UKC

Does anyone actually understand this situation, does disignating an area as SSSI have any effect on climbing ? and if so how is this applied ?

I know of a number of SSSI's where you can climb and also a number where you can't.....

In reply to Woker:

My understanding of the situation is this (I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong!):

The designation of SSSI has no effect on whether you are allowed to climb at a given site or not, as there are no, or very limied legal powers associated with it.
However, if the landowner doesn't want to allow climbing on the site, that would be be their perrogative. This is the same whether the site is a SSSI or not, but the designation could well give weight to the decision not to allow access.

I think the new countryside access laws are changing things. I think that by using these laws they will be able to designate all SSSI's as out of bounds for any activities including climbing. Or something like that. It's a concern with a lot of sea-cliffs.

In reply to Big C:
OK for instance if you then climb at the site can you get prosecuted under any SSSI legislation, or is it just basically trespass ?

In reply to JonC:
Yeah a lot of west Penwith (cornwall granite) is SSSI at the top of the cliffs as aparently rare plants grow up there.

Quickly get the weed killer out now ? (only kidding)

In reply to Woker:

No, I think there are specific powers in the new laws ie. not just trespass. Not sure what they are. Perhaps Tony will come along and cut your nads off with some rusty clippers.

In reply to Woker:

Again, my knowledge on this matter isn't 100%, but I'd say that SSSI status would have no bearing on the legality of access, so it would be basically trespass. However, I would like to point out that I wouldn't necessarily condone trespassing on a SSSI, as they usually achieve that designation for good reason.

In reply to the thread:

Check out this link:

http://www.english-nature.org.uk/special/sssi/default.htm

Gives general information on SSSI. My understanding is that designating something as a SSSI is a legal mechanism to ensure its protection.

In reply to Woker: "It is an offence under Section 28 P of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as incorporated by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000), without reasonable excuse, intentionally or recklessly to destroy or damage any of the flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features by reason of which land is of special interest, or intentionally or recklessly to disturb any of those fauna. A person found guilty of any such offence may be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20,000 or on conviction on indictment to a
fine." - see
http://www.english-nature.org.uk/special/sssi/sssi6.asp


English Nature says "Sites of Special Scientific Interest are notified throughout Great Britain. However, English Nature is responsible for identifying and protecting these sites in England. We achieve this primarily in partnership with SSSI owners and managers, and as a result the majority are in good condition and well managed."

They can and do intervene when the owner is, in their view, damaging the site - last year there was a lot of coverage around here about the ploughing-up of an SSSI on the South Downs.

Climbing is banned at least one SSSI in Kent because English Nature think we would progressively destroy unusual hexagonal rock marking (they are probably right...) and (I believe) recommended a ban to the owners. But there is nothing that says climbing is illegal per se on an SSSI.

In reply to Stefan Lloyd:

Conservationists have always complained that designations such as SSSI's, NNR's etc. although they identify important sites containin rare species and habitats which require protection, these desigantion don't actually afford the sites protection in law. Hence the case on the South Downs you mentioned.
Perhaps the new legislation that JonC mentioned addresses this, does anyone know if this is acually the case?

In reply to Woker:

I think Stefan's commnet says it all, really. Some of the local sandstone SSSIs here are designated due to unusual rock structure, but more are due to being a habitat for rare ferns and mosses. If climbing ( or gardening of routes) is likely to destroy these plants, then climbing's likely to be banned or at least restricted.

In reply to Rob Naylor:

But as Big C says, these sites don't actually have any legal protection under the current(?) legislation. Just because a site is SSSI it doesn't mean it is any better protected than anywhere else. The only protection is that which is afforded by the landowner in allowing / not allowing access to the site or parts of it.

OK this is very confusing. But what your all saying I believe is that if the area has an SSSI status and your activity in that area destroys or damages specifially the reason for that area being given an SSSI status your in big trouble otherwise your not. So forinstance climbing rock on a site which has SSSI status for hexagonal rock markings is fineable, whilst climbing rock on an SSSI area which has it say because of the precense of nesting rare birds off some way in a tree is fine.....

"It is an offence under Section 28 P of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as incorporated by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000), without reasonable excuse, intentionally or recklessly to destroy or damage any of the flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features by reason of which land is of special interest, or intentionally or recklessly to disturb any of those fauna. A person found guilty of any such offence may be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20,000 or on conviction on indictment to a fine."

In reply to Woker:
>> "It is an offence under Section 28 P of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as incorporated by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000), without reasonable excuse, intentionally or recklessly to destroy or damage any of the flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features by reason of which land is of special interest, or intentionally or recklessly to disturb any of those fauna. A person found guilty of any such offence may be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20,000 or on conviction on indictment to a fine."

OK, the legislation you have just quoted is the Wildlife and Countryside Act, as you are no doubt aware.
This is a separate issue to SSSI designation. Having said that, if you were prosecuted under this Act, the fact that you were on a SSSI at the time would likely be used as proof that you were causing damage to specific flora and/or fauna which would be listed under the designation for that site.
In short, you can't be prosecuted just for being on a SSSI, but you can be prosecuted under the above act if you damage it.

In reply to Big C:

yeah got yer.... Basically tho' the above paragraph was taken from a web page titled "Sites of Special Scentific Interest" from the following link, taken from an above post....

http://www.english-nature.org.uk/special/sssi/sssi6.asp

So yeah the designation of the site has little to do with the legislation, however once designated it's this legislastion which governs the site as the text refers the leigslation applys to that of " which land is of special interest", and is specific to SSSI's (or at least that's how I understand it now).....

In reply to Woker:

Something like that. Of course as with most legal things it's never straight forward and easy to understand, but hopefully we've cracked the gist of it now.

In reply to Big C:
Yeah that's good enuf for me to basically grasp... )

God one day law will be so complex that I'm sure the average citizen will not even know when they have or haven't commited an offence...

In reply to Woker:

Basically I think it all means that should English Nature consider damage has been done to a SSSI they have more legal clout than previously too prosecute.

In reply to AndyM:
with the new leigislation yet to be passed do you mean ?

In reply to Woker:

The situation appears more complicated than it really is because the SSSI designation is deliberately vague. This is to enable a vast range of habitats and geological sites to be encompassed using a single umbrella term; namely 'Site of Special Scientific Importance'.

However, each SSSI possesses unique attributes which have led to its particular selection and hence the range of actions which might consider to threaten the 'scientific interest' (or, to use the bureacratic jargon, 'Potentially Damaging Operations' (PDOs)) will obviously differ from site to site.

So it's not a 'one-size fits all' designation. Ploughing might be clased as a PDO on an ancient herb-rich meadow overlooking a sea cliff SSSI, for instance, whereas climbing on the cliff edge might not be. Generally speaking, there aren't many SSSI's where climbing is regarded as a problem, and when there are, considerable attempts are usually made by BMC or MCoS to compromise and accomodate both interests (eg bird bans).

Unless there is obvious and specific advice to the contrary (say, in the form of prominent signage) it shouldn't be a problem to climb within most SSSIs. It's the landowner who's normally more of a problem than a remote quango. When it comes to fears of prosecution, these are largely illusory, and more thoeretical than real. You would have to be knowingly and deliberately damaging the 'scientific interest' before action might be taken. Even then, agencies are often reluctant because of legal costs. A good (non-climbing) example is Scottish Natural Heritage's failure to prosecute a fossil thief who has systematically ransacked a SSSI quarry in Lanarkshire of its unusual fossil fish and flogged them to a museum in Berlin. They haven't even been able to get the specimens back from the Germans, let alone bring the villain to justice.

In reply to Woker:

No, under the CROW and Wildlife and C-side Acts

In reply to Woker:
Right then - I climb and I work for the Countryside Council for Wales and there's been loads of waffle here!
Without needlessly citing legislation:

To climb in a SSSI you need the owners permission (as ever, but this is a really good idea in this case - see below) and you would be wise to find out why the site is designated. That way you wont harm the "Feature of Interest" which incidentally is just as likely to be the rock you are clinging on to as the bird you have just annoyed.

SSSI's are designated to protect their "Features of Interest" be it animals, rocks or plants. A typical case would be a craggy bit of limestone grassland, with associated rare plants and insects. If an Owner or Occupier damages these he or she shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of up to £20,000.

Owners and Occupiers are NOT liable for trespassers or vandals. This means if you climb without permission on a SSSI and if you "knowingly intentionally or recklessly destroy or damage the special features on the site or intentionally or recklessly disturb andy animal notified as s special interest on the site" you could be liable on summary conviction to a fine of up to £20,000.

Got it?!

In reply to Woker:

I may be wrong.. but i'm sure i read somewhere that Almscliff is an SSSI??

Matty K

In reply to Mattyk:

That's because it contains a number of fossils:




Brian T







Sutty







Dennis Grey











oh now I am in the shit

In reply to jesscar:

I would just add that no climbers have ever been prosecuted. The key phrase is 'knowingly damaged'. This is probably quite a good disincentive to finding out why the SSSI is designated in the first place. However, even if you are keen to discover the wonders of our natural heritage, as our friend jesscar suggests, the agencies concerned are all uniformly hopeless at letting people know why they have designated sites in the first place - usually because they haven't a clue themselves. Maintaining ignorance of the 'Features of Interest' would probably be quite easy to uphold in a court of law if it came to the crunch. And before you accuse me of slander - I speak from personal experience, having worked for SNH and EN.

In reply to jesscar:

tree-hugger...

Mick