/ Tintern Quarry

FunkyDexter - on 01 Apr 2017
Can anyone tell me what the situation for climbing in Tintern Quarry is these days. I climbed there a few times years ago and would like to visit again tomorrow but I've heard rumours that climbing is no longer allowed. Is that true?

Also, is there still a code required for the gate and, if so, where can I go to find out what it is these days?

Thanks in advance for any advice.
GridNorth - on 01 Apr 2017
In reply to FunkyDexter:
I don't think climbing was ever "allowed" in Tintern quarry, it was more a case of leaving if you were asked and at that time there was not much patrolling. You walked round the gate. If the entrance is now more secure that would suggest to me that the owners are perhaps a little keener to not tolerate climbing.

Al
Post edited at 17:56
Cheese Monkey - on 01 Apr 2017
In reply to FunkyDexter:

Unofficially banned
johncook - on 01 Apr 2017
In reply to FunkyDexter:

On BMC RAD The owner does not wish anyone to climb on this quarry. If asked to leave do so politely. The owner appears to be refusing to negotiate. (All a paraphrase of longer entry.)
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/modules/RAD/View.aspx?id=521
The BMC RAD is a good source up up-to-date crag info.
Monk - on 01 Apr 2017
In reply to Cheese Monkey:

Surely it has always been officially banned, just that the owner had been more active in enforcing this for the last year or so.
Cheese Monkey - on 01 Apr 2017
In reply to Monk:

Yeh but then surely the BMC would be saying no access, rather than leave if asked...
FunkyDexter - on 01 Apr 2017
Thanks guys. That gives me a pretty fair picture of the situation. We'll play it by ear but will probably hit Wynd Cliff instead.
johncook - on 01 Apr 2017
In reply to Cheese Monkey:

Some of these places ban climbing to avoid liability issues. Many don't police the crags as they have covered themselves with the ban. Some have started to get stroppy because climbers/and others have been reacting badly on the odd occasion they do visit their own property and ask people to leave.
Ian Parsons - on 01 Apr 2017
In reply to FunkyDexter:

If you go to Tintern it's worth taking a few old leaver-krabs. Many belays/lower-offs have never been equipped with conventional kink-free supplementary hardware - understandable in view of the occasionally doubtful/temporary nature of access to the quarry and the investment that would be required to do so; a pair of adjacent standard hangers plus small maillon each - sitting flat against the rock rather than at right angles - can be fairly typical.
I like climbing - on 01 Apr 2017
In reply to Ian Parsons:

I'd take a hat too - it's loose in places
springfall2008 - on 26 Apr 2017
In reply to FunkyDexter:

Just curious if anyone has been recently, has the land owner stopped bothering people yet?
Graeme Hammond - on 26 Apr 2017
In reply to springfall2008:
> Just curious if anyone has been recently, has the land owner stopped bothering people yet?

Looking at the latest accents bit on the crag database, climbs were last logged on 17th April

Tintern Quarry
Post edited at 22:26
springfall2008 - on 27 Apr 2017
In reply to Graeme Hammond:

Yes I saw that, I want to go back and climb Dust Devil (2) (6b)
The Ivanator - on 27 Apr 2017
In reply to FunkyDexter:

I'd hazard a guess that the owner is most likely to be on the lookout at prime times - a fine weekend day for example. At Holcombe quarries (now lost due to Holiday Park being developed) there used to be security around 5-8pm weekdays and 9-5 weekends, so climbing 'off peak' was the way to slip under the radar, could be similar?
Neil Williams - on 27 Apr 2017
In reply to Cheese Monkey:

> Yeh but then surely the BMC would be saying no access, rather than leave if asked...

It's just being realistic that climbers often aren't the sort to abide by such things, and there's no negotiations to prejudice by just going there anyway (and trespass, provided you leave when requested, is a civil matter anyway).
Cheese Monkey - on 27 Apr 2017
In reply to Neil Williams:

If you look at the RAD the status is restricted/sensitive. Look at a banned crag and it clearly says banned. Tintern landowners are saying to climbers (not BMC) that it is banned. Hence from a climbers point of view it is unofficially banned
Westy on 13 May 2017
In reply to FunkyDexter:

Was asked to leave when climbing in the quarry today. The guy was pretty good about it, but made it clear that the land owners position is that climbing is not permitted.
springfall2008 - on 14 May 2017
In reply to Westy:

> Was asked to leave when climbing in the quarry today. The guy was pretty good about it, but made it clear that the land owners position is that climbing is not permitted.

Interesting did you try asking him why?
Anonymous on 14 May 2017 - 154.185.9.51.dyn.plus.net
In reply to springfall2008:

Its a quarry. The landowners have a duty of care (I think under the Mines and Quarries Act) to try to stop access.
springfall2008 - on 14 May 2017
In reply to Anonymous:

I don't think the duty of care would extend to kicking out climbers every time they arrive. After all there are loads of quarries with nobody hassling climbers.....
Westy on 15 May 2017
In reply to springfall2008:

He said that the quarry had been surveyed, and was not safe to climb (implied that this was a limited section), and that the landowners wouldn't want to deal with the fallout of a fatality.
springfall2008 - on 15 May 2017
In reply to Westy:

Seems fair enough, but in that case once climbers have been warned they can continue at their own risk...?
bpmclimb on 17 May 2017
In reply to springfall2008:
> Seems fair enough, but in that case once climbers have been warned they can continue at their own risk...?

From the point of view of some landowners, the concern is that a verbal acceptance of risk from climbers wouldn't necessarily guarantee immunity from legal action following an accident. To climbers that may seem unduly paranoid, but, since landowners aren't under any obligation to provide a public climbing venue, if there's any doubt at all, why take the risk?
Post edited at 15:56
springfall2008 - on 17 May 2017
In reply to bpmclimb:

> From the point of view of some landowners, the concern is that a verbal acceptance of risk from climbers wouldn't necessarily guarantee immunity from legal action following an accident. To climbers that may seem unduly paranoid, but, since landowners aren't under any obligation to provide a public climbing venue, if there's any doubt at all, why take the risk?

True, but also why spend the time and money kicking people out? I would have thought a combination lock with a code held by the BMC would be a good way to go?
bpmclimb on 18 May 2017
In reply to springfall2008:

> True, but also why spend the time and money kicking people out? I would have thought a combination lock with a code held by the BMC would be a good way to go?

The landowner has specific concerns about liability following a climbing accident. A code for climbers only keeps people other than climbers out, so doesn't really address the principal concern (from the landowner's point of view).
springfall2008 - on 18 May 2017
In reply to bpmclimb:

> The landowner has specific concerns about liability following a climbing accident. A code for climbers only keeps people other than climbers out, so doesn't really address the principal concern (from the landowner's point of view).

I can understand that, but he does sound misguided - I haven't heard of other landowners being liable for climbing accidents.
bpmclimb on 18 May 2017
In reply to springfall2008:

> I can understand that, but he does sound misguided - I haven't heard of other landowners being liable for climbing accidents.


No, nor me - the fear of litigation gets exaggerated, and there's probably a dose of paranoia at work. He just doesn't know, not 100%, and getting it to the 100% stage is a can of worms he'd rather not open. I can see why someone might think that way. Of course, it's very frustrating for us climbers; sport in the LWV is a limited resource, and there's lot's of good stuff at TQ.

I wonder whether talking to the landowner is still on the BMC agenda, or if they've simply given up in the face of his intransigence. I suppose there comes a point after which there's nothing gained by repeating the same overtures.
La benya - on 18 May 2017
In reply to bpmclimb:

surveyor points out to owner something is dangerous to third parties.
owner does nothing to stop third party access.
owner is liable.
Angrypenguin - on 18 May 2017
In reply to bpmclimb:

> I wonder whether talking to the landowner is still on the BMC agenda, or if they've simply given up in the face of his intransigence. I suppose there comes a point after which there's nothing gained by repeating the same overtures.

Don't quote me on this but seem to remember in the past the BMC offering a letter from a lawyer promising no liability. Guess it didn't have the desired effect.
ads.ukclimbing.com
springfall2008 - on 18 May 2017
In reply to Angrypenguin:

I suspect there is more going on, it's not a rational behaviour to waste your life chasing climbers....
timjones - on 18 May 2017
In reply to springfall2008:

> I suspect there is more going on, it's not a rational behaviour to waste your life chasing climbers....

It's probably no less rational than wasting your life climbing ;)
springfall2008 - on 18 May 2017
In reply to timjones:

If he enjoys it then maybe
timjones - on 18 May 2017
In reply to springfall2008:

> If he enjoys it then maybe

Is enjoyment of a risky activity any more rational than fear of litigation?