Plans to build a holiday resort beside one of Cumbria’s most sensitive natural treasures have again met a firm and final looking wall. The long running Roanhead resort plans were rejected after councillors were told the scheme posed an “existential threat” to rare wildlife. For campaigners, it was the verdict they had been fighting for. For the developers, it was a setback that swallowed four years and £1.4 million.
The Roanhead resort plans, brought forward by ILM Group, had already been scaled back from an earlier proposal. This latest version sought 233 lodges, a spa and a restaurant at Roanhead Farm near Askam. ILM said it would manage visitor numbers. Environmental charities argued there was no workable way to prevent harm to Sandscale Haws National Nature Reserve.
More than 10,000 people signed a petition urging councillors to say no. When Westmorland and Furness Council met, the vote was 6 to 1 against the development. ILM’s Andrew Coutts described the decision as “disappointing” and said the company had to consider whether an appeal was financially viable.
The council’s case officer Andrew Willison Holt acknowledged the proposals had some social and economic merits. Yet he added, “with some regret”, that the authority could not rule out harmful effects on protected habitats. That line alone cut to the centre of the case. The dunes and coastal habitats beside the site are home to more than 600 flowering plant species, 500 species of fungus, lichen and bryophyte and a range of birds. The dunes also support a significant portion of the UK’s natterjack toads.
Dan Taylor from the National Trust explained the concern clearly. Developing in such a sensitive location, he told councillors, was an existential threat to a much loved reserve. The Trust wants local people to continue enjoying Sandscale Haws for generations while safeguarding its fragile ecosystem through careful conservation and a very small car park.
Objectors ranged widely. The National Trust and Cumbria Wildlife Trust stood firmly against the Roanhead resort plans. Cumbria Tourism, by contrast, offered support. Within the community, feelings ran deep. Jeremy Smith from Friends of the Lake District said he struggled to see how the developers could now appeal, noting that the location simply did not lend itself to such a project.
This dispute has hovered over the coastline for years. An older application for 450 lodges drew 3,700 letters and a 7,000 signature petition. Leanne Parr, a planning officer with Friends of the Lake District, said she had never seen such strength of objection in two decades of work. She grew up in Barrow and spoke of Roanhead as a place with a rare character. She believed the resort would have brought adverse impacts to wildlife and local communities alike.
Other campaigners echoed that sentiment. Ged Andrews, involved with the Save Roanhead effort, called the application inappropriate and unnecessary. He said the area needed visitors who wanted to learn and appreciate nature, not overwhelm it.
ILM and its consultants Enzygo had maintained that the resort would not adversely affect the nearby beach and that its landscaping would even improve biodiversity on the farmland outside the nature reserve. The council’s own habitats regulations assessment came to a different conclusion. It found that the Roanhead resort plans would likely have significant effects on protected areas and would increase visitor numbers to the severe detriment of a landscape valued for its isolation, wildness and tranquillity.
