A long-running 150-space car park plan for the Lake District is to come back for a third time.
The scheme was pulled from a planning committee at the 11th hour last week after national park planning officers recommended it be refused.
But the applicants have now confirmed that once additional work has been done to counter some of the arguments put forward by planners to turn it down, the scheme will be resubmitted for a decision.
Applicants, the Lingholm Private Trust, Portinscale, want to provide pay-and-display parking, toilet facilities, a shuttle bus and infrastructure improvements in a popular corner west of Derwentwater, to cope with the huge influx of visitors to the popular Catbells, where there have been issues with traffic gridlock, poor parking and access problems.
But opponents claim it will only draw more cars into the area and could even open the floodgates for other large commercial car parks in under-pressure Lakeland valleys.
Michael Anderton, for the applicants, shared a statement from its planning representatives giving its reasons for pulling the scheme.
It said: “The applicant is disappointed that the Lake District National Park Authority recommended the application for refusal, particularly in the face of considerable local support from people who experience issues on the roads on a regular basis.
“The applicant remains committed to addressing the ongoing highway safety issues in the local area, which have been highlighted by Cumbria County Council, as highway authority, and in the numerous letters of support for the application.”
The applicants said there is “evidence” that a softer approach of “no waiting at any time” orders and temporary traffic regulation orders” had not “effectively addressed” the highway safety issues.
It also said the highways authority conceded that those restrictions are only “part of the solution” and that a car park would “help”.
The applicants said: “The lack of parking to serve existing visitors to Catbells, one of the most popular visitor attractions in the country, is a long standing issue and, other than the applicant’s proposals, no suitable, viable solutions have been identified to address the situation.”
However, key objectors, the Derwent Safe and Sustainable Transport Group, said it was “time to park” the scheme for good, and it would oppose any new scheme on sustainability and ecological damage grounds.
It said: “The responses to the second failed application showed that 90 per cent of Portinscale residents who responded opposed it. It cannot be claimed that it has local support. Cumbria County Council and its highway department will cease to exist in April. We can only hope that the new Cumberland Council agree that a car park cannot be justified on safety grounds when it would inevitably attract more cars through the village.
“We compiled a compelling legal argument on why this should not happen. The planning authority agreed with us. Many of the supporting responses seemed to be car drivers asking for somewhere convenient to leave their car near Catbells.
“Instead they should be encouraged and helped to park in the transport hub of Keswick and then take up sustainable onward travel options.”
