YOUR front-page story (Quarry tourism plans submitted, January 12) neglected to mention that, buried in the proposal’s self-aggrandising PR spin, is the admission that the so-called heritage tourism attraction “will operate alongside continued stone extraction and quarry workings.” 

Notwithstanding everything else that is so intrinsically wrong with this proposal, this revelation alone should start enough alarm bells ringing to stop it dead in its tracks.

Common sense tells us that the excavation of rock and other quarry operations in and around a tourist site will severely compromise health and safety and bring an increased chance of traffic accidents, which may well lead to tragedy.

The proposal’s promise of a few information boards hung along its proposed "adventure" routes hardly constitutes the basis of a credible heritage centre or an “educational experience”.

The heritage angle is being proffered not in any spirit of philanthropy, but as a blatant sweetener to satisfy the planners and the tourist sector.

It is blindly obvious to anyone who has read the Holker Group and Zip World’s previous proposal, and who has ploughed through their new jargon-filled application, that their long-term objective is for a full-on, mis-named "adventure tourism" activity centre, which, if realised, will comprise adrenaline pumping cable car rides and zip wires, devised to cater for a minority group governed by testosterone-fuelled juvenile sensibilities and excess wealth. 

None of the heavily insured activities offered would be truly adventurous, as none would require skill, quick thinking, intuition or even common sense. 

The area’s inherent peace and tranquillity will be thoroughly destroyed by the seemingly obligatory juvenile whooping, hollering and high-fives and the continuous roaring and piercing bleeps of the quarry’s hulking HGVs.

Should a second – "adventure tourism" - proposal be submitted and approved, it would inevitably bring a substantial increase in traffic and an escalation of risk, danger and inconvenience to all users of the roads in and around the already car-blighted villages of Elterwater and Chapel Stile.

If allowed to proceed, rather than being of benefit to the Lake District’s uniquely beautiful and inspirational landscape, community, culture or economy, it will in all probability, trigger further degradation, not just of one valley, but of many others, and with it the Lake District’s claim to its prized UNESCO WHO status.

It should be vehemently opposed by all who genuinely love the Lake District and care about its meaningful sustainable future.

Russell Mills

Ambleside