Honister Zip Wire refused – unaccountable, anti-business and out of touch!

This may well cost the National Park Authority dearly and I hope the members that voted against the scheme realise that. The planning application was recommended approval by the officers and will surely be passed on appeal by a Government Inspector who can bypass these dinosaurs and museum curators.

 

I woke up today honestly believing the National Park were progressive enough to pass this. But the second home brigade of the “Freinds” of the Lake District have spat in the face of progress once again.

 

Its not just bad for Honister as a viable business, its not just bad for the Tourism industry and locals at large, but its a kick in the teeth to the professional officers of the National Park who have actually been trying to work with business and get some progress around the place.

 

I hope that Honister do not take this attack on our counties progress lightly and lead the charge for change, because I’ll be right next to them.

One Comment

  1. Totally with you on this one Ben. Honister proposed a temporary permission allowing all interested parties to suck it and see for 18 months, with Honister assuming all the risk themselves. Following the temporary period, Honister would need to reapply to retain the apparatus. That 18 months would have allowed all interested parties to monitor the situation and any subsequent proposal to keep the zip line could have be judged on actual experience of the impacts (as opposed to fears over what it ‘might’ – or might not – be like).

    I was really pleased to see the officers made a brave recommendation to support this and cannot describe how disappointed I am to see it rejected by the Board. I would be interested to see what the breakdown of the 7-4 vote was. Even in the TV programme showing the earlier proposal, I felt that the officers of LDNPA came across as very open for business and they should be commended for that, particularly given the traditional and often ill informed view of planning as a profession.

    The one positive is that Honister has a much greater chance of success at appeal with a positive officer recommendation and I really hope they pursue this avenue.

    Despite Honister’s willingness to address impacts in this reapplication, it’s a great shame the Board wouldn’t meet them half way.

    Reply

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.