UKC

/ NEWS: Controversial Kings House Refurb Plans Approved

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
UKC/UKH News - on 06 Feb 2018
Kings House Hotel Refurb Plans Approved, 4 kbControversial plans to give the historic Kings House Hotel in Glen Coe - one of Scotland's oldest licensed inns - a complete 'industrial style' overhaul have been given the go-ahead by Highland Council, despite appeals from conservation groups and mountaineering councils to reconsider the proposal. The hotel dates back to the 17th Century and is an important hub in Scottish climbing lore, in addition to its appeal as a landmark and pub stop on the West Highland Way.

Read more
Michael Gordon - on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Looks absolutely hideous!

Dave Kerr - on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I believe that roofline is what Kevin McCloud would call 'an architectural nod to the surrounding mountains'.

yesbutnobutyesbut - on 06 Feb 2018
keith-ratcliffe on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Welcome to Marriottpremiertravelibis Rannoch!

Dave Cumberland - on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Architecture dictates behaviour. This work should be done with local stone, local timber and slates and should harmonise with the history and traditions and scenery. That's what creating a valuable vernacular is all about. A bit of chrome and glass is fine but the design has to stand the test of time. This is an iconic hotel, I remember well the pizzas and the 80 shillings after days on the Ben. So much modern architecture is cheap rubbish and never looks good twenty years hence. A good architect could create a future icon.

DC

jonnie3430 - on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

You're not going to see it unless you're on top of it. 

Seems more like mcos are going off in the wrong direction again (don't get me started on them and wind farms.) I'd much rather they ensure the free camping stays, something used by hundreds of young Scots every year.

They should be supporting the views of the young, their future, instead of alienating them and supporting the old, their past.

Post edited at 10:15
Greasy Prusiks on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to Dave Kerr:

Ie instead of designing something in keeping with the old building (which requires investing time and money) we've come up with a cheap gimmick to get through planning. 

nileferd - on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Tradition trashed by commercial greed!

Toccata on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Even with my best 'arty-farty' head on that is lazy, cliched and ugly.

pasbury on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

That really looks shite. Like a giant cowshed.

Agree with Dave Cumberland that vernacular design and use of local materials should be first priority here, of all places, where it'll be visible for about 50 sq miles.

Simon Caldwell - on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to jonnie3430:

> You're not going to see it unless you're on top of it. 

 

Really? Have you seen the size of it? It's going to dwarf the existing buildings.

jonnie3430 - on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to Greasy Prusiks:

Fortunately technology has moved on a little bit from 60s buildings and solid stone walls, their thermal efficiency is howling and we should get as far away from that as possible.

The kingy is in the middle of nowhere, even from the buachaille it's a white blob and it's not easily seen from the A82, is it the visual impact of people visiting the hotel that folks are moaning about? Don't go there then! No problem anymore.

Mark Collins - on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

D*mn I was too slow, and am now forced to remove it from my Hotel Bucket List.

Achieved:
Old Dungeon Ghyll
Wasdale Head Inn

Still to Go:
Sligachan Hotel
Pen-Y-Gwryd Hotel

ChrisJD on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

That's an ugly design.

Mountaineering Scotland's formal objection was a bit weak and 'thin'. 

Steve Perry - on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

That looks crap, end of.

spidermonkey09 - on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I really don't think thats too bad to be honest. Its a matter of taste like anything else, and I'm no friend of council planning departments, but I've certainly seen far worse. Incidentally thats a terrible objection letter which doesn't really say anything beyond 'we don't like it...'

Post edited at 11:02
jonnie3430 - on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to Mark Collins:

The accommodation is not going to be worse!  I hope the climbers (actually a West Highland way bar, but that's not so romantic,) bar stays, and the free camping, though I usually head to the main bar these days.

Greasy Prusiks on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to jonnie3430:

> Fortunately technology has moved on a little bit from 60s buildings and solid stone walls, their thermal efficiency is howling and we should get as far away from that as possible.

I agree with you on that. I'm suggesting that you can design a modern building with modern insulation and technology that uses some traditional materials and design to sympathise with the aesthetics of the old building. 

> The kingy is in the middle of nowhere, even from the buachaille it's a white blob and it's not easily seen from the A82, is it the visual impact of people visiting the hotel that folks are moaning about? Don't go there then! No problem anymore.

I'm not sure that saying anything that's out of sight of a road is fair game for developement is a good plan. 

 

MG - on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to Dave Cumberland:

Don't often agree with you but you are right here.  Something on a similar scale would possibly be OK if it was sympathetic to the landscape rather than fighting it.

Lusk - on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to spidermonkey09:

This is interesting:
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/D7BB/production/_98072255_kingshouse.jpg
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/11D85/production/_98639037_newhotel.jpg

One looks considerably better than the other.  Don't know which is the latest.

Kevin Woods - on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to Lusk:

Seeing those two images, the difference primarily seems to be in the colour. The darker colours keep the original white building prominent. That's a bit like the Clachaig - the original building is really obvious, while the (massive) extensions are all dulled. Whether that was intentional or not I have no idea, but it looks like it works.

Also a minor point about the UKC article; the Kingshouse is mid-18th Century.

Dave Cumberland - on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to jonnie3430:

> Fortunately technology has moved on a little bit from 60s buildings and solid stone walls, their thermal efficiency is howling and we should get as far away from that as possible.

Traditional materials and solid walls are perfectly compatible with good insulation in the hands of an architect with a brain. It is crucially important to build something that survives fashion, contemporary cost-cutting, poor materials and tat, unfortunately many architects are brain-dead and ego-driven, wishing to make statements that are almost as bad as sh1tting and walking away.

Smart architects as we see from past endeavours build a legacy of quality and harmony for the future. It starts with construction common-sense and it ends with aesthetic beauty.

DC

 

Mark Collins - on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to jonnie3430:

> The accommodation is not going to be worse!

I suppose once you're inside the accommodation you don't have to look at the exterior, I can see the logic in that. Its still not working for me though to be honest.

> I hope the climbers (actually a West Highland way bar, but that's not so romantic,) bar stays, and the free camping, though I usually head to the main bar these days.

Likewise. I also liked the new/temporary hostel and bar that was in place next door when I visited last year.

Toccata on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to Mark Collins:

> D*mn I was too slow, and am now forced to remove it from my Hotel Bucket List.

> Achieved:

> Old Dungeon Ghyll

> Wasdale Head Inn

> Still to Go:

> Sligachan Hotel

> Pen-Y-Gwryd Hotel

Oooh good list. For historic climbing connections, add The Pack Horse at Gorple (read Dennis Gray 'Tight' and 'Slack'), Little John in Hathersage (ditto), Nevisport Bar and The Clachaig. Worth a thread on its own.

Stew99 on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

We, climbers, as a group need to be careful to manage our own input on this type of change.  Too much of the time the collective outdoor community can be relied upon to not support any change in the environment at all, ever, no matter what the change is.  This reduces the weight of our voice in the discussion.  When submitting the planning proposal they could probably have written the objection they new they would receive from the outdoor community for them.  We are painting ourselves into a unimportant corner.

The reality is that the Kingy was a falling down mess (arguably because they let it get that way on purpose so that they had grounds for redevelopment ... but we can't control that bit so no point on dwelling on it).   Change was inevitable.  The days of keeping a Dos out the back door for closed group of friends was long over and never going to be kept going by the new owners.  We would have better positioned ourselves as partners in the process than objectors standing at the side line.  Or voice would carry more weight when we contribute constructively rather than preaching on high about the damage to "our" Glen Coe.  

Example:  A new hut for a new (NOT existing) open, modern, diverse and progressive climbing club integrated into the design is an example of what could have been a great feature to have pushed for ... if we had positioned ourselves as partners in the inevitable renovation rather than the obstructive status quo defenders.  (Just a thought)

I agree - I don't like the look of what they propose either.  I would hazard a guess that they'll stick in a mighty bus park there too.  I'm surprised they haven't managed to elbow some sort of whisky experience either.

I miss camping out the back, being eaten my midges and the random climber who drank too much struggling to make it out his/her tent for a p1ss at 2am.

Flinticus - on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to jonnie3430:

Can they not do both? Stupid 'either / or' argument.

And why the young? Why not all people interested in the outdoors and our mountain / rural environment? After all you are only young for a short time and your views will likely change! 

Rob Parsons on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to Dave Cumberland:

> Architecture dictates behaviour.

What do you mean by that phrase in this context?

> This work should be done with local stone, local timber and slates and should harmonise with the history and traditions and scenery.

The only Scottish vernacular I can think of would be white-washed stone.

> This is an iconic hotel, I remember well the pizzas and the 80 shillings after days on the Ben. So much modern architecture is cheap rubbish and never looks good twenty years hence. A good architect could create a future icon.

Bzzzt. Sorry - you used the word 'iconic.'

Next!

As for me: I think it looks okay and I don't particularly understand the fuss. It's not as if the top of Glencoe is a 'wilderness area': there's a f*cking highway running through it!

 

Mark Collins - on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to Toccata:

> Oooh good list. For historic climbing connections, add The Pack Horse at Gorple (read Dennis Gray 'Tight' and 'Slack'), Little John in Hathersage (ditto), Nevisport Bar and The Clachaig. Worth a thread on its own.

Thanks. It has been a thread, probably more than one over the years, and subsequent magazine article(s), none of which I can claim credit for. Don't know The Pack Horse at Gorple, will look it up thanks. Yes, forgot about the Clachaig (how could I) and have stayed in The Little John before. Perhaps The Rock Inn on the other side should get a mention also. O oh, I think we're in danger of subverting the original purpose of this thread.

Simon Caldwell - on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Another image here showing the size relative to the old building

https://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/news/mountaineers-object-to-kings-house-plans/0016935/

pasbury on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to Rob Parsons:

So, let me get that clear, Rannoch Moor isn't a wilderness area?

tom_in_edinburgh - on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

It's horrible.

If they really need to build something the thing that would look really good in that environment is a massive Hogwarts-style castle.

Robert Durran - on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> As for me: I think it looks okay and I don't particularly understand the fuss. It's not as if the top of Glencoe is a 'wilderness area': there's a f*cking highway running through it!

So it's ok to build anything you anywhere as long as it is next to a road?

 

jonnie3430 - on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to pasbury:

The bit next to the hotel and the ski resort isn't.

Robert Durran - on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to pasbury:

> So, let me get that clear, Rannoch Moor isn't a wilderness area?


I don't think the issue has got anything to do with "wilderness" and therefore whether Rannoch Moor (or the bit of it near the road) counts as "wilderness"!

Goucho on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Is this a new Bernard Mathews turkey farm?

What a crock of unimaginative, bland characterless shite!

It has all the architectural charm and creativity of a Kwik-Fit depot, and is no doubt designed down to a budget, by an accountant. 

Brown envelope time down at the planning department again?

HarrisonConnie1996 - on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

It's certainly not going to win any awards for looks, but in terms of an upgrade it's much needed.

Besides, I can think of worse things to stain the Scottish landscape, Fort William for example! 

jon on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to HarrisonConnie1996:

> It's certainly not going to win any awards for looks, but in terms of an upgrade it's much needed.

But it doesn't have to look like a battery chicken farm.

 

Flinticus - on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to Stew99:

What is 'change' in the environment? Me? I provide support for re-forestry initiatives, extensions of National Park areas, path building in over-walked honey pots etc. These are change too. Its not that I (can't speak for anyone else) seek to object to anything proposed or new. Most of what I oppose is not specifically a change to the environment but an erosion of it, a reduction. And if it is going to be nibbled away, at least they could do it with some style, harmony and imagination.

Yes, we could better position ourselves as partners but were they looking for partners? Is there a way to insert ourselves, whether represented via the BMC, JMT etc. into the drawing up of initial plans? I doubt, but could be wrong, that commercial enterprises would welcome 'us' into the process.

Michael Gordon - on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to Lusk:

> This is interesting:

> One looks considerably better than the other.  Don't know which is the latest.

Yes, the brown colour is much less jarring.

pass and peak - on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

So lets see if I can get this straight, the original building build in the 1800 hundreds or whenever is still there and going strong, yet the extensions that were build 50 years or so ago are dilapidated and in need of been pulled down and been replaced with WHAT! I can't help thinking their slow learners up there!

Stew99 on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to Flinticus:

Evening Flinticus.

I don't deny your points aren't valid - they are - but it's not what I'm, poorly, getting at.  

The minute a read this article I knew exactly what the comments section was going to be filled with before I opened it up and I was right. Howl's of anger, disapproval, "shame on them!", "let's get them arrested!", "we own Glen Coe!" ... it's predictable.

My point is that we, the collective outdoor/climbing community, consistently position ourselves as the objectors to change/defenders of the status quo and then act so deeply surprised that the rest of the world rolls right over the top of us.  What were we expecting?  We always do this.  Everyone knows we always do this.  You are practically guaranteed that the architects will have prepared a brief to debunk the inevitable positions we were predisposed to take.  

In this particular case ... change was coming.  It's been coming for 10 years, if not 20, to this building/site.  The building was rotten.  The previous owner had provided zero money to keep up with maintenance.  It was a given that it was going to get a complete overhaul. 

I am not suggesting for a minute that in this case they would have taken any of our points on board had we offered them constructively or in partnership.  What I am saying is that it was inevitable that outdoor community choose our default position to block, object to and complain later when we achieved nothing.  

Maybe it cannot be changed.  Or maybe there is another way.  Maybe we missed a door wide open here to making climbing part of the new development of the Kingy.  Or maybe they would have wanted nothing to do with us as they plan their million pound 3D whisky + haggis hunting mega-fest.

I guess we'll never know if we continue to oppose oppose oppose. 

Just an idea ... 

Goucho on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to Stew99:

> Evening Flinticus.

> I don't deny your points aren't valid - they are - but it's not what I'm, poorly, getting at.  

> The minute a read this article I knew exactly what the comments section was going to be filled with before I opened it up and I was right. Howl's of anger, disapproval, "shame on them!", "let's get them arrested!", "we own Glen Coe!" ... it's predictable.

> My point is that we, the collective outdoor/climbing community, consistently position ourselves as the objectors to change/defenders of the status quo and then act so deeply surprised that the rest of the world rolls right over the top of us.  What were we expecting?  We always do this.  Everyone knows we always do this.  You are practically guaranteed that the architects will have prepared a brief to debunk the inevitable positions we were predisposed to take.  

> In this particular case ... change was coming.  It's been coming for 10 years, if not 20, to this building/site.  The building was rotten.  The previous owner had provided zero money to keep up with maintenance.  It was a given that it was going to get a complete overhaul. 

> I am not suggesting for a minute that in this case they would have taken any of our points on board had we offered them constructively or in partnership.  What I am saying is that it was inevitable that outdoor community choose our default position to block, object to and complain later when we achieved nothing.  

> Maybe it cannot be changed.  Or maybe there is another way.  Maybe we missed a door wide open here to making climbing part of the new development of the Kingy.  Or maybe they would have wanted nothing to do with us as they plan their million pound 3D whisky + haggis hunting mega-fest.

> I guess we'll never know if we continue to oppose oppose oppose. 

> Just an idea ... 

I'm not against the Kingshouse being redeveloped into a viable concern. I'd much prefer this as opposed to it being left to rot and decay.

And, from a business perspective, I can fully understand that as the climbing community are not likely to be a particularly profitable target market, they are hardly likely to consider us - this is after all, a commercial business investment, not an altruistic gesture.

I just wish they'd shown some architectural imagination and consideration for the history and character of the surrounding landscape - which after all, is the primary reason why tourists go to Glencoe in the first place.

Done properly, with creative thinking and care, they could have had a win win situation on their hands, instead of controversy and criticism. 

 

 

 

 

Post edited at 22:48
pasbury on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to jonnie3430:

Take off those blinkers.

By the way is this an ‘enabling’ project for the ski facilities?

pasbury on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I don't think the issue has got anything to do with "wilderness" and therefore whether Rannoch Moor (or the bit of it near the road) counts as "wilderness"!

I’m at a loss to understand what you mean. On one point, the presence of a road doesn’t matter. If it did then ribbon development would be permitted anywhere just because of the road.

buffalo606 - on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to jonnie3430:

> You're not going to see it unless you're on top of it. 

As one of the biggest cow sheds in the glen it's going to be quite visible.

https://goo.gl/maps/mATGgh37xam

 

olddirtydoggy - on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Looks like the Glenmore Lodge. I wonder if they should pull that down?

Michael Gordon - on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to olddirtydoggy:

Glenmore Lodge is well hidden in a tree-filled valley, not sitting on top of an empty moor and visible from miles around.

jonnie3430 - on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to buffalo606:

Less than that though, 4/5 the of the white is being replaced by more muted colours.

Rob Parsons on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to pasbury:

> By the way is this an ‘enabling’ project for the ski facilities?

That's an interesting speculation, which we can revisit in ten years time or so - but it has nothing to do with the aesthetic aspects being discussed here, does it?

Btw I still want to know what Dave Cumberland meant by the phrase 'architecture dictates behaviour', in this specific context.

 

summo on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

How hard can it be to consider stone walls and a turf/green roof etc..

I guess their counter argument will be all the ski rows up the road. 

Dave Cumberland - on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> Btw I still want to know what Dave Cumberland meant by the phrase 'architecture dictates behaviour', in this specific context.

It is blindingly obvious and self-evident that good architecture is uplifting and creates a warm feeling of well-being, e.g:

A traditional pub with beer pumps, a good fire, no gaming machines or pounding music.

A cathedral or church.

A fine school. A historic country house, rural cottage or classic townhouse.

By contrast, architectural brutalism perfected by totalitarian regimes in eastern Europe and parts of UK inner cities create a legacy of tension and discomfort. Bad ergonomics, bad design persists in depressing people. Classic example is Carlisle hospital - has never been right from day one - not enough parking, massive waste of internal space, poor ergonomics, looks pretty grim too and was not created with a close involvement of the locals.

Poor architecture also tends to need constant maintenance, scaffolding, looks tatty very quickly and causes future problems, the human impact is quite draining.

ditchy - on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to Stew99:

I can't help but agree with you. At times it's like King Kanut!

My fear is that this is a trojan horse for the windfarm at the eastern end of this estate. Hoefully this redevelopment won't be used as a way of saying "look, that went through and it can be seen for miles around, why not a windfarm?"

That sounds very knee jerk reaction but I am getting quite cynical and can't help thinking this is part of a bargaining agreement with the highland council.

Eric9Points - on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

So the consensus is that it's fine to redevelop the building, just don't make it look like a pig's arse.

 

Seems like a wasted opportunity to me. The building could have been Jewel set in the middle of that remarkable view you get as you descend from Rannoch moor. Instead we will be presented with the sight of yet another dreary and unimaginative design taking away another little bit of wildness from Glencoe.

Post edited at 08:47
The New NickB - on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to Dave Cumberland:

You are Charles Windsor and I claim my £5.

 

 

HarrisonConnie1996 - on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to jon:

I honestly don't think it looks that bad - perhaps its a generational thing! 

At the end of the day it serves a purpose - It's hardly anymore of a scar on the landscape than the current structure or others nearby. I very much doubt in years to come people will still be maoning about whether it has a stone finish or a timber cladding!

I just hope they don't do away with the little camping spot over the bridge :D 

HarrisonConnie1996 - on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to summo:

Perhaps its not in the budget - maybe you could chip in for some stone walls and a green roof? ;) 

Post edited at 09:37
Rob Parsons on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to Dave Cumberland:

> By contrast, architectural brutalism perfected by totalitarian regimes in eastern Europe and parts of UK inner cities create a legacy of tension and discomfort. Bad ergonomics, bad design persists in depressing people. Classic example is Carlisle hospital - has never been right from day one - not enough parking, massive waste of internal space, poor ergonomics, looks pretty grim too and was not created with a close involvement of the locals.

 

Weird that you mention that place: I visited it last weekend for the first time ever. It was only a short visit to one specific ward, but I thought as a hospital it seemed excellent: the entrance area is spacious and full of light (is that your 'massive waste of internal space'?), and there is loads of parking. Cheap parking, too. What are the specific ergonomics problems you're talking about?

Your final item - not created with a close involvement of the locals - seems a little odd. What do you want: a modern hospital? Or a Cumbrian theme park?

 

Post edited at 09:29
Hat Dude on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

It's suddenly occurred to me that the architect may have been taking his "inspiration" for the new development from old distillery bonded storage buildings.

Doesn't make it any better though!

Rob Parsons on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to Dave Cumberland:

I should also reply to this, since you were answering my question to you.

> By contrast, architectural brutalism perfected by totalitarian regimes in eastern Europe and parts of UK inner cities create a legacy of tension and discomfort.

I don't see any visual connection between brutalism and the pictured design here. You are over-egging the pudding.

> Poor architecture also tends to need constant maintenance, scaffolding, looks tatty very quickly and causes future problems, the human impact is quite draining.

All that I agree with. Do you have specific criticisms of the pictured design in those respects?

My own would be to question how well the overall design of the roof - with its multiple valleys - will cope with heavy snowfall.

thepodge on 07 Feb 2018

The problem here is no one can agree. 

Some want an iconic building

Some want something that looks 300 years old

Some want it to blend in (like a farm building perhaps)

Some want it to not look like a cow shed 

 

Dauphin on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Darker one on Covell Mathews looks fine. Be interested to see it placed in a 3D landscape model.  

Lots of wailing and nashing off teeth about nought. Most of buildings in the Glen look less photogenic / ecophilic. 

D

 

MG - on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to thepodge:

> The problem here is no one can agree. 

> Some want an iconic building

> Some want something that looks 300 years old

> Some want it to blend in (like a farm building perhaps)

> Some want it to not look like a cow shed 

There is nothing contradictory about those wishes, except perhaps the 300 year one.

Stew99 on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to Goucho:

That's a fair comment.  Thanks.

Rob Parsons on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to thepodge:

> The problem here is no one can agree. 

 

Who cares about a discussion on this website? The developers and the planners obviously agree.

 

 

Stew99 on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to ditchy:

Hah - King Canute - that sums our collective approach to change well!  (Although I seam to recall King Canute story actually being about how he could not control the incoming tide rather than example of how we could?  I will google that ...)

You might be right.  Thin end of the wedge is definitely worth a discussion.  Although based on some of the conversation on this thread ... short of complete reforestation of the glen no building was going to have looked particular natural in the setting.  The reality is that it's barren spot.  Whatever goes in there ... is going to stick out/you are going to see for the top of every hill.

A grass roof wouldn't have gone a miss.

My bet:  Let's all wait for the next "wilderness development" story.  Then let's look at the first ~20 comments on the thread.  I'll bet they will basically be the same as this one.  We will have positioned ourselves on that next development exactly as we did with this one.

Laters!

Rob Parsons on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to Stew99:

> Hah - King Canute - that sums our collective approach to change well!  (Although I seam to recall King Canute story actually being about how he could not control the incoming tide rather than example of how we could?  I will google that ...)

 

Exactly. The point of the King Canute story is regularly misunderstood. As you say, his point was to demonstrate to obsequious courtiers that he could *not* control the tide.

Enough from me on this thread, I think.

 

 

Eric9Points - on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Well yes but it's still going to look like a pig's arse. I think people were expressing opinions without the expectation that the design was going to change.

Simon Caldwell - on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to Stew99:

> My point is that we, the collective outdoor/climbing community, consistently position ourselves as the objectors to change

Didn't Mountaineering Scotland support the original proposals, and only raised an objection after they changed the design?

Simon Caldwell - on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to HarrisonConnie1996:

> It's certainly not going to win any awards for looks

I wouldn't put any money on that!

Stew99 on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Don't disagree.  End state though ... they opposed it.

We can either shout from the sidelines or take part in the process and steer it towards the direction we think it should go.  Shouting from the sidelines got us nowhere.  They designed and got approved a building without any input from the climbing community.  (I've already conceded above that had we offered partnership it doesn't mean they would have accepted it)

There are other ways to change things other than objecting and defending the status Quo.

Eric9Points - on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to Stew99:

What do you suggest?

The New NickB - on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to Stew99:

What do you want Mountaineering Scotland to do? They supported an application to increase the hotel capacity from 45 to 80 rooms, with a design, which not amazing, did at least consider the impact of building to a certain extent.

From what I can work out, the new application seeks an addition 25 rooms, increasing the size of the extension by 70% and losing sone of the design considerations. I can fully understand a need to increase the numbers of rooms from 45 to make financially viable, however increasing it from 80 to 105 really makes me want to see the original viability. Rubbishy would be better qualified than me to comment, but my initial thoughts would be that they are taking the piss.

What could Mountaineering Scotland do, they either object or they don’t, there are no other options.

I speak as a planner and someone generally in favour of development.

The New NickB - on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I’m a little confused. The 2015 approved application gives a capacity of 80 rooms, the 2017 application talks about a target of 60 rooms (achieving 57), however there is no mention of the existing 45 rooms.

Simon Caldwell - on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to Stew99:

> We can either shout from the sidelines or take part in the process and steer it towards the direction we think it should go.

And if it goes in a direction we don;t like we're expected to just roll over and accept it? That seems to be what you're suggesting.

summo on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to HarrisonConnie1996:

> Perhaps its not in the budget - maybe you could chip in for some stone walls and a green roof? ;) 

A building that looks good, is cheap long term to maintain, cheap to heat etc.. will pay for itself at that location in the long run. 

It is in a location where you would never get planning for a new build, the views, good access, year round tourists, history etc.. I don't grasp how badly managed some things really are. 

Post edited at 17:14
pasbury on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to HarrisonConnie1996:

> Perhaps its not in the budget - maybe you could chip in for some stone walls and a green roof? ;) 


I think you inadvertently make a good point. The budget. A three story building with four gables is a bit of a statement of intent isn't it. Fill 'em all up or go bust. A more modest proposal would be cheaper and easier to make into a sustainable business.

There's something deeply suspicious going on here.

Stew99 on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to The New NickB:

Evening (all).

I'm clearly making a pigs ear out of my point (I'm close to surrender don't worry ... )

My point isn't that a different outcome could have been achieved in this specific case.  My point is to highlight the inevitability of where the outdoor community ended up when planning permission was granted - in opposition - as usual.   You don't need to read a word of the article other than the headline to know immediately that it's going to be "Evil new development in nature beauty spot - shock & horror!".

It's the same across the entire UK - we're becoming polarised.  Us and the them.  Good and evil.  Climbers and rural developers.  It doesn't need to be this binary - there might be other models that "might" make the net outcome, across all rural development attempts, finalise more in the favour of the outdoor community than, IMO, primarily against/without our input upon.

Case and (wild) point:  Union movement in Germany vs Union movement in UK.  In UK they fight everything ... and ... they have falling numbers, falling influence, falling public regard and very little voice in the decision making process.  (yes yes yes - Tories are evil and hate unions - i get that.)  German unions have a seat on the board - voting on decisions that impact their companies and their lives.  Doesn't mean the the German unions can steer every single vote in their favour (and they can always still withhold their labour if need be) ... but they've decided to participate as active, constructive and respected partner and they get a vote as result.  (This next statement will p1ss people off ... I don't really mean it antagonistically)  In the example above, the outdoor community acts in a manner that is not dissimilar to the apparent logic behind British Union movement and our voice at the table is small as a result and we are slowly being ignored a little bit more each year.

The dependable response to all rural development by the outdoor community is a learned behaviour ... we don't need to keep doing the same thing, getting the same out come and then asking ourselves why it isn't working before trying it over it again anyway.

I'm not arrogant enough to propose answers (that you all won't rip me to pieces for).  I'm just saying the status quo doesn't appear to work, maybe we should try something else.

Henry Iddon - on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to Stew99:

Well said.

A similar knee jerk happens to anything being developed in the Lake District as well. "Lets keep it as it as - as THAT is the natural state WE like." The classic line "Great idea but here isn't ideal, it would be better..." NIMBY

Nothing represents the binary situation more than the Zipwire proposal in what has suddenly become a stunning and tranquil valley aka Thirmere.

 

I'll get my coat.

MG - on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to Henry Iddon:

> Well said.

> A similar knee jerk happens to anything being developed in the Lake District as well. "Lets keep it as it as - as THAT is the natural state WE like."

Well yes, exactly. The primary purpose of a National Park is, by law to “Conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage”.

The New NickB - on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to Henry Iddon:

Mountaineering Scotland supported a scheme where they considered the damage was outweighed by the benefits to the community. They didn’t support a scheme where they considered the damage outweighed the benefits. What more should have done?

GrahamD - on 08 Feb 2018
In reply to Henry Iddon:

There is a world of difference between a brand new theme park in a national park already creaking under its own popularity and the re-development of an existing hotel.


Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.