lake district bid for world heritage site status - cumbria · lake district bid for world heritage...

CUMBRIA COUNTY COUNCIL

Lake District Bid for World Heritage Site Status

September 2005

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY

ii

Lake District Bid for

World Heritage Site Status

Committee Members

Mr Norman Shaw Improving Council Services Scrutiny Panel Mr David Southward Enhancing Economic Wellbeing Scrutiny Panel Mr Eric Nicholson Enhancing Economic Wellbeing Scrutiny Panel Mr Tom Clare Protecting and Enhancing the Environment Scrutiny Panel

Lead Officers

Alan Gunston Improving Council Services Scrutiny Panel Becky Hughes Enhancing Economic Wellbeing Scrutiny Panel Catherine Phythian Protecting and Enhancing the Environment Scrutiny Panel

Improving Council Services Scrutiny Panel

Enhancing Economic Wellbeing Scrutiny Panel

Protecting and Enhancing the Environment Scrutiny

Panel

iii

CONTENTS PAGE

Title page & Members page ii Contents & Glossary of terms page iii 1. Executive summary page 1-2 2. Introduction/Background page 3-6 3. Methodology page 7-9 4. Findings page 10-17 5. Conclusions page 18-21 6. Recommendations page 22 7. Appendices page 23-34

Glossary of terms CCC Cumbria County Council CSP Cumbria Strategic Partnership CTB Cumbria Tourist Board DCMS Department for Culture, Media and Sport FOLD Friends of the Lake District ICOMOS International Council on Monuments and Sites IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources LAWHF Local Authority World Heritage Forum

LD Lake District LDNPA Lake District National Park Authority NT National Trust NWDA North West Regional Development Agency UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation WHS World Heritage Site SMC Scrutiny Management Committee

- 1 -

1. Executive summary 1.1 This report presents the findings of an overview and scrutiny review of

whether Cumbria County Council (CCC) should support the Lake District’s (LD) bid for World Heritage Site (WHS) status. It is intended to assist Full Council in deciding whether it wishes to support the bid for WHS status and to inform CCC’s position at the ‘make or break’ meeting with other key stakeholders on 14 October 2005.

1.2 Scrutiny considered three key questions in the process of the review:

1. Why does CCC want to bid for WHS status? 2. What does CCC want WHS status to deliver to the whole Cumbrian

community? 3. How will CCC take the bid process forward?

1.3 It was agreed to conduct a cross-panel scrutiny review, to undertake an

assessment of the cultural, economic and environmental merits and implications of the bid for Cumbria. Information was gathered through a variety of means, including a literature search, opinion survey with county councillors, and consultation with CCC officers and key partner organisations.

1.4 Research found that there is a lack of substantive information or hard

data to assist in a decision as to whether to support the bid. Much of the findings are opinion based and are open to interpretation, however, evidence would suggest there are potential benefits for Cumbria in terms of :

• developing culture and heritage;

• enhancing its international image;

• promoting conservation and protecting the environment; and

• economic benefits in relation to niche tourism. 1.5 It is recommended that CCC participates in the WHS bid

development process to explore these potential benefits. CCC should also raise issues of concern to ensure they are addressed in the bid development process, including:

• where the boundaries of the WHS & buffer zone will lie;

• that planning principles will not be made more restrictive by the WHS;

• there are clear economic benefits for Cumbria; and

• that market research and public consultation are undertaken. 1.6 CCC should undertake a staged approach to the bid development

process in order to gain further substantive information and to exert influence on the bid development. It should also indicate to partners that it may withdraw its involvement as a consequence of the ‘make or break’ meeting or at a later date if it deems that the bid is not beneficial to Cumbria.

- 2 -

1.7 In preparation for the ‘make or break’ meeting, CCC should develop a clear position regarding what resources it is prepared to commit to the bid development. There should be clear agreement with partners as to what will happen to these resources if CCC decides to withdraw its participation at a later stage. CCC also needs to determine whether it wants to be a leader, partner, onlooker or opponent to the bid.

1.8 Evidence suggests that the bid will proceed without CCC’s

involvement. If CCC does not support or actively participate in the WHS bid, members must recognise that the bid development may not then give due consideration to the merits and implications for Cumbria highlighted in this report. Similarly if the bid proceeds without CCC’s support this may well have a negative influence on the Authority’s CPA rating with regard to partnership working, culture and environment.

1.9 Irrespective of the decision reached at Full Council on 15 September

2005, it is suggested that overview and scrutiny members revisit CCC’s position with regard to the LD WHS bid before the end of calendar year 2006.

- 3 -

2. Introduction/Background

World Heritage Sites 2.1. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

(UNESCO) adopted the ‘Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage’ in 1972. This seeks to encourage the identification, protection and preservation of cultural and natural heritage around the world considered to be of outstanding value to humanity.

2.2. The Convention sets out the duties of Government to identify potential

sites on a tentative list, from which a selection are then nominated for World Heritage Site (WHS) status. Sites are nominated to the World Heritage Committee, an intergovernmental body set up under the terms of the Convention. The Committee approves sites following an assessment by specialist international bodies: the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) for cultural sites and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) for natural sites. If a nomination is successful, the site is inscribed by UNESCO.

2.3. The protection of a WHS is the responsibility of national governments,

working with the local authorities and stakeholders. To ensure that all World Heritage Sites are managed in a sustainable way, Management Plans are recommended by UNESCO. Such plans help ensure the preservation of the site by establishing a framework for decision making and identifying long-term objectives. The implementation of the WHS Management Plan relies on the effective co-operation of the stakeholders. In addition, governments must report to UNESCO every six years on the state of conservation of World Heritage Sites in their territory.

2.4. The UNESCO Convention defines the categories of sites which can be

considered for inscription on the World Heritage List; these are natural areas, cultural sites and cultural landscapes.

Previous Lake District bids for WHS status

2.5. 1985: The Lake District’s (LD) original application for WHS status was

made in 1985 on the grounds of natural heritage (at this time sites could only be inscribed as a monument or natural site). This application was deferred by UNESCO on the basis that the LD is a manmade influenced site and not entirely natural, as for example the Amazon Basin.

2.6. 1987: A second application was made in 1987 as a cultural property and

natural heritage site. However, this bid was also deferred by UNESCO.

- 4 -

2.7. Since these initial applications, UNESCO has redefined the criteria for WHS site bids, to include cultural sites. The redefinition of the criteria was based on the LD’s 1987 application, but on the clear understanding that the LD would not automatically be selected as a WHS site without presenting a detailed case for inscription under the new cultural landscape site criteria.

2.8. 1999: In 1999, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS)

created ‘World Heritage Sites: The Tentative List of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’. This detailed a tentative list of UK sites to be nominated for WHS status. CCC was consulted and agreed to the LD’s inclusion as a deferred site on the tentative list. Governments are encouraged to re-examine and re-submit their tentative list at least every ten years. If there is judged to be no progress with the LD when the tentative list is reviewed, it is likely that it will be removed from the list and will not be able to bid for WHS status in future.

2.9. 2001: The nomination for the LD was reactivated in 2001 with support

from the Government under the category of ‘cultural landscape’. The LD meets three of the UNESCO criteria for WHS cultural landscapes:

• Criterion a ii): “Landscapes that exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town planning or landscape design”.

• Criterion a iii): “Landscapes that bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilisation which is living or which has disappeared”.

• Criterion a iv): “Landscapes that are directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance”.

2.10. 2003: In 2003, the Lake District World Heritage Site Forum agreed that

Paul Tiplady (National Park Officer, Lake District National Park Authority (LDNPA)) would endeavour to create a formal partnership to prepare the bid and management plan. The LDNPA allocated £50,000 over two years to support this work.

2.11. A ‘World Heritage Site Inscription – Call for Partners’ was issued in

August 2003 and CCC was formally invited to lend its support. However, CCC did not reach a formal decision regarding its support although councillors and officers continued to attend meetings and to maintain a watching brief.

2.12. 2005: At the meeting of their Policy and Overview Committee on 26 May

2005, the LDNPA agreed to make a final effort to progress the bid and engage partners in that process.

- 5 -

How Cumbria will approach the bid

2.13. The earliest unallocated slot for consideration of WHS status by

UNESCO is February 2008. In preparation for this, a bid would have to be submitted to English Heritage by approximately December 2007. The work to prepare a bid would take two years and will include the development of a detailed management plan, so a definite decision to proceed with the bid needs to be taken urgently.

2.14. To bid for WHS status in February 2008, Cumbria needs to take the

following action:

• form a partnership with other agencies/bodies to finance and support the bid;

• prepare a bid document; and

• prepare a management plan. 2.15. The LDNPA has already approached a range of regional partners to

agree to the establishment of an active, funded partnership to take the bid forward. Some of these have been actively involved in bringing the bid proposal to its current position. Key partners include:

• North West Regional Development Agency (NWDA) – including Rural Regeneration Cumbria and West Lakes Renaissance

• English Heritage/ Department for Culture, Media and Sport

• National Trust

• Landowners (Forestry Commission/United Utilities)

• Cumbria Tourist Board It should be noted that although the LDNPA are taking the lead at this stage, they will not automatically lead the bid development process.

2.16. In the past partners have been reluctant to commit to the bid process

due to the lack of substantive information about the merits and implications of WHS inscription. In an attempt to address this issue, the NWDA commissioned a report to consolidate work undertaken so far and ‘make a balanced judgement on the merits of WHS inscription based on the potential impacts and issues flagged up by key partners and the requirements for the effective management of the World Heritage Site’1 (Appendix 1). This appraisal forms the basis for further discussion by partners as to whether they wish to support the bid.

2.17. Potential partners will be invited to attend a ‘make or break’ meeting on

14 October 2005. The purpose of the meeting will be for the LDNPA to gauge the strength of support for the WHS bid and to come to a clear view on whether or not it will be feasible to proceed with the bid development. The LDNPA are keen for all potential partners to attend

1 Pg i, ‘An Objective Appraisal of the Impact of the WHS Inscription of the Lake District Area of Cumbria’, September 2004, ERM and Chris Blandford Associates

- 6 -

this meeting even if they do not support the bid, for a full discussion about the arguments for and against WHS inscription.

CCC’s involvement with the current bid

2.18. Paul Tiplady met Peter Stybelski, Chief Executive, CCC in May 2005 to

request that CCC support the bid. It was agreed by the Leader, Deputy Leader, Chair of Scrutiny Management Committee (SMC) and the Chief Executive that Scrutiny would undertake an assessment of the merits and implications of the bid for CCC. This would assist Full Council in deciding whether it wishes to support the bid for WHS status and to inform CCC’s position at the ‘make or break’ meeting on 14 October 2005.

2.19. The Enhancing Economic Wellbeing Scrutiny Panel (Theme B) agreed to

take up scrutiny of this issue at their meeting on 29 June 2005. Following further consultation with SMC on 6 July, it was agreed to conduct a cross-panel scrutiny review, to include lead members from:

• Theme A: Improving Council Services Scrutiny Panel

• Theme B: Enhancing Economic Wellbeing Scrutiny Panel

• Theme F: Protecting and Enhancing the Environment Scrutiny Panel

Given the short timescale of this review, this approach would allow members to contribute flexibly and to consider the cultural, economic and environmental merits and implications of the bid for the whole of Cumbria.

2.20. Due to time constraints it has been agreed that the Scrutiny Report will

go directly to Full Council on 15 September 2005.

- 7 -

3. Methodology 3.1. An initial scoping session to plan the scrutiny review was held with lead

members from the three scrutiny panels on 15 July 2005. This working group agreed that it should consider three key questions in the process of the review:



3.2. The scrutiny review has three stages:

Stage 1: To gather evidence on the cultural, economic and

environmental merits and implications of the bid and how they will affect Cumbria as a whole.

Stage 2: To draw out the key conclusions from these areas to enable CCC to make a decision as to whether it will support the LD’s bid for WHS status.

Stage 3: To revisit CCC’s position and the progress of the bid before the end of the calendar year 2006.

3.3. Stage 1: Gathering evidence The following measures were agreed to gather evidence:

Literature Search

3.3.1. To source documents relating to the LD’s previous applications. This would include any CCC documents about the previous applications, the UK’s tentative list of WHS and general background information.

3.3.2. To undertake further research as appropriate. This would include

identification of case studies of existing WHS and evidence to highlight the potential implications and benefits of WHS status.

Opinion Survey

3.3.3. To undertake consultation with other organisations and potential partner

agencies to seek their views and determine if there was further evidence available to assist CCC in its decision making process. A copy of the letter to request this information and a list of recipients are attached (Appendix 2).

3.3.4. To conduct interviews with relevant CCC officers to determine what impact the LD’s WHS status could have upon CCC services and Cumbria as a whole. This was carried out via an initial list of generic questions to

- 8 -

all officers (Appendix 3), followed up by issue focused one-to-one interviews where appropriate.

3.3.5. To undertake consultation with County Councillors via a feedback form

(Appendix 4). Due to the short timescale of this investigation the working group felt it would be appropriate to canvas members’ views and feed the issues they raised into this report. It was also felt that it would serve to raise the profile of this subject in preparation for the debate at Full Council on 15 September 2005.

Public consultation

3.3.6. The working group considered the merits of conducting public consultation as part of the review. It was agreed that Scrutiny Officers should investigate the scope to develop a discussion forum on CCC’s website. This would invite the public’s views on the key issues relating to the bid and if they felt that CCC should support the bid. This would be advertised by local media (press and radio).

3.3.7. However, as a result of discussions with CCC’s Corporate Communications Team, it was agreed that it would not be sensible to conduct public consultation at this time. The justification for this was that there are no tangible proposals about the bid to inform public debate and not enough supporting evidence to answer any questions that might be raised by the public.

3.3.8. It is suggested that partners will have to conduct extensive public

consultation and make efforts to address general public perceptions during the bid development stage.

3.4. Stage 2 : Conclusions and decision making

3.4.1. The working group agreed this report on 23 August 2005. It will go to Full

Council on 15 September 2005, to inform CCC’s decision as to whether it will support the LD’s bid for WHS status.

3.4.2. The findings of this scrutiny review will be disseminated to all relevant

agencies and bodies in Cumbria to inform any further work on this topic. 3.5. Stage 3: Revisiting CCC’s position & bid status

3.5.1. Irrespective of the decision reached at Full Council on 15 September

2005 it is proposed that Overview and Scrutiny should revisit CCC’s position with regard to the LD’s WHS bid before the end of calendar year 2006. This is a necessary and valuable exercise in order to:

• determine whether the Council decision taken in 2005 was appropriate;

• establish the current status of the bid;

- 9 -

• gather new evidence and information on the merits and implications of the bid for Cumbria;

• identify learning points to inform future decision making processes of this nature which might involve CCC.

- 10 -

4. Findings 4.1. The findings are divided into three sections:

• Literature search • Opinion survey of Cumbria County Councillors • Merits, disadvantages and key issues requiring further consideration,

including consultation with CCC officers, organisations and potential partner agencies.

Literature search

4.2. A review of CCC documents relating to the previous application for WHS

status did not reveal any new information or substantive arguments to inform this scrutiny review.

4.3. The NWDA’s report (Appendix 1) was, in part, intended to address

concerns about the lack of substantive information on the merits and implications of WHS inscription. However, although the report does present a balanced view of the potential advantages and disadvantages of WHS inscription it fails to demonstrate any quantitative evidence in support of those arguments.

4.4. Similarly, information about the merits and disadvantages of other UK

World Heritage Sites (from websites and published literature) was lacking. There are many assumptions and claims but no hard evidence available to support them. Opinion survey of Cumbria County Councillors

4.5. The response rate for the opinion survey issued to County Councillors

was 19% and the vote was almost equally divided between supporters and detractors. Comments by both groups of councillors tended to be subjective and anecdotal, reflecting a general sense of frustration about the lack of any tangible evidence of the actual benefits of WHS status (Appendix 5).

4.6. Arguments against the bid focused on concerns about more stringent planning controls and the detrimental impact on farming and transport. Significantly there were also concerns expressed about the LDNPA’s ability to manage the WHS bid process and the enhanced WHS status of the LDNP.

4.7. Comments in support of the bid tended to be of a more general nature, focusing on the opportunities that may arise from WHS status (such as retaining agricultural enhancement money if traditional farming is a key component of the bid). It was recognised that if the bid does go ahead, it would be important for CCC to be involved with this process.

- 11 -

4.8 There are three detailed findings tables below: • Culture and Heritage (Table 4.8.1) • Economy (Table 4.8.2) • Environment (Table 4.8.3) The possible merits and possible disadvantages of the bid are outlined in the tables below, including the findings of consultation with CCC officers, organisations and potential partner agencies. Each table has a brief summary at the end, highlighting key issues that CCC may wish to consider further if it decides to participate in the bid development process.

Table 4.8.1 - Culture and Heritage Possible merits Possible disadvantages

International recognition According to English Heritage, WHS status brings ‘international recognition and accountability’. CCC Officers also believe that, ‘The cultural heritage of the Lake District will be defined more clearly to local, regional, national and international audiences ‘. The LDNPA have commented that although the LD is a recognised brand, the definition of the term ‘National Park’ varies across the world and could limit foreign perceptions of the park. Inscription as a WHS would identify the LD internationally and provide greater opportunities to develop the brand. Tourism/investment opportunities The image of the LD and Cumbria would improve; increasing its appeal to tourists and inward investment. This could in turn, attract new visitors, if appropriate, and also encourage the highest quality standards for welcoming visitors and managing the site. Failure to secure WHS status could result in a loss of identity and momentum for the LD in the highly competitive environment of tourism and heritage led regeneration. [Further comments in relation to tourism are outlined in table 4.8.2]

Negative impact on areas outside the WHS WHS status could augment the prestige of the LD to the detriment of other areas of Cumbria. There is a risk that resources would be focused on the WHS to maximise its potential benefits. CCC would have to work to ensure that realising these benefits involves Cumbria as a whole. Sole focus on culture within the LD Cumbria Tourist Board (CTB) believes that, ‘The cultural benefits appear to be limited in scope focusing mainly on landscape and the heritage/historical associations with arts and literature. The benefits to sport and recreation are not clear, but in many cases we fear incompatible with Lake District WHS proposals’. The bid development would need to ensure that

- 12 -

Table 4.8.1 - Culture and Heritage Possible merits Possible disadvantages

Educational opportunities As well as raising the profile of the literary Romantic culture within the LD, Friends of the Lake District (FOLD) believe that WHS status could, ‘be particularly important in linkage with academia, and education more generally, on a national but arguably much more importantly, international scale’. CCC Officers have raised the potential of WHS to educate young people about the landscape they inhabit (relating to Theme D of CCC’s corporate strategy), which links further to issues of sustainability and conservation [table 4.8.3]. CCC’s role in culture development By participating in the bid development, CCC can reinforce its reputation in the context of culture led development and exert influence amongst partners. Participation may also have a positive impact upon Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) through assessments relating to CCC’s Cultural Services.

the WHS offers development for other areas of activity, and doesn’t purely restrict the LD as a cultural destination. Negative public perceptions Residents of Cumbria could interpret WHS status as having a negative impact on the environment they live in (through increased tourism etc). They are very likely to raise the same issues/questions that councillors have asked, and it would be vital that development of the bid sought to address these issues and involve inclusive public consultation.

Summary

The bid would have a positive impact on culture in the LD and potentially Cumbria. CCC should take this opportunity to shape the development of the bid and ensure that key issues are taken into account through the bid development process:

• How WHS status contributes to the cultural development of Cumbria, not just the LD.

• How WHS status could support and develop other areas of activity (eg sport and recreation) as well as culture and heritage.

• How public consultation can be undertaken to positively involve and include the public.

- 13 -

Table 4.8.2 - Economy Possible merits Possible disadvantages

General economic benefits Research reveals that, ‘Very little work has been carried out on the economic impacts or benefits of WHS Inscription for other UK WHS sites’.2 For example, although Hadrian’s Wall has experienced an increase in visitor numbers since achieving WHS status, no studies have been conducted to measure the actual economic benefits. Councillor Philip Davis3, President of the Local Authorities World Heritage Forum (LAWHF), states that, ‘The LAWHF has 41 member councils who believe WHS status brings major economic benefits… heightened tourism and investment potential. It creates competitive advantage”. Cllr Davis goes on to support the claim that ‘WHS status is normally a strongly positive factor in attracting Lottery and other grants.’ Farming (funding) The LDNPA states that WHS status could serve to protect farming within the LD as inscription automatically commits the Government to protecting a WHS. For example, if the Commercial Agricultural Policy is reformed and changes are made to rural support funding, the LD could argue that it needs to retain Environmentally Sensitive Area funding to supports its WHS status. Carlisle City Council also supports this view, ‘Inscription as a World Heritage Site will undoubtedly have significant benefits for the area including farming. Additional support for farming … is likely to be forthcoming’.

Restrictions to business development & regeneration CTB has serious reservations about the value of WHS for Cumbria. It believes that, ‘WHS status is likely to have a dampening effect on the economy, regeneration, housing, investment and tourism since this is primarily a preservation/conservation measure. WHS would be a material consideration in the assessment of planning applications, a buffer zone would also add to existing planning restrictions thus discouraging investment and regeneration. In a climate of limited public funding resources there are more urgent needs to address to assist improvement of the visitor experience in the Lake District.’ [Further issues about planning and the buffer zone are discussed in table 4.8.3]. It is difficult to gauge how far WHS will affect business development within the LD as it already comes under the LDNPA’s planning restrictions. However, an example given by one CCC Officer illustrates how Edinburgh New Town’s WHS status focuses on conservation and has been cited to prevent commercial business development within the area.

2 Pg 11, ‘An Objective Appraisal of the Impact of the WHS Inscription of the Lake District Area of Cumbria’, September 2004, ERM and Chris Blandford Associates

3 Cllr Davis is a member of Telford and Wrekin Borough Council and is involved with the Ironbridge WHS.

- 14 -


Increased tourism Carlisle City Council considers that, ‘the economy of the area will be boosted by increased tourism to the area as the area becomes recognised for its universal significance rather than just its national importance as a National Park within the United Kingdom’. This is based on the evidence identified from its involvement with the inscription of Hadrian’s Wall as a WHS, development of the Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Management Plan and the Hadrian’s Wall Unit and Tourism Partnership. Allerdale Borough Council is also supportive of the WHS bid. This is primarily based on its positive experience of the benefits that the Hadrian’s Wall WHS has brought to tourism initiatives in northern Allerdale. They support the opportunities to develop niche tourism, ‘If the LD becomes more of an international destination the prospects for bringing cruise ships to Barrow/Workington will be enhanced with all the knock-on benefits that could accrue’. [eg –service economy] FOLD also believe there is potential to develop tourism and exploit funding opportunities beyond the LD, stating, ‘There is a great opportunity for this core to fuel greater economic benefit for Cumbria (eg Westlakes Science Park, the Solway Coast and linkage with Hadrian’s Wall WHS). WHS status will enhance the potential for access to external project funding for those projects which reinforce the brand and sub-brands’. CCC’s role in economic development The bid relates to Theme B Enhancing Economic Wellbeing in CCC’s Corporate Strategy, and specifically key priority b: ‘Strengthen the contribution of tourism to Cumbria’s economy’. A CCC Officer stated that, ‘the value of the status will depend upon a judgement, …… on where the future of the County’s economy lies. With the emerging agenda for Regeneration through Culture by the County Council, I believe we would find WHS inscription consistent with County Council policy.’

Negative effects of tourism The Cumbria Economic Intelligence Partnership Household and Employer Survey 2004 shows that 44% of Cumbrian employers expressed a dependence on the tourism industry, suggesting it is one of the largest industrial clusters in Cumbria. Tourism provides low-paid jobs which do not help address economic decline or problems with affordable housing in the National Park. The industry is also extremely vulnerable to environmental factors, as shown with Foot and Mouth disease in 2001 [further information about the environmental impacts are included in table 4.3.8]. A key question for CCC to consider is whether Cumbria should focus on developing other industry sectors to reverse the county’s economic decline. It can also be argued that the LD would experience less economic benefits from tourism than other World Heritage Sites because it is already a recognised brand with a strong tourism economy.

- 15 -


Summary

There is no evidence to prove that WHS status is economically beneficial, although there could be potential to develop tourism and access additional funding or grants. As regeneration and the development of Cumbria’s economy is a driving force for CCC, the bid development process would need to illustrate how it could maximise this suggested potential for the whole of Cumbria. The bid development would also need to consider how tourism can be sensitively developed to maximise economic benefit for Cumbria whilst protecting the environment.

Table 4.8.3 - Environment Possible merits Possible disadvantages

No additional planning restrictions English Heritage states that, ‘In the UK, World Heritage status does not imply any additional statutory controls’. As the LD’s status would be based on the cultural landscape rather than the natural landscape, the development of land should not be restricted if it complements cultural WHS status.

Boundary of WHS The LDNPA is an independent planning authority and already has rigorous controls of development within the LDNP. The practical impact of WHS status will depend on the extent and nature of the WHS boundary and buffer zone. The LDNPA also recognises that there are significant opportunities to merge the WHS management plan and the NP management plan.

Increased planning bureaucracy/opposition to development As an addition to the quote opposite, English Heritage states that, ‘Local authorities are encouraged by UK government Planning Policy Guidance 15 to develop planning policies which place great weight on the need to protect World Heritage Sites for the benefit of future generations as well as our own. Development proposals affecting these sites or their setting may be compatible with this objective, but should always be carefully scrutinised for their likely effect on the site or its setting in the longer term’.4

4 Extract from English Heritage website: www.english-heritage.org.uk

- 16 -


The exact boundary of the WHS and the buffer zone will be a critical aspect of the bid development process. FOLD argues for a single WHS geographic area: ‘The WHS boundary must not be less than the current Lake District National Park boundary lest there be confusion and potential devaluation of the areas within the National Park but outside the WHS, to the detriment of the whole. Designating the WHS and the Lake District National Park areas as precisely the same would give a most valuable opportunity for the two Management Plans to be merged, avoiding duplication and adding maximum value to policy and project initiatives.’ It is important that CCC is able to influence the agreed boundary of the WHS and ‘buffer zone’, by participating in the bid development process CCC’s role in protecting and enhancing the environment The bid relates to Theme F Protecting and Enhancing the Environment in CCC’s Corporate Strategy, specifically key priorities:

a) Encourage sustainable development and lifestyles that respect Cumbria’s environment.

c) In partnership, conserve and enhance Cumbria’s physical and built environment for its residents and visitors.

Enhanced conservation opportunities WHS status would help to protect the LD as the WHS management plan would ensure the site is managed to high international standards, demonstrating sustainable development and the benefits of heritage led regeneration. It would also secure international accountability, and if a site is threatened, the World Heritage Committee can add it to the List of World Heritage Sites in Danger.

CCC Environment and Planning staff advise that their experience with Hadrian’s Wall WHS suggests that the interpretation of planning policy will become more stringent and the process more bureaucratic. Hadrian’s Wall WHS status has added a new layer of decision making which has cost implications for CCC (e.g. when erecting signs, CCC must consult with an archaeologist to ensure that they are not digging up any remains). WHS status could also be used by pressure groups to prevent development as seen with the proposed wind turbines at Whinash. Boundary of WHS There will be some increase in CCC work on planning issues if the WHS boundary/buffer zone borders CCC areas of influence. If the whole of the existing LDNP is inscribed as a WHS site, then the buffer zone outside the WHS boundary will cover large parts of the rest of the county, with a potential impact on businesses and residents across that wider area. The exact boundary of the WHS will be defined during the bid development process, and it would be crucial for CCC to feed into this. A further potential complication is the Countryside Agency’s intention to review the LDNP boundary. This review will involve extensive public consultation and a submission to Government is due in April 2007. A CCC Officer commented that, ‘These will introduce stricter planning regimes to these areas currently outside the

- 17 -


The National Trust (NT) and FOLD are strongly supportive of the WHS bid in terms of its environmental, cultural and conservation elements and reiterate many of the assumptions of the NWDA’s report (Appendix 1). CCC Officers indicate that, ‘In planning terms there should be no difference except possibly the need for say larger than domestic modifications to submit an Environmental Impact Assessment which should be good practice anyway for new development’. It has also been noted that WHS status has provided a unified focus for the maintenance of Hadrian’s Wall, ensuring the integrity of the site. Transport WHS status could support the need to develop sustainable methods of transport and provide an opportunity to transfer these to the wider tourist community.

LDNP and the WHS inscription, if granted, will also apply to these areas’. Conservation Increased tourism could have a harmful impact on the very landscape that attracts people to the LD. If the purpose of WHS status is to preserve and protect important heritage – does this mean that the landscape needs to remain unchanged and will prohibit any development? Transport Increased tourism could augment the amount traffic in the LD and its associated problems – congestion, pollution, road-use, accidents and road maintenance costs.

Summary

In theory, WHS status will not increase planning regulations; however, this is open to interpretation and would have to be carefully monitored by CCC. It could be an effective opportunity to promote conservation and sustainable means of transport within the LD. The boundary of the WHS is a critical consideration and should be a key element of the management plan CCC focuses on if it decides to participate in the bid development process.

- 18 -

5. Conclusions 5.1. The conclusions are divided into three sections, in response to the three

questions outlined on page 7:



Why does CCC want to bid for WHS status?

5.2. Tables 4.8.1, 4.8.2 and 4.8.3 suggest that WHS status will have some benefits for Cumbria in terms of developing culture and heritage, enhancing its international image, promoting conservation, protecting the environment and potential economic benefits in relation to niche tourism. However, it should be recognised that there are many questions surrounding all these issues and the bid development and management plan would need to be carefully managed to ensure they addresses these concerns.

Working in partnership

5.3. In addition to this, CCC and the county of Cumbria could benefit if a strong partnership is formed to develop the bid. English Heritage argues that, ‘The process of developing the [WHS] Management Plan involves bringing together all the key stakeholders to agree a common vision for the future of the site. As a result, working links are reinforced and new projects emerge…. World Heritage status may also make it easier to negotiate additional funding, protection or expertise.’5

5.3.1. Working effectively in partnership is a key element of CCC’s community

leadership role and it is essential to achieving many of the priorities identified in the Corporate Strategy (Theme A – Improving Council Services, key priority a: Work closely with key partners to help us achieve our aims).

5.3.2. Critically CPA assessments post 2005 will focus on CCC’s effectiveness

as a community leader and our ability to deliver services through partnership.

5.3.3. The Cumbria Strategic Partnership (CSP) already exists as a vehicle for

partnership working. With regard to the LDNP it identifies a number of priority objectives including:

5 Extract from English Heritage website: www.english-heritage.org.uk

- 19 -

• Promote further and better partnership working;

• Build on image and reputation of the Lake District and its implications for the rest of Cumbria;

• Explore scope and need for WHS bid6

The Sub Regional Strategy states that, ‘The Bid will be the stronger and command wider support it if is seen as complementing and contributing to a prosperous economic future of the Lake District and also to the surrounding buffer zones. Many of these must not be restrained in their efforts to attract investment and improve the well-being and quality of life for their residents.’7

5.3.4. Pro-active involvement in the bid development process, working

together with other partners allows CCC to demonstrate its commitment to true partnership working and permits the Authority to help shape the structure, focus and content of the WHS management plan and bid. It will give CCC a voice to ensure that the broader concerns for LDNP and the rest of Cumbria, as illustrated by the CSP, are addressed and accommodated within the proposals for the WHS.

If CCC does not participate in the bid

5.4 If CCC does not support or actively participate in the WHS bid, members

must recognise that there is a possibility the bid will proceed without the Authority, and that the bid may not then give due consideration to the merits and implications for the whole of Cumbria. The NWDA’s report (Appendix 1) states that, ‘It is essential that a robust partnership to forward discussions on WHS and develop the process is formed ….Our recommendations as to the membership of that partnership are as follows: • LDNPA • English Heritage/DCMS • NWDA/Rural Regeneration Cumbria • National Trust • Key landowners, e.g. United Utilities and Forestry Commission • CTB’.8

5.5 Similarly if the bid proceeds without CCC support this may well have a

negative influence on the Authority’s CPA rating with regard to partnership working, culture and environment, and weaken CCC’s community leadership role.

6 Pg 70, Sustainable Cumbria 2004 to 2024, A Strategy for growth and progress for Cumbria 7 Pg 71, Sustainable Cumbria 8 Pg viii, ‘An Objective Appraisal of the Impact of the WHS Inscription of the Lake District Area of Cumbria’, September 2004, ERM and Chris Blandford Associates

- 20 -

What does CCC want WHS status to deliver to the whole Cumbrian community?

5.6 WHS inscription must deliver tangible and measurable economic, cultural

and environmental benefits to the LD and ideally these should deliver associated benefits to the wider Cumbrian community. WHS inscription must be compatible with CCC objectives and commitment to delivering more money, sustainable housing, conservation etc.

5.7 CCC must be assured that WHS inscription will not have a detrimental

impact on the everyday working life of LD inhabitants and all other districts in the County. As outlined in tables 4.8.1, 4.8.2 and 4.8.3 there are clear concerns about the potential problems/disadvantages associated with:

• The boundaries of the WHS and any ‘buffer zone’;

• The development of a clear policy statement on the interpretation of WHS status in planning decisions to ensure that it is no more restrictive than at present;

• The economic benefits for the designated WHS area and the rest of the county; and

• The importance of undertaking appropriate market research and public consultation.

Having identified these concerns, it is critical that CCC feeds these into the bid development process so that they can be addressed at an early stage.

How will CCC take the bid process forward? 5.8 There will be direct financial implications for CCC as a result of

participating in the bid development. It will be important to determine at the ‘make or break’ meeting exactly what contribution CCC is expected to make in terms of financial and staffing resources in the course of developing the bid.

- 21 -

5.9 It is estimated that the full cost of pursuing the bid will be at least

£350,0009. The LDNPA has provided the following details of partner funding commitments received to date:

Organisation Amount Detail

English Heritage 50% of producing management plan

NWDA £100,000 Part of this money has been spent on producing the research document. Commitment in principle but this needs to be confirmed by the NWDA Board.

LDNPA £50,000 over 2 years

Allerdale Borough Council

£3,000

National Trust £15,000 Plus staff resources for development of management plan if available.

5.10 CCC could decide to make a stand alone financial contribution to the

cost of the bid development of approximately £50,00010 . Or it could elect to follow the National Trust model and make a financial donation and also provide staff resources when required. The following table gives indicative costs for CCC staff resources:

Grade Annual Cost Daily Charge Out Rate

Head of Department £53K £300

Principal Officer £30K £180

Senior Officer £24K £145

5.11 These figures simply indicate the possible staff costs of supporting the

bid, they take no account of issues of staff resource availability and any knock-on cost implications of releasing CCC staff to this project. The overall cost to CCC would almost certainly be higher than these figures imply.

9 LDNPA estimate based on costs incurred by Liverpool bid (approx. 2001-2004) & data contained in a

report commissioned by the NWDA: An Objective Appraisal of the Impact of WHS Inscription of the Lake District Area of Cumbria, Sept 2004, ERM & Chris Blandford Associates. 10 This estimate was provided by the LDNPA, but would depend on discussions at the ‘make or

break’ meeting on 14 October 2005.

- 22 -

6 Recommendations 6.1 The options available to the County Council are:

a). The County Council will support the WHS bid unconditionally.

b). The County Council will not support the WHS bid.

c). The County Council will participate in the WHS bid development process, but may withdraw its involvement as a consequence of the ‘make or break’ meeting or at a later date if the County Council deems that the bid is not beneficial to Cumbria.

CCC’s engagement in the WHS bid process will be a staged approach in order to gain further substantive information and to exert influence on the bid process. It is suggested that CCC focuses on the following areas:

• The boundaries of the WHS and any ‘buffer zone’;

• The development of a clear policy statement on the interpretation of WHS status in planning decisions to ensure that it is no more restrictive than at present;

• The economic benefits for the designated WHS area and the rest of the county; and

• The importance of undertaking appropriate market research and public consultation.

This position will need to be clearly communicated to all other partners at the ‘make or break’ meeting.

6.1 It is suggested that prior to the ‘make or break’ meeting on 14 October

2005 Cabinet should:

• Confirm who will attend the ‘make or break’ meeting.

• Commission officers to develop a briefing position, for that meeting, on the proposed scope and style of CCC’s involvement in the WHS bid development process. CCC needs to determine whether it wants to be a leader, partner, onlooker or opponent to the bid.

• Determine what level of contribution CCC is prepared to make to the WHS bid development process.

6.2 Irrespective of the decision reached at Full Council on 15 September

2005, Overview and Scrutiny should revisit CCC’s position with regard to the LD WHS bid before the end of calendar year 2006.

- 23 -

7 Appendices

Appendix 1* ‘An Objective Appraisal of the Impact of the WHS

Inscription of the Lake District Area of Cumbria’ ERM and Chris Blandford Associates, September 2004. Appendix 2 Letter to other organisations and potential partners for views on the LD’s bid for WHS status; list of recipients. Appendix 3 Email to CCC officers for views on the LD’s bid for WHS status; list of recipients. Appendix 4 Opinion survey sent to all County Councillors. Appendix 5 Record of County Councillors responses to email

consultation 22/7/05. The appendix marked * is available electronically from the Scrutiny Team or a hard copy is available on request from the political group offices. Please contact the Scrutiny Unit on (01228) 601014 or [email protected]

Appendix 2 Letter to other organisations and potential partners for views on the LD’s bid for WHS status; list of recipients.

- 24 -

21 July 2005 Lake District National Park – bid for World Heritage Site status Dear colleague I am writing in reference to the Lake District National Park Authority (LDNPA) proposed bid for World Heritage Site status. There are just over 500 World Heritage Sites spread through most countries in the world. What they all have in common is that they are included by UNESCO on the Register of World Heritage Sites and are thereby recognised as being of universal significance to all humanity. World Heritage Sites can be chosen because of either their cultural or their natural significance. For more information about UNESCO and World Heritage Sites please visit www.unesco.org The County Council has been asked to support this bid and would welcome your views to help inform its decision. A decision as to whether the County Council will support the bid will be taken at Full Council on 15 September 2005. In reaching this decision it is important that the County Council considers the economic, cultural and environmental implications of the bid for the whole of Cumbria. We understand that this bid will focus on the cultural landscape of the LDNP and in order to be successful, the LDNPA has to demonstrate that its bid is supported by local community partners. If agreed, the bid process would take approximately 2 years to develop, and a final submission would be made to UNESCO in February 2008. For further information about the bid please visit www.lake-district.gov.uk. [Go to “The Work of the Authority” / “A Special Place” / “World Heritage Site Status”]. We recognise that you may well be consulted in more detail on this issue by LDNPA but in the meantime we would appreciate your comments and observations to inform our own deliberations. We would be grateful if you complete and return the attached form to the Scrutiny Unit, Cumbria County Council, The Courts, Carlilse, CA3 8NA by 5 August 2005. Alternatively, please respond by email to [email protected] Thank you for your assistance with this matter, we may be contacting you for additional information if required. If you would like to discuss this issue please contact myself or my colleague, Catherine Phythian (Tel: 01228 606564, [email protected]) Yours sincerely Rebecca Hughes Scrutiny Officer


- 25 -

Cumbria County Council consultation on Lake District National Park’s bid for World Heritage Site status What does your organisation consider to be the implications and merits of the bid for the whole of Cumbria? The County Council are particularly interested in the following 3 areas: 1. Economy (eg employment opportunities, regeneration, housing, investment, tourism) 2. Culture (eg arts and literature, sport, heritage) 3. Environment (eg farming, planning, conservation, transport) Does your organisation have any evidence to support these views that would be of assistance to the County Council? Please list below and include your contact details: Do you have any additional comments? Please return this form to the Scrutiny Unit, Cumbria County Council, The Courts, Carlilse, CA3 8NA by 5 August 2005. Alternatively, please respond by email to [email protected]

ORGANISATION ADDRESS

National Trust North West Regional Office (Grasmere)

English Heritage North West Region

Cumbria Tourist Board Ian Stephens, Chief Executive

Forestry Commission North West England Forest District,

NFU Regional Director: Terry Abbott

Lancashire

United Utilities Charlie Cornish, MD, United Utilities North West,

Friends of Lake District Murley Moss, Cumbria

English Nature Des O'Halloran, Cumbria Team Manager

Environment Agency Northern Area Office,

Local Authority World Heritage Forum Cllr Philip Davis, Borough of Telford & Wrekin

Hadrian’s Wall Paul Austen, Co-ordinator, Hadrian's Wall WHS Hadrian's Wall Co-ordination Unit

Alan Eales, Head of Planning Services Carlisle City Council

Mr A Wyatt, Group Manager, Planning & Transportation, Newcastle City Council

Sara Rushton, Conservation Team Manager Environment Directorate, Northumberland County Council

Rural Regeneration Cumbria

West Lakes Renaissance

Cumbria Vision c/o Northwest Development Agency

Cumbria Chamber of Commerce

Cumbria Strategic Partnership

Local Strategic Partnerships John Dyer, LSP Development Officer South Lakeland House


- 26 -

Carlisle and Eden LSP

Phil Huck, Assistant Director, Strategy & Regeneration, Barrow Borough Council

Michael Heaslip LSP Development Officer - West Cumbria

District Councils contacted via the Cumbria Overview and Scrutiny Practitioners Network

Appendix 3 Email to CCC officers for views on the LD’s bid for WHS status; list of recipients.

- 27 -

Lake District National Park: bid for World Heritage Status The Lake District National Park Authority is leading a proposed bid for World Heritage Site status and has asked Cumbria County Council to support this bid. Scrutiny Management Committee has agreed that a joint scrutiny review of this topic will be conducted by 3 Scrutiny Panels; Theme A - Improving Council Services Scrutiny Panel, Theme B - Enhancing Economic Wellbeing Scrutiny Panel, Theme F - Environment Scrutiny Panel. To help the scrutiny panel inform its views we would like to hear your thoughts as officers. The County Council decision whether or not to support the bid will be taken at Full Council on 15 September 2005. It is important that the County Council considers the economic, cultural and environmental implications of the bid for the whole of Cumbria and not just for the Lake District National Park. We would be grateful if you could consider the following questions from the perspective of your area of work. A scrutiny officer will be contacting you by phone next week to ask for a response to these questions and more specific questions relevant to your remit: 1. What do you consider the implications and merits of the bid to be for the whole of Cumbria? 2. What do you consider the implications and merits of the bid to be for the County Council? 3. Does the bid support the objectives of the corporate strategy? 4. What would the implications be if the County Council chose not to support the bid? 5. If the County Council agrees to support the bid, what resources should they commit (or could realistically commit) to the bid process? Background info There are just over 500 World Heritage Sites spread through most countries in the world. What they all have in common is that they are included by UNESCO on the Register of World Heritage Sites and are thereby recognised as being of universal significance to all humanity. World Heritage Sites can be chosen because of either their cultural or their natural significance. For more information about UNESCO and World Heritage Sites please visit www.unesco.org We understand that this bid will focus on the cultural landscape of the LDNP and in order to be successful, the LDNPA has to demonstrate that its bid is supported by local community partners. The bid process would take approximately 2 years to develop, and a final submission would be made to UNESCO in February 2008. For further information about the bid please visit www.lake-district.gov.uk [Go to “The Work of the Authority” / “A Special Place” / “World Heritage Site Status”]. A copy of the North West Development Agency's report ' An Objective Appraisal of the Impact of WHS Inscription of the Lake District Area of Cumbria' is attached to this email for your information. If you have any questions or queries please contact Becky Hughes (ext 6692), Catherine Phythian (ext 6564) or Alan Gunston (ext 6515) in the Scrutiny Unit.

Appendix 3 Email to CCC officers for views on the LD’s bid for WHS status; list of recipients.

- 28 -

Recipients Ralph Howard Corporate Director, Community, Economy & Environment Shaun Gorman Head of Environment, Community, Economy & Environment Bob Allan Head of Highways & Transport, Community, Economy & Environment David Ingham Principal Policy Officer, Community, Economy & Environment Rob Terwey Strategic Planning Manager, Community, Economy & Environment Bruce Bennison Cultural Services Manager, Community, Economy & Environment Jim Grisenthwaite Head of Culture, Community, Economy & Environment Alex McKenzie Sustainability Manager, Community, Economy & Environment David Stephens Programme Manager Rural Matters, Community, Economy & Environment

Appendix 4 Opinion Survey sent to all County Councillors

- 29 -

Lake District National Park: bid for World Heritage Status The Lake District National Park Authority is leading a proposed bid for World Heritage Site status and has asked Cumbria County Council to support this bid. Scrutiny Management Committee has agreed that a joint scrutiny review of this topic will be conducted by 3 Scrutiny Panels; Theme A - Improving Council Services Scrutiny Panel, Theme B - Enhancing Economic Wellbeing Scrutiny Panel, Theme F - Environment Scrutiny Panel. To help the scrutiny panel inform its views we would like to hear your thoughts as councillors. The County Council decision whether or not to support the bid will be taken at Full Council on 15 September 2005. It is important that the County Council considers the economic, cultural and environmental implications of the bid for the whole of Cumbria and not just for the Lake District National Park. We would be grateful if you would complete and return the attached form to the Scrutiny Unit, Cumbria County Council, The Courts, Carlisle, CA3 8NA by 5 August 2005. Alternatively, please respond by email to [email protected] Background info There are just over 500 World Heritage Sites spread through most countries in the world. What they all have in common is that they are included by UNESCO on the Register of World Heritage Sites and are thereby recognised as being of universal significance to all humanity. World Heritage Sites can be chosen because of either their cultural or their natural significance. For more information about UNESCO and World Heritage Sites please visit www.unesco.org We understand that this bid will focus on the cultural landscape of the LDNP and in order to be successful, the LDNPA has to demonstrate that its bid is supported by local community partners. The bid process would take approximately 2 years to develop, and a final submission would be made to UNESCO in February 2008. For further information about the bid please visit www.lake-district.gov.uk [Go to “The Work of the Authority” / “A Special Place” / “World Heritage Site Status”]. A copy of the North West Development Agency's report ' An Objective Appraisal of the Impact of WHS Inscription of the Lake District Area of Cumbria' is attached to this email for your information. If you have any questions or queries please contact Becky Hughes or Catherine Phythian at Cumbria County Council’s Scrutiny Unit on 01228 606692/606564.

Appendix 5 – Record of County Councillors response to email consultation 22/7/05

- 30 -

Table 1 – Councillors who support the bid

No.

General Comments Economic comments Environmental comments Cultural comments

1 New opportunities both affecting improvement in Social & Economic issues

Improved investment in the areas landscape & management with culture providing a key development element

A secure? future of the environment

2 Anything that promotes Cumbria’s economy must be fully supported. The National park is a huge asset anything which improves it status nationally and internationally must be supported.

As above Transport is vitally important to the park and must be considered alongside all other matters if the park is to be successfully managed.

All these would enrich Cumbria and would make a path way into the Country for a different range of people and backgrounds who would bring culture tourism to Cumbria.

3 Anything that promotes Cumbria’s economy must be supported.

As economic comments All these would enrich Cumbria and would make a path way into the Country for a different range of people and backgrounds who would bring culture tourism to Cumbria

4 CCC support is critical to success of LD bid. CCC must be involved in bid development stage to influence but must also understand budget implications .

5 The advantages of Cumbria becoming a WHS would benefit the economy, tourism & investment. A great help in the regeneration of the County

All aspects of culture of Cumbria if well researched & presented would create a great deal of interest world-wide.

Conservation is reliant on farming – so the farming industry must be given help & encouragement. Planning must have new & improved roads as its top priority.

6 A good idea; especially if it can deliver more affordable housing & improved transport links for example a better link with national rail services.

7 CCC will be left out on its own if it decides not to support the bid the whole of Cumbria will benefit if the LD becomes a WHS site. Many organisations & business leaders support the idea. The decision must not become a party political football but must be made on factual information.

If marketed well it could help with inward investment as companies like to be associated with special places. The CCC would need a marketing strategy.

Cumbria has a superb environment that is expensive to manage and maintain. Much of the uplands are managed by farmers subsidised by the ESA scheme. The CAP reforms and the governments approach will lead to funds moving away from our uplands to southern England. How do we stop that? The WHS bid could be a mechanism for retaining agricultural enhancement money if the bid shows that traditional farming practices & animals are an important component. In other environmental topics the WHS status would be a good negotiating tool when competing with other regions e.g. water quality should the Environment Agency spend in Manchester or Cumbria? We have less pollution but need higher standards.

The cultural sector is the least well explained in Cumbria with no measures of its worth. Yet Cumbria has a very rich cultural history & thriving cultural sector. It should be celebrated and used to make Cumbria a household name. The work to gain WHS status will give us measures and give international accreditation to our culture.


- 31 -

Table 2 – Councillors who do not support the bid

No

General comments Economic comments Environmental comments Cultural comments

8 The first thing; the LDNPA & the CTB should do is work together for a start. Then the LDNPA, who has no spare capacity or money (Gershon & reduced budgets have put paid to capacity building) to do anything. In fact they are contracting & ‘farming’ out unnecessary work to other agencies as their staff are already stretched.

Tourism – It is at breaking point in many places now - a redistribution, yes. Regeneration/Housing: not a chance due to LD policies Employment opportunities: not without Regeneration & a change in LD policy

Farming is dead. Conservation, yes BUT how? With a WHS getting even more people there, & no money, it could be a recipe for disaster

Yes there could be over and above what is going to happen organically, but not without a clearout of planning reactionaries from the LD.

9 The whole of Cumbria has historically been involved in industry, mining etc. The National Park area has already stifled any further development within its boundaries creating a sterile ‘theme park’ offering low paid tourist service employment, high housing costs and villages devoid of local services. The perception of Cumbria is already that of a tourist location, further emphasis on ‘heritage’ may deter the development of alternative investment/employment.

More low paid tourist related service jobs. Increased housing costs. Planning/development restrictions.

Further restrictions on planning – restricting development.

Focus will concentrate on ‘honey-pot’ locations to the detriment of west coast etc

10 My worry would be that the rest of Cumbria would not benefit from the bid. Already the LD is treated in a very different fashion from the rest of the county. One would hope that jobs would become available but no doubt the people doing the jobs would have to live over the borders of the WHS

I consider that the people who live work & play in the LD have in the past been the custodians of the area. Even before the start of the NP farmers, quarrymen & other industries kept the “NP” in good order. Transport is a problem & is at best difficult more sustainable transport needed e.g. railway to heart of LD

11 Can we afford to be involved? Should we not be spending rate payers money more wisely

In the long term may bring in more investment & increase tourism. But can we wager (?) for more? I believe it will be detrimental to planning given for additional housing & business expansion. Farming in particular .

Farming is struggling under the present regime this will only add to their problems tying their hand further. Planning will have a stranglehold. Transport will be severely restricted and limited conservation will be improved.

12 While I can see the benefit of a WHS, I am unsure as to the LDNPA's ability to actually make a bid. When the LD asked for a vote of their members in principle, some time ago, no reference was made to the LD’s Capacity to produce same. There was a different culture of their Budget process than now exists, and the members made their decision based on those factors. There are now other pressures that have risen up their agenda. It now does not have the staff, funding and expertise to make the bid and has no way of so providing. There would need to be a sea change in their thinking over Regeneration and social housing, alongside the succour given to wealth making businesses.


- 32 -


No


13 I can see more merits in WHS bid than I can in letting the LDNPA take ownership of the scheme. LDNPA has not got personnel, mechanism or sufficient good will to carry through the plans without support of CCC. But CCC should not let WHS bid impede our own aims. I would prefer all authorities in Cumbria to work together to preserve, enhance & profit through the diverse heritage of all areas of the county perhaps through “Cumbria 1

st

County of Culture”. We must talk to LDNP & not let them do all the shouting.

WHS might help regenerate our County by making “Cumbria 1

st County of Culture” – but if

LDNPA & CCC were both engaged in similar ventures neither might attract sufficient funding from Govt, EEC & other bodies etc. Also the un-democratic/non-elected nature of LDNPA could be counter productive especially in light of that authority’s massive unpopularity from significant groups following on the Windermere 10mph implementation. Basic requirements for any regeneration scheme must be affordable housing & better roads. In particular road links for cars must be improved. It is anti-social nonsense to implore local/working people to walk/cycle in our terrain & climate.

Our human moulded environment needs preservation through active management. We must not impede agriculture but should subsidise farmers for preserving characteristic features like open fell land, walls & farm buildings. Transport must provide safeguards for rural car owners. We are sick & tired of being lectured about using public transport by Whitehall officials who go to work on the tube or on buses which appear every 5 minutes. Planning must take into account the real housing needs of local people by sensitive exceptions policies on green field sites. A positive discrimination appointments policy for local people could be considered by Councils & other large employers to encourage the traditional Cumbrian export of local young people.

WHS might help us regenerate through culture by linking diverse agencies & organisations as has happened effectively on Hadrian’s Wall. WHS might provide funding support & publicity for projects like the Museum of the Landscape, restoration & integration into regenerations schemes of Lowther Castle, the provision of a concert hall for south Lakeland, a 5 star hotel linked to perhaps Carlisle Renaissance in North Cumbria & above all a University of Cumbria which would be for all ages & on several campuses. WHS status might also help with a Cumbrian “proofing” for School curricula & for Local History & Culture Projects across all ages.

14 I have read the papers and saw the presentation to SLDC. We were told that a WHS had to be a specific place and the LDNPA officer was casting around for suggestions as to where it could be. This proposal lacks focus and has a depressing ‘me-too’ ring to it – a feeling that since so many other places have them we should have one as well, no matter what it is. This one proposal exemplifies the organisational and management failure of LDNPA. If a specific proposal were put forward with clear measurable outcomes, together with an exit strategy were it not to work I feel that we should be bound to consider it seriously and support it if it fitted in with our own corporate strategy. I see nothing in the present proposals which merits support – ours or anyone else’s.

There has been a lot of talk about the “possible” benefits – all vague, unquantified and untimed. This of itself makes me suspicious

I can see no likelihood that this would benefit farming. It could further complicate the planning process, making it even more biased in favour of the powerful and rich thereby disadvantaging the bulk of our own residents. So far as I can see there is little or nothing in the way of additional resources for conservation work and, given the financial position of the LDNPA, this would seem unlikely to benefit significantly. Would it attract extra transport grant for CCC? I doubt it, except for a douceur to get us to back this scheme and if we were to get any we might find that it was on the basis of matching funds thus distorting our own programmes and downgrading our priorities.

How much more ‘arts’ do we want? I can’t see that it will provide more playing fields for amateurs and children to play. There is no evidence that it would help with ‘heritage’ – whatever the proponents of this scheme mean

by that term.

15 The general feeling among all individuals I have spoken to about this subject are against extending the reach of the LDNPA and its powers any further. To this end I will NOT be supporting any application for WHS. I will however pass on the attached document to those stakeholders who may further my consideration but it is unlikely to change. Based upon the current level of information available we should not support this bid. However if asked again with a far more worked up proposal

The attached report makes it quite clear that WHS inscription is unlikely to bring tangible benefits on its own. All of the WHS outcome studies so far have at best only found the most tenuous of outcomes in the face of significant capital spends. While these sums have contributed directly to all economic factors they would of done so regardless of WHS. WHS has simply been a catalyst that provoked the capital spend necessary to improve the livelihood and sustainability of the area( note I do not use the term

I am concerned that the word conservation will become the only driver behind the WHS bid. The NPA and FOLD have made it patently obvious that this is the only outcome they desire to pursue and this crusade will be directly at odds with a more sensible plan that would allow for farming, planning and transport. It is of concern to me that the current LD authority simply shirks its responsibility to ‘economic wellbeing’ by stating this is a secondary objective to it and quotes ‘Sandford principle’ at every turn, application or activity it disapproves of. Regardless of the size

I find there is a huge conflict of interest happening in the LD at the moment. The current planning authority and the prime sponsors of this application are directly at odds with much of the existing ‘culture’ of our area. I cannot find in the so weakly defined examples shown in the appraisal of any area that has been given WHS inscription that also had such a strong existing local culture. Recent and obvious planning restrictions coupled with heavy handed enforcements of these by the existing LDNPA in examples such as


- 33 -


No


then I may reconsider my position but the deeply conflicting subjects of recreation, regeneration and conservation must be heavily worked through before we even consider an application. If it was intended that this report act as some form of guidance to the council it is quite lacking. There are only a few quotes and fewer facts especially from other local councils. I found the entire report far from ‘objective’ and at several locations it attempts to load the view in favour of an application. Little effort is spent describing any negative outcomes and this is particularly concerning when the between the lines undertow indicates there are few positive ones. I cannot believe any councillor who is presented with such meagre evidence can do anything other than find against. The report lacks tangible outcomes, background evidence, a description of an actual boundary, any example planning constrains, there was no indication as to what recreation would be permitted or type of business for that matter or how already difficult discussions such as waste, ‘affordable housing’ and rural wastage may be handled. The word ‘could’ is used far too often as a positive indicator as opposed to ‘may’ making the report one of the views of the author and therefore subjective as opposed to the implied objectivity it eludes to. Much of the funding examples used in the appraisal are sourced through European streams as we have already been told there will be no more applications to Europe by the current government I cannot see how the levels of spending necessary to deliver a decent outcome could be found and no alternative indication is given. I genuinely believe many of the implications contained within the report could be well meaning, of genuine benefit to all Cumbrians, our industries and our visitors but I am sure my vision of a WHS is light years away from the proposal the LDNPA and FOLD will wish us to sponsor. Until I am convinced to the contrary by seeing their plan I will not be supporting any bid for WHS.

‘investment’) It is my view that the LD application for WHS is unlikely to deliver any significant or long term benefit to the people of Cumbria as a whole. Indeed none of the examples provided in the so called ‘Objective Appraisal’ have great kinship with the LD or Cumbria as the most successful examples were all either ‘Pinpoint’ applications i.e Kew or part of much needed post industrial redevelopments. Much of the Cumbrian economy is driven by tourism and to attract more tourists we need more diversification. We also need to attract revenue businesses based on activities other than tourism. I find it unlikely that a Cumbrian development version of a WHS plan will be anywhere near the ‘too many people too many towns, too many visitors’ version of the plan that the LDNPA and FOLD will seek

of the WHS area the published concept of a ‘buffer zone’ around it will effectively extend WHS controls to the entire park area and unless well defined the whole of Cumbria from falling ‘next to a buffer zone’. This should not be allowed to happen as it will severely impact how elected government can operate in and around the area. The concept of ‘conservation’ is currently applied in such an overarching methodology that the same implementation of it would effect every part of life and activity within the area probably, to its economic detriment

Ambleside sports and the disgrace of the Windermere speed limit have and are obvious attempts to remove the ‘undesirable’ that form some the historic and current cultures of the LD. On the face of it, to an outsider who has little care to the mechanisms working within the existing park area all will seem without conflict and a WHS inscription would add to the area ensuring that all possible efforts would be made to protect the current ‘culture’ i.e the lifestyles and activities of all those who have lived and live and who have worked and work at the same level. this feasible protection of our culture couldn’t be further from the situation we have at the moment and can only give a warning as to the genuine intentions of the authority that automatically assumes will ‘govern’ the area under which the WHS falls. If the planned inclusion of use for the WHS area was to include specific consideration for activities other than the usual ‘poets painters and walkers’ I might be more inclined to change this view but evidence and experience show me otherwise. Heritage and sport diversity are directly threatened by WHS inscription under the current ethos.


- 34 -

Table 3 – Councillors who were undecided as to whether to support the bid

No.

General Comments Economic comments Environmental comments Cultural comments

16 I would like give my cause for concern, over the last number of years the Park management have not encouraged outside businesses to invest and setup works, or encourage new businesses in the park, we need tourism, but we also need other opportunities for local people to make a living, I consider the planning is too rigid and policy driven we need to be more flexible. I feel I would not like to state as to whether CCC should support this bid as I am not fully convinced Cumbria would benefit from this, it does seem a lot of expense for the Taxpayers!

lake district bid for world heritage site status - cumbria · lake district bid for world heritage...

Documents