UKC

UKC Staff Edit:

The much used climbing venue of Staden Quarry (also known as Cowdale Quarry) is under threat from a major industrial development.

"All the natural rock faces will be closed to climbers if this application succeeds."

Report on the UKC News Page: http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=51399

---

There is a planning application in to build a mineral water bottling plant at this quarry.( High Peak Borough Council Ref. HPK/2009/0723)
More importantly, the plans include a " climbing centre" and sports hall, where the back of the quarry will be roofed and the Joint Effort wall will become part of the centre, with access only through the complex.
Climbers will have to pay for this access and no doubt the wall will be completely trashed in no time.
This is a re-application of a plan that was rejected some years ago due to acess problems from the A6 and the presence of a sewage treatment plant adjacent to the site.
The latter has gone and presumably the access plans from the A6 have been modified.
This plan was submitted by a local consortium of business men, none who have any connection with the climbing world.
I understand there is a meeting organised by the residents of the village of Cowdale in the Kings Sterndale village hall tomorrow night to discuss this application but I do not know the timing of this

In reply to Last Thursday:

http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PK...

In reply to Last Thursday:
will the climbing wall have a artificial climbing area? I can't see anything in the plans and i doubt a climbing centre as shown in the plans without a artificial wall surviving for very long at all.

In reply to Last Thursday:

That's bad news, Staden is one of my favourite summer venues!

J

In reply to Last Thursday:

Please make sure the BMC know about this, asap.

In reply to Mike Raine:

they do, apparently Henry F is attending.

In reply to Last Thursday:

It would be a real shame if this were to happen. Staden offers one of the best summer venues in the Peak. The Joint Effort Wall has some of the best limestone in the Peak, with some great rock features.

If anyone has any info regarding the meeting tomorrow night please do post it here as I could be tempted to go along and try to find out whst is happening and who's behind it.

Has the quarry been sold? Who is the current owner? I'm aware that it is used for grazing, but assume the farmer leases the land from the landowner for this purpose.

In reply to Last Thursday:

Mineral water plant - possibly. Climbing centre etc ..no.

In reply to 1234None:
This is appalling

I'll speak to Henry in the morning to see if he wants backup

I think we should try and make it known the climber community would (I assume) oppose this proposal vigoursly and would boycott any wall built there

In reply to Last Thursday: It would be interesting to see the business proposal. I bet there's an assumption of a big slug of tax-payers' / lottery-players' money to make the thing financially viable.

In reply to Last Thursday:

oppose

In reply to gethin_allen:

My impression, based on a quick scan of some of the planning docs, is that this is a large scale industrial plant - carparking for over 150 vehicles - and that the visitor/climbing centre has been tacked on at the end to appease those who feel that a national park should be somewhere for conservation, recreation etc. Don't think it's another ratho, more likely a base for taking kids abseiling - you know, get them out of the city and into the countryside (ignoring the fact that the countryside has been destroyed by the huge factory they are building).

In reply to Chris the Tall: Had a quick look at the "climbing centre" plan - it's single storey and seems to consist of loos, showers, meeting rooms, tables/cafe and no interior climbing.

In reply to Michael Hood:

Looks more like a staff cafeteria to me.

In reply to Michael Hood:
Yep, that what I thought

The worrying thing is that the quarry is just outside the national park - the road through the village marking the boundary

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Arn't you kind of ignoring the fact its a disused quarry/big hole in the ground ! (albiet a very pleasant big hole in the ground)

In reply to Chris the Tall:

If there is significant impact on the landscape to the detriment of users of the park, the peak park can impose some fairly hefty clauses. I used to work for Omya, and when we built a large limestone processing plant at Dowlow (a few mile down the road from Staden) we basically had to build it in the bottom of the quarry, so it wasn't as visible from inside the park, despite the fact that the quarry was outside the park.

In reply to 999thAndy:
Unfortunately, they are planning to build their industrial plant in the bottom of a quarry, and the road access will be from outside the park too

In reply to Last Thursday:
This document is probably the best one to get an idea of the size of the project (it's huge - full scale industrial park)

http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/AttachmentShowServlet?Image...

Don't see any mention of a roof over the Joint Effort Wall, but there's no doubt the buildings would come pretty close

Here's a quote:

>>>

Detailed Design : Visitor / Climbing Centre
The proposed visitor / climbing centre is intended to encourage leisure
usage of the site as a whole by providing welfare facilities for visitors and climbers alike by providing changing rooms and café facilities.
The design of the centre is based on the idea of a quarry wall which reflects its surroundings and purpose. The entrance is forced between two walls so the visitor has an immediate reference to their environs and their purpose.

>>>

Somewhere else it mentions lighting the crag for aesthetic purposes

As I said earlier, all this just seems to me to be a ham-fisted attempt to appease climbers and environmental groups

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Probably put in as a Section 106 Planning Obligation type thing

(AKA legalised bribery....or 'incentive'....cough)


So not ham fisted - just typically planning games.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Aside from concern over this from a climbers' perspective, surely there are also ecological reasons why this shouldn't go ahead. I'm sure there MUST be some rare plants or wildlife (nesting birds etc) thriving in the quarry???

In reply to Last Thursday:

Ironically it fails at the first hurdle of its "Sustainability" claims (Page 35) by being a plant that provides a non-essential luxury product such as bottled water.

A lot of resources being used up to supply something we all can get from a tap (and already pay for - both money and environmental costs). A flawed argument I know, but kind of funny when you see a section on 'water conservation' !

The BMC has been aware of this planning application for several weeks, and recently met with the proposed developer.
It was thought the development was to contain a 'climbing center and wall', however, it now transpires this may not be accurate and the plans seem to indicate the climbing centre will comprise changing rooms, a cafe/canteen and meeting rooms.

The BMC will continue to work on this issue - keep an eye on the BMC website for any news as it happens.

Guy Keating
BMC A&C.

In reply to Last Thursday:
which water comopany, where do we sign up for the boycott?

In reply to The third: Surely the only way to 'boycott' a water company is to move house?

In reply to Last Thursday:

Is there any potential for the BMC in conjunction with local residents to make a Village Green application (or similar) to get the area protected from development?

In reply to The third:

Could it be Buxton mineral water?

In reply to Last Thursday:

Staden is a rare gem and would be sorely missed. What is the best way object to this? There's a 'Comment on this Application' button on the planning Ap's webpage (linked above), or is there a better way?

In reply to jonny2vests:

Hi Jon - I have submitted a comment via the website - figured it can't hurt really.

In reply to JWB:
I think its Rockhead Mineral Water Company who run Buxton Mineral Water - below is an extract from the Planning Inspectors Report on the Peak District Local Plan back in 2004.

8.7.31 Rockhead Mineral Water has a licence to abstract a large volume of mineral water from Rockhead Spring, an artesian well to the east of the disused Cowdale Quarry. Regulations stipulate that the water has to be bottled close to its source, and at present the newly formed company operates from a factory on the Staden Lane industrial estate. The company has plans for substantial growth, both to fully utilise the resource and in response to the significant projected increase in demand for
mineral water. The company believes that Cowdale Quarry is the only site that could meet its needs within 2km of the well, the practical limit for a pipeline, and is seeking to have it allocated as employment land.

8.7.32 Cowdale Quarry is located south of the A6 at Ashwood Dale and approximately 1.5km east of the edge of Buxton. It has a floor area of some 13ha and is bordered by rock faces ranging from 10-20m high. It was abandoned many years ago and its margins are naturally revegetating with trees and scrub; the floor has been treated with a thin skim of soil and is used for summer grazing. Because of the surrounding topography the quarry is not visible at all from the east, south or west, while from
the north its southern face is all that can be seen, at a distance of 1km or so. The site is within the Special Landscape Area and close to the National Park boundary.

8.7.33 In some respects the objector’s case for Cowdale Quarry has much to commend it. I agree that the quarry is an artificial landform with a flat floor that would be ideal for the bottling plant. It would use previously-developed land, and as the former mineral railway sidings could be re-opened there is potential for a railhead, though its viability is yet to be proven. Whether road access would be possible from the nearby A6 remains to be established, in my view, for the route is steep and the
junction with the main road is restricted. I accept that, for its size, a large building would not be especially prominent in the landscape, for part of it would be hidden and the rest would always be viewed against higher ground beyond.

8.7.34 Nevertheless, such a structure would be clearly visible from the north, its angular form and flat surfaces being noticeably different from the rock face behind it, and I believe it would appear as an incongruous intrusion into an area of attractive countryside. I also suspect that there would be some noise and disturbance from the operation, mainly from the movement of goods to and from the factory, which would detract from the tranquil surroundings and be audible to users of the Mid-Shires Way. But perhaps the main disadvantage of Cowdale Quarry is its location
some distance outside Buxton, and its very limited accessibility by non-car modes of transport. In this respect the proposal is contrary to national and local planning policies which seek to promote employment development close to where people live and accessible by a range of transport modes.

8.7.35 There is no dispute that the Rockhead Spring is an important resource for Buxton, for the mineral water has the potential to further promote the name of the town as well as to provide employment. It is also accepted that the requirement to stay close to the source places unusual locational constraints on the search for an alternative site. Whether the ambitious growth strategy proposed by the company is achievable in the stated time-span is less certain, however. The operation has only been bottling water since 2002, and the massive projected increase in production requires a leap of faith at this stage, even allowing for the anticipated expansion in the mineral water market. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume that the company will outgrow its current premises in a few years, and will then require a much larger production facility than is possible on its existing 1ha site. But whether it is essential for the company to have the full 8.6ha that it seeks is questionable, in my view. About half this space is for storage and associated loading which, in part, could be accommodated at another location, as happens at present with Buxton Mineral Water. I accept that this might not be the best solution from an operational standpoint, but it does belie the assertion that the company could not fully exploit the resource without an 8.6ha site.

8.7.36 The Council contends that it should be possible to accommodate the expanded business on land at Tongue Lane, or on the vacated site fronting Ashbourne Road. It also believes that there are other potentially less harmful opportunities likely to be available in the near future, including Ashwood Dale quarry to the north. I accept that all of these sites have some disadvantages for the company, largely in terms of cost and the difficulty in routeing the pipeline. But on the evidence to the inquiry I
am not persuaded that these obstacles are insurmountable, particularly as the site search is at a relatively early stage and it appears that there have been no detailed feasibility studies into any of the locations (including Cowdale Quarry). Consequently I do not accept the argument that there is no alternative to the objection site. In these circumstances, given the poor accessibility of the site and the likely impact of the development on the Special Landscape Area, it would not be appropriate to allocate the quarry for employment use.


8.7.37 This recommendation does not necessarily preclude the use of Cowdale Quarry if, after a full investigation of all potential options, it can be demonstrated that there really is no alternative. The special locational requirements of the mineral water industry might ultimately justify the proposal, either under policy EMP7 or as an exception to the general policies which seek to restrict development in the countryside. But that is not a matter for the Local Plan, and instead could only be
determined through the development control process. I recommend no modification in response to this objection.


If it is possible to demonstrate that the quarry has been used for recreational purposes by the local community for 20 years then there could be scope for it to become a designated village green - though it will need further research

In reply to The third: I believe it is Buxton Mineral Water, who have an office in the near by Staden Industrial Estate.

I think before commenting, people should have some more balance. dont get me wrong, i dont like the idea of losing climbing at the quarry, i really enjoy climbing there. But would it be the worst thing in the world?

to be clear:-

1) the proposed development is outside the boundary of the National Park
2) The relevant development plan policies would be the East Midlands Regional Plan Policy and saved Policies of the Local Plan. the Authorioty's Structure plan would remain a "material consideration" if their committee has passed a resolution for it to do so.
3) Other relevant policy considerations would be PPS and PPG's.

The planning inspectors comments arent necessarily relevant to the proposed development. If you want to object to the proposal, you must do so in writing addressed to the case officer Sue Ashworth. Your comments should not be made on loss of amenity grounds alone, but show how the development fails to satisfy the relevant policies. It would be sensible to raise this at the BMC area meeting, if it has not already been done so.

Is the climbing of National importance - like stanage for example? No not really, there are some significant ascents there, but its loss as a climbing venue will not necessarily result in the loss of the heritage of the local area.

In reality, there will have been months of preapplication discussions and subject to conditions and variations, the decision is pretty well made. Why otherwise would they have spent £32,000 in application fees. Sometimes, these kinds of developments are just difficult to resist, they will bring employment and trade to the area and in context, will cause little negative landscape impact. The alternatives, such as adding to the Harpur Hill Industrial estate are likely to be more visually intrusive.

Those who are scathing of S.106's should take a reality check. A S.106 is a contractual mechinism that can require developers to enhance the local area, propotionate to the scale of the development. This might include new roads, landscaping schemes, a promise not to sell it to Tesco's in future...the list goes on. Anyone who things that Local Authority planners see a penny of this is an idiot!

In reply to 1234None: I concur and have petitioned my points across to them very strongly on the link.

Here it is don't hold back: http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PK...

In reply to wendys:

Designating it as village green wont necessarily preclude development on the site, and the chances of success are low. The primary use of the land is for agricutlural purposes (rough grazing of livestock) and any recreational use it likely to be taken as de mimimus or ancillary. Also, the designation is unlikely to come into effect until after the applciation has been determined, perhaps by mid April 2010.

In reply to Guy Keating, BMC:

Environmental issues for the whole development aside, the ‘climbing centre’ is a rather intriguing idea. Taken as subset of the whole rock climbing population, trad climbers interested in Limestone seem to be a bit of a minority. Compared to the crowds at Stanage or the Roaches, Stoney and Wildcat are tranquil backwaters. The bolted venues always seem to be a lot more popular.

I imagine a sport crag would be both more profitable and easier to manage/exploit. Anybody care to suggest a grade for The Nails with a few comforting bolts and a handy ram’s head?

In reply to Dark Peak Paul:

I would imagine that if the Joint Effort wall is somehow intended to be incorporated into the climbing centre, then it would be bolted anyway - otherwise H&S/insurance etc would be a nightmare.

The Nails with bolts - Fr 5?

it would turn a great, shady summer trad crag into an -at best - poor sport crag in an industrial setting, something that most climbers wouldn't bother with - not to mention the disturbance to the local flora and fauna etc.

IMHO, the application is unlikely to be approved but if it looks like proceeding any further I'd be happy to get involved and help out to try to prevent the project going ahead.

In reply to Dan-gerMouse:
You are quite right that climbers need to think about their objections, so a little bit of Devil's advocacy doesn't go amiss.

>Is the climbing of National importance - like stanage for example

No, it's not Stanage, but the crag does contain (according to Rockfax) 5 of the top 50 routes on Peak Limestone. Climbing has been going on there for 44 years, it is a popular crag during the summer, and is perhaps the best mid-grade trad limestone crag in the Peak. So high regional importance.


Only just, and it will undoubtedly have an effect on the village of Cowdale which is in the Park. It's proximity to the park, and to SSSI's ought to be considered

Also, the proposals describe it as a disused quarry - well it is, but that doesn't make it your typical brownfield site. It's been used for cow pasture for many years, nature has taken a firm grip, and it's a really pleasant meadow area. Not sure about the resident wildlife, but I'm sure there will be plenty

And just because the developers have spent £32,000 on plans doesn't mean we should just say fair enough. Hopefully other interest groups will also be against this proposal. Yes places like Buxton need employment, but that has to be balanced against the further encroachment of industry upon our green spaces

In reply to Dan-gerMouse:


I wan't actually being scathing of S106s or suggesting backhanders, but the reality is that they are used by both LPA and Applicants as (useful) leveraging tools. They cost the applicant money and most applicants would not enter into them out of the goodness of their hearts. But as I said, all part of the planning game and an essential lubricant to ease the wheels. Lack of 'sufficient' S106 have also been known to be used by LPAs as a easy means to refuse permission that they do not actually want to give.

In reply to ChrisJD:
For those of us who don't work in the Department of Adminstrative Affairs, perhaps you could just remind us what a S.106 is ?

I'm guessing the climbing/vistor centre falls in this category ?

In reply to Last Thursday:

For anyone who can go - I'm working late - the extraordinary general meeting of King Sterndale Parish Council will be held in the hall across from the church at 7.30pm tonight (Jan 21st). Visitors will be able to make representations before councillors discuss the issue.

Good luck,

Danny

In reply to Chris the Tall:
Explanation of S106 here:

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/circularplan...

but essentially, S106 agreements oblige a developer to undertake specified actions as part of their planning consent. When I was managing nature reserves, s106 often meant planners creating new wildlife habitat in addition to their development, they might also include an endowment/ comminuted sum to pay for future maintenance of such land.

Typically S106s are used to ensure road/ car parking facilities, landscaping etc in local area. M&S locally paid for extra parking spaces and refurbishment of tennis courts, for eg

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Planning Obligation authorised by Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Planning and Compensation Act 1991 Section 12. S106s for short

"Planning Obligations are used following the granting of planning permission (normally major developments) to secure community infrastructure to meet the needs of residents in new developments and/or to mitigate the impact of new developments upon existing community facilities. They can also be used to restrict the development or use of the land in a specified way or require specific operations or activities to be carried out on the land."

In reply to toad:


Or perhaps most typically improvements to roads to offset resident complaints about traffic congestion associated with new developments.

I think Chris is right though that the 'climbing centre' is a pathetic attempt to try to buy off objections from climbers. It would totally destroy the climbing so what would be the point of facilities. The application looks awful and inappropriate to the site and surroundings.

It would be useful if the BMC could help co-ordinate so that objections can be put in at the best time/go to the right place.

In reply to toad:

It seems to me that a ‘climbing centre’ could be a well intentioned but misinformed s106 measure that could have disastrous consequences for the recreational trad climbing in the quarry. It would be far better, to my mind, to have a curtain zone between the crag and the development and leave us to get on with it.

In reply to Dark Peak Paul:

I'm hopefully going but going with an open mind. I can see that it is going to potentially totally ruin an important local limestone crag but I can see a need to develop industry and jobs in the area... this is precisely why Buxton (and Staden) are outside the boundary and restrictions of the PDNP

Though in the interests of full disclosure I'll admit to having lived in Buxton for 5 years and never having climbed at Staden... so it may be more important/significant for local climbing than I fully appreciate.

In reply to idiotproof (Buxton MC):
I'm guessing the meeting tonight is for the parish council to decide whether or not to oppose the scheme, is that correct ?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

This will be discussed at the coming Peak Area meeting at THE NORFOLK ARMS, at 2 Ringinglow Village, Sheffield S11 7TS from 7.30pm on Wednesday 17th February 2010.

Please note the change to the originally publicised venue. If you know anyone who is coming along who might not be aware of this change, please do let them know.

The agenda has not been finalised but will include a discussion about this hot topic, amongst other things.

See you there?

In reply to Last Thursday:
This is madness.

In reply to idiotproof (Buxton MC):

Having climbed at the crag in the distant past and more recently, I think the climbing is very much worth preserving. Also, I recognise that access and parking is currently far from ideal and improving this would be a good thing for both climbers and local residents. If the development did go ahead then I would be neutral on the café, happy to use it but not overjoyed at its presence. Also, I would rather see contained industry than renewed quarrying. However, I would not welcome a ‘centre’ that actively exploited the crag. I do not believe this would prove sustainable.

In reply to bone:

This is Staaadeeenn.

In reply to Stig:

Agreed. Hopefully we'll receive some in the near future. In the meantime, I've put in an objection on the High Peak BC website and I've encouraged Nottingham Uni climbers to do the same.

In reply to jonny2vests:

The date for the planning committee is 22nd Feb, so presumably we need to get objections in by this date

The next area meeting is 17th Feb, but I don't think we should delay til then, so it would be useful if someone with knowledge of these things could prepare a crib sheet of things for people to put in their objections

i.e. not just a loss to climbing, but the countryside, nature etc, traffic concerns

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Yep.

In reply to Last Thursday:

Have had a good look through all the info, but struggling to find any details on the really relevant stuff, eg access proposals - will there be open access to the crag? Or will you be forced to use the cafe and presumably pay? Will any of the climbing be lost? Are there proposals to bolt any/ all of it? We need to know exactly what is being touted here.

In reply to Dan-gerMouse:

I do think that Staden is worth fighting for. True, it's not Stanage but for limestone it's a friendly mid grade crag and I cannot think of anywhere else in the Peak that's north facing (and in the shade) that's good for climbing on on roasting hot summer days.

Pity. I suppose the other side of the argument is that it would bring jobs to the area while the development should not be overly visually obtrusive. However, as the Inspector's report quoted above points out, there could be alternative sites for the company's expansion, it's outside the Buxton town boundary (so longer commute for workers) and the road access is poor (I imagine they would have to improve the road to get HGVs there from the A515 and probably impossible from the A6 without major landscaping).

Formal objections from the BMC, conservationists and of course the residents of Cowdale (unless they want it there...) might be enough to stop it.

I'm surprised by the application as you would have thought that it would ultimately be cheaper to bottle at source rather than a few miles away?

In reply to Adam L: Within the Transport Assessment it talks about the climbing center being there to provide climbers with amenities like loos, showers and a cafe. Everytime I've been to Staden my first thought has always been "where are the amenities to encourage me to come here"

Some of the buildings (eg the climbing center) look a bit too close to the rockfaces to me...loose hold coming off - oops - that's made a bit of a dent in the roof.

I don't like the look of any of it but if it must happen then what we as climbers should argue for is:
1. Right of way access to the existing climbing faces.
2. Buildings etc to be a large enough distance away from the climbing faces for obvious safety reasons.
3. Forget about the climbing center - but access to loos would be good as no doubt there'll no longer be any boulders to piss behind.

In reply to Last Thursday:

Whilst it isn't quite Stanage, Staden does contain some seriously excellent limestone cragging and some of the best routes on limestone in the peak, on excellent rock in lovely, peaceful setting.

Visiting Staden feels like stepping into a beautiful set from Jurassic park with the steep rock faces of the old quarry surrounding a flat grassy bottom and roaming sheep and cattle, you almost expect a teradactyl to swoop down and whisk a sheep away.

It is the perfect place for a short walk or climb after work on a hot summer evening. My visits two visits so far will be remembered for a long time to come, and I hope Staden will be still be there in its current state in the future for many further visits and for others to discover its delights as i have done.

All the routes i led at Staden... Bicycle Repair Man, The Nails, Joint Effort, Captain Reliable and Liquid Courage are all within a stones throw of each other but should not be throw away so easily. I'm yet to try the highly rated Welcome to Hard Times or Cathy's Clown and hope i will get a still get a chance to

If the development was to go ahead could the BMC fight for a green belt of land allowing access to the Joint effort/bicycle repair man areas to remain. I know would never be the same but if things moved to and advanced stage I'd rather a compromise than no access at all or the crag to be destroyed by bolting. Staden is no Horseshoe it is something BETTER! in perfect setting you are easily mistaken as I was that you are still within the Peak District National Park.

I can be useful in any way please let me know and i will do my best to help

Graeme

In reply to Graeme Hammond:

Better than Horseshoe? Surely not.

In reply to Last Thursday:
I agree that Staden is worth fighting for too. I understand the need for a local business to expand but from what I have seen this does not seem to be in sympathy to the area. Aside from the access to crags, which is really only of interest to climbers, there is the issue of noise and increased traffic creating problems for local residents (small village near by)I can't imagine that they are to chuffed by all this. As for the developement plans. They send a shiver down my spine. Climbing wall? Don't make me laugh. Is this perhaps an attempt to placate the climbing community? I doubt that the company involved knows the first thing about climbing, some one may have mentioned "Oh climbers us it" so they think "Hey no problem we'll give them a climbing wall" with no thought other than getting folks off their back.
a) Who would have access to the wall?
b) what would it cost?
c) Given that even the stable parts of Staden have some loose rock would measures to stablise it radically alter routes?
d) would (if incorporated into said wall) current routes be bolted and given climbing holds for the sake of safety and providing an all round "experience"?
e) how long would it take to trash the routes with increased use from corporate "team building" events?
f) in our current litigating world does anyone believe that a company would incorporate a number of classic E routes and HVS's into a climbing wall without taking measures to ensure that people couldn't fall and hurt themselves?

Staden includes three if not more of my all time favourite routes and it would be sad to see that go.

In reply to Last Thursday:
Just spoken to Henry F

The first thing to say is that there is no urgency at the moment - certainly no need to do anything until after the area meeting where Henry can explain the matter fully. This is because an environmental report is now deemed neccessary, which will take a number of weeks or months, and only then will objections be considered.

As well as the local groups, the CPRE are dead set against the proposal.

Oh, and bear in mind the current access situation before objecting on the grounds of a loss of climbing.....

Hope that makes sense, but please come along to the area meeting Norfolk Arms, Ringinglow, 7:30, Weds 17th Feb to find out more

In reply to Last Thursday:

I have never climbed at Staden, although I'm sure it must be a lovely spot. However I can't help but think that new developments should be built on land already affected by man rather than greenfield sites. Surely it would make more sense to fight for continued and free access to the climbing rather than totally against the development of what is a quarry and by deffinition man made.

In reply to Last Thursday:

Tragic! This would be a real shame for a beautiful place. The climbing is fabulous and the pleasure of going there would be lost in the presence of a factory.

In reply to barney_edin:
I see your point but to a large extent Staden has returned to nature. Certainly a much nicer place than the likes of Horseshoe. The other point is that there might be suitable brownfield sites available.

In reply to Last Thursday:

My first E2 was at Staden. Infact my first limestone trad climb 'ever' was 'Soft Times'. After this was Bicycle Repair Man then Liquid Courage(QUALITY).

Went back around 2months later to do a couple more including The Nails.

So much I want to do here, Please help make sure this crag doesn't get lost....

In reply to barney_edin:
>

There isn't an inch of land in the Peak area which isn't 'already affected by man'. Every landscape in the Peak is a product of man to a greater or lesser extent. All the eastern edges bear the scars of quarrying. Are these brownfield sites ripe for development too?

As for preserving climbing there, aside from the fact that the experience will be severely degraded by the change of landscape, it's just not going to happen in any meaningful way for the reasons Duncan Bourne gives above.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:


No it doesn't, unless you are fibbing on your profile:

Favourite Climbs
The Sloth (Roaches)
Safety Net (Roaches)
Scratch Arete (Tremadog)
Lethal Flattery (Pandy outcrop)
Tennis Shoe (Idwal)
Valkyrie (Roaches)
Cenotaph Corner (Dinas Cromlech)


Staden got a few good routes, enough for a day or 1/2 day. Let's keep things in proportion and not go all starry eyed, else we lose credibility.

In reply to ChrisJD:


I think the point is that it is clean rock and convenient to get to. There is a short walk in. It is quiet (people) as there is little to invite the (no elitism here) low grade masses. And most importantly the routes are 85% good quality. No real choss or friable holds. Crack and face examples. Bold routes and well protected hauls. This is an excellent example of a crag that has a lot for the mid grade committed climber. It is a full day and the routes are very worth repeating.

In reply to EZ:

I should add... if you haven't been and you get a chance before access is restricted/prevented, then get up there as you will have seriously missed out if you don't.

In reply to EZ:

Probably been 4 times in 20 years, was last there in May 2009.

In reply to ChrisJD:

A couple of times last year and I'll be going again this year.

In reply to various: It is good to hear that the planning application isn't going to be rushed through. However I've submitted my tuppence worth in any case and have decided to publish it here as well since it may contribute usefully to debate about the issue.

I am an occasional recreational user of Cowdale Quarry and I wish to object to the above planning application. Moreover I believe that the High Peak Borough Council has a duty to refuse the current application on two clear grounds.

First and most simply, under Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) para 40-44, Local Authorities have an obligation to involve community interest groups in the planning process. In the case of this application there has been no engagement with a key community interest group, namely rock climbers who have used Cowdale Quarry for 44 years. The British Mountaineering Council (BMC) is the representative body for climbers. It operates on a regional basis with local democratically elected representatives within the Peak District. For the High Peak Borough Council to approve the application as it stands would therefore be contrary to PPS1 para 43 which requires an approach which “enables communities to put forward ideas and suggestions and participate in developing, proposals and options. It is not sufficient to invite them to simply comment once these have been worked-up;”.

Second, under Planning Policy & Guidance 17 (PPG17) para 17i, Local Authorities have an obligation to “avoid any erosion of recreational function and maintain or enhance the character of open space”. This is highly pertinent as Cowdale quarry is a long standing recreational rock climbing venue of regional importance. Additionally, ‘rock areas’ fall under the wider definition of ‘open space’ within para 2ii of the Annex to PPG17. This implies that High Peak Borough Council in addition to having a clear obligation to preserve the recreational function of the principle climbing areas within Cowdale Quarry also has a duty to maintain the essential character of those areas. The application fails to demonstrate that erosion of recreational function will be avoided or that the character of the main recreational areas will be maintained. As such it would be contrary to PPG17 for High Peak Borough Council to approve this application.

I will address this in more detail.

As regards the recreational function of Cowdale Quarry (also known as Staden Main Quarry), it is a matter of public record that there are over 60 rock climbs in the quarry of sufficient quality to be officially recorded by the British Mountaineering Council (BMC). These are located across the south wall of the quarry mostly in concentrated groups. Those climbs which make Cowdale Quarry of regional importance as a climbing venue are located in two principle areas. These are Joint Effort Wall, a tall and rugged slab of dark rock some 40metres in length and 25metres high and some distance to its left Charas Wall (or Bicycle Repair Man Wall), a slab some 20 m high and 25 long with another slab some 15 metres high and probably as wide located as short distance left again. These relatively small areas of rock contain over 30 rock climbs. In 2004, 21 of them were highlighted in the climbing guidebook Northern Limestone (ISBN 1-873341-85-7) as being of appreciable quality.

The fact that the exact location of these principle climbing areas is not clearly detailed within the application precludes an objective assessment of the proposed development’s impact on recreational function. This in itself is clear grounds for refusing the application in its current form in line with the direction within PPG17.

There are three key criteria that need to be met in order to avoid significantly eroding the recreational function of Cowdale Quarry. First, climbers must continue to have free access to climb at the principle climbing areas. Second, suitable free car parking must continue to be available. Third, a sufficient buffer zone must be maintained around the principle climbing areas in order that the development is not detrimental to the character of the immediate open space in which the recreational function takes place. The application as it stands fails to specifically address these issues.

There is no clear commitment within the application that climbers will continue to have free and unfettered access to climb on the principle climbing areas within Cowdale Quarry both subsequent to the proposed development and during construction.

There is no clear commitment that the parking provided at the proposed climbing centre will be free of charge and continuously available year round during daylight hours.

There is no mention of the provision of a buffer zone of around the principle climbing areas. Whilst the extent of this zone is debatable, it is self evident that such as a zone is absolutely essential for the maintenance of both recreational function and the character of the open space in which it takes place. My personal opinion is that a zone extending twice the height of the quarry walls (i.e. up to 50metres) with appropriate tree planting at the furthest extent would be the minimum sufficient to maintain the essential function and character of climbing within the quarry. This might require a total land area of around 1 hectare to be set aside, which would in no way preclude development of the remainder of the site.

Despite failing to address these three key issues the application makes mention of a climbing centre. This is a completely spurious notion that is completely at odds with my extensive knowledge and understanding of the needs of climbers both in a personal capacity and in a professional capacity as a full-time climbing and mountaineering instructor.

The climbing at Cowdale Quarry is enjoyed by several hundred climbers every year and this current level of use is both stable and sustainable. This level of use does not warrant any more facilities other than perhaps four to six car parking spaces and certainly does not warrant a ‘climbing centre’. Whilst access to toilet facilities would be desirable it is by no means essential and pales into insignificance against the desire of climbers to limit the encroachment of buildings and roads within their recreational environment. Equally, any commercial drive to substantially increase use by climbers would be undesirable in terms of long-term environmental sustainability and would almost certainly be actively opposed by individual climbers and collectively by the BMC. This again undermines any rational for the proposal within the application.

The ill-conceived proposal for a climbing centre combined with the fact that the principle climbing locations have not even been mentioned or detailed on the site plan are symptoms of the complete lack of community involvement with climbers previously mentioned. These facts lead to the inescapable conclusion that the applicant has failed to take account of the impact on recreational function within the overall design process and is only paying lip service to the goals of PPG17. Therefore, considering all these factors, it should be clear that the application in its current form should be refused.

I hope that my comments will be given due consideration and feel confident that while the current planning application is highly unsatisfactory it could be easily altered such that the recreational function of Cowdale Quarry suffers minimal disruption.

In reply to Mark Stevenson:

Very good letter.

Would you object to folks copy/pasting it for their own letters of objection?

In reply to Ghastly Rubberfeet:

Thank you for your comments but due to the way the planning process works a straight 'cut and paste' may not be particularly effective.

However, I would welcome it if people wish to use the key points I have raised (and summarise again below) as a basis for further discussion or on which to base their own submissions.

Personally, I do not feel that the BMC should oppose all development of the quarry however that is a matter for a democratic decision by the Peak Area Meeting. However it would certainly be helpful if climbers could adopt a clear and united stance.

As a suggestion I think that climbers might be able agree that there are 4 key issues that any development would need to explicitly address (and which the current application fails to do). Namely:

- free and unfettered access to the principle climbing areas.
- free car parking, year round, during daylight hours.
- a significant buffer zone of open ground to be left undeveloped around the principle climbing areas (with no alteration to the rockfaces within this zone).
- no commercial promotion of climbing with the quarry.

In reply to Mark Stevenson:
Just want to repeat that in view of the current access arrangement it would be better if any objections were not made on the grounds of a loss of climbing.....

In reply to Chris the Tall:

What is the official access situation then Chris?

In reply to 1234None:
No legal right, but informal access allowed by kind permission of the landowner

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Cheers.

In reply to Chris the Tall: I hadn't read your post from yesterday before I submitted my objection so it wasn't a case of ignoring it. However I am still slightly confused about how the exact nature of the current access agreement has an impact on the issue.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I don't see what would be wrong with objecting on the grounds of loss of climbing. At worst, the planning committee could disregard the objection on the grounds that there is no explicit right to climb anyway (I'm not familiar with planning regulations so don't know if they would really be able to do that). If they disregard the objection, nothing would be lost. There is however a chance that they will agree with the loss of recreational facilities argument.

Perhaps you're alluding to the landowner's attitude, i.e. climbing is currently permitted but if the development is refused due to objections raised by climbers it might be banned. Possibly, but if the development goes ahead, climbing will probably be banned or impractical anyway and it certainly will not be as pleasant an experience.

Anyway, do we know what the latest landownership situation is: has the water company already bought the site or do they intend to buy it once planning permission has been granted?

In reply to Last Thursday: This venture must be vigorously faught Staden Moor is a wonderful climbing ground and having had the pleasure of climbing ther for over 30 years it must be saved and preseved for those yet to try it G Mason

In reply to Last Thursday:

I've only climbed there 3 times but for me one of the great benefits for me was child friendly - the kids could hoof a football around quite happily while we climbed.

I know this argument won't cut the mustard with most of you, but there are few crags where this is possible simply because of topography - its normally an anxious climb trying to look over your shoulder and see what dangerous activities are going on behind....

In reply to Babika:

Not perfect for kids: bits fall off some crags (including this one) and its best to ensure non-climbers keep a safe distance from the edge. Not as bad as Millstone though.

See updated news item here - http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=51453

Alan