UKC

Updated statement issued by Forestry England 30th October 2023:

"Symonds Yat Rockfall update

On 8 August a major rockfall took place from the cliffs at Symonds Yat Rock. Since then, we have asked all climbers to avoid using the area and the areas directly below the rockface. We have also had to formally close the public right of way leading down from Symonds Yat Rock to the River Wye.

We immediately sought professional ground engineering and geotechnical advice from a private consultancy firm. The consultant inspected the rockfall site and further parts of Symonds Yat Rock. As a result of this advice, we ask that climbers avoid Symonds Yat Rock and we will be keeping the public right of way closed for the foreseeable future. This action has significantly reduced the assessed risk as much as possible, as advised by our specialist consultants.

An estimated 20 tonnes of rock fell from the cliff face, and had it not been for the rock capture fence, the damage below could have been significant. The rock capture fence was in place for incidents like this, but the size of the fall was large enough to severely incapacitate the fence.

Why are we asking you not to climb at Symonds Yat Rock?

Since August, there have been further rockfalls and so, on the advice of our engineering experts, we have closed the cliff face to climbers. This is for your safety and the safety of others. A closure has been issued by Natural England (case number 20231000023) and this prevents public access. This closure is in addition to the public right of way closure that is also in place along the footpath leading down to the river.  At the moment, we don’t know whether another rockfall will happen somewhere else along the cliff face and without mitigation strategies in place, we can't take this risk. 

Our next steps will be to carry out a full survey/assessment of the whole of the cliff face, and to get the fence repaired or replaced. We will also look at further rockface maintenance strategies.

We will keep you updated as soon as we know more and when expected timescales become clearer. In the meantime, we thank you for your continued patience and co-operation."

Note: The closure agreed with Natural England has an expiry date of the of 12/04/24, however it is possible the closure may be lifted sooner or extended further depending on the findings of the investigatory work and the scale of any follow on work.

As requested by local climbers we have used the opportunity of these interactions with Forestry England to raise the question of access restrictions to nearby Coldwell Rocks. These discussions are ongoing.

Thanks for the update. Basically as was feared, this will be a long term closure on the spurious grounds of risk to the public. I take it the Natural England closure is legally enforceable?

This is a really frustrating situation; a precedent is being set whereby cliffs with any loose rock can be closed indefinitely to the public. This is not something we wish to be applied with any sort of consistency. Have Natural England released their rationale for approving the closure?

Thanks for your work and I know you'll be frustrated with this as well.

Ignoring a formal closure of CROW Access Land turns you into a trespasser. I.e. you are committing a civil wrong rather than a criminal offence.

Ignoring a formal closure of a PROW is a criminal offence under the laws used to temporarily close PROWs.

Is there any mechanism for the BMC to challenge/appeal this closure? It is entirely unreasonable to close the entire crag based on one rockfall in one small area and not what the majority of people want, even within FE I have heard.

I see it wise to adhere to short-term bans, to maintain good relations to regain access, however with long-term, or indeed permanent bans, at what point is it a fruitless exercise? Vixen Tor comes to mind. May as well gamble and politely leave if asked. 

Or rather, could it be viewed as Natural England simply banning access to negate liability? Think Goblin Coombe or Tirpentwys; where a 'No Climbing' sign is understood to be a mere formality.

I see from Symonds Yat latest ascents, people have been climbing almost daily since the ban, with numbers only tailing off lately with worsening weather.

What's the worst that can happen if caught? Surely, it's only trespass if one leaves upon request. It only becomes aggravated trespass if one refuses. 

I think that's considerably overstating things.  A group of cliffs, in a position where falling rocks could pose such a danger to others that a retaining fence had previously been erected to prevent this, has had a closure extended in order that assessment and amelioration work can be continued.  The only precedent that's being set is for Symonds Yat.

I thought that was explained sufficiently in the statement in the initial post.  Whilst you may believe this is a closure on 'spurious grounds', those responsible for the management of the location clearly don't.  If things deteriorate, if rocks fall and cause damage to property or injury to people, it's they who will have to answer for the consequences of their actions.  A little patience now whilst things get sorted out will go a long way to ensuring good relations once things open again in the future.

T.

That does kind of presume that it is climbers climbing on the rocks that have caused the rockfall. As far as I'm aware no one was on, or particularly near the rocks when they fell? 

The large scale rock fall that has potential to damage property is probably going to happen regardless of climbing activity. Sure the odd climber might kick off the odd toaster sized block etc, but I doubt that is the worry here?

Perhaps I could be corrected here but I thought climbing had always been banned in the area the rockfall had occurred? I’m sure any survey of any limestone cliff would show inherent instability!!

 this is intriguing, surprised nobody else has commented.

This is a very impressive collection of cliffs, and no houses underneath!

That was neither stated, implied nor presumed in what I've written but you might have meant the original post, of course.  But you're absolutely correct that cliffs are erosive environments prone to collapse, it's just that in many cases the timescale of that decay exceeds that of a human lifetime; the purpose of all this is to try to ensure that such a collapse doesn't cause one to come to a stop.

T.

Didn't seem much more to say, so just clicked on "like". Access to Coldwell Rocks would, of course, be very welcome

My (second-hand) understanding is that rockfall occurred around Yat Chimney (D), where climbing was allowed.

You may have been thinking of the small roped off area around Funky Gibbon (HS 4c), where there was an ominous loose fridge-sized block.

I hope the authorities understand that, without any climbers removing ivy on a regular basis, this invasive species will make even more of the Yat "dodgy" and bring down yet more large amounts of rock without anyone being anywhere near and without any warning. I would like them to be reminded of what happened at Cheddar when there was a blanket ban.

Did it get cold?

Sam's answered the first question.

I know of other landowners restricting crags on the basis of geotechnical reports following rockfalls elsewhere, so whether this instance represents a precedent is hard to say. I tend to agree with the poster who suggested that any such survey of a UK limestone crag is going to say the crag is to a greater or lesser extent unstable. It would be a bold engineer indeed who put his name to a statement that a crag definitely wasn't going to shed bits in the foreseeable future. Obviously landowners can't always distinguish between a reasonable caveat against a low probability event and a genuine present danger, even if a report is measured and well written. And equally obviously if a landowner is looking for a pretext to restrict they will almost certainly find something useable to that end in almost any geotech report.

My feeling from discussions so far is that FE and NE are following due process as they see it and aren't looking to restrict climbing in the long term. Whether the process they've set in train forces their hand though remains to be seen.

The CROW closure lists tree felling as the reason on the NE site ( https://tinyurl.com/3tdj26he ) and they have not to my knowledge released further rationale. However, to quote Forestry England "...this was just one of the reasons listed, as tree felling is expected to be part of the remedial works. It just so happens that this was the element Natural England chose to put as the reason." This implies NE support the other reasons for the closure put forward by FE, but I haven't yet queried it directly with NE.

It's worth remembering that a CROW Access Land designation removes Occupiers Liability for natural hazards, eg unquarried cliff faces

Cheers Jon. If your gut is that this is due process for the time being then thats good enough for me. Lets see how it plays out over the winter I guess.