UKC

It looks like Masson Lees has been put up for sale:

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/local-news/42-acre-plot-countryside-q...

Not a huge surprise given access issues which have cropped up here over the years.

I thought it had recently been sold! 

Was up for auction last year but didn't sell, 

I know we said this last time, and there is a 0% chance of it happening as they are in chaos, but the BMC should buy it. 

Build a couple of nice eco houses on the adjoining land, sell those and the land they're built on then keep the quarry.  They'd make a tidy profit and secure climbing at Masson Lees for the rest of time.

Even with the 8% overage you'd only have to make £150k each on two properties and you're in black.  

They could possibly consider a crowdfunding effort as per Sirhowy Crag, however the financial risk of taking on the adjacent plot probably isn't smart while they have the current financial issues.

I am definitely not in favour of the BMC getting into the property building game and messing around getting planning permission etc, there is plenty of demand on the staff already. They might be able to make some profit, they might make a mess of it (not employing people with property development expertise) which exposes them to greater financial risk, either way it would distract staff from doing their core jobs.

But think of all the taxi claims they could between West Disdbury and Mason Lees,  they'd snap that up in the blink of an eye

I think the nearest the BMC should get is to look into possible options for splitting the quarry from the rest of the land sale. I have no clue, but it wouldn't surprise me if taking on an old quarry was seen by farmers as more of a liability than a benefit, and being able to buy the agricultural land without the quarry might even be more attractive to potential buyers. If the BMC were to offer to take on the quarry only , it's possible that the seller may not insist on a high price for it.

Seems a little harsh in the light of their fairly speedy and well-supported campaign for Sirhowy (even if it's so far been unsuccessful, for reasons outside of their control). There are big organisational and financial questions for the BMC to address but that doesn't mean parts of the operation aren't still very effective.

Nevertheless, as others have said, they should only get involved here if they can somehow keep it simple by acquiring the quarry alone.

Most of it isn’t my idea of secure climbing!

Yeah you’ve raised a really good point here, and whilst I would never advocate the BMC try to get in to property development, there are ways to go about this that could reduce the risk and resource required.

A joint enterprise between themselves and a trusted local developer who shares their values and vision would be a good solution.

Buying the whole tranche of land, getting an architect to design property, obtain planning permission on that, then selling off the portion of land that it would sit on could be another.

Of course none of these would be as good as the BMC, either via crowdfunding or other means, bought it outright without the need for development, but suspect there isn’t the appetite to do this?

You think? They don’t have an CFO, or CEO?  

That’s a bit of a limiting factor when it comes to making large financial decisions, and I wouldn’t want or expect any member funded organisation to take a decision like this under these circumstances.  

The comparison to Sirhowy is a bit of a stretch. The target for that is only £8000.

At £275k for 42 acres I would guess that there is very little chance of the land being usable for residential development any time soon.

Would Masson Lees be worth it? Its main attraction is its convenience rather than its quality. I feel there are much more worthwhile issues for which the BMC could be using its limited resources on

Fair question.  Dunno the answer.  

Although smaller in size are the routes there not at least as good as Horseshoe Quarry? 

It's certainly a nicer place to be and also has the added benefit of being a dry tooling venue, which is something not a lot of venues can offer.

A better idea would be to buy it and then quarry the remaining land in such a way as to create great cliffs! 

I'd prefer it if they got Lorry Park - at least the climbing there is decent, dry and doesn't keep falling off!

Exactly this! £6.5k per acre for grazing land seems pretty cheap which would suggest the quarry is pretty worthless so maybe the BMC wouldn’t need to offer much for that to be parcelled off (unless the land is accessed via the quarry?)

IIRC even agricultural land (in Cumbria, anyway) is about £10k/acre, let alone land suitable for residential development.

It'll be cheap for a reason.

Perhaps the fact that it failed to sell at auction last year, and that it's not even the sole "land with disused quarry" for sale in the Matlock area right now has had a bearing on the price...

This is all academic anyway, like I said up thread, there's zero chance of this happening. 

I know this is a well meaning idea but it completely misunderstands what the BMC is there to do. Its not supposed to get involved with property development or taking on enormous amounts of financial risk. Doing what you suggest in any of its forms would be enormously risky and absolutely appalling governance. The Land and Property Trust, which is the bit that occasionally buys crags, is a charity and has a responsibility not to expose themselves to financial risk. This is all explained in the Sirhowy thread. 

It kind of cuts to the heart of some of the issues with the BMC, people seem to expect it to be able to do far more than it actually can. 

I completely agree.  I didn't make the post thinking the idea had any legs whatsoever, just pipedreaming really.   Like I said, the BMC is in no fit state to take on any kind of major endeavour at all.

I also agree that this does cut to the heart of some of the issues of the BMC.  People do expect it to do more than it can, or does.  So there's two ways to look at this - tell members that they are wrong for wanting the BMC to be able to do more, or find ways of doing more.

Is property development something they ought to get into?  Probably not, but it doesn't hurt to day dream.

Members?  My feeling is that when people say "the BMC should do.. [whatever]" (invariably something expensive, risky and/or labour intensive), often as not it turns out they're not members, let alone members who are volunteering to get involved.

I have absolutely no hesitation in saying that we should be telling members (if indeed they are members) they are wrong for wanting obvious nonsense. 

There is no probably about it! I actually think it kind of does hurt to day dream, it just perpetuates the view that impossible things can be done. But thats another discussion. 

The rock seems unique among UK sport crags -- the mix of limestone and quartzite  makes for enjoyable climbing.

If the job of the BMC isn't to protect/ensure access to crags, then maybe the UK needs something similar to the Access Fund or Southeastern Climbers Coalition in the US where that's the purpose of the organization. Buying the quarry by itself if that's possible seems like a no-brainer.

I am indeed a member.  And if the view that securing climbing at a crag and at the same time generating revenue for the organisation is "obvious nonsense" is the majority amongst other members then I'm happy to be in the minority.  I stopped caring what people think of me a long time ago.

Well they've proven in the last few months that they're not capable of doing the one thing most of its membership expects and pays for it to do. Do people really have any illusions about their current ability?

What is the one thing most of its membership expects and pays for it to do?

Your idea for securing access and generating revenue was based on gaining a change of use for agricultural land, which is generally unrealistic. 

It's difficult, but not impossible.  The likelihood of obtaining planning permission in this case is aided by the existence of derelict ex industrial buildings mentioned and pictured in the sales particulars.  You can see them on google earth, just to the North of the path going into the quarry.  

Renovating and expanding those into residential would be much easier than obtaining planning permission on agricultural land.  Probably why the 8% overage for non agricultural use is included in the sales particulars. 

It's worth looking at the plight of Nottingham, Northampton and Croydon councils and their adventures in subsidising their core activities through "development" and property speculation.

This is a high risk area of business. The idea that my BMC subs should be used to speculate on development projects is total madness. This is an area in which cold hard, screw over their own mother, types can loose their shirts. I don't really associate the BMC with the cold headed commercial thinking required and this is a good thing.

Maintain a strong and capable access team within a financially sustainable business model. 

And you could also look at the London Borough I live in, Newham, which set up a successful property development company which has been transformative for the borough and is in the process of building thousands of sustainable, affordable homes for residents of one of the most deprived London Boroughs.

I'm not advocating that BMC go ahead and do this.  I'm advocating that the BMC should be the kind of agile, optimistic organisation that could look to appoint somebody, perhaps on a consultative basis, to look into opportunities similar to this, to see whether there is an opportunity for them to involve themselves in some way, commercially or otherwise, in order to secure climbing at the crag.  Perhaps via a partnership with an existing developer, agricultural firm, or perhaps via other means.

Access is one of the most important issues for members after all.  

I also really don't associate the BMC with any kind of commercial thinking at all.  And look where that's got them

which they have done

oh........

Consultants are famously cheap after all. I think you're hugely overestimating the chance of getting planning on agricultural land on the edge of the Peak District as others have said. The whole idea has the potential to be a complete money pit and the idea that the BMC should be entering into commercial arrangements with developers is absolutely 'total nonsense'. 

If you don't think the BMC should buy it then I guess I'm wondering why your post said 'the BMC should buy it.' Its nothing personal but I would consider this an obviously nonsensical idea and I don't know what it gained by floating obviously pie in the sky visions of what the organisation 'should' be. Its like saying I 'should' be a lot richer than I am. It would be nice but its not going to happen anytime soon! 

You're confusing employing somebody on a consultative basis with a consultant.  They aren't necessarily the same thing.

We've talked about the existence of derelict buildings on the site, there would be no need to build on the agricultural section of the land.  Do keep up.

I think the BMC should be the kind of organisation that should be able to look at this and, if possible, find a viable way of making it a success. 

TL: DR they should buy it.  But they aren't so they won't.  Which I also said in my initial post, but you've chosen to ignore that bit.

Yes how silly of me to have a positive vision for what the future might hold for the BMC.  The current, moribund culture of infighting, bickering and the status quo would be far more apt.

There are many many bun fights over what the BMC should and shouldn't be (god knows they have been done to death on here) but I really don't think it's controversial to say branching into property speculation is one of them! I mean they could probably make a fast buck investing on crypto or whatever but I don't think many people would think this a good idea.... I don't see this as much different.

Branching into property speculation is absolutely not what I've advocated here.  That's a total misrepresentation of my posts and you know it.

When land goes up for sale that has a popular crag on it the BMC should be the kind of organisation that should be equipped to look at the land and the opportunity to secure climbing and see what it can do on this front.  If the only viable option is to enter a partnership which includes development this should not disqualify the opportunity.

That's not the same as saying the BMC should branch into property development.

"enter a partnership which includes development"

Sort of sounds a bit like you are suggesting the BMC should branch into propery development.....

But yes I was being a bit flippant but TBH it's a silly idea!

I’ll take that!

Going even further left field, the BMC could sell their current building in Manchester and build a new HQ in Masson Lees from the quarried stone produced from the new cliffs they could make.
Not sure if they actually own the building in Manchester and they would also be homeless for a while.  Probably loads of other things as well that I haven't thought of... 🙄

Yeah that occurred to me too. 

Build a customer/member facing BMC visitor centre & offices with indoor training facilities for GB Climbing, exhibitions, events, accommodation, cafe, indoor walls, outdoor sport & dry tooling crag near to Sheffield where so many climbers live, all funded by the eventual sale of their building in West Didsbury, which will have ballooned in value since they bought it in 1995 (if indeed they did?).

Again.  Total pipe dream.  The BMC could never.  They haven't managed to build a website in what looks like at least 15 years.  A building would be just too much.

Weird to come up with yet another plan that's completely out of touch with reality and then somehow use it as a criticism of the BMC.

Wouldn't it be amazing if the BMC took all the capital they have left to Vegas, won huge at blackjack, used the winnings to buy a controlling stake in SpaceX and set up a Mars colony. They could use the proceeds from that to buy every crag in the country and set up a world-class wall in every town and village. Oh, and might as well organise the first expedition up Olympus Mons while they're in the vicinity. I bet they won't bother doing any of that, the lazy bastards.

Yeah - you'd have to go all the way to Yorkshire to get any choss like that otherwise.  Nothing locally.  Nothing at all.

A pipe dream isn’t a plan though is it? It’s not even a suggestion.

What’s weird is that the BMC, despite numbers of climbers rising in recent years, has a declining membership and is in a constant state of paralysis, with only various crises to show for the passage of time.

What’s weird is that an organisation that represents climbers, an activity associated with boldness, vision and daring seems so committed to the safe, the comfortable, the status quo of what’s been done before. 

I’m not criticising the BMC for not moving forward with silly suggestions from nobodies on internet forums. I’m criticising the BMC for having made absolutely no tangible progress in the last decade.

I don’t think that’s weird at all mate.

Completely setting aside the question of Masson Lees and daring property plans, I think your diagnosis of the ills of the BMC and your ideas of how they should operate are way off base. As a climber and a BMC member, I don't want them to be bold and daring. Staid and reliable would be just fine, that's all they should need to be to fulfil their key roles. Yes, they'll obviously have to move with the times to some extent and adapt to changes in climbing and society. But they're not a profit-making company and there's no need for them to have grand visions or chase constant growth at all costs.

Their current problems, which are significant, don't seem to stem from a lack of change but from over-optimistic growth targets, big spending in new areas, poor management of those new activities and some fundamental tensions between their traditional activities and some of the directions climbing itself is growing in. Most of the members would probably have preferred more of the status quo rather than bold progress.

Is the membership actually declining anyway? I was under the impression that it took a hit during Covid but was now rising again (just not as rapidly as the over-optimistic forecasts they needed to hit to make their spending plans sustainable).

Which is hardly unsurprising given the mismatch between salary growth and inflation over the last couple of years (which I think is pretty difficult to blame on the BMC!).

Fair as a partial defence, I think. I can't find the figures at the moment but if I've remembered correctly the targets required membership growth to be sustained at higher levels than it had ever hit in the previous decade or so of figures that were available, which should still have seemed highly aspirational even without general economic headwinds. Betting the BMC's financial stability on hitting those targets seems like it was pretty foolish to me.

If you want to see what the BMC is planning for its website in future take a look here:

https://hillwalking.thebmc.co.uk/

The BMC needs to become more commercially minded and manage it's finances better, from what I have seen on tech committee it is trying to do this by attracting members from groups who don't typically join the BMC and cutting the costs of its activities. Even if the BMC were in a fantastic place financially, any involvement with property development or other investments which require significant active involvement to achieve a return/ maintain value would be utterly inappropriate for an organisation like the BMC which is understaffed and depends on intermittent volunteer labour to make up the shortfall.

Oh, I wasn't criticising you, just adding some additional context explaining why it was so unrealistic.

Exactly this work was done in 2013 when Masson Lees was put up for sale at a fraction of the current asking price. A detailed crag acquisition report was prepared for the benefit of the Land Management Group which includes property and legal expertise. For a variety of reasons, including some covered here already it was decided that purchase would not represent value for money (even at a fraction of the current price) for the membership and was an unjustifiable financial risk for the BMC. Since 2013 the price has only increased.

Since I took over as officer I've had interviews with two sets of potential buyers and have an ongoing dialogue with the seller via their land agent. I'll keep working with the current and any future buyer to maintain access in whatever way I can. With previous potential buyers this included discussions around BMC management lease/licence arrangements for the quarry and/or designation under CRoW, as well as exploring all options for solving the parking problem which has poisoned relations with surrounding landowners and residents for years. 

Thanks for your reply and for this info. Great to hear that the land has already been looked at and assessed in this way.

If the figures don’t stack up, or the risk/reward to great then of course it’s right that the BMC step away from the purchase, and explore other ways of working to secure continued access, which I’m pleased to hear is exactly what you’re doing.

Despite what others may have said in this thread, I’ve not advocated that the BMC needs to become a property developer, I just want it to be an organisation that has the means and will to react in a variety of ways when these situations arise.

Given the high demand for new houses in this country, and the preference for building on brownfield sites (such as in or near disused quarries) I think we may see this situation arise with greater frequency in the coming years and I think it would be a great shame if the BMC weren’t able to be part of the conversation.

Thanks again for the reply and all the work you’re doing on this.

Just as a note, it's worth pointing out that climbers are not the only people parking there. I'm bringing this up because twice this summer I got there to find the parking absolutely swarmed, with people parked everywhere they are not supposed to, only to find me, my partner, and another party of two at the quarry. When we left several hours later, and after the second party left, there were still five cars parked there, including one literally next to the "do not park here" sign.

The reason I think this is important is that if the BMC negotiates specific parking and there are people ignoring it, bearing in mind that I'm not suggesting climbers are saints and aren't ignoring it, it's possible that it's also being ignored by parties that are altogether not in your circle of influence.

Good luck!

Yes, there are several footpaths intersecting and passing near the parking including the Limestone Way. The Masson Lees parking is an obvious starting point for a number of possible walks, especially if you don't feel like slogging up out of the valley. A fair proportion of the parking is always likely to be taken up by non climbers who may well have little knowledge of or interest in the tricky parking issues. The quarry is also the start or end point of a popular cave through trip, though the cavers are generally well informed about the parking and have been active in trying to resolve the issue.

The best long term solution from my point of view would be an area of field nearby becoming a designated parking area. I'd be happy for this to be pay and display. I've suggested this idea already, but not really made any headway with it so far.