Lake District planning committee turns down £2m overhaul of Ferry Nab

PLANS for a multi-million pound development to transform the Windermere shoreline have been rejected by Lake District planners.

Proposals for the £2m overhaul of Ferry Nab - including a new building, longer jetties, more car parking spaces and an outdoor adventure facility - were thrown out by the national park authority today amid concerns over the design and environmental impact of the development.

“The scheme as it is at the present runs the risk of damaging that most precious thing which is the landscape of the national park,” said Councillor Vivienne Rees.

“I feel that for some people it would seem as if we’re rejecting the plans for trivial reasons but we have to weight up the benefits and harms.”

Members raised concerns that the development could damage a nearby reed bed and questioned the impact longer jetties could have on users of the water.

They also criticised the design of a planned two-storey building, saying it would be more suited to a ‘coastal’ location than the edge of Windermere.

“It would appear as though it had just been parachuted in,” said Coun Norman Clarkson.

“I don’t think the design is right at all.”

Windermere businessman, Robert Judson, also spoke out about the impact of the development on the area’s trees.

“There are 314 trees on the site and 92 will be felled and another 60 are going to be butchered from the ground to 60 metres up,” he said.

“I think we do need to improve what’s there but this is not the way.”

But Peter Winter, who attended on behalf of applicant, South Lakeland District Council, told the committee that many of the trees were in poor health, while the reed bed would be fenced off and would not be affected.

He also said the council was prepared to be ‘flexible’ over the designs.

“The redevelopment of Ferry Nab is important,” he said.

However, the Lake District planners voted unanimously to reject the plans.

Peter Thornton, leader of South Lakeland District Council, later told the Gazette he was ‘disappointed’ the plans were rejected but said the council would now ‘consider its options’.

“There is a clearly a difference of opinion about details of the application but we believe there is significant support across the district for what we are trying to achieve,” he said.

“We are keen to maintain a positive relationship with the Lake District National Park Authority.”

Comments (7)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:11pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Kendmoor says...

Many days I wake up, look out the window and feel that there is more need for an *indoor* activity center, rather than an outdoor one. Already plenty to do outdoors........on the off chance the weather is nice.
Many days I wake up, look out the window and feel that there is more need for an *indoor* activity center, rather than an outdoor one. Already plenty to do outdoors........on the off chance the weather is nice. Kendmoor

4:56pm Wed 4 Dec 13

philipio says...

I have a boat on the Lake and talking to most people throughout the Summer re the 're-generation' of Ferry Nab no one had a good word to say about the 'plans' that were being forwarded.
Everyone agrees that the area needs slightly improving though.
The idea of long jetties was ludicrous as to how one carried a large amount of equipment down them to your boat.
The Lake District Planning committee have done the right thing in this case by rejecting the plans.
I have a boat on the Lake and talking to most people throughout the Summer re the 're-generation' of Ferry Nab no one had a good word to say about the 'plans' that were being forwarded. Everyone agrees that the area needs slightly improving though. The idea of long jetties was ludicrous as to how one carried a large amount of equipment down them to your boat. The Lake District Planning committee have done the right thing in this case by rejecting the plans. philipio

6:09pm Wed 4 Dec 13

onelocal says...

Good to see common sense prevails. Bulldozer Pete and the "we who must be obeyed" SLDC Lib Dems brought to a halt by the LDNPA planning committee. I suspect there isn't significant support across the district for our council, elected to provide services to the district, getting involved in an opportunistic commercial venture, to benefit a minority of boat owners, at the expense of the tax payer and those established businesses in Bowness on Windermere, who pay council taxes and rates. Windermere Town Council rejected the plans, now LDNPA, as well as many neighbours around Ferry Nab. This had the possibility of becoming yet another white elephant, and SLDC should get the message, focus on providing services to the district and get their snouts out of the trough.
Good to see common sense prevails. Bulldozer Pete and the "we who must be obeyed" SLDC Lib Dems brought to a halt by the LDNPA planning committee. I suspect there isn't significant support across the district for our council, elected to provide services to the district, getting involved in an opportunistic commercial venture, to benefit a minority of boat owners, at the expense of the tax payer and those established businesses in Bowness on Windermere, who pay council taxes and rates. Windermere Town Council rejected the plans, now LDNPA, as well as many neighbours around Ferry Nab. This had the possibility of becoming yet another white elephant, and SLDC should get the message, focus on providing services to the district and get their snouts out of the trough. onelocal

9:29pm Wed 4 Dec 13

laker1 says...

Good quote by one of 'Bulldozer's' acolytes - well done Vivienne
Good quote by one of 'Bulldozer's' acolytes - well done Vivienne laker1

2:19pm Thu 5 Dec 13

BluebellBrook says...

Excellent result, Why change when the Ferry nab boat users are very happy with how it is. We're grateful for soap in the toilets. Mirrors in the Ladies would be good- not a redevelopment.
Excellent result, Why change when the Ferry nab boat users are very happy with how it is. We're grateful for soap in the toilets. Mirrors in the Ladies would be good- not a redevelopment. BluebellBrook

2:22pm Thu 5 Dec 13

BluebellBrook says...

Excellent result. Why change for change sake? We female boat owners are ecstatic about soap being provided in the ladies loos (mirrors would be luxury). So happy that the tea bar is still there. We do not need nor want development.
Excellent result. Why change for change sake? We female boat owners are ecstatic about soap being provided in the ladies loos (mirrors would be luxury). So happy that the tea bar is still there. We do not need nor want development. BluebellBrook

6:26am Wed 11 Dec 13

A view From Cumbria says...

That this application has progressed so far when no-one who was acquainted with the site had a good word for it is testament to the poverty of political control on South Lakeland at present.

By my understanding this was an officer invented scheme which should have been squashed by members of the cabinet, in the absence of any leadership from the leader.

The officer assertion was that it would provide much needed revenue, just like K Village in Kendal.

Those who look on Tim Farron as a new Messiah who will save his party and the nation should look carefully on his works, and think again.
That this application has progressed so far when no-one who was acquainted with the site had a good word for it is testament to the poverty of political control on South Lakeland at present. By my understanding this was an officer invented scheme which should have been squashed by members of the cabinet, in the absence of any leadership from the leader. The officer assertion was that it would provide much needed revenue, just like K Village in Kendal. Those who look on Tim Farron as a new Messiah who will save his party and the nation should look carefully on his works, and think again. A view From Cumbria

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree