UKC

The land owner of Church Beck is now charging for the use of the gill £3 per person, he has written to all the companies who use the ghyll regularly and also plans on charging members of the public, how he is going to police this I don't know.

Can't wait for his first liability case as surely if he is charging he is liable?

Something must be done surely all landowners will follow suit?

(Maybe we should try and get on board with Scotland and open up some old border from hundreds of years ago, can't ever see the scottish allowing something like this with the right to rome laws they have.)

In reply to Wesley Orvis:


Not neccessarily. Most will see the small potential earning as not being worth the aggro and liability. But it's still a bad precedent.

In reply to Wesley Orvis:
Right to Rome law??- there would indeed be some strong feelings in parts of Glasgow about that!!!

In reply to Wesley Orvis:
Why should a landowner not charge for access to their land if they so wish? They paid for it.

Edit: I did some Googling and it seems the landowner has incurred costs as a result of damage to land/bridges etc because of heavy use. Even more reasonable that he should be able to recoup the cost of that damage/wear and tear that would not occur otherwise.

Neil

In reply to Wesley Orvis:

They intend to use a pre-booking system for those wanting to use that part of the gorge. There is talk of 'arm-bands' for those who have paid up too. It's shame, as those providers who use the gorge regularly with clients will simply pass on the cost to their customers, so all in all it's a poor deal for everyone but the landowner. Add to that the complexities of having to book in advance (when a lot of clients get in touch only a day before) and I think we'll quickly see numbers dropping in the Beck, with only the larger providers bothering with the hassle.

The other thing worth bearing in mind though, is that the Hext estate only has rights over the private land in the lower section of the traditional Church Beck gorge scramble. Higher up (i.e. the good bit) it is access land. It could therefore mean that providers avoid the lower section (the easy bit) and take families/younger groups elsewhere, saving the upper canyoning trip for the more 'full-on' groups.

In reply to Wesley Orvis:

Church Beck above Coniston?

I'm wondering if this is going to be an on-going problem with the ever increasing commercial use of the outdoors: "You're using my land to make money so I want something in return". Done lots of Gill scrambles or beck bottoming in the Lakes over the years but when it's just you and a few mates doing it now and again, it's not really an issue and you almost slip under the radar but having a minibus or two each week turning up then it's much harder to go unnoticed.

The owner of Twistleton Crag has charged an "access fee" for many years, though it's disguised as a parking charge. I doubt he makes much money out of it, probably enough for the kids' pocket money.

Typically a landowner is only liable if he makes modifications to the land feature and it is those modifications that fail. So if he charged to visit a waterfall say but did no improvements to the access then he wouldn't be liable but he would if he made the path better, say for wheelchair access.

He might just be trying it on or he might be thinking that the outdoor groups will find it too much trouble and go elsewhere.

ALC

In reply to a lakeland climber:

Sounds spot on; and the use of the word 'clients' in the post preceding yours would appear to confirm it.

So this doesn't sound like a 'freedom of the hills' issue per se; rather, it sounds like one that's been provoked/caused by commercialisation of the hills,

In reply to Wesley Orvis:

I must admit i have done it at least 5 times and the only time I haven't come across large groups in the ghyll is when I did a night time ascent.

But the land owner is also charging members of the public who are not on a stag do or paying clients, which imo is bang out of order.

I must to point out that when someone attempts to charge me i will be getting arrested shortly afterwards.

I am now debating with myself whether or not to take a load of chavs off my estate on a free ghyll scrambling day to see whether or not the landowner can handle the ammount of shit he is going to get while trying to charge none paying clients.

In reply to Wesley Orvis:

ALC and Rob P are I agree, 'spot on'.

This is however only one of the many consquencies of commercialisation that effects mountaineering.

In reply to Wesley Orvis:

"But the land owner is also charging members of the public who are not on a stag do or paying clients, which imo is bang out of order."

Why? It's his land. He can charge who he likes. Arguably, charging everyone is fairer.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

That's a troubling attitude, especially on a hillwalking forum.

Never mind that in many cases landowners did not pay for it - do you really think landowners should make whatever profit they so wish from the public, regardless of the land's value as a public resource?

In reply to Andy Moles:

That's a more general question. I'm not opposed to "right to roam" with some exceptions, and I think Scotland has the exceptions roughly right. But equally as I said above some Googling shows that because of the high use of this piece of land the landowner is incurring an expense, which he should not have to pay for himself.

Neil

In reply to Si Withington:

I think arm bands are a great idea. I did this ghyll a few years ago with my kids. At the time my daughter was around 6 and she did the scramble in a red polka dot swimsuit and a pair of crocodile arm bands. Just as we were finishing the route we caught up with a group of clients in full wetsuits and helmets,whooping and hollowing as the enjoyed the magnitude of their 'extreme' achievement. I would gladly pay a small fortune to watch again the expressions that crossed their faces as my daughter pootled past them and sidled up the exit.

In reply to Neil Williams:

He can drop dead before he ever gets a penny out of me, I bet he is from the south bought some property up north and now wants to milk us, rich greedy b*stard!!!!

In reply to Wesley Orvis:

I see no problem here, Church Beck is very accessible and I see no reason why the landowner should not make money out of it, particularly the commercial groups.
If people object, then the answer is simple walk up hill a short way almost in any direction in the Lake District and you will find a Beck or a Ghyll to Scramble in.
So people have a choice zero effort small charge, price of a couple of pints maybe, or 30 minutes to an hours walking zero charge.
Someone up thread said they would need the Police calling to stop them, I think that is a yobbish attitude.
Cheers sjc

In reply to Wesley Orvis:

Playing devil's advocate for a minute, it's quite usual for cavers to pay a small fee for access, but not climbers nor hikers. Nor ghyll scramblers/canyoners.

I wonder why the difference?

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

OK. But that was the logical interpretation of your original statement.

In reply to Wesley Orvis:

Commercialisation does stick in the throats of some landowners and I can see their point. IIRC this was the catalyst that got climbing banned at Foredale (running paid-for courses on the crag). If individuals are using otherwise worthless land for fun that would be one thing but if someone was charging to take people onto my land I might want a cut too. Access land is obviously different.

In reply to Wesley Orvis:

I bet your from the North and an obnoxious asshole?

In reply to Wesley Orvis:


Westley, I think your profile may need an update
"I used to be uptight, bad tempered, very irritable and stressed but after finding mountains all this has changed,I and am now very calm relaxed and fun to be around"

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

As is disruption caused. If others using my land were causing disruption, I would look either to ban the use or take payment in compensation.

Lone and small groups of hikers in the hills don't really cause disruption. Large numbers of people ghyll scrambling not really up in the hills (I think I know the ghyll concerned) does.

Neil

In reply to Wesley Orvis:

Hmmmm... think I'm going to "see" an apparition of the Virgin Mary in the field behind my house and charge good Catholic folk to come and pray....

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

Foredale was partly in my mind when I wrote my first post.

It could well be that some of the parties have been less than civil towards him, this happened at Foredale as well, so he's just gone: "Right, sod the lot of you!" If he's issuing identifying armbands etc then he's going to considerable time, effort and money to prove a point for what is likely to be very little return.

Sadly all this seems typical nowadays when a quick friendly chat early on would have sorted things out. Everyone's views get increasingly polarised and antagonistic.

ALC

In reply to Si Withington:

So private companies have been using his land to make profit, while he has to maintain paths/bridges out of his pocket?

In reply to Wiley Coyote:




And how many times has that been quoted at young Wesley over the years?