Scarborough: Plans for 650m seaside zip wire recommended for rejection

Four zip lines have been proposed to take thrill seekers from Scarborough Open Air Theatre in North Bay and towards Scalby Mills miniature railway station

A council report has recommended refusing proposals for a 650m (2132ft) zip line on the North Yorkshire coast.

More than 170 letters of support and in excess of 40 objections were received for the Scarborough North Bay plans.

North Yorkshire Council's planning officers said the 35m-high (115ft) attraction would cause "significant harm" to the area's character.

Councillors on the Scarborough and Whitby planning committee will meet on 8 February to decide on the plans.

Those in support of the proposals for the site of the former Marvel's Amusement Park said they would attract more visitors to the town, boost local businesses and provide employment opportunities, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service.

The council report said the plans, submitted by Big Bang Promotions, were "acceptable in principle". The creation of 10 full-time jobs and 40 part-time roles was "not insignificant", it added.

The zip line would consist of several wires between two steel-framed towers, measuring 35m and 19m in height.

Proposals said the ride would launch in front of Scarborough's Open Air Theatre in North Bay and head towards Scalby Mills miniature railway station.

'Alien feature'

Planning officers said the impact of the towers on Scarborough's conservation area and the North Yorkshire and Cleveland Heritage Coast was key to their decision to recommend refusal.

They described the proposed structures as "a visually dominant and alien feature which would have a transformational impact on the coastal environment and its distinctive character".

The report states: "The launch tower would not be a positive addition to the skyline[…] and would not contribute positively to the open character of the seafront.

"[It] would cause significant harm to visual amenity and detract from the established coastal tourism character of the area."

A heritage advisor supported the view that visual harm the towers would bring was "not convincingly justified".

Despite noting its potential positive impacts, the report concluded that no benefits "outweigh the identified harm and consequent policy conflicts".