UKC

Graham Adcock discusses the issues surrounding the unique and sometimes difficult access arrangement at High Rocks on the Southern Sandstone.

Whilst paying to climb goes against the grain for many climbers in the UK, Graham thinks it may be the best solution:

"A mass trespass suggested on a recent UKC thread would be doomed to failure - we're talking here about access to a garden not open moorland."

Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=2624

In reply to UKC Articles:


Very interesting article. Personally, I have refused to climb at High Rocks precisely because of their pricing. I think it's highly offensive to do that to what is essentially a 135 million year old piece of beauty!

And who called it a "pile of tottering choss"? Southern Sandstone has taught me how to move over rock better than anything else, and I prefer the style of climbing to the pure strength fest style I experienced at Anstey's Cove, or the skin-ripping razor-stone of Dartmoor!

Anyway, reduce the price!

Chris

In reply to UKC Articles:

Excellent article Graham, and thanks to you and the other "peacemaker's" hard work in negotiations with the owners. I hope people take heed. It would be a disaster if climbing in these beautiful private gardens is stopped by the thoughtless and selfish actions of a few.

In reply to Chris Ellyatt:

Nah, I've already paid for this year so it should be kept as it is.

In reply to UKC Articles:

It's good to make everyone aware that they should respect the access conditions for the sake of local climbers. However, this doesn't make it any fairer that honest climbers are being punished with a £10 entrance fee whilst any trespassers would continue not to pay.

Two thoughts
If the price was lower there would be less need to police it and no arguments - I've never seen any trouble at Bowles.

Have a big discount for BMC members and maybe we can repair his fence? Would be fairer on those of us who only visit once or twice a year and are already putting money into climbing venues on a national scale.

In reply to trouserburp:

I think this argument has been done to death in previous threads.

Whether we like it or not, this is the status quo, it is very fragile, please respect it and those who have put in a lot of diplomancy in getting the owner's agreement to it.

In reply to Trangia:

Yes but it's an argument that will continue whilst you have to pay £10 to climb at possibly the best venue in the South-East. It's easy to say you can climb somewhere else for free but there really isn't much choice

£45 season ticket might be great for anyone that climbs there 10+ times a year but does not really help the rest of us!

In reply to trouserburp:

Are you on the Area Committee? Would you care to get involved in the next round of negotiaions if you think you can do better?

In reply to Trangia:

I don't think I'd be a great diplomat.

If there is no prospect of reducing entrance I wish we were just outright banned so we could start trespassing

In reply to trouserburp:

Evidently

In reply to UKC Articles: Of course I am as gutted as everyone else at having to pay £10 now after people have abused someone's property/staff/grounds. I absolutely love High Rocks and I am a big fan of Chimney climbing so it would be without doubt a sad loss to loose access.

The article is really informative and reveals layers that I didn't even know existed despite following the events there.

As always the majority of us climbers owe a massive thanks to those that have done amazing work to allow us to climb on Southern Sandstone. Be that at a venue we have to pay for or not.

Sadly and shamefully I've never been able to get down to one of the days where I could have helped on gardening duty. They always seem to clash with work deadlines, illness or family stuff.

And thanks for the article Graham.

Question.

Is it possible to find out the cost of the repair to the fence that the owner incurred?

In reply to trouserburp:

Oh please just grow up. If you can't do that, then please don't mess things up for the rest of us....

In reply to UKC Articles: the bmc need to buy the land, simple solution.

Price increase due to the cost of repairing the fence! Im sure this is of course down to climbers cutting through the fence to gain access and totally unrelated to the 100m long length that was demolished by a falling tree.
Though im sure the owner has considered the deliberate felling of the tree by climbers to cover their entry escapades.

http://sbinfocanada.about.com/od/salesselling/a/priceincreasemh.htm

point 4. is probably the most relevant,

In reply to Good Business Sense:

Lets hope theres some route maintenance and the installation of lower-offs as seen at Bowles!

Great article! I live in Kent (near Sevenoaks) and am just beginning to discover the delights of Southern Sandstone. Originally from the North (of Watford Gap) £10 does seem a lot to pay to climb and goes against the principles of the spirit of UK climbing (I was shocked at having to pay £3 at Bowles for the first time), however we all expect to pay to climb at somewhere like Craggy Island for example.

We should definitely do all we can to ensure that the fragile access arrangement continues even if it means coughing uo a tenner each time. Simple solution, pay £10 - climb, don't pay £10 - don't climb (go somewhere else).

In reply to Gezzer:

Agreed, very good article. Having to pay £3 would I think be perfectly acceptable for High Rocks especially considering there is very little upkeep of the place, rocks or garden.

It's arguable that a lower cost would reduce the 'repairs' which from what i've seen arent going to be that costly as I think people would be more willing to pay a lower cost.

In reply to UKC Articles: People also need to remember £10 in the southeast is the same value as £1.50 up north in relative terms.

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:

God, I wish that was true!

In reply to trouserburp:

Or 5 times in fact (when you make a saving of a fiver).

I assume your maths and diplomacy are at the same level?

Si

In reply to SCC:

£9 a visit - wonderful

In reply to trouserburp: If you do not like paying to go into someones prvate gardens then I'd avoid the National Trust and English Heritage places as well.

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:

slightly different I'd say, on many levels. Also you obviously havent been too High Rocks, comparing it to either of those excellent organisations is a travesty.

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:
lol we all have to stop mid route to answer our mobiles "buy buy buy, sell sell sell, bingo bango another cool £20m in the bank"

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:

Well if it was just the £3 that he charges to access the private gardens I could probably live with that. It's the extra £7 to climb which is extortionate and means I am probably never going to climb there again.

In reply to UKC Articles: hiya does paying the £10 to climb mean that the landowner is responsible for the anchors maintenanc, general safety, signage etc etc (btw I never climbed there or realy have much desire but just interested, is there bolt belays for top roping or is it trad anchors and who pays for and maintains these?)

if you are paying to climb surely that exposes the landowner to more liability in terms of law due to the presumption that there is a higher duty of care, and therefore more risk in terms of liability & law suits?

In reply to UKC Articles:
As much as people may moan, groan, argue - it's privately owned land and whether it's because he's really hacked off about damage to his property or whether it's because he's in it for the money, he owns it and there's nothing we can do about it other than trust that the good people of SS will continue to negotiate with him and support them by obiding by the rules he lays down regarding entering his private land.Whoever said there not climbing there out of some kind of protest (which i'm sure the owner of the HR really couldn't give a sh*t about) your missing some of the best climbs in the SE, get over yourself.

In reply to monkey_moves:I beilieve the BMC have a statement about the inherent dangers involved in climbing and you personal liability.

In reply to monkey_moves:

There are no extra provisions for climbers, you get the same, if not less than visitors at least they get a little map!

In reply to clgladiator:


Obviously a lot of work has been put in to get access to this place. The amount of effort that has been put in though, should not be used to guilt-trip people who (in my opinion rightly) refuse to pay to use natural outcrops and wish to trespass. In my eyes a cliff with a £10 entry fee is as bad as a cliff with no access arrangements. I can't believe people think that we, as climbers have anything to loose at this crag.

I really quite like high rocks, as it has some really nice easy bouldering. I can understand the owners frustration, but £10 just seems too much and looks to me like they are taking advantage of the shortage of rock nearby. It is also not penalising those damaging the fence, but instead penalising those who don't, which seems perverse.

I think I am generally against charging people for access natural features, be they waterfalls, rock or anything else unless:

1. The owners have done something to make the feature accessable or safe. or
2. Numbers need to be limited to protect the feature

I don't think either really applies in this case, and I'd much rather see the rocks owned by a not-for-profit group like the National Trust.

Hopefully they will eventually realise that charging higher fees just lowers their profit to no advantage and put them back to more sensible levels.

Robert

In reply to Franco C:

I think regular, local climbers should have more say in it than visitors. So whilst they are happy to pay £45 a year we should respect that and just not climb there. However I don't think anyone should delude themselves into thinking it is a good deal

In reply to trouserburp:

I suppose you're right, but I couldn't imagine paying for any of my local crags. Perhaps it's a southern thing?

In reply to Franco C:

I think there is a difference in attitude - I take pleasure in donating at Harrisons! (not a tenner)
also there is a small but significant difference between a crag in privately owned moorland and a crag in privately owned gardens.

In reply to UKC Articles:

Brilliant news about the restoration of evening climbing though - thanks for your efforts everyone.

In reply to Franco C: Wait till you've got to drive three hours to get to the nearest other crags... in that situation you'd put your ethics aside and do everything possible to keep what little rock you have climbable upon. It might not seem we have anything to lose, but why not listen to people who actually live down here and really, really want to be able to climb at High Rocks?

Sorry Franco usually you are good value but you're way out of line on this one.

By the way, could you please email me your address as I fancy a bit of trespassing for fun and your garden sounds like the ideal place?

In reply to UKC Articles:

I find this whole issue leaves me with a lot of mixed feelings; the climbing is brilliant and I can understand the need of the locals to not want to lose it, but as for that greedy hotel owner, I think up to a point he's brought/bringing trouble on himself. £10 is a preposterous amount to charge for a days climbing. I fail to understand why he ever charged climbers in the first place. I think he used to claim it was for upkeep, but as far as I know nothing has been spent to benefit climbers, it's all been voluntary hasn't it? A garden it may be technically, but how can anyone own those rocks?
I will not be paying him while he is so greedy, although I don't agree with destroying fences/breaking in. However, if he does ever call a complete ban, I will then feel more justification in trespassing. I think he's been the real problem and I can only see it all ending in tears for everyone.

In reply to Franco C:

Maybe if they were half as good, people would pay.

In reply to UKC Articles:

Nice article Graham - and thanks for the hard work.

To all the foamy-at-the-mouth people complaining: can you not understand that the land belongs to someone and they have chosen to charge for access to it? If you don't like it, go somewhere else but *DON'T* bugger it up for everyone else please.

In reply to JJL:

Yeah we are, but can't you have a bit of backbone and admit that the situation has arisen through Mr. Greedy of Greedy Rockes Hotel being too greedy

In reply to Mark Sheridan:


I'm hoping that you didn't type what you meant because that reads as if you intend to climb there without paying (provided you don't have to actually break in) then feel justified when that results in a ban.

In reply to i.munro:

No, to clarify, I won't be breaking in, hopping fences or paying.

In reply to Chris Ellyatt : Very well said !! Why would you put your garden next to the rock's in the first place ??? Go back far enough in time and you'll find that one day someone just said " Right , i think i'll own this piece of land " it's as simple as that ! ,or they got someone to bash someone on the head with a very big stick !! It's 135 millon years old and someone own's it !?? What a funny species we can be , people starving all round the world ,world debt's , rainforest's being destroy'd ,the world's wildlife murdered daily just for our factory's,sky scraper's ,hotel's or GARDENS ! all this just for are own benefit and then to think anyone of us has the nerve to say WE own it !?

In reply to Mark Sheridan:

Sorry to be a pain but that's still just as ambiguous -can we take it that you won't be climbing at High Rocks?

In reply to seankenny:

Sounds like the BMC should contemplate buying it.

Also, was the crag ever accessed illegally for any period of time? You might have a case for it being a public right of way.

In reply to i.munro:
I won't be climbing at High Rockes under the present system. However, if an outright ban was imposed I would consider trespassing, perverse it probably seems. I think someone who is a custodian of of such an unusual feature of the landscape should show a bit more generosity, instead of hording it under lock and key because he 'owns' it.

In reply to JJL: IT belong's to him ? Did he buy it ? if so, off who ? GOD ? There's a lot of place's to make a GARDEN why doe's it have to be by the rock's ? why not just down the road in a feild ? Why, It would'nt be by HIS rock's then would it ! i dont mind paying his TAX's and would never jump or damage his fence ! BUT that's not the point ! will the garden still be there in 5000 yrs time ? what about 500,000 yrs ? Also ,,,,, there is no such thing as a weed ,just a plant in the wrong place ! the rock's where there well before any garden and will be there a long time after .

In reply to col-0ut-there:

Blimey. Ace rant!

In reply to Mark Sheridan:

No, not really. It's not a matter of spine or otherwise; simply that it's private land and we have no "rights" other than by negotiation, which, depsite a clear track record of it worsening rather than improving things, some folks seem intent on upsetting.

In reply to col-0ut-there:

Yes


Almost certainly


I don't know, but the land registry might be able to help you


There is no god, so, no.


Because that's what he wanted to do I guess.


I'm not much of a landscaper, but I guess the rocks provide a nice dramatic setting and some shelter?


Not if it was in a field, no.


Do you mean the price he has set for entry? I'm glad - though you seem quite worked up for someone that doesn't mind.


I'm glad

>BUT that's not the point !

I wish I knew what the point that you're trying to make *is*

>will the garden still be there in 5000 yrs time ?

I dunno.


I dunno


If you say so!


Probably.


Hope that helps.

J

In reply to UKC Articles:

Will the owner miss the income if climbers stop climbing there altogether? If not then you're screwed and climbers should respect any arrangement the locals have in place with regard to climbing there.

If however the owner would miss the income generated by climbers then what are you waiting for? All climbers stop climbing there until such time as he is willing to reduce the price to a reasonable amount.

In reply to Franco C:

Franco, rights of way by habituation need 20 years (I think; might be 30) of documented and unchallenged use. They're quite hard to get agreed.

In reply to JJL: Yeah i'm all right jack , i can afford £10 a pop , never mind everyone else who's just lost there job or have 5 kid's e,c,t. I'm sure your head will be firmly in the sand untill it's closed for ever ! then you'll have that foamy-at-the-mouth look all over you !

In reply to JJL:

I don't know whether or not people are actually 'intent' on messing things up, but c'mon £10 to use something that's already there; he asking for trouble surely. And maybe some of the locals (and I recognise all the excellent work and efforts they've put in) are being a bit blind to this £10 insult in their desperation not to lose the Rockes, which I guess is pretty understanable.

In reply to col-0ut-there:

Um, no. I'll happily pay. I think it's unlikely that me doing so will result in it being closed forever.

Maybe sell one of your kids?

In reply to JJL: See you at Harrison's when it close's then or will you have your head in the sand too ?

In reply to JJL: Funny word unlikely ! they said unlikely about closing the welsh slate and taking all the bolt's out , guess what ! like i say £5,£10,£20 , you pay your money add it all up when it close's and let me know ,i fancy a laff !

In reply to Mark Sheridan:

Fair enough - "intent" is the wrong word. But some UKC folk have a habit of being rude to people and it back-firing on the community as a whole (GO wall; Fairy Cave; Craig y forwyn; Vivian quarry; High Rocks....)

We might not like it (and, to be clear, I think it's too much) - but you get long-term access and concessions by behaving responsibly not by winding the owner up.

In reply to col-0ut-there:

Matey, it'll only get closed if people act stupidly. You've said you're not going to; I'm not going to - so it should be fine.

In reply to col-0ut-there:

The welsh slate access issue was very bady inflamed by people ignoring the access guidance - big groups and breaking fences.

You appear to be advocating the same thing here and expecting a different result.

As I say, I don't think me turning up and following the access arrangement will do any harm; I think your approach will do a lot of harm.

In reply to JJL:

I think it's about 20. That's why I asked what the arrangement was before.

I have also had a think about what I would do if I was in the situation of having no other climbing for three hours:

I would go and meet the guy personally. Attempt to get very cheap access or indeed free access for climbers. If it cost £10 a time I would trespass. That is an honest answer. £10 is a total rip off and many climbers I know could not afford that.

In reply to JJL: It's very different though, as there was realistically far more FREE climbing very close by, which could be climbed on.

In reply to Franco C:


Credit for honesty - but that would be irresponsible and jeopardise access for others.

In reply to JJL: I think it would be irresponsible for richer climbers to try and make me feel guilty for not being able to afford an overly-high fee.

In reply to Franco C:

Not sure what this is referring to Franco? Are you saying that up by you you'd just switch venues if a crag had access charges? If so, I agree. And, at £10 for High Rocks I'd probably go to Stone Farm....but what I *wouldn't* do is cause a problem for those that did want to carry on climbing at HR.

In reply to trouserburp:


Well don't go then.
Or go more often.

Either way, don't f#ck it up for others that want to keep access by being selfish.

In reply to JJL: I was refering to the slate.

In reply to Franco C:

You could ask Graham if, in the next round, he can try for a student/unemployed discount. Of course, Graham would only have any chance of that if we haven't wound the landowner up.

Alternatively there's other venues. Just because London hasn't got a really good open crag nearby doesn't mean climbers get to dictate to landowners how they should or shouldn't manage their assets.

In reply to Franco C:

But franco *all* the crags in my list have alternates within a few miles, including sandstone.

And you have to pay for parking at almost all of them - chrging for access in one form or another is nothing new.

In reply to JJL:

In addition to the points you've raised, if the owner gets so wound up that he bans climbing then the opportunity to negotiate a more reasonable (cheaper) access agreement will be lost.

In reply to Franco C:


It's not a Southern thing. It's a property thing.I don't think this makes it right. But it makes it his property and he can do what he likes.

I am still really curious to know what the financial cost is to the damage his had had to repair. Are we talking thousands? Does anyone know?

I've seen two holes in the fence. Were there more?

In reply to Franco C:
London people appear to be made of money.

In reply to UKC Articles: High rocks has some of the best bouldering in the country in my opinion. But when ever I went to the hotel to pay, they were always very rude and made you wait a long time for no apparant reason. That really soured it for me. When the price went up, I stopped climbing there. the climbing is good but I agree with all the comments that it is the honest climbers who are getting insulted by this greedy person.

In reply to SCC: What will be the happy limit for those willing to pay £10?
£20? £30?

In reply to Al Evans:

I'd be more interested in the happy limit for the season ticket holders? High Rocks could eventually have the first gold-plated fence in the country. Mister C could put another fence around and charge entry to look at his fence.

In reply to John P: Or maybe a dog patrolled electrified fence with gun mounted spotter towers.

In reply to UKC Articles:

I have many happy memories of running around and playing at High Rocks with my cousins when we were all kids. I've also been there, years ago, and climbed properly, when it was about £3 to get in, which I thought was a fair price.

Whether you like it or not, the fact of the matter is that it is private land, you do not have any "right" to use it and the owner can charge whatever the hell he likes for access to his land.

That said, I do object to the honest climbers now having to carry the can for repairs to his fences, which I'm sure are not just caused by other climbers sneaking onto his land (any climber worth the name should surely be able to get over a fence without damaging it?). You get all sorts up there on a summer evening.

In reply to Franco C:

That's very honest Franco. However what would happen then is that the landowner would close High Rocks and you'd be without a quality crag nearby. It would be great for you, you're only 19 and at that age I didn't realise my actions had consequences either. But for everyone else it would be an entirely predictable and major league pisser.

You still haven't sent me your address for my evening's trespassing!

In reply to UKC Articles: I don't really understand why anyone would pay to get access to this crag (a couple of quid maybe) when Eridge green rocks, Bowles rocks, Harrison's and others are nearby and all but one a free, and Bowles is a lot more affordable. Lets face it, if the Land owner gave free access to climbers then they wouldn't be breaking the fence, not that I'm saying two wrongs make a right, how ever I understand legally the land owner isn't wrong but morally, thats a different question. I doubt he himself gets any pleasure out of climbing the rocks so just wants to charge others for the privilege. Nice way of bumping up his income. Also when I've been, prior to this latest price hike I've found that the staff were rude, and took a very long time. If you're going to charge for access I expect to be treated like a paying customer, I am. I don't have the money to shell out £45 a year for one crag or £10 a go, I'm a student, and my only work is in a volunteer capacity.

In reply to seankenny:

Do you not realise the consequences of paying the £10?

In reply to Franco C: Spell them out to me...

In reply to seankenny:

Well for one, the reason traditionally the BMC have been against it, is that it could lead to all landowners thinking its a good idea!

In reply to Al Evans: Yeah that's the obvious risk. But given that people have been paying for access to High Rocks for a long time, and the practice hasn't spread, then I think we are on safe-ish ground. After all, how would other land-owners get to hear about what goes on at High Rocks?

Also the SE of England is quite different to the north and west where most of our crags are. It's very very crowded, and people tend to have a much more mercantile attitude.

I know it's really tough luck to the people who live down here and can't afford it, but then I can't afford to do all the climbing trips I'd like either...

In reply to Al Evans:

If the owner is purely in for profit they will be able to work out the optimum profitability point. It's still cheaper than the Westway...

Parking at Saunton Sands (down near Baggy) is over £6 a day now....

3 pints of beer is iover £10 now (round here anyway)...

I think we (climbers) need to understand that free access is a slightly unusual privilege and that most people that own assets that others want to use do charge for it - fishing in rivers, launching boats down slipways, tennis courts, looking at caves etc. It's nice for us, but we have no leg to stand on really to make people give it away free.

In reply to JJL:
>

Excellent point very well put.

In reply to JJL:

And therein lies the slippery slope.

In reply to Mike Highbury: Agreed.

The stupidity of increasing the fee to £10 in response to people jumping the fence is that it doesn't hurt those who jump the fence, plus it may encourage more people to do so.

The owner would probably do better to foster good relations with climbers and encourage them to go for drinks/food in the pub...

A sad situation all round.

In reply to Mike Highbury:
>

Why do you think that?

High Rocks has been charging climbers to use the Rocks certainly since I first went there in 1960, and I understand prior to that. Why, if in half a century, it hasn't led to a rush of other privately owned rocks charging, should the situation change now?

In reply to Trangia: Why shouldn't it? Because climbers and walkers have traditionally opposed it.

In reply to MJH:
To be fair, the owner is a fairly friendly chap, he's just annoyed that his fence gets flattened by local youths going in to drink, smoke and those things that folk do in the country. Also, I have scant evidence for this but doubt that even half of those climbing there pay the entrance fee and as the visible few, they get the blame.

After leering at the bridesmaids who cross the road for the wedding photos, dare we?

In reply to Al Evans: I'm opposed to paying for access - if we were being asked to pay for going to Stanage I'd be on a mass tresspas in a second. But High Rocks seems like a special case to me, and one that has very little influence on the rest of British climbing.

Now where's that Cookson boy? He's backed right down out of this argument

In reply to JJL:
It's still cheaper than the Westway...
Is it? I haven't been for a bit, but it can't be much cheaper. The point is that the Westway must have cost countless thousands to build, costs a lot to run etc., has all the other facilities that come with it. The outcrop at High Rocks has not been built (as such) and as far as I know costs nothing for Mr. Greedy to maintain. The comparison with the Westway might just be the best possible example of how unutterably preposterous and greedy the charge of '£10' actually is.

In reply to Trangia:

I'm pretty agnostic about High Rocks and the charges but, as Al says, broadening this and expecting me to express gratitude to other land owners is to rather miss the point about CRoW and stuff

In reply to Mark Sheridan:

Are you familiar with the set-up? It's the hotel garden and it used for wedding receptions and photos. Other visitors are charged to wander round, marvel at nature and make flattering comments to bare chested climbers.

In reply to seankenny:
Maybe the point we should be considering is whether or not a feature like High Rocks should be 'allowed' to be owned by anyone. The fact that it is in the south east means we all tend to think that because of the overcrowding that it's acceptable for the Rocks to 'inhabit' someones 'garden'. Maybe the ideal thing would be a change in the law to mean that unusual natural features, like High Rocks, can be enjoyed by everyone free of charge, even if it meant footpaths/rights-of-way going across someone like Mr.Greedy's land.

In reply to MJH:


Agreed. High Rocks is on private property, and in that respect, I believe that we should abide by his wishes. Let's face it, £10 is still a pretty cheap day out. But, I think that he would be more successful if the £10 included a free pint at the bar at the end of the day. Once he has climbers already in the bar for their free pint, they are more likely to drink another pint (at least!), putting more money over the bar. A win-win situation!

In reply to Mike Highbury:

I can assure you they would be more likely to complain to the management if I was hanging around the crag bare-chested.

In reply to UKC Articles: I think its a tragedy. Making people pay for using nature, how can you justify it. Nobody should own crags/rivers. Its exactly the same in Kayaking where a company think they 'own' a patch of river. Its ridiculous to even think that way.

If someone was saying 'please donate to help keep the rock and area tidy' then that would be a different story, and I can guarentee you a fair few climbers would be more than happy to oblige.

In reply to Al Evans:
>

And the sucessive owners of High Rocks have traditionally charged it!

Look, I don't particularly like paying to climb (but I'll fork out £6 to £8 to climb at a wall!), but there is nothing new about this, the owner of High Rocks really doesn't give a toss about walkers and climbers "traditions" any more than I suspect we are interested in Licenced Victullars "traditions". It's his business and private garden and as JJL has so aptly pointed out there is nothing we climbers can do about other than accept the long standing situation and avoid antogonising him further.

Breaking in, as suggest by some, is not a sensible option as it will tarnish climbers' reputations, if taken to court we would lose. More seriously we would lose even paying rights of acess. This isn't Kinder. Open access rights do not extend to private gardens.

Also to keep on whinging about how hard done by the climbing community is by this deal is, I suggest, rather insulting to the efforts Graham and the other representatives have put a lot of hard work into these delicate negotiations which have a least brought us some concessions. They remain fragile, so to those of you advocating trespass don't spoil it for the rest of us. Accept the status quo, and if you don't like it go somewhere else.

In reply to tasmat: Its only cheap for you because you never cover the cost of the diesel to get there!!

In reply to jam46: That's because I am a cyclist, and it is against my religion to pay for your diesel. Besides, my company should be reward enough in its own right!

In reply to Trangia:

I think your missing the point, which is, discussion. By implying that those of us who don't like the set-up are 'whinging' does not mean you've just won the argument through supposed maturity, aloofness or wise acceptance of the situation. I might well then, interperet your position as being one of unprincipled and pusillanimous acceptance.
There are plenty of people posting on this subject who just feel instinctively that it's wrong to charge such an insulting entry fee. Maybe Graham and his friends should just tell him straight; £10 is unacceptable and is a ticking timebomb. I'm not saying I'd be any different, but the fear of losing something can end up being a recipe for staying dumb when one should be speaking out.

In reply to Mark Sheridan:
>

It is whinging because it is not a new subject and the access arrangements and to High Rocks have been a subject of discussion ad nauseum for many years now. No one has been injecting anything fresh into this one. At least Graham and the others have done something to salvage a deteriorating situation. To suggest that you might have got a better deal is arrogant, because you were not there, or were you?

In reply to Mark Sheridan:

Yeah for us, not for him. If we lose access we have lost out, the land-owner patently doesn't care whether we are there or not. So we might as well act in a way that makes sense for us.

In reply to Trangia:
This isn't Kinder. Open access rights do not extend to private gardens.

But that's exactly what the landowners thought about the moorlands before the access protests.

In reply to Mark Sheridan:

I get the impression that you're missing the point. The owner is under no obligation to make access available to climbers. It's a private garden, and if he wanted, he could do what most other owners of private gardens do, which would be to close it entirely to everyone other than wedding parties. Is that really what you want?

In reply to tony:

Like the moors until we changed the thinking, why is the SE different to the north, because they accept it.

In reply to Al Evans:

In that case I sem to have missed the mass trespasses onto Edinburgh castle rock, or is that too far North?

In reply to JJL:

Absolutely 100% correct!

In reply to Al Evans:

So at what point does someone have 'privacy rights'? When you are standing in their bedroom?

In reply to i.munro:

The point is, why would anybody want to do that, is it that important in Edinburgh or not. People are not paying to climb on Edinburgh Rock presumably because they either don't want to or are not climbing there anyhow.

In reply to ClimberEd:

And that is the question, but he doesn't want privacy rights, he just wants people to pay for them.

In reply to Al Evans:

The payment bit is irrelevant to my point - I'm saying at one point does someone have control over who comes onto their property? At their bedroom? At their front door? In their parkland? Across the whole of their estate?

It can't just be a free-for-all for anyone to go anywhere, otherwise what is the point of ownership.

In reply to Al Evans:

People are not climbing on Edinburgh rock because the owner doesn't allow them to.
I just picked one example out of, presumably, hundreds of others.

In reply to UKC Articles:

Interesting reactions - as I suspected there would be )

The price rises (1992: £1 to £2, 2003: £2 to £5, 2009: £5 to £10) have all been in response to the owner's exasperation at the poor behaviour exhibited by climbers. This includes cutting holes in the fence (which he has a duty to maintain for insurance purposes), Climbers entering by climbing over the fence, walking in through the front gates without obtaining a ticket from the lower bar and generally abusing the staff when they ask for proof that you (the climber) are in the grounds legitimately.

The regime at High Rocks has always been somewhat laid back and has relied on an element of trust between climber and landowner. The front gate is generally unmanned but signs make those entering fully aware of the access conditions and how to meet them. The trust element has been severely abused and it is no surprise that the cost has increased. It is the owner's way of trying to reduce the problems that climbing at High Rocks causes him. I agree that it punishes those who regularly abide by the access conditions more than those who don't. However, negotiating access against a background of continuing poor behaviour is near impossible. It is as much as we could do to maintain access at all and I firmly believe that access would have been lost had we not managed to keep a communication channel open which, to his credit, he has willingly done.

The first guidebook to include High Rocks was H. Courtney-Bryson’s “Rock Climbs Round London” from 1936. It stated that the entry fee was 6d (2.5p for those of you too young to remember £sd). That’s quite a precedent for an access fee. As I stated in the article, I don’t see it spreading. The argument about the ‘ownership’ of natural features and the payment for access to them is somewhat philosophical but in the real world, it is completely lawful. I have also been an active caver for the past 34 years and have often paid for access to wild caves (Swildons Hole, East_water Cavern, Little Neath River Cave etc.) and what about the show caves? Are these not natural features where payment for access is required? There are undoubtedly other examples.

I firmly believe that if behaviour improved, there would be a good chance of the price being reduced. The owner is not anti-climber. He is, however running a business and doesn’t like having the mickey taken. I believe he makes little or nothing from climbing; the rise in price has been solely due to behaviour.

In reply to Graham Ad:

Graham

Despite all the hot-headedness on this thread I, for one, do appreciate what you have done and am fully aware that it must be a frustrating and largely thankless task.

Hang in there!

J

In reply to JJL:



Me too.

In reply to i.munro:

And me. Thanks!

In reply to UKC Articles: Likewise. I love High Rocks and the thought of not ever being able to climb there again is hefty sadness. It was the first palce I ever climbed outdoors and has many memories for me.

Do you think the future going to be a total collapse Graham?

I suspect at some point the owner will just ban climbing and give up. I've met him at one of the New Years day Chimney festivals (which he must do quite well out of, £400 in a day?)

I take it you we never privey to costs he has incurred for the fence and man hours etc? It would be interesting to know what his turn over is from climbing in comparison to the abuse he gets. What figures are we talking about exactly?

In reply to tommyzero:


Does it matter? Really, does it? One may as well worry about how dusty one's car gets on a hot summer's afternoon.

In reply to tommyzero:

A 'total collapse' is, of course possible. It will depend, to a large extent on the behavior.


I guess you mean the CC/TWMC New Years Day meet. I wasn't there this year so can't really comment.


I do not know how much it costs to repair the fence or what his 'turnover' from climbing is but it's not really the point. If it wasn't broken in the first place, the situation would be different and certainly entry costs would be far less than £10.

In reply to Graham Ad:

£10 per day is a bit much, although at £45 the season ticket is probably about keeping pace with inflation from when it was first introduced. Hopefully good behaviour this year might get a reduction next year.

As far as I understand it the owner gets little profit out of climbers and other day visitors; most of his profits come from the weddings and other functions, many of which use the gardens/rocks. This means that in turn he charges other users entrance to the gardens/rocks in order to keep track of those there and, of course, to cover some of his costs. It sounds like his insurance company requires the fence to be maintained, hence him having to pay out for both insurance and fence repairs (sounds like a quirk of the insurance industry though as I'm not aware of the owners of too many other crags having to keep them fenced).

So any further instances of the fence being broken may lead to climbing being banned altogether. Breaking in/trespassing does not then become an option, since the pub/function venue is just across the road from the rocks and anyone climbing there would be fairly obvious from a quick check. And anyhow after about 12 months of no climbing (or only the odd sneak visit) the routes would quite quickly become green, mossy, vegetated and unclimbable, on many routes there it is only the fact that they are regularly climbed that keeps them in condition, along with the efforts of the Sandstone Volunteer Group.

In reply to Al Evans:

Spot on Al. If people went climbing there and caused no damage, then there is very little he could do.

In reply to i.munro: Pretty poor choice using the Castle as your example, situated over a train track and entering a barracks. Hardly in the same league as High Rocks is it.
(plus we Scots are too tight fisted to fork out when there are plenty of alternatives nearby)

In reply to Franco C:

That would be trespass and the land owner could use reasonable force to compel them to leave, he could request the assistance of the police to do so, the local police station is two miles away.

In reply to JJL: Genius ;O)

In reply to all:

A tenner to climb outdoors on sandstone eh? Doesn't seem like good value to me, infact that price is completely ridiculous.

Whilst i've never climbed at High Price Rocks, I'm hardly encouraged to ever do so. Perhaps that is this crag 'owners' intention; An attempt to attract a better class of climber. Pigs ears.

If I cared enough about the place I'd advocate action with intent to change the law. Right of vertical passage anyone?

From far afield it looks like fragile egos worrying about their fragile access to fragile rock. No wonder SS climbers have no nuts.

By SS naturally I meant Southern Stockbrokers.

In reply to Graham Ad: Thanks for your efforts (along with the SSVG) and answer Graham.

I understand his repair costs are 'not really the point'. I was just really curious because it forms a large part of his argument. If he was saying it had cost him £50 to repair it then it's a very different situation to say £3000 for example?

Perhaps I should have been clear in saying that I'm not asking about this as a way of arguing back at his pettiness, despite the cost he incurs. Damage to his property is damage to his property at the end of the day.

In reply to Franco C: He could call the police. Or errect bigger and better fences which we couldn't climb over. In the end you'd have achieved absolutely nothing but posturing, can't you see that?

I think these kinds of comments are a bit risky as they might encourge people to do something stupid and so lose us access to the rocks. Franco, you're a keen youth with a sense of idealism - excused (tho perhaps you could use that crusading zeal on some social cause that would actually benefit someone). Al - you should know better!

In reply to looseblock:

FFS, posts like this are ridiculous.


Armchair climbers bleating on about their imagined universal right to climb whatever they feel like. The facts that would be immediately apparant if you had ever been there are that the crag is effecively in someone's garden. It is not open access land, it is not moorland, there is no right of access, and in the eyes of the law climbers would have zero right to be there if the owner chose to ban them. The landowner chooses to continue to tolerate climbing, despite climbers (among others) breaking his fence, insulting him and his staff, and impinging on his business, which is making money out of wedding parties by providing what they see as a nice scenic background to wedding photos - not enhanced by a bunch of sweaty semi-clad climbers who think they flipping own the place. Personally I think under the circumstances he has been very reasonable.

Personally I do think the £10 cost is a minefield, mostly because it is a red rag to idiots like you who have never climbed there and never intend to, bleating on about mass tresspass and changing legislation and then qualifying their posts with 'I've never climbed there, but...' - if you feel strongly, maybe get involved in negotiating some tricky access situations, eh, rather than pontificating to those who do?

And breathe. Graham - many thanks for the effort which has clearly gone into negotiating continued access for an ungrateful bunch.

In reply to plexiglass_nick:


second thoughts, please don't.

In reply to edinburgerboulderer53:



Chosen deliberately in response to the utter nonsense of the "if we can't climb for free then we trespass until we can" brigade. Off you go then. If you win access there you could gain a major crag in a capital city & an important precedent.

Out of intrest, how much money is this actually making him? £10 a go, close to London and some sumny weekends coming up, its got to make him a small fortune.

In reply to plexiglass_nick:

Yeah I have principles that I stick by and think this 'owner' is taking you all for a ride...

>Personally I think under the circumstances he has been very reasonable.

Does he provide free knee pads on entry?

While I'd like to see access to his gardens at a much more reduced rate. I'd still rather see continued access for fools and their money than a complete ban but I choose not to give him a tenner.

In reply to plexiglass_nick:

Thats a complete myth, it is not obvious that this is garden, it clearly isn't, it's the other side of the road and is a candidate for an SSI rather than a 'garden'.

In reply to Al Evans:

Well, they have been known locally as the High Rocks Pleasure Gardens since at least 1670 when they were visited by James II when he was Duke of York.

I wonder if His Royal Highness was charged an entry fee or if he climbed over the fence? )

In reply to Al Evans: I still think Al that all the energy coming from your personal indignation at this injustice would be better spent, say, writing letters for Amnesty International.

It's clear that those of us who live in London and climb at High Rocks, whilst not happy with the situation, are very happy it's not going to get worse and very pleased the situation has been stabilised thanks to the hard work of Graham and co.

In reply to Tom_Harding:



Very little I suspect. Twenty people is probably the most I've ever seen there & then I'd guess 5 will be season ticket holders paying very little & another 10 will have avoided paying.
More guessing but I assume his business as a whole takes tens of thousands on a sunny day.

In reply to seankenny:

Do you not realise though that for some people, a £10 entry fee might as well be £1000 as they can't afford it. It seems a very selfish attitude from a few proffessionals who can afford to pay £10 a pop and perhaps go climbing less often than others, to then say 'if you can't afford it then tough luck. I can'.

Beyond my personal beliefs it is a fact that at £10 it is unsustainable. Some people will not pay £10 to go climbing and hence you'll loose your access. You may call them selfish or whatever, but that is what is going to happen.

In reply to Franco C: Yes I do realise that, I couldn't have afforded it at one point either. (Look at my age. Work out what I was doing the last tiem there was a recession on.)

But it IS tough luck, this is the situation we have, and we've got to deal with it. Talking the talk about trespassing is irresponsible as some unthinking people might be encouraged to do it, and then we'll lose access. Again, not a big deal to you, but it is to others.

Incidentally, how would you feel if someone was on these forums talking about chipping one of your new routes? Robbed by stupidity perhaps?

In reply to Franco C:


Well the simple answer to those people who want to climb instead of work is to go and move somewhere where they don't have to pay to climb.


Yes, this will not bother the person who owns the rocks though.

In reply to Franco C:

A season ticket is £45, which if you were to go climbing once a week for every week of the year (which isn't a lot if you live locally and are properly keen) works out as 87p per visit.

It is the people who will go 3 or 4 times in a year who are really being stung by the price hike.

Also (as pointed out in the original article) there are plenty of sandstone crags in the area which ARE free. The access situation at High Rocks is delicate, so for those unable or unwilling to pay, perhaps visitng another crag is a better idea than jumping the fence.

In reply to seankenny:


I don't understand what your point is. I'd probably think they were a bit idiotic. If you're linking the idea of someone talking about ruining your climbing by trespassing, then it is utterly different.


And is there equally good climbing near-by or not? There seems to be some disagreement on the issue.

In reply to Franco C:


Well it depends what you define as 'good'. Southern Sandstone is what it is, you can't lead on it and needs a particular style that is not liked by some, but it has a cult following who love it and it has its place in UK climbing. There are a number of SS crags, the largest of which are Harrisons, Bowles and High Rocks. So yes, there are other SS crags to climb at in the South East but losing access to High Rocks (for many the pick of the bunch) would be pretty catastrophic. Other than SS the nearest rock is the Wye Valley, Portland or The Peak.

In reply to Franco C:
>> I don't understand what your point is. I'd probably think they were a bit idiotic.

Yes, they would be idiotic. And trespassing at High Rocks when the consequence is losing access to a really good (by local standards) crag is also idiotic. Both would be a loss.



Let's say for the sake of argument there is. Then it would be like saying "It's okay if Stanage gets closed, because there's Froggatt and Curbar just down the road."

In reply to Al Evans:

perhaps "grounds" would be a better description.

In reply to seankenny:

I was wondering about other local climbing for people who you say should not trespass at High Rocks, if they can't afford £10 a pop, but should go elsewhere.

I'd also say that around 50% of climbers have already lost access to High Rocks, by there being an entrance fee of £10. Would you say that people still had access to a crag with £100 fee?

In reply to Franco C:

Sorry, your answer is wrong and you don't get any marks because you didn't show your working.

In reply to EddInaBox:

This is a serious issue, don't rubbish it with crap jokes.

In reply to Franco C:

While I think the charge is over the top and I don't agree with it (the only reason I don't climb at High Rocks, despite it having some great routes) if the choice is to pay or to lose access, I think I know which is the better option.

If you want to get het up about access issues, why pick High Rocks? There are loads of crags throughout the country where access is banned for no particularly good reason.

In reply to plexiglass_nick:



Having said that High Rocks has never had more than a tiny fraction of the traffic that the other 2 get for a number of reasons. I'd guess much less than 10%.

In reply to Franco C:

It was a crap joke, but you missed the point, you just made up a number - there is no way you can legitimately claim 50% of climbers have lost access.

In reply to Franco C:
>

As Nick has said, yes there is some.


Actually, I'd say 75% of people climbing SS regularly don't want to go to High Rocks because most of the routes are quite hard. As for the money, well generally the south-east more affluent than you might realise.

Before I come across sounding like some Loadsamoney Tory boy, I genuinely feel for people who can't afford to climb there. It's not right. Hopefully the university clubs and others will club together to buy passes which let them sign in others for cheap. But I can't see an alternative to paying at the moment.

In reply to Franco C:

I think you should at least have the basic decency to go to High Rocks and climb there before you start using the delicate access situation there to make a general point about what you believe should or shouldn't be the case with crag access nationally.

You've not been there and don't appear to particularly care about High Rocks, so I understand you are having a rant on general principle?

Seriously, go climb there. With your sandstone experience and soloing ethic you should have a blast. It is a very delicate and technical style of climbing that I honestly think you would enjoy.

But I think it is out of order for you to pontificate about what should or shouldn't be done with delicate local access situations if it's not your local crag, you don't understand the facts on the ground, and it won't affect you if it does get banned.

In reply to EddInaBox: I'm not sure. It's hard to assess. But most climbers i've encountered would never pay/be able to afford £10 to climb on a natural outcrop.

In reply to Monk: I find most access restrictions appalling, but what I particularly dislike about this situation is not only that there is no good reason for not having free access, except to give some guy some cash (who apparently doesn't need the money anyway and wouldn't miss it), but that there are posters describing others as 'selfish' on here for contemplating protesting a £10 charge, when their only motives for criticising others is the selfishness of not wanting to loose access to the crag, as they can afford to pay the high entrance fee.

Both parties are selfish in selfish in this and the only way this could be resolved is with a dramatic reduction in fees.

In reply to plexiglass_nick:

I'd like to have a bash at southern sandstone. Looks good.

A couple of points about 'Access issues should be arranged by locals'. First of all, it has been posted on a national/international climbing website as an article. Second of all, I think everyone has a right to air views about every location. I don't 'own' my local crags any more than some chap from london. I might know more about the area, to give a more informed opinion, but in this case the situation seems very simple- The best crag in a large area is under the control of an individual who wishes to rip climbers off. Some climbers think this is ok, as they can afford it. Others no longer go there due to the amount of money he's charging.

Do you think it's right to stop people visiting this crag who can't afford to pay, just on the basis of keeping access for a select few?

In reply to Franco C:

Because I live over two hours from proper rock most of the climbers I meet could afford £10, after all they pay almost that much plus petrol costs to climb at the local walls.

What has been suggested previously in this thread is that it is the actions of those who don't pay that has lead the land owner to increase the prices to the levels they are currently, this leads me to the conclusion that the criticisms of those who don't pay are entirely legitimate, they didn't pay when they could afford it and screwed everyone else over with their selfishness.

In reply to Franco C:


None of us like access restrictions


Except that in the eyes of the law, the landowner is within his right to charge for access for what is part of his business. Nobody likes it but he is within his right to do it.


Well apart from anything, it covers the cost of the property damage climbers have caused to his fence, which he has a legal obligation to maintain. Yes, the current system penalises those who co-operate and not those who have caused the damage, but you should be able to understand why he's not happy.

I think it was more described as 'idiotic' than 'selfish'


I genuinely think that losing access to High Rocks would be a sad loss to the whole UK climbing community, and I think it's sad that you would rather lose access if it meant winning an argument.

As I pointed out which you have conveniently ignored, a season ticket costs £45 per year which is less than £4 per month, which I think even the most cash-strapped of local climbers could scrape together if they were keen. In reality, climbers regularly spend vastly more on that in petrol getting to and from other destinations further afield.


The best way to secure a reduction in fees is by negotiating, and right now that means demonstrating that climbers can be reasonable, co-operate, not cause property damage and respect the access agreement and his staff.

For better or worse he has increased the price to £10 - nobody likes it, but currently the best chance for securing a reduction in fee is for climbers to give those negotiating on our behalf a bit of ammunition, by starting to respect the access agreement a bit and give the landowner some faith in the ability of climbers to be reasonable and stick to an agreement.

In reply to Franco C:

Well, that's one way it could be resolved. A complete ban would also "resolve" the issue, particularly for the landowner. Putting up with the status quo and avoiding antagonising the owner would be another resolution.

There is more than one way to skin a cat.

And yes, Franco, you'd probably love the climbing at High Rocks. I started up on the Moors so am pretty partial to a bit of sandstone climbing.

In reply to Franco C:

Wow. Have you ever been climbing in the Lakes, Peak District or Wales at a weekend? Most people seem to be rolling in cash (speaking as someone who isn't). Obviously, if your frame of reference is a student scene, I can understand, but you have to look beyond that.

Regardless, I understand your frustration at the situation but the Southeast has always had some very different ethics to everywhere else, and the choice is not between paying to climb and climbing for free, it is between paying to climb or not climbing at all. This is not a remote crag on moorland with open access, this is in an agricultural landscape next to a road and a hotel. There is no right of way, there is not even a de facto right of way. If you sneak in, you will be seen and ejected.

The fact that it is open to paying customers, means that those who can pay are not on the other crags that are free, thus making them slightly less busy. Also, the season ticket is not bad at all, but not worth my while for a couple of trips a year. And i think that you are being naive in thinking that people negotiating the access are happy with an admission fee - obviously they would like free access. This just isn't one of the options available.

I totally agree that responsible access should be free anywhere, but I can also identify that this crag is different. It is comparable to places like Eagle Tor, or some of the Peak limestone butresses that are literally in people's gardens. We don't have access to those either.

In reply to Franco C:


I would like to see free access as much as the next person. However, in the real world High Rocks is privately owned like many other natural features and run as a business. That is the 'good reason' for charging. The level of the access fee can be argued about. No-one would complain if it was £2 and, if behaviour had been better, it would still most likely be £2. Unfortunately behaviour has been poor by what is probably a small but persistent minority and as a result, the entry fee for climbers is now £10 for the day.
It is not selfish to complain about the £10 access fee. It is, however selfish to enter the grounds illegally on the misguided belief that it won't matter. If behaviour improves there may be some grounds for re-negotiating the access fee. The situation can only get worse if the offending behaviour continues.

In reply to Franco C:


Sure, and in general I agree with you, but I think it's reasonable to defer to those who are actually 'on the ground' doing the negotiating, who in this case is Graham. It seems reasonable to assume that he has the best grasp on the local situation and exactly what the concerns and demands of the landowner are. If you disagree with Graham, you can get involved through the SSVG which has a mailing list and has regular meetings - I think the next one is at Bowles. Seriously, get involved rather than moaning on the internet.


I think you're failing to grasp the basic point that the individual in question is currently pissed off at climbers as they cause damage to his property, insult him and his staff, impinge on his business (which is using High Rocks as a venue for wedding receptions, which see it as a dramatic setting for nice photos) paint the place with chalk and generally strut around like they own the place. Despite this, thanks to negotiation he continues to tolerate climbing.

As Graham has pointed out it's not about the money, it's about showing some basic respect.

As I have repeatedly outlined above, I don't believe anyone who is keen _truly_ cannot afford to pay for a season ticket, I just think climbers don't like it on general principle.

In reply to plexiglass_nick:

£45 is a lot of money for one destination. Imagine if you had to pay that for 5 local crags. I think what this thread shows is people's lack of understanding what £10 or £45 a year means to a lot of people. It's not peanuts.

In reply to Franco C:
I go up there at least 3-5 times per week and have been for the last two years, I see the same people up there all the time it doesn't seem to have stopped anyone. A few of my friends are or have been brassic but have always managed to pay, or if it's been desperate we've gone to Bowles. It really is a case of people making a mountain out of a mole hill, the owner doesn't make a great deal of money out of the HR climbing, certainly not in comparison to what he makes in the HR functions, the Wellington Hotel that he leases to Travel Lodge and the all of his other various business interests. From what I understand he is not and Ogre as he has employed a very old friend of mine and he has always spoken highly of him. just all take a breath stick to the rules for a bit and maybe Graham and the rest of the SSV Group can win him back over in the near future.
Mass tresspass really is going f*ck it up for everyone and being a regular climber there I would be dead against it.

In reply to Franco C:

It's nearly half a rope, or five quickdraws, or a pair of shoes on sale.

In reply to Franco C: Indeed, we all understand that principle. But it's simply not like that - the other crags in the area are free, or there's Bowles, which charges a whopping £3.50. Otherwise we have to fill the car with petrol and drive drive drive. The High Rocks situation is pretty much unique in the UK (not sure why, given the state that climbers leave crags in, but that's an argument for another thread).

£10 isn't peanuts but with the minimum wage at £4.92 for someone your age, it represents two hours work. Students and other bright folks can give tuition which earns £15 or £20 an hour.

God, I'm starting to sound like my father.

In reply to Franco C:

You're talking in general terms. In reality, it is not for 5 local crags, it is for 1 local crag which has alternatives for those unwilling or unable to pay. The precedent for paying for access has existed since 1936? and this has not spread to other crags.

You need to see it on a case by case basis.

For what it's worth, Franco, I am now a full time student again (not so long since the 1st time) and am living on a fairly limited budget. So yes, I have lived on lentils and noodles for weeks at a time, and I also know that most students spend vastly more than the entry fee to High Rocks on gigs, booze, and generally doing things that students do. It is what your student loan is for.

In reply to EddInaBox

Or 10.1kg of peanuts, or 27g of peanuts per day for a year. So yes - LITERALLY peanuts.

http://www.approvedfood.co.uk/Snacks/NEW_PRICE_KP_Nuts__Original_Salted_Pea...

In reply to plexiglass_nick:

Not advocating this just as I was NOT advocating trespassing (until he bans climbing outright, when I am)

Seeing as he's charging specifically for climbing rather than access and has an implicit duty of care, what happens to the delicate access arrangment when someone sues him for breaking an ankle? Climbing walls don't get to keep all that £10 entry fee

Maybe if walkers were in the same price band as climbers there'd be a bit more pressure to drop the fee?

In reply to Franco C:


Seems a lot but, its cheaper then going to my most local wall, £7.50 entry + at least £5 in petrol.

In reply to Tom_Harding:

£5 petrol from High Rocks to Evolution?

In reply to Monk:
If you want to get het up about access issues, why pick High Rocks? There are loads of crags throughout the country where access is banned for no particularly good reason.

Exactly! Which is why paying for access is such a bad idea, thin end of the wedge or what?

In reply to Al Evans: Don't most crags get shut because climbers are not really the best custodians of wild places? Take a look at the amount of discarded finger tape, bottle tops, toilet roll and general grime and rubbish we leave at most crags. How many climbers ever leave the cliffs not just as they found them, but pristine? I'm talking about the ground beneath them, not unisightly tat or even tick marks. I don't think our own house is quite in order...

In reply to Al Evans:

I think you'll find it's 'what' in this case. Access has been paid for at High Rocks since 1936. How far has the wedge been driven since then?

In reply to Franco C: So many words. I was just checking out of the website when I saw the photo of Moving Staircase. If it was not for local climbers this photo would look quite different. There would be no climber, just moss. There would be no view just rhodedendrons and tree cover. The owner helped us clear these by giving his permission and facilitating the work.
What a beautiful picture!

In reply to Oliver Hill:

The owner helped us clear these by giving his permission and facilitating the work.

That was nice of him.

In reply to tony:

It's been driven to £10 a go.

In reply to Al Evans:

Thank goodness we've got a conservative government then, they'll get rampant price inflation under control.

In reply to UKC Articles: As much as I enjoy reading Franco's antics and agree with Sean in his arguements with Franco I wondered if, considering Franco's love of the man, if he would be interested to know that Johnny Dawes did the FA of some very blank looking problems in The Annex of High Rocks?

OK if High Rocks itself got shut then we wouldn't loose access to the Dawes routes but my feeling is that High Rocks holds absolutely tons of stunning routes. More so than any of the other venues.

I can't think of one route in High Rocks that hasn't struck me as brilliant. Bowles is in a similar league. But you just don't get that amount fo qulaity if you climb at any of the other venues. You have to be more selective at Harrisons to climb something SO memorable.

In reply to Al Evans:

You miss my point, deliberately I suspect. But since you insist on being obtuse, where else has the influence of this charge been spread to? That was what you really meant by the thin end of the wedge. After nearly 75 years since the introduction of the fees, you would have thought it might have caught on elsewhere. Has this happened?

In reply to UKC Articles:Guys it isn’t actually illegal (breaking the law) to trespass you can be sued and taken to court for that but you ain't actually breaking state law. I think that whatever conclusion we come to everyone should stick by that because if some people obey by the rules and some don't the system is doomed.