UKC

Hello

Can climbers climb at foredale quarry now???

Many thanks

In reply to lloydrees91:

I don't think so. I heard the farmer has ownership of the quarry itself now, not just access land. Can't remember where I heard it though.

In reply to lloydrees91:
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/modules/RAD/viewcrag.aspx?id=715

In reply to lloydrees91:

thanks!

In reply to lloydrees91:

Go there and climb, these bans are nonsense. Just dont be a cock and walk past the cottages, take dogs or have a party. All easily avoided.

In reply to snoop6060:

hmm - you don't 'agree' with private property? I suspect its the actions of thoughtless climbers that have got us here in the first place - that and maybe some scaremongering from legal advisers.

And farmers have access to the internet these days you know

In reply to Bulls Crack:

Its a complex issue, but i don't agree with people buying a quarry with the sole purpose of stopping climbers using it because they don't like them walking past their house (assuming that it what happened in this instance). I also don't agree with climbers generally being cocks either, like at Malham where they were pissing right in front of that fellas house. Entirely justified to get upset at that. So my point is that the OP should be discrete and go and climb there, i doubt anyone would even notice. Probably a bit late now its on the internet though.

ditto going to blue scar. A permit to go and climb, yeah right.

I understand people will get upset at this and say I'm just being a cock myself. Fair enough. Sorry.

In reply to snoop6060:

No, I take your point - it's dog in a mangerish but unfortunately they were never in public ownership or accessible as such.

Ask me should farmland be in private ownership anyway and I'd say no

In reply to Bulls Crack:


Couldn't agree with you more.

In reply to Bulls Crack:

'Ask me should farmland be in private ownership anyway and I'd say no'.

You think 'farmland' should be in public ownership, then? All of it?

In reply to andyathome:

Farms need fields to be a farm ,
You don't need a quarry to be a farm ,
There's lots of fields around ,
But not many quarrys !
Oh yeah and ,,,,,,
You can't climb a field !

In reply to Colza:

Bizarre and obsessive behaviour. he's just paid good money for a quarry he cant have any possible use for. Nowt so queer as folk.

In reply to andyathome:



By and large yes in my idealistic imagination but it won't happen though (or even I suspect a general public access right in England) for many reasons - both idealogical and practical .

In reply to pebbles:

Worryingly the list is getting longer !

In reply to lloydrees91:

I thought the farmer used the quarry as a sheltered location to feed his stock?

As for public ownership of farmland - it's unlikely that this would be any different for access than the current setup. If there's a problem caused by user groups (climbers, walkers, ravers, etc) then the council/commune would move to prevent access. This has happened already in the UK, not all land is privately owned, where climbers p*ssed off the community and access to the crag was banned and remains so to this day.

In reply to Bob:

I'v never seen an animal in here. The quarry floor is not suitable for grazing, its largely bare excavated rock with very thin vegetation cover. I'v never even seen traces of animals in here, and you would expect to see traces of sheep or cow shit if there was even occasional use - the only animal droppings there are from rabbits

In reply to pebbles:

Not grazing - feeding, there's a difference But if as you say there's no evidence of it then it might just have been something being bandied about.

It's quite common for people, not just farmers, to buy pieces of land to prevent use, often it's people on the edge of a village buying a plot of land to prevent a developer building on it. You (a generic you) might see it as NIMBYism but it happens.

I've only ever been to Foredale once, it was enough and I'd be happy never to go again. I'm not happy about a climbing site being "lost" but if, as climbers, we behave in a manner that annoys others such as using property as a public toilet then it will be an inevitable consequence, it's happened before (Craig y Forwen). It's no good complaining about the people objecting and banning climbing, it's ourselves that's the problem.

In reply to Colza:

You might be confusing 'farm' with 'arable farm'? There's loads of 'farms' in Wales that don't have too many 'fields'. And I'd think the farmer in question has a few 'fields' as well.
What farms need is 'land'.

Witches Quarry on Pendle - just why should that be part of a farm if your argument holds?

In reply to andyathome:

Totally missing my point I think , there is thousands of fields/land/ places you can feed animals , but fields e,c,t are no good for Climbing !
There isn't many quarry's !
Also I hope he does own the land out right and not getting subsidies of the government / tax payers / us / me !

In reply to Bob:

Craig y forwen ! Our fault !! Give your head a wobble , defiantly not our fault he tried to stop Climbing at forwen !
It's all to do with one man
(Arsehole ) making money simple as that , now get your facts straight before pointing the finger !

In reply to Colza:

Re: Craig y Forwen: So I suppose the fact that climbers were stripping off and getting changed and using the woods as a toilet in full view of his house had nothing to do with it? From your profile it looks like you weren't around when all this actually happened.

Are you getting a referral to have those chips removed from your shoulders? I hope you are going private and not misusing the facilities of the NHS paid for by taxpayer/us/me

In reply to Bob:

Think your missing the point bob , unless your him or his mate then you'd know that the real reason is money !
As for health care , yes I am private and had my chips removed 20 years ago when I first started Climbing there !
Sounds to me like your the one who needs his shoulders peeling !

In reply to lloydrees91:

To clear up several misconceptions being bandied about on this thread the situation at Foredale is as follows.
The farm below the quarry and enclosed moorland above and surrounding the quarry has been owned and used for grazing sheep by the Pearson family for many years. Until 2014 the family did not own the quarry but it was habitually regarded as part of the moorland grazing by the family, though in practice the sheep rarely seemed to linger in the quarry due to lack of suitable vegetation. It was, however, the only suitable link between the lower fields and upper moor.
In 2011 Mr Pearson stated that he was withdrawing permission for climbing in the quarry for various well publicised reasons, however, at that stage all he could legally do was withdraw permission for climbers to cross his land below the quarry. Access was still possible via the CRoW access land above.
In 2014 Mr Pearson informed National Park officers that he had finally acquired formal ownership of the quarry from the previous owners (believed to be via gift following the settlement of the estate of the former owners).
The legal situation regarding access would now appear to be that climbers in the quarry can be asked to leave by Mr Pearson (or his agents) and refusal to leave could be classed as trespass. That is no different to the situation at many other sites upon which we climb throughout the country. The land surrounding the upper boundary of the quarry is all Access Land. You cannot be forcibly ejected from the land above and surrounding the quarry to the south, west or north.
In recent years sheep have only been grazed on the upper moor during the summer months and, despite Mr Pearson’s occasional assertions there are no environmental obstacles to climbing there because of nesting birds or rare plants.
The main issue regarding access at Fordale was its ever growing popularity and the disturbance caused to residents of the cottages who then put pressure on Mr Pearson to close the access route near their homes. Access by small parties from above in recent years has rarely been challenged.

In reply to Colza:

I've no connection with the landowner, no idea what his name is or anything about him.

How about refuting the fact about climbers' behaviour?

There is little or no agricultural or forestry value to the land on which Craig y Forwen sits and it's unlikely or impossible that there'd be development of any sort on it (I don't know if the owner has applied for planning permission for anything) so your assertion about it (the ban) being about money can only be due to its amenity value.

You give the impression that you believe that anyone has the right to do what they want where they want regardless of the rights of anyone else. Perhaps fortunately society doesn't work like that.

In reply to Bob:

Bob, from what I remember, the landowner at Forwen started charging climbers for access. Seem to remember it was about a fiver. That and confiscating rucksacks for non-payment.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

Here's one of the original threads - http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=459666