Whinlatter Zip Wires Proposal Friends of the Lake District submitted a brief response on 9th November 2023 stating that based on a revised application by the applicant which removed two very long, intrusive new zip wires, it no longer objected to this application on landscape grounds. Expand 20th November 2023 A revised application by the applicant on 1st November 2023 removes two very long, intrusive new zip wires above the tree line that had been proposed in the original application submitted on 24th March 2023. What is now proposed is a ropes course element that is contained within the trees and close to the existing ropes courses and visitor centre. Following correspondence with members of the community, Friends of the Lake District submitted a brief response on 9th November 2023 stating that based on these changes, it no longer objected to this application on landscape grounds and that it recognises the removal of the two long zip wires meant a lesser impact on new traffic generation. The new zipwires, which would have been significant separate attractions, detailed in the initial application were also a primary concern of residents, the Highways Authority, The British Horse Society and others too. Friends of the Lake District response 9th November 2023 (pdf) You can view the applicant's revised application submitted 1st November 2023 via the LDNPA Planning Portal by searching by reference number 7/2023/2195 Reporting in the Keswick Reminder this week has cited details from the applicant's original application and Friends of the Lake District's original response submitted on 25th April 2023. This information is out of date, and is superseded by the revised application submitted by the applicant on 1st November 2023 and Friends of the Lake District’s revised response submitted on 9th November 2023.
A66 Upgrade Consultation The landscape damage, loss of wildlife, severance of hedgerows and destruction of farmland that this road proposal will cause is of huge concern to us as a landscape charity. Expand Update 8th November 2023 The Secretary of State for Transport has extended the Development Consent Order decision for the A66 Northern Trans-Pennine project. The deadline for a decision to be made has been extended to 7 March 2024. Read more: A66 delay delivers a reprieve for the landscape and Cumbria's Net Zero Ambitions Update 6th September 2022 Friends of the Lake District is a membership organisation supported by 12000 members and supporters and is the representative for The Countryside Charity (CPRE) in Cumbria. It is dedicated to protecting and enhancing the natural beauty of Cumbria's landscapes for the benefit of our local communities, visitors, wildlife and Cumbria’s unique habitats. The landscape damage, loss of wildlife, severance of hedgerows and destruction of farmland that this road proposal will cause is of huge concern to us as a landscape charity and in particular, the section of road which will drive through the landscape north and east of Kirkby Thore and at Warcop where the road infractructure extends into the North Pennines AONB. The development of the road and the extra mileage around Kirby Thore and Warcop will increase the length of the road considerably resulting in a considerable loss of mature hedgerows and trees. This would have a major impact on habitats supporting wildlife such as bats, badgers and rare and threatened bird species as well as tranquillity and views into and out of the AONB. We are aware of the road’s poor record on safety, the traffic issues endured by many using the route and the importance and urgency of its improvement for the benefit of local people, visitors and the local economy. We believe however that these issues could be mitigated through junction improvements, changes to alignment and lower speed limits. Throughout the route evaluation process, we have made numerous requests to National Highways to look at upgrading junctions and building underpasses or bridges for farm and local traffic that needs to cross the main road to increase safety on the A66, rather than wholesale dualling it. We do not consider that the proposal has adequately assessed all the options - a legal requirement of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations - and we remain unclear as to why safety upgrades without dualling were not considered as part of the evaluation. Friends of the Lake District works with partners locally and nationally to research climate change impacts on the Cumbrian landscape and look for practical solutions to issues such as flood risk, erosion, carbon sequestration and changing agricultural methods. As a landscape charity, we have witnessed first-hand the impacts of flooding and severe weather events on Cumbria including impacts on our own land holdings. We raised money via an appeal providing the financial support to restore access to the landscape by helping to fund replacement bridges and the restoration of paths across the county as well as hands-on help with the clear up at Glenridding and Patterdale by Friends of the Lake District staff and volunteers following Storm Desmond. Figures from National Highways themselves demonstrate that the road will increase carbon emissions over the 60 year appraisal period by 3,308,479 extra tonnes of carbon (the fourth biggest emitting scheme in the Government’s roads programme). Upgrading this road will go a long way towards busting the UK’s carbon budget making it harder to meet the Government’s legally mandated carbon budgets, including reducing emissions by 78% by 2035 (sixth carbon budget), and 68% by 2030 (Paris Agreement). In summary: Our main areas of concern National Highways own evaluation of the project in their Environmental Statement indicates it is very poor value for money. The Benefit-Cost ratio is below 1, so for every £1 spent, there will only be 92p of “benefit” and this is before high inflation is taken into account. This is a questionable project to be brought forward and paid for by the public purse during a cost of living crisis, high interest rates and a recession when it does not even break even. The Department for Transport’s own evaluation cost-benefit ratio methodology shows that all the damage that the road will do to the landscape, wildlife, heritage and the negative impact it will have on people’s lives will not even bring an overall benefit. The Government’s own Planning Policy rules for major road upgrades states that damage to AONBs should only ever take place where the “benefits significantly outweigh the costs” No alternatives to improve safety have been explored; the plan from the Department for Transport has always been to dual the road. As detailed previously, the road could be made significantly safer through junction improvements, under/overpasses for farm and local traffic, speed limits and other measures that don’t involve driving a dual carriageway through open countryside The bridges, embankments, service roads and other infrastructure will cause damage to the landscape and setting of the North Pennines AONB There will be a considerable loss of tranquillity right along the road corridor due to increased traffic and faster vehicles There will be significant visual intrusion of major road infrastructure into open countryside. The development of the road and the extra milage around Kirby Thore and Warcop will cause a considerable loss of mature hedgerows, trees and other habitats. These habitats support wildlife such as bats, badgers and rare and threatened bird species. The upgraded road will induce extra traffic meaning that more and longer journeys will be taken, increasing carbon emissions and vehicle numbers. The principle of construction of a major road upgrade during a time of climate crisis when carbon reduction should be the primary consideration of government makes no sense at all. Carbon emissions from both construction and from increased traffic numbers and speeds will all add to the total of carbon emitted taking us further from net zero rather than bringing us towards the target. Update 24 August 2022 Friends of the Lake District registers with the Planning Inspectorate for the A66 Examination. Our initial representation to the A66 Upgrade Consultation is here – and will be followed later in the Examination process with more detailed written representations. 18 August 2022 The A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project application has been accepted for Examination (like a public inquiry) by the Planning Inspectorate (PINS). If you want to get involved and comment on the application or to give evidence at the Examination, you must register on the PINS website to do so. You must indicate why you want to be involved and can outline your concerns, in up to 500 words, in a text box on the registration page, here: A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project: register on PINS website The Environmental Statement is also available on the PINS website. Our main areas of concern are: National Highways evaluation of the project in their Environmental Statement indicates it is very poor value for money. The Benefit-Cost ratio is below 1, so for every £1 spent, there will only be 92p of “benefit” and this is before high inflation is taken into account. This is a questionable project to be brought forward and paid for by the public purse during a cost of living crisis, high interest rates and a recession when it does not even break even The Department for Transport’s own evaluation cost-benefit ratio methodology shows that all the damage that the road will do to the landscape, wildlife, heritage and the negative impact it will have on people’s lives will not even bring an overall benefit. No alternatives to improve safety have been explored; the plan from the Department for Transport has always been to dual the road. As detailed below, the road could be made significantly safer through junction improvements, under/overpasses for farm and local traffic, speed limits and other measures that don’t involve driving a dual carriageway through open countryside The bridges, embankments, service roads and other infrastructure will cause damage to the landscape and setting of the North Pennines AONB There will be a considerable loss of tranquillity in places due to increased traffic and faster vehicles There will be significant visual intrusion of major road infrastructure into open countryside The development of the road and the extra milage around Kirby Thore and Warcop will cause a considerable loss of mature hedgerows, trees and other habitats. These habitats support wildlife such as bats, badgers and rare and threatened bird species. The upgraded road will induce extra traffic meaning that more and longer journeys will be taken, increasing carbon emissions The principle of construction of a major road upgrade during a time of climate crisis when carbon reduction should be the primary consideration of government makes no sense at all. Carbon emissions from both construction and from increased traffic numbers and speeds will all add to the total of carbon emitted taking us further from net zero rather than bringing us towards the target. 1st February 2022 We have today submitted comment to the project director A66 Highways detailing what we consider to be the inadequacies of the A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Upgrade Consultation. The full document can be viewed at the link. Our concluding comments detailed in this letter follow. Friends of the Lake District Inadequacies of A66 Consultation letter to National Highways (pdf) Conclusions: a. National Highways should not proceed with a DCO planning application until they have consulted properly and are clear which option is being progressed, and consult on those proposals. b. National Highways should have put forward an option to improve the safety of the A66 through junction upgrades, underpasses and bridges and use of average speed cameras without making the road a dual carriageway. We want to know why this option was not considered. c. Upgrading the A66 to a dual carriageway for its entire length from Penrith to Scotch Corner will make it more difficult to secure a sustainable future for Cumbria’s landscapes, people and wildlife. Implementation of this scheme would lead to significant damaging impacts on the natural capital of Cumbria and the North Pennines. This damage would include harm to protected landscapes, loss of and damage to habitats, severing of wildlife corridors, loss of flora and fauna, increases in noise, light and air pollution; local community severance and issues with flooding and run-off. d. The extra traffic from the eight schemes would increase carbon emissions by up to 3 million tonnes over the lifetime of the scheme (Table 7-2 in the GHG Emissions Assessment Appendix) e. The emissions resulting from the construction of the scheme would cause up to 1.4 million extra tonnes of carbon (Table 7-1 in the GHG Emissions Assessment Appendix) f. In total the scheme would lead to an increase of up to 4.4 million extra tonnes of carbon from extra traffic and the construction process. This is completely unacceptable in a climate emergency, and takes us further away from reaching our 68% cut by 2030 required under the Paris Agreement.g. It is unacceptable that consultees and the public were asked to assess this scheme without being provided with photomontages. A fly through over an inaccurately rendered cartoon depiction of the landscape at 50m height does not provide the information needed as it does not represent how people see the landscape. h. We have serious concerns about the sections from Temple Sowerby to Appleby (particularly at Kirkby Thore) and Appleby to Brough where the road goes into the North Pennines AONB. Please take these representations as coming from Friends of the Lake District, CPRE Cumbria Branch. 10th November 2021 Friends of the Lake District responded to the National Highways consultation on the upgrade of the A66. We raised concerns over the impact of the road on the landscape around Kirkby Thore, and in the setting of the North Pennines AONB, around loss of and damage to wildlife, and we also raised concerns about the huge amount of carbon emissions that the road will incur both in construction and use. You can read our response here. 15th October 2021 The A66 Upgrade East of Penrith damages the North Pennines AONB, harms wildlife and flouts the Government’s carbon budget National Highways (formerly Highways England) are consulting on building a new dual carriageway road along the boundary of the North Pennines AONB through some of the county’s most beautiful landscapes. Friends of the Lake District is concerned that the proposals to make the road “safer” are actually an excuse to make the entire road a dual carriageway, encouraging the use of this unique landscape as a rat-run for HGVs to cross the country. The landscape damage, loss of wildlife, severance of hedgerows and destruction of farmland that this road proposal will cause is of huge concern to us as a landscape charity covering the whole county of Cumbria. We have particular issues with the section of the road which will drive through the landscape north and east of Kirkby Thore. This increases the length of the road significantly, impacting on wildlife habitats, tranquillity and views into and out of the AONB. Of great concern are figures from the National Highways themselves which demonstrate that the road will increase carbon emissions over the 60 year appraisal period by 3,308,479 extra tonnes of carbon (the fourth biggest emitting scheme in the Government’s roads programme). This is just the total for the additional traffic caused by the scheme, and does not include the carbon emissions caused by the construction of the road (materials, land loss, trees felled etc). Upgrading this road will go a long way towards busting the UK’s carbon budget making it harder to meet the Government’s legally mandated carbon budgets, including reducing emissions by 78% by 2035 (sixth carbon budget), and 68% by 2030 (Paris Agreement). Throughout the route evaluation process, Friends of the Lake District has been asking for National Highways to look at upgrading junctions and building underpasses for farm traffic to increase safety on the A66, rather than wholesale dualling it. We are aware of the road’s poor record on safety, but know that these issues could be addressed through junction improvements, changes to alignment and lower speed limits. However, National Highways have not even looked at this option in their appraisal of the route, solely fixating on dualling the whole road. On this basis we do not consider that the proposal has actually adequately assessed all the options which is a legal requirement of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations and we will be pushing for more information on why safety upgrades without dualling were never considered. You can see and respond to the proposals here https://highwaysengland.co.uk/our-work/a66-northern-trans-pennine/ Consultation closes on 4th November 2021.
Thirlmere West Road closure On 10 November Cumberland Council granted approval of a Permanent Traffic Regulation Order on the Thirlmere West Road, which was temporarily closed in 2021 following damage by storm Arwen. We continue to work to put pressure on United Utilities and Cumberland Council to reopen the road to walkers and cyclists as soon as possible. Expand Update 16 November 2023 Proposed permanent restrictions on Thirlmere west roadOn Friday 10th November Cumberland Council granted approval of a Permanent Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) on the Thirlmere West Road. The road has been temporarily closed since 2021 following damage caused by storm Arwen at Rough Crag. United Utilities is responsible for ensuring Rough Crag is safe, but in the two years since the road has been closed a solution to the perceived safety risk has not yet been found. The temporary Traffic Regulation Order cannot be extended any further and therefore Cumberland Council has made the decision to approve a permanent closure.As a landscape charity, access to the landscape by foot or on bicycle or horse is one of our priorities. At the beginning of August Friends of the Lake District therefore responded to an informal consultation on proposals to implement permanent traffic restrictions stating that we would object to any permanent restrictions that prevent access for cyclists, walkers and horse riders wanting to enjoy this significant part of the lakeshore. We repeated this view in the formal consultation process in September. We wrote a legal letter to Cumberland Council informing it of the legal implications of closing the road and highlighting that the law does not allow a TRO to be enforced on horse riders. We also helped to publicise the public rally protesting against the continued closure of the road to walkers and cyclists at Thirlmere on 5th November to all our members and supporters. We do not believe there has been sufficient consideration of a solution to secure the area during the last nearly 2 years. Throughout the process we have been concerned that implementing a permanent TRO would severely hinder the discussions and reduce the impetus to find a solution.Despite the decision from Cumberland Council, we understand that it is committed to reopening the road once works have been carried out to make it safe. It has issued United Utilities with a section 151 notice which forces United Utilities to carry out the works within 28 days. We are very concerned that now the TRO has been approved, there will be less urgency for United Utilities to carry out the necessary work. Indeed, following the approval of the permanent TRO, United Utilities has appealed the Section 151 notice due to the time constraints and requiring Natural England’s approval for any works. We will continue to work with other organisations, such as the Open Spaces Society, to put pressure on United Utilities and Cumberland Council to reopen the road to walkers and cyclists as soon as possible. We are in regular talks with all concerned parties, including United Utilities, to try to help bring the matter to a positive conclusion. 7 September 2023 At the beginning of August Friends of the Lake District responded to an informal consultation on proposals to implement permanent traffic restrictions on the U7003 road along the western shore of Thirlmere. The road was temporarily closed in 2021 following damage caused by storm Arwen at Rough Crag. However a solution to the safety risk has not yet been found and Cumberland Council are now carrying out a statutory consultation on the proposals for permanent restrictions. Friends of the Lake District will be objecting to any permanent restrictions that prevent access for cyclists, walkers and horse riders wanting to enjoy a significant part of the lakeshore. We also believe the route should be capable of being opened to all road traffic, in the event that the A591 on the other shore becomes blocked again by flooding or landslide. We do not believe there has been sufficient consideration of a solution to secure the area during the last nearly 2 years. Whilst we understand that discussions are still ongoing with United Utilities (the landowner) to establish a solution, a permanent Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) will severely hinder these discussions and reduce the impetus to find a solution. The official notice is available on the council website alongside notices for other proposed traffic restrictions in Keswick. https://www.cumberland.gov.uk/parking-roads-and-transport/streets-roads-and-pavements/road-maintenance-closures-and-improvements/proposed-traffic-regulation-orders-tros If you wish to comment on the proposals, you should write to Traffic Management Officer at Cumberland Highways or email [email protected] quoting reference KTRO/23/PNG not later than 22 September 2023. Please note any responses received during the informal consultation process will not be taken forward as part of the statutory consultation process.
Loughrigg Meadow Ambleside Housing proposals This proposal was approved by the Lake District National Park Authority’s planning committee on 1st November. The site was allocated for development in the local plan, but we are disappointed that the proposal was approved without amendments to reduce density or to make it more in line with their policies on affordable housing. Expand Update 7th November 2023 We are disappointed that this proposal was approved by the Lake District National Park Authority’s planning committee on 1st November. This site is allocated for development in the local plan, but we are particularly disappointed that the authority allowed the proposal to go ahead without amendments to reduce the density and make it more closely in line with their strong policies on affordable housing. The reasoning given for this was that despite being allocated in the previous local plan too, no viable proposal has been put forward that would fully meet the policy requiring the first 5 houses on a site to be local occupancy and any beyond that to be affordable. 24th November, 2022 We have responded to proposals for 40 new properties to be built on land off Loughrigg Meadow in Ambleside.Although the site is allocated for development in the Lake District Local Plan, meaning that the principle of housing development here has already been approved, the plans far exceed the c.28 dwellings expected and contain far fewer affordable homes than are required by local planning policy. We are concerned that the high density of the development has resulted in an urban and car-dominated layout that will not reflect the character of Ambleside and that it will impact negatively on views and the adjacent public right of way and Scheduled Monument.Local people have also raised concerns. You can read our response here. See also the Lake District National Park Authority's policy requirements for the site.
Telecoms Mast Applications - is the tide of masts turning? The Government’s drive to speed the roll out of 5G has led to a steady stream of mast applications in the Lake District in recent years. While our communities need good connectivity, the Lake District deserves better than the ill-thought through proposals that have dominated applications submitted for masts so far. Expand Update 31st October 2023 Tide of masts turning??? You may not be surprised to learn, given our recent coverage of the topic, that in the Lake District, there has been an average of more than one telecommunications mast proposal per month this year! We are pleased to report though that it does seem that the message is being heard that whilst our communities need good connectivity, the Lake District deserves better than the ill-thought through proposals that have dominated the applications submitted for masts so far. In fact, none of the last 12 mast proposals we have challenged have been approved on their first iteration. You may also be aware that due to the low level of regard many of the applications have had for landscape character and factors such as appropriate access and impacts on tranquillity, we have felt it necessary to respond to almost all the mast proposals submitted. In most cases we have had to point out multiple shortfalls in the applications, whether that be inaccurate, conflicting or false information, limited consideration of alternative sites or a narrow-in-scope (or completely absent) landscape and visual impact assessment. It is important to point out that in most cases too, members of the community closest to the mast in question have also objected to the mast proposals, along with other organisations, including the National Trust, Parish Councils and Commoners Associations. Often the community has said they are happy with the existing level of connectivity and/or that they feel the harm the mast could do, whether visually, to local character or due to frequent fuel deliveries for example, is not outweighed by the benefits of often limited additional connectivity. The masts are generally proposed in very remote areas, where there are few residents or businesses to benefit. This is because the Government’s roll out of the scheme to ensure almost 100% coverage has already reached most areas and so only the most remote are left. This in turn means that the locations proposed are hardest to access and in particularly sensitive areas tend to be largely free from modern, man-made structures. It also often means that the public benefits are limited to those passing through the area. The area to benefit from coverage as a result of the mast proposed at Caldbeck common recently only had one building in it – a walkers’ hostel. As we have highlighted previously, mast proposals are often planned to be powered by diesel generators (again, because their remote locations would make mains connections tricky) and the impacts of this, including noise and fuel deliveries tend to be ignored or lacking detail in applications. Watch video of a diesel powered telecoms mast at Hartsop. The LDNPA has taken heed of our concerns and our efforts (along with that of others) to challenge inappropriate mast proposals are generating results. Of the 11 most recent mast proposals we have responded to in the Lake District and a twelfth that was in the Cumbria part of the Yorkshire Dales: Four were withdrawn. Two remain live, although we have been made aware of revised plans for one of these in a different, less prominent location. One has been refused and replaced with a shorter monopole design that has now been approved. Five have been refused, one of these is now subject to a revised application in a different, more carefully considered location, another is at appeal, and a third was appealed but the appeal was turned down on landscape grounds – this is really important as it provides case law to show that mast proposals will not simply be waved through because they are part of a Government scheme and that landscape harms will be given significant weight against purported benefits. Another was withdrawn just as we were about to submit our response. We fully expect to see further mast proposals as revised applications come in for those proposals that have been withdrawn or refused, but we really hope that because of strong challenge from the LDNPA, communities, ourselves and other organisations, the tide is beginning to turn. Rather than the ‘copy and paste’ responses we have become used to, we hope that the next round of proposals will be more carefully thought through, with more detailed consideration of alternatives and impacts, including those relating to access and power supply. It remains the case that technological advances that are already taking place may reduce or avoid the need for masts in the near future and we’d still urge for rural areas, and protected landscapes in particular to be prioritised in making use of these in order to minimise landscape harm whilst ensuring rural homes, businesses and visitors have the connectivity they need. But in the meantime, we’re pleased to have played a part in the progress made so far in ensuring the Lake District’s landscapes are properly taken into account when telecommunications masts are planned. Update 28th July 2023 Yet More Masts! With no fewer than 5 mast proposals appearing on our list of applications to look at in July, we continue to be concerned by the influx of proposals for new telecommunications masts. Whilst connectivity in rural areas is important, many of the applications we have seen lack information about the benefits of a mast being located in a particular place, about how the proposed site has been selected and how landscape and other impacts have been taken into account. For example, many are to be powered by diesel generators and/or are proposed in areas that are currently almost entirely free of modern man-made structures. There also appears to be a disregard for any consideration of the alternatives provided by advancing technology, such as satellites, and whether that might leave dozens of obsolete masts in the not-too-distant future. Recent proposals include a 15m mast at Martindale (7/2023/3095), a 30m mast at Patterdale (7/2023/3090) and a 35m mast at Ennerdale (7/2023/4056). You can view the details of each application by searching using the corresponding reference number here. A proposal for a 20m mast at Bampton (7/2023/3086) has been withdrawn (August 2023). A proposal for a 25m mast on Birker Fell (7/2023/4053) has been refused (August 2023). Update 5th April 2023 Buttermere Mast refusedWe are pleased to report that the proposed mast at Buttermere, which met with significant objection for local people, visitors to the area, the National Trust and us at Friends of the Lake District, was refused this week on grounds of landscape and visual impact. This is in addition to the refusal of a mast at Rusland last week. Whilst we recognise the need for improved connectivity, this must be achieved in ways that also conserve and enhance the National Park’s special landscapes. More masts! As expected, yet more proposals for new telecommunications mast have been submitted. The latest is a 50m mast proposed close to Wythburn Church, Thirlmere. You can find out more about this application by searching for 7/2023/2016 here. A proposal for a mast in the Rusland was recently turned down on landscape grounds and we await decisions on masts proposed at Langdale and Haweswater. 21st February 2023 There has been a steady stream of mast applications in the Lake District and elsewhere in Cumbria, including in the Yorkshire Dales, in recent years, however, the Government’s drive to speed the roll out of 5G and eliminate ‘not spots’ or partial ‘not spots’ – rural areas with limited or no mobile coverage – means that many more mast proposals are expected. Indeed, there are currently at least three planning applications for new 25m and 30m masts in the Lake District National Park. These are at Haweswater (7/2022/3167), Langdale (7/2022/5804) and Buttermere (7/2022/2312). You can view the details of each application by searching using the corresponding reference number here WPHAPPCRITERIA (lakedistrict.gov.uk) We have received a number of emails from concerned members and local residents about the siting of these and will be responding to these applications over the coming weeks. 3rd February 2023 Read our responses to: Haweswater mast proposal (pdf): 7/2022/3167 Installation of a 30m communications mast, EAS and SRN antennas, ground-based apparatus and ancillary development, Land at Lad Crags, Haweswater Reservoir CA10 2RP the Haweswater mast proposal (7/2022/2312) Great Langdale mast proposal (pdf): 7/2022/5804 Installation of 30m communications mast, antennas, ground-based apparatus and ancillary development, Land near Great Langdale Campsite, Side Gates Road, Great Langdale, LA22 9JU 31st January 2023 Read our response to the Buttermere mast proposal (pdf): 7/2022/2312 Installation of 25m communications mast, antennas, ground-based apparatus and ancillary development, Gatesgarth Farm, Buttermere, Cockermouth, CA13 9XA 24th January 2023 We recognise that it is essential for rural communities to secure levels of digital connectivity such as fast broadband and good mobile ‘phone signals to support both work and leisure. Such technology not only helps to ensure that our rural communities remain vital and viable into the future but also supports the emergency services, including Mountain Rescue, to operate effectively wherever they are needed. However, these needs must be balanced with conserving and enhancing the landscape and heritage assets for their own sake and for the essential provisions they provide, including the health and well-being benefits we derive from the peace, tranquillity and beauty of our surroundings. This is especially important in our protected landscapes and their settings. We want to see that whenever possible, existing masts are shared by mobile ‘phone operators rather than putting up new masts, that a range of sites are thoroughly assessed when considering new sites to ensure the most appropriate and least harmful site is selected, and that infrastructure is removed when no longer needed. We also want to see all the impacts of new masts properly addressed, such as how access and power supplies to remote mast sites is provided. Satellite technology to provide coverage is also moving on apace, so this too needs to be considered as an alternative to the prospect of multiple new masts in our National Parks.
Barn conversion proposals threaten National Parks We recently joined other organisations in signing a letter to Michael Gove demonstrating the strength of opposition to proposals for a relaxation of planning rules, including allowing the unplanned conversion of rural buildings. Expand We recently joined other organisations in signing a letter to Michael Gove demonstrating the strength of opposition to proposals for a relaxation of planning rules, including allowing the unplanned conversion of rural buildings.We also worked closely with the Campaign for National Parks to submit a detailed response to a complex national consultation on this topic. The new rules could mean that barns and other buildings could be converted to housing and other uses without planning permission. This in turn means that landscape and other environmental impacts would go unchecked but also that there would be no mechanism through which to require new properties to be for local occupancy, affordable or subject to particular conditions. The proposals currently exclude World Heritage Sites, which would, almost by accident it would seem, protect much of the Lake District whilst leaving other National Parks, AONBs and other rural areas vulnerable. Read the letter here>
450 Holiday Lodges proposed for Roanhead, Sandscale Haws A large holiday lodge park has been proposed close to the sensitive coastal dune habitats at Roanhead and Sandscale Haws, between Askam and Barrow in Furness. A planning application has now been lodged. Expand For the latest information and updates on this development, visit our separate Campaign section> Update 27th Sept 2023We are aware that a further proposal on land adjacent the 450-lodge Roanhead development is afoot. It comprises 62 lodges, 40 touring caravan/motorhome/ camper pitches and visitor facilities.At this stage, it is a screening request, meaning the landowner/developer Queensland County Park Ltd. is just asking for Westmorland & Furness Council’s view on whether an Environmental Impact Assessment would be required for such a proposal. We continue to work with other relevant organisations and the local community, including the Save Roanhead group, and will give further updates, once we have had chance to see the proposals and consider next steps – we will need to carefully consider the relationship between this and the larger proposal already under consideration. Keep up to date here Update 17th July 2023 Challenge to Roanhead plans continues – there’s still time to comment! We are pleased to hear that many people have submitted objections to plans for a 450-lodge holiday resort at Roanhead – a sensitive stretch of the Furness coastline. Together with the National Trust, Cumbria Wildlife Trust, the RSPB, the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust, the Woodland Trust and many local people, we have now submitted our strong objection to the scheme. Read Our Response here and a review of the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment hereAlthough the official deadline has now passed, there is still chance to have your say, as we have had confirmation from the council that responses will still be accepted.Please do consider joining us in speaking up for this special area – even a brief email to the council [email protected] will help!Find out more: https://www.friendsofthelakedistrict.org.uk/roanhead-response-guidance 6th April 2023 Concern continues to grow around plans for a 450-lodge holiday park at Roanhead, a much-valued stretch of the Furness coastline. The developer has now released some feedback from their own consultation, which shows that less than 30% of respondents have a positive opinion of the proposals and that biodiversity impacts and landscape/visual impacts ranked highly amongst the concerns raised.Thank you to everyone who has submitted photographs of the area to help us demonstrate what’s at stake, which includes dramatic views, rare wildlife, sensitive habitats and a sense of wildness, space and tranquillity.Please do continue to let us know your thoughts on this proposal by emailing [email protected]We now know that a planning application can be expected during the week commencing 24th April. We will be making a written response, but we’d urge anyone with concerns about the plans to make their own response too. We’ll post guidance on doing so on our website. 17th February 2023 We reported last year on plans for a large holiday lodge park development, of 450 holiday lodges, close to the sensitive coastal dune habitats at Roanhead and Sandscale Haws, between Askam and Barrow in Furness. We now know that the developers are planning to submit a planning application by Easter 2023. See their plans here. The developers are currently collecting feedback via a short online survey which we would encourage you to complete. This will not negate the need to express your views to the council when the planning application is submitted as comments made now won’t be taken on board by the planners. However, completing the survey will serve to inform the proposals as the developer works towards a planning application, and the planning application may therefore be amended based on the feedback that you submit. Complete the survey at the link: https://roanhead.com/survey/ 12th February 2023 We reported last year on plans for a large lodge park development close to the sensitive coastal dune habitats at Roanhead and Sandscale Haws, between Askam and Barrow in Furness. We now know that the developers are planning to submit a planning application by Easter 2023. Along with other environmental organisations, we have substantial concerns about what this proposal might mean for the much-valued coastal landscape in this area. The following drop-in sessions are being held during February to enable people to find out more: Barrow in Furness: Wednesday 15th February 2023 – 12 to 3pm at The Forum Dalton: Wednesday 15th February 2023 – 5pm to 8pm at Dalton Council Chamber Askam: Thursday 16th February 2023 – 5pm to 8pm at Rankin Hall Image: Sandscale Haws, Duddon sands by Richard Murgatroyd
Elterwater Quarry Adventure Attraction Rejected Proposals to build an adventure attraction in a former quarry at Elterwater in the Langdale Valley have been rejected by planners today, on grounds of traffic impacts. Expand 6th September 2023 Elterwater Quarry Adventure Attraction Rejected Proposals to build an adventure attraction in a former quarry at Elterwater in the Langdale Valley have been rejected by planners today, on grounds of traffic impacts. Landscape conservation charity Friends of the Lake District campaigned against the proposal, and their Planning Officer Lorayne Wall spoke at the planning meeting, along with Lakes Parish Council. As the Lake District is a World Heritage Site, ICOMOS (the International Council on Monuments and Sites, an advisory body to UNESCO) also voiced deep concerns about the proposal, including that it would transform part of the quarry into a theme park, and would likely disrupt the tranquil character of Langdale and trivialise its heritage. Over 90,000 people had signed an online petition against the development, which previously included a 'Cavern coaster’ ride, (subsequently removed from the planning application). Friends of the Lake District Planning Officer Lorayne Wall said: ‘We’re very pleased that this application has been turned down today – Langdale is simply the wrong place for a visitor attraction of this type. The narrow winding lanes around Elterwater just cannot cope with a large influx of cars, coaches and people, which will impact upon its character and tranquillity.’ 29th August 2023 Some of you have been in touch seeking an update on the proposals for a tourism attraction at Elterwater Quarry. In July, documents were made available indicating the strong views of ICOMOS (the International Council on Monuments and Sites) and advising of their concerns about the impact of the plans on the World Heritage Site and stating that the proposal should not be progressed. The response of ICOMOS is not definitive but has to be factored into the decision by the Lake District National Park Authority (LDNPA). It is quite rare for ICOMOS to take the step of responding to a planning application and we had expected it to be given significant weight. However, we are disappointed to learn that the plans are being recommended for approval. We will continue to challenge this proposal and will speak at the planning committee meeting on September 6th. 27th February 2023 We have now submitted a written response to this planning application which you can read here: Elterwater Quarry Planning Response 27th February 2023 720235012.pdf Whilst we recognise the scaled-down nature of the proposals compared to the plans set out informally in 2022, we remain deeply concerned about several elements of this proposal. This includes the traffic, vehicle and visitor impacts on the tranquillity and rural character of the area, conflicts with net zero commitments set at national, Cumbrian and Lake District levels and the stated aims of the Lake District National Park Management Plan relating to sustainable travel. In particular, the need to significantly reduce use of the private car as a means of getting to, from and around the National Park. We also have concerns relating to several other aspects. We therefore object to the proposed development. You can view the plans for Elterwater Quarry by searching for reference 7/2023/5012 the Lake District National Park's planning webpage. You can submit your own comments to the Planning Authority by emailing [email protected], quoting reference 7/2023/5012 31st January 2023 Reaction to Elterwater Quarry Plans We recognise that plans for Elterwater Quarry have been scaled down, and no longer include an outdoor zip wire or ‘cavern coaster’ ride. The amount of car parking proposed on-site has also been reduced. However, we still have significant concerns, particularly about traffic and visitor numbers, but also other aspects such as biodiversity, future restoration of the site and a lack of information. Thank you to those of you that have been in touch with your thoughts and copies of your own responses to the proposal. These will help us to formulate the collective response from Friends of the Lake District, which we will be preparing over the coming week or so. Our response will be posted on our website as soon as it is available. You can view the plans by searching for reference 7/2023/5012 the Lake District National Park's planning webpage. You can comment by emailing [email protected], quoting reference 7/2023/5012 Update 23rd January 2023 We have now undertaken an initial review of the planning application. The proposals represent a significant scaling down compared to those presented informally last year and they no longer include an outdoor zip wire or ‘cavern coaster’ ride. The amount of car parking proposed on-site has also been dramatically reduced. The proposals now comprise: Continuation of some slate extraction/stone (re)working /processing Scaled down parking area (35 visitor and 4 staff spaces, plus 3 coach spaces), with some landscaping to the northern boundary of the parking area Bike storage area and e-bike charging points Use of the underground caverns (where the ‘cavern coaster’ was proposed) for an ‘on-foot’ ‘cavern explorer’ experience entirely within the caverns Use of the existing buildings, with some repairs and improvements, for activities such as slate working demonstrations, area for school/educational groups, small visitor centre etc. “Limited food and beverage” provision Small visitor centre Outdoor area dedicated to heritage interpretation, including outdoor natural history trail Retaining the existing PRoW route The proposal nevertheless still raises some important questions and concerns relating to: The vehicle and visitor numbers to the site and the resulting impacts on the already busy local roads and existing parking issues, as well as tranquillity and local character. The apparent lack of a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and any detail regarding lighting The indication in the application that the proposal will be exempt from the requirement to provide 10% biodiversity net gain. The previous planning consent on the site for the “Formation of visitor attraction in association with the operation of a slate quarry” (7/2008/5604) and whether or not this remains valid. The extent of the continuation of stone extraction at the site and how this and the current proposals relate to the earlier planning condition requiring them to restore the site once quarrying operations cease. What potential expansion might be planned for the future and whether this would require further planning permission – proposals cannot be refused on the basis of what ‘might’ be planned at a later date, and objections on this basis will carry very limited, if any, weight. However, consideration does need to be given to whether anything further could happen without additional planning consent and whether this can be controlled, for example, through a planning condition. A huge number of responses has already been submitted, however many of these make specific reference to objecting to theme park rides and / or zip wires, despite these no longer being part of the proposals. We would urge anyone who has an interest in the Elterwater / Langdale area to take look at the plans and make their views known. The deadline for responses that we have been advised of is 10th February. We will make our response available here as soon as it is available. You can view the plans by searching for reference 7/2023/5012 on the Lake District National Park's planning webpage. Update 12 January 2023 We are aware that the Elterwater quarry application has now been submitted to the Lake District National Park Authority. We need to assess its impact on the landscape of the Elterwater area before we can make a public statement about it. You can view the plans by searching for reference 7/2023/5012 on the Lake District National Park's planning webpage. 21 July 2022 Elterwater Quarry Update Members and supporters continue to get in touch with us to let us know their views on the proposals for a Zip World development at Elterwater Quarry. Thank you again to everyone who has been in touch. Almost exclusively, views are focused on concerns about traffic impacts, impacts on local character, views, tranquillity and biodiversity and this is reflected by the fact that over 54,000 people have now signed ZipOff’s petition against the plans! What you can do A planning application has not yet been submitted to the National Park planning authority so we would ask that you refrain from contacting the National Park directly at this stage. You can still make your concerns heard and let Burlington Stone know that these plans are inappropriate at this location by taking any of the following actions: Sharing and replying to our Facebook and Twitter posts about the plans @FriendsofLakes https://twitter.com/FriendsofLakes https://www.facebook.com/FriendsoftheLakeDistrict Signing the petition Writing to Burlington Stone themselves to let them know your views - https://elterwaterquarry.co.uk/contact/ If you live locally, writing to Lakes Parish Council, your local Councillor and/or your local MP to let them know your views Letting us know your views if you have not done so already, as this will help to inform our response when a formal consultation takes place, email us: [email protected] Send us your images: We need images of Elterwater and the surrounding area so that can show people just what is at stake. Submit your images> You can help our specialist staff continue to challenge unsuitable developments like Elterwater Quarry by donating to our Planning for the Future Appeal. We don’t know when to expect an application, but we will use all comments received to help inform our response. A really important factor in determining this case will be that the planning consent for Elterwater Quarry’s current operations is subject to a condition that the site be restored once operations cease, therefore the restored site is the baseline against which the Zip World proposals must be assessed. Another will be whether the proposal has the potential to constitute major development, which is only permitted in National Parks in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest. This includes consideration of whether it could have a significant adverse impact on the purposes for which the area has been designated. View the Lake District National Park's Elterwater Quarry page Note on Change.org:Friends of the Lake District has no connection at all to Change.org, which is a for-profit business and one of several that hosts online petitions. It is the hosting site used by the local group that started the Zip Off Langdale petition. Change.org operates by asking people who sign any petition to ‘chip in’, which in turns funds the service they provide. This includes helping to share the petition to increase its reach but the money does not, to our knowledge, go direct to helping the individual cause in any other way. There is no obligation to contribute to Change.org and we have not, at any point, suggested anybody should do so. Update 22 June 2022 We asked for your views on an ‘adventure tourism experience’ at Elterwater Quarry. This has been proposed by quarry operators Burlington Stone in partnership with Zip World.Many of you have since been in touch (thank you!), and without exception have expressed deep concern about the plans, which involve a zip wire, ropes courses, an ‘alpine coaster toboggan-style ride and extensive car-parking. Over 30,000 people have also signed an online petition against the proposal. The main concerns raised to us are the traffic and the inappropriateness of this type of attraction in such a rural location near a small village in the Langdale valley, in the heart of the Lake District. Impacts on local character, tranquillity views from surrounding fells, biodiversity and public rights of way have also been highlighted. This type of proposal further adds to concern that our National Park remains very much at risk of becoming a theme park. Find out more, including how you can have your say here. What you can do No application has yet been submitted, but you can make your views known by: • Sharing and replying to our Facebook and Twitter posts about the plans @FriendsofLakes https://twitter.com/FriendsofLakes https://www.facebook.com/FriendsoftheLakeDistrict • Signing the petition• Writing to Burlington Stone themselves to let them know your views - https://elterwaterquarry.co.uk/contact/• If you live locally, writing to Lakes Parish Council, your local Councillor and/or your local MP to let them know your views• Letting us know your views if you have not done so already, as this will help to inform our response when a formal consultation takes place, email us: [email protected]• Send us your images: We need images of Elterwater and the surrounding area so that can show people just what is at stake. Submit your images> You can help our specialist staff continue to challenge unsuitable developments like Elterwater Quarry by donating to our Planning for the Future Appeal. The main concerns among those against the plans are the traffic and the inappropriateness of a theme-park type attraction in such a rural location near a small village in the Langdale valley, in the heart of the Lake District.Elterwater is popular as a location to visit in its own right and as a starting point for walks, so the village itself and the narrow, winding local lanes already suffer the impacts of high levels of traffic and parking problems, including on the surrounding Common Land (Common Land is one of the attributes of Outstanding Universal Value for which the Lake District was designated a World Heritage Site). While removing the currently relatively low levels of quarry traffic from the roads, this proposal would see a huge rise in private cars and coaches passing through the village to access the site. Local businesses in the valley already have to bring in staff from distant towns, due to the lack of a more local workforce, so this would add further to the traffic generated by the development.Although the site itself is a brownfield site - a former quarry - there will be an impact on the landscape character and tranquillity of the area as a result of traffic increases and the nature and level of the activity. There will be an impact on views of the valley from surrounding fells (including open access land) and on the public right of way that currently runs through the quarry itself.While people have been walking on the path through the quarry for many years, slate is nevertheless a natural feature of the landscape and the quarrying of it a centuries-old industry that has shaped the landscape and its communities. Walking through a modern visitor attraction with rides, assault courses, car parks and throngs of people would be a totally different experience and not one that people are usually looking for when they visit Langdale or any part of the National Park. Nor is it an appropriate way of giving an understanding of the hard work and riving hands of Lakeland’s quarrymen or their contribution to and connection with the landscape and local vernacular.The scaling-back of quarrying operations in the Lake District is in line with the conditions made by ICOMOS (the International Council on Monuments and Sites) and UNESCO when the National Park was designated a World Heritage Site in 2017. However, planning consents given for Elterwater quarry as recently as 2021 were subject to a restoration condition, meaning that the operator was expected to carry out a restoration scheme to enhance the local landscape and wildlife habitats once quarrying at the site had ceased. The restored site should be the baseline against which the proposal and its impacts are assessed.The site is also adjacent to a Site of Special Scientific Interest and a County Wildlife Site and close to ancient woodland, so we are also concerned about impacts on biodiversity and the loss of opportunities to enhance it.We continue to ensure that the Lake District is protected from developments that would damage its fabric, its character and its integrity. That it is loved but not exploited. That we and those who follow us can continue to enjoy it and can better understand it. This must surely be possible without also sacrificing it to commercialism. After all, it’s the landscape, in all its glory that’s the real attraction, isn’t it? If you can, please help us continue to protect the Lake District from harmful developments. Donate to our Planning for the Future Appeal today. 30 March 2022 Plans are emerging for the significant redevelopment of Elterwater Quarry. Burlington Stone are proposing to develop an adventure tourism experience and interpretation facility at Elterwater Quarry. We are glad to have been identified by Burlington Stone Ltd. as a specific consultee in relation to these proposals as this will help us to ensure that the landscape and natural environment and the views of our members and supporters are taken into account as the project moves forward. We have already had an informal discussion on-site with Burlington and have highlighted some initial thoughts and potential areas of concern to them, including traffic generation and management, how biodiversity and rights of way might be incorporated and of course, how the proposal will fit within the landscape. We can expect a planning application in the coming months. Read more about what the proposal might involve on www.elterwaterquarry.co.uk – we would be interested to hear your thoughts, email: [email protected] Image credit: Burlington Stone.
Temporary camp site rules relaxed We were very disappointed to learn in July that nationally set ‘permitted development rights’ for temporary campsites have been extended on a permanent basis from 28 to 60 days, including in protected landscapes. Expand Update 28th July 2023 Temporary camp site rules relaxed We were very disappointed to learn in July that nationally set ‘permitted development rights’ for temporary campsites have been extended on a permanent basis from 28 to 60 days, including in protected landscapes. This follows a Government consultation on the proposals earlier in the year, in which we and others, such as the Campaign for National Parks, cited a number of concerns about extending the rights. Whilst it appears operators will need to notify the local authority of their plans, it is very concerning that whereas the consultation sought views on a proposed maximum of 30 tent pitches per site to be subject to this new right, the Government has chosen to allow up to 50 pitches for tents or campervans along with any movable structure reasonably necessary to support such use, such as toilets. We recommended that protected landscapes and other designations be excluded from the proposals and highlighted that in some cases, even 30 pitches could be inappropriate, but these pleas have been ignored and the new right will apply across all National Parks, AONBs and other designations, with only a few exceptions. This extension of rights could have a significant impact on the landscape and is directly at odds with the recent decision by a Government-appointed Inspector to refuse permission for a seasonal permanent campsite in the Newlands valley on landscape grounds. Update 3 May 2023 Relaxing Planning Rules for Campsites and Renewable Energy We have responded to a recent Government consultation asking for views on proposals to extend the period that temporary campsites can operate without requiring planning permission to up to 60 days for campsites of up to 30 tents. The same consultation also sought views on relaxing rules relating to domestic and non-domestic solar energy installations. These are important issues for the landscape and for increasing the proportion of energy from renewable resources. We recommended that protected landscapes should be exempted from the relaxing of the rules relating to camp sites. We broadly supported measures to make it easier for solar to be installed, particularly on non-domestic properties and solar canopies, while seeking reassurance that careful consideration will still be given to impacts on landscape and heritage. Read our response (pdf) You can find out more here
Redevelopment of Brandlehow Cottage refused We were pleased to learn that on 4th May, the Lake District National Park Authority’s Development Control Committee refused plans for the redevelopment of Brandlehow Cottage on the shores of Derwentwater. Expand Update 5th May 2023 We were pleased to learn that on 4th May, the Lake District National Park Authority’s Development Control Committee refused plans for the redevelopment of Brandlehow Cottage on the shores of Derwentwater. They agreed with the officer’s recommendation that the proposal should be refused on grounds of landscape and heritage impacts as well as insufficient information to determine the impact of potential contamination from the former mine workings on Derwentwater itself, which is a Special Area of Conservation. This reflects the concerns raised by us and by around 300 other objectors to the proposal.Investigations into the heritage impacts found that not only is the cottage the only remaining roofed building connected to the Brandelhow mine it may be the only building left linked to one of the Elizabethan mineral mines in the Lake District. 19th December 2022 We have now submitted our response to this application. Read it here> November 2022 Proposals have been submitted to the Lake District National Park Authority for the redevelopment of Brandlehow Cottage on the south western shores of Derwentwater, near Catbells (pictured). The plans would see the existing traditional property demolished and replaced with a very different and larger structure. The site is very close to a popular public footpath and many people have already objected to the plans, concerned about the loss of the historic property itself but also impacts on views and the character of the area, access, wildlife, the mining heritage and the implications for the popular ‘Teddy in the Window’ nearby. We will be objecting to this application. You can view the plans by searching for reference 7/2022/2263 on the Lake District National Park's planning webpage. We've provided a short guide on where to view current planning applications and how to comment in order to have your views heard. Read it here> It’s always best to respond in your own words, rather than following a template or signing a copied letter. You do not need to be a local resident to comment. If you are objecting to a proposal, it is important to explain why you think the proposal conflicts with the relevant local planning policies, as it is compliance or otherwise with these that will determine the Lake District National Park Authority’s decision. The policies most relevant to this case are policies 01, 02 (including the final sentence), 04, 05, 06, 07, 24. We also think there is a case for policy 26 also applying. You can find the Lake District local plan policies here> You may wish to comment on: Impact on landscape character The design of the proposals and how this relates to local character Impact on views, including views from the lake, and the visual amenity of people using the area recreationally Impact on Rights of Way and their users Impact on the experience of the area and the ‘sense of place’ Impact on the reasons for which the Lake District was designated a World Heritage Site (the attributes of Outstanding Universal Value – OUVs) Impact on the heritage of the area Impact on wildlife and the lake You do not need to comment on every aspect – focus on the aspect(s) most important to you. Submitting A Response Email Address: [email protected] Email Subject text: Response to planning application 7/2022/2263 Demolition and replacement of existing dilapidated cottage with a replacement house Email Body text: If you are objecting to this planning proposal, begin the body of your submission with: I/we object to the plans to demolish and replace Brandlehow Cottage’. Follow this with a summary of your objections written in your own words. We’ve been on a site visit to walk the area around Brandlehow Cottage and were delighted to share the walk with Kerry, Paddy and Harry of ‘Max Out in the Lake District’! Kerry recorded our visit so do follow the link to see the site and to listen to the conversation we had about this proposal. Watch below or via Facebook (links to external website)>
New planning restrictions for holiday lets? The Government is asking for views on a proposed new restriction that would require people to get planning consent in order to use a property as a short-term holiday let. Expand The Government is asking for views on a proposed new restriction that would require people to get planning consent in order to use a property as a short-term holiday let. We will be examining the proposals and responding to this consultation before the deadline of 7th June. We support the proposal in principle, but careful consideration will need to be given to the detail of how the proposal is to be applied, to ensure it is appropriate for Cumbria and the Lake District. You can find out more about the consultation here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/introduction-of-a-use-class-for-short-term-lets-and-associated-permitted-development-rights
Yorkshire Dales seeks views on new housing sites and open spaces The Yorkshire Dales National Park authority has launched a consultation running until 12th May seeking views on sites they propose to allocate for future housing development and protect as open space. Expand The Yorkshire Dales National Park authority has launched a consultation running until 12th May seeking views on sites they propose to allocate for future housing development and protect as open space. This is part of the preparation of the Yorkshire Dales National Park local plan. It’s really important to raise any concerns at this stage as once sites are allocated, they effectively have ‘permission in principle’. Find out more about which sites are proposed and how to comment here. You may also find it useful to read our short introduction to local plan documents.
New proposal for car park at Ullock Moss This application had been due to go to the Planning Committee in early March 2023 but has now been withdrawn. The Applicant has, however, issued a withdrawal statement indicating that they plan to submit another application which you can read here Expand 27th February 2023 This application had been due to go to the Planning Committee next week but has now been withdrawn. The Applicant has, however, issued a withdrawal statement indicating that they plan to submit another application. Applicant Withdrawal Statement (pdf) 3rd January 2023 - Car park déjà vu! A new application has been made for plans for a car park at Ullock Moss, Portinscale. The proposal is almost identical to one refused by the Lake District National Park Authority a year ago and we have responded to the National Park Authority, letting them know that the reasons for the previous refusal still stand and our position remains unaltered. For example, local plan policy requires that all other relevant regulatory and enforcement measures be exhausted before new car parks will be allowed in such locations, however, this has not happened. You can read our response here> We urge everyone who challenged the plans last time to join us in resubmitting previous comments – comments should ideally be submitted to the Lake District National Park Authority by 20th January 2023, quoting application reference 7/2022/2279. (The best way to make your voice heard is to write to the relevant planning authority to let them know your views on a planning application. We've provided some additional advice on how to respond and comment on applications to make your voice heard>) Update 25 November 2022 New proposal for car park at Ullock Moss (near Catbells)You may remember that a controversial planning application for a significant new car park in woodland at Ullock Moss, near Portinscale, Keswick, was refused by the Lake District National Park Authority just under a year ago.An enforcement case followed, but a new, very similar application has now been submitted. We will be looking at this over the coming weeks and are likely to make a response. However, as there is limited change, it may be unnecessary for responses made previously to be re-written from scratch. We know many of you shared our concerns in relation to the previous proposal and sent in your own comments. If the minor changes do not alter your view, we would recommend re-sending your previous comments with a brief cover note to make this clear.View the new application by searching for reference 7/2022/2279 on here> 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
South Copeland Community Partnership (SCCP) Friends of the Lake District is now a member of the South Copeland Community Partnership (SCCP). Government policy on nuclear waste disposal states that local people have to make the decision as to whether or not they want a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) in their area and to enable this, a community partnership is set up. Expand Friends of the Lake District is now a member of the South Copeland Community Partnership (SCCP). Government policy on nuclear waste disposal states that local people have to make the decision as to whether or not they want a Geological Disposal Facility (GDF) in their area and to enable this, a community partnership is set up. The South Copeland Community Partnership’s role is to ensure that the community has all of the relevant information that they need about the process in order to make a decision when the question is put to the people in the area. Friends of the Lake District applied to join when the SCCP put out a call for people with a background in environmental issues to take part in the process. We haven’t joined SCCP because Friends of the Lake District think that South Copeland is the right place to build a GDF, but because we are concerned about the landscape impact and environmental issues surrounding the locating of a GDF so close to the boundary of a nationally protected landscape. There are a lot of implications for the environment that would come with any major infrastructure project in this small, remote and geographically constrained area. This would include the impact of upgrading transport links through the national park or across the Duddon Estuary Special Area of Conservation, removal of spoil, impact of boreholes, construction and lighting on the Lake District and protected wildlife site and the impact of any final building and its operation on the environment. We think that there needs to be a voice advocating for the environment of the local area within the Community Partnership and we are offering our expertise in order that these important issues are not neglected during the process.
Decommissioning Work – United Utilities United Utilities has begun the process of decommissioning of water abstraction infrastructure at Crummock Water. Equivalent plans for Overwater and Chapel House Reservoir will follow. Expand 14th December 2022 United Utilities has begun the process of environmental assessments to inform the decommissioning of water abstraction infrastructure at Crummock Water. Equivalent plans for Overwater and Chapel House Reservoir will follow. The removal of this concrete infrastructure will return these water bodies to a more natural state, resulting in landscape enhancement. This is possible due to the new Thirlmere pipeline. Thirlmere will become the main source of water for West Cumbria, meaning that abstraction from these other waterbodies can stop.
West Cumbria Coal Mine Two legal challenges have been lodged against the Michael Gove’s decision to approve the coal mine Expand Update 23rd January 2023 Two legal challenges have been lodged against the Michael Gove’s decision to approve the coal mine. Whitehaven coal mine: Two legal challenges lodged - BBC News Update 8th December 2022 Michael Gove announced on December 7th 2022 that he has backed the view of the independent Inspector that carried out an inquiry into the case and has approved the plans. We are dismayed at this decision. It’s a step backwards rather than progress towards reaching net zero; the reasons for our objection to the mine are set out below. We expect South Lakes Action on Climate Change and other organisations to launch a legal challenge against the decision which would be a step we would wholeheartedly support. 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 November 2022 Friends of the Lake District along with 24 other environmental charities including CPRE The countryside charity and Cumbria Wildlife Trust, has written to Michael Gove urging him to stop the UK’s first deep coal mine in over 30 years, in Whitehaven, Cumbria. Why we're objecting to the mine: Read a Summary of the main points below, or you can read the full expert proofs of evidence published by South Landland Action on Climate Change's expert witnesses here. Update 3rd November 2022 A decision is now expected December 8th 2022 Update 20th October 2022 A decision is now expected in November 2022 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 6th September 2021 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 South Lakeland Action on Climate Change 'Rebuttals' - Why we're objecting to the mine: 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
Second Homes: Government Call for Evidence on Impact of Holiday Lets on Communities The Government is asking for information to support the option of requiring a registration system for holiday lets. It follows plans set out in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill to allow local authorities to increase Council Tax on second homes by 100%. Expand Update 25 August 2022 Government Call for Evidence on Impact of Holiday Lets on Communities The Government is asking for information to support the option of requiring a registration system for holiday lets. It follows plans set out in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill to allow local authorities to increase Council Tax on second homes by 100%. These are both measures Friends of the Lake District and others have called for as part of the suite of tools needed. While holiday lets and second homes have a role to play in the economy and communities of the Lake District, it has long been recognised that when high proportions of dwellings in a community have been lost to these other uses, there are implications. This includes putting pressure on authorities to develop greenfield sites for additional housing that may not necessarily be needed if local people could still access (physically and financially) a home among the existing stock. We will be making a response before the deadline of 21st September. Although the government is particularly interested in hearing from organisations and relevant businesses, the consultation is open to everyone. Find out more here: Developing a tourist accommodation registration scheme in England: call for evidence - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) 25 May 2022 The Queen's Speech last week introduced the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. Wider changes through a dedicated Planning Bill had been expected, but plans, including several concerning and damaging proposals that we and others challenged during earlier consultations, have been scrapped. Much of the detail will come later in the form of regulations and changes to the National Planning Policy Framework, on which there will be public consultation. However, some specific details of the Bill were particularly interesting. This included provision for council tax charges to be increased by up to 100% on dwellings occupied only periodically, such as second (or third, or fourth) homes. 100% of council tax can already be charged on second homes. However, allowing an increase of up to 100% will enable councils to charge double the rate of council tax on second homes. This is already legislated for and in use in Wales (although they are increasing this to 300% from April 2023 along with introducing other measures) and could deter some second home ownership while also providing an additional revenue stream that councils can use to support communities. This isn’t about banning second homes or pitting ourselves against second home-owners. We recognise that these, along with holiday lets, have a role to play in the economy and communities of the Lake District. Indeed, some of the prominent cultural figures of the Lake District themselves owned second homes here and some of the properties that are now prime examples of the cultural characteristics for which the National Park is designated a World Heritage Site were built as holiday homes. However, when high proportions of the dwellings in a community have been lost to these other uses, there are negative implications, from school closures to putting pressure on authorities to develop greenfield sites for additional housing that would not necessarily be needed if local people could still access (physically and financially) a home amongst the existing stock. We therefore welcome this move; it is a positive step forward, and one that we and many others asked for, but it isn’t enough. This is a complex issue and it will take more than additional charges to put our communities on the right footing. A suite of tools is required. The Countryside Charity CPRE shares our concerns – their research earlier this year highlighted that South Lakeland saw a 1,231% increase in short term letting listings between 2016 and 2020, as do local MPs such as Tim Farron. The Lake District National Park Partnership is delivering on its Partnership Plan action to lobby the Government for changes to address these issues and recently wrote to Cumbria County Council seeking their support. The Campaign for National Parks and parish councils are also behind us. The Campaign for National Parks submitted a response to proposals for further strengthening of measures in Wales recently while Allithwaite and Cartmel Parish Council are seeking to introduce a primary residence policy in their Neighbourhood Plan. In addition to extra council tax charges, we would like to see: a mechanism to control the conversion of first to second (or third, fourth etc) homes in the Lake District through the planning system, namely changes to the Use Classes Order to differentiate between categories of dwelling and a requirement for planning permission to be sought to move between the categories (this will more than likely need to be accompanied by policy, guidance and relevant monitoring to provide criteria and evidence with which to inform a refusal or approval of such permission) the closing of business-rate relief loop-holes for holiday lets; a compulsory licensing scheme for holiday lets ring-fencing of additional council tax monies for projects that support communities, such as to bring other empty homes back into use We at Friends of the Lake District need to continue lobbying and campaigning for these further changes - including through the Lake District National Park Partnership, working with other like-minded organisations and parties such as CPRE and local MPs and through our own responses to relevant consultations on changes to national and national planning policy and guidance and on relevant legislation. These measures could then work alongside others, such as local occupancy clauses on new homes and projects to bring other types of empty home back into use to help ensure that a significant percentage of dwellings remain in use for their intended purpose, as homes, helping local people and communities to thrive, while protecting our landscapes and wider environment from unnecessary development.
Water Quality We are very aware of the public disquiet around water quality in Windermere and other lakes in Cumbria and on the Cumbrian coast and share the concerns of members and supporters who have contacted us about it. Expand Friends of the Lake District is very aware of the public disquiet around water quality in Windermere and other waterbodies in Cumbria and on the Cumbrian coast and share the concerns of our members and supporters who have contacted us about it. Many people have asked us what we are going to do about it, and in answer, we will continue to support campaigns against discharges into Windermere and we will continue to raise the issue of water pollution with United Utilities and the Environment Agency in meetings and consultation responses. There are people who would like us to campaign directly on this issue. In response to this, we would say that there are other individuals and organisations who have more experience on the subject of water quality and water pollution than Friends of the Lake District and who can put more expertise and capacity into campaigning for clean water. This does not mean that we don’t care about water pollution, but rather, it is a more efficient and effective use of our resources to support those who are already successfully campaigning on these issues. In our recent Conserving Lakeland members' magazine we ran a piece by Matt Staniek, who has brought the issue of pollution in Windermere to millions of people through appearances on Countryfile, TV news and social media. We are looking to the new Love Windermere Partnership as a means of tackling some of the upstream pollution issues such as septic tank discharges and agricultural runoff. We are hopeful that some of the measures put in place will improve the quality of the water. The Love Windermere Partnership has come about because of pressure exerted by members of the public raising concerns about water quality in the lake, so it is positive to see that public pressure is having results. The Big Windermere Survey of water quality is a citizen science project being run by the Freshwater Biological Association with water samples being analysed by Lancaster University. The data that come out of this will, over the long term, show whether the quality of Windermere’s water is improving or not. We will be watching and challenging where necessary.
Government Review of the new Environmental Land Management Scheme (ELMS) Friends of the Lake District firmly believes that our farmers can produce healthy food, a healthy landscape and contribute to sustainable communities. But they must be supported by realistic payment schemes that are workable on the ground and reward producing public benefits. Expand 29th September 2022 The future of the new Environmental Land Management Scheme (ELMS) has been much in the news this week. This is a suite of three sub schemes which will replace the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy and current system of payments to farmers and land managers. Defra together with a whole host of organisations and individuals has been working on designing the ELMS scheme for the last five years. Instead of paying farmers for simply owning or tenanting land, it will pay for benefits that are provided for the public, such as wildlife habitats, sequestering carbon, access, water and soil health, and so on and would represent the biggest shake up of agricultural policy for 40 years. However, rumours abounded earlier in the week that Defra was reviewing the scheme and that it may go back on its commitments to the environment. The NFU said the ELMS scheme was not fit for purpose and should be halted until improvements were made. Their President stated: "We have always been calling for a better policy, one that does deliver for food production and for the environment." Many environmental organisations responded angrily to the suggestion that the scheme could be delayed or scaled back. The Government has responded and stated that it does not intend to go back on its commitment to the environment. “As set out in the Growth Plan, we will be looking at the frameworks for regulation, innovation and investment that impact farmers and land managers, to make sure that our policies are best placed to both boost food production and protect the environment. This includes looking at how best to deliver the Environmental Land Management schemes to see where and how improvements can be made, and we will continue to work closely with the sector to ensure these are designed and delivered in their best interests. We’re not scrapping the schemes. In light of the pressures farmers are facing as a result of the current global economic situation, including spikes in input costs, it’s only right that we look at how best to deliver the schemes to see where and how improvements can be made. Boosting food production and strengthening resilience and sustainability come alongside, not instead of, protecting and enhancing our natural environment, and later this year we will set out more details of plans on how we will increase food security while strengthening the resilience and role of farmers as stewards of the British countryside”. These are fine words by the Government. However, there has already been a reversal of the fracking moratorium and environmental organisations are concerned about a lack of commitment to the environment and climate change. We unfortunately have a nature crisis, a climate crisis and in our uplands a farmer crisis (less farmers, increasing age, loss of skills and labour). The ELMS scheme has been in development for some years, with Defra using some new techniques to inform this, such as tests and trials on farms, and advisory groups where proposals have been shared with farmers and others and their feedback sought. This is all positive. But, these are incredibly unsettling times for farmers and land managers. The Basic Payment Scheme is being fazed out in 2027 and there is still no clear information on exactly what will be funded, what the payment levels will be, and what the requirements of schemes will be. Input costs are rising at an alarming rate and quick decisions are having to be made in a vacuum. This means it remains impossible for farmers to plan ahead and decide their future plans. These are also difficult times for nature and our climate and we need action sooner rather than later. Any further delay in scheme development will only compound all these problems and in turn delay farmers taking action that will help nature and landscape recovery as well as their farm business. Friends of the Lake District firmly believes that our farmers can produce healthy food, a healthy landscape and contribute to sustainable communities. But, they must be supported by realistic payments, schemes that are deliverable on the ground and reward them for producing public benefits, a good advisory services and more information about schemes must be released as a matter of urgency.
#Attack on Nature Our economy, food security and physical and mental health and wellbeing depend on a thriving natural environment. Please add your voice to calls for the government to continue to stand up for the landscape and environment. Expand Image above: Poisonous blue green algae in Windermere. One of the problems likely to become more common if environmental protections are watered down. Introduction – call for action Like us, you may be extremely concerned about Government's attack on the climate, environment and landscape, and that environmental legal protections under EU legislation may not be replaced in UK law. We are particularly concerned that the Government thinks that National Parks and protected landscapes could be suitable for consideration as “Investment Zones” where current planning and environmental laws and regulations would be suspended. Pitting economic growth against nature and the landscape is a false choice. Our economy, food security and physical and mental health and wellbeing depend on a thriving and well supported natural environment. We need clear plans from Government to reverse the critical decline in nature, not an attack on the vital rules that protect our environment. This is why Friends of the Lake District is fully supporting the #AttackOnNature campaign along with many other local and national environmental groups. You can read more about these concerns here. Please add your voice to calls for the government to continue to stand up for the landscape and environment. There is some background information below and then we set out action you can take to get this message to the politicians. Background information Friends of the Lake District, along with many other environmental organisations is increasingly alarmed by the Government’s lack of concern for the climate, environment and landscape. Indeed, there appears to be a worrying ignorance about these issues and their importance for supporting the economy of Cumbria and the Lake District, people’s health and wellbeing, and for the protection of our habitats, wildlife and world renowned landscapes. The Government was elected in 2019 on a Manifesto commitment to bring forward “the most ambitious environmental programme of any country on earth”, but is right now proposing to weaken planning rules, drop protections for our most valuable wildlife sites by scrapping and not replacing EU legislation brought into English law, water down incentives for farmers and land managers to commit to sustainable agriculture and restart fracking. The government’s recent moves toward environmental deregulation will hasten the decline of our natural world. We are particularly concerned that Cumbria’s National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) will be damaged in the rush for deregulated Investment Zones where planning and other environmental legislation will be suspended at the expense of both residents and the environment. There are at least two of these Investment Zones being considered in Cumbria (at Barrow and the west Cumbria coast - which includes the Lake District National Park) and we urge our local political leaders in both Cumbria County Council and the two Shadow Authorities (due to come into effect in 2023) to think carefully about what that would mean for the ability to protect of Cumbria’s landscape. Cumbria has the highest percentage of land covered by environmental protections in England (64%) and is therefore more at risk from scrapping of protections for our wildlife, landscape and heritage than any other county. Take Action Please contact your MP to ask them to do whatever they can to persuade ministers to retain existing environmental protections and keep our landscape and wildlife safe. This is a nationwide threat, so it’s worth contacting your MP even if you don’t live in Cumbria or the Lake District. Do mention your concern about National Parks as these protected landscapes are for everyone. You can also contact Ministers such as Liz Truss (the Prime Minister), Ranil Jayawardena (Defra – the Dept for Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs) and Simon Clarke (Dept for Levelling Up) You can contact your MP and Ministers by email or letter - find their contact details on https://www.theyworkforyou.com -or on Twitter - find your MP’s Twitter account here https://www.politics-social.com/list/followers It’s worth contacting your local councillor or the Leader of your local council to raise concerns as the decision to go ahead with Investment Zones has to be agreed by local authorities as well as Government. In Cumbria, the Leader of the new Westmorland and Furness council is Jonathan Brook ([email protected]) and the Leader of the new Cumberland Council is Mark Fryer ([email protected]) Sign Up for These Campaigns You can also sign up to a number of campaigns being run by others including our national bodies CPRE – the countryside charity and the Campaign for National Parks. Campaign for National Parks Wildlife Trusts – Defend Nature RSPB – Stop the Attack on Nature CPRE - Rethink Fracking Pass the message onTalk to your friends and family about how much is at risk if the Government doesn’t continue to protect the environment in our laws. Further information Green Alliance Blog: How can the Government claim its still green if it rolls back environmental protection? Retained EU Law Revocation and Reform Bill National Trust: Our response to recent Government proposals Attack on Nature is a Mistake Times article by William Hague Wildlife Trusts: UK Government’s deregulation agenda is dangerous: for the good of future generations, we must retain existing laws and enhance nature protection instead A list of the policies in the 2019 Conservative Manifesto which are at odds with those proposed by the current government
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.
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.
Glover Landscape Review We applaud the Government’s proposals that our protected landscapes should be available to all and that nobody should feel excluded. While this needs balancing with managing visitor pressure, we are extremely supportive of ensuring our protected landscapes are inclusive. Expand Update 12th April 2022 In January, the Government published a series of proposals in response to an independent review of England’s National Parks and AONBs, led by Julian Glover. On April 8th we submitted a full written response to these proposals. Read/download our full written response here> Our submitted response in summary: We applaud the Government’s proposals that our protected landscapes should be available to all and that nobody should feel excluded. While this needs balancing with managing visitor pressure, we are extremely supportive of ensuring our protected landscapes are inclusive and we would urge Government to emphasise this within its ‘levelling up’ agenda. To truly ‘level up’, people need access to cheap, reliable public transport. Among Government proposals is a sustainable transport pilot in Cumbria to develop new sustainable ways to access the Lake District National Park. This has the potential to transform public transport in the area and provides a huge opportunity to improve transport for Cumbrian communities and visitors alike, enabling those without a private car to access the wider landscape for recreation and providing access to employment opportunities for those living in local communities. It could also help to meet local climate change targets and ensure the impacts of tourism do not damage the landscape it relies upon. We have called for this sustainable transport pilot to be actioned as soon as possible to deliver the ‘levelling up’ agenda and help Cumbria recover from the economic effects of the Covid pandemic. It is now urging the Government to commit financial support and provide guidance to deliver a truly outstanding sustainable transport network in the Lake District. Alongside first-rate public transport, the charity believes that the people who work in the Lake District should be able to afford to live there. The issue of affordable housing and second homes is particularly acute in protected landscapes and the charity is disappointed that Government proposals have not provided any real solutions to the issue. Landscape sensitivity and a desire to live in the National Park means that simply building more is even less appropriate than it is elsewhere and wants to see the Government develop a unique approach for our protected landscapes. In further support of our remit to ‘secure a landscape that is accessible and enjoyed by all’ we would like to see every child in Cumbria given the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of spending time in its National Parks and AONBs. In our original response to the Glover Review, we recommended introducing designated landscapes into the national curriculum and providing opportunities for all children to visit a designated landscape. Whilst we welcomed a subsequent Government proposal to support capacity building in schools to help young people engage with nature, we would like to see the Government go further and take forward a proposal in the Glover Review to introduce ‘a night under the stars’ in a protected landscape for every child. The response from Government and associated consultation is long overdue. It is therefore essential that the Government is ambitious. We need to see some immediate action to bring lasting change and remove the barriers that prevent people enjoying and benefitting from the special landscapes of Cumbria. Policy paper: Landscapes review (National Parks and AONBs): government responsewww.gov.uk/government/publications/landscapes-review-national-parks-and-aonbs-government-response/landscapes-review-national-parks-and-aonbs-government-response Update 30 March 2022 One week left to respond to the Government’s consultation on the Landscapes Review The Government is seeking the public’s views on its response to the Glover Landscapes Review, published on 15th January. Friends of the Lake District is producing a detailed response for the consultation and we encourage others that live in, work in or visit protected landscapes to do the same. The consultation closes at 11:45pm on 9 April 2022. There are several questions focusing on specific aspects of the Government’s response: The proposed changes to the statutory purposes for protected landscapes The development of the new environmental land management scheme The management of visitor pressure and potential enforcement powers The use of unsealed roads by recreational vehicles The role of AONB teams in planning Proposed changes to the boards of protected landscapes The role of public bodies and strengthening their statutory duties There is also a final section asking if respondents have any further comments about other aspects of the Government’s proposals. We will publish our own a detailed response here soon, but in the meantime you may like to refer to our summary response at the link below to help inform your own response. This highlights the aspects that we believe are most important for the protected landscapes in Cumbria and also provides a link to the consultation for you to submit your own personal response. Summary response highlighting aspects we believe are most important for the protected landscapes in Cumbria> Update 21 January 2022 We have had some time now to digest the Government’s response to the Landscapes Review. We will provide a more in-depth response to the consultation soon, but our initial thoughts are that whilst there is some good news, there is little detail and some key recommendations from the Glover Review are missing. The Government agreed with the Glover review that we need stronger Governance and national leadership with more collaboration between our protected landscapes. However, Government does not propose establishing a new body, instead they will ensure existing partners work together more effectively through a new national landscapes partnership. Whilst the details of this have not been outlined, there is concern that a new landscapes partnership would not have the capacity, resources or independence to fully deliver the strong leadership that is required. We are particularly disappointed that there has not been a commitment to the multi-year funding agreements suggested by the Glover Review. The Government recognises that the core grant will not be sufficient for the work that needs to be done. They therefore propose a new funding model with more diverse sources of funding, such as private finance for nature-based solutions and a role for the new landscapes partnership to harness commercial and sponsorship opportunities. This does not provide protected landscapes with the certainty they need to plan ahead. There is also concern that private investors could influence management decisions or that they use their investment to offset their environmental impact elsewhere. We welcome the proposals to strengthen the statutory purposes and align the purposes of National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. There is no specific wording proposed, but the Government recommends that the first purpose should include driving nature recovery as a core function of protected landscapes. They propose that it encompasses a wider range of societal benefits from nature, and there is specific reference to biodiversity and natural capital. Friends of the Lake District is disappointed that the Government has not recognised the importance of landscape and landscape character. It is the landscape that provides us with all the benefits that the Government want our protected landscapes to deliver. Landscape is the dynamic backdrop to our lives. It is the relationship between nature and culture, and encompasses biodiversity, geodiversity, cultural and natural heritage, along with all the health and wellbeing benefits of being immersed in the landscape. Its recognition will ensure the landscape continues to provide us with these benefits. Improving access to protected landscapes and addressing the current inequality in those accessing the landscape is seen as a priority. Whilst this needs balancing with managing visitor pressure, we are extremely supportive of ensuring our protected landscapes are accessible to all. With no commitment to funding, however, it will be challenging for protected landscapes to deliver the long-term engagement activities required to increase the diversity of people using the landscape. There is also no mention of the Glover Review’s recommendation to introduce a night under the stars for every child in a protected landscape. The Government has recognised the additional pressures seen in protected landscapes since the Glover review as a result of the pandemic and there are proposals for greater enforcement, making a greater range of enforcement powers available to National Park Authorities to help manage visitor pressures. it also wants to develop new sustainable ways to access the Lake District National Park that may transform public transport in the area and become a blueprint for other landscapes. Friends of the Lake District would be very keen to support this. Friends of the Lake District will continue to scrutinise the Government’s suggestions and will work with our partners to develop our response to the consultation. The consultation is open until the 9 April 2022 and we would urge everyone to provide their views. Landscapes review (National Parks and AONBs): government response - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) Update 15th January 2022 Government’s response to the Glover Landscape Review and associated consultation Friends of the Lake District welcome the much anticipated response from the Government to the Glover Landscape Review and the opportunity to respond to their consultation. We will provide an in-depth response once we have considered the Government’s proposals in more detail. The Government’s independent review of England’s National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), led by Julian Glover, was published in October 2019. It was an ambitious report that largely agreed with many of our recommendations and we are pleased to see the Government supporting some of these. However, we will need to scrutinise the detail of the proposals to ensure they are ambitious enough to deliver the action that is urgently required. One of our key recommendations to the Glover Review was to establish a strong central co-ordination body to provide strategic direction to protected landscapes. Any proposals should provide a stronger system of governance and ensure consistency, accountability and a voice to champion designated landscapes at government level. Another key ambition of Friends of the Lake District is to better involve and educate children and young people about national parks. We were very supportive of the Glover Review’s recommendation to allow every child to experience a night under the stars in a protected landscape and we are very keen to explore ideas for better engaging young people. Friends of the Lake District welcome proposals to extend and designate new protected landscapes. Central to this should be plans to address the complex and lengthy designation process as suggested by the Glover Review. We will continue to advocate for a southern boundary extension to the Lake District National Park and understand there will be opportunity for this to be considered in the future. The response from Government and associated consultation is long overdue. It is therefore essential that the Government are ambitious and maintain momentum to deliver lasting improvements that will secure the future of our protected landscapes. This will require protected landscapes to be sufficiently funded to allow them to deliver their purposes and benefits to the nation. Read the Government's full response to the Glover Landscapes Review here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/landscapes-review-national-parks-and-aonbs-government-response Update 14th May 2020 Protected Landscapes (Glover) Review The current crisis is showing just how important landscape and nature are to our health and well-being. We understand that the Government will be considering the report prepared by an independent panel led by Julian Glover. We will be writing to the Government asking them to move forward on elements of the review that we support. Update 8th October 2019 The report was published last month, sooner than we had expected. The report is ambitious and agrees with a number of our recommendations, the key one being that a National Landscapes Service should be established to bring together our 44 designated landscapes (National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty). The Review considered the current system of landscape protection to be fragmented, marginalised and misunderstood- not really a system at all. We certainly agree with the principle of this and think National Parks should have a stronger voice in Government but also stronger governance to make sure that there is consistency in how the statutory purposes are applied throughout the Parks. With regard to the statutory purposes of National Parks there is mention of reference being made within the purposes to improving nature and biodiversity, there is also mention of an updated Sandford Principle where greater weight must be given to the first purpose to conserve and enhance natural beauty. We had also recommended that National Parks be included in the National Curriculum and one of the proposals is for every child to spend a night under the stars in a national landscape. We welcome references to helping people from minorities and less well- off areas to access our landscapes. There is also a reference to increasing the amount of land accessible to the public and again, this is something we had recommended. We are pleased that the report recognises the Lake District is heavily congested at times with an over reliance upon cars. There is also a recognition that unlimited car use can spoil the special beauty. A new approach to co-ordinating public transport in the Lake District is a specific proposal within the report. However, there is not enough recognition that too many visitors can undermine the quality of the landscape. We believe that there needs to be more discussion about the measures that can be implemented to alleviate the impact on infrastructure of an ever increasing number of visitors to the Lake District. On funding the current system is considered unnecessarily complex. Other recommendations include reducing the administrative burden by reducing the numbers of people on National Park Boards. This should raise some money, but not enough if the ambitions of the report are to be fulfilled. The report considers that there should be an ambitious and philanthropic programme of funding including both a charitable and commercial approach. However, there is no clear framework for this and we have concerns about the conflicts that may be created from commercial funding and that charitable fundraising for landscape protection purposes may just take from the existing pool of finance available for such work. A link to the summary of the findings can be seen below: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/designated-landscapes-national-parks-and-aonbs-2018-review/landscapes-review-summary-of-findings Update 31st July 2019 We are pleased with one of the key suggestions of the Designated Landscapes Review. Julian Glover who leads the review has published a letter which sets out a guide to the review panel’s thoughts on what they have found. The main ask from Friends of the Lake District was that some form of central governing and co-ordinating body is set up to provide strong governance and consistency around the purposes of National Parks. The letter from Julian Glover to Michael Gove makes clear that we should not be happy with what we have at the moment and that the system of landscape protection is fragmented, sometimes marginalised and often misunderstood. In the light of this the panel is going to explore the potential of a National Landscape Service- effectively supporting our key request. The letter also emphasises that our designated landscapes should be at the forefront of nature recovery and take a lead in tackling climate change. In terms of funding at the very least the panel want to see existing budgets secured in real terms and sustained for a further five year period. The initial findings in the letter are generally challenging, that is heartening and we look forward to the full report.Read Julian Glover's July 2019 letter setting out the interim findings of the Landscapes Review. 18th December 2018 A summary of our response is detailed below together with a link to our full response. While we consider that our designated landscapes have been a great post war success story our landscapes must meet the challenges of today. We have made a significant number of recommendations to the review but our key points are that: There should be a strong central co-ordination body to provide strategic direction to national parks and to ensure consistency, accountability and a voice to champion designated landscapes at government level A greater emphasis should be placed upon conserving and enhancing natural and cultural heritage to make sure that enhancement of the special qualities of our landscapes takes place The types of recreation promoted must be in line with the first purpose to conserve and enhance The review should consider opportunities for introducing designated landscapes into the national curriculum and providing opportunities for all children to visit a designated landscape Read our response in full here 25th October 2018 Friends of the Lake District welcomes the Government’s independent review of England’s National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) launched on 20th October. The review is led by Julian Glover supported by an experienced advisory group. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to make your views known on the future of our National Parks and AONBs and how they are run. We will be submitting a response to the review but we would urge individual members to feed in their own comments directly. As part of the response process, there is an option for you to submit an image illustrating what is special to you about a National Park or AONB. We believe that this provides an exciting opportunity for us all to demonstrate what these landscapes mean to us. With a deadline for submissions on 18 December, the review will report next year, 70 years after the landmark National Parks Act 1949 that established National Parks in England and it will consider all aspects of England’s National Parks and AONB's. Background information about the review together with the consultation can be found here: https://consult.defra.gov.uk/land-use/landscapes-review-call-for-evidence We will provide an update and some initial thoughts once we have considered the review in more detail.