UKC

For sale - Cloggy

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Carpe Diem 31 Jul 2014
 cander 31 Jul 2014
In reply to Carpe Diem:

Blencathra seems a better buy
 jim jones 31 Jul 2014
In reply to Carpe Diem:

Surprised this hasn't generated a bit more discussion by now.
In reply to jim jones:

> Surprised this hasn't generated a bit more discussion by now.

Ditto. Whilst I'd be ok with it being owned by the National Trust which is a fairly likely outcome, I'd be far happier with the BMC or a other organization with a more recreation focused approach buying it.
 Simon Caldwell 01 Aug 2014
In reply to The Ex-Engineer:

As with Blencathra, there is zero chance of inappropriate development or access restrictions, regardless of who owns it.
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

> As with Blencathra, there is zero chance of inappropriate development or access restrictions, regardless of who owns it.

Unfortunately that is not necessarily true given that the NT currently operates perfectly legal restrictions on climbing on access land at Cheddar Gorge. An identical policy banning Plays y Brenin and every professional instructor from Cloggy would be perfectly legal, if unlikely.

Based on the NT's record of ownership of other climbing venues they would definitely not be my preferred owner of Cloggy. That is without getting into a long discussion about numerous other issues connected to the NT that various people take issue with.
 Jimbo C 01 Aug 2014
In reply to The Ex-Engineer:

What mechanism could they use to restrict climbing on open access land. I thought that the CRoW act defined access land as open moorland and mountainside, amongst other types of land. Does a crag not fall into that description? Just curious by the way.
 Nick Russell 01 Aug 2014
In reply to The Ex-Engineer:

> the NT currently operates perfectly legal restrictions on climbing on access land at Cheddar Gorge.

I think you're mistaken here (or I am...). The South side of Cheddar, which is the one with the major access restrictions, is owned by "Cheddar Caves and Gorge". The National Trust owns the North side, which doesn't have such strict restrictions.

I'm not sure on the exact nature of the restrictions on the North side (which don't apply to any of the crags in the latest guide), but is it possible that they're 'voluntary'?
Ste Brom 01 Aug 2014
In reply to Carpe Diem:

UKC should buy it, from the proceeds of those half nudey rock boot ads that keep flashing up.
 Misha 01 Aug 2014
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Indeed, I can't imagine it's feasible to close access to a major mountain crag, even if someone wanted to.
 Jim Hamilton 01 Aug 2014
In reply to Carpe Diem:
Is this the same farmer that there was a great picture of a few years back of him striding over someones paraglider ? (if anyone remembers/can link it)
Post edited at 16:18
 jim jones 01 Aug 2014
In reply to Jim Hamilton:

> Is this the same farmer that there was a great picture of a few years back of him striding over someones paraglider ? (if anyone remembers/can link it)

I think it may have even been Eric's paraglider.

 wynaptomos 01 Aug 2014
In reply to Jim Hamilton:

> Is this the same farmer that there was a great picture of a few years back of him striding over someones paraglider ? (if anyone remembers/can link it)

You're probably right - he has been in the local news more than once over the last few years.
In reply to Jimbo C:

> What mechanism could they use to restrict climbing on open access land. I thought that the CRoW act defined access land as open moorland and mountainside, amongst other types of land. Does a crag not fall into that description? Just curious by the way.

Schedule 1(t) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 specifically excludes any and all commercial activity.

The NT use this to ban 'commercial' groups from climbing at Cheddar Gorge.

That is in direct contrast with Section 1-3c of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 which specifically includes any commercial conduct of an accepted recreational activity.

In short, compared to Scotland, access legislation in England and Wales (by the letter of the law) is actually fairly restrictive.
 Jimbo C 01 Aug 2014
In reply to The Ex-Engineer:

Ok, thanks. I suppose to the letter of the law an instructor being paid by a group is doing commercial activity. Although I think that's hardly what the writers of that clause had in mind and the instructor's that I know barely scrape a living.
 Oceanrower 01 Aug 2014
In reply to Jimbo C:

Letter of the law? What on earth else would you call it?
 d_b 01 Aug 2014
In reply to Carpe Diem:

I'll take it.

I reckon a steel cable and a few stemples will bring some much needed traffic to Indian Face.
 Jimbo C 01 Aug 2014
In reply to Oceanrower:

My interpretation of the clause from the CRoW act is that it was written to prevent damage to the land from organisations seeing an opportunity to make some money. i.e. it is unlawful for a large energy drink company to sell products by the side of popular mountain routes and rightly so. A person instructing a group or leading an organised walk, whilst 'commercial' in nature, is an extension of existing recreational activity and the participants, or at least the group leader are likely to have respect for the land. The wording from the Land Reform (SCotland) Act takes this into account.
 Oceanrower 01 Aug 2014
In reply to Jimbo C:

I'm sure it will come as some surprise to, for example, PyB, that they are only a commercial organisation "according to the letter of the law"
 Jimbo C 01 Aug 2014
In reply to Oceanrower:

Is there any need for continued picking apart of a phrase that I used? I was hoping for meaningful discussion. I sorry I forgot this is a UKC forum, please carry on.
In reply to Oceanrower:

> Letter of the law? What on earth else would you call it?

The issue is far from clearcut in that it is unclear whether school groups, publically funded youth groups (e.g. cadets, NCS), military personnel or even charities with instructional staff are included or excluded. None are outwardly 'commercial' but in every case people are being remunerated and therefore arguably have no legal right to be on access land to either walk or climb.
 Oceanrower 01 Aug 2014
In reply to Jimbo C:

Unfortunately it is a very important phrase carrying connotations for many, many users. As such, I think this does constitute meaningful discussion.

Oh, and by the way, twice is hardly continued.
 Jimbo C 01 Aug 2014
In reply to The Ex-Engineer:

Indeed. I briefly ran a student walking group, we charged people membership and charged for organised weekend trips. Whilst we didn't set out to make a profit, sometimes we had a surplus at the end of the year. Obviously that's one end of the spectrum but there is a grey area. There is of course a definition of the word 'commercial' but nobody gets into outdoor instructing so that they can make load of cash.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...