UKC

A post on FB shows how the diggers are now digging the bottom of the routes, some have a few meters added. I guess that’s them prepping the netting work (consented and in the planning, so I guess it’s going ahead). Also heard of some routes being debolted. Is this the unceremonious end of Lorry Park? Sad day for climbing

Sad times. It was the first place I climbed after lockdown: I got on Shattered Air (6b) and damp, 1* limestone has never felt so good.

That's very sad - I had hoped access negotiations were in place...

So it does look we have lost access forever. The crag is being dug out and soon won't be accessible. Shame we didn't try harder as community to save its access.

I don't think there's anything realistically that could have been done. Its private land and they're building houses on it, they can do as they please.

If when the work is finished climbing looks feasible that would be the time to get involved.

I understand your frustration but doubt a big increase in community effort would  have made a difference.

If you buy one the houses I wonder if it comes complete with access to your own Supercrack (E5 6b)

I've never been there but from driving past and pictures I've seen the face is a fair bit higher than most new-build houses.

Isn't that going to be a bit of an oppressive view out of the window (for most people) and I wonder what the house-cliff distance will be.

Has anyone seen the plans from the planning application?

You could set up an auto belay at the top of it

I disagree, if climbers/BMC got involved at the planning consent stage access could have been negotiated. There are plenty crags on private land that have access agreed. I doesn't really affect me as I've done all the routes I wanted to do at Lorry Park, it's more for future generations. But yes moving forward it would be very hard to have access once consent was given. 

Fair enough, but I don't. I think the house builder would have simply said no, because why would they say anything else, and once the house are built we're asking people to tolerate climbers mere yards from their back garden, with a direct view into their house and garden as soon as they're two clips up. Add into that busy summer scenes, shouting, swearing, it simply would not have happened and imo is deluded to think it could. The BMC aren't magic. 

I don't know the history but the situation at Craig Y Longridge seems to be exactly as you describe with new houses built next to an established crag.

https://imgcdn.ukc2.com/i/264363?fm=webp&time=1555399564&w=150&...

They're bolting rock netting to the crag, aren't they? I'm not sure they'd risk problems with selling and insurers to accommodate topless screaming blokes. If I was buying a house, I'm not sure I'd want to risk rocks pinging off onto my house/car/kids either.  

It's bouldering height, the level of intrusion into privacy is not similar.

I was there earlier this year and there were perhaps a dozen climbers and people out in their gardens.... it all seemed a bit too cosy for my taste and I wouldn't buy one of those houses as our presence seemed pretty intrusive. Perhaps the BMC owned the crag before the houses were built?

I'd say it's actually greater as the ground rises at the end of the gardens so that the ground level at the crag is at roughly the same height as the 1st floor windows. 

The BMC bought the land when development started. The houses were granted planning permission under the understanding they were holiday lets - occupancy limited to 3 months continuous and no more than 9 months per year in total. Once completed they were let as "luxury Homes".

Planners and councils have enough trouble getting builders to include affordable homes. A far more important requirement, one that at least some councils are already fully on board with and, at least in theory, a statutory requirement. The chance of the planners being persuaded to care about the climbing and then having the leverage to force the developers to comply seems virtually nil to me.

The planning application can be found under "Former Harveydale Quarry, Dale Road, Matlock Derbyshire". 17 dwelling houses. 

Rumour has it that this has been scrapped for offices but I can't find anything to back that up.

It is unlikely that the solid faces will be netted. The original proposal was for catch fences.

The removal of the boulder bank at the base is I presume so falling rocks above the solid faces just thud down rather than bounce outward.

RIP LPQ!

I understand the BMC were looking into it a couple of years ago but I've not heard a sausage since, doesn't sound like a case of "no news is good news"...

There is a layout of housing about halfway down this

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/local-news/homes-plan-derelict-derbys...

Having been at the crag recently, it looks like the houses will be quite a way from the crag, on the other side of the access road. The house nearest the right side of the crag may be an issue for the routes further right. If the crag isn't netted then I think climbing, in small groups, no loud noise, sensible toileting, and leaving well before dark might not be too intrusive, and possible. Obviously all it takes is one angry resident, a climber parking on their drive, pissing in their garden etc etc before it all kicks off, but I think climbers need to keep using this crag and try to set a sensible precedent. 

I'm guessing access will be difficult whilst construction is ongoing as there may well be security on site to protect materials (?). 

The text under the plan in that article states "The proposed 17 homes would be built in a cul-de-sac arrangement with infrastructure to catch falling rock".

Chances of climbing I think close to zero ☹

It also only takes one pleasant engagement, one 'wow daddy, look at those cool climbers' for climbers to endear themselves. Perhaps unlikely but still possible.

Look at Chudleigh. People climbing in someones back garden on the proviso that they sign the guest book. 

It is possible for residents to like climbers! 

I would completely agree that it's worth keeping climbing there if it remains possible. My point was more that pre emptively securing access was always extremely unlikely. It's possible that low level access will be tolerated inthe future. 

It is possible for residents to like climbers. I like climbers mostly, I also am a climber. But I still wouldn’t want climbers climbing yards away from my new house where they would overlook my garden. I don’t think I know anyone who would prefer climbers to privacy. 

I work in property, so I know if there's a builder interested in buying council land (like Lorry Park), the have to consider what's the land being used for before the sale and proposed used

Yes sure, but it was council land (they had the travellers site there) so the use of the land for recreation (climbers) should have been considered before the sale. 

With the pressure on housing, the development of a brown field site both for cost and lack of NIMBY opposition, housing will always trump the needs of a relative few. I have been involved in many similar developments and in order to gain insurance rock fall mitigation measures must be implemented, usually netting. Catch fences may be considered, but effective modelling of this is very difficult as there are endless variables and developers and insurers don’t like uncertainty. One line off attack would to point out the reptile habitat within the boulder pile as I have seen slowworms and basking snakes here. It’s a pity there aren’t any newts, that always causes problems.

I can’t believe you’ve climbed at Lorry Park and not been astonished by the legions of great crested newts milling round the base of the crag, Phil…