UKC

NEWS: Honister Zip Wire Approved

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Jon Stewart 28 Jul 2019
In reply to squarepeg:

When I was a kid, I'd have had my mind blown by a via ferrata and zip wire at Honister - would have been a highlight of a holiday. Sounds awesome. And I doubt it will interfere with my enjoyment of the fells.

17
In reply to Jon Stewart:

When I was a kid I would have liked a rollercoaster going over Crib Goch. 

5
 wintertree 29 Jul 2019
In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

When I was a kid I would have had my mind blown by the thin end of a wedge.

I really want an alpine coaster in the UK - they’re something I’d love to try, but it’s not very green to drive or fly to the alps for one.

2
 Jon Stewart 29 Jul 2019
In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

> When I was a kid I would have liked a rollercoaster going over Crib Goch. 

And this is where my final sentence becomes relevant. You see? 

 Trangia 29 Jul 2019
In reply to squarepeg:

About time too. I've never understood the opposition to installing a wire in a former mining complex on a hillside already dramatically changed by mankind. 

4
 GrahamD 29 Jul 2019
In reply to Trangia:

My objection isn't about a zip wire in a quarry.  My objection is the stream of lifestyle SUVs chugging along Borrowdale and over Honister pass if its a success.  Vehicle access to that location is crap.

5
 lucozade 29 Jul 2019
In reply to GrahamD:

That has always been my concern - and of many others. Not against zip wires or a business succeeding - just hope it doesn't bring too many negatives as well as the positives.

1
 Simon Caldwell 29 Jul 2019
In reply to Trangia:

> I've never understood the opposition to installing a wire in a former mining complex on a hillside already dramatically changed by mankind. 

Traffic and car parking.

1
 fred99 29 Jul 2019
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

> > I've never understood the opposition to installing a wire in a former mining complex on a hillside already dramatically changed by mankind. 

> Traffic and car parking.


Not to mention the screaming from those going down the wire.

2
In reply to fred99:

Might want to object to the one in Kinlochleven below the Mamores as well then

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I'm quite sure I could construct a rollercoaster that wouldn't physically get in the way of your scramble. Why then would you object? 

6
 Jon Stewart 29 Jul 2019
In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

What a daft argument! The rollercoaster would spoil my enjoyment of the hills because of the noise, crowds and visual impact. The zip wire at honister won't have a similar impact as far as I can see. 

6
 fred99 29 Jul 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> What a daft argument! The rollercoaster would spoil my enjoyment of the hills because of the noise, crowds and visual impact. The zip wire at honister won't have a similar impact as far as I can see. 


If it gets a lot of custom, how do you expect said customers to get there (and back to wherever).

The main real problem is that the road access is not via a main road (as the majority of this country's population know it). Instead it is accessed via a narrow, winding and exceptionally steep road - the likelihood of crashes leading to injuries must go up exponentially. Also any incident on these roads already causes incredible traffic jams, especially at weekends/bank holidays. The chances of an injured party NOT requiring helicopter evacuation will go up dramatically - will the zip wire people pay for this ??

 Jon Stewart 29 Jul 2019
In reply to fred99:

Do you know what the capacity is? Have you seen any impact assessment? 

What makes you concerned that this hasn't been considered? 

9
 Trangia 29 Jul 2019
In reply to fred99:

Are you aware that the Planning Authority pass Planning Applications onto the Highway Authority for comment/observations before the application goes before the committee? All of this will be on the file for consideration by the Planning Inspector when considering an appeal. Are you suggesting that you know better than those qualified to advise the Planning Authority and the Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State?

6
 Simon Caldwell 29 Jul 2019
In reply to ebdon:

https://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/swiftlg/MediaTemp/68628-268087.pdf

Bizarrely it classes the location as urban rather than rural.

And claims that it won't increase the number of visitors, rather giving existing visitors something else to do.

Are the figures for visitor numbers it gives a maximum, or an average? A maximum of 36 cars per day is one thing, an average over the year is quite something else.

Edit: Zip World claims that its Bethesda zip wire (in a place with nothing else to offer) attracts 30,000 visitors per year

Post edited at 14:39
 C Witter 29 Jul 2019
In reply to Trangia:

Don't be such a sycophant. Are you seriously suggesting that the public shouldn't express their criticisms and opinions because Tory politicians and their appointed experts have deemed something worth doing? It only takes two seconds to see the gaping hole in that line of reasoning...

Personally, I'm deeply uneasy with this proposal. I don't see the theme-parkisation of the Lakes as really delivering on its promise of benefiting local people; meanwhile, the problems of tourism in the Lakes, in terms of everything from traffic and pollution to house prices and cost of living, are there for all to see. Beyond that, this small, beautiful corner of England needs protecting as an end in itself. The debate is far from over...

 

5
 Trangia 29 Jul 2019
In reply to ebdon:

> Interestingly there doesnt actually appear to be anything on impacts on traffic which surprised me a bit

Me too

 Harry Jarvis 29 Jul 2019
In reply to ebdon:

> Interestingly there doesnt actually appear to be anything on impacts on traffic which surprised me a bit

Although the Visitor management plan does say:

"There will be a maximum of 12 visitors to 1 guide operating at times stated elsewhere in the documentation. It needs to be emphasised that the estimated maximum number of descents down the Aerial Flight on a peak day in high summer would only be 57. Even during the periods shortly after the Aerial Flight’s introduction, it is entirely conceivable that on quiet days in winter there would not even be a single descent.
So at its peak, 57 descents a day is unlikely to generate audiences of “hundreds” of spectators at any given moment. Many of those doing the Via Ferrata do so as a participating group of friends and relatives with whom they have travelled to the site.
It also needs to be emphasised that even from this number, these would not “all go one after the other,” but instead be staggered as part of smaller individual tours taking place during mornings, midday and mid-afternoons, with a maximum of 12 on each."

And there is further consideration of impacts on traffic given on the Traffic form. 

Post edited at 15:13
 Trangia 29 Jul 2019
In reply to C Witter:

It's a pity that you have had to resort to insult, and to bring Party politics into the debate. I am not a Tory, nor a Tory fan, but I'd be interested to learn in what way the Tories as a party have influenced the planning procedures in this case? The time for public debate and objections is at the time of the original application, and prior to an appeal - no doubt there were a lot of objections, including those now being made by Fred 99.

I freely admit that I have not been following this matter in any depth, but the point I was making is that these are issues which, if he/she was doing his job properly, would/should have been considered by the Inspector. What makes you believe he/she was toadying to the the Tories? What proof do you have that this happened? In my considerable experience of advocating client's cases before Planning Inspectors, I always found them to be scrupulously fair and reasonable people with a very sound knowledge of planning law. Just because a decision goes against your opinion doesn't mean they are wrong or making decisions based on political dogma rather than sound planning principles.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

> What a daft argument! The rollercoaster would spoil my enjoyment of the hills because of the...

> noise

Screaming people hurtling over one of the most serene and beautiful passes in England. 

> crowds

Obviously it's there to make money. Expect cars running to near the summit and large group of people waiting at the top and bottom of the zip wire to be guided away.

> visual impact

It's a giant bloody zipwire going over a UNESCO heritage site. I'd imagine one that long would need some serious foundations to maintain tension, and you'd be able to see it from pretty much everywhere.

13
In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

> Screaming people hurtling over one of the most serene and beautiful passes in England. 

Will you take a similar judgement on a busy crag, with all the noise created by climbers. SAFE GEOFFREY, SAFE GEOFFREY. TAKE IN ON BLOO. AARGH, AARGH F#CK F#CK TAKE TAKE. Often in a beautiful, serene (or at least it was) place. 

> Obviously it's. there to make money. Expect cars running to near the summit and large group of people waiting at the top and bottom of the zip wire to be guided away.

I think the data quoted above from the impact survey negates this argument. My initial concerns about the honister development were over traffic management, however an addition 30 (my estimate) vehicles a day is negligible. 

> It's a giant bloody zipwire going over a UNESCO heritage site. I'd imagine one that long would need some serious foundations to maintain tension, and you'd be able to see it from pretty much everywhere.

It is a working industrial site contained within a national park and heritage site. There are many. There is a history of gantrys and cable ways on the site, some still exist. As for the line irself, Rayleigh criteria will take care of that fairly quickly. 

1
In reply to Trangia:

In answer to your question regarding Tories and planning. The Tories introduced the National Planning Policy Framework in 2012 and revised it in 2019. This is a guidance document for planning authorities, it very much changed emphasis of the planning system, making it much more development focused, removing or lowering the bar when it comes to certain protections.

Ironically, many Tory Councillors and local members hate it because they are nothing if not NIMBY.

 olddirtydoggy 29 Jul 2019
In reply to squarepeg:

I wonder if this will impact the 2 bothies in the area?

 Jon Stewart 29 Jul 2019
In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

> Screaming people hurtling over one of the most serene and beautiful passes in England. 

I'd be against it at Newlands, Wryonse, Kirkstone or Hardknott. But for it at Honister or Whinlatter. I think the industrial (or forest) setting is appropriate.

> Obviously it's there to make money. Expect cars running to near the summit and large group of people waiting at the top and bottom of the zip wire to be guided away.

I know where it's planned for. There'll be a few more people and a bit of noise; I'll walk half a mile on and be on the fell or round in Gillercombe as normal.

> It's a giant bloody zipwire going over a UNESCO heritage site. I'd imagine one that long would need some serious foundations to maintain tension, and you'd be able to see it from pretty much everywhere.

It's in a post-industrial mess. Quite a charming and historic one, but it is a post-industrial mess. I expect you'll be able to see it from the gentle slope up to Dale Head, but apart from that, not really.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

It's hilarious, stick a few tiny anchor bolts in the quarry at Millstone and people would wet themselves in apoplectic rage. Put up a giant zip wire on the side of Fleetwith Pike and everyone loves it. 

11
 Jon Stewart 29 Jul 2019
In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

Bolts in a trad route ruin the climbing. A zip wire in a quarry with no climbing is great fun for kids. 

3
In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

> Screaming people hurtling over one of the most serene and beautiful passes in England. 

Honister Pass is serene?

> Obviously it's there to make money. Expect cars running to near the summit and large group of people waiting at the top and bottom of the zip wire to be guided away.

Why would people be driving to the summit? Even if the mine were happy with them driving up the access roads, they'd have to walk back up to get the car. Large groups of people standing around? Not exactly unusual for the Lakes, and it's unlikely people would stand in Alton Towers size queues waiting for a go.

> It's a giant bloody zipwire going over a UNESCO heritage site. I'd imagine one that long would need some serious foundations to maintain tension, and you'd be able to see it from pretty much everywhere.

It's a scratty looking slate mine that had wires carrying tonnes of slate. There are very few places in the Lakes where a zip wire would be appropriate, but like Whinlatter and Grizedale I think Honister is one of them.

 summo 30 Jul 2019
In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

> It's a giant bloody zipwire going over a UNESCO heritage site. 

 industrial heritage.

The lakes only looks like the does because it's had several reservoirs built to supply water to north west England only we call them lakes. Numerous small tarns are actually man made to feed water into ore processing areas. There are centuries of open cast slate works, under ground copper and lead mines, deforestation of the hills followed by over grazing.. is this the pristine environment you want protecting? 

Post edited at 07:25
3
In reply to summo:

>  is this the pristine environment you want protecting? 

Yeah you're right. Instead of trying to renaturalise it we should just build build build. Why not eh, it's just a quarry. 

7
 summo 30 Jul 2019
In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

> Yeah you're right. Instead of trying to renaturalise it we should just build build build. Why not eh, it's just a quarry. 

Build on existing building locations why not. Reforest the hills and close some valleys like borrowdale and langdale to non local traffic and just have an electric bus service. Lots can be done to make genuine improvements, but I suspect most people want to just keep it like it is for themselves.

3
 GrahamD 30 Jul 2019
In reply to summo:

Open a tourist attraction at the top of Borrowdale then close Borrowdale ?

 summo 30 Jul 2019
In reply to GrahamD:

> Open a tourist attraction at the top of Borrowdale then close Borrowdale ?

No. You can get electric bus, walk or cycle without pollution and risk to life. 

In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

> It's hilarious, stick a few tiny anchor bolts in the quarry at Millstone and people would wet themselves in apoplectic rage. Put up a giant zip wire on the side of Fleetwith Pike and everyone loves it. 

To be fair, there was plenty apoplectic rage expressed here and elsewhere when the planning application was submitted and 10? years ago when the initial application was made and over the thirlmere proposal and over the Glenridding proposal. There has been ranting aplenty about this. 

 Jon Stewart 30 Jul 2019
In reply to summo:

> is this the pristine environment you want protecting? 

Mainly yes. It could do with fewer sheep and more trees flowers and the wildlife that come with them. But the sheep farming is very much part of the landscape and heritage. The industrial stuff is a fascinating part of the landscape, and the reservoirs are now just as much part of "The Lakes" as the natural ones.

I do wish you'd stop moaning about our lovely park.

Edit: I'm not sure about the electric bus thing. It sounds good at first, but then camping in the valleys with your car is really great. And there isn't really much of a traffic problem, except at the very busiest times. If you want somewhere to bang on about being completely ruined and unable to support the volume of tourism, take a trip to Skye.

Post edited at 11:11
2
 asteclaru 30 Jul 2019
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

> Edit: Zip World claims that its Bethesda zip wire (in a place with nothing else to offer) attracts 30,000 visitors per year

Are you suggesting that 30000 people go each year to Bethesda/area around Bethesda (i.e. the bloody Snowdonia National Park) just to go on the zip wire?

Or is it a case of 'oh well, since we're in the area...'?

1
In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

> Screaming people hurtling over one of the most serene and beautiful passes in England. 

What if I promise to go "SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!" as I hurtle overhead?

1
 Simon Caldwell 30 Jul 2019
In reply to Presley Whippet:

> however an addition 30 (my estimate) vehicles a day is negligible

The document I linked to earlier suggests both no extra cars at all, and 36 extra cars - but the implication is that 36 is an average with a large majority of visitors expected over the summer. It's all a bit vague though and this can easily be interpreted differently

 Simon Caldwell 30 Jul 2019
In reply to asteclaru:

> Are you suggesting that 30000 people go each year to Bethesda/area around Bethesda (i.e. the bloody Snowdonia National Park) just to go on the zip wire?

I don't know - the claim was made in the documents supporting their planning information, so that's certainly the impression they wanted to give.

 Dell 30 Jul 2019
In reply to squarepeg:

I for one am dead against this proposal.

Having said that I'll probably have to give it a go, it looks like fun! 

 Dogwatch 30 Jul 2019
In reply to C Witter:

>  Are you seriously suggesting that the public shouldn't express their criticisms and opinions because Tory politicians and their appointed experts

The local Highway Authority staff are not political appointments. 

 fred99 30 Jul 2019
In reply to Dogwatch:

> The local Highway Authority staff are not political appointments. 

However I have found that local Highway Authority staff seem to come up with very strange vehicle movement rates and projections compared to what those who live where they're pontificating find in reality.

And these "errors" always seem to be in favour of the fat cats who want to get fatter.

Would love to be able to check out their (and their family members) financial status and see if it all proved to be OK - i.e. savings accounts in the childs name, new cars, holidays suspiciously apparently very cheap (or even free), etc..

8
 wintertree 30 Jul 2019
In reply to Dogwatch:

> The local Highway Authority staff are not political appointments. 

On the other hand, if you donate £0.5m to Tony Blair’s campaigning fund through proxy accounts (without the permission or knowledge of the account holders), you just might find the highway authority drops their 10-year long objection to your plans literally overnight.

*cough cough*

 wintertree 30 Jul 2019
In reply to fred99:

> And these "errors" always seem to be in favour of the fat cats who want to get fatter.

Next you’ll be suggesting that traffic surveys just sort of end up always happening in the school holidays isn’t pure coincidence!

 summo 30 Jul 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Mainly yes. It could do with fewer sheep and more trees flowers and the wildlife that come with them. But the sheep farming is very much part of the landscape and heritage. The industrial stuff is a fascinating part of the landscape, and the reservoirs are now just as much part of "The Lakes" as the natural ones.

> I do wish you'd stop moaning about our lovely park.

> Edit: I'm not sure about the electric bus thing. It sounds good at first, but then camping in the valleys with your car is really great. And there isn't really much of a traffic problem, except at the very busiest times. If you want somewhere to bang on about being completely ruined and unable to support the volume of tourism, take a trip to Skye.

Totally agree. I'm against the argument that many of the UK national parks are this pristine natural environment and that is their justification for not wanting any changes. 

Most national parks do need a solution for their traffic and parking problems. If you camp then you are a resident that night and can take your car. If you are just going to Seathwaite for the day, then bus etc. The problem still exists of where do folk park for the bus.. underground car parks, convert an old quarry into a multi storey and green roof it over. ? Thinking towards systems employed in Saas fee, zermatt and so on. 

Post edited at 14:36
 GrahamD 30 Jul 2019
In reply to summo:

> No. You can get electric bus, walk or cycle without pollution and risk to life. 

Well yes, but is that really the demographic of the people attracted to a zip wire novelty ?

In reply to summo:

> Most national parks do need a solution for their traffic and parking problems. If you camp then you are a resident that night and can take your car. If you are just going to Seathwaite for the day, then bus etc. The problem still exists of where do folk park for the bus.. underground car parks, convert an old quarry into a multi storey and green roof it over. ? Thinking towards systems employed in Saas fee, zermatt and so on. 

I wonder where one might find an old quarry in the lake district? 

 summo 30 Jul 2019
In reply to GrahamD:

> Well yes, but is that really the demographic of the people attracted to a zip wire novelty ?

Depends on priorities, reduce traffic, make the roads safer, reduce pollution, or pander to the needs of the relative few. 

 wintertree 30 Jul 2019
In reply to summo:

> Most national parks do need a solution for their traffic and parking problems.

Tunnels!  Once the new pothalite mine in the North York Moors closes down 100 years from now its 23-mile long tunnel from Teesside can be converted in to a tourist train. 

Keep half an eye on the Boring Company’s build out in Las Vegas and beyond.  If they really do hammer down tunnel prices as they want to, it could make them a lot more affordable for national parks.  The mine could only raise the investment due to the sheer quantity of fertiliser they intend to export for several generations.

 wercat 31 Jul 2019
In reply to wintertree:

I think we are overlooking the possibility of Atmospheric Cableways from gateway communities right into the valleys giving the transportees a grand view and starting the new hobby of transporterspotting

Post edited at 09:19
 Simon Caldwell 31 Jul 2019
In reply to summo:

> Depends on priorities, reduce traffic, make the roads safer, reduce pollution, or pander to the needs of the relative few. 

And the LDNPA have made their priority quite clear with this and other decisions

 fred99 31 Jul 2019
In reply to wintertree:

> > And these "errors" always seem to be in favour of the fat cats who want to get fatter.

> Next you’ll be suggesting that traffic surveys just sort of end up always happening in the school holidays isn’t pure coincidence!


Just one of the ways that they manage to come up with strange figures.

 stbeesdjw 05 Aug 2019
In reply to Jon Stewart:

What about the noise, crowds and visual impact !!!!!

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Nothing that a midnight raid and a couple of shaped charges shouldn't be able to remedy. 

 subtle 06 Aug 2019
In reply to wintertree:

> > Most national parks do need a solution for their traffic and parking problems.

> Tunnels!  Once the new pothalite mine in the North York Moors closes down 100 years from now its 23-mile long tunnel from Teesside can be converted in to a tourist train. 

> Keep half an eye on the Boring Company’s build out in Las Vegas and beyond.  If they really do hammer down tunnel prices as they want to, it could make them a lot more affordable for national parks.  The mine could only raise the investment due to the sheer quantity of fertiliser they intend to export for several generations.

Would fracking help  - get paid to start tunneling early.


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...