Plan to paint '1612' on side of Pendle Hill is set to go ahead

Lancashire Telegraph: 1612 An artist's impression of what the paint will look like 1612 An artist's impression of what the paint will look like

A CONTROVERSIAL plan to paint '1612' in 500ft-high numbers on Pendle Hill to mark the 400th anniversary of the infamous witch trials is set to go-ahead.

Councillors had pulled the plug on proposals by artist Philippe Handford following objections by some Barley residents and the Bishop of Burnley who spoke out against the plans.

Consequently, Pendle Council decided not to go ahead with plans to fund the £1,500 project.

However Moorhouse's Brewery in Burnley has thrown its support behind Philippe, who has the permission of the landowner to carry out the work.

Philippe said: "Its all systems go. It should take me a week to do but it depends on the weather.

"It needs to be dry and can't rain at all. I think it will make people investigate what happened 400 years ago and the local injustice that took place."

He said the paint was biodegradable, he has tested it for Natural England and it would be visible on the hill for a month.

A brewery spokesman said: “The image should be spectacular. It will be seen for miles around when the anniversary activities are in full swing in August including the Witch Walk on 18 August.

“Placed on the Barley side of Pendle Hill the image will be as high as possible centrally below the trig point – but will only be visible for a short time.

“Philippe has put a great deal into ensuring that the image will have maximum impact but leave no lasting effect. He has consulted with several bodies, including the land owner and Natural England, and fully tested a water based grass paint, which will disappear within a few weeks at most.”

Julian Jordan, one of the organisers of the Pendle Witch Walk, said: “This is a victory for common sense. Hundreds of walkers in witch fancy dress climbing Pendle Hill as it is adorned with the numerals 1612 will undoubtedly be a defining image that will attract national attention."

Comments (34)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:33am Tue 24 Jul 12

hi everyone says...

what a complete waste of money
what a complete waste of money hi everyone

8:42am Tue 24 Jul 12

Stuart Farquar says...

Jesus wept, whatever next !
Jesus wept, whatever next ! Stuart Farquar

8:43am Tue 24 Jul 12

Me251 says...

Never gonna happen.... needs a full week without rain? haha
Never gonna happen.... needs a full week without rain? haha Me251

8:44am Tue 24 Jul 12

oldblue says...

Pointless self indulgent vandalism. Legalised graffiti.
Pointless self indulgent vandalism. Legalised graffiti. oldblue

8:48am Tue 24 Jul 12

Stuart Farquar says...

Pure, unadulterated destruction of natural beauty.
Pure, unadulterated destruction of natural beauty. Stuart Farquar

8:51am Tue 24 Jul 12

happycyclist says...

I'm in favour. But what I don't understand is how the decision was overturned. The planning process ran its course, objections were raised, and the plans shelved. Why should Moorhouses throwing their weight behind it alter the decision?
I'm in favour. But what I don't understand is how the decision was overturned. The planning process ran its course, objections were raised, and the plans shelved. Why should Moorhouses throwing their weight behind it alter the decision? happycyclist

9:03am Tue 24 Jul 12

Joseph O'M says...

For a 500foot high piece of art, £1,500 isn't that much. The piece on the side of the new mall in Blackburn was £50,000. It is being paid for by Moorhouse's Brewery, so it isn't coming out of the public purse, so it's not wasting our money. It's not really vandalism as it'll wash off in a month and I can't see how it is a destruction of natural beauty as in a months time, it'll be gone and Natural England have approved the paint. It'll garner national press and probably boost tourism, and maybe even provoke some debate about the witch trials and maybe make people now think about how people shouldn't be quick to jump to conclusions and judge other people if they look different to the majority.
For a 500foot high piece of art, £1,500 isn't that much. The piece on the side of the new mall in Blackburn was £50,000. It is being paid for by Moorhouse's Brewery, so it isn't coming out of the public purse, so it's not wasting our money. It's not really vandalism as it'll wash off in a month and I can't see how it is a destruction of natural beauty as in a months time, it'll be gone and Natural England have approved the paint. It'll garner national press and probably boost tourism, and maybe even provoke some debate about the witch trials and maybe make people now think about how people shouldn't be quick to jump to conclusions and judge other people if they look different to the majority. Joseph O'M

9:04am Tue 24 Jul 12

verbal discharge says...

happycyclist wrote:
I'm in favour. But what I don't understand is how the decision was overturned. The planning process ran its course, objections were raised, and the plans shelved. Why should Moorhouses throwing their weight behind it alter the decision?
Ker-ching
[quote][p][bold]happycyclist[/bold] wrote: I'm in favour. But what I don't understand is how the decision was overturned. The planning process ran its course, objections were raised, and the plans shelved. Why should Moorhouses throwing their weight behind it alter the decision?[/p][/quote]Ker-ching verbal discharge

9:25am Tue 24 Jul 12

A Darener says...

After the billions wasted on the Olympics you worry about £1,500!!!!
After the billions wasted on the Olympics you worry about £1,500!!!! A Darener

9:26am Tue 24 Jul 12

hasslem hasslem says...

i live in the area - don't have a problem with it per se - but just think it is a bit unimaginative, just to paint some numbers on the side of hill.....that said 2012 is adorned all london and people seem to think that is brilliant
.
hope it doesn't damage the wildlife, particularly the birds - then again the landowner will probably be shooting the wildlife with his pals at the start of the game season.
i live in the area - don't have a problem with it per se - but just think it is a bit unimaginative, just to paint some numbers on the side of hill.....that said 2012 is adorned all london and people seem to think that is brilliant . hope it doesn't damage the wildlife, particularly the birds - then again the landowner will probably be shooting the wildlife with his pals at the start of the game season. hasslem hasslem

9:39am Tue 24 Jul 12

useyourhead says...

happycyclist wrote:
I'm in favour. But what I don't understand is how the decision was overturned. The planning process ran its course, objections were raised, and the plans shelved. Why should Moorhouses throwing their weight behind it alter the decision?
it doesn't need planning permission i don't think, the 'plans' they refer to are just how they described the proposal and discussion by relevent parties. it wasn't a planning refusal, just a refusal to fund it.
[quote][p][bold]happycyclist[/bold] wrote: I'm in favour. But what I don't understand is how the decision was overturned. The planning process ran its course, objections were raised, and the plans shelved. Why should Moorhouses throwing their weight behind it alter the decision?[/p][/quote]it doesn't need planning permission i don't think, the 'plans' they refer to are just how they described the proposal and discussion by relevent parties. it wasn't a planning refusal, just a refusal to fund it. useyourhead

9:41am Tue 24 Jul 12

Citsmiff says...

So if the landowners think it's such a good idea they can have it scrawled on their side of the hill! Don't thnk they would be keen on the idea if they had to look at it all day, every day.

Not only a pure, unadulterated destruction of natural beauty, it's down right disrespect for the people who have to live with it on their doorstep.
So if the landowners think it's such a good idea they can have it scrawled on their side of the hill! Don't thnk they would be keen on the idea if they had to look at it all day, every day. Not only a pure, unadulterated destruction of natural beauty, it's down right disrespect for the people who have to live with it on their doorstep. Citsmiff

10:03am Tue 24 Jul 12

colnelad says...

Don't see it at being a problem, pendle has been on the map because of the witches and writing 1612 won't harm anyone especially the wild life.
You lot should be proud of our history and welcome all the publicty it brings to the area and all the tourist's that want to spend money in local b+b's,shops etc etc.
Money well spent me thinks.
Don't see it at being a problem, pendle has been on the map because of the witches and writing 1612 won't harm anyone especially the wild life. You lot should be proud of our history and welcome all the publicty it brings to the area and all the tourist's that want to spend money in local b+b's,shops etc etc. Money well spent me thinks. colnelad

10:25am Tue 24 Jul 12

Excluded again says...

Putting things on hills has been a British tradition since pre-history - some Iron Age white horses are still carved into hillsides.

There's a photo in the archives of Darwen library showing a demonstration in Darwen Town Centre against the proposal to build darwen Tower - because it would spoil the natural beauty of the moor.
Putting things on hills has been a British tradition since pre-history - some Iron Age white horses are still carved into hillsides. There's a photo in the archives of Darwen library showing a demonstration in Darwen Town Centre against the proposal to build darwen Tower - because it would spoil the natural beauty of the moor. Excluded again

10:32am Tue 24 Jul 12

verbal discharge says...

Citsmiff wrote:
So if the landowners think it's such a good idea they can have it scrawled on their side of the hill! Don't thnk they would be keen on the idea if they had to look at it all day, every day.

Not only a pure, unadulterated destruction of natural beauty, it's down right disrespect for the people who have to live with it on their doorstep.
wow - the wierdy beardy ones are all up in arms about this aren't they? 'Pure unadulterated destruction of natural beauty'??

Give your head a wobble - it will last a month maximum and it may even bring some tourists into the area who will spend valuable money
[quote][p][bold]Citsmiff[/bold] wrote: So if the landowners think it's such a good idea they can have it scrawled on their side of the hill! Don't thnk they would be keen on the idea if they had to look at it all day, every day. Not only a pure, unadulterated destruction of natural beauty, it's down right disrespect for the people who have to live with it on their doorstep.[/p][/quote]wow - the wierdy beardy ones are all up in arms about this aren't they? 'Pure unadulterated destruction of natural beauty'?? Give your head a wobble - it will last a month maximum and it may even bring some tourists into the area who will spend valuable money verbal discharge

11:56am Tue 24 Jul 12

paperboy70 says...

What's the big deal... it's only temporary! Get a life you moaners!
What's the big deal... it's only temporary! Get a life you moaners! paperboy70

12:00pm Tue 24 Jul 12

Blackburnley says...

A Darener wrote:
After the billions wasted on the Olympics you worry about £1,500!!!!
Nothing to do with the cost! Why destroy natural beauty even if its only for a short while?
[quote][p][bold]A Darener[/bold] wrote: After the billions wasted on the Olympics you worry about £1,500!!!![/p][/quote]Nothing to do with the cost! Why destroy natural beauty even if its only for a short while? Blackburnley

12:15pm Tue 24 Jul 12

A Darener says...

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder! A Darener

12:33pm Tue 24 Jul 12

Blackburnley says...

A Darener wrote:
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!
In that case why not just paint '1612' on all the walls in your house?
[quote][p][bold]A Darener[/bold] wrote: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder![/p][/quote]In that case why not just paint '1612' on all the walls in your house? Blackburnley

12:43pm Tue 24 Jul 12

A Darener says...

Because it wouldn't be relevant to me! The Pendle witches came from Pendle not Darwen!
Because it wouldn't be relevant to me! The Pendle witches came from Pendle not Darwen! A Darener

1:11pm Tue 24 Jul 12

Rover Pete says...

The trial of the so called Pendle Witches was a terrible episode in our local history. The women found guilty were treated in an appalingly inhuman way and both they and their families suffered greatly. These women were, for goodness sake, hung in public, on trumped up charges. This is not an event in the past that should be trivialised in this way. And as for walkers in fancy dress making a joke day out of it is sickening to think of. For goodness sake, show a bit of decency - has everything to be turned into a 'good day out for the family'...
The trial of the so called Pendle Witches was a terrible episode in our local history. The women found guilty were treated in an appalingly inhuman way and both they and their families suffered greatly. These women were, for goodness sake, hung in public, on trumped up charges. This is not an event in the past that should be trivialised in this way. And as for walkers in fancy dress making a joke day out of it is sickening to think of. For goodness sake, show a bit of decency - has everything to be turned into a 'good day out for the family'... Rover Pete

2:10pm Tue 24 Jul 12

Blackburnley says...

A Darener wrote:
Because it wouldn't be relevant to me! The Pendle witches came from Pendle not Darwen!
Then why comment if, as you concede,
its nowt to do with you?
[quote][p][bold]A Darener[/bold] wrote: Because it wouldn't be relevant to me! The Pendle witches came from Pendle not Darwen![/p][/quote]Then why comment if, as you concede, its nowt to do with you? Blackburnley

2:12pm Tue 24 Jul 12

davemcb says...

Pointless ugly defacing a well-loved landmark for the ego of an "artist". Everyone already knows about Pendle and the Witch trials; this is just a self-serving publicity stunt for some jumped up dauber.
Pointless ugly defacing a well-loved landmark for the ego of an "artist". Everyone already knows about Pendle and the Witch trials; this is just a self-serving publicity stunt for some jumped up dauber. davemcb

2:52pm Tue 24 Jul 12

A Darener says...

Blackburnley wrote:
A Darener wrote:
Because it wouldn't be relevant to me! The Pendle witches came from Pendle not Darwen!
Then why comment if, as you concede,
its nowt to do with you?
I was commenting on a comment, not the topic under discussion!
[quote][p][bold]Blackburnley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A Darener[/bold] wrote: Because it wouldn't be relevant to me! The Pendle witches came from Pendle not Darwen![/p][/quote]Then why comment if, as you concede, its nowt to do with you?[/p][/quote]I was commenting on a comment, not the topic under discussion! A Darener

3:03pm Tue 24 Jul 12

MerlinTheVoiceofReason2 says...

As usual, much ado about nowt. Still, several contenders on here for the Olympic Whingeing Gold Medal.
As usual, much ado about nowt. Still, several contenders on here for the Olympic Whingeing Gold Medal. MerlinTheVoiceofReason2

3:56pm Tue 24 Jul 12

Graham Hartley says...

Display 1611 on all parish churches; the year that the King James Bible was introduced and also a multiple of three, so convincing some that the Holy Trinity is involved... somehow.
Display 1611 on all parish churches; the year that the King James Bible was introduced and also a multiple of three, so convincing some that the Holy Trinity is involved... somehow. Graham Hartley

4:15pm Tue 24 Jul 12

Blackburnley says...

A Darener wrote:
Blackburnley wrote:
A Darener wrote: Because it wouldn't be relevant to me! The Pendle witches came from Pendle not Darwen!
Then why comment if, as you concede, its nowt to do with you?
I was commenting on a comment, not the topic under discussion!
No-one commenting had expressed any worries about the £1500 cost before you raised it
[quote][p][bold]A Darener[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Blackburnley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A Darener[/bold] wrote: Because it wouldn't be relevant to me! The Pendle witches came from Pendle not Darwen![/p][/quote]Then why comment if, as you concede, its nowt to do with you?[/p][/quote]I was commenting on a comment, not the topic under discussion![/p][/quote]No-one commenting had expressed any worries about the £1500 cost before you raised it Blackburnley

4:33pm Tue 24 Jul 12

Chris P Bacon says...

Blackburnley wrote:
A Darener wrote:
After the billions wasted on the Olympics you worry about £1,500!!!!
Nothing to do with the cost! Why destroy natural beauty even if its only for a short while?
There's been a LOT more destruction taking place on this hill (and many others) than will be there 'only for a short while'. There are several HUGE scars that disfigure the hill's face and they aren't temporary; they are there forever. And they were caused by people. They continue to be caused on virtually a daily basis as people walk up and down the hill creating deep trenches, motorway-carriageway wide, from the base to the plateau and right to the summit. There are scars visible from every side of the hill, the most disfiguring being from Barley, and the only respite the hill got to allow some regeneration came as a result of the foot-and-mouth outbreak a few years ago which kept people off the hill.

That's FAR more significant than some planned eco-freindly number placed temporarily on the hillside.
[quote][p][bold]Blackburnley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A Darener[/bold] wrote: After the billions wasted on the Olympics you worry about £1,500!!!![/p][/quote]Nothing to do with the cost! Why destroy natural beauty even if its only for a short while?[/p][/quote]There's been a LOT more destruction taking place on this hill (and many others) than will be there 'only for a short while'. There are several HUGE scars that disfigure the hill's face and they aren't temporary; they are there forever. And they were caused by people. They continue to be caused on virtually a daily basis as people walk up and down the hill creating deep trenches, motorway-carriageway wide, from the base to the plateau and right to the summit. There are scars visible from every side of the hill, the most disfiguring being from Barley, and the only respite the hill got to allow some regeneration came as a result of the foot-and-mouth outbreak a few years ago which kept people off the hill. That's FAR more significant than some planned eco-freindly number placed temporarily on the hillside. Chris P Bacon

6:29pm Tue 24 Jul 12

ste.g says...

Joseph O'M wrote:
For a 500foot high piece of art, £1,500 isn't that much. The piece on the side of the new mall in Blackburn was £50,000. It is being paid for by Moorhouse's Brewery, so it isn't coming out of the public purse, so it's not wasting our money. It's not really vandalism as it'll wash off in a month and I can't see how it is a destruction of natural beauty as in a months time, it'll be gone and Natural England have approved the paint. It'll garner national press and probably boost tourism, and maybe even provoke some debate about the witch trials and maybe make people now think about how people shouldn't be quick to jump to conclusions and judge other people if they look different to the majority.
how can 500ft numbers be called art?
[quote][p][bold]Joseph O'M[/bold] wrote: For a 500foot high piece of art, £1,500 isn't that much. The piece on the side of the new mall in Blackburn was £50,000. It is being paid for by Moorhouse's Brewery, so it isn't coming out of the public purse, so it's not wasting our money. It's not really vandalism as it'll wash off in a month and I can't see how it is a destruction of natural beauty as in a months time, it'll be gone and Natural England have approved the paint. It'll garner national press and probably boost tourism, and maybe even provoke some debate about the witch trials and maybe make people now think about how people shouldn't be quick to jump to conclusions and judge other people if they look different to the majority.[/p][/quote]how can 500ft numbers be called art? ste.g

8:04pm Tue 24 Jul 12

Elaine Hargreaves says...

Complete waste of money!
Complete waste of money! Elaine Hargreaves

8:20am Wed 25 Jul 12

A Darener says...

Blackburnley wrote:
A Darener wrote:
Blackburnley wrote:
A Darener wrote: Because it wouldn't be relevant to me! The Pendle witches came from Pendle not Darwen!
Then why comment if, as you concede, its nowt to do with you?
I was commenting on a comment, not the topic under discussion!
No-one commenting had expressed any worries about the £1500 cost before you raised it
Try reading the first comment...waste of money!!!
[quote][p][bold]Blackburnley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A Darener[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Blackburnley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A Darener[/bold] wrote: Because it wouldn't be relevant to me! The Pendle witches came from Pendle not Darwen![/p][/quote]Then why comment if, as you concede, its nowt to do with you?[/p][/quote]I was commenting on a comment, not the topic under discussion![/p][/quote]No-one commenting had expressed any worries about the £1500 cost before you raised it[/p][/quote]Try reading the first comment...waste of money!!! A Darener

1:17pm Wed 25 Jul 12

knockoff says...

hi everyone wrote:
what a complete waste of money
What makes Philippe Handford think Moorhouse's money can overturn a planning decision made by a democratically elected body ?
The only victory for common sense was the original shelving of the project in the first place by the planning committee !
[quote][p][bold]hi everyone[/bold] wrote: what a complete waste of money[/p][/quote]What makes Philippe Handford think Moorhouse's money can overturn a planning decision made by a democratically elected body ? The only victory for common sense was the original shelving of the project in the first place by the planning committee ! knockoff

9:26am Sun 19 Aug 12

coates warder says...

is that the amount the owner of moorhouses got fined for drink drive 1612.what a sad company. glad i drink copper dragon
is that the amount the owner of moorhouses got fined for drink drive 1612.what a sad company. glad i drink copper dragon coates warder

1:42pm Mon 20 Aug 12

unknown2007 says...

I live in the area and could see it and thought wth it look's stupid and a waste of money I say
I live in the area and could see it and thought wth it look's stupid and a waste of money I say unknown2007

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree