Before looking at the proposal itself I think it’s
worthwhile reminding ourselves of the aims and purposes of national parks. These
are laid out clearly on nationalparks.gov.uk.
Here are some quotes from this document:
The Environment Act
1995 …. set out two statutory purposes for national parks in England and Wales:
1. Conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage
1. Conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage
2. Promote opportunities for the understanding
and enjoyment of the special qualities of national
parks by the public
National Parks are
protected areas. A protected area is a location which has a clear boundary. It
has people and laws that make sure nature and wildlife are protected and that
people can continue to benefit from nature without destroying it.
Sandford Principle
"Where irreconcilable conflicts exist between conservation and public enjoyment, then conservation interest should take priority"
This principle was updated in the 1995 Environment Act, to say;
"If it appears that there is a conflict between those purposes,
[the National Park Authority] shall attach greater weight to the purpose of
conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of
the area"
This is quite clear. I think it’s also quite clear
that zipwires over Thirlmere should not be allowed under these terms.
Conservation should always take priority.
Thirlmere is a reservoir with many dense conifer
woods on its shores. It’s a man-made lake, the woods are a man-made forest.
Does this matter, does this mean any development goes? No. In fact rather the
opposite. Areas like this can become wilder (see Wild Ennerdale for an example).
Water and trees are natural. They’re not concrete, steel or plastic. Remember
the words above, the first purpose of a national park – ‘conserve and enhance’,
not ‘damage and degrade’.
In fact little if any of the Lake District
landscape is truly wild. It’s all been influenced and modified by human
activity. Few though would argue that it’s not an area of natural beauty. I can’t
say I know Thirlmere well but I have looked down on it from neighbouring hills
and what I see are woods and water, a peaceful Lake District scene.
Proposing zipwires for Thirlmere is also grimly
ironic because it was here that the British conservation movement that
eventually led to the creation of national parks had its genesis. The Thirlmere
Defence Association, set up to campaign against the proposed reservoir in the
1870s, was the first stirring of organised opposition to destructive developments
in areas like the Lake District, opposition that led to the creation of the
National Trust and Friends of the Lake District.
Opposition to the zipwires is growing. Friends
of the Lake District and The
Wainwright Society have both come out against the proposal. My friend noted
film maker Terry Abraham in a
bold, brave move resigned publicly as an ambassador for the Lake District
Foundation at its relaunch due to the neutral stance of this ‘conservation
charity’ to the zipwires. You can read his views here.
One thing I should make clear is that I have
nothing against zipwires as such. I’m not personally interested in them but if
people find them fun that’s fine. It’s the location that matters not the actual
nature of the development. There should be nothing done at Thirlmere that doesn’t
enhance the natural beauty. And roads, car parks, zipwires and noise certainly
won’t do this.
If you agree the zipwires should not go ahead you
can write and object on the National
Park website. Objections have to be submitted by January 2nd. There’s also a petition on 38
Degrees and you could support Zip Off, which has regular updates on the campaign against the zipwires.
Update: Roger Smith has written an excellent piece for The Great Outdoors here. The British Mountaineering Council has also objected to the scheme.And now the Council for National Parks has done so too.
Update 2: The opposition mountains up. The National Trust has now objected to the scheme, as has the actor Caroline Quinn. Report on Grough. Also the date for objections has been moved to January 12.
Update: Roger Smith has written an excellent piece for The Great Outdoors here. The British Mountaineering Council has also objected to the scheme.And now the Council for National Parks has done so too.
Update 2: The opposition mountains up. The National Trust has now objected to the scheme, as has the actor Caroline Quinn. Report on Grough. Also the date for objections has been moved to January 12.
Concisely put Chris. My signature is already on the petition and my letter of objection has been lodged with LDPNA. Let's hope the planning committee agrees with the thousands of people who are against this preposterous proposal.
ReplyDeleteThank you Chris. Your points have been put very eloquently. For me it is the idea, as you mention, that zip wires could be put across above the birthplace of British conservation movements - such as the National Trust. I have been aware of this proposal since the end of July and I still sit and shake my head at the thought that anyone could dream up such a plan!
ReplyDeleteI note the conflicts of interest you expose.A good article.
ReplyDeleteMy letter has been sent to the planning department and petitions signed. What were they thinking?
ReplyDelete