UKH

I'll just leave this here...

https://twitter.com/RugbyFreePri/status/1575809389810036736/photo/2

I see the future for Stanage...

I have no words

Any idea which routes they’ve vandalised?

Any spa (or what ever they call it now) who uses this should be ashamed of themselves!

I think that's Upper Tor and the crack up the middle is the wonderful Great Crack (E2 5c) with *** Sunset Creek (E1 5b) on the right. It used to be the most solid bit of rock at Wildcat, although quite separate really.

the ghost of Ken wilson must be spining in his grave

That is so very sad.  Fond memories of climbing all those routes…

Neil

I don't see what the problem is, it's only a few bolts? If you don't like the holds then don't use them? 

[/tongue in cheek]

looking at their website it seems as though the company has artificial walls available, so why they have chosen to use the cliffs like this is beyond me. 

Three Hold Slab, a fine E0

Please tell me this is a wind up!  This isn’t some scabby bit of old quarry, these are classic starred trad routes.  In fact Great Crack was pretty near the top of my Peak bucket list of routes I’ve somehow missed.

Spa?? Am I confused on location, is this the centre?

https://www.manoradventure.com/willersley-castle.php

Outrageous

Chris

I presume the sad reality is when someone owns the land that a crag is on, SSI or similar classification withstanding, they can basically do what TF they want with it? 

I take it this is the same company that the BMC negotiated the access arrangements for the rest of Wildcat with?

Holy shit! are you sure this is real and not some photo-shopped wind-up?

This is wrong on so many levels. What concerns me most is that children are being introduced to this as outdoor climbing - will they assume that this is acceptable?

Interestingly we had something very similar many years ago on Bodmin Moor. My friend Nic Dill and I were walking around Trewortha Tor when we came upon a series of bolt on holds either side of the crack which is now https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/trewortha_tor-2549/for_chuck_steak... whoever had placed them had clearly only just finished and gone off for lunch, the ladder and tools were still underneath. We immediately stripped the holds and left them in a neat pile next to the ladder together with a polite note saying why this was inappropriate. I also left my name address and phone number in case they wanted to discuss it with me. I did not hear anything furter and the holds have not reappeared.

In reply to Ellisellisrocks:

Do you know where it is and are you offering to do it? I can tell you where it is if you are serious, but I suspect you'd be running the risk of facing charges like aggravated trespass and criminal damage if you do.

In reply to Ellisellisrocks:

Given they own the crag that would be criminal damage, and I assume would result in the rest of it also becoming closed off.  As outrageous it is to climbers we're almost certainly going to be in the minority here.

As someone else has pointed out - if they own it and it's not protected then they can do what they want.  See other threads where holds have been smashed off at bouldering venues because the landowner doesn't want people climbing there. At least it hasn't been completely destroyed for a housing estate as is happening to one of my local crags. 

In reply:

Although to climbers' eyes its a vile desecration of the best buttress at Wildcat and some of its best routes, the sorry reality is that the venue was already off-limits to us. Whether festooned with fluoro-resin holds, buried or blown up, Upper Tor had already been lost to the climbing public.

It's on private land. The owners run an outdoor activity centre for school kids. Safeguarding will be their number one priority, so they will have zero tolerance of sneaky incursions (i.e. trespass) from members of the climbing community, because it undermines the reassurances they will need to give schools and parents that they are keeping the kids in a safe and controlled environment. It's not like the old days of the Methodist Guild ownership when Upper Tor was officially off limits but you could get away with under-the-radar visits.   

I don't like it at all, but folk need to remember that the same landowner currently grants us climbing access to most of the rest of Wildcat. It's on private land which is in their ownership, so that access is discretionary. This is what the BMC have negotiated on our collective behalf, but that agreement could be withdrawn if we don't collectively respect it.

Bans come and go. This crap is permanent vandalism. These were a few 3 star peak classics, I'm too cross to formulate an articulate response.

Yeah it is, really hope this is a wind up, there are (were) some fantastic routes there

It definitely isn't a wind up

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG1-Hyne5CI&t=114s

You can see the crag in the video later on, plus a smaller crag that's got a mini via ferrata on it

As a former head of an outdoor centre and outdoor education adviser I’d like to think that they will be seriously challenged by their colleagues in the industry. To me, the safeguarding argument is a simplistic and convenient smokescreen for them to hide behind. This is all very simple - it is the commodification of the outdoor environment for financial gain..  which we see again and again..  A direction of travel that is really difficult to reverse.

Some outdoor activity (in this case I refuse to call it outdoor education) providers respect the ethos of our activities, the norms of access and the finite nature of our environment…. But when the financial imperative outweighs the educational one.. we lose.

Very disappointing to see, but sadly, not very surprising…..

" This is all very simple - it is the commodification of the outdoor environment for financial gain . . ."

But where do you draw the line? We're overwhelmed with the 'commodification of the outdoor environment for financial gain'. But what decides which bit of commodification of our outdoor environment is acceptable and what is not?  - zip wires, adventure races, trail runs, paint marks on trails, ski resorts, bolt on holds, commercial white water rafting trips, guided trips to the big mountains?

In reality those of us who thought we were the true voice and guardians of the outdoor 'life' are increasingly the powerless spectators in a world where the land owners, statutory planning bodies and commercial interests will decide.

Worse than bad.

This bit on UKC confirms the location:

I have found more photos:
https://www.middletonprimary.com/i/photos/Gallery/Galleries/3087-Willersley...

https://www.middletonprimary.com/i/photos/Gallery/Galleries/3087-Willersley...

https://www.middletonprimary.com/i/photos/Gallery/Galleries/3087-Willersley...

https://www.middletonprimary.com/i/photos/Gallery/Galleries/3087-Willersley...

https://www.middletonprimary.com/i/photos/Gallery/Galleries/3087-Willersley...

https://www.middletonprimary.com/i/photos/Gallery/Galleries/3087-Willersley...

https://www.middletonprimary.com/i/photos/Gallery/Galleries/3087-Willersley...

source: https://www.middletonprimary.com/News/Galleries/?SSID=3087&password=#Ga...

In reply to Robert Durran:

She was, however, responsible for improving the standard of rock climbing via Dawes, Moffatt, Moon Pollitt et al through her unemployment programme.

I agree - it often feels like a gradual erosion - not of “the past”, but of a sustainable future…. At times I’m encouraged by responsible and thoughtful use of the outdoors - but money and ego seem to be the driving forces that ride roughshod over care and sustainability and accelerate change for potentially the wrong reasons…

There are moderating forces - but I think all they can do is slow down the exploitation of the environment, they can’t prevent it..

We have to acknowledge that ever increasing numbers will lead to ever increasing pressures, but it is exploitation for financial gain (you list good examples) that often accelerates the damage…

Where a managed environment is used (eg artificial climbing structure, pole based high ropes course, artificial slalom course..) it can be a force for good, but natural environments have to be used with respect - and the example at Wildcat is not using it with respect…!

So we can blame Thatcher too for the proliferation of bolts that followed?

In reply to Presley Whippet:

Yes, although the use of this buttress in this way is absolutely tragic, climbing access to Wildcat Main Crag has been negotiated with the land owners. It's up to climbers to stick to the agreed approaches and conduct to ensure that access can be maintained in what is now similar to a school setting. 

In reply to Presley Whippet:

Yes, although the use of this buttress in this way is absolutely tragic, as previously posted on here climbing access to Wildcat Main Crag has been negotiated with the land owners. It's up to climbers to repect the agreed approach to ensure climbing there can continue in what is now effectively a school setting. 

The planning applications and  planning committee documents for this development are freely available. 

March 2022 docs stated that a further application for "fixed equipment " in the grounds would be required , being outside of permitted development regulations.

Sept 2022 , an application for zip wires +? was made .

Letters please......

Let's not get our knickers in a twist.. and no I am absolutely not justifying or normalising someone drilling loads of holes in a lovely bit of rock, they've done a very bad thing! But if the bolts holding the holds can be removed or knocked under the surface (depends what they used) you can fill a hole with resin and some (maybe Fischer FIS V hybrid) come out a grey rock colour that might match the crag. If the right resin is used and done carefully, their damage can be repaired at some point in future, probably fairly well hidden. It's a shame they vandalised it, but it doesn't mean it can never be repaired and climbed again.

If this is the cost of retaining access to other rock people might have to bite their tongues and suffer those fools quietly 

I don't think kicking right off in this instance is entirely futile. They own a hell of a lot of nationally-significant rock. If we bite our lips now then they're not going to think twice when it comes time to expand what they offer. 

It is an incredibly ignorant move on their part. I would have hoped in this sort of scenario that they would have had an adviser or consultant who would have told them it was very poor form. 

And as for their courses, they would need qualified outdoor climbing instructors and pretty experienced climbers somewhere higher up on their payroll. I would hope that they would struggle to find people willing to work with them.

To the person on the street, the difference between bolting here and putting holds on and bolting at Malham etc and putting hangars on might not be readily apparent...

Has anyone here boycotted Ratho due the “vandalism” of that crag?

Setting aside the obvious difference in scale, is what we see here, at a fundamental level, really any different?

Frankly, I find it hard to be very appalled at this “development”.

And other news just in today:

*the Mona Lisa has been repainted as a Peppa Pig scene for visiting primary kids 

*Westminster Abbey has been reconfigured as a playground for visiting primary kids 

*Cloggy has had holds chipped all over it for primary kids' toproping

Progress 

Please all be aware that - no doubt as a result of posting in this thread and possibly other forums (?) - I have just received an email from the Manor Adventures' Willersley site manager stating that previously negotiated climbing access to Wildcat Main Crag has been revoked. It might help appease the situation if this thread was pulled ASAP...

That's a very sad outcome indeed. A good proportion of posts on this thread, while regretting that this "development" at Upper Tor has taken place, none-the-less respect the right of the owners to take this action on what is private land owned by themselves. They are not bound by the ethics we as climbers choose to adhere to, and, as someone has pointed out up-thread, those ethics are in any case quite difficult for non-climbers to understand, allowing, as they do, the bolting of acres of crag on other people's land to place bolt-hangers on, but not one crag on their own land to place plastic holds on.  Both can be returned to approximately their previous state in due course. 

Good luck, Ian, in trying to recover this situation. I suggest keeping a copy of the thread even if it is pulled. It may be helpful as evidence that, while a few wilder posters have suggested trespass and vandalism, many have taken a more nuanced view. 

Martin

I've a similar background as you know.  (If "ATL" is who I think it is - or even if it isn't - best wishes from a former colleague and retiree!)

My first thought was to echo your sentiments, but, on reflection, I think we occupy a slightly privileged position. We were able to make a pretty decent living out of our passion for the outdoors without compromising our principles much at all, but for most outdoor enthusiasts that's not possible. If they want to work in this field, they must either take fairly low paid work or enter the commercial world and move up the commercial ladder. 

And, as I mention in another post, and others have as well, our ethics as climbers are not easy for outsiders to understand. We accept the bolting of acres of crag on other people's land in order to place bolt-hangers, but object to the placing of bolts by these owners on their own land to hang plastic holds from. In the future, if the bolts and what is hung from them come to be removed, I doubt if one will be able to tell the difference.

Martin

Yes. Seeing as you asked.

There’s always one.  

Seems stupid to me that people provoke a situation which results in agreed access being removed. Perhaps a bit of common sense should be used before shouting in public.

In reply to mik82:

Just to clear up any confusion over the planning permissions. Here's the relevant info for those of you who want it.

21/01283/FUL is for change of use. There are no proposals in it for sticking holds on the crag, and they specifically state they will conduct climbing activities without the use of fixed equipment. Condition 7 of this permission specifically commits them to limiting their use of the SSSI area to that which they specified in the applicaiton.

22/01064/FUL is for the zipwire. Natural England have no objections to it because from an environment point of view, there's nothing to object to. It's a free-standing structure. Opposing this on the basis that you don't like the other things they are doing would be pointless, you would be ignored.

ENF/22/00045 is an open enforcement case for a load of other stuff that the owners are appealing.

Natural England has not raised any objections to the climbing holds on the crag because, so far, no one has asked them.

For those who want to see the applications, follow the link and search for the reference numbers: https://planning.derbyshiredales.gov.uk/online-applications/

Indeed so, and we should all be supporting Ian in trying to repair relationships and re-establish access to the main Wildcat Crags, arguably the best lower and middle grade trad limestone in the Peak.

Some posters are suggesting that climbers from afar challenge Manor Adventure's planning applications on the basis that we don't like bits of coloured plastic bolted to a crag which the company owns. But we're perfectly happy to bolt countless running belays and lower offs to any number of crags that we don't own. The subtle differences are hardly going to be understood by non-climbers who decide planning applications.  It seems like a red rag to a bull to me - and quite counter-productive.

Martin 

Hi Ian,

This is really sad to hear, it's one of my local crags and I've had quite a few very enjoyable days/ evenings out there. Hopefully this can be resolved to the benefit of the climbing community.

Yes they have the right but I doubt any posters respect them exercising that right for doing what they’ve done.

As an educational institution they should educate themselves on climbing ethics and history and respect for the environment.

They are giving children on their course the impression that this is a normal and acceptable thing to do in the outdoors when it plainly isn’t. 

If climbing these routes sparks an interest, then you have to assume that if they take it further they will soon learn the ethics of climbing and adapt accordingly - as per loads of people that learnt to climb indoors.

I told an 11 year old the story today, just the bit about the holds, to gauge his reaction. For context, he's done a fair bit of indoor climbing but not much in the last few years and a couple of trips out to local trad crags, again years ago. He lives a mostly urban lifestyle. Given that we've never really discussed much climbing-specific ethics before, as he was quite young when I used to take him, I was actually quite surprised by how shocked he was about it. These were his words:

"What?!!" (head in hands, long pause), "I have no words! Why would they do that?"

He seemed genuinely gutted about it despite never having climbed in the area before. I just thought it would be interesting to share a child's perspective on this. 

I do hope however that access can be restored to Wildcat as I'd love for him to climb there one day. He might even drag me up there again one day...

I agree that we should be attempting to repair relationships and using the BMC to do this is a very good idea.

I also agree that what we are mostly complaining about is bits of plastic stuck on rock as opposed to regular climbers bits of metal stuck on rock.

On the other hand having looked at the planning application which seemed to go through on the nod and then the enforcement notice and appeals against it what becomes apparent is that Manor Adventures having got the change of use immediately, stuck up all the structures and started getting kids in to make some money. Unfortunately when you stick up a structure in a UNESCO world heritage site(among many layers of environmental control for this site) you do also have to have planning permission for the exact size and shape of structure.

I think this link should work to get to the appeals docs

https://planning.derbyshiredales.gov.uk/online-applications/appealDetails.d...

The appeal should have closed last week but it looks as if Manor Adventures will get more time to negotiate what structures they can and cannot have on this site. This would also give the BMC time to make a case for the historical/geographical importance of the climbs that have been altered and maybe advise Manor Adventures to use a different area etc etc

In reply to Presley Whippet:

If climbers cant get mad about someone bolting plastic holds onto *** trad routes, what can we get mad about?

What particularly stinks about all of this (including the making-access-awkward and now revoking it entirely), is that this is an outdoor recreation/education business. This isnt some farmer who has bought some grazing land and doesn't want climbers in his fields. This is an outdoor recreation centre, who has bought somewhere long established as an outdoor recreation area, and is now making access difficult and ruining parts of it for those who have used it for decades.

..and judging from a general slide in climbers behaviour, as per loads of people that learnt to climb indoors who haven’t learned so much as the countryside code, let alone ethics and history.

In reply to Martin W:

Speaking as an equipper of sport routes I think I'd much rather we (the climbing fraternity) didn't pursue this further. This thread has already created an access issue. I think it's probably best if we don't ask local authorities to start looking too closely into what can and can't be done at crags.

Their land, (literally) their business.

In reply to NobleStone:

It’s a shame to see this done at this location, but it is worth thinking about what they’ve done in a wider context.

Bolted-on holds on (quarried) limestone do exist in Yorkshire. They’re in quite a beautiful location, on a bit of common and access land. The rock is only 6-8m high and the ‘routes’ would otherwise be pretty poor / non-routes.
 

The venue gets used by outdoor centres and particularly for disabled users, including abseiling in wheelchairs on an inclined ramp above the routes. The holds create ‘routes’ that are safe, immune to polish by trainers and most importantly very very easy. Easy routes in a easily accessible, flat & safe location are not that easy to come by in the Dales. 
 

If the centres weren’t using this ONE location, they’d either be confined to an indoor wall, some ugly artificial tower or destroying easy routes at Twistleton or similar climbing in trainers or boots (if they could even get to the crag).
 

If you asked me, I’d rather see a small area of otherwise unused quarry with bolt ons, rather than another artificial structure in a national park. It’s not proper rock climbing but it’s a step on the way and at least the kids are out in the sun.

I totally accept this isn’t a bit of crap rock at wildcat, but I put forward that it is a good idea to sacrifice a bit of crap rock for the greater good if they could find a more appropriate bit to use.

Hi All,

Whilst I am aware that feelings (including my own) regarding the developments are running high, can I ask that - at least for the meanwhile - everyone moderates their tone within the thread.

Jon Fullwood (BMC Access Officer) and Ian Milward (BMC Local Area Access Rep) are aware of the situation and having spoken to the former, I know that it's at the top of the priority list. However, in order to have a constructive dialogue with the owners we need to conduct a similarly constructive dialogue online.

As such, please post accordingly. Any posts that contravene this will be removed.

Well said Rob.

I would extend that call for restraint to the folk off here who have been posting on social media (such as the Twitter feed from the school that started this thread). That's really going to antagonise the situation more than the fury local to our climbing community.

I've used the quarry you speak of for work in the past and would agree with you than in that particular case the benefits outweigh the downsides especially due to it's rare usefulness for disabled users. Lightening the load on Twiz and Hutton Roof is probably a good thing in the same way that the Millersdale Viaduct saves the peak grit crags from getting trashed by group abseils. I guess the use of this now semi-artificial crag could potentially save wear on nearby Black Rocks and Harborough. I guess the difference is that this becomes more of a sacrificial crag rather than an alternative like the viaduct, or an artificial structure. I know there is also some local bolted railway embankments that some centres also use which is quite sensible I think. Many centres fix holds and anchors to trees to create cost effective climbing structures.

Having worked in centres, I can see why they might have chosen to make this decision. Centres tend to try and jam as many activities as they can into each residential. Having lots of on-site activities makes this possible and makes it easy to carousel groups efficiently. A lot of centres rarely run actual roped rock climbing sessions any more. This is partly due to needing double the staffing for both the journey and the activity as well as the mismatch between group sizes (rarely more than 12) and minibus capacity (18). Activities with less waiting around that keep the whole group moving, warm and engaged also often tend to be favoured over roped rock sessions. They can now use their off-site days for other activities whilst still running "rock climbing" sessions.

I also suppose that from the centre's perspective, that given climbers had essentially already lost their access to these routes anyway (the modified ones that is), that no further loss was essentially happening. I guess from their perspective, that their new centre is here to stay. They might not look at it with the same geological timescale that some of us seasoned climbers might if that makes sense. 

edit - just to clarify, I wouldn't have made this decision myself. I'd have predicted the backlash for starters... Understanding the motives and perspectives of others is the first step of diplomacy though, and as Rob pointed out, we really need that now...

Having just watched the promo video for the, nearby, Masson Lees dry tooling weekend I’m stumped how we would explain the difference.

Quite simple.

One is a disused Fluorspar opencast.

The other is a wall of natural Limestone untouched by quarrying. 

^This.

^And this.

They should know how climbers would react to this, if they're anything to do with outdoor instruction. Reacting by revoking the access agreement when called out on it isn't a great look either. The whole climbing community is now looking at this company and their values, and their reputation will be built on what happens next.

As climbers we might make the distinction but the wider public are hardly going to be aware of the rights or wrongs of a such development on a private cliff

Their reputation with who? Their clientele aren't going to know that they've upset a group of climbers, or particularly care if the price is right. Unless of course climbers descend en masse on the social media channels of said clientele but that really isn't a good luck for our lot. 

People who might work for/with them. Or people who come here looking for recommendations.

Exactly this.

Due to the time it is taking to moderate this thread, and the continued posting regarding what has/hasn't been removed, we have been left with no other choice but to lock this thread.

We'll review the situation later today, but in the meanwhile - please do not start another.