Go Ape Plans For Moel Famau
Thanks to Paula Hughes for alerting me to the news that outdoor activity company Go Ape is aiming to build something called Zip Wild at Moel Famau.
You can read more about Zip Wild on this page and you can offer your comments here. As Moel Famau is a beautiful place within an area of outstanding natural beauty (ANOB) there are concerns that such a development is not appropriate for the area. So, do voice your comments (for or against) on that website.
A local action group opposed to the Zip Wild plans can be contacted by emailing paulahughes [at] freenetname.co.uk should you wish to offer your support.
And you can always add a comment here.
35 comments
Northeast Wales is literally filled with woodland, countryside and hills. Why then, would Go Ape single out the most environmentally sensitive and beautiful part of that countryside? One can only assume that, despite the company’s pledges of environmental sainthood, they’re simply looking to maximise profits by riding on the name of Moel Famau. If most people have heard of the name, then they’re more likely to stumble across the Go Ape development. The company states that it is giving people who don’t normally visit the countryside, the opportunity to do so. Why the need to see it travelling at 30mph whilst dangling from a wire? What’s wrong with good old fashioned feet and walking boots? This is just the countryside version of fast-food, providing countryside on-demand for people who are normally found in front of their TVs , who consider reaching for the remote control as too much effort. This development would be potentially enjoyable and beneficial at so many sites across Northeast Wales, but to allow this to be constructed in a sensitive area like Moel Famau would be a disgrace.
Thanks for alerting us to this John and Paula. We’ll take a look.
What next paintballing for your stag and hen party? Blackpool and Butlins exists for this type of stuff for those who want spoon-fed adventure.
A Facebook group has been started in opposition to the Go Ape plans. This may be useful for collating opinions and views from people who wouldn’t have otherwise been aware of the development:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=330950492618&ref=mf
Anyone wishing to comment will need a Facebook account.
You are being very unfair, i have lived at the bottom off moel famau(loggerheads side) all my life i know im only 20 but, i take pride of this countryside and will fight for it but go ape dont intend to build some monster towers etc, they use natural material then a few high strain wires, all they are wanting to produce is 5 zip wire lines, which will bring more money to the area and more jobs, it wont be a case of thousands of cars ( even though there always is so it doesnt make a difference) rubbish loads of noise, it will be more people spending they’re money for our land and they will then go and ENJOY our COUNTRYSIDE and takes memories home. All I’m saying is just hear them out, whilst being open minded, please. . ?
Callum, whilst your views are as equally respected and important as anyone else’s, I rather feel you’re missing the point of why some people feel so strongly about this. First and foremost, I feel the idea about bringing more money into the area is a little bit of a misnomer. Moel Famau is already a strong draw for tourists, purely because of its natural, unspoilt beauty. It doesn’t need any commercial ventures to draw crowds, and is a famous, much-loved landmark right across the region. I imagine the strength of feeling that I’ve seen so far regarding the Go Ape development, would suggest that many people who currently visit the mountain for its natural beauty would probably stop visiting if part of the area is commercialised, and will go elsewhere. So, you’ll gain some tourists, but also lose some. I will personally stop visiting the area if this development goes ahead, so that would be an immediate loss of trade/revenue for the car park at the top, the We Three Loggerheads pub (which I visit every time), the cafe at Loggerheads and any other small business that may benefit from me. I’m just one small, insignificant punter, but if lots of people take a similar route as me, you may lose as many as you gain in the long run. The end result will be the same income for the area but with a beauty spot ever so slightly less natural and less beautiful than it was to begin with. This is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty for goodness sake. If that can’t protect it from commercialisation, however small it may seem, then the AONB status counts for nothing in my opinion.
Your points about the impact are also, in my opinion, wide of the mark. Sure, the development only includes five zip lines, but add to that an enlarged car-park, bussing routes for customers and the added infrastructure and it WILL make a difference. Go Ape themselves have suggested an average traffic rate of 60 cars per hour on a busy day – that’s potentially 500-600 cars a day if the place is open during normal working hours. Are you really suggesting that up to 600 extra cars on a narrow country lane will have little difference? Ultimately, the natural environment doesn’t get to speak for itself so it has to rely on others.
I feel that Go Ape will get the go ahead for this – the carrots will be too tempting for both the council and the Forestry Commission to pass up – but that doesn’t mean people shouldn’t fight for what they believe is right.
My husband and I regularly travel to Moel Famau from our home in Runcorn, which is certainly not an AONB. We have walked miles around Moel Famau over the last few years, and enjoy its peace, quiet, and beautiful scenery. It gives us an escape from work life, and the industry around our home.
We cannot believe there are plans to spoil this for us, and all the other people who visit the area for the same reasons as us. We often walk around the track where the proposed ‘Go Ape’ will be set up, and do a complete loop round and up to the top. It was whilst walking past this very area yesterday that we were stopped by a local lady who told us of the plans.
For these local people, this proposal must be devastating – people who are lucky enough to have been able to choose to live in such a beautiful and tranquil spot. But it would also be an absolute tragedy for people like us, as this is as close as we get to being able to enjoy these surroundings whilst living in a built up town. The traffic and noise would transform the area into somewhere we would certainly not like to visit any more.
The noise of screaming people enjoying themselves and having a good time is in itself not a bad thing, but it is most definitely not compatible with the tranquillity of Moel Famau, which is surely how it should be enjoyed, and should continue to do so for generations to come.
To Brendan your points are very valid obviously i have thought about the car problems the road will take a pounding but something will be done about it. And As for DAWN HUNT ! “For these local people, this proposal must be devastating” ?!?!? WHAT. No sorry Dawn it is really not devastating the only thing devastating to US locals is the vast amount of scousers coming here when it snows even sunny, parking all up the road even blocking my driveway and leaving there rubbish in our fields and forests. So no we’re not devastated we want it. For people to come walk and enjoy our forests and then to pay a small amount to have the taste of freedom from swinging from tree to tree.
Callum, I’m a little confused. I’m not sure what you’re suggesting is actually making much sense. If you have problems with the shear number of people already visiting the area (wherever they may be from), just how on Earth do you suppose the development of Go Ape would reduce the numbers of visitors? You seem very upset by the masses of inconsiderate people currently visiting Moel Famau, yet at the seem time seem to be welcoming the development of an attraction designed to encourage even MORE visitors. That’s a little weird, if you don’t mind me saying so
Thank you Brendan, Dawn and Ray for your support! Please contact Paula if you would like to help us. Sorry Callum but I too live by Moel Famau and believe me, we ARE all devastated! Not only because this beautiful place will be spoilt forever but also because we will be the ones to suffer the effects of the noise – from 9am till gone 9pm – of people screaming and shrieking (which is ok in it’s place but NOT in a peaceful valley where it will echo for miles and spoil it for all the people who’ve come to walk, cycle, picnic or whatever), plus the noise from all the extra traffic, not being able to walk down our own road for fear of being run over or even being able to get our cars out to go shopping! I do know what you mean about the snow but lets be fair, usually the people come here because, like us, they love this place and they cherish the peace and enjoyment it offers. If this goes ahead, for a lot of us it will be like it is in the snow all through the summer too!!
Hi Callum,
If the Go Ape facility gets the go ahead will you be moving house when hoards of us Scousers come to use it?
Callum, I find your remarks completely offensive. Not that I’ve got anything against scousers, but I’m not actually a scouser. Just someone who couldn’t afford to buy a house in the countryside! However, that has nothing to do with the situation about Moel Famau. We have never parked on the road, always in the car park, and we never drop litter. Perhaps you should be more worried about the people visiting Go Ape who won’t be walking and enjoying the fields and forests, but driving up the track in a coach, making lots of noise, and yes possibly dropping lots of litter.
I did not call Dawn a scouser, i did not intend to offend her or anybody else or use it in a offensive manner. So i apologise is i offended anybody. All i want to put across is that this site is not a mass outdoor centre like the colomendy centre, which i get the idea from everyones post’ which then i’d understand how you are feeling but that is not the case. And to Gill yes i do also agree that everyone from ANYWHERE are always welcome. Again my apologies to anyone offended.
Thank you – much appreciated. Just to add another point in my defense as a non-local, we really do sympathise with residents of the road about the numbers of people parking. Having been there this Sunday, there were an awful lot of people on the road when the car park had plenty of spaces, and this annoys us too – my hubby jokingly suggested we let their tyres down (trust me we didn’t). However, I do honestly believe that the majority of regular visitors to Moel Famau treat the place with respect and use the car park. I believe it is the infrequent visitors who on sunny Sunday mornings such as the last one, have a drive out and decide to pull up for a quick walk, or even just a brew! Surely, with the arrival of such an adventure centre as Go Ape, which let’s be honest isn’t for lovers of the countryside, you are going to get far more such visitors who will not respect your locality.
I am a regular visitor to Moel Famau, largely for the many fantastic walks in the surrounding areas.
Being a keen sportsman, I also do a lot of my training there – fell running, mountain biking and the like.
I really enjoy the peace and quiet while I’m training and find it helps to relax me even after the hardest of weeks.
Being a regular ‘user’ of the countryside, I feel that having a Go Ape site in the vicinity puts across the wrong message.
It only encourages people to enjoy the countryside as a one-off, rather than being a regular activity.
The parties involved seem to think that this will bring more money into the area, but surely this will have the opposite effect?
Yes, Go Ape will be bringing in the money, but what about the rest?
In my opinion it will put the regular visitors off coming to the area – how will these losses be recouped?
Go Ape are cashing in on the name Moel Famau but why not build the site at the current mountain biking centre in Coed Llandegla where they already have the road network and facilities in place and therefore geared up for the extra visitors.
Another concern of mine is “where will it end”, Im sure it’s difficult to turn down other developments once you have agreed to one.
These plans are awful. This is a really lovely place to walk, enjoy the scenery and the peace. At times, it is busy that is a measure of its popularity. This harebrained schme will only serve to bring about the downfall of this beautiful place.
PS I am a scouser (and proud of it), I use the car park and take my litter home
I’d just like to add a few comments as an outsider who came here hoping to form a balanced view. So far I have NO opinion about the actual proposal, as I don’t know the area well enough, and am not local, but I do have experience of Go Ape. I hope you’ll take these comments in the way they’re intended, which is to point out how they come across to someone who’s undecided, and how that might affect the outcome of the campaign against the proposal.
My main point is that I think some of the arguments against are actually likely to push waverers away from agreeing with you, because some are based on exaggerated opinion, some create a “them and us” feeling, and some are actually pretty offensive.
First off, what gives anyone the right to assume that people who may want to use the zip wires are by default slobbish couch potatoes? I regard this as quite offensive, and it nearly caused me to decide I supported the proposal just out of spite. I have used a Go Outdoors facility, with a large group of family, and not one of us would come close to being a couch potato. I am an active hill walker, my brother has walked to both Poles in the last two years, and none of our kids are constantly stuck in front of the telly or video games, yet we enjoyed the day and would do it again.
Even the healthiest eater can enjoy a MacDonald’s every now and then can’t they!
This type of argument simply sounds like “we don’t want THOSE kinds of people around here”, and will get the campaign know-where.
Next, even if we assume that many of the people who WILL use the zip wires wouldn’t get out otherwise (really?), then who are the campaigners to say that this activity is less a less valid way to get them active than yours? If I could, I’d have everyone out hill walking, but we’re not all the same, and some people simply don’t like it, so why not provide something they DO want to do that will at least get them out.
This argument sounds like “our activity is superior to yours, so we’ll object to yours”.
Next, car parking and access. The argument that on the one hand there’s already too much traffic, yet we don’t want more services built, yet we would be happy to encourage more people who want to walk to come, is circular! If there’s a problem (I do believe you when you say there is), then you need either extra facilities, which Go Ape may bring, OR you need to stop encouraging people to come for ANY activity.
This one sounds like “we want you here, but only if you’re coming to do what WE want you to do, because people who do what we do are nicer people who never litter or park badly”.
Next we have the wildlife argument. I understand the fear, but exaggerating it as here (you really think you’ll end up with NO wildlife?), destroys the argument altogether, because it just begins to look knee jerk and contrived. There may well be an effect, so get a study done and present FACTS to the planners, not overstatements of the kind they’ll simply ignore because they’re so obviously wrong.
This argument come across like a teenager saying “Urgh, if you don’t buy me a Playstation, I’ll die”. We all know to ignore those kinds of arguments.
Now, how about the idea this’ll stop others coming? Well, I don’t know in your area, but I do know of a Go Ape installation in a country park near to where I live, and it’s brought more walkers in, not sent them away, because they now have somewhere to send the kids/hubby/whoever while they walk, and some people who’ve come specifically for the zip wires have realised how good the rest of the park is and come back. The fact is that you have to be right on top of the facility, including the zip wires, before you even know it’s there or hear anything. Certainly it has not filled the area with screams.
Again it MIGHT keep people away, but simply asserting that it will won’t work – you need facts.
Finally, PLEASE don’t exaggerate facts, as that’s SO transparent that it can not possibly do you any good. If Go Ape say the extra cars will be 60 per hour at peak times, that does NOT equate to 600 per day, as peak times don’t last 10 hours. Assume it DID go on for 10 hours, and that each of those cars had an average of only two people in it, that’s one person zipping down every wire every 2.5 minutes, constantly for 10 hours! Go Ape installations simply don’t work like that!
You could argue that it’s in Go Ape’s interests to understate the numbers of cars, but it’s also in their interests to get them right so that they get permission for the road and car park upgrades they want, and so on balance I’d tend to think they’re about right.
If you get the facts wrong, you’ll be shot down in flames in an instant, so DON’T rely on extrapolation or guestimates.
So, NONE of this is to say the proposal is a good one, or that I’d support it if I had the facts, or that even if the zip wires are a good idea, this is the right place to put them. It’s a plea to keep the arguments against pragmatic and factual, because otherwise you will alienate people and certainly won’t convince anyone in authority to support you.
I’d urge anyone who’s opposed to have a look at a real installation first, and then if they still think it’s not appropriate for the area, go out and prove that it’s not.
Mark
Gill,
With respect, YOU posted an invitation for people to come here on WalkingForum.co.uk, and then when I did you the courtesy of doing that to see if I could in all conscience offer support, all I see (knowing what Go Ape installations are actually like), are a set of exaggerated and overly emotional arguments that put me off.
Most people in my position would have simply gone away and left you to it, whereas I thought I’d try to help by pointing out how it all looks to an outsider.
When you posted your invitation, you either expected that you’d automatically get support from walkers, or you wanted them to come here to form a reasoned opinion based on the facts.
If it’s the former, it’s you not me that’s not crediting people with intelligence. Walkers, like most other “groups”, are a diverse range of people with different opinions, priorities and ideas of what constitutes fun, and if you want their support you need to present the reasons in the same way as you would to anyone else. Walkers are not JUST walkers.
If it’s the latter, then you need to present the facts so that they can reach a reasoned conclusion.
I fully understand that people get emotional about these things, and would expect to see that in their comments, but the fact is that you don’t present any reasoned argument here (perhaps in a linked article or something), so all someone who’s undecided sees IS those comments.
If you’re saving the professionally presented arguments for the planning office, why are you trying to garner support on forums etc, and how is anyone meant to form an opinion if they’re not local?
I’d also like to point out that your own language is overly emotional, and tempts the “nimby” label. I’m not saying your objections ARE nimbyism, but when you call your opponents “arrogant” (I see no evidence for that, other than that they don’t agree with you), suggest that the proposal will “decimate” the area (decimate is a very strong word; the proposals may well change the nature of the area unacceptably, I don’t know, but they will NOT decimate it as that would hardly be in Go Ape’s interests), and claim that they are trying to take over “our heritage”, you create that impression. I can assure you that one of the quickest ways to lose support is to appear as nimbies.
I think it’s extremely important that you go and see an existing Go Ape installation if you want to have any success with your campaign, if you haven’t done so already. If not, you’ll simply be objecting to what you fear it might be like, not how it actually will be, and they’ll drive a coach and horses through your objections.
Anyway, it’s your campaign, for you to run as you see fit. You asked me to come here and see what I thought, and I’ve done that for you now. I’ll wish you good luck, but won’t offer my support as the only facts I have available come from my own experiences of Go Ape, which don’t match the arguments above at all.
I will keep an eye on this site, and if more reasoned arguments come forward, I’m still open to adding my support.
Mark
Thanks Gill. I didn’t take offence so much as exception to the idea that I was ignoring your intelligence when I thought I was trying to help!
I understand regarding emotional involvement, and would encourage you to keep displaying it, but NOT at the expense of pragmatism, because the pragmatic argument is the one that wins 9 times out of 10, and so far Go Ape’s arguments look 10 times more pragmatic.
Put simply, the problem is that you don’t seem to have put up any info for those of us who don’t know the area, so ALL we see is the emotional stuff. A few pictures might go a long way? I’ve read Go Ape’s info, and have to say that everything they claim they’ll be doing, and their description of the impact/benefits, is exactly what I’ve seen with my own eyes locally, and is quite contrary to what I’m seeing here. There might be something about your area that makes it different, but in the absence of further info, I’d say you have nothing to worry about.
BUT, my point is that I have studies and facts that I can verify from one side, and emotional exaggeration from the other, so I’m not in a position to decide yet. I doubt that my opinion would mean much to planners or Go Ape anyway as I’ve never visited the area, but if I could see what you’re describing, I might feel compelled to write to Go Ape explaining that from what I know I think the site is unsuitable, that I support their attempts to get people active if sited appropriately, but that if they proceed with the development they’ll have lost a customer here. It’s not much, but as Tesco would say……………;)
Let me just add an example of the sort of thing that will get you shot down in flames faster than anything. Brendan says above that Go Ape claim there will be an average of 60 cars per hour on a peak day, equating to 600 per day, and that seems to have been accepted as fact by other posters, yet is simply wrong! What they actually say is that at any one time, their customers will account for UP TO (that’s a maximum, NOT an average) 60 cars in the car park. With each car containing 3 people on average (people tend to do these things in groups), and 20 people starting the course every 20 minutes, that’s 20 car arrivals every hour. Even if you assume that that goes on all day, which Go Ape might hope for but be lucky to achieve, it’s an extra 200 cars a day maximum, NOT 600 on average as Brendan claims.
Of course some people may stay longer than the 3 hours the course takes, meaning more than 60 extra cars in the car park, but then they’ll be doing what you want them to come for anyway won’t they, unless we assume they’re all litter chucking yobs?
Mark
As my comments have been highlighted, I’d like the chance to respond. I have to concede that my maths failed me but, in defence of myself as well, I was talking about vehicle movements, not simply vehicle arrivals (a vehicle movement including the journey in, and the journey out). Here is what the Go Ape traffic volume FAQ actually states:
“The course can only accomdate a maximum of 20 participants starting every 20 minutes. Based on research carried out on Go Ape customers, we expect the average car occupancy to be over 3 people per car. So, Zip Wild will generate less than 10 car arrivals every half an hour. It will take a maximum of 3 hours to complete Zip Wild so participants will be responsible for a maximum of 60 cars during the peak hours. ”
Making the assumption (which I don’t think is unreasonable) that summertime Saturday’s will be pretty much peak hours throughout, that could potentially be up to 200 vehicles per day (as Mark states), but that’s 400 vehicle MOVEMENTS per day based on the 10 hour opening. I’m not sure where my figure of 600 movements came from, although I can assure everyone it’s a failing in my basic maths than an attempt at propaganda. I think vehicle movements is the figure that’s most important though, because a car is no less dangerous or congestion-enhancing when leaving than when arriving. I am sure that, in order to be successful in their application, Go Ape will need to pledge funds to improve the road into the area. Whether this will then make the venture financially viable remains to be seen.
As an aside, Go Ape have pledged to add 80 extra spaces to the existing carpark. That’s quite an expansive area of concrete, is it not?
Actually we do have a LITTER problem on and around this area. Some of us regular users got sick of seeing bags of dog poo/nappies and other litter and asked for some bins. The reply from the Forestry people was – ‘WE won’t put in bins because that would mean we would have to empty them’!!!!!!!
If the owners of the AONB won’t deal with litter and the GoApe facility will increase the number of people coming to the area and logically there will be an increase in litter – what can we do????
Will GoApe pay for a litter disposal person??
I don’t think so.
I too live at the foot of Moel Famau, and have no particular opinion on the plans as yet, save the traffic situation on the very narrow bits of road at Tafarn Y Gelyn. I saw one of the “anti-group” on BBC local news saying that he didnt want to hear the noise of people enjoying themselves in the countryside. I don’t think such “nimby” arguments would win people to the cause. Those who are opposing do seem to be somewhat over the top with the emotions and petty point scoring, whereas Go Ape are a very large very experience companyand well used do dealing with protest groups, nimbys, tree-huggers etc etc. To fight them needs strong, logical, unemotional protest with relevant and verifiable evidence.
Dear Brendan and friends, i appreciate there are property values at stake here under the guise of ‘caring’ for the tranquility of Moel Ffamau, but lets please put things into perspective in terms of the local economy and put aside the self interest of the few. Being a member of the local community I take pride in the natural beauty my area has to offer and I would be proud to share it with others who may not have otherwise have come. Why must we limit enjoying the countryside to mountain biking and walking? Why cant alternatives be suggested? Why must Callum Glass be bullied in the way he has by simply suggesting a young and bright alternative to countryside pursuits? I think we all must accept his argument that this will not be another colomendy, and even those who do live near the colomendy center have admitted that they have experienced minimal disturbance and noise levels.
Moel Ffamau has always attracted families on annual walks and groups on sponsored walks, if you are looking for total tranquility then Moel Ffamau has never been the place to go! I have always enjoyed the atmosphere of the crowds on Moel Ffamau, and it gives me pleasure to see young people engaging in the environment in which I live. However, for tranquil and peaceful walking away from destructive mountain bikers I have always chosen Moel Fenlli. Brendan, I was surprised to see you suggest, in a caring way of course, Llandegla as an alternative. If the project is quite has horrendous as you are depicting Im sure residents of Llandegla will appreciate your suggestions.
Lets put things into perspective here, we have property prices from those over looking the zip wire v local businesses such as b&b’s, pubs, restaurants, Mold and Ruthin town center prosperity and additional local employment. I appreciate our local issues may not affect some of you, but as a young person, and someone who has been brought up in and around the hills of Moel Ffamau I feel it is important to recognise that we must look to the future and encourage people to visit and appreciate all our area has to offer. I would ask you all to consider that people will not just come for one day, leave there litter and never return, as I beleive this area will leave an impression on all those who visit and they will return.
Jane, I think you missed one or two vital points – I talked previously about the litter – see above, it is a growing problem.
Noise is a factor, more than it would be at Llandegla,( the forest is set apart from the main population).
GoApe are about making money – plain and simple. To do so they pay only the minimum wage and local jobs are not guaranteed.
In my experience, participating and organising various outdoor events, the majority of ‘adrenalin’ seking people tend to drive to the site – do their stuff – and DRIVE home. The ‘boost’ to local business will be small. Ask the local shop/garage, they will have families and walkers using it but very few MTB’ers. It is the nature of the beast – I used to be one of them.
Is it a coincidence that GoApe are seeking to place a facility in an AONB?? There are plans to change the AONB mission statement, in 2011, from protection of the environment to promotion of tourism.
I saw this happen in Delamere forest, first MTB trails, cutting down vast tracts of the forest, then GoApe and the final straw – huge noisy horrible concerts screaming out of the woodland.
Goodbye Black Grouse and other wildlife – hello to the urbanification of our countryside.
Jane, what an excellent letter, I couldn’t agree with you more.
for gods sake people its go ape NOT a nuclear power plant. get a grip. the more kids that use the area the more longevity north wales will have. stop moaning AND MAKE IT WORK….
Mark, Jane. I have just been for a walk in Cwm Bach, something I do most days. All I could hear were the birds and the baby lambs, if this goes ahead all I will hear are screams and shouts. Jane, this side of Moel Famau is quiet and peaceful, the main route up and down is busy as you so rightly point out but even on that route I have never heard the families screaming and shouting at the tops of their voices. You mention the extra business to local B&Bs and pubs – I have spoken to a number of walkers and they have all said that if the proposed site goes ahead they will go elsewhere walking as they come here for the tranquility. This drastically cut down the business the B&B’s and pubs currently have from these people.
Thanks for the comments so far!
Just to let you know, as requested by the author ‘Gill’ I have deleted her published comments from the site this afternoon.
John [admin]
We had a fantastic walk up Moel Famau today weather was fantastic, descended down and had a look around the proposed Go Ape site. So much could be lost for what gain?
i am 42 and live on forrestry road, thats the one going from taffarn y gellin up to the car parks on moel famau, all it takes is snow and people are driving up what is a one track lane and not driving sensibly, attractions such as this are aimed at the younger generation and i hope i am not being offensive when i state that vehicular insurance for younger drivers is high for a reason, the exit to our road is obn a blind bend and in the winter some of the residents are too affraid to go shopping for food due to the risks of coping with poorly driven vehicles, does some one have to die before something is done? or should we allow an area of outstanding natural beauty have wider roads cut through it? either way i do not welcome this development and cannot see any great need for it as there is already a facillity such as this in delamere not more than an hour away. keep it there i for one do not want it.
Go Ape on Moel Famau is not a NIMBY issue. A zip wire is non essential. It is not power generation, housing, waste disposal or in the national interest.Some things are necessary and and have to be built. Yes, sometimes to some ones detriment but for the greater good. This proposal however is simply a environmentally destructive profit making venture by a small group of already wealthy people. Nothing else. Lets face it, it does not need to be built anywhere! Why should the owners profit have priority over every one elses loss, be it financial, enviromental,spiritual or simply in terms of quality of life? What price on the tranquilty of a secluded valley? Why should the local residents and the thousands of people who love this place as it is have to accept it? It will employ a handful of people on a seasonal basis,on low wages, and bring a very debatable financial benefit to a few businesses in the area. Not adequate compensation!!! Why should we be critisised for wanting to maintain the status quo in an AONB? After all, what are they for?
I know that planning is decided on technical issues and it will be on these that we have to make our stand. However, that does not make it right!!!
[...] Also, thanks to you all for offering your thoughts on the proposed Moel Famau zipwire proposals. [...]
So Go Ape on Moel Famau is not a Nimby issue according to Nigel Shillito. Surprisingly enough its right in his back yard!! The self appointed committee/cabal of local worthies who are working themselves up into a histrionic frenzy over these plans would be considerably less vociferous if the planned scheme was not within earshot, eyeline and/or property value drop zone of their own back yards.
There are many people, Meic, who do not live within the immediate area and still oppose the scheme, myself included. Of course, one could argue that ‘outsiders’ have no right to comment as the scheme will neither benefit or convenience them. Given your obviously objection to ‘locals’ having their say, I’m sure you wouldn’t take this view of outsiders. I’ve noted your comments on other forums and websites, none of which seem to indicate your view of the Go Ape proposal. Rather, you seem to take the time to criticise others that have taken the time to give their own opinions. Please feel free to bring something constructive to the table, rather than being unpleasant.
Interesting to note that Meic thinks that Go Ape will have an adverse effect on property values in the area. Is that because it’s undesirable , noisy , and potentially enviromentally damaging??? Looks like you are on our side after all.
Leave a Comment