Cat Bells - Ullock Moss Car Park Proposals We are very pleased that the Lake District National Park has refused plans for the proposed 150-space car park at Ullock Moss, near Catbells, by 7 votes to 2. Expand Update 17 August 2022 Planning Enforcement at Ullock Moss Car ParkWe are pleased that enforcement action has been taken by the Lake District National Park Authority on works undertaken to create temporary car park at Ullock Moss near Portinscale, but the applicant has appealed against this.Many of you joined us in challenging plans for a permanent car park there, which were refused last year. Although temporary use of land for car parks is allowed for up to 28 days under national ‘permitted development’ rights, this is only when certain conditions and criteria are met. In this case works have been carried out to create the temporary car park that went beyond what is allowed. We will be supporting the LDNPA in upholding the enforcement case. 1 December 2021 We are very pleased that the Lake District National Park’s Planning Committee has refused plans today for the proposed 150-space car park at Ullock Moss, near Catbells, by 7 votes to 2. We spoke against the plans at the Committee meeting today, along with a representative from the local community. Members of the committee discussed a range of issues in coming to their decision - including the likelihood of attracting more cars, and impacts on landscape, the World Heritage Site and biodiversity. There was clear concern about whether the car park would really provide a solution and also about whether the criteria for allowing an exception to planning policy by allowing a new car park in open countryside were met. One member listed the various organisations that had objected, including Friends of the Lake District, and indicated that given there were so many with shared views, these organisations should be listened to. Another mentioned that in light of COP26 and the climate emergency it is time do something different in terms of finding solutions to parking and traffic issues. We thank all those who added their voice and support to our campaign to challenge the car park. We hope that this decision, along with two other decisions made in November to refuse proposals for new car parks, will provide the impetus to bring forward a range of positive, sustainable alternative and integrated travel options for National park visitors and residents alike. 3rd November 2021 A Development Control Committee meeting took place on Wednesday 3rd November where it was decided that the Ullock Moss Car Park application would be deferred to enable the Committee to carry out a site visit before coming to its decision. We welcomed the decision at the meeting by the Lake District National Park Authority to refuse two other proposals to extend the time period of two temporary car parks. Applications for new car parks at Waterfoot (next to Ullswater) and Lands Field (Coniston) were refused, due to concerns about impact on the landscape, conflicts with recently adopted planning policies, and the potential precedent for more similar proposals for car parks elsewhere in the national park. 29th October 2021 A Statement by Friends of the Lake District, with Campaign for National Parks, National Trust, Cumbria Wildlife Trust, Woodland Trust, West Cumbria Bus Users and West Cumbria Friends of the Earth. Friends of the Lake District and other leading environmental organisations are very concerned by the recommendation to approve the proposed 150-space car park at Ullock Moss near Catbells. This development would set a precedent that would have a major bearing on the wider future of the Lake District, what it will look like and what it will become – and other National Parks - and we urge the Lake District National Park Authority’s (LDNPA) Development Control Committee to reject this proposal. Whilst we very much recognise the need to address ongoing and growing issues relating to parking and vehicle numbers in the Portinscale and Catbells area, this proposal is not an appropriate solution. We agree with Campaign for National Parks and the National Trust that the plan raises fundamental policy conflicts in regard to development in the open countryside and the development of new car parks. Local planning policy calls for a ‘coordinated and strategic approach’ to decision making about transport. This proposal directly conflicts with this sentiment and is not part of an integrated plan that will enable sustainable travel. We also share the views of groups such as West Cumbria Bus Users and West Cumbria Friends of the Earth that it undermines the LDNPA’s own target to reduce, as a minimum, the % visitors arriving by car from 83% to 64% and to secure a modal shift towards more sustainable transport in the Park. Instead it will increase traffic to the area, harm the landscape and conflict with the Park’s own climate and ecological commitments. Lorayne Wall, Planning Officer, Friends of the Lake District said: “Allowing a new car park in this location threatens to set back plans for sustainable travel and a low-carbon Lake District before they even get started. We are simply asking that the Park adheres to its own plans and policies and implements them.” The Campaign for National Parks has raised concerns that allowing a permanent car park in this location will make it harder to persuade people to use alternatives to the car in future and will set a dangerous precedent. Ruth Bradshaw, Policy and Research Manager for Campaign for National Parks, said: "Campaign for National Parks remains strongly opposed to plans for a new car park in open countryside in an already very popular area. Allowing a new car park here will facilitate yet more car use and will do nothing to encourage more sustainable travel. It is in direct conflict with the National Park Authority's ambitions to reduce car use to help meet its net zero target. It also sets a dangerous precedent for other similar developments both elsewhere in the Lake District and in other National Parks. Given the urgency of the nature and climate emergencies, it is even more essential than ever that National Park Authority members consider the longer-term impacts of the decisions they make." Notwithstanding the wider implications, Friends of the Lake District also shares the concerns of Cumbria Wildlife Trust and the Woodland Trust about the immediate area. There would be significant harm to the area’s hydrology and to woodland that is of high ecological value and home to priority species protected under the NERC Act. The obligation for the applicant to demonstrate that their proposals would not adversely impact ancient woodland through increased pollution has not been met. With the decision on 3rd November coinciding with the UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26), it is an opportunity for the LDNPA to demonstrate its conviction in tackling climate change in line with the recent comments of its own Chief Executive: *“Our knowledge and expertise mean we are uniquely placed to lead on addressing the climate crisis….National Parks [are] at the centre of reducing emissions…and delivering ecological resilience. *“If we can inspire even a small percentage of our visitors to think about some of their lifestyle choices while they are enjoying the benefits of being in our amazing landscape it will make a difference”. The LDNPA’s own targets and ambitions in reducing car travel, in tackling climate change and in ecological recovery are laudable, but this proposal clearly conflicts with these. We therefore urge the Park’s Development Control Committee to support this ambition and refuse this application. *Press Release: UK’s 15 National Parks Release Joint Statement on Climate Change in lead up to COP 26 - National Parks 22nd October 2021 Like many people, we fully recognise the ongoing and growing issues relating to parking and vehicle numbers in the Portinscale and Catbells area, and the need to address these. While a new car park might seem the obvious response to parking problems, the proposed 150-space car park for Cat Bells at Ullock Moss, south of Portinscale, near Keswick, is not an appropriate solution for a number of reasons. Our key concerns are: The Lake District National Park Authority’s (LDNPA) own clearly stated vision for sustainable transport in the national park hinges on reducing car-based visits and use of more sustainable modes of travel to, from and around the national park. A new car park in open countryside will undermine this plan. The LDNPA’s own very recently adopted planning policies require that new car parks are only permitted when they are a proven and integral part of a strategic plan for sustainable travel in the area and meet certain other criteria. This proposal is not part of a strategic plan and does not meet the other criteria. The proposal will necessitate and encourage cars to travel through Portinscale village, exacerbating rather than helping to resolve issues there. The success of the proposal is reliant on some measures being agreed and implemented by other parties and there is no guarantee of this. A new car park and shuttle bus terminus would not conserve and enhance the character and special qualities and attributes of the National Park and World Heritage Site, including tranquillity, as is required by planning policy and legislation. We set these out in our letter of objection to the plans and many of our members and supporters to did the same. You can read our response here: Ullock Moss response (pdf) 24th May 2021 It’s not too late to join the fight! New policies make it clear that Ullock Moss is not the place for a new car park and that alternative ways of exploring the National Park are what’s really needed. The proposed car park at Ullock Moss near Portinscale could: Undermine hopes of achieving plans for Sustainable Travel and a Low Carbon Lake District Set a dangerous precedent for other temporary car parks across the National Park You’ll find details of the application by searching for application reference number 7/2020/2291 at www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/planning/planning-application-search-tool Many thanks to those of you who have already written to the LDNPA about this case. If you have not written already but are able to do so, we have prepared a template to help you (see below). A huge number of responses have been made to this planning application, and many share our concerns about the proposal, including many local residents of Portinscale itself. Like us, they recognise the need for parking and traffic issues to be addressed in the Cat Bells area, but also see that this proposal is not an appropriate solution. Join us in letting the Lake District National Park Authority (LDNPA) know that we will support them in standing by their local planning policies and their clearly-stated vision for sustainable travel in, to and from the National Park Help us ensure that this proposal is not allowed to set a precedent for temporary car parks to become permanent Write TO THE LDNPA to help the fight against this proposal. We've created a letter template to help you write your own response (with suggested text to guide you) and then email it to the Lake District National Park Authority. VIEW LETTER TEMPLATE(Template includes instructions on what to write and where to send) This case is not just about whether or not this particular proposal fits certain criteria or not. There is a lot more at stake, because this case could have significant bearing on the wider future of the Lake District, what it will look like and what it will become, as well as impacting directly on important views and habitats. It could undermine hopes of achieving plans for Sustainable Travel and a Low Carbon Lake District It could set a dangerous precedent for other temporary car parks allowed across the Park as emergency measures during 2020 to become permanent There are specific solutions for this area that are already set out by the LDNPA as part of a wider Smarter Travel plan for the whole of the National Park. This is the plan that should be implemented instead of developing new car parks. Comments on the proposal should be made to the Lake District National Park Authority by 25th June 2021. Responses submitted shortly after that will still be accepted up until the decision is made (currently expected to be 7th July 2021). We would be grateful if you would also consider copying us into your reply by copying our planning officer [email protected] into emailed submissions. Your comments will help to inform our own position on these issues. You'll find more background information in the planning section of our website, including details of our comment to date and a copy of a press release sent to highlight this issue. 4th February 2021 Like many people, we fully recognise the ongoing and growing issues relating to parking and vehicle numbers in the Portinscale and Catbells area, and the need to address these. While a new car park might seem the obvious response to parking problems, the proposed 150-space car park for Cat Bells at Ullock Moss, south of Portinscale, near Keswick, is not an appropriate solution for a number of reasons. Key reasons we have taken this approach are: The Lake District National Park Authority’s (LDNPA) own clearly stated vision for sustainable transport in the national park hinges on reducing car-based visits and use of more sustainable modes of travel to, from and around the national park. A new car park in open countryside will undermine this plan. The LDNPA’s own planning policies (current and proposed) require that new car parks are only permitted when they are a proven and integral part of a strategic plan for sustainable travel in the area and meet certain other criteria. This proposal is not part of a strategic plan and does not meet the other criteria. The proposal will necessitate and encourage cars to travel through Portinscale village, exacerbating rather than helping to resolve issues there. The proposal is reliant on some measures being agreed and implemented by other parties and there is no assurance of this. A new car park and shuttle bus terminus would not conserve and enhance the character and special qualities and attributes of the National Park and World Heritage Site, including tranquillity, as is required by planning policy and legislation. We have set these out in our letter of objection to the plans and urge our members and supporters to do the same. You can read it here: Ullock Moss response (pdf) Give your viewThe earliest date a decision will be made is 5th May. Although the official deadline for comments on the application was 5th March, responses will be accepted until a decision is made, so there is still time if you wish to respond. Please quote application reference number 7/2020/2291. More instructions for commenting on planning proposals are available here. 20th January 2021 Before Christmas a planning application was submitted to the Lake District National Park for a new car park at Ullock Moss, south of Portinscale, close to Catbells. The area had been used for temporary parking last summer. The applicants had carried out some pre-application consultation at the time and we made our concerns clear at the time which can be seen in our initial response.Members and supporters may wish to look at and comment on the application. Comments can be accepted up until the 5th March. The application can be viewed on the Park Authority website.Follow this link and enter planning reference number 7/2020/2291 in the search box to view the latest information for this proposal on the Park Authority website. 29th July 2020 We have today submitted a written response to the consultation Ullock Moss, Portinscale Car Park. We very much welcome the principle of managing the situation around access to Catbells and in principle may support the idea of park and ride type proposals. However, we think there are a number of issues around this particular location. Read our full response here> 29th June 2020 A pre application consultation is being carried out by Crosby Granger Architects for a proposed car park at Ullock Moss, Portinscale. We think the proposal raises concerns around the principle of a car park at this location, how this fits with planning policy and potential landscape impacts upon the site and its surroundings. We will be looking carefully at the proposal and responding accordingly. The link below provides information on the proposal and a link to survey monkey for your views. The consultation runs until 31 July. https://www.crosbygrangerarchitects.co.uk/ullockmoss/ Banner image by: Ian Brown
New Permanent Campsite proposed in Newlands Valley We are pleased to report that proposals for a new permanent campsite in the Newlands Valley were refused by the Lake District National Park Authority’s development control committee on 3rd August on grounds of harm to the landscape, visual impact, flood risk and insufficient information regarding highway safety and access arrangements. Expand 5th August 2022 We are pleased to report that proposals for a new permanent campsite in the Newlands Valley were refused by the Lake District National Park Authority’s development control committee on 3rd August on grounds of harm to the landscape, visual impact, flood risk and insufficient information regarding highway safety and access arrangements. 15th February 2022 We have responded to proposals for a new campsite in the Newlands Valley. The site was used for camping temporarily under ‘permitted development rights’ last year, but this proposal would see the site used for tented camping for over 6 months every year. We share the views of many people who have also already submitted objections that the proposal conflicts with local planning policies. The site lies in the open countryside, distant from any existing buildings, farm or other settlement and would and impact on landscape character, tranquillity and views from surrounding summits and would exacerbate the well-documented local traffic issues. If you would like to find out more about the proposals, they can be viewed here by searching using the reference 7/2022/2011 and comments can be sent to [email protected] Our response can be viewed here>
Car Park at The Swan, Grasmere refused on appeal We are pleased that the Planning Inspector dealing with the appeal shared our view, and that of the Lake District National Park Authority, that this proposal would harm the landscape, and the appeal has been dismissed. Expand 19th July 2022 We are pleased that the Planning Inspector dealing with the appeal shared our view, and that of the Lake District National Park Authority, that this proposal would harm the landscape, including impacts on Dark Skies, and the World Heritage Site. The appeal has therefore been dismissed. Read the Inspector’s report and decision here. 19th May 2022 An appeal has now been lodged against the refusal of this application and we await the outcome. 18th November 2021 We are pleased to report that this application was refused on 16th July 2021 on grounds of impacts on the landscape character, views, tranquillity and World Heritage attributes as well as a lack of information such as lighting information. 16th December 2020 A new 52-space car park is proposed at the Swan Hotel, Grasmere. We share the local community’s concerns over what this will mean for the landscape and settlement character, light pollution and ambitions to shift to more sustainable modes of travel. The application reference number is 7/2020/5743 - find out more here Read our response to the proposals here Photo: View over Grasmere from Helm Crag by Nicky Simmon
Raising awareness of the need for consent to develop on Common Land We have long campaigned and lobbied for the protection of common land and town and village greens in Cumbria. In recent cases development has been carried out on common land and village greens without proper consent or appropriate scrutiny. Expand Friends of the Lake District has a long-standing involvement with Common Land and town and village greens in Cumbria, which includes our lobbying and campaigning for their protection. Although not a new issue, recent cases we have been involved in have increased our awareness that works are being carried out on Common Land and town and village greens without the proper consent or appropriate scrutiny. This includes cases where someone has secured planning consent for the works. Sometimes people are aware that they need, and then obtain planning consent but do not realise that separate Common Land consent is also necessary. However, in other cases they are unaware, or simply press ahead knowing that there are weaknesses in the reporting and enforcement of Common Land breaches. This issue is relevant across Cumbria, where we have one third of all the Common Land in the country, meaning its landscape, culture, character and heritage are all heavily influenced by it. In the Lake District National Park there is the additional dimension of Common Land being one of the attributes of Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site. Common Land should have extra protection by virtue of the World Heritage Site being a heritage asset of international value. It is therefore really important that where it is required, including where it is needed alongside planning consent, that Common Land consent is sought. This will help to ensure that the impacts on Common Land are given appropriate consideration. Failure to do this devalues Common Land, risks harm to and loss of Common Land and puts at risk the benefits and value it has for the landscape, our cultural heritage and for society. We have considered what might help to improve this situation. Whilst legislative or procedural changes might be a longer-term answer, we’re exploring some simpler but more immediate actions and asking key relevant organisations if they will support us in doing so. This will include raising general awareness of the issue and why it’s important to address it as well as asking relevant local planning authorities to highlight the need for Common Land consent where it is relevant to any planning permission they give. Keep an eye out for updates on our website, social media and in our newsletters to see how you can help.
Revisions to National Planning Policy Framework The process of revising the National Planning Policy Framework is ongoing. The revisions were previously expected to be part of a wider overhaul of the planning system through a dedicated Planning Bill, but The Queen's Speech in May 2022 set out that significantly scaled-back changes will now take place as part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. Expand 24th May 2022 The process of revising the National Planning Policy Framework is ongoing. The revisions were previously expected to be part of a wider overhaul of the planning system through a dedicated Planning Bill, but The Queen's Speech in May 2022 set out that significantly scaled-back changes will now take place as part of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. You can find out more about this here> The Bill will result in changes to the National Planning Policy Framework as well as new regulations and we expect public consultations on the detail of these changes and more information as to what they might mea for our landscapes, environment and rural communities over the coming months. 31 March 2021 We recently responded to a consultation on revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and proposals for a new national design code. The proposed changes to the NPPF are relatively few in number, but nevertheless include some important revisions that we very much welcome. We were particularly pleased to see new text requiring development in the setting of protected landscapes to be sensitively located and designed and a new paragraph focusing onthe importance of trees. We also expressed our support for new text to reinforce the need for sustainable patterns of development, environmental enhancements, public access to nature and mitigating climate change as well as new text requiring development to provide a choice of transport options and active travel. We welcome greater recognition of the wildlife and climate change benefits of open space and a proposed requirement for new development to make as much use as possible of natural flood management techniques. We expressed concerns about some of the proposed changes, such as the failure to recognise environmental capacity when deriving local housing targets, the prematurity of some proposals given the outcomes of other related consultations are not yet known. We also suggested some additions to help further strengthen proposed new text and in some cases, to strengthen existing text. We also welcomed the proposed new national design code, which, it is intended, will guide local authorities in creating locally-specific design codes for their area. There is much to be welcomed in the proposed code, but we highlighted the need for it to be relevant to rural as well as urban areas and provided detail on how it could better take into account landscape and light pollution and the protection of dark skies. We also emphasised the level of resources that would be needed to secure genuine and meaningful public engagement in the process of preparing local design codes. You can see our full response here This consultation was part of the Government’s wider review of the planning system and further consultations are expected in due course.
Redevelopment of Hartside Café This application has now been withdrawn. While we supported the reinstatement of a café at the site, we did not support the substantially larger proposals for retail, hotel, exhibition space and formal urban-style carpark. We hope any new proposal will be amended to reflect the concerns raised by us and others. Expand 19th May 2022 This application has now been withdrawn. While we supported the reinstatement of a café at the site, we did not support the substantially larger and expanded proposals for retail, a hotel, exhibition space and formal urban-style car parking. We hope any new proposal will be amended to reflect the concerns raised by Friends of the Lake District and others. Plans have been submitted to Eden District Council for the redevelopment of the well-known former café at Hartside Pass.The café was destroyed by a fire in 2018 but the site remains a popular stopping point because of the expansive views it offers over Cumbria and beyond.Whilst it is a brownfield site and the principle of a café and public viewpoint at the site is well-established, the site lies in a very rural, prominent and exposed location in the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and any redevelopment will need very careful consideration.We have some concerns about the scale and design of the proposal, which includes not only a café but a 10-room hotel, retail and exhibition space, viewing gallery and extensive paved, formal parking. Expanding such a rural site and attracting potentially larger numbers of visitors may also raise concerns about sustainable travel and other impacts, including impacts on tranquillity and dark skies. The proposal site also appears to encroach on to open access land.We’d be grateful for your thoughts on the proposal [email protected]You can view and comment on the plans here by entering reference 22/0071. Read our response here Image: Hartside by Claire Dowling
Final Consultation on Copeland Local Plan Working closely with the National Trust, we have been successful in securing changes to Copeland’s emerging local plan that will see the area proposed as an extension to the St Bee’s Heritage Coast protected by planning policy. Changes to better protect dark skies have also been included. The preparation of the Copeland Local Plan is in its final stages and we understand that the next step will be for the Council to submit the Plan to the Government for Examination. Expand 19th May 2022 Working closely with the National Trust, we have been successful in securing changes to Copeland’s emerging local plan that will see the area proposed as an extension to the St Bee’s Heritage Coast protected by planning policy. Changes to better protect dark skies have also been included. The preparation of the Copeland Local Plan is in its final stages and we understand that the next step will be for the Council to submit the Plan to the Government for Examination. Copeland Borough Council is currently consulting on the final draft of their new Local Plan. The Plan will set new planning policies and identify areas for new development in the area of Copeland that lies outside the Lake District National Park. We have responded to earlier consultations during the preparation of the new plan and have been pleased to see some of our suggested changes taken into account, including in relation to dark skies and the St Bees and Whitehaven heritage coast extension. We will be reviewing the final draft document in more detail and responding to the consultation by the deadline of Monday 21st February 2022. To find out more and have your say, please see https://www.copeland.gov.uk/content/local-plan-2021-2038-publication-draft-consultation
West Cumbria Coal Mine The Inquiry into the West Cumbria Coal Mine closed in the early hours of Saturday 2nd October 2021. The Inspector has now issued his report to the Secretary of State Michael Gove and his decision is expected by July 2022. Expand Update 4th October 2021 The Inquiry into the West Cumbria Coal Mine closed in the early hours of Saturday 2nd October 2021. The Inspector has now issued his report to the Secretary of State Michael Gove and his decision is expected by July 2022. Update 28th September 2021 Friends of the Earth Coal Mine Meeting Friends of the Earth has organised a free online meeting on Thursday 30 September where it will be providing a recap of what’s happened in its campaign so far, and outline what will be coming up. Bookings for this meeting can be made online now at: www.eventbrite.com/e/find-out-about-the-campaign-against-the-whitehaven-coal-mine-tickets-169086737985 Meeting title: 'A session for people that are concerned about the impact of the Whitehaven Coal Mine, but haven’t been involved in the campaign thus far'. This event has been created for people who are concerned about the impact of the Whitehaven Coal Mine but haven’t been involved in the campaign thus far. You’ll hear from a Friends of the Earth campaigner about the significance of this coal mine and what activities are coming up in the campaign. The event will finish with a discussion about what action you can take. Update 6th September 2021 Watch the coal mine inquiry via Youtube this week The coal mine inquiry is taking place from 7 September 2021 and is scheduled to last for 4 weeks. Listen to it live here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQqDetL1R5aRgbNm8PDViNw Complete a short survey to share your views Friends of the Earth is currently running a survey to elicit the views of people in west Cumbria. it is particularly interesting in knowing more about the views of Cumbrian residents on Whitehaven's future, and West Cumbria Mining’s proposal to establish a new deep coal mine in Whitehaven. Please do visit the link to complete the survey: https://friendsoftheearth.typeform.com/to/POH7tkAf South Lakes Action on Climate Change Publishes its Expert Proofs of Evidence On 31 August, South Lakeland Action on Climate Change (SLACC) published formal challenges to of some of the key points raised in favour of the proposed mine. The documents are quite long and technical, so we've summarised the main points below or you can read the full “Rebuttals” written by SLACC’s expert witnesses at the link: https://slacc.org.uk/the-truth-about-the-coal-mine/We would encourage anybody with an interest in this proposal to get involved. Please do complete Friends of the Earth's survey to let them know your views and do drop in via YouTube to see the inquiry in progress. Summary of SLACC 'Rebuttals' The quality of the coking coal (evidence from Professor Stuart Haszeldine) The coal has a much higher sulphur content than is acceptable for use in EU and UK steelworks. This means that around 87% of the coal will be exported outside of the UK and EU which tears up the “reducing the need to ship coal” argument. Any of the coal that is used within the UK and EU will likely need to be mixed with Australian low sulphur coal before it reaches acceptable sulphur levels, meaning that we will be importing coking coal from Australia rather than the US. Again tearing up the shipping agument relating to the climate impact of shipping coal in from abroad. Development of EU steelmaking without needing to use coking coal (evidence from Professor Lars J Nillson) The applicant’s proof of evidence appears to clearly assume that EU and UK legislated climate targets will not be met – this is clearly unacceptable The applicant’s evidence rests on a forecast which assumes the steel sector in the UK and Europe will not follow a two-degree warming pathway which is incompatible with legislated EU and UK emissions The applicant discounts much of the work going on in Europe to develop non-coking coal methods of creating steel and therefore grossly overestimates the amount of coking coal that will be necessary after 2030 Steel production in the EU has been declining since 2007, but the applicant’s proof of evidence posits an annual growth of 0.5% in EU steelmaking. This is a highly unlikely figure Carbon Capture and Storage is expensive and not very efficient. It adds about 30% cost to steel production using coal. As this is the case, EU steel-making is more likely to look to invest in modern lower carbon technology such as hydrogen based production. The “perfect substitution” argument (evidence from Professor Paul Ekins) the perfect substitution argument is contrary to the way in which modern markets operate: the Woodhouse mine will not “displace US mines with higher emissions” and therefore lead to a reduction in global GHG emissions. The US mines will simply sell their product elsewhere if the WCM mine opens, such that the total global level of GHG emissions will be increased, not reduced, by the opening of the mine. If, as a result of this mine being granted permissions, the UK is required to import low-sulphur coal from Australia to blend with their new domestic product, then Mr Truman’s case appears to be that the UK is effectively switching from the import of US coal to the import of Australian coal. (The analysis for Europe is the same). Even if there was already some existing import of Australian coal, the lower quality (as against US HVA coal) of the WCM coal would presumably require a higher amount of Australian coal. At best for WCM, this means there is no justification at all for making any claim that there will be net transport GHG savings. Inhibiting the transfer to low-carbon steel technology (evidence from Professor Paul Ekins) Steel makers are already looking to make the transition to lower-carbon methods of production in order to ensure that their business will remain viable within legislated climate targets, because they are aware that prices on carbon emissions are very likely to rise significantly over the coming decades, and because they see an emerging market for “green steel” and the opportunity to establish market share globally selling it. The availability of cheap coking coal, given the broadly comparable capital investments being considered might well influence steel makers away from the H-DRI technologies that are currently being demonstrated in the EU. The jobs argument (evidence from Rebekah Diski, Senior Researcher at the New Economics Foundation) Mr Kirkbride asserts that the project will create “up to” 532 permanent staff positions. However the applicant provided no clear methodology for how these employment numbers were ascertained and there is no independent verification of these figures, merely an assertion in the WCM documentation. Any apprenticeships offered are in the context of a development necessarily limited to 2049 for a technology rendered redundant because of climate change legislation. It is therefore difficult to see how such apprenticeships offer any meaningful long-term benefit to local young people, leaving them stranded in terms of future employment prospects. It’s the equivalent of offering apprenticeships in asbestos-based building techniques. Rather than committing to offering a high level of local jobs, this target is not actually set, but is something to “aim at” on the basis of what is commercially convenient. There will be no penalties if WCM fails to reach this target. Local skills shortages mean that WCM would need to employ a significant number of non-local staff and likely look beyond the UK for appropriately skilled mine workers. Only 3% of the respondents to WCM’s local labour survey would be realistically capable of working at the mine. One of the key obstacles to meeting Cumbria’s climate targets is appropriate investment in green skills (e.g. heat pump installers, insulation retrofitters, builders with low carbon construction skills etc). Clearly, the development of skills in the local area in respect of a project with a lifetime shorter than the average career (if the mine is operational 2024-49) which could otherwise be focussed on alternative low-carbon jobs will only intensify the local green skills shortage and also leave those employed by the mine without relevant skills for a net zero carbon economy. Update 29th April 2021: Whitehaven Coal Mine, final chance to have your say. The application for a coal mine at Whitehaven will be decided at a Public Inquiry in September this year. There is a final opportunity for members of the public to send in a representation to the Planning Inspector by May 6th next week. You can also ask to speak at the Inquiry. Read on for details of our concerns about the project and for how to send your comments to the inspector. You can send your comments to the Planning Inspector or register to speak even if you didn’t respond to the original planning application. Friends of the Lake District has written to the Planning Inspector reiterating our objections to the plans for the coal mine near Whitehaven. Our concerns about the mine can be summarised as follows: It is not in the public interest as it prioritises a small number of investors and employees above the international climate crisis and environmental damage; It contradicts local, national and international climate change commitments; It increases the risk that local, national and international greenhouse gas emissions targets will not be met; It will exacerbate local, national and international climate change impacts (including impacts upon the Lake District National Park and the English Lake District World Heritage Site and their settings); It will severely compromise Cumbria’s chances of securing a sustainable economic future and fulfilling its potential as a leader in the green revolution, It will lock West Cumbria into a short-term boom-and-bust cycle over a period of 25 years at the most, saddling communities with outdated high-carbon industrial infrastructure and skillsets and limited prospects to participate in the green revolution and a net zero carbon economy. It is not in the interests of the common good for development of this mine to go ahead. It is unsustainable in the true meaning of the word in that it will leave the world a worse place for future generations. Friends of the Lake District firmly believes that the environment and therefore the wider public interest is not served by this development. You can read our letter to the Planning Inspector here Friends of the Earth have put together a helpful information sheet on how to go about sending a representation to the Inspector and also how to register to speak at the Planning Inquiry. You can find the information sheet here, it contains some more information about the proposed development along with links to the original planning documents, Lord Deben’s letter on behalf of the Climate Change Committee and the email address/postal address to send your comments to. Update 16th March 2021: Coal Mine to go to public inquiry The Government has finally stepped in to review the decision to open a new coal mine in Cumbria. On Friday, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government Robert Jenrick informed Cumbria County Council that he will ‘call in’ the proposed planning application for the mine – the approval of which would have significantly increased greenhouse gas emissions. This is exactly what we’ve been campaigning for, and is a huge step towards the coal mine being scrapped for good. A Public Inquiry will now be held by an independent Planning Inspector to assess the evidence around climate change, something which has been hard for Cumbria County Council to do objectively due to pressure from local politicians and interest groups. Public pressure has paid off once again. In his letter to the Council, Robert Jenrick stated that he was intervening, in part, because of controversy surrounding the mine. Together with other local and national organisations, we spoke up and our collective voice could not be ignored. Read the government's letter about calling in the coal mine decision here Update 10th February 2021 Friends of the Lake District welcomes Cumbria County Council’s decision to rethink the Whitehaven coal mine Commenting on Cumbria County Council’s decision to reconsider their earlier decision to approve the Whitehaven coal mine, Douglas Chalmers said: “The increase in carbon emissions from this mine alone would amount to more emissions than the Climate Change Committee has projected for all open UK coal mines up to 2050. A new mine jeopardises the UK’s goals of phasing out coal by 2035, and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, as well as undermining the UK’s COP26 Climate Change Conference Presidency and international credibility. We do not need the mine, 85% of the coal to be produced is for export. “The County Council has the chance to show real leadership in the fight against climate change by recognising Cumbria’s potential to be at the heart of a Green Industrial Revolution. Mining jobs have a fixed timespan. Instead, there is the potential to create jobs that will be sustainable into the future by maximising Cumbria’s significant renewable energy resources and innovating sustainable alternatives to traditional manufacturing processes. Then we could all look forward to the future Cumbria deserves rather than regretting a missed opportunity.” FAQs about the proposed Coal Mine Q: The mine is for coking coal to make steel not for power stations generation, so it's OK isn't it?A: We understand that the coal is for coking plants. It still has a huge carbon cost. The total emissions from the mine (420 million tonnes of CO2) will exceed the whole of the UK’s carbon emissions in 2018. You can read more about this here https://www.green-alliance.org.uk/resources/The_case_against_new_coal_mines_in_the_UK.pdf Q: No one has invented a substitute for steel and it has to be made somewhere. The alternative to the Cumbrian mine is imported coking coal or exporting the steel making jobs.A: The steel industry is fast moving away from using coking coal. By the time the coal mine is up and running, Europe’s steel industry (where the 85% of the coal not used in the UK is supposed to go) will be quickly moving away from use of coking coal and towards hydrogen. Steel making using coking coal is old, dirty technology and the steel industry is quickly innovating to ensure they bring their carbon emissions down https://greenallianceblog.org.uk/2021/02/09/why-europe-doesnt-need-cumbrias-coking-coal/ Q: Imported coal will only ADD to carbon emissions as transport will have to be taken into consideration.A: If there were savings from reduced transportation of coal, these would not cancel out or neutralise the emissions from the mine operations. In the context of the UK’s target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and global efforts to keep carbon emissions in line with a scenario compatible with no more than a 1.5*C increase, absolute reductions of emissions are required, rather than balancing off one set of emissions against another. Q: Without this source of coal the future of British steel is threatened. However burning coking coal won't go away to salve our conscience, it will just move to China where environmental protection is less enforced than in Britain, won't it?A: British Steel will only be using 15% maximum of the extracted coal. Using the import/export emissions argument, the 85% of coal exported from the UK will also cause emissions. British Steel is also moving towards lower carbon models of manufacturing, so it’s unlikely that not opening Woodhouse Mine will cause British Steel to collapse. Q: West Cumbria is a deprived area, with high unemployment and low wage jobs. This mine would help reverse that.A: The Local Government Association estimates that there will be nearly 900 jobs created in West Cumbria thanks to the development of green and low carbon technologies such as offshore wind and low carbon energy generation. We need to take a step for the future now rather than putting it off again and leaving the mess for future generations to deal with. Coal used to be one of our backbone industries, when we had fewer alternatives. The world is different now, we know more about how these industries damage the environment, so we need to look for better, cleaner ways of making things. Local Government Association statistics on green jobs in their report “Local green jobs - accelerating a sustainable economic recovery”: https://lginform.local.gov.uk/reports/view/lga-research/estimated-total-number-of-direct-jobs-in-low-carbon-and-renewable-energy-sector Q: The mine would be in Whitehaven, not the Lake District. So why are you objecting?A: Friends of the Lake District covers the whole of Cumbria, and exists to protect the landscape of Cumbria and the Lake District, for the future, for everyone. Q: You're a landscape charity, why are you objecting to this?A: As a charity that campaigns to look after Cumbria and the Lake District, we are very aware of the impact that climate change is having on our landscape and environment. The emissions that this mine will cause will originate from our backyard so to speak. We need to be calling out the danger of climate change to future generations, we need to give them the chance to appreciate the environment of Cumbria and the Lake District. Any process that will increase world carbon emissions this much needs to be opposed. It’s time to force progress on new industrial processes rather than looking back at the old damaging ways of doing things. Update 4th February 2021 Friends of the Lake District signs letter to the Prime Minister protesting the new Cumbria coal mine decision We have joined with 79 other concerned groups and written to the Prime Minister questioning why Robert Jenrick decided not to put the proposed Whitehaven Mine in west Cumbria through a Planning Inquiry process. Read more: Friends of the Lake District signs letter to the Prime Minister protesting the new Cumbria coal mine decision Read the full letter to the Prime Minister about the Cumbria Coal Mine here. 11th January 2021 We were very disappointed to hear on Friday that the Government has decided not to call in Cumbria County Council's decision to allow a new coal mine to be built near Whitehaven. We agree with Friends of the Earth and the World Wide Fund for Nature and others that this is the wrong decision in the face of climate emergency. Read more: Jenrick criticised over decision not to block new Cumbria coal mine 16th October 2020 We, along with several other organisations including the World Wide Fund for Nature, have written to the Secretary of State requesting that he ‘call in’, or reconsider, Cumbria County Council's decision to approve a new coal mine near Whitehaven. An Article 31 holding direction has now been placed on this application, to allow the Secretary of State time to consider whether call in is warranted. This means that Cumbria County Council cannot issue a decision notice until the Secretary of State has decided whether he will call in the application. Our concerns about this proposal relate primarily to climate change, which will affect many aspects of our lives and the environment both within and outside protected landscapes. We recognise that many support the scheme on the basis that it will provide jobs for the area. While this is of course important, we share the view of many others that in the context of climate emergency (as has been declared by the County Council), the economy should be supported in ways that will also help us to avoid or mitigate the issues of climate change, and not in ways that will further exacerbate them or that will make it more difficult to address them. Read more on the BBC website: Whitehaven coal mine approved for third time
Penrith Neighbourhood Plan: Protecting Penrith Beacon We support the inclusion of a policy to protect the Penrith Beacon and have been working closely with local campaign group, Keep Penrith Special, to help secure this. Find out more and have your say before Friday 4 February. Expand A consultation is currently underway seeking comments on a draft policy to give planning protection to an area of Penrith Beacon, an important landscape feature and landmark immediately north east of Penrith, as part of Penrith Neighbourhood Plan. In an unusual step, the policy has been put forward by the Examiner assessing the Plan after he confirmed that the area was too large to be given protection as a Local Green Space but that it nevertheless warranted special protection because of its value for the local community, the landscape, wildlife and recreation. Policies were proposed by Penrith Town Council and landowners Lowther Estate Trust but the Examiner did not fully agree with either approach. We very much support the inclusion of a policy to protect the Beacon and have been working closely with local campaign group, Keep Penrith Special, to help secure this. We will be responding to this final consultation on the Penrith Neighbourhood Plan with our comments on the detailed wording of the policy. To find out more and have your say please see https://www.eden.gov.uk/planning-and-building/planning-policy/neighbourhood-planning/penrith-neighbourhood-planning-area/ . The deadline for comments is Friday 4th February 2022. Image by Claire Dowling.
Housing Development Proposed in St Bee’s Heritage Coast Extension Area We have challenged plans for 139 houses in the area proposed for the extension of the St Bee’s Heritage Coast. Expand Along with the National Trust, we have challenged plans for 139 houses in the area proposed for the extension of the St Bee’s Heritage Coast. Heritage coasts are defined to protect and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and heritage features of the coastline and to enable the public to enjoy and understand it. The St Bee’s Heritage Coast is the only such area in the North West. It currently stretches from St Bee’s village across St Bee’s Head to Saltom Bay but an extension was proposed and agreed in 2019 by The National Trust, Colourful Coast Partnership, Copeland Borough Council and Natural England, following an independent landscape assessment, although the area has yet to formally be defined as part of the Heritage Coast. As part of a larger proposal, which also includes the redevelopment of a large brownfield site, significant greenfield housing development is now proposed in the extension area, which is concerning in both landscape terms and for its potential to undermine efforts to secure the extension.We have raised our wider concern about the delay in finalising the extension with the National Trust, Natural England and Copeland Borough.If you wish to view and comment on the housing proposals you can do so here – enter application reference number 4/21/2432/0F1 Read our response here.
Luge Track and Chair Lift Proposal in the Eden Valley We’re supporting concerned members of the local community to challenge a proposal for a luge track, chair lift and associated buildings on Blaze Fell near Armathwaite in the beautiful Eden Valley. Expand Thursday 11th November 2021 'Protect Eden' has created an online petition 'Save Blaze Fell' asking people to sign up and say 'NO to the Luge Development on Blaze Fell'. Click the Change.org link below to view the petition: www.change.org/p/eden-district-council-save-blaze-fell-from-development (link opens in a new tab) Friday 15th October 2021 We have now submitted our response to this application Ref:21/0783 LUGE TRACK, CHAIRLIFT, OPERATIONS BUILDING, CAR-PARKING AND LANDSCAPING, LAND AT BLAZE FELL NORD VUE, ARMATHWAITE PENRITH CA4 9TN We'd like to thank all of you who have taken the time to submit your own comments about this planning application. Details on how to submit comment on this application are available below so please do consider contacting Eden District Council if you would like your voice heard. View / download our full response and our argument setting out why we feel that this application should be refused (pdf).blazefellluge210783Response.pdf Thursday 30th September 2021 Friends of the Lake District is supporting concerned members of the local community to challenge a proposal for a luge track, chair lift and associated buildings on Blaze Fell near Armathwaite in the beautiful Eden Valley. Blaze Fell is part of a sandstone ridge in open countryside and the site is immediately adjacent a County Wildlife Site and open access land. The proposal would have a significant impact on views and the character of the landscape in the area. We’re also concerned about the sustainability of the location – the developer anticipates that 80% of visitors will arrive at the attraction by car. We attended a packed public meeting on Wednesday 29th September, where many questions were asked of the applicants by local residents and Parish Councillors. Whilst we were pleased to hear that there are no plans to operate the site in the hours of darkness, reducing potential light pollution concerns, significant concerns remain about impacts on the local landscape, wildlife, traffic generation and the principle of this sort of development taking place in open countryside, contrary to Eden District Council’s planning policies. We will be submitting our response to the application during the coming weeks. If you’d like to view the application you can do so here by entering reference number 21/0783 and you can comment by emailing Eden District Council on [email protected] (being sure to state the reference number). Your response will carry most weight if you can explain whether you consider the proposal meets relevant local plan policies such as LS1 (‘Other rural areas’ section), EC4 (‘large scale tourism development’ section), ENV1, ENV2, ENV5 and DEV3. The local plan can be found here. If you do comment, we would really appreciate your letting us know that you have done so and what comments you made by emailing [email protected]
Open Spaces - Eden District Friends of the Lake District has a long history of helping to recognise the value of the county’s open spaces and working with communities to protect them. We have been continuing this recently, working with a group of local residents in Eden District – Eden Open Spaces Group - who are concerned about the removal of protection for important open spaces in the District. Expand 5th January 2022 Friends of the Lake District has a long history of helping to recognise the value of the county’s open spaces and working with communities to protect them. We have been continuing this recently, working with a group of local residents in Eden District – Eden Open Spaces Group - who are concerned about the removal of protection for important open spaces in the District. In the previous local plan for the area, important open spaces within settlements had formal protection in planning policy regardless of whether they were publicly accessible or not. In the current plan however, this protection has been removed, without any clear justification, from all those that do not have public access. Recent planning decisions have shown that these spaces are now under threat from development as a result. Open spaces, even if not accessible to the public, can have make a significant contribution to the character of settlements and how they sit within and connect to the wider landscape. They can also be really important for biodiversity or drainage; they may have historic significance or simply provide a pleasant outlook. Settlements such as Crosby Ravensworth, Maulds Meaburn, Bolton, Brampton, Warcop and Newbiggin (Dacre parish) all saw several open spaces lose their protection but most parishes lost at least one. Eden Open Spaces Group will shortly write to all the relevant Parish Councils asking them to take a look at maps of their parishes showing the difference in spaces protected in the former and current local plans and to identify which they feel should have the protection reinstated, along with any other sites, public or otherwise, that they feel merit protection. For most parishes this will then feed into a Settlement Study that Eden District Council proposes to carry out soon as part of evidence gathering for the next local plan. However, some of the settlements most affected now lie in the Yorkshire Dales National Park and will be subject to the Yorkshire Dales National Park’s new Local Plan and any protection it provides once it is adopted. These parishes will need to highlight spaces they consider important to the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority. We would urge anyone who lives in Eden (except those living in areas that fall within the Lake District National Park) to let their parish or town council know which spaces they feel are important and ask them to support this work. You can get involved or find out more by contacting Eden Open Spaces Group [email protected]
Waterfoot and Lands Field Car Parks We are pleased to report that these applications were both refused on 3rd November 2021 Expand 18th November 2021 We are pleased to report that these applications were both refused on 3rd November 2021. 22nd October 2021 Both of these proposals are to make temporary car parks more permanent. The proposal at Waterfoot relates to a car park that was installed to enable people to park whilst access to Pooley Bridge was restricted whilst the new bridge was being installed after the old bridge was washed away in Storm Desmond. The current proposal is to extend the use for a further two years. The proposal in Coniston is on a site that has previously been refused for a very similar development. This new proposal was to operate seasonally between March and November until the end of 2022.Despite being only temporary proposals, we have previously made clear to the LDNPA our view that it is important that the presence of temporary car parks does not set a precedent for more permanent development and that allowing applications for further temporary periods may eventually lead to difficulty resisting permanent car parks. Some of the concerns mentioned above also apply to the proposed car parks at Waterfoot and Lands Field and we fully support the reasons for the recommended refusal of these applications, which focus on landscape impacts and the lack of integration with sustainable transport measures. You can read our responses to these proposals here:Waterfoot (pdf)>Lands Field (pdf)> There are some differences in the circumstances and the parts of the key policies that are relevant, and these differences appear to account for the difference in the recommendation between the these applications and that for Ullock Moss. Ultimately, though, new car park proposals conflict with the clear need to move away from car-based travel and to incentivise and develop a range of sustainable and integrated alternatives that will reduce harm to the landscape and enhance people’s enjoyment of their visit to the Lake District as well as reducing carbon emissions. New car parks may have a role in certain situations, but only where they have a clear function within an integrated and strategic approach that genuinely supports a shift towards more sustainable travel. The LDNP have been very clear that this is their view too and we will be urging them to bear this in mind as they make their decisions. You can find a link to live stream the development control committee meeting and read the committee reports for all three proposals here www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/aboutus/committee-meetings-calendar/development_control_committee/development-control-committee-3-november-2021
St Cuthbert's "garden village" Carlisle Expand Update 29th October 2020 - Carlisle Southern Link Road Consultation The Carlisle Southern Link Road has now been approved by Cumbria County Council Update 14th September 2020 We attended a technical stakeholder workshop in Autumn 2019 to contribute to working up the detailed proposals for the garden village, including reiterating our messages about how the setting of protected landscapes, green infrastructure and sustainable travel should feature in the plans. We were also pleased to learn that the Garden Village will be subject to its own local plan document, meaning that specific policies for the Garden Village will be drawn up against which each of the planning applications will be assessed. Further information and latest updates can be found here. This project is closely linked with the Carlisle Southern Link Road application, which is progressing and which we recently commented on Update 14th September 2020 - Carlisle Southern Link Road Consultation We have recently submitted a response to the planning application for the link road. Whilst we recognise that the link road has Government support and is likely to go ahead, we have reiterated concerns raised earlier in the process about the principle of building the new road, explaining why more sustainable travel solutions should be prioritised. Our full response can be read here Update 15th July 2019 - Carlisle Southern Link Road Consultation We have now submitted our full written response to the Carlisle Southern Link Road public consultation. You can view or download our submission at this link. Carlisle Southern Link Road Public Consultation Response (pdf) Update 29th April 2019 - Carlisle Southern Link Road Consultation Cumbria County Council is currently carrying out a public consultation about proposals for the new Carlisle Southern Link Road. The consultation closes on 12th July. The proposal is closely associated with St Cuthbert’s Garden Village, which will involve around 10,000 homes being built south of Carlisle. Both projects have financial backing from the Government and so are highly likely to go ahead. The consultation enables residents to view and comment on the proposed route of the road and details such as location of junctions and bridges and opportunities for cycle provision and green infrastructure alongside the scheme. Friends of the Lake District will be responding to the consultation in detail once we have had a closer look at the proposals. The consultation can be found online at https://www.cumbria.gov.uk/cslr/ and there are a series of public drop in events in Carlisle (see webpage for details). Update 14 August 2018 We are pleased to see that preferences expressed in our earlier comments for smaller expansions to several settlements rather than one huge extension to Carlisle have been taken on board. We also welcome the many positive intentions set out in the consultation document, particularly for green infrastructure. However, we still have some concerns, including over the scale of and justification for the development; the reliance of the project on increasing road capacity through a southern link road; the likelihood of these positive ambitions materialising in the final plans and the lack of evidence of proper consideration of landscape and visual impacts. Read our latest response here Update 2 August 2018The deadline for the public to respond to this consultation is 10th August. There will be further opportunities to respond further along in the process though. Update 28th March 2018We have responded to the first consultation about the proposed 'garden village' south of Carlisle. The UK government has indicated that it is minded to support the development of an entirely new and very large settlement of up to 10,000 homes to the south of Carlisle and has awarded some initial funding for the development of this concept. Read our full response here.