UKC

This may have been flagged before but a proposed 55 metre rusty spike "celebrating her majesty Queen Elizabeth" has been granted planning just a few miles from Great Wanney crag in Northumberland. For a bit of context that's three times higher than the Angel of the North plonked on an isolated Northumberland hill visible for miles around.

Northumberland County Council rejected the proposal but it's been overruled by a planning inspector despite strong opposition from local people.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/nov/02/ascendant-embattled-queen-e...

What has really annoyed me this morning (and prompted this post) is that I spotted a photo of the artist climbing in the Cheddar Gorge so he's a bloody climber and should know better! I wonder what he'd make of this thing in the Peak District just next to Stanage or The Roaches.

The person commissioning it is Lord Devonport and quite Frankly if he wants a great big erection for the Queen that's his business but I shouldn't have to look at it.

Anyway if you want to find out more please join the 'Keep the Wannies Wild' facebook group.

Despite approval they still need to raise the money for this so concerted public pressure might just kill it in the water yet.

Jesus, that's bloody horrible. 

Whislt this thing is far from a good development, the area in question is hardly a shining example of a "wild" environment. Even the campaign group has a cover photo consisting for farmed fields... as for the bit which doesn't have field boundaries, it's an overgrazed and "managed" moor. Ecological disaster is already the norm in these places. 

I'm against the development of course, I just find it a little disingenuous to describe these places as "wild" simply because they aren't urbanised. 

Can'd disagree that it's a man made environment (as is most of the UK) but the context here is the history of the location. It's known as "the wilds of Wannies" and is mentioned in local songs, stories and histories.

I know there is a lot of local opposition to this from some contacts I have in nearby Kirkwhelpington.

The BMC have made some representation against it which is summarised here -

https://www.northumberland.gov.uk/NorthumberlandCountyCouncil/media/Plannin...

Apparently, the local landowner's legal team has said that it won't disturb climbers, "because they will have their backs to it when they are climbing".

Alan

This is the opposition Facebook page - https://www.facebook.com/groups/692227884581665/

Alan

I like the design but the location is questionable and I've no wish to have public money spent on such  obsequious stuff.  Although a monument to royalty above grouse-moors attracting people to get there in an unsustainable fashion does seem perversely appropriate! 

The plans are for 25,000 visitors a year in its 3rd year, but there are no plans for toilets, no paid warden and possibly no bin service (although that isn't confirmed).

The photo below is from the project website and appears to be the proposing landowner pointing at the hill from his garden. Makes it look a bit like a personal folly.

Alan

Seems to be private donations, from the public. That isn't 'public money'.

Like climbing, then...?

Neither of which means I'm in favour of the thing...

I realise I'm going to be in the minority here, but I quite like it.  It looks like it has a few decent climbing possibilities too.  Great chimney on the inside, slabby bit on the outside, sustained overhanging lay-backing on the outside. 

How close is it to the Wanney's?  (In my '89 edition of the NMC (front cover Bob Smith in red tights) it's "Wanney's" not "Wannies").  You suggest a few miles.  In which direction?  Will it be visible from Great Wanney do you think?

Not sure it'd much bother me.  Although I also quite enjoy things like the concrete plant visible from Stanage so maybe I have unusual artistic taste.

On the other hand I'm firmly anti royals, so maybe I find it objectional on those grounds.

About 2km

55m, so only needs a pair of 60m ropes - who's going to do the first ascent 😁

The art itself if fine tbh what really sticks with this one is a wealthy landowner going ahead despite strong local opposition. The size of the thing is not right for the area, it will be visible for miles and it's a massive finger to net zero plans during COP26. 

It is the very definition of a folly

The document Alan posted above has a map:-

https://www.northumberland.gov.uk/NorthumberlandCountyCouncil/media/Plannin... 5

In what way? If you're going to start curtailing 'non-essential' things, you're going to be giving up climbing, books, films, music, etc. anything that isn't strictly utilitarian.

It is. But then all art is a folly.

As I said, I'm not in favour of this thing, but if you want your objection to be taken seriously, your arguments have to be sound. If you start tacking on specious arguments, it erodes your case, as it casts doubt on your other points.

without descending into a pit of whataboutary: co2 emissions for the manufacture of raw materials, at 1.85 and 0.9 tonnes per tonne of steel & concrete respectively, really is to be taken seriously. 

the impact that materials, especially steel, have on overall worldwide co2 is the big elephant in the room. wacking up a couple of hundred tonnes of steel into a towering display of... something, will knock lifetime's energy saving, recycling, tesla driving dogoodery into a cocked hat.

1) It has very little local support
2) It involves dumping a load of concrete to make a car park on sensitive moorland
3) The access road is single track from both directions
4) There appears to be no provision for toilets or general site management
5) It is a picturesque and wild area that will have its character changed by a disproportionate increase in traffic.

And on the "it's just a vanity folly" thing - there are two huge and busy roads, the A68 and A696, that are close by and loads of little hillocks. Almost any of these would make far more practical locations from a business sense for this thing since they would have much easier access, however they wouldn't be viewable from his garden.

Alan

Those are all valid points, and the ones that should be put forward. That's exactly the point I'm trying to make.

As i said, I'm against this thing, and NOT trying to make an argument FOR it. I'm trying to refine and strengthen the argument AGAINST it.

Fair enough

Unless it's changed a lot, since I went many years ago , the Wanneys wasn't exactly a popular venue 

I like follies.

John

I didn’t suggest curtailing non essential things those were your words.
 

It’s entirely possible to produce art and sculpture that is not as CO2 or resource intensive. It seems like this lump of concrete and steel has been designed without any consideration for emissions hence my finger up to COP26 comment. It seems out of place in 2021.

From the second photo in the linked Guardian article, there looks to be a deep trench leading up to the main ironmongery. This appears quite a discreet place for a poo so perhaps toilet facilities have been considered after all. 

What would Her Majesty think!

I don't think this thing is good art, and would oppose it on those grounds alone. (But then, I think that the Angel Of The North is absolutely shite art - and others seem to like it.) However I don't see much problem with the above statement. Do people go climbing at Great Wanney crag for the view? Or because the rock climbing is good? I think people objecting to this thing on the grounds that it might 'spoil their rock climbing experience' are being a bit precious, and will be onto a loser.

In general though, what is the current British obsession with gigantism in art (the Angel Of The North being the original and most egregious example)? Just because modern technology allows you to build giant crap, it doesn't mean that you should.

I fully agree and I don't buy the rare animal habitat for managed moorland when its effectively an unnatural habitat which is a bit a of a monoculture and doesn't have a good variety of animals or plants anyway (and is particularly notable for not having many birds or mammals per area). Perhaps it is a carbon sink but a very unnatural one and so are forests. Better to reduce our reliance on carbon anyway.

Earlier thread about proposal.

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=706336

In my opinion it's a horrible eyesore, a tremendous waste of money and resources, and a vanity project that should have been killed long before now

Are you suggesting the two things are mutually exclusive?  That setting doesn’t influence the climbing experience?

That’s quite a claim if so

I am not claiming that at all. I was just reflecting that, since rock-climbing as an activity goes on in plenty of shitty quarries (or, indeed, indoor walls!), the experience of pure rock climbing can be completely divorced from any aesthetic values.

I haven't climbed at Great Wanney crag so I am not competent to comment on the specific case. There might (or might not) be good ecological arguments to made about the proposed artwork (which, as I have said, I would also oppose on purely artistic grounds) - in which case, let them be made. But any arguments made regarding its impact on the 'rock climbing experience' per se would strike me as both confected, and fairly lame.

Ok so if you accept that the setting of a climb can and does play a part in the overall experience then it’s a valid case and certainly not “lame”. 

The degree to which it affects a person’s experience is not for you to judge.

I quite like this kind of thing where it's a point of interest in otherwise drab surroundings. This is why the Angel Of The North is great, and why The B of the Bang was great before it fell down. A big flashy hundred foot art work is just what the doctor ordered when you want to people to re-evaluate a whole landscape, to experience art without having to go to a gallery with all that that entails. Big, in-yer-face public art is great, generally.

I quite like the look of this, divorced from the context, but I don't think it makes sense in the location (not that I know the area). The cultural context isn't my cup of tea either. Can't Liz just have a statue, or some sort of fancy tower in London, like other monarchs? I've got nothing against her, I think she's good at her job, but she's not exactly Einstein, or Turing, or Mozart is she? What, precisely, are we celebrating here? The Commonwealth, in 2021 - give us a break. 

I am not trying to argue with you. I was rather trying to suggest a tactical hint regarding how the various reasons for objection to the proposed installation might be viewed by others: after all, I assume you are trying to convince people of the value of your objection.

But you can take or leave my comments.

I certainly don't judge - nor do have I any interest in - your own personal experiences.

Ha! I never knew that. Good riddance to the f*cking thing!

The only interest to these modern colossi is the construction and the engineering - and, if they can't even get that right ...

Unfortunately that is exactly what other people will judge; the issues you are discussing are entirely subjective and personal ideas of what is 'a nice experience'.

The degree to which the holistic outdoor experience is appreciated differs from person to person. I happen to like the holistic aspect, but, as Rob points out, plenty of others really don't care about, or notice their surroundings.

The appreciation of art (and the landscape) is also subjective; some will think this thing is beautiful, and will enhance the environment. Others will think it is a pointless vanity project that defaces the 'natural' environment.

I guess you could argue climbing is an even better definition of one.

I'm not sure about what I think about it.  I no longer have any ties to the area (so it's arguably none of my business), but for many years did and know this specific location well (and not just from climbing).  As an art piece and installation I don't mind it.  I'm not even convinced it's a bad location for it. You mention local opposition to it, but I'm thinking there isn't a whole lot of locals in it's immediate vicinity.  What's the nearest significant settlement - West Woodburn?   Maybe a few tens of dwellings?  That must be a few miles from the site I would think. Will it bring visitors into the area to see it?  My views are the figures of 25k a year are a tad optimistic.  If it is thought that it would bring visitors into the area then I'm surprised locals (such as they are) are against it, given the economical impetus it would bring.  What are their objections and what do you mean by "local"?

The only personal objections (which don't really matter, I guess) are that it's being imposed by a land owner (I don't think land owners should be allowed to "own" such tracts of land at all (come the revolution...)) and that it's to commemorate a monarchy that I also think shouldn't exist.  I'm not sure that these two points are sufficient for me to conclude that it is, on balance, a bad thing.

Good luck on getting a decent outcome on it - whatever that might be. 

Will probably be a while before I'm in that area again, but have fond memories of the Wanney's.  I think the second place we went to as "independent" climbers, picking off the "classic" (i.e. sandbag vdiffs), my wife gleefully calling up "oh look, your only gear placement has come out" as I committed to the awkward crux on (I think) Jacob's Ladder.  Doing the magnificent Great Wall several visits later.  Freezing my fingers during a windy January visit whilst (unsuccessfully) trying to persuade my wife that it was an OK winter crag.

#jumpersforgoalposts, #nostalgiaisntwhatitwas

I have to admit that I sort of like it; the whole, brazen in your face f*** offness of it. Certainly better than all that awful vandalism masquerading as "environmental art". And I can't imagine it spoiling a day at Great Wanney, though I'd probably prefer a giant wind turbine for company.

I respect the views of those who don't like it though.

I think this was my point. Just because a person has a different outdoor experience to your own doesn’t make their case for objecting confected or lame as the poster above stated.

Yep I remember the thrill of hearing gear pinging down Jacobs Ladder on an early climbing trip too 😀

You’re right East Woodburn is the closest village and it’s not very big. For me the fact the area is so sparsely populated just adds to the case against.

Theres loads of info on the FB group on the local opposition if you’re interested either way.

If he wants to toady up to the Queen why doesn't he offer to put his pole in view of Sandringham Castle? I'm sure she'd love to see his erection every morning.

But it does make it moot as an argument, either for or against; you will have to accept that a subjective opinion in favour is just as valid as your subjective opinion against. If you start counting subjective 'votes', are you going to 'win'?

I hadn't heard of it before you posted. If my subjective opinion was in favour, I might have put my hand in my pocket to contribute to it, as a result of your post... (I'm not going to: long pockets, and not in favour).

I would have said the risk of a climber seeing this and contributing was pretty small until I found out the artist was one.

anglegrinder?

Looks like it would fit right in as some public art next to a motorway junction, but completely out of place up a remote hill.  

Hope it doesn't get built. 

Stick that tart Meghan on the top of it and wait for  a monster electrical storm.

Must admit, as a committed misanthrope, I agree with you there.  As I recall, the general feeling of isolation of this whole area (despite it being about 30 mins drive from Newcastle) is one of its attractions.  The risk of it spoiling that (from an entirely selfish point of view) would be a worry.

Might mosey over there and see what people are saying.

Going to have to get used to a lot of this in the coming years, along with many things getting renamed by the cult.

There will no doubt be attempts to rename even hills.

Round up the Monkey Wrench gang for one last hit.