UKC

Controversial plans to build a zipwire attraction across Thirlmere in the Lake District have been withdrawn today.

Read more

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

They haven't abandoned the project, they've just withdrawn the current application as they couldn't reach an agreement with the MOD in time.

I'm sure that once they've done this they'll submit a new application. Anyone know whether existing objections will be carried over or binned? 

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I good result, and hopefully one which will deter similar schemes in the future. I suspect that pointing to the MOD's concerns to justify withdrawing the plans was at least partly a face-saving exercise, and that the huge number of objections registered with the local authority made Treetop Trek realise that fighting on would be futile.

Now what is needed is some quality, sustainable sources of local employment for the area that don't treat the environment as a resource to be exploited.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Thanks Simon - we'd not appreciated that fine distinction. It's all in the small print! I've amended the piece to reflect that it's still unresolved longer term

In reply to Andy Johnson:

How does that work then, when the entire tourism industry is based on maximising the landscape, and anything that upsets the hill walking crowds visual pleasure is objected to  ? 

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

I don't think they will be carried over as if they resubmit it will have a different application number, sometimes used as a tactic in local planning, not sure on something on this scale though.

 

In reply to Andy Johnson:

Whilst you may consider it a good result, just note its a withdrawal. However I suspect that most people who voice similar views to yourself, are only doing it out of selfishness. Why you think this should this deter future schemes is beyond me. Is it because you don't want to see the lakes landscape being used by someone with imagination, because it's a "natural landscape". However the last thing the Lake District is, is an natural landscape. Whilst I fully agree that the Lakes are a beautiful place, the arguments that people have lauded about this zipwire are so narrow-minded that it's unbelievable. It's almost like people are saying....because the proposal is different then it MUST be wrong. There are two sides to this, and creating a vibrant dynamic economy in the Lakes is more important to facilitate the sustainable future of the Lakes, the place that we all love. The zipwire may  be wrong (who knows), but the arguments for and against it must be correct, and we should encourage future applicants, trust the planning system to deliver the correct decision, not be vitriolic or NIMBYs and welcome diversity. 

In reply to imacca:

I've given you a like, despite the use of vibrant, dynamic, sustainable, facilitate and diversity.

In reply to imacca:

Is there more to this proposal then than minimum wage jobs in "adventure tourism" as I'm not sure that could be accurately described as a vibrant dynamic economy as the entire Lakes economy seems to be based on tourism and minimum wage jobs.

In reply to imacca:

I don't think the Lake District is an authentic "natural landscape", but I do think it is (largely) a beautiful landscape. I want to protect that beauty and I object to visual intrusions that damage it. In my opinion the zip wire development would have done the latter.

I also don't think the proposal was imaginative - except maybe in the sense that (as far as I know) there are no long lake-crossing zip wires in this country (yet). In fact, I consider it pretty unimaginative because numerous zip wire developments exist across the country already. They're temporarily fashionable, like trampoline parks, but an imaginative proposal would have tried something new rather than simply attempting to cash-in on a trend.

Not a NIMBY either.

 

In reply to Henry Iddon:

The region needs well-playing jobs that are not completely or largely dependent on seasonal tourism, and which enable local people (particularly the young) to be able to stay in the area rather than moving away. Also decent, affordable housing for local people. A few minimum-wage, seasonal positions putting harnesses on tourists, or selling coffee and paninis in yet another visitor centre cafe, are not going help.

In reply to imacca:

I may be being selfish in wanting the National Parks to be preserved in their current state as much as possible.  Blackpool is just down the road if that sort of entertainment floats your boat rather than chocolate box scenery.

In reply to Henry Iddon:

1. The Lake District has a total population of around 40k, including kids and all those retirees so let's guess  about 20k of working age, although it's probably less and of course not all will work in tourism. It attracts about 16m visitors a year, spending  over £1.1bn, If they can't make money and provide jobs on those numbers they might as well pack it in now.

2. I visit the Lakes a lot and many workers I encounter are foreigners.  Others will be from othere parts of the UK and not as noticeable. Even so the fact they are having to bring in workers from across Europe suggests the problem is not a shortage of jobs but a shortage of workers. That is borne  out by warnings from the tourism industry that post-Brexit they fear they will struggle to get enough staff

In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

I'm sure there are some people making money but I imagine there is a lot of employment which is minimum wage, not exactly enough to get a mortgage on, or probably even rent, any property in the Lakes, especially with the price inflation form second homes, holiday lets etc.

In reply to imacca:

Oh dear. Do I detect a whiff of sour grapes?

"The zipwire may  be wrong (who knows)," - Everybody with common sense knows you dork  

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I'm on the fence with this one  another "venue" to attract tourists fair enough, if that is what the locals want,  but the issue in my mind is the lack of decent access, the road infrastructure can barely cope with the numbers as it is in summer, this theme park will just clog up the northern Lakes like the southern end around windermere, Ambleside.

Build some better roads. with parking to cope with the numbers, short term thinking in my mind.

In reply to galpinos:

 

Agreed and the zip wires will be more of the same. The well-paid   jobs in Cumbria are with local authorities and BNFLplus a few other smaller companies

 

In reply to imacca:

"creating a vibrant dynamic economy"  You must be a Herald reporter!

In reply to Andy Johnson:

What do you propose then, a big high-tech manufacturing plant or a nice shiny science park built on the shores of Windermere?  You'd be going into meltdown!

And where do you propose building al these house without the Friends of the Lake District having nervous breakdowns?

Serious question, instead of rejecting any proposals, what are your ideas to create decent, well paid and long-term employment that doesn't destroy your precious Lake District?

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

It's ironic that it's objections by the MOD - whose use of the area for low-level terrain hugging training flights could in itself be seen as highly controversial and objectionable in a NP - seem to have sunk, if only temporarily, this ill-conceived project. What about all the many objections made on the grounds of incompatibility with the purpose of National Park and World Heritage Site designation?

In reply to Lusk:

Not on the shores of Windermere. Why would anyone want to do that? But its seems to me that sensitively designed small scale manufacturing or science park type activities would work quite well in Kendal, Penryth, Whitehaven, Workington, and maybe on the east side of Windermere. Improved public transport would help. Small knowledge-based businesses (again, sensitively-designed buildings) could work in places like Ambleside and around the BNFL site. Improvements to broadband would make home-based businesses more possible.

I'm not a member of FotLD. I don't know much about their policies and don't necessarily agree with them on everything. How about new houses in Ulverston and (again) Ambleside, designed in a local style and reserved for long-term local people rather than AirBnB? Add a small number (<5) in a few larger villages, again reserved long-term for local people. Low impact. Introduce controls on the use of houses for holiday rental.

I don't object to any (by which I assume you mean all) proposals, but I do object to this one.

Economic development isn't my speciality, but there are plenty of people who know how to do it. Put them in a room with people who focus on landscape protection, social development, farming, tourism, etc. and help them find solutions that work.

In reply to Andy Johnson:

Have you ever been to any of the places you mention above, all of them have science parks or industrial estates, Kendal has quite a lot of manufacturing businesses, I happen to work at one of them. You might want to do some research before suggesting we build things that are already built......

 

 

In reply to Rog Wilko:

Personally I think he should have let it run its course so that the planners could have reported back their opinions, then he would have the full picture on what is/isn't allowed. 

In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

You've put your finger on a very important part of the Brexit horror show that few people seem to be talking about. The shortage of motivated indigenous staff is bad enough already.

 

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I didn't express clearly enough what I meant. I.e. The problem of staffing, given the shortage of motivated indigenous staff, is bad enough already.

In reply to Dark-Cloud:

I've never been to Workington, and only ever driven past BNFL on occasions, but I've been to all the others multiple/many times.

So if a thing exists in a place then it's not possible to have more of that thing in that place. Is that your point?

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Yay!

In reply to Andy Johnson:

What I am saying is there is infrastructure to suppprt small and large scale manufacturing in all those locations, it’s already developed.

In reply to Dark-Cloud:

Yeah, pretty much. All that stuff's already there like. 

In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

There are 500,000 people almost in "Cumbria", and it is and always has been a mixed economy with hugely varied industries as in Barrow, Wigton, Carlisle, Penrith and elsewhere - all over in fact. Nothing dominates (BNFL is very minor), but certainly tourism kills everything it touches, as per second homes/holiday rentals and country cottages. Local authorities only have the ability to employ for basic services, and then dependent on private sector revenue.

DC

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Decent career prospects and more than minimum wage might help motivation.

There's definately a need for staff from outside the Lakes, (and the UK), it's pretty much impossible to have a decent standard of living on hospitality industry wages.

In reply to Rog Wilko:

Roj, I believe we need a well-trained air-force, and as all Lakes climbers know, there is nothing so exciting as having a Typhoon pass the crag at 400 knots just as you are on a crux move.

Anyway, much rather have the RAF flying about rather than Treetop treks clients.

DC

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

I'd hardly describe Sellafield Ltd, (it's not been BNFL for a few years), as 'minor'. It, and the supply chain, are pretty much the only thing propping up the economy of Maryport, Cockermouth, Workington and Whitehaven. There's also the trickle down from the employees into the car dealerships, kitchen fitters, pubs and restaurants.

West Cumbria really needs decent transport and internet infrastructure to bring in new industries.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

What on earth does 'almost in Cumbria' mean? Am I perhaps 'almost in France' or Germany or Russia perhaps? I quoted the official population stat for the NP which has clearly defined boundaries

  Local authorities only have the ability to employ for basic services, and then dependent on private sector revenue.

Exactly! But that's what we were talking out - well-paid employment, not revenue production

 

In reply to Dark-Cloud:

So by extension there is no need to hack about with what is a national resource in the national park to provide a few seasonal low paid jobs ?

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

Ahh, so 'local Lake District' for 'Local People' eh ?

You do come out with some rubbish sometimes.  Tourism is the Lake District.  It always has been. 

Regulation of second homes is a totally separable issue to tourism - the vast majority of visitors to the Lakes don't own second homes, they spend money in the area.

Something you might be able to answer is how do people actually go about buying properties within the National Park ? I didn't think it was that easy to actually do.

 

In reply to GrahamD:

Cumbria/Lake district Total tourism income 2016: £2.72 billion

Tourism is indeed the Lakes

 

The 'outdoor sport and recreation industry contributes £250 million a year to Cumbria's economy c5000 people employed in c400 businesses (Cumbria Vision 2008)

In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

Means 485,000 not 500,000.

DC

In reply to GrahamD:

 

Total rubbish. It is and always has been a mixed economy. Tourism is indeed NOT dominant in the Lakes. Very quiet large parts of the year - visitors don't get that much time off and they also go elsewhere.

There are many more people employed in the quangos that run the place alone. Let alone other sectors.

 

In reply to GrahamD:

:-/ I have no idea what you are talking about, the comment was about science parks and manufacturing facilities in larger populated areas already being there, that hardly goes hand in hand with seasonal low paid jobs.

In reply to Dark-Cloud:

Exactly.  So why do people make out that creating a few seasonal low paid jobs is necessary to provide employment in the area ? Compared with many parts of the UK places like Kendal are doing very well.

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

So what other significant contributors to the economy other than tourism has the Lake District had in, say, the last 100 years ? Quarrying and Farming ?  Foot and mouth made it very plain how much the Lakes wants and needs tourism.

I've never been to the Lakes when its been 'very quiet' any time of year.  

In reply to GrahamD:

OK, gotcha, agreed. Probably because they don't live and work in the area and never have so don't know what the area does and doesn't need, hence my first reply.

 

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

The planners have just released their draft response under a freedom of information request. It runs to 40 pages and would have recommended rejection on multiple points.

In reply to UKC/UKH News I live just up road from this site - the statement above that the Lakes are 'largely dependent on seasonal tourism' is true to a point but you can soon delete the 'seasonal' bit. Sure there is a dip in tourists late January - but you try getting a parking spot outside my house for the other 50 weeks of the year. You try keeping the Saga over 50's crew from parking their Crossovers round here  For the record (and Im well aware my opinion is usually ignored) I love zip wires - god I even like the crappy little one in Keswick and Ambleside play parks (err and my young kid likes it too- well accept at half term when he has to fight the visitors off it because its pissing with rain and there is nothing else for them to do) . However, I personally think it was a crappy place to propose a big one ,and whilst Cumbria really does need entepreneurs with great new ideas to help develop and diversify the local economy this really wasnt one. Plenty of other places tie your bit of string and cash in on the 'extreme' adventure. 

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Suggest you read the Draft By the LDNP released today... The application would have been turned down for many reasons ...See    www.Lakedistrict.gov.uk.

In reply to weeve:

West Cumbria.

 

In reply to GrahamD:

Very easy if you have money

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

If you see the DRAFT by the LDNP released today the MOD objection was only one of many reasons the Zip Wire would have been rejected.

In reply to Rog Wilko:

That has been dealt with in the DRAFT issued today by the LDNP.  www.Lakedistrict.gov.uk 

 

In reply to weeve:

I really wouldn't complain about tourists visiting cumbria given the amount the region relies on the rest of the UK visiting...

In reply to Dave Cumberland:

Ah I see. You meant 'there are almost 500,000 people in Cumbria'; not '500,000 people almost in Cumbria', which is what you wrote. That makes more sense. However, as I said, we are talking about the national park not the county

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

 

Hmmm.

Typical Nimby attitude. 

If I lived there I would rather hear people having fun (as I'm sure it would be), than hear the low flying RAF jets. I suppose with all the wars we keep getting drawn into in these hot desert countries we need to practice our low level flying over water.

Its also a National Park - hence it belongs to the people of Britain - not the MOD

 

Rant over

In reply to lee birtwistle:

Don't think it's as simple as a typical nimby attitude. There are a tremendous amount of other factors that would have surely led to a refusal. The draft LDNP response document is quite revealing showing the varied and complex reasons against a zip wire in that location and the level of opposition.

In reply to lee birtwistle:

 

I concur.

 

In reply to Andy Johnson:

Indeed. Zipwires and surf parks (and a fecking trampoline) have brought a very limited amount of seasonal employment to Snowdonia but I haven't noticed much improvement to the local economy. The number of visitors to the park (mostly to visit those attractions) has increased, but there isn't much evidence that their local spend has changed that much.

My belief is that these fixed adventure-tourism venues look great on paper and for organisations promoting tourism in the area (Visit Wales etc) but don't actually bring much to the area, economically or otherwise. Improvement in local infrastructure (see rural broadband thread) would promote a more diverse economy whilst still making the parks attractive to visitors. 

In reply to lee birtwistle:

Yes, it belongs to the people, and the vast majority of the people who responded were against the application. It went against so many of the National Park policies there was virtually no chance of it being accepted.

In reply to Andy Johnson:

....like what??? A constructive response would be useful, rather than simply saying "don't want it!"

 

In reply to imacca:

Remember one of our finest mountaineers resigning over zip wires?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-20962828

Some people have more vision and sense of fun than your average nimby, chocolate box cottage inhabiting, retired accountant, solicitor or the like.

In reply to Lusk:

On the other hand, maybe Sir Chris (like many people) have an idea of where something is appropriate, will fit, will have a positive impact, but also where something isnt appropriate, doesnt fit, and will only positively impact the profit line of the applicant?

 

In reply to Lusk:

I think Bonners was probably right about the Honister zip wire – because that, after all, is a disused quarry. The Thirlmere concept is very different. The 'thin end of the wedge' argument is very strong. I remember, many decades ago, how much many Swiss skiing resorts - particularly when warm weather meant they were having some bad seasons - were rueing the day that they'd given permission for so many ski runs that had scarred their landscape and made them very unattractive in summer. Same thing happened on Aonach Mor next to Ben Nevis.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I'm not totally convinced. Honister Pass was already an overly busy small road .

Anyhow, this thread needs linking in as PYB and MTT supported the Thirlmere application

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/rocktalk/thirlmere_ziplinebmc_and_mountai...

In reply to Simon Caldwell: They will not be automatically carried over. You'll need to respond again separately.

 

In reply to Lusk:

http://www.cumberlandnews.co.uk/news/Bonington-Bragg-Bellamy-and-an-earl-ho...

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Zip Off are reporting that United Utilities have withdrawn support for the zip wire development, effectively killing it.

https://twitter.com/ZipOffThirlmere/status/969279653042061313?s=17