UKH

A proposal to build a zip wire attraction in the heart of the Lake District is proving controversial. Conservation charity Friends of the Lake District strongly oppose the Thirlmere Activity Hub, and here they explain why.

Read more

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

National Trust response

https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/press-release/our-response-to-the-planning...

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

The zip wire proposal: A major development has been proposed in the stunning and tranquil valley of Thirlmere in the Lake District. A planning application submitted by TreeTop Trek would put eight zipwires, each over 1km long, across the width of Thirlmere, effectively dissecting the lake.

Why dies anyone need longer than a microsecond to réalisé this is a crap idea and laugh it out of court? How did it ever get this far?

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles: It seems ironic that many (including the LDNPA) are up in arms about something relatively minor, but are quite happy to turn a blind eye to the real ecological and visual disaster (i.e. the whole of the Lake District) which George Monbiot describes as "a sheepwrecked monument to subsidised overgrazing and ecological destruction." The treeless, animal & bird free spaces of the high fells are far more critical issues than people whizzing across a reservoir on wires - aren't they?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/11/lake-district-world-h...

In reply to Frank the Husky:


I think it's pretty obvious and not at all ironic. The Monbiot argument has merit in many respects, but the aesthetic case is extremely weak. When I look at the Lakes (barren, monocultural) landscape, I find it incredibly beautiful. And this is the cultural norm, this is the landscape that those who love the landscape of the Lakes know and love. Monbiot tells us that we shouldn't love it, it should look like something else, something we haven't seen, don't have any memories of, no emotional resonance with; he asks that we somehow magically forget the aesthetic sense we're culturally indoctrinated with and see it his way instead. Fat chance. That's not to say he's wrong, but the aesthetic argument just doesn't resonate with the majority of people who love the landscape, because we love it as it is. And if you're going to attempt an aesthetic argument, you'd better make it resonate, otherwise it's not much of an argument!

The zip wire on the other hand obviously contravenes, tramples all over, our aesthetic sensibilities surrounding the Lakeland landscape. I climb round Thirlmere a lot, and I don't want to hear people screaming while I'm out in enjoying the valley. Obviously! And I don't want to see a dirty great line of cables across the reservoir. Obviously!

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:
A reservoir is no place for large scale, major human development

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Your point is well made Jon however there are areas of the Lakes, like the forests in Borrowdale that do retain patches of older habit and are very popular with visitors. I think many people do love the old forests of the Lakes and would support seeing their area increased. Also of course aesthetic taste change. Our mountain environments have gone from being seen as frightening places to places of great beauty.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

I don’t think the zip wire is appropriate but it is entirely correct to call out the hypocrisy of those organisations opposing it who also actively maintain the environmentaly poverty of the denuded fells. I am unsettled to find myself agreeing with Monbiot on the current state of the lakes...

In reply to Jon Stewart:


I’ve travelled enough to know that I love what the fells used to be, and what they could yet be again. I am sad that I can’t form memories with my children in vast, expansive, native upland forest.

The barren fells are beautiful - not just in the lakes but in the north pennies and elsewhere. I wouldn’t want to see it all disappear but we could happily selectively reforest without destroying that beauty.

In reply to wintertree:


I totally agree - and as Sheelba says, our aesthetic taste would change once we were accustomed to a richer, more "natural" forested landscape. My problem is with Monbiot's insistence that the "sheepwrecked" landscape is ugly, when this couldn't be further from my response to it, which is one of elation and joy. And I am certainly not alone, given the visitor numbers and the place the Lakes occupies in our cultural landscape.

And anyway, there's loads of planting going on in the Lakes, at the head of pretty much every valley: at Wrynose Bottom, Upper Eskdale, Longsleddale, you name it, it's being planted. I'm not sure what with - hopefully species that Monbiot would approve of - and I assume it's for flood prevention. When I first saw the planting in Upper Eskdale I was surprised that there was no info about it online, given the dramatic visual impact this will have on this major, archetypal Lakeland valley. But I'm not against it at all - it will be environmentally both richer and more useful while still, I'm certain, being visually extremely beautiful.

In reply to Jon Stewart: Some of this is obviously a matter of personal opinion. You & I and millions of others are used to seeing the Lakes as this barren, monocultural landscape so we accept it as normal and beautiful. It's only when you learn that what we see is man made, and is also one of the least bio-doverse regions of the UK that your opinions should change. New, factual information should be enough to have an impact. Statistically, Rotherham has more biodiversity than the Lake District and that must ring alarm bells somewhere, mustn't it?

I know the majority of people love the landscape in the Lakes that they've been indoctrinated to love, but it doesn't take much to understand the catastrophic impact of what has been done to the place and to change one's views. What we see today is great for the subsidized sheep farming industry, but not actually very good for the land. At the moment, the Lakes are a commercial resource - not a natural one - and I am very uncomfortable with that, whereas you and millions of others are not. People would very quickly get used to a new, better Lakes, but the sheep farmers would not. Maybe Brexit will be good for the Lakes as more sheep farmers go out of business?

Near me, on Bleaklow, sheep have been excluded from the "beautiful, barren moorlands" for over 3 years now by a fabulous bit of fencing. Now, if you go up behind Laddow and Rakes Rocks, there are (literally) tens of thousands of saplings of various shapes and sizes. All of which have been naturally seeded and which are changing the environment for the better. The biodoversity is increasing (I have figures that back that up from PhD research at Manchester Uni) and it is now a far more beautiful place than it used to be. There is less erosion of the peat, and (anecdotally) less downstream flooding.

Like fox hunting and witch burning, just because we are used to something and it's considered tradtional, that doesn't mean it's either good or right.

In reply to Frank the Husky:


I don't really think it's sensible to make a distinction - in this country at this time - between what is "man made" and what is "natural". Whatever we choose to do with the landscape, it will be our choice - it will be man made. We may have good reasons to artificially emulate what the landscape was like before we chopped all the trees down, but if we choose to do that, it will still be man made. Its days of being "natural" are long gone!

And biodiversity sounds nice, and when I see a bit of fenced off land with some actual plants and butterflies and stuff on it I do realise how monocultural the fells are. But I don't think you can just state "biodiversity" as a de facto good. What if we created an extremely biodiverse environment but where all the species were horrible? Thousands of species of mosquitoes and ticks with plants that smell of sick and farts. Would that be good?


This is another problem with Monbiot's argument. Why pick on the Lakes? It's the same everywhere. Go out of the Lakes into the Eden, the Dales, etc and does the human impact on the landscape differ? Not as far as I can see.

Can you clarify for me, is the problem specific to the Lakes, or should we change the landscape of the whole of the rural North of England?


I'm not arguing that the current sheep farming model is good or right. I think Monbiot has a good point under all the bluster and nonsense. It's the way he argues the point that's poor - the aesthetic case falls flat on its arse every day when I look at the fells and feel in awe of their beauty, rather than experiencing the bitter disappointment at what could have been, which Monbiot demands is the correct response.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

You're right, man made is pretty much everywhere in the UK, but to accept that something so damaged and lacking in bio diversity is beautiful and worthy of "World Heritage Status" is nonsensical.

Bio diversity is a good thing, and I think I certainly can state it as a de facto good. Your comment about ticks and mosquitos and fart smells isn't relevant because that wouldn't happen in the Lakes (which is the subject here) and the bio dioverse environment would create itself, as it is doing on Bleaklow.

The aesthetic case doesn't fall flat on it's face just because you and millions of others like the barren, ecologically wrecked thing that you see. You're accepting what "They" want you to accept and that's not acceptable.

I'm talking about the Lakes here, although the problem is rife all over the north. Yes, let's pick on the Lakes, because it is a World Heritage SIte and should, therefore, be something to aspire to.

In reply to Frank the Husky:


I don't know what the criteria for World Heritage Status are, not what the aims of attributing the status are. It doesn't strike me as something particularly useful given how much control there is over the management of the landscape there already is. It's not like without this status it's just going to be concreted over or, err, turned into a theme park...?

I share the concern that this policy could help "set in aspic" the current character of the landscape, which I don't see as desirable. As I've said, I support the idea of fewer sheep and more trees and biodiversity.


I agree, I was playing devil's advocate because you used the Rotherham example. It's just that biodiversity for the sake of it isn't a great argument - we don't want the Lakes to be more like Rotherham simply because Rotherham is more biodiverse.


I'm afraid I don't care what you or Monbiot think is an "acceptable" aesthetic response. This is the critique I'm making: you can't just tell me that something isn't beautiful when I look at it every day and the response that it elicits in the emotional circuitry of my brain is one of spiritual elevation. You can tell me a thousand times that I shouldn't respond that way, and it'll make no difference.

There is a good rational case for changing land management policy in the Lakes. And there is a good rational case to say that the aesthetic appeal that we might seek to cling on to can evolve along with the landscape, and that we won't feel that we've lost something, rather that we have gained. This is a good, compelling argument. But "eughhh. Just look at how barren and ugly the fells look - isn't it horrible and upsetting!" is not.


Or you could say, let's try these policies somewhere else to try out what will work best for the landscapes that are the most popular and treasured. I just don't think there's any logic in Monbiot's targetting of the Lakes when exactly the same arguments apply equally over a much larger area.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Monbiot already has trial areas in mid Wales. There are plenty of plantations in other areas too, in all corners of the uk. There is no debate really, just Victorian sentiment about Victorian scenery. So no one is targeting the lakes although most national parks are prime examples of barren upland landscapes.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

Frank, please take my word for it when I say that no-one "indoctrinated" me to love the moors and the landscape of places like the Chew.
I was born there and formed my own attachment to the place through weekends wandering the slopes, groughs and outcrops of the place.
As regards your Laddow saplings, you might be able to prove that there is less erosion of the peat and even that there is less downstream flooding but you will never be able to prove that it is ... " a far more beautiful place than it used to be.."

And obviously, if Monbiot had his way, "Over the Moors" would not be the book that it is now.

In reply to summo:

No debate?
How convenient.
Do you mean "No debate on UKC"?

In reply to summo:

Victorian scenery?
What's your best estimate about the time the Lakes and Peak were effectively deforested?

In reply to Frank the Husky:

I sort of agree with both you and Jon. If I walk over the fells, I love the open feeling of space and light and the views. At the same time I'm thinking "I haven't seen any living thing (fauna before the pedants strike) for half an hour. Then in the distance I spot a raven and wonder whether that's all I'm going to see.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

Progressive thinning and clearing for agriculture , homes and early ship building since around the bronze age, or 1000bc ish.

Victorian, since people actually started travelling to rural areas to enjoy the clean air away from industry etc.. So I'd say it's only been considered a great view since Victorian times. Prior to that it was purely a natural resource and a place to farm in some instances.

The same goes for grouse shooting. A relatively new pastime. Prior to that it was hunting in the forests.

In reply to Tom Valentine:


How can replacing barren hills void of many species and of extremely limited economic value, with diverse forest that in less than half a century will provide more income and employment than sheep grazing be a debate? It's a no brainer.

In reply to summo:

As I said, no debate on UKC.
If you broadened the debating group a bit you would find more diversity of opinion, and diversity is a Good Thing, isn't it?

In reply to sheelba:


I assume this is ironic?

In reply to Frank the Husky:

It seems ironic that many (including the LDNPA) are up in arms about something relatively minor, but are quite happy to turn a blind eye to the real ecological and visual disaster (i.e. the whole of the Lake District) which George Monbiot describes as "a sheepwrecked monument to subsidised overgrazing and ecological destruction." The treeless, animal & bird free spaces of the high fells are far more critical issues than people whizzing across a reservoir on wires - aren't they?

Wouldn't it be a good idea to separate the two issues and fight against the Thirlmere Zipwire as a priority and without any mention of rewilding, etc. ?
If rewilding is constantly mentioned at this moment, then it will just effectively play into the hands of the developers as arguments against it will just be diluted by people squabbling about exactly what the Lake District should look like anyway.

In reply to FactorXXX:

Why fight it, why not try and make it better, more than just a line across a lake. There are alternatives to stagnation and freezing time.
http://www.swedenzipline.com/en

In reply to summo:

The Swedish zip wire is located in a district 10 times the size of the lakes. the Swedish district is 50% conifer forest.

In reply to summo:

Why fight it, why not try and make it better, more than just a line across a lake. There are alternatives to stagnation and freezing time.

I assume, judging by your previous posts, that you're taking the piss and that you think that concentrating on the Zipwire in isolation is a daft idea and it should immediately be challenged by the Monbiot plan now, as opposed to accepting the current situation short term and then looking at the Monbiot plan in the future?
If so, don't you think that it might be clouding the water and perhaps quite rightly, the Zipwire people will point out that the objectors don't even know what they want from the area and use that as ammunition to further their cause?

In reply to John Kelly:


I don't see the relevance. Comparing the size of county to a national park? The attraction itself won't be 10 times the size. I'm just pointing out that there are alternatives to another indentkit go ape type place.

What would matter is environmental impact, employment created and visitor value? Perhaps rather then a black and white response, all these so called lovers and friends of the lakes should broaden their viewpoints a little.

Ps. It's not 50% confir / spruce. Much of the forest is mixed. But the planning would been easier in a spruce or pine forest, than an older hardwood equivalent. There are lakes and marsh areas bigger than the LDNP in that area too.

In reply to FactorXXX:

I think if people broaden their outlook you could build something that is better than just a few lines over a lake. Some progressive reforesting can go in tandem. I don't care if mr&mrs retired London banker lose money off their half million pound grasmere home.

National parks are for leisure. Not just those who can afford to live there. The goal should be creating some better paid, long term employment for locals who grow up there. Not keeping the few who retire there with their fortunes happy.

In reply to summo:






That's a bit rich. Your views aren't exactly open minded on this are they? You hammer on about the need for change, employment etc, and largely disregard the agreement from many on here about that.

It's the location that's inappropriate, not the development itself, but it's easier and lazier to just call objectors out as being narrow minded.

Specific alternatives.....Walthwaite Quarry to A66 ish, Winlatter (not across the pass but down the Barf side of the pass road), Dodd wood across Bassenthwaite Lake....or maybe somewhere on the Western side of the district where the local population wants it, as the jobs are fewer and further between over there. All of these are far more worthy of a proper plan and consideration than Thirlmere....but maybe (with one exception) none of these offer a huge faceless utilities company the chance to set a chunk of tax off against a so called investment?

Oh, or Honister, which would have been the right place to begin with.

In reply to Wainers44:

You need to think of it as an environmrntally friendly tourst draw, not something that should be put in an old quarry. The siting of such a development essentially needs to be some where rural and attractive. I'm not suggesting they copy that Swedish version, but it does offer more than just a few lines over a lake.

I know in reality, it won't happen, the Tea room crowd will win and they'll feel smug about their green credentials by supporting the planting of a relatively small proportion of trees. With LDNP now meeting YDNP, a brief pause for the a1 and a19, then NYMNP all the way to the sea. The national parks have a huge influence in killing environmental improvement and employment across much of northern England. They love their little pet projects, whilst ignoring 1000s of hectares of near mono culture.

In reply to summo:

The pity is that by many supporters generalising all the objectors as the tea room crowd you do nothing at all for the drive to better National Parks. Supporting the wrong proposal won't make the right change more likely, unless I am totally missing something?

In reply to Wainers44:


The tea room crowd have the sway over the planning committee. They are not your climbers, mtb ers etc..

Yes many here have more diverse views and it's already been done to death before UKc started this thread on the same topic.

In reply to summo:

Are the BMC not opposing this?

In reply to summo:

The Lake District National Park is a unique in the UK: similar, but different to other NPs. Fabulous countryside, mountains, rivers, and all rightly protected, and access encouraged, through being a NP. The proximity to northern connerbations brings people by the million to enjoy this countryside. With the people comes other industries, retail, hospitality, and so on, all carefully (and rightly) regulated. With the people come others, keen to relieve them of their tourist £, zip wire types for example. What is the connection between the zip wire folk and Thirlmere? The tourist £. This proposal is on a par, given the location and national importance of the LDNP with proposing building a UCI complex, complete with McDonalds, Ben & Jerry’s etc on the lower slopes in Thirlmere. Why not? I’m sure it would create lots of jobs for the locals.....

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:
The argument isn't really about tea room crowds against progressives any more than it's about development vs those who oppose development. Much too simplistic and debate-stifling. The planning committee have varied influences exerted over them far above and beyond any one way of thinking. There's also a bunch of conflicts of interests that go on across board members / trustees across the Park, as goes on in business generally. Some of it quite tricky to navigate I'm sure. Ultimately planning decisions are governed by legislation but of course always subject to some opinion and influence.

In reply to summo:


Yes. And you offer no argument as to why this development should be at thirlmere. Again, it's the location, not the development that's the issue. If you're in favour of the proposal, tell us why it must be at thirlmere rather than say whinlatter.

In reply to Wainers44:


Mind you, UKC didn’t exactly favour Honister in earlier discussions either. Arguably human factors were a strong contributor in that particular case.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Bassenthwaite, is the only actual lake in the lake district. If thirlmere had been named st johns reservoir would it feel so precious? I think the ospreys near whinlatter are more important than any wildlife near thirlmere.

In reply to Steve Wetton:

And where have i proposed any of those developments? I haven't. Granted it is the UK and environmentally protection and diversity of species are not in 99% of the populations interest, but I'm sure they could build a zip wire, high ropes, mtb centre, cafe, field study centre etc. in a low impact manner if they really tried.

In reply to summo:



Did I suggest you had?


I very much doubt they can build something the size of 25 football pitches that has low impact!

In reply to summo:


I've no idea what you're trying to say.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


then Google what ospreys are.

In reply to Steve Wetton:

Given that 99% of it doesn't have to touch the ground I fail to see the problem.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Via Ferrata up Striding Edge, Zip Wire down to Dunmail Raise, then some toboggan runs to the Grasmere pubs. Great day out.

In reply to summo:
Oh I see, it's a bird that eats fish. Now I get why the zipwire must be at Thirlmere where it'll have an enormous impact on all the other people who are there to enjoy the valley.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


I imagine ospreys were in the lakes long before Wordsworth. I'd rather see them protected than house prices.

In reply to summo:

Your argument that it's a choice between ospreys and house prices is rubbish.

In reply to Lion Bakes:


I think you're missing the point. Would be better to have a modest 50 bed hut at the base of swirral edge, then folk can make a summit bid from there.

Ps. There is of course already a ski tow near there, but don't let that cloud your judgement.

In reply to summo:


No they are not. Please read what national parks are about before posting this trite crap.

In reply to GrahamD:

I know exactly what they supposed to be for etc.. I lived in one for years. I also volunteered for the thankless task of being an unpaid town councillor for a few years, a wonderful insight into the realities of what really happens within the parks; behind the scenes, or with their planning committees, their management of taxpayers money, dealings with other agencies like the forestry commission, county council or NT etc.. generally whilst a some of their staff are outstanding much left a lot to be desired in terms what the parks could be.

In terms of the lakes you might want to read up the recent sale of thorneythwaite farm.https://www.google.se/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/03/nat...
https://www.google.se/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://amp.theguardian...

In reply to wintertree:


Do you think "we" really influenced that decision? I suspect Natural England and a load of other quasi scientific interest bodies were much nearer to the centre of thought.

In reply to Wainers44:

It seems to me that the Lake District now is what the Lake District is - so Monbiot and his ideas be damned. National Parks are about preservation. Whether there is a ski tow at place X or not is irrelevant to whether a new 50-bed hostel building is built there. Where do you draw the development line? If it is continually redrawn then there is effectively no line.

Ski Tow? Okay. So a 50 bed hostel isn't such a bad idea. So then a via ferrata up Striding Edge isn't such a bad idea.mAnd then zip wire from the top of Helvellyn .... where do you draw the line?. Come on zip wire supporters; state your limit here of what you would permit and not permit. What is the damn principle you would establish?

It is blindingly obvious to any one with a. smidgin of common sense that a zip wire across Thirlmere drives a coach and horses, and 50 tourist coaches and ...etc. etc ...through the National Park ideals. It should be stopped and ridiculed and laughed off the face of the Lake District.

In reply to Chris_Mellor:



Those comments by myself and the other poster were sarcasm.

But a high ropes course / zip line in a commercial forest by a man made reservoir, all below 300m asl. is hardly impacting the high fells.

The national parks are not about conservation, they were originally in place as somewhere for city people to enjoy the outdoors etc.. They have since become some ideal of maintaining a view of how very specific parts of the countryside looked during a very specific era. They definitely aren't about nature, species diversity etc..

In reply to summo:
I think you are wrong to say NP not about conservation.

http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/students/whatisanationalpark/aimsandpurpose...
http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/students/whatisanationalpark/aimsandpurpose...

Two explicit instructions
To conserve
To safeguard and encourage 'access'
Also
Sandford principal update in 95 clarifying that when conduct between conservation and access arises conservation is ranked first

In reply to John Kelly:

I will conceed that, conserving a mono culture. Conserving the heather moorland to the detriment of hundreds of other species.

In reply to summo:
I'm with you on that, the choice of what to conserve is more tricky

In reply to summo:

Been going to the lakes for 40 years or so. I have become very disenchanted with the area.gentrification for the wealthy springs to mind and it’s slowly losing its appeal for me.

Turning to the matter in hand, Thirlmere is hardly a paragon of Lakes beauty.

In reply to neilh:


Surprising. I've been going for nearly 30 years and everything I remember about the place as a kid is exactly the same. I guess I'm only interested in the actual fells and crags rather than the towns and villages, their shops and bnbs and stuff like that, so the changes you cite haven't had any impact.


It's not my favourite valley, with the boring side of Helvellyn on one side and the boring side of the most boring ridge in the Lakes on the other, but it's got some great, brooding crags, ravines and waterfalls, and obviously forest and reservoir. The fact that it's no Wasdale or Eskdale doensn't make me think that the noise pollution and visual impact of the zipwire don't matter.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Does a visualisation of what the development would look like exist ? 

I've not seen one and am curious, it's difficult to make  balanced judgement without all the fore and against information. 

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Peace and quiet of Thirlmere to be disturbed by RAF, who are objecting to the Zip Wire proposal.
http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/Defence-bosses-say-Lake-District-zipwire-...

Oh the irony of those objectors who claim the area will be spoiled by a few screams.

Any high/long Zip Wire in the National Park should be located at Honister, which has working quarry vehicles, AND the Via Ferrata, which would be a very attractive combination for thrill seekers who wish to experience the thrills of climbing without the risk and exertion.

In reply to Steve Wetton:

Or a cafe on the top of Snowdon?  Errmmm....

Is that OK just because it's been there for years?

In reply to Alan_in_Windermere:

Whereas Honister itself would be a good venue, the access is difficult.  How much more traffic can Keswick and Borrowdale really handle ?

In reply to Alan_in_Windermere:

The need for low flying through terrain is slightly different to that of a zipwire.

In reply to GrahamD:

The Borrowdale road is in need of upgrading for the benefit of locals and visitors alike. The present road (and some of the drivers that use it) struggles to cope, and as a Cumbria council tax payer, I feel it is about time the county council ook it's responsibilities seriously, instead of paying it's chief officers vast sums of money!

In reply to Neil Williams:

There are many such things that proponents of the zipwire are trying to use for support - ah but they built a reservoir there/there are unnatural conifer plantations/there's a ski tow on Raise/railway on Snowdon/car park at Cairngorm/etc. But what they miss is that none of these would stand a chance of getting approval now. For good or ill, attitudes have changed.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

I guess that is it, yes.  I think they could probably find a better place to put it than this, FWIW.

In reply to Alan_in_Windermere:

I think a tourist tax would be a good idea to fund things like this rather than whacking it mostly onto the locals.  Many other countries have one.  I particularly like the Swiss approach where it includes a mandatory public transport ticket, which makes bus/local train use effectively free, which means many more people use it because they might as well because it's free.  I'd very much support something like that for the Lakes.

In reply to Alan_in_Windermere:

A Borrowdale road 'upgrade' which would seriously improve traffic throughput would put a far bigger dint into the character of that part of the Lakes than any amount of zipwires would.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Very misleading piece on R2 yesterday, describing thirlmere as iconic and a natural environment(there and the lakes in general). 

In reply to summo:

For the majority of listeners, the Lakes is a natural environment because it contains mainly nature, not because it is original.

In reply to GrahamD:

But that's misleading the public. They will now no doubt be receiving hundreds of extra letters of objection, because of this being perceived as a wild and natural place, when the reality is 95% of the lakes isn't. Planning should be based on facts, no uneducated emotion and sentiment. 

In reply to summo:

So let's concrete over the whole lot and build fun rides down all of the hills because it isn't 100% natural ??? Over egging things obviously but just because the NP is predominantly 'man' influenced doesn't mean we should build anything anywhere somebody wants within the NP. 

In reply to summo:

I don't think calling the Lakes natural is misleading in the context of the UK, which is all man made to a degree.  To say its not the same as it was a thousand years ago is irrelevent to the debate as to whether it should be preserved in its current form,  a form which is as near to nature as many people get.

In reply to CasWebb:

No, but the UK can't treat its parks like other countries, most of which are vast uninhabited natural wildernesses(yellowstone etc), there are in large number of people living and working in the parks, with even more people on their doorsteps. To pretend thirlmere is some vast iconic remote wilderness bristling with rare native species is the stuff of dreams, it could become that, but other park policies are doing their utmost to prevent that too. The NPs are in the main trapped in the Victorian era, as though that style of landscape management was or is the absolute pinnacle.

In reply to Wainers44:

Or Shap quarries, an area that has the distance and vertical drop, a great big scary cliff edge, bulldozed quarry tracks for access top and bottom, is in an area that would benefit from more visitors, has easy access to the M6 and isn't aesthetically sensitive in the way that Thirlmere is.

 

Shap quarries would do it. Or even the abandoned Middlebarrow Quarry across the railway from Trowbarrow.

Better still would be one from the top of the Blackpool Tower - after all, that's the spiritual home of the fair ground ride.

In reply to colin struthers:

Agreed, plenty of far more appropriate options than Thirlmere.

 

Would be good if this does get built somewhere suitable. National Parks and those who plan and administer them do need to stay relevant. The argument on here about a "natural" environment is largely irrelevant. What does that really mean anyway in an English, if not UK context?

Its not really a matter of keeping the Parks the same for ever, its more how they are protected from us (visitors), rather than for us.

 

In reply to Frank the Husky:

World heritage designation doesn't depend upon the site in question being "undamaged". Incidentally, arguments about such issues should avoid the use of emotive language like damaged. W H sites are often pristine natural areas (do such areas still exist?) but the list includes many sites which are totally or largely man-made such as the city of Bath and an area of very old established vineyards on the northern hillsides of Lake Geneva. The Lakes shouldn't try to compete with the pristine sites and indeed has more in common with totally man made sites. My view, FWIW, has always been that the uniqueness, and beauty, of the Lakes lies in the subtle interweaving of the natural and the man made and for that reason I oppose Monbiot's position.

 

In reply to Frank the Husky:

 

The designation of a World Heritage Site does not depend on the site being “undamaged” (which vague and value-laden term is just one of several words that have in my opinion no place in a rational discussion on a matter such as this because it masquerades as something it is not). WH sites, of course, include pristine (if that word is appropriate anywhere on the planet now) places, but there are also many which are completely or nearly completely human artifice, for example the city of Bath and some of the ancient vineyards on the slopes above the northern shore of Lake Geneva. The Lake District merely occupies a point somewhere in this wide spectrum of sites. For what my opinion is worth, the essence of the beauty and unique character of the Lake District lies in the subtle interweaving of the human and natural features of the landscape, and for this reason I disagree strongly with Monbiot who, it seems, can see no value in anything wrought by man.

 

In reply to Jim Lancs: only problem with Shap quarries is that the area isn't suitable for a company called Treetops.

They'd have to plant a lot of quick growing leylandii

 

In reply to Jim Lancs:

Would the end of it be in the sea?

 

In reply to Rog Wilko:

I wonder why my contributions to this thread don't appear in Recent Postings on my user profile page? As a result I thought I'd failed to send my first response and so rewrote it and posted almost the same thing again.

In reply to pasbury:

" . . . Would the end of it be in the sea? . . . "

Perhaps at the end of the pier where you would take a donkey back to the start.

Appropriate development and green!