Great that a project as exciting as this is coming to Lakeland, I look forward to frequently zipping across the lake. Brilliant.

A shocking idea, had it been at Honister or in one of the forests fine, this is totally the wrong environment.
Questions about this;
What effect on the landscape?
Noise pollution?
Effect on low level flying or Coastguard rescue Helicopters
The effect on wildlife in and around Thirlmere
Increased traffic on the western road around the lake.

Thirlmere is a beautiful easily accessible area as it is and doesn't want spoiling by a company more interested in lining its pockets than the visual impact on our beautiful landscape.... if youngsters want a thrill climb a mountain!

And yes I'm local, I live here!

Would be the same CUMBRIA TOURISM that TURNER is one of the directors
Appointment of Mr Michael Peter Turner as a director on 23 June 2016

Is there more to this support than meets the eye? Sounds like more PR spin! But whatever the truth stick the zip wires somewhere else. You can do a zip wire in hundreds of locations around the UK already. Are people going to travel to Thirlmere just do do this at a cost of £40+ odd quid? How does this befit a UNESCO heritage site or encourage sustainable tourism? And no I’m not some old git or someone who opposes progress. Far from it. I oppose this because it isn’t progressive or sensible. My friends who live in and around the Lakes, all in the age group mentioned, all oppose this. And all cycle too in the many areas you can already cycle... Are the mountains or Lakes somehow not attracting 16-34s? I think not. In any case, it is varied skilled jobs that are needed to sustain young adults in the area not yet more minimum wage jobs. Adventure tourism is one thing but this is 8 zip wires across a lake in the middle of Lakeland. Some tourism bosses for whatever reason may say they support this but consider the amount of people who return to the Lakes regularly and spend a lot of money who would no longer visit the Thirlmere area if the zip wires go ahead. The loss would outweigh the temporary and superficial gains that are alleged and the majority of which would simply go to the company involved. The duty of the Lakeland “bosses” is not to simply promote tourism but responsible and sustainable tourism that fits the aims of the national parks.

Disgraceful. Cumbria Tourism have no shame. This proposal is inappropriate, wrong-headed and I oppose it completely. This is a National Park FFS, not Disneyland. William Wordsworth must be spinning in his grave.

Cumbria Tourism appear to have lost the plot. Their own Vision is compromised by this arrogant and selfish proposal. They appear to have been 'conned' by one of their own Board members.

100 years on..... The Lake District is paved over as a massive car park (amazing how much money car parks make) with a huge cafe (mmm. cake and money money money) serving the visitors to 'THE ADVENTURE HUB' (loads and loads of money) where thrill seekers enjoy a 1 minute ride over a virtual Lake District experience.....

It's 3:30 am and I have woken from my nightmare to find it is just that, a nightmare. The Lake District and Thirlmere are still the peaceful havens for wildlife and visitors and Cumbria Tourism etc. have come to their senses and realised that what we have now is worth a billion times more than any proposed 'development'

Why can't some people see that.

– A very concerned (and sleep-deprived) Keswick resident, and lover of the Thirlmere Valley as it is now.

I don't know where to begin, but how's this for a starter...Mike Turner is a director of Cumbria Tourism. Need I say more.

Round two...The lake District Partnership's stratagey for the park VE1 promotes "experiences for visitors that benefit their health and wellbeing". This includes "adventure on foot, bicycles, ropes, in and on water".
It would be tenuous to think a go on a zip wire benefits health and well-being. Treetop Treks also quotes "in and on water". The proposed Zip wires go OVER water. "In and On" means swimming, canoeing, sailing, windsurfing etc.. Activities that actually do promote health and well-being!
It's called clutching at straws

Round Three... Cumbria Tourism's own surveys show that the visitor profile for the lakes has been pretty consistent over the last 12 years. There is no need to be concerned with attracting under 35s "in order to build repeat visits and ensure the long-term sustainability of our tourism industry." Good try CT.

At least another 10 rounds left in me. Keep it coming.

If Mike Turner is indeed on the board of Cumbria Tourism I assume he did the decent thing and declared an interest and left the meeting? I will now try to remove my tongue from my cheek...

Thanks to Bob the editor for letting this preposterous plan remain in the public eye.

I wholeheartedly endorse your comments Simon Noble. Adrenaline activities are there in abundance in Cumbria, all of which I can think of are in harmony with the scenery and topography. None cost anywhere near £60 for a few minutes 'scream.
This is not sustainable tourism and I can't see how it would bring repeat visits

A different concept of 'National Park'.

Simon Noble - actually it was me that sent Bob the link to this story from the News and Star newspaper.

Truly horrific and the absolute antithesis of what the Lake District is about. Awful.

A major hazard lying next to the main vehicular artery through the lake district. That road is narrow and busy as it is. Imagine catching sight of a flying person over the water. It can only be a possibly deadly distraction.

They stopped the Zip Wire going ahead at Honister as it was in The Lake District ! Now, one of the last, beautiful unspoiled areas in Cumbria is going to get this abomination.. because ( so its claimed ) it needs the Zip Wire to bring in more visitors !
Who made this up?
It just goes on as they claim .....
1. We'll use the Thirlspot car park for the wire car park because this car park hardly gets used!
2. They are not expecting many more cars to the area as people will be traveling by bus to get there!
3.There are few if any red squirrels here so they won't be disturbed !
Which idiots did the research?
The people who claim they know and run the area, allowed this to go ahead !
Strange that, No One was allowed to vote against this as no voting was allowed, it was all hush hush, behind closed doors!
No one was allowed to say anything against this.
It really sounds like a done deal. Someone is getting a financial hand out from this!

The area needs more car parks just to take the expected thousands plus more visitors who will be travelling just to see, walk, climb, fish and soak up the beautiful peace and quiet that this unique area has to offer!

Extract from my letter of objection to LDNPA

In the mid 1980’s John Wyatt (Head Ranger for LDNP) asked me to be the first seasonal ranger for Thirlmere. This was the time when North West Water (now UU) removed the ‘no entry’ signs and allowed/welcomed careful visitors to the water catchment area.

I am totally against the idea of a zip across the lake, but applaud the provision of a cycleway around the lake.

At this stage I should tell you that I am in favour of the LDNP becoming The Adventure Capital of UK, but it must be proportionate to scale and retain the precious landscape with its inherent peace and quiet. It is with no feeling of hypocrisy that I make my objections to the Thirlmere zip, even though I have an interest in an outdoor activity centre which has 2, small, well concealed zip lines. (My hypocrisy is dwarfed by that of Mr M P Turner.)

A final anecdote which reminds me how precious is the peace & quiet of Thirlmere. It was Springtime in my first few weeks of working as a ranger that I saw a man walking along the road near Armboth. My first reaction was that he looked straight out of ‘Coronation Street,’ collarless shirt, trousers with braces and turn-ups, flat cap …. not at all dressed for the mountains, but he had a pair of binoculars around his neck …. his accent confirmed his home to be industrial north west England …. his pesky grandchild was tugging at his hand to move on ….. BUT within 5 minutes I was fascinated by his encyclopaedic knowledge of bird life. As we stood on the roadside he spotted 3 nests which I had missed and he told me that he had just shown his grandchild her first Merganser. He frequently made day-trips to the quiet parts of the Lake District and played a game with his grandchild of ”How many species have we spotted today?”

The beauty of the Lake District is its unspoilt wilderness. This is what attracts people back not zip wires.

There is an outrageous conflict of interest here that is utterly shameful. To most decent folk there are things more precious than profit - peace, beauty, wildlife and open spaces. The greedy few should not be allowed to spoil this for the rest of us.

This is nonsensical! How can a national park even consider this? The Sandford Principal must apply (or NP status means nothing).

"Where irreconcilable conflicts exist between conservation and public enjoyment, then conservation should take priority"

I find this whole thing offensive.
The powers that be seem intent on turning the Lake District into a theme park, rather than a National Park.
The Adventure Capital tagline suggests they have put infrastructure in to deal with the influx of visitors. They haven't and continue to not do so.
Result, a massive increase in cycling on roads that are poorly maintained and hardly wide enough for two large vehicles to pass anyway. Thus at certain times of the year it's gridlock.
Nobody consulted the residents, similarly with world heritage status.
Typically hardly any of the people promoting these ideas actually live within the National Park....Indeed the National Park can't even be bothered to be headquartered within the Lake District National Park.
It's all about cash instead of holistic sustainability

Cumbria tourism you would attract more people to the Lakes is you sorted out car parking and took it back from the National ripoff(Trust)
Best get the tree people to put in a Helicopter pad for when distracted drivers have head on crashes and close the 591for hours.

The assertion by Cumbria Tourism in the above article that the zip wire is an adventurous activity and that they need to reach out to younger audiences is not supported by the facts. Firstly sliding down a zip wire is not an adventure. An adventurous activity involves risk and skills to meet the challenge and where the outcome cannot be guaranteed. Clearly sliding down zip wires does not fit that definition and as such is simply a theme park type ride and as such could be located in areas which do not impact on the open landscape. I am not against zip wires per se but in the open landscape of the LD national park No! We already have zip wires at Whinlatter and Grizedale in shielded woodland areas and I see these as reasonable locations.
As for reaching out to younger audiences I have lived in the Lake District for 32 years and am very active in the fells. I see no shortage of young people participating in adventurous activities such as fell walking and running which involves careful mountain navigation and route assessment depending upon weather conditions. Other adventure examples where I see young people participating are mountain biking, ghyll scrambling, climbing, bouldering, kayaking to name but a few.

It is very disappointing that Cumbria Tourism does not state a conflict of interest when one of their directors is non other than Mike Turner who runs Tree Top Trek.

Finally may I say that discussions in these forums and signing the 38 degrees petition against this installation is good but the real impact will be by people writing or emailing the LDNPA. So if you are for or against this proposal please lodge your point of view with the LDNPA planning application 7/2017/2298. The Friends of the Lake District web site provides links and information.

I agree with all these comments, please make an objection to the proposal as David Helme has done to get the message across.

I apologise for making such a long comment, but for the sake of the beautiful. tranquil, unspoiled Lake District we love, this zip-wire proposal needs to be stopped!

I urge everyone against the proposal to write to LDNP.
Only then will your voices be heard where it matters!
My letter is copied below to give you some ideas. (If you do write, please don't copy it verbatim!).

To planning@lake-district.gov.uk
Cc thirlmereactivity@lakedistrict.gov.uk

Attention of Kevin Richards, Case Officer.

Sir,

I am writing to you in your capacity as Planning Authority Case Officer in respect of planning application ref. 7/2017/2298 – “Thirlmere Activity Hub”.

I wish to add my voice to the many who have already commented on this application, specifically in respect of the proposed Zip-wire installations.

I have no particular objection to the cycle track element of the proposal, but, for the location in question, I consider the zip-wire aspect to be completely contrary to the ethos for beneficial management of the Lake District National Park’s open countryside. – If this application is approved, it will set a precedent for future schemes of similar ilk, in similar unspoiled locations.

It is perfectly true that Thirlmere and its immediate environs are the result of human enterprise, but it is not just any old reservoir. It was constructed well over 100 years ago in the Victorian era.
As seen today, with the benefit of passing time, the reservoir blends in perfectly with the surrounding Lakeland landscape. The ongoing re-introduction of deciduous trees only serving to enhance that situation.

Therefore, on what grounds can the construction of zip-wire installations in such a peaceful, tranquil, and unspoiled area be in keeping with existing LDNP management strategy?
For example, Core Strategy CS02, which states, (in respect to LDNP spatial development plan for the LDNP open countryside): -
"Exceptionally, we will only support development in the open countryside where it demonstrates an essential need for a rural location, or, it will help to sustain an existing business, including farm diversification schemes, or, it provides for a proven and essential housing need, or, an appropriate reuse, redevelopment or extension of an existing building".

How can zip-wires be classed as "an essential need"? - Or indeed, how would they fulfil any of the other stipulated criteria within that core strategy?

At present, Thirlmere Valley is a haven of peace and tranquillity. Many of its visitors go there specifically for that reason. I strongly believe that this element of the proposal will have an overall detrimental effect for the majority of future visitors to that area.

Visitors using the zip-wire facility will be doing so for the sole prospect of an adrenalin rush, and not to immerse themselves in Lakeland’s cultural heritage or appreciate the peace and quiet of the surrounding, outstandingly beautiful scenery.
There will be a large scale increase in numbers of people and vehicles – all congregated within the proximity. Creating congested, "theme park-like" locations within the valley.
There will be an inevitable surge in littering.
There will be noise pollution from screaming and shouting participants.
There will be visual distraction for A591 drivers and all other visitors in the vicinity.
There will be reduced opportunity for creative landscape photography. – Who wants to see people hanging from wires in the middle of a beautiful landscape photo?
Imagine having a nice peaceful walk in that area, and having screaming shouting people flying overhead one after another all day long. – How can that be in keeping with LDNP core values?

There is no shortage of existing healthy lifestyle leisure activities within the Thirlmere Valley area. All of which are entirely compatible with LDNP strategy. (What benefit to a healthy lifestyle does dangling from a wire have?).
There are existing nature trails, existing cycle tracks, and any number of existing walking opportunities from gentle to strenuous.
Indeed, one of the major start points for fell-walks to Helvellyn and adjacent peaks, used by thousands of visitors every year, is located at Thirlmere’s High Park Wood car park.
Yes, thousands of visitors are already accommodated by Thirlmere’s existing attractions every year – but they are spread out over the entirety of the valley and its surroundings, and not concentrated at one particular location as would be the case with this zip-wire facility.

I am absolutely not against zip-wire attractions per-se. There must be countless places across Britain that would be eminently suited to such activities.
But for me, and I voice this opinion in the strongest possible terms, the tranquil heart of the Lake District's outstandingly beautiful scenery should most definitely not be one of them.

Unfortunately, as once said, I sense that, "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark". I have a bad feeling that regardless of the common sense veiw saying NO NO NO, to this stupidly inappropriate nonsense of a scheme, it's gradually gathering momentum and conspiring to be accepted.

Gill, zip wires are not adventure! I do not believe there is any real risk involved here, they are not what genuine adventure is about. I despair that you believe the establishment of thrill rides in national parks is the way to attract young people to the last areas of wilderness we have in this country. What a sad future lies in store where visits to national parks in future will rely on expensive rides for those lacking the imagination to go and find their own adventure. It is appealing that Cumbria tourism and Lddpb task force are prepared to trash this area in the name of profit for a few, not fit for purpose.

Seeing the need for some balance in these comments here is a short extract from the letter I sent to the LDNP in support of this fantastic scheme.

“In the face of much narrow minded opposition, I would like to express my support of the proposed zip-wire activity hub in the Thirlmere Valley. This will bring some much needed employment to the area and also provide alternative outdoor activity for locals and those who do not come to the Lake District to partake in the usual activities such as fell walking, climbing, running etc. If the scheme gets the go ahead I feel this would attract many new visitors to the Lake District because it offers something new and very exciting to the younger generation. As a lifelong resident within the national park my grandchildren and all of their friends have expressed nothing but support for this project.”

Etc, etc, etc

Same proposals as Honiston and Glenridding which both fell through. Of the 3 locations this seems to be the least impacting on the local residents and on a significant main road for tourists.

Tourism will strengthen the local economy and offer good activities for people that don’t want to walk right into the wilderness. Or those that aren’t able to can get a great experience of the views.

I see the arguments against and agree with them in most respect. But I won’t lie, it sounds exciting and I’d be booking a ride.

Tourist Boards, as I understand it, are primarily Destination Marketing Organisations .... Cumbria Tourism bosses I suggest you take a Fam Trip to Yorkshire Tourism to see what imagination a vision and professionalism can do to put a region on the map and stimulate visitor numbers, visitor spend and put the region on the map globally.
Whilst I may risk sounding like NIMBY I genuinely fail to see how this project can avoid creating big issues along with the big numbers they hope to attract.
Frequent shuttle minibuses along Thirlmere are a Possible outcome ...... a responsible Tourism body would be looking for some impact study data on that issue alone.
World Heritage Site ..... Only when it suits by the look of it.

And did you know the very document Mike Turner (CT director since May 2016) uses to justify adrenaline activites is a Cumbria LEP document in which two co-directors of Cumbria Tourism had input. It may be argued that the LEP didn't need this 2017 document as it was only a few years into its 2014 - 2024 plan and had reviewed it in July 2016.

Mary F, very interesting comments. Please could you expand on this information, as I'm in the midst of writing my objection to the LDNPA, and think this information is very pertinent. Please share if you feel you can, or e-mail me direct if you wish to keep this information private; kingsley@kingsleyjones.com Many thanks!

I've just discovered this YouTube video by Andy Beck (Artist and author of the book "The Wainwrights in Colour") in which he visits the proposed zip-wire site.

THE PROPOSED ZIP WIRE OVER THIRLMERE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flBjWU3NM68

Very thought provoking and he may well have a point - Why has a wide hard surfaced road recently been built over very steep ground within the forest, and which goes almost to the very point that the proposed zip wire take-off terminal will be constructed near the summit of Fisher Crag?

Do United Utilities know something about the outcome of this planning application already?

I urge everyone to search for and view that video - It is well worth a watch.

The more one reads/discovers in relation to this proposal. the more one senses the malodorous smell of things being not quite as transparent as they should be.

I've just read the St Johns Parish Council comments document. (One of the many documents available to view on LDNP Planning Application page in respect of this project: -
( LDNP Planning Reference: 7/2017/2298 ).

The following two points from section 89/17, "Public Participation" of that document, immediately caught my eye: -

Item 26 - "Mr Leafe Chief Executive of the LDNP is known to be in a relationship with a member of Tree Top Treks - Is this not a conflict of interests?".

An interesting question indeed!
And,

Item 29, which includes: - ". . . the letter included a comment regarding the works that United Utilities have recently undertaken on the track at Fisher Crag. (a retrospective planning application is reported to have been received by the LDNPA . . . ".

Really? - A little more research confirms that the work to the track at Fisher Crag was indeed carried out prior to any planning application being submitted.
That retrospective planning application was registered as recently as December 6th !!!!!
See: - LDNPA Planning Reference: 7/2017/2307, registered 06-Dec-2017, Upgrade and improvement of existing forest track including creation of stacking areas and turning circle (retrospective).

How very convenient that this major forest track upgrade, undertaken without relevant planning permissions, ends in a turning circle that just happens to be within a few metres of the proposed western zip-wire take off point near the summit of Fisher Crag.

The whole idea is appalling.If youngsters want an adrenaline rush of this sort,try the Pepsi-max.at Blackpool..or even better,a trek to the top of one of our beautiful mountains.
Our beautiful Lake District is NOT a theme park.
I'm all for adventure,have spent a lifetime of it but a zip wire over one of our most beautiful,peaceful valleys is just beyond any reasoned comprehension.
There's also something distinctly smelly about this whole affair.,including the conflict of interests of Mr Turner,a director of Cumbria Tourism.The alledged relationship between the Chief executive of the Lake District National Park Authority and a member/director of Tree Top Treks,which I understand are the applicants.The much improved track to the proposed site of the zip wire by United Utilities,without the benefit of planning permission,is also worthy of further investigation.
For Cumbria Tourism to be supporting this,is beyond belief and perhaps it's recently appointed chief executive should consider a career change.

I think most of the above comments says it all. This Zip Wire project over this beautiful valley it totally ridiculous. Whats more there is already a perfectly good cycleway around the lake incorporating a resurfaced forestry road that travels above the busy A591 and joins the quiet back road on the western side of the lake.. myself and others have been riding this for quite some time.

I see Terry Abraham has resigned from his post at the charity Lake District Foundation (formerly Nurture Lakeland) who seemingly don't object to the proposed Zip-wire(s).

A great gesture, it's a pity other Lake District 'celebrities' (Hinkes, Richards, Powell-Thompson?) aren't quite as forthcoming with their views

...or maybe they have other interests? ;)

National Parks were established to save places of beauty and tranquilly from being spoiled by developers; to keep them unspoiled was the whole point. That is also why the original benefactors of the National Trust placed so much in the trust, with trust being the word to focus on. The Lake District especially is far too special and precious to be spoiled by insensitive over activity just for money, it is already over used. Also such places are very rare in the UK. In all of the places I have travelled around the world like the USA, Norway, Tasmania, New Zealand and others National Parks are valued for what they are. They are not just seen as an untapped business asset and they are preserved by strictly enforced controls, just like it used to be in the Lakes.

If people have seen construction activity already could making a mess and getting retrospective planning permission be a tactic?

This is worth elevating to a palimentary level, I will try writing to my MP.

I personally know of no one who has a good word to say about this project. The politicians have a simple choice, value the Lake District for what it is and protect it, or allow it to be ripped off for profit and loose it completely and forever.

This is reminiscent of the situation in Glenridding when in 2014 Treetop Trek made a proposal to install 4 one mile zip wires in the Glenridding valley. Richard Leafe , CEO of the LDNPA facilitated a meeting between Mike Turner of Treetop Trek and the owner of a property which would be near the proposed zip lines.

Furthermore Richard Leafe in the Autumn of 2014 told Patterdale Parish Council that he could not meet with the community to discuss the proposal "this side of Christmas" yet he had time in his calendar to have a meeting with the owner of the property mentioned above to discuss the zip wire proposal. Clearly Richard Leafe was heavily involved in this project which is why many members of the community had no confidence in a fair and even balanced outcome if the proposal went to the planning stage.

The community therefore conducted a poll for householders in the dale with over 300 voting against the proposal with about 14 for. This stopped the process dead in its tracks.

So how will the LDNPA deal with the Thirlmere zip wire proposal? I hope that due process will give appropriate weight to the core strategies of the NP and the Sandford Principle and not be influenced by the business alliances and the conflict of interests mentioned in earlier posts.

I think we should all encourage people to submit their objections to the LDNPA. Guidance can be found on the Friends of the Lake District web site which gives pointers on the procedure.

The original post of this topic advises that the Lake District Partnership Business Task Force (LDPBTF) have issued a statement supporting the proposal. i.e.: -
“Nick Lancaster, chairman for the Lake District Park Partnership Business Task Force said: “The activity hub at Thirlmere represents an evolution of the Lake District visitor offering and would be more appealing to a new generation of visitor”.

I quote below (verbatim) an extract from page 100 of section 2 of The Lake District National Park Partnership (of which the Business Task Force is a sub-group/forum) Management Plan 2015-2020: -
http://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/729736/2.0-Outstanding-Universal-Value,-Special-Qualities,-Risks,-Vision.pdf

QUOTE
“Lake District National Park Authority

The Lake District National Park was designated on 9 May and founded on 13 August 1951. As set out in UK national legislation The Environment Act 1995, the Lake District National Park Authority's statutory purposes are:
• To conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Lake District National Park; and
• To promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the National Park by the public.
It also has a duty in pursuing those purposes:
• To seek to foster the economic and social wellbeing of local communities within the National Park by working closely with the agencies and local authorities responsible for these matters, but without incurring significant expenditure.

Section 62 of the Environment Act 1995 makes clear that if National Park purposes are in conflict then conservation must have priority. This is known as the 'Sandford Principle' and stems from the Sandford Committee's recommendation, in 1974, that enjoyment of the National Parks 'shall be in a manner and by such means as will leave their natural beauty unimpaired for the enjoyment of this and future generations' ”
UNQUOTE

If the LDPBTF are committed to uphold those statutory responsibilites, as they purport to do, how does Nick Lancaster justify issuing the above statement on their behalf. – A statement which, in context, flies completely against all of those principles, not least that of the Sandford Committee?

Once again, I urge everyone against the proposal to write to LDNP.
Only then will your voices be heard where it matters!
Emails should be sent to: -
planning@lake-district.gov.uk – Attention of Kevin Richards, Case Officer
And copied to: -
thirlmereactivity@lakedistrict.gov.uk

The Open Space Society are investigating the status of the track to Fisher Crag. As it was in situ before the reservoir it should be protected access for the public. This issue may well end up in court.

We hear much about the LDNPA working with commercial partners and other bodies. This is referred to as the Lake District Partnership. It's a great idea. I have no problem with it. Richard Leafe talks about it in the video below (see link). The partnership is midway through its 2015-2020 plan. Treetop Trek refers to this plan in their planning statement. But here's the facts:

Under VE1 the plan says:
"Promote and create new and existing
opportunities for outdoor adventure on
foot, bicycles, ropes, in and on water, and
through events – all sensitive to the unique
landscape. We will do this by delivering
the AdCap Strategy and Action Plan"

The partnership plan never uses the word "adrenalin" and zip wires are over water.. not in or on.
TTT's planning statement fails to mention the over-riding principal of VE1 in the partnership plan is to offer "experiences for visitors that benefit their health and wellbeing". By any stretch of the imagination zip wire use would not achieve this.

The AdCap Strategy coordinated by Cumbria Tourism refers to adrenalin activities as a niche activity and "must be within the
environmental limits of the area and should not detract from the wild and remote character of many parts of Cumbria."

In a different interview with ITV at Brockhole in 2015 Richard Leafe says woodland areas are the appropriate place for zip wire activities. TTT claim the Thirlmere zip wires are in woodland. Do me a favour, please! Most of it is over water and when it isn't it is over trees.

Mike Turner of Treetop Treks has been a director of Cumbria Tourism since May 2016. Two co-directors of CT helped produce the only recent document that really pushes adrenaline activities - the Cumbria LEP Rural and Visitor Economy Growth Plan 2017. This document is quoted ( and misleadingly at one point) in their planning statement. Just the other day Cumbria Tourism publicly endorsed the zip wire plans. Surely conflicts of interests abound here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwGNxrmOKSc

Extracts from TreeTop Trek’s “Promoters summary” planning application document, where, amongst the glowing narrative extolling the scheme’s untold benefits, we find: -
From the Heritage Section of that document: -
• “The appreciation of the rich cultural landscape attribute is of very high significance, and impact is assessed as moderate with minor change, and slight adverse on OUV”. (OUV being Outstanding Universal Value).
• “Listed building neutral impact on all bar the Straining Well were there is a minor change which is regarded as moderately adverse”.
In the conclusion to that section, they say: -
“Overall those aspects of the landscape that help describe the significance of the landscape will not be affected by the proposals, and it is considered that there will be no detrimental impact on OUV. The minor impact will be compensated for by the increase in interpretation
online, on signage and directly with visitors through the UU ranger and TTT customer engagement”.

So, on the one hand they say there will be “moderately” adverse effects, (to me, in the context of the landscape we are talking about, adverse is adverse – moderate or otherwise!), and then they say there will be no detrimental impact – How does that stack up?
Then, to top it all, they say that “the minor impact will be compensated for by the increase in interpretation online, on signage and directly with visitors through the UU ranger and TTT customer engagement”.
How can “interpretation online”, (What the hell is that supposed to mean???), or signage, or talking to rangers, or “TTT customer engagement” nullify adverse effects made to the physical landscape?

From the LVIA Section of that document. (Landscape Visual Impact Assessment): -
• “Overall the visual impact has been assessed as low/negligible and the landscape impact as moderately adverse”.
Oh-well, that’s all right then! – I trust, as a result, they will begin proceedings to overturn the Sandford Committee’s findings! – For it seems, according to TreeTop Trek, that moderately adverse impact on the landscape of The Lake District National Park is entirely acceptable when there is the prospect of vast profit to be made!

Thank God this outragious propsal was thrown out, but what about the latest scheme for a cable car development at Honister???