love to visit.

I would hope that the NPA would make a sensible decision. The one thing that does smell is the work conducted on the Via Ferrata seemingly without consultation and approval, but Natural England are following this up.

Caveat, not pro or con the application.

S
John Rushby - on 11 Nov 2010
In reply to UKC News:

Is that application for the giant trebuchet to lob tourists from the top of Loughrigg into Ferry Nab still current?
Beowulf - on 11 Nov 2010
In reply to sasmojo: I found the language of it rather amusing, but that's an aside. My main issue with it seems to be the attitude that if an area has experienced some kind of industrialisation in the past, it's fine to trash it more rather than clean it up.

Hopefully he'll get stung for violation of the SSSI.
sasmojo - on 11 Nov 2010
In reply to Beowulf:
> (In reply to sasmojo) I found the language of it rather amusing, but that's an aside. My main issue with it seems to be the attitude that if an area has experienced some kind of industrialisation in the past, it's fine to trash it more rather than clean it up.
>
> Hopefully he'll get stung for violation of the SSSI.

He doesn't present as a person who will abide by any sensible agreement. And as you have done, reading between the lines he does seem to have that "doesn't matter it is already trashed" attitude.

I have to say, I would struggle to be opposed to it if the applicants history was more respectful. The reason I feel this way is that I can't see it any difference from development within the Llanberis and Lakeland quarries for climbing, other than the key fact, most (but by no means all climbers) are respectful of the area and the chaps that continue to maintain the climbing areas certainly are respectful.

I love the slate quarries and whilst they are a scar on the original environment, if they can be used sensibly they will maintain their unusual beauty, their history and be enjoyed by many.

Fingers crossed he does get stung, laws and guidelines are created to protect such areas.
toad - on 11 Nov 2010
In reply to sasmojo:
> (In reply to Beowulf)
> [...]
>>
> Fingers crossed he does get stung, laws and guidelines are created to protect such areas.

Unlikely he'll be prosecuted, it's very much an absolute thing of last resort for Natural England, but I'd expect he'll find it much harder to get permissions in the future
pec on 11 Nov 2010
In reply to UKC News: Does anybody familiar with planning law know if he resubmits an application will the previous objections still be taken into account or would we all have to resubmit them?
Owain - on 11 Nov 2010
In reply to UKC News: I think it's a great idea. It is only a steel cable running from the mountain to the bottom, you won't even be able to see it as it will usually be overcast.
ritid - on 11 Nov 2010
In reply to Owain: after the steel cable he will probably try to get a ferris wheel installed, big dipper and log flume ride. i still cannot really take mr weir(d) serious after his publicity stunt with the BBC news concerning the OMM (original mountain marathon) quote "its goibg to be a morgue out there......ps i have via ferreta"
nrhill on 12 Nov 2010 - dsl-fixed-62-69-39-182.surfdsl.murphx.net
I'm a lifelong lakes resident & a climber & I honestly, all arguments considered, can't see the problem.

Obviously no-one wants the lakes to be tarmac & graffiti - or Port Talbot - but the argument that we can retard it to some kind Beatrix Potter-esque memory is just illusionary.

For one thing 'Nature' isn't the thing it is thought to be, it is a process & we - humans - are part of it. That means we live, work & interact with it. Stone walls & sheep farming aren't done by Badgers the four-winds, yet they are now held up as quintessential lakes. I'm not saying that zip-wires will be but you get my point.

People in the lakes also need to make a living & tourism is our only real option en masse, & not everyone can open a tea-room. Things like this zip-wire bring people in, people who are willing to more than just stroll the hills & pontificate the do's & don't of modern living. It will bring in money & add to the 'adventure capital' image, which will in turn add to the lakes appeal to a much wider audience (&, dare I whisper it, some of them might even 'appreciate' it as much as the guy from Natural England) &, if done considerately, will not be followed by a railway up Skiddaw or Ferris Wheel in Windermere.

The lakes, while being a national treasure, is not a museum. Nature is not static & cannot be preserved, only conserved.

Please put wisdom & consideration before prejudice, there is such a thing as environmental fascism too.

Martin W on 12 Nov 2010
In reply to pec:
> (In reply to UKC News) Does anybody familiar with planning law know if he resubmits an application will the previous objections still be taken into account or would we all have to resubmit them?

AFAIK you have to submit new objections to the new application. I understand this is a tactic often used by developers: submit an application, get people all het up so they submit lots of objections, and withdraw the application. Then submit another slightly different application a bit later on. A useful proportion of people either assume that their original objection will still be considered, or have just got bored/tired/distracted by another issue and don't object to the new application. Bingo, the new application has fewer objections and gets passed.
NearlyDutchDan - on 12 Nov 2010
In reply to nrhill:
> I'm a lifelong lakes resident & a climber & I honestly, all arguments considered, can't see the problem.
>
> Obviously no-one wants the lakes to be tarmac & graffiti - or Port Talbot - but the argument that we can retard it to some kind Beatrix Potter-esque memory is just illusionary.
>
> For one thing 'Nature' isn't the thing it is thought to be, it is a process & we - humans - are part of it. That means we live, work & interact with it. Stone walls & sheep farming aren't done by Badgers the four-winds, yet they are now held up as quintessential lakes. I'm not saying that zip-wires will be but you get my point.
>
> People in the lakes also need to make a living & tourism is our only real option en masse, & not everyone can open a tea-room. Things like this zip-wire bring people in, people who are willing to more than just stroll the hills & pontificate the do's & don't of modern living. It will bring in money & add to the 'adventure capital' image, which will in turn add to the lakes appeal to a much wider audience (&, dare I whisper it, some of them might even 'appreciate' it as much as the guy from Natural England) &, if done considerately, will not be followed by a railway up Skiddaw or Ferris Wheel in Windermere.
>
> The lakes, while being a national treasure, is not a museum. Nature is not static & cannot be preserved, only conserved.
>
> Please put wisdom & consideration before prejudice, there is such a thing as environmental fascism too.


Blimey, well said !


Andy Say - on 12 Nov 2010
In reply to sasmojo:
If you look at the top photo in the post in this thread

http://www.livefortheoutdoors.com/Community-Landing/Forum-Landing/Forum-Categories/Topic/?&topic...

it would seem that the VF does actually manage to get out of the 'industrial wasteland' at some point.
sasmojo - on 12 Nov 2010
In reply to Andy Say: Without knowing the permission given, but assuming he was not meant to allow it to do so, this picture proves the issue with the applicant, not so much the plan.

I assume this is the part of the VF Natural England have issues with and possibly rightly so.

S
Alyson - on 12 Nov 2010
In reply to pec:
> (In reply to UKC News) Does anybody familiar with planning law know if he resubmits an application will the previous objections still be taken into account or would we all have to resubmit them?

You will have to resubmit your objection, stating that the new proposal hasn't addressed or doesn't mitigate your previous concerns. If lots of people object to the first application but none to the revised scheme, it is likely to be seen as if the revisions have created a more acceptable proposal (that wouldn't automatically mean it's likely to be granted though).
Guy "Fawksey" Wilson - on 12 Nov 2010

In reply to Alyson: Highland Light and Power tried the same tactic of withdrawing their application for the Sheildaig Hydro after several environmental groups had spent tens of thousands of pounds gathering evidence for their oajections. Then re submitted later though still without an environmental impact study so doomed from the start. Which makes one wonder what their objective was?
3leggeddog on 12 Nov 2010
In reply to nrhill:

+1

This has been done to death on here. The majority view is as follows

We don't like Mark Wier because of his OMM comments therefore we must oppose anything he says or does

I love the lake district, keep it preserved in aspic just incase I deign to visit next summer, should we get a dry spell.

There have been all sorts of similar threads on here objecting to industrial estates, waste repositories etc in the lakes, all displaying similar levels of ignorance.
pec on 12 Nov 2010
In reply to Martin W:
> (In reply to pec)

Thanks for that, but can you explain AFAIK ? Looks like one of those abbreviations young people use,I must be getting old!
SCrossley on 12 Nov 2010
In reply to UKC News:
I think that the local jobs for local people is a load of tosh. The ELD is a national resource and farmers et al have had a lot of support financialy and in the borrowdale valley there are not really any other locals than farmers.
This guy is out to make a buck for himself and I applaud his chutzpah, but i think he should be resisted all the way or he will spoil the intinsic beauty of the place.
This guy is out for himself first second and last and anything else he says is just politicing, do not get taken in by him.
In reply to summo:
> Wonder how many of the 300plus complainants live within view of the proposal?

There's hardly a house within view of it but I can't see how that relates to the issue of Alton Towers like attractions in a National Park.

James Oakes - on 13 Nov 2010
In reply to nrhill: well said sir
Guy "Fawksey" Wilson - on 13 Nov 2010
In reply to sjc: he was a complete cock in front of the press when the OMM got flooded out. A was Galeforce.

There were billboards outside shops in Amblseide denouncing him and his comments.
nrhill on 13 Nov 2010 - dsl-fixed-62-69-39-182.surfdsl.murphx.net
In reply to 3 leg dog.

This is more or less irrelevant but ad hominem arguments are by their very nature fallacious; if your wanting to convince people of an argument you may want a more logical approach.

The man isn't the issue, regardless of whether you loathe him or not.
Owain - on 13 Nov 2010
In reply to 3leggeddog:
> (In reply to nrhill)
>
> +1
>
> This has been done to death on here. The majority view is as follows
>
> We don't like Mark Wier because of his OMM comments therefore we must oppose anything he says or does


we?

ads.ukclimbing.com
Owain - on 13 Nov 2010
In reply to UKC News: Sounds like a cult against this Mr Weir, maybe you should look beyond Mr Weir and realise the potential for people to go to the LD and enjoy themselves. It is only a steel cable not a ferris wheel with spot lights illuminating it so it can be seen from space.

If you look at the picture on this forum, that to me is a much greater eye sore than a steel cable running from the hill side. A bright plastic sign which looks like they made no consideration to integrate their building with the natural environment.

3leggeddog on 13 Nov 2010
In reply to Owain:
> (In reply to 3leggeddog)
> [...]
>
>
> we?

The (flawed) opinion of many posters on this topic, see above and various other threads on the subject
3leggeddog on 13 Nov 2010
In reply to nrhill:

You are correct, the man is not the issue but he is for many of his opponents on here.

I am not his greatest fan, Mark is a blatant self publicist, there are many more tales of his antics which I will not share.

I do not let my feelings about these antics cloud my judgement. The biggest problem in my eyes are the large orange "easycafe.com" signs. A cairn and a cable will make little difference to the top of honister.
ChrisJD on 13 Nov 2010
In reply to UKC News:

The man is clearly not stupid. The withdrawal of the application is just part of the planning game of cat & mouse and its pretty common to withdraw an application at the last minute if it is known it will get declined (the planning regime advocates close liaison).

He's now flushed out all the objections & objectors and he will now make sure the next application 'reasonably' addresses any 'reasonable' objections. If he does that, the NPA will find it much much harder to decline. Which after all, is how the regime should work.
Paul F - on 13 Nov 2010
In reply to pec:
> (In reply to Martin W)
> [...]
>
> Thanks for that, but can you explain AFAIK ? Looks like one of those abbreviations young people use,I must be getting old!

As Far As I Know, it doesn't mean a thing :0)
IanHarrison - on 13 Nov 2010
In reply to nrhill:

I am not a lifelong resident of the Lake District, although I do now live within it & have visited it throughout my life. I also work in the tourist industry & I am a climber.

I read your points with interest & totally agree with the fluidity of nature, however I feel that your comments regarding treating the National Park as a museum are …… erroneous.
I would like to draw your attention to the 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act.
The act has two statutory primary requirements:
1. To conserve & enhance the natural beauty, wildlife & cultural heritage of the National Parks.
2. To promote opportunities for the understanding & enjoyment of the special qualities of the National Parks.
If there is any irreconcilable conflict between these two primary purposes then the first takes precedence over the second, this is I understand known as the “Sandford Principle”.

I would suggest that a zip wire does not fall within either of these two statutory requirements.

As for the “Adventure Capital” image which has been fostered by Cumbria Tourism, if it does take the National Park status into account then it does so only by reversing the “Sandford Principle”.

By the way for those who don’t believe that this is just the thin end of the wedge, part of phase 3 of Cumbria Tourisms Adventure Capital program includes a “zip wire” & a “monorail”.
subalpine - on 15 Nov 2010
In reply to IanHarrison: it doesn't look good..

plans to reform the national parks: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/nov/12/conservationists-warn-threat-national-parks

Critics say that the focus on looking for ways to make parks more "responsive to the concerns of their local communities" will mean that economic development will be placed on an equal footing to conservation, making it easier for developments such as new housing estates and business parks to gain planning approval.

nrhill on 24 Nov 2010 - 5adafbf0.bb.sky.com
In reply to: Ian Harrison.

I've never read & most probably never will read the National Parks & Countryside Act, but I take your point.

It is a shame that things change & we're all sentimental to a certain degree. The national park act is obviously a blessing & we should respect it; it must've been fought for tooth & nail initially & we should therefore respect it & do what we can to uphold it.

The point I'm trying to make though is that things do change, it is impossible to stop it. The kill-joys have got their way on a great many issues - speed limits on ALL the lakes, why? - but you can't stop the tide; we need concessions every now & again in order to keep things fresh & organic, to keep people interested. Humans don't exist apart from nature, we're as natural as anything else in the lakes; what we do have is a reflection though & we should use this as best we can, all things considered.

Whatever the opinions are, the lakes national park wouldn't exist without tourism; I'm not a wholesale fan myself (tourists=terrorists when you're driving peak season) but its simply a fact. A little lee-way every now & again allows things to develop organically whilst at the same time allowing things to remain fresh, to have a bit of edge & youth. We're not all Wainwright.

On a more philosophical note - beauty doesn't exist without minds for it to exist for. All the points about 'intrinsic beauty' & such like seem to miss this point. The LD is mountains & lakes, bracken & trees etc. This is beautiful; but if I had lived 2000 years ago I may think it looked barren as a desert, stripped as it is of most of the trees. People howl on about windfarms, but I happen to think they're pretty graceful looking things (though I wouldn't want them plastered all over the lakes before anyone states the obvious). Dilapidated old barns add to the landscape, but they're nothing but old wrecks filled with rust & rotting sheep.

I'm going on a bit, but the point is that endearment (or contempt?) comes with familiarity & what appears monstrous to us may, in a few years time, be woven into the popular mind-scape of the place. It is with this in mind that we should judge the development of the place, not with an iron-clad will to keep it as it is now or as it was 'then'; such logic is blinkered at best, naive, immature & stifling at worst.







nrhill on 24 Nov 2010 - 5adafbf0.bb.sky.com
In reply to Subalpine.

Uh-oh!
Bruce Hooker - on 24 Nov 2010
In reply to nrhill:

There are any number of wires and "attractions" throughout Europe, but there is only one Lake District. Why not keep original areas of natural beauty "natural" in a condition that makes them attractive to people from less pleasant areas? Tourism isn't only people looking for funfairs and thrills, what might be gained on one hand could be lost on the other. It's not as if we are short of amusement parks and many that exist already find it hard to make money. Even Euro-disneyland, which is just down the road from me, is finding that their "concept" isn't the money-spinner it used to be.
GrahamD - on 25 Nov 2010
In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Very occasionally, you hit the nail firmly on the head.


:-) obviously
nrhill on 25 Nov 2010 - 5adafbf0.bb.sky.com
In reply to Bruce Hooker.

Good point, well put.
Bruce Hooker - on 25 Nov 2010
In reply to GrahamD:

Only statistics - monkeys and typewriters.
IanHarrison - on 25 Nov 2010
In reply to nrhill:
We are in danger of moving away from the point & moving into a discussion regarding National Parks.

Unfortunately we all know how the world works & the priority given to money making schemes (usually hiding behind job making schemes, which don’t actually create jobs), a concession today for a zip wire will be used as an argument for a concession tomorrow for a something else.

On their own website they have tried to answer many of what they call myths regarding the zip wire. Some of the answers seem to hold some degree of sense while others are less convincing.

They even claim that Honister can not be used to set a precedent because of its industrial past, they may not have noticed that there are hundreds of disused quarries in the Lake District & all therefore have an industrial past.

At the end of the day, in 1949 a line was drawn in the sand, each concession we give moves that line, at what point do we say enough is enough & what argument will someone else use to move it further.

The simple point is that The Lake District National Park is the attraction, if people want fairgrounds there are plenty in other places.
Gael Force - on 12 Dec 2010
In reply to Fawksey: I note you are an arse ,and now there is a picture of you will look forward to meeting you in person.
wercat on 13 Dec 2010
In reply to subalpine:

"making it easier for developments such as new housing estates and business parks"

oh my god,

we can't have locals housed at reasonable cost and earning higher than tourist-industry wages, can we?

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.