UKC

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

Wow, thats Great news!!

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

RAD still reads as follows:

"The landowner (Bristol Council) do not currently permit public access due to insurance and liability concerns.

The BMC are working with the Council to try and reach a satisfactory arrangement for climbers."

In reply to GrahamD: Great news

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

Jack this is nothing new, we knew this back in November. How does this tie in with what Guy Keating said here (on 25/3 on the other thread):

" the local BMC access rep. and myself spoke to Bristol Council who stated the following,

1. The Council had now banned climbing on the buttress.
2. There is a contract in place to ensure the prohibitive fence is maintained.
3. The Council intended to use security guards to patrol the site, and climbers would be asked to leave."

Good effort on Dave but I don't think he spoke to the same person Guy did. He said he suspects as such himself, and it seems the property division are aware of the possibility too.

Sorry Jack but your headline's a bit misleading until the above three statements made to Guy have been formally retracted.

In reply to Paz:

Guy and I will discuss this when we're back in the office tomorrow.

Just to clarify - I spoke to an officer in the BCC Property dept who said he was responsible for managing the land at the base of the Suspension Bridge; he was not aware that the Councils' position on climbing on Suspension Bridge Buttress had changed, he did not say that climbing was banned (merely that it had never formally been permitted) and he mentioned nothing about security guards patrolling the site.

I agree this is all a bit strange but I can assure people that we'll get to the bottom of it asap.

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

OK, thanks very much.

In reply to Paz:

I've just spoken to Guy and have a bit more information. It turns out that Guy had spoken to the same person in BCC Property dept as I spoke to yesterday. This is where he got the information (see his posting of 25 March on the other Suspension Bridge thread) about the Council banning climbing, security patrols etc.

For some (currently unknown) reason the Councils' position appears to have changed.

For information - we've also had a call today from the Bristol city epetitions department. Apparently they have been told by Council Leaders that there is no problem with access to Suspension Bridge Buttress.

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

Good stuff, thank you!

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

Sounds like a significant amount of back pedalling going on there.

If so then it would appear that those e-petition things do carry some sway with local councils. Each "Number 10" one I've signed has come back with a response along the lines of

"Thanks for your opinion, screw you and the other 10 million people that object - we're doing it anyway" (I've paraphrased a little)

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

Excellent news.

Although does that mean that i broke my leg in protest for no reason?

In reply to maresia:

For further clarification:

I've just spoken to BCC epetitions dept - it appears this has caused quite a comotion and has gone right up to the Leader of the Council. I've been told - categorically and officially - that the Council has not (and never did) banned climbing on Suspension Bridge Buttress. The Council does of course remain committed to maintaining the fencing around the canopy (above the portway) for road safety reasons.

It seems the root of this misunderstanding goes back to some earlier conversations between BMC reps and BCC Property Dept which resulted in the firm impression that climbing was being banned and that security guards would be patrolling the site. Quite how this relates to the Councils' position now - I'm not sure.

Anyway - further to the above re-assurance I have agreed with BCC that the epetition can be taken down.

All's well that ends well I suppose.

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

nice one

good to hear

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

Thats very good news. Any idea when RAD will reflect the currently understood situation ?

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC: Right, so if access is not to be denied then surely razorwire was a little over the top?

In reply to GrahamD:

Tomorrow.

+ agree that razor wire seems OTT.

In reply to Dave Turnbull, BMC:

Brilliant. Well done you both.

In reply to maresia: I agree. The response from No.10 about the quarrying petition (longstone was it?) was really defensive and rude. We should write a petition protesting about their responses to petitions

In reply to mike kann:

And surely if they are worried about liability then razorwire should be the last thing they stick up. How much do you reckon I could get through claims direct for slicing myself open on it??

In reply to maresia:
ooh good call

say you're an aspiring model and go for loss of future earnings

In reply to maresia:

On a practical point, is the razor wire remaining and if so, do we need to come armed with bits of old carpet etc to get over it ?

In reply to GrahamD:

Can you guys take a hint and read between the lines? I've given enough of them. Sorry.

Anyway, Graham, no it's gone. If any new stuff gets put up it I don't think it will last very long before someone takes it down.

In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: Just an aside really, but usually when we go to SBB instead of junglebashing up and over whats left of the fence, we cross the road onto the cyclepath and use combined tactics (yep one stands on t'others shoulders) to climb up into the hanging ladder bolted to the side of the canopy. Always seemed more of a fitting start to us.

Second thoughts, we're just weird.

Happy climbing

Richtea

In reply to richtea21: There used to be a plank of wood there that you could make a ramp out of, mantle, then grab the ladder. Probably safer than crossing the road.