Hi Bryan,
It's disappointing to read your response.
At no time has the LDWA taken a position on the Thirlmere Zip wire proposal. The response by me to Stephen's response was to acknowledge his post and to then ask others whether this was a topic that any potential comment was required.

Because the LDWA is not by its natural position a campaigning organisation, it doesn't presuppose that it should have no opinions on anything. And, it is most likely that the LDWA would not take a position on Thirlmere, but we'd need to have that conversation to understand.

I used the analogy of National Trust and the governing body status with regards to long distance walking to demonstrate how it's difficult for the LDWA to automatically say that it's not a campaigning organisation.

And 'sometimes one has to understand' was aimed at recognising what issues the LDWA might have an opinion on and what else it would choose to not comment on. It was not aimed at you, but if you think that it was, then please accept my apologies.

Regards,

David

"Sometimes one has to understand" how patronising is that. Sorry for having expressed a point of view. That is one less member the LDWA has, so long and thanks for the fish.

Hi Bryan
If the LDWEA is not a 'lobbying group', what did the NEC do with regards to engaging with National Trust on the way that they were planning to try and charge walk organisers for using public rights of way?
Now, walk organisers can organise safe in the knowledge that they will not be charged for using the rights of way. This was as a result of gentle diplomacy that might be considered as 'lobbying' by others.

Furthermore, how can the LDWA fulfil its role as the governing body of long distance walking as outlined by Sport England (listed under rambling) if it cannot ask questions that might be considered as 'lobbying'?

That the LDWA is not a campaigning organisation as outlined by many is a juxtaposition with regards to furthering the interests of long distance walking.

Sometimes, one has to understand that there are certain issues that should be reviewed and an appropriate response considered.

Regards,

David

Let's slow down, the LDWA is not primarily a lobbying group. If we decide to go down the route of supporting or opposing planning applications there are a lot of ones we as a membership may hold strong views on.
Also what are the LDWA's views on these issues? Are we all opposed to this application? There are aspects in their application that are quite thought provoking. One man's eyesore is another mans job.
If the NEC make a decision to comment on this application it will open the floodgates to comment on other applications. If Stephen or any individual objects strongly their is a process he can go down. I have contributed to the process for this application as is my right.
If we are to take the step of taking part in lobbying by supporting or opposing applications then the NEC needs to consult members as this is a big step to take.

Hi Stephen
Thanks for raising this. I will draw the attention of the NEC to this forum thread and consider its content.
Regards,
David Morgan

Does the LDWA have a position in opposing the Thirlmere Zip Wire planning application? It’s actually for 8 zip wires, strung across Thirlmere, with all the associated noise, congestion, intrusive infrastructure and landscape and environmental degradation.

There may well be a demand for "fun" attractions, but surely not in the heart of the National Park - there are plenty of places in West Cumbria where the investment and jobs would be welcome. A huge chunk of central lakeland is about to be ruined for walkers.

Virtually every outdoor organisation has a position opposing the application: John Muir Trust, Friends of the Lake District, BMC, National Trust, Open Space Society, Fell, the Wainwright Society and Rock Climbing Trusts. Today the Ramblers issued a statement opposing the application. I believe the LDWA should follow suit