Owners of Penrith’s iconic Beacon Hill are opposed to the wording of a town council policy which has been drawn up to protect the area as they claim it would frustrate an aspiration they have to undertake “small scale tourist development” anywhere on it.
Penrith town councillors are next week set to discuss a policy which would designate Beacon Hill as a “protected landscape feature” in its neighbourhood development plan.
Beacon Hill is said to be a valued and prominent local landmark forming an elevated, wooded backdrop to the north-east of Penrith.
The draft policy states: “Any new development will only be permitted when it clearly demonstrates that it conserves and enhances the area’s existing landscape, character and function of this important woodland area.”
It adds that types of development which, in principle, may be considered to be compatible with these aims include:
- The construction of narrow well screened permeable footpaths, including a permeable path suitable for disabled access to the top of the Beacon from the south eastern end of the site next to the Roundthorn Hotel
- The erection of interpretation boards to provide information for walkers and other users
- The erection of a suitable open sided structure suitably screened that could be used as a forest school area by local schools and community groups
- The development of a forest art or sculpture trail
- The construction of narrow well screened permeable tracks suitable for cycling that are separate from footpaths
- The construction of a small suitably screened off road parking area at the southern end of the site.
But development proposals which would provide accommodation for overnight stays, like chalets, pods or camping, would not be permitted.
Andrew Murphy, of Stansgate Planning, on behalf of the landowners, Lowther Estate Trust and Lonsdale Settled Estate, says the proposed draft policy was too restrictive and an objection to it has been lodged.
“Given the draft policy fails to recognise the commercial aspirations of the landowner, the policy is incompatible with the draft policy’s aspiration to improve public access and to work in partnership with the landowners,” Mr Murphy said.
“Does the town council still believe it is possible to reach an agreed policy?
“If not, then I suggest both parties inform the examiner (of the neighbourhood development plan) as soon as possible.”
