New access agreement for Wildcat Main Crag (Matlock)

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Rob Dyer, BMC 08 Apr 2022

Hi all,

Following several months of negotiations and working closely with the new owners of Wildcat (and Willersley Castle), I'm pleased to announce that we have a new access agreement in place for climbers. Access is different from before and a little more effort is required, involving the need to walk to the top of the crag and abseil in, but this is a significant improvement on what has been and could have continued to be a complete ban. A big thank you to the new owners Manor Adventures from me for listening to our proposals and agreeing to continue to allow climbing at this fantastic crag.

Full details of the agreement and why it is needed are below, but it's worth stressing how important it is that we as climbers demonstrate to the new owners that we can follow the agreement made, otherwise there is a very real risk that access will be banned. The new owners monitor this site regularly, so if anyone feels like thanking them for getting access back up and running that certainly wouldn't hurt the growing relationship between them and the climbing community.

Site signage is up to tell visiting climbers what to do and the RAD has been updated, but please do spread the word to anyone who climbs at Wildcat to make sure it's understood and followed as widely as possible.

Cheers,
Rob Dyer, BMC Access & Conservation Officer (England)

.

.

Land from the broken wall southwards has recently changed ownership and the approach to Wildcat Main Crag has changed. All climbers must now approach by walking to the top of the crag (path to the left of the broken wall), abseil to the ground and not walk beyond the crag base. This is essential to maintain a good relationship with the new landowner and ensure continued access for climbers.

There is good reasoning behind the new approach. The crag falls within a parcel of land now being used for outdoor education of young people, so the new landowners need to prevent climbers and members of the public from coming into close contact with children on site for child safeguarding purposes. By limiting access only to climbers who will stay in close proximity to the crag, there is sufficient buffer zone between the crag and other areas of the site being used with children.

A new fence has been installed along the line of the old wall to prevent the public walking onto the site. This blocks off the previous approach path, but please do not climb over the fence and instead access the crag from above by abseil. It is imperative that climbers follow this new approach and self-police, as climbing over the fence is very visible to instructors using the river below and will jeopardise future access to the crag. If you see other people trying to climb over the fence, please inform them of the new approach – it is up to us as climbers to make sure we stick to the agreement and keep access open.

Currently four in situ abseil stations exist at the top of Jackdaw Grooves, Lynx, Tut’s Anomalous and Climacteric. It is hoped that additional dedicated abseil lines which don’t interfere with popular routes may be developed in future, but for now these existing abseil stations provide a solution. Once you abseil in, please stay in close proximity to the base of the crag where you will be well away from any children on site.

Due to their close proximity to areas being used by children, access is no longer possible to the four smaller crags south of Wildcat Main Crag (Upper Tor, Mill Tor, Woodbank Tor or Mole Trap Buttress). Other than Upper Tor, these crags have mostly returned to nature through lack of use.

Post edited at 14:37
3
 ebdon 08 Apr 2022
In reply to Rob Dyer, BMC:

Curses, some of the routes at upper tor have been on my to do list for ages. It always looked very good from the guidebook that's a real shame.

Anyway thanks to the BMC and volunteers especially for negotiating this. Hopefully a good relationship with the new owners can be maintained.

1
 Offwidth 08 Apr 2022
In reply to Rob Dyer, BMC:

Good news Rob and thanks again for all your efforts. I'm greatful Manor Adventures have agreed access to the main areas of the crag.

 matt_chan 08 Apr 2022
In reply to Rob Dyer, BMC:

A bit of a faff certainly, but a happy outcome in light of the situation and the understandable concerns of the land owner.

Thanks to you and them for sorting this out.

 GrahamD 09 Apr 2022
In reply to Rob Dyer, BMC:

That's great news, thanks. 

 Martin Hore 09 Apr 2022
In reply to Rob Dyer, BMC:

Great news Rob and many thanks for getting this working. In the past, I normally walked down from the tops of routes at Wildcat but many climbers abseil and for them this is barely any extra hassle at all.

You say that Manor Adventure also own Willersley. How is access affected there?

Hat's off to Manor Adventure for agreeing to this. We need to do our bit I suggest. Obviously not crossing their new fence, but also guarding against any shouted language that might be inappropriate in the hearing of children, and not using the area at the base of the crag as a toilet. 

Moving along the bottom of the crag usually involves descending a little and re-ascending. Any guidance on how close is "close proximity"?

Huge thanks again - it's one of my favourite crags. Wildcat, and Willersley, are the nearest trad climbing venues to Ipswich!

Martin

Post edited at 10:00
 Ian Milward 09 Apr 2022
In reply to Rob Dyer, BMC:

Just in case the mention of Willersley Castle (The old Arkwright mansion and grounds in which the Wildcat crags referred to above stand) might cause some to also visualise Willersley crag, it might avoid potential confusion and comment to point out that the de facto situation at Willersley is unchanged and unrelated to the recent situation re: Wildcat.

Again many thanks to Manor Adventures for their understanding of the value of Wildcat to the climbing community and to the pragmatic solution agreed via the Rob and BMC.

 Ian Milward 09 Apr 2022
In reply to Martin Hore:

Sorry Martin, think I was typing when you were posting!

 John Gresty 10 Apr 2022
In reply to Rob Dyer, BMC:

Sounds more like a fence to keep the kids in, stop them escaping to the fleshpots of Matlock Bath, rather than keeping climbers out. 

John

In reply to Rob Dyer, BMC:

Very well done. Congrats.

 pec 10 Apr 2022
In reply to Rob Dyer, BMC:

Just got to make sure you can definitely climb out via your last route of the day or don't get caught out by a rainstorm otherwise you'll be trapped at the bottom of the crag.

It turns Wildcat into a bit of a seacliff experience.

In reply to John Gresty:

I can eat children from 440 Yards 

6
 John Gresty 12 Apr 2022
In reply to Rob Dyer, BMC:

I had hoped that one day I could walk all the way from Matlock to Cromford (avoiding the road) along the river bank but the current situation seems to making that dream even further away. 

I have walked the Willersley Castle to Matlock Bath stretch, with permission, when the 'Castle' was holding an open day, and even bashed my way through the woodland below High Tor. But surely we should be able to enjoy this limestone gorge in its entirety without resorting to road walking or diverting across the top, Apart from one small part where there is a rock outcrop dropping down into the river, and the now broken down colour works a riverside path is feasible.

I have also explored the 'Castle' grounds, also on an open day, and there is plenty of space to accommodate children's activities without encroaching anywhere near the nasty terrain that exists immediately below Wildcat crag. And don't forget that the 'Castle' has previously taken large groups of children, who could have easily burnt the place down on one occasion. 

The access agreement may be a pragmatic solution to the situation but it is a retrograde step for everyone, not solely the climbing world.

John

7
 UKB Shark 12 Apr 2022
In reply to Rob Dyer, BMC:

Well done to all involved reaching an agreement. Upper Tor is the stand out crag at Wildcat so it’s loss is very disappointing. Have fond memories of Sunset Creek.

Hopefully the access arrangement will be abided by all and the relationship with the landowner developed so Upper Tor can be climbed again in the future 🤞

 UKB Shark 12 Apr 2022
In reply to UKB Shark:

Would be a good idea to add the banned symbol against each of the Upper Tor routes in the UKC logbooks.

 Graeme Hammond 12 Apr 2022
In reply to Rob Dyer, BMC:

Great news that a total ban has been avoided, I hope everyone can follow the agreement.

Do you think there would be any scope for access to the other crags (particularly Upper Tor) on certain days or times, Tuesdays after 6pm or random times advertised last minute when no children will be in the area if the current agreement goes well?

Lastly is there any provision for access to the bottom of the crag without abseiling in the case of an emergency such as a locked gate that the emergency services (particularly mountain rescue) can use?

 spenser 13 Apr 2022
In reply to Graeme Hammond:

This comment has been raised a couple of times on the mailing list for the Oread (mountaineering club local to Derby/ Nottingham which visits Wildcat fairly frequently).

If there isn't an accessible route (or a means of contacting the owner to create one) away from the crag base in the event of an accident I can see the fence getting damaged quite badly by a party trying to self rescue at some point in the future. 

1
 brianjcooper 13 Apr 2022
In reply to Graeme Hammond:

> Lastly is there any provision for access to the bottom of the crag without abseiling in the case of an emergency such as a locked gate that the emergency services (particularly mountain rescue) can use?

My thoughts too. I've emailed Rob regarding this issue.

1
 Mark Lloyd 13 Apr 2022
In reply to John Gresty:

As well as a walking path I always thought that there was a plan to link the end of the White Peak Loop at Matlock with the High Peak Trail via a cycling route along the River Derwent, that seems pie in the sky now

 John Gresty 14 Apr 2022
In reply to Mark Lloyd:

Yes, there is a gap in the 'Southern Loop' along that stretch, but I do not know if there was any planned route. I'm not sure that making the existing route along the river in Matlock Bath available to cyclists, without a major widening, is advisable.

I walked the Rowsley - Matlock stretch soon after it opened, but  deviated to follow the river bank as much as possible. Maybe not an official path but there is a track on the ground. I do enjoy walking along riversides and often there are fishermans paths that are present on the ground but not marked on any maps.

Opening the Matlock - Cromford riverbank for walking, and also the river itself for canoeing, would be benefical for a lot of folks. (I have met someone would has canoed the complete length of the Derwent)

John

 camstoppa 14 Apr 2022
In reply to Rob Dyer, BMC:

For those with the rockfax peak limestone guide there is a handy "cut out and stick in" supplement for page 364 here: https://www.ukclimbing.com/photos/author.php?id=360060

If anyone has a photo of the access page for any other guide I'd happily produce an equivalent supplement for that as well.

OP Rob Dyer, BMC 19 Apr 2022
In reply to Rob Dyer, BMC:

Apologies for the radio silence - I've been away for the last week on holiday over Easter. To quickly answer a couple of questions raised:

  • The local MRT team have been in touch with Manor Adventures through me and a site walk around was being planned between the Chair of the team and the Head of Centre to work out the best access and egress in the case of a major incident. I haven't heard the outcome of that site visit yet but rest assured it's in hand. 
  • Undoubtedly the access is harder now for minor injuries where you might self rescue - I don't have a simple answer for this as every case is going to be slightly different but at this stage there isn't any chance of a gate being installed (this was something discussed during negotiations). The access currently in place has been signed off by Manor Adventures because it should prevent climbers and students coming into contact, prevents general public access and requires little effort from them to manage, providing climbers stick to the agreement. Asking for additional measures for climbers could easily result in them just saying no to access generally as it creates more hassle for them that doesn't benefit their business. The new access agreement is a compromise on both sides, but it is a workable access agreement and far better than a complete ban. If you are trying to self rescue, make every effort not to damage the fence and if you aren't sure you can get out easily without help, consider calling for help from other climbers at the crag or Mountain Rescue.
  • Access to Upper Tor on days when students aren't in residence hasn't been discussed with Manor Adventures yet. If the current access agreement is shown to work and Manor Adventures are happy after an initial period of time, this is certainly something I would hope to raise with them to see if they would be willing to extend access for climbers during periods of no occupancy. Anything other than a perfect track record from visiting climbers is unlikely to convince them though and it's worth bearing in mind the centre is only likely to be closed for maintenance etc during one or two winter months, so this may or may not be particularly useful.
Post edited at 11:07
Message Removed 20 Apr 2022
Reason: inappropriate content
 camstoppa 20 Apr 2022

In reply to PaulJepson:

There has been historical and well documented access to footpaths along the base of these routes for well over 50 years so it might be worth claiming a right of way which will solve the problem forever.  I suspect even thinking about it might elicit a better permissive route.
 

 Moacs 20 Apr 2022
In reply to camstoppa:

> There has been historical and well documented access to footpaths along the base of these routes for well over 50 years so it might be worth claiming a right of way which will solve the problem forever.  I suspect even thinking about it might elicit a better permissive route.

>  

Or it might aggravate the situation, and close access whilst the issue gets fought out.  Why risk it?

4
 Mark1 20 Apr 2022
In reply to camstoppa:

I have lived most of my life in the area.Any right of way was tolerated by the previous owner for climbers,cavers and locals walking through the grounds,albeit,with minor confrontations from time to time,been that way for as long as I can remember(30 odd years).Given the current situation and the great work from Rob and team,any challenges to the current negotiations could loose permanent access for current user groups,be interested to see if the DCA or PDMHS have come to an agreement for access to the mines. Probably best to play ball and see how things pan out.

 Paul Sagar 20 Apr 2022
In reply to Rob Dyer, BMC:

> Apologies for the radio silence - I've been away for the last week on holiday over Easter. To quickly answer a couple of questions raised:

> The local MRT team have been in touch with Manor Adventures through me and a site walk around was being planned between the Chair of the team and the Head of Centre to work out the best access and egress in the case of a major incident. I haven't heard the outcome of that site visit yet but rest assured it's in hand.>

Yes this is a serious issue - I broke my leg at Wildcat in May 2020 and the MRT were fantastic in getting me off the belay on Tut’s Anomolous…but it would have been a really really long day (longer than it had already been) if they had had to get me to the top of the crag rather than the bottom (where the ambulance was)!

 Baz P 21 Apr 2022
In reply to Rob Dyer, BMC:

Well done for the negotiations and we must now try not to upset the apple cart.

Just to get this off my chest though, I find it extremely annoying in this time of increased public access that a company who purports to give children a start in the outdoors then says “go away and do it somewhere else”. You would think that someone running an adventure company would have some sympathy around a sport venue that I and others have been using for over 60 years.

There, I feel a lot better now.

 brianjcooper 21 Apr 2022
In reply to Rob Dyer, BMC:

Just a thought. The BMC already owns several crags, would purchasing Wildcat (Main) Crags have been possible? Maybe still can, once the new owners have time to consider they are probably too dangerous for children. Even supervised. 

I'm not sure how the Adventure Centre intend using the crags for this reason. The Jungle below isn't exactly friendly either.

 Baz P 23 Apr 2022
In reply to brianjcooper:

I second this approach and would be prepared to contribute to any fund.

I doesn’t look like they want to use the crag at all or else they wouldn’t want climbers anywhere on it. Also it’s possible they could be held liable for any accident on the crag so they may want rid of this risk.

2
 Luke90 23 Apr 2022
In reply to Baz P:

> Also it’s possible they could be held liable for any accident on the crag so they may want rid of this risk.

I really don't think we should ever be making this argument! The potential harm if it's widely believed vastly outweighs the benefits.

 Martin Hore 23 Apr 2022
In reply to Baz P:

> Just to get this off my chest though, I find it extremely annoying in this time of increased public access that a company who purports to give children a start in the outdoors then says “go away and do it somewhere else”. You would think that someone running an adventure company would have some sympathy around a sport venue that I and others have been using for over 60 years.

Sadly, this is also a time of increased - some might say excessive - public anxiety regarding child protection. Most school sites now have robust security arrangements in place to deny unauthorised access to members of the public. And most schools sending children to adventure activity centres will expect something similar in place on the centre site. I don't imagine it's the climbers the centre sees as a risk - that's evidenced by their willingness to agree this access arrangement.  It's members of the public generally who would have free access to the site if they don't fence the boundary. 

There is, of course, a long standing example where climbers are allowed access to an adventure activity centre site. This is Bowles Rocks. But the situation there is rather different. Climbers are charged for access, can only enter by the track which passes the centre office, and are in clear view when on the site. And the climbing access has been in place for more than 50 years, predating the more recent increase in concern about child protection. 

Thanks again to the BMC team for getting this sorted.

Martin

 Paul Sagar 24 Apr 2022
In reply to Martin Hore:

Very sympathetic to this point. Kudos to the OP for securing continued access, and the activity centre is simply operating under the law as it stands. But the law as it stands is questionable to say the least. “Safeguarding” by fencing off a previously public area isn’t so much using a sledgehammer to crack a nut as attempting to use a screwdriver to remove a nail. We know full well that the threat to children is overwhelmingly not from random members of the public walking around in open spaces, but from adults who are known to the children. To put it bluntly, statistically speaking the risk to kids using that centre isn’t from climbers going to Wildcat or ordinary folks walking around, but overwhelmingly form the centre staff themselves, family members, and others already known to the children. That’s the sad reality of sexual crime perpetrated at minors (and indeed at anyone). “Safeguarding” regulations are a lot like the “Prevent” nonsense I have to deal with as an academic. It exists in many of its manifestations so that something is being seen to be done, regardless of whether it actually works. 

 Steve Claw 24 Apr 2022
In reply to Martin Hore:

Martin,

Slight side discussion to the thread.

Just reading about Bowles Rocks, its great they allow climbers and £5 seems very reasonable given the facilities.

Does anyone know of anywhere else that has this arrangement?

Does anyone know of any legal issues of liability for the owners once they charge for access?

2
 spenser 24 Apr 2022
In reply to Steve Claw:

High Rocks also charges for climbing, I can't think of anywhere else. 

 PaulJepson 24 Apr 2022
In reply to Steve Claw:

It's near That London. Won't get anything for free around those parts.

 Paul Hy 25 Apr 2022
In reply to Mark1:

Is it feasable to walk in along the top from, say from the railway stn?

 Ian Milward 25 Apr 2022
In reply to Paul Hy:

There's no footpath along the top of the Wildcat cliffs above Matlock Bath. From the station walk down the A6 to the New Bridge south of the Pavillion (usual Wildcat access) then right and up the zigzag path to the top of the Main Crag.

 LJH 26 Apr 2022
In reply to Ian Milward:

There's a well used path including info boards that goes from the back of the station parking, it takes a high line above the less climbed cliffs and joins the wildcat cliff top Access path. You don't need to follow the a6 unless you really want too.


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...