UKC

There is a planning application to alter the current informal parking area at the Walna Scar fell gate to provide a 58-bay pay and display public car park.
The current parking area's uneven surface demands caution so that you don't rip your sump off, and the spread of cars outside the main area is trashing the vegetation, so I'm pleased some decent parking will be provided, and accept that for the owners to do that they will need to charge. But what I disagree with are the proposed opening hours: from 9am to 9pm. While I live close by and will not use the car park myself, there are times when my days in the hills start before or end after these times.
If anyone else has any objections, be quick! Go to http://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk and select Planning > select Planning Application Search Tool > start the search > enter the planning reference 7/2016/5577 > select Search > select the reference number. Comments on the application must be received by Friday 16th September - two days time.

In reply to Nigel Coe:

Is that the hours that the car park will be open, or the hours during which charges apply?
If the former then it's going to prevent any use for winter climbing, be a major problem in the summer, and put a stop to camping nearby (perhaps this is the reason for it?).
I can't see anything about the proposed charges? These range elsewhere from a reasonable pound or two, to a ridiculous £7 or 8.

In reply to Nigel Coe:

I've had a quick read through but didn't spot any reference to access to and exit from the car park being restricted in any way. Could it be that 9.00 a.m to 9.00 p.m. is just the chargeable period? You could rock up at 7.00 a.m, go for a run, return to the car by 8.55 a.m. and not have to pay? Or arrive at 7.00 a.m., pay for a full day's parking, spend the day on Dow and return at 10.00 p.m.?

In reply to Simon Caldwell:


I'm not sure, Simon. But if the application is okayed without it being specified, the owners could change it from the latter to the former if they felt like it.
You've reminded me, I do use the car park, to avoid an extra couple of miles carrying climbing gear.

In reply to Nigel Coe:

Thanks. I've emailed my comments.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:


Me too.

In reply to Rick Graham:
For anybody struggling with the LDNP planning website, which almost seems designed to frustrate would be letters of objection. The Planning Application number is

7/2016/5577

date of submission 22 August 2016

In reply to Nigel Coe:

WRT the 9am-9pm thing, there was a page missing from the Design and Access statement document that clarifies this point. The times relate to the charging regime and the car park is free to use outside of these times. The document has now been updated but it wasn't working earlier when I tried to download it so I had to get them to email me a copy. I can forward it on if anyone wants to see it.

As for the proposal itself, I can understand why they're doing it but I'm sad to see the end of free parking at the Fell Gate. I think they could stop charging a bit earlier though - making you pay to park until 9pm seems harsh.

In reply to Rick Graham:

Anyone with a brain should object to this continued monetisation of the LD cash cow and removal of aboriginal rights for young people to enjoy fresh air and wild camping free at the point of use (responsibly).
Any anti-social behaviour could be managed with a light touch as per previous generations.
Their website is not working properly.
28 days after submission would be Aug 22 +28 = Sept. 19th?

I believe legally, the deadlines do not relinquish the committee from responsibility of taking notice of all objections, however late.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

Aboriginal rights ? you are a UK citizen. You have no more rights to the Lake District than I do.

In reply to Nigel Coe:

It's before Coniston Parish Council for comments on Monday night. This has been mooted for some time now and I get the reason to prevent persistent continuous encroachment of vehicles onto the common.
But, and it's a big BUT, I am not in favour of the "commercial" parking charges being invoked and tend to thing that a 9-5 charging regime would be much more akin to a model that covers the initial civil works required (inevitably there will be some) and subsequent maintenance, rather than one which, as someone else eluded to, smacks of milking the cash cow. Maybe if a proportion of the money raised went back into e.g. Fix the Fells, MR, community projects in the village, it might be looked upon more sympathetically.

I am concerned that it will cause problems across the area where folk do try to park for free by parking in passing places, on bankings etc., and generally making a buggers muddle of the whole bang shoot. This may also cause issues for access by bona fide vehicles - farmers, quarry vehicles and MRT...but I'm not sure those particular dots have even been drawn, let alone joined up.

As for Aboriginal rights - huge potential debate - also prescriptive rights, custom & practice etc., all a minefield. As a local should I have more right to park for nowt at the fell gate? Morally possibly, legally? well I'm sure there'll be a barrack room lawyer somewhere who'll argue the toss!

Truth is though, as far as I know, unless the car park as actually adopted by LDNPA (note it isn't at this point, it's for Rydal estates and possibly the LDNPA car park team will do the money collections on a commercial basis) then they can't fine you even if they put a parking charge notice on the car, unless they can prove trespass which is another set of legalese to negotiate.

In reply to Nigel Coe:
Out of curiosity does anyone know who owns this land. I presume its privately owned and not NT or the LDNP? (Just wondering about enforcement)
Edit: i note this is answered in previous post now

In reply to JeffCarroll:

If it's not broke - don't fix it - unless you are an out of control Orwellian totalitarian cash generator of course.
It's generally not the money but the principle that is the issue.
Personally would not want any money going to Fux the fells because they build paths that are very bad every which you look at them when all they need to do is practice good drainage.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

I will let others debate the pros and cons, morals and ethics.

My view is that the LDNPA are unelected,self serving, empire building, jobsworths.

Someone might as well say it as it is.

In reply to Nigel Coe:

Well this is upsetting to say the least.

In reply to Rick Graham:

I'm not sure how you make a NPA electable ? all that does is have elected representatives as well as permanent staff who do the work and provide continuity like a local council.

In reply to GrahamD:


Thinking about this today on the commute.
The UK government and local authorities have elected MPs and councilors who in theory guide the civil service/LG officers and are accountable at every election.
Why can't the NPA's have an elected council.
To keep it practical these could be held at the same time as LA elections and drawn from electoral zones in and adjacent to the NP.
This way the NP councilors could represent both locals and most of the visitors.
Prospective councilors could campaign on how they would guide NP policies, and the general population have a say in how things are done. Once every few years is better than never.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

Yes, but that IS the problem, at the moment it is becoming increasingly broken, because there is zero regulation and people are destroying the common by continuously driving up onto it to park and in some cases plonk a caravan effectively on the skyline for all to see for a month at a time (this happened recently). I can't think that anyone would say that this can continue unabated.

That said I am not convinced that this solution is the best vehicle to provide a robust, long term solution without moving the problem elsewhere, or creating an even bigger access problem than exists currently at high days & holidays.

In reply to Rick Graham:

Better still Rick, do away withy the National Park as it stands, and the district Councils and introduce one unitary ELECTED body that does all the LG function across Cumbria but deals with the NP issues within the current framework.

At the very least move the NP offices to within the actual Park so that whatever policies they impose the officers also have to contend with?

In reply to Nigel Coe:

Sad. I used to love car camping up there as a kid and climbing on Dow.

In reply to Nigel Coe:

I despair what did you expect to happen.

I have been using the walna scar car park for around 25 years, for parking and occasional camping trips. I am only surprised that this has not come sooner. My intial thoughts all those years ago was "this wont last".

I will be sad to see the free parking and camping go but it is really to be expected.

In reply to 3leggeddog:

I don't agree that this should be considered inevitable.

This will likely cause access problems as people park badly to avoid the charges, the resurfacing may well effect the visual character of the, very visible, area and makes access to these fells more difficult for people with less money.

I've just registered my objections to the planning application by email.

Its quick and easy to do and the more people that do it the better. planning@lakedistrict.gov.uk You need to have your name and address included.

Cheers

In reply to 3leggeddog:



It is only to be expected.......if we let the bureaucrats gain total control.

Just got back from a walk and had a thorough scan round the area, I normally mountain bike straight through or drive as far as possible

Amazing little litter or glass, just a few well tendered fire pits.

Most " damage " appears to be by 4*4 drivers practicing and not caused by parking. It is localised to the area immediately near the gate.
This is probably an own goal by the authorities as most folk try to abide with the recent road closure and not drive far from the gate.
If the closure point was the deep ditch, a kilometre or so further on, the parking ( and camping )could be spread out more.

Live and let live, there's space for everyone.

It works quite fine at Walna Scar, leave it alone.

In reply to JeffCarroll:

But what am I missing here. I thought the applicant was a private individual not the NPA? So it's about making money isn't it, or have I got that wrong?

In reply to Phil Ev:
yes, the poorer will have to walk up from Coniston, avoiding being run over by enthusiastic 4x4. Hard work with a rope and rack though if you're getting on a bit.


perhaps park and ride up would make more sense in avoiding damage etc. Then 4x4 access is no longer justified except for those on proper business

In reply to Nigel Coe:

Bad news - have registered my concern (oh dear - I'm too late I think)

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

In your estimation I do not have a brain. Having benefitted many many times over the years from the LDNPs management of sites and rights of way, and by so doing contributing to the park's management and the local economy, I am more happy to pay parking charges

In reply to Bulls Crack:


Well I am not.
I thought the LDNP management was OK until about 1990.
My opinion now is that they are self serving control freaks.

Clues are to be obtained from the names given to the area, National Park and Torver Common.
National, belonging or to be used by the nation.
Park, an outside area for relaxation and escape from an urban environment.
Torver, a nearby village.
Common, an area for use by the commoners, that's everybody, us.

In reply to Rick Graham:

You can hardly blame LDNP for the term 'National' park - you need to go back to 1949 Labour Government for that

Not sure commoners rights gives everyone the right to park where they want irrespective of impact

In reply to Rick Graham:



The trouble is that in 1949 the "nation" didn't all own cars and drive hundreds of miles to the Lakes at weekends.
And the word "common" probably refers to the rights of local villagers to graze the odd cow in about 1500.

I don't know what is best in this case but times change........

In reply to Bulls Crack:


Naivety.

In reply to Robert Durran:



^ This.

Sadly parking has to be managed these days to an extent.

Yesterday I parked in one of the laybys on the A591 and went over Loughrigg to Elterwater and back over the fells at the back of Chapel Stile into Easdale.

Grasmere was absolute mayhem with cars and buses, and some mental parking going on. There's no way to keep the honeypots functioning without managing the parking.

Where parking is free it tends to get overusedt. The dead end road to the Portinscale footbridge to the north of Keswick is a case in point. It's now a semi permanent motorhome site, and I suspect it won't be long before double yellow lines go down.

In reply to Ridge:


Fair enough in cities and town centres. But at Walna Scar there is ample space, about 60 cars yesterday and 25 today.
As I mentioned before the verge damage is not caused by the parking and the litter yesterday was absolutely minimal, just two doggy sh bags today.


Still free and always space, often leave a vehicle there when car sharing. "They" tried to impose a two hour limit there a few years back, stopped then by public uproar. Time for "us" to make a stand again.


This does not apply to Walna Scar.
Some history OTTOMH.
The WS road is an ancient connection between the Coniston and Duddon valleys.
Latterly it has been also used to service some quarries. It used to be tarmaced until about a mile past the fell gate in the 70's.
In the 80's through to the 00's the bridges and roadway had a lot of money spent on maintenance as the council insisted it was under a legal duty to do so. A lot of public debate and criticism at the time.
In the 00's, the upper section was frequently regraded, but because of inadequate drainage work this was only temporary, the mountain bike grade varying wildly.
Recently "they" decided the 4*4 use was intolerable and changed the status of the road, I wonder what the local tax payers think of all the wasted expense ?

Sadly you may be right, local councils appear to only really want a better class of tourist who is prepared to shell out cash at every opportunity.

In reply to Nigel Coe:

A parking charge makes little difference to the cost of a day out driving to Coniston for many people, me included.

If the money goes into improving the surface and penalising people who park badly thereby forcing others to either wait hours or "get creative" to exit the carpark then so much the better. Especially as being creative either furthers the erosion or puts a hole in the sump of your car...

Much better to close the road to traffic, build a multi storey on Coniston and build a little mountain railway or funicular or cable car... I kid, I kid!

In reply to JeffCarroll:

I think the idea of a locally elected local body misses the point of what a NATIONAL park is. The NPA authority should be looking at what makes a national park a national asset and local councils need to represent local people. Hopefully these can align most of the time.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:
Naive and brainless eh? Gosh I do feel put in my place.

I never said the NP was a flawless organisation because they're not, but exactly where would the Lake District be without tourism, the all year round outdoor recreation sector and environmental farming grants?

In reply to Bulls Crack:


Obviously a haven for Cumbrian aboriginals, immune from climate change, experts in flood management, living in huge mansions while the rest of the world goes to hell in a hand basket.

In reply to Wainers44:

It's the landowner - Rydal Estates formalising the Car Park to reduce encroachment onto the common at the behest of LDNPA. Apparently. The 58 spaces were originally about 80 but ...let's just call them lobby groups who claim to have best interests of the LD at heart, but hardly any of them live in the NP to reap what they sow... put paid to that!

I'd rather see 80 sensibly parked cars (at modest cost!) than 80 cars parked hither and yon so you can't get a quarry wagon, tractor or emergency vehicle up past them!

My concern is that it might make it a worse situation and create more problems than it fixes, with folk "fly" parking in passing places etc.

In reply to JeffCarroll:

My main concern based on experiences elsewhere in the park is that the cost will be far from modest.

In reply to JeffCarroll:

All that's good, but my point was this is about profit. They could do something to help sensible parking to secure access without putting in the machines to take people's cash.

As you say, whenever there is a change in access or costs for access there are consequences. In this case parking on verges in gateways and suchlike.

In reply to GrahamD:


I agree. Unfair to have only local voting but impractical to elect on a national level, so a practical compromise in my post of 20.39 Friday

"To keep it practical these could be held at the same time as LA elections and drawn from electoral zones in and adjacent to the NP.
This way the NP councilors could represent both locals and most of the visitors. "

In reply to Wainers44:

Parking charges research has sown that cost increases do not necessarily result in long term behaviour changes: I.e. people will pay if it's within reasonable bounds.

In reply to Bulls Crack:


Not seen that work. All I can say is that short term parking, ie by locals taking the doggie for a quick run in the morning will change and move elsewhere. So a bit of thought about the charging period, even if only from that perspective would be a good idea.

From a non-residents point of view, its just another bit of the Lakes which will be neat, tidy, kerbed, drained, not to have a car left in it while I sleep under a rock somewhere. So in my view the place is poorer, while the owners are richer. Good for them?

In reply to Wainers44:

I'd rather see a sensitively managed car park than cars everywhere...or maybe no cars at all?

In reply to Bulls Crack:


Managed yes fine with sense on charging times, but no cars? Fine if you are a resident within walking distance. That's a "local" even by Dave C's standards!

In reply to 3leggeddog: could have said this myself. Totall agree I too remember that thought all those years ago.

In reply to Nigel Coe:

There is still plenty of time to object to this application.
This is the reply you will get if you object (below).

Objectors can speak at the meeting with advance warning, so all who consider this application to be Orwellian and a step way too far - get yourselves into gear and take them on. They are out of control.


Lake District National Park Authority
Murley Moss, Oxenholme Road
Kendal, Cumbria LA9 7RL

Telephone: 01539 724555

Fax 01539 740822

Minicom: 01539 792690

Email: hq@lake-district.gov.uk

Website: www.lake-district.gov.uk

Direct email: Mairi.Lock
@lakedistrict.gov.uk

Direct dial: 01539 792713

Our ref: DMST/7/2016/5577

Date: 26 September 2016


Dear

Application No: 7/2016/5577
Location: Little Arrow Moor, Walna Scar Road, Coniston
Proposal: Alterations to existing disused quarry to provide a 58 bay pay and display public car park

Thank you for your recent correspondence concerning the above planning application. I note that you wish to address the Development Control Committee should the opportunity arise.

What happens now?

Your views will be considered by the Case Planner, placed on the planning application file, summarised in the Case Planner’s report, and taken into account in our decision.

Members of the public are entitled to read all documents relating to an application including letters from objectors and supporters. We may also discuss your comments with the applicant in the hope of resolving any planning difficulties there might be.

How are decisions taken?

We take our decision by assessing each application, taking into account the views we receive. We prepare a written report. The Case Planner who assesses the application makes a recommendation, but he or she does not take the decision. The majority of decisions are taken under powers delegated to the Head of Development Management in line with our Scheme of Delegation. A small number of significant or more contentious applications are considered by our Development Control Committee.

Our Scheme of Delegation is available to view on our website www.lakedistrict.gov.uk.

Can I speak at Development Control Committee?

If this application is to be considered by the Development Control Committee we will notify you of the date of the meeting when the agenda is finalised and provide details of the procedures to be followed. You must then confirm your attendance. Only people who have registered and confirmed within the required timescale that they wish to speak will be able to address the Committee. The allocated time (five minutes) will have to be shared if more than one person wishes to speak.

The opportunity to speak for or against the application only arises if the application is reported to Committee for a decision. The reasons why an application goes to Committee is set out in our Scheme of Delegation (www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/dcc). An application will usually go to Committee if we receive 5 or more objections, if we have a difference of opinion to the views of the Parish Council, other than on design grounds or the applicant is a member of staff.

How do I find out the decision?

We will not contact you when a decision has been made. However you can follow the progress of the application and the outcome of the decision on our website www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/planningsearch, or by contacting our office between 9am and 5pm, Monday to Friday. We normally determine planning applications within two months, but occasionally, because of consultations or the submission of revised plans, it may take longer.

What happens to my comments if there is an appeal?

If we refuse an application, or fail to determine it within certain time limits, the applicant has a right of appeal. If there is an appeal your letter will be sent to the Secretary of State or the Inspector appointed to consider the matter together with other papers relevant to the appeal.

Yours sincerely

Development Management Support Team

In reply to Nigel Coe:

I don't really see what difference it makes. Personally I ignore the machines and never pay. On the rare occation I've had fines through the post they make great lighters for my log burner.

In reply to olddirtydoggy:

The difference? A bit more to spend on maintaining the rights of way network or paying NP salaries depending on how you want to look at it..

In reply to Bulls Crack:


Hardly maintaining the ROW network,
have you not noticed the " Walna Scar ROAD" is now limited to authorised vehicles only ( according to the notice ) !

In reply to Rick Graham:
Go Lakes? An increasingly good network of bridle-ways, aimed mostly at MTBs, all year round income for local busineses...yeah a bit more than maintenance I agree.....

And you want to drive right along Walna Scar, get that bit nearer to Dow?

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

Could you explain why consider the application to be Orwellian. Who is out of control and why?

In reply to The New NickB:

Its an aboriginal thing, I presume

In reply to Dave Cumberland:
It wont go to committee though, it will be delegated, much like the ridiculous oversized extension that somebody is doing behind our house that's in SLDC's planning remit, 9 complaints, didn't go to committee, was delegated and approved.....

In reply to Rick Graham:

You really have no idea how things work do you! 1/10 must do better.

In reply to Nigel Coe:
New to this forum. This is to no one in particular.

I submitted my objections a few weeks ago. Please be aware that this is a test case application with others awaiting the outcome and two ice cream vendors on the starting grid. Very briefly my objections are:

* ACCESS - is via a single track and in places, very steep road. Its state of repair varies as frost and wash-out requires regular patching. There are a number of passing places but it can be prone to congestion on busy days. This application is likely to lead to increased use as it attracts casual day use not just dedicated mountain users. It's the only road onto this section of moor so no one way system can operate.

It is likely to encourage increased use of the Coppermines access route - an even worse access road. The Tranearth access may also get used more (roadside parking is limited).

LOCATION - virtually all LD official P&D carparks are in valley bottoms or lower levels and screened by trees. They tend to be accessed from main roads. This application is on open moor and situated at the 750' level. It will be the first P&D first at this level and in this sort of open location; I suspect it will not be the last. If it succeeds prepare for the next application, but this will have set a precedence.

REASONS - those given are spurious and suggest a problem where none exists. They support the application, but have little basis in fact. Either way blocking access to the moor itself to any 4WD vehicle is problematic as there are many access points. Outside P&D parking (rogue parking) will be difficult to stop without extensive blocking. Some could occur even on the access road, which it doesn't currently. It creates more problems than it solves. It could even increase parking further along the track at the foot of the very steep old quarry road. This is not a road/track that can be legally blocked without a further change of status.

SECURITY - There would be a problem in terms of the management of this system and its security. Again ..... off the record mounted cameras are on the agenda. It is likely to be devolved to a private company.

At a personal level my objections would be that this is private application from Rydal estates and more about providing an additional revenue stream than any desire to solve a long standing problem. I am not against P&D carparks, but would need to be persuaded that in these types of location they lead to improvement, they have a sound rationale and some proceeds go into improving other aspects of the environment. I don't believe this application meets any of those criteria. In terms of charges inside information suggests in the region of £7/day .... but I don't know for sure. Whatever it's set at this can only increase over time. I really don't see this warrants laying even more tarmac.

In reply to aeros:

Why will the change from free to paid parking attract more visitors of the non-mountaineering kind? (We don't want them do we?)