NEWS: The BMC buys Crookrise

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 UKC/UKH News 28 Mar 2017
Face, Arete and Wall Climb at Crookrise, 4 kbThe BMC has bought Crookrise Crag in Yorkshire in order to better protect access for public use. The crag was bought from the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority who have been selling off their land due to cuts in funding. There were a number of interested parties and the sale could have led to...

Read more
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Well done to the BMC for this great acquisition.

Maybe this will help people see the good work that the BMC does

Chris
Post edited at 14:58
 C Witter 28 Mar 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:
The significance of this is far broader than Crookrise and access to it - and I think it's something that needs to be explored and talked about in climbing circles.

Tory-led austerity is leading to councils around the country trying to offload land they are responsible for managing. See this, for example: http://www3.lancashire.gov.uk/corporate/consultation/responses/response.asp...

This is in line with a general dumping of public assets in the face of brutal cuts (despite council tax rises burdening ordinary people). Libraries, museums, community centres - but also parks, common land and crags. This allows private companies to come in and pick up these things on the cheap.

There is a serious threat of public land being sold off cheap and access rights being lost. If the only way of stopping landgrabs by private companies is for climbers, through their representative body, to purchase land, with the explicit purposes of allowing common access and conservation, then this is exactly what the BMC should be doing.

But, in the meanwhile, we need to be campaigning against the defunding of agencies that conserve and protect rural space for public use and we need to highlight how damaging austerity is to our environment and our access rights. Unfortunately, these cuts are not even visible to most people until it's too late.
Post edited at 16:07
 Steve Wetton 28 Mar 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Excellent news - but what about access to the crag? Any specific access agreement, or just the current CROW access, and still affected by shooting restrictions presumably?
Removed User 28 Mar 2017
In reply to Christheclimber:

Indeed. Corporate rebrand vs purchase of Crookrise? I know where I stand on the value for money argument.
11
 Luke90 28 Mar 2017
In reply to Removed User:

God, give it a rest already. I didn't like the rebrand either. It's not happening. Can we move on now?
 chrishedgehog 29 Mar 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Great news. Is there any chance the BMC could buy Guisecliff and help to organise unearthing whatever is under there?! I hear there is a crag concealed in the vegetation but in a handful of visits over twenty years we haven't got a lot done.
 UKB Shark 29 Mar 2017
In reply to chrishedgehog:

> Great news. Is there any chance the BMC could buy Guisecliff and help to organise unearthing whatever is under there?! I hear there is a crag concealed in the vegetation but in a handful of visits over twenty years we haven't got a lot done.

Crag work is mainly done by volunteers and activists. I suggest you put on the Yorkshire Area meeting agenda to do a crag clean up and volunteer to organise the event. That's how stuff happens.
 lummox 29 Mar 2017
In reply to ukb shark:

Sorting out Guisecliffe would be a major job. Plus, you might disturb the T Rex who lives in the cave at the bottom..
1
 Offwidth 29 Mar 2017
In reply to chrishedgehog:

Plenty of the best lines at Guisecliffe are climbable without pre-cleaning. The new YMC guide has colour topos and they are not 'photoshopped'. Lots of starred routes. It also has hollow stars for really good routes that sometimes could do with a spring clean. Its worth a visit for adventurous leaders from VS and the new guide gives loads of tips on how to get the best out of a visit. There is some brilliant bouldering there too. Back to Crookrise now...
 johncook 29 Mar 2017
In reply to Christheclimber:

It is about time that the BMC started to publicise it's work more.
Much of what it does is only reported to the area meetings, and briefly in area notes.
Even the BMC web site only mentions it's successes very rarely and briefly at that.
The BMC should be trying to get their good works into national and local newspapers.
They need to let everyone know how hard the BMC works for the environment and it's users.
Without the BMC there would be a lot of places that had a very different character.
 Simon Caldwell 29 Mar 2017
In reply to chrishedgehog:

Sadly even if Guisecliff were cleaned throughout, people wouldn't go there - as Offwidth says there's plenty of climbable stuff already, but most of it is never climbed. Everyone prefers to join the queues at Brimham across the valley...
 lummox 29 Mar 2017
In reply to Simon Caldwell:

The key in summer foliage is to ab in. Or take a machete..
 Offwidth 29 Mar 2017
In reply to lummox:

My only visits were in summer. I sense checked the whole crag script and climbed some routes (and the descents) crossing the full breadth of the crag. Its an obstacle course but it was in the most part pleasantly OK compared to the death traverse it was made out to be by some.

You can also drop down to better paths in the woods to move more quickly from one area to another.
dynamics_Steve 29 Mar 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

There are a number of questions raised by this which I think are quite interesting:

1. Was the threat to access from alternative buyers real and qualified?
2. Was the question of future access discussed and negotiated with the other potential buyers?
3. Was it also discussed with the Yorkshire Dales NPA to encourage them to enshrine the maintenance of public access in any sale?
3. Was buying the crag really the last resort to maintain access?

I hope that the answer to all of the above is yes, but would like to be reassured.

The general question of crag ownership raises some more questions in my mind:

1. If as stated, the BMC's policy is to own crags purely to secure access, should the BMC also have a policy for disposal of these assets, with the necessary long term security of climbing access built in as a covenant on the purchaser and all subsequent owners?
2. What protections are built into the BMC ownership of assets in it's crag 'portfolio' to maintain the principle of free, unlimited access for all?

The BMC does not need to own crags for the long term to maintain access, it just needs to be able to put in place the necessary protections if the current owner is not prepared to do so.

None of us expects the BMC to seek to restrict access or charge, but attitudes change, and an argument for restricting access and/or charging can easily be constructed, especially if the crag portfolio continues to grow. All it takes is someone with a 'business' mentality to how the professional sport of climbing should be run to decide that the BMC's assets should be providing a return on investment (obviously all for the benefit of 'good' causes such as increasing awareness of climbing as a sport, initiatives to increase participation, funding training for elite athletes to improve Olympic results...).

As a contrast, the National Trust, with a message of preserving Britain's heritage for the benefit of all, also have a policy that properties in their ownership must make a trading profit. This is aggressively pursued with such morally questionable practices as asking visitors for an additional 'donation' on top of their published admission charges, offering 'free' guided tours and then passing around a collection box to embarrass people into donating, and pressuring volunteer staff to maximise revenue generation opportunities.

I hope that the BMC will buck the modern trend for NFP organisations to become more 'business' like, and stick to it's core values.
2
 Jimbo C 29 Mar 2017
In reply to dynamics_Steve:

>As a contrast, the National Trust, with a message of preserving Britain's heritage for the benefit of all, also have a policy that properties in their ownership must make a trading profit. This is aggressively pursued with such morally questionable practices as asking visitors for an additional 'donation' on top of their published admission charges, offering 'free' guided tours and then passing around a collection box to embarrass people into donating, and pressuring volunteer staff to maximise revenue generation opportunities.I hope that the BMC will buck the modern trend for NFP organisations to become more 'business' like, and stick to it's core values.

That's a good point, but therein lies the difference between managing land and managing properties. Keeping a property open for access requires a full time staff so it is reasonable to expect to pay admission fees. Where the National Trust are irritating is that the staff will constantly pester you to join the NT if you're not a member. On the other hand, the NT also manage large swathes of land which are free to access (perhaps with the management costs subsidised by their profit making properties).

I also hope that the BMC owned crags don't go down the line of admission fees and that the current model of volunteer based work is sustainable.
 UKB Shark 29 Mar 2017
In reply to dynamics_Steve:
> As a contrast, the National Trust, with a message of preserving Britain's heritage for the benefit of all, also have a policy that properties in their ownership must make a trading profit. This is aggressively pursued with such morally questionable practices as asking visitors for an additional 'donation' on top of their published admission charges, offering 'free' guided tours and then passing around a collection box to embarrass people into donating, and pressuring volunteer staff to maximise revenue generation opportunities.

Is that an actual stated policy and have you got a link? The reason I ask is that in the BMC Peak Area newsletter it was mentioned that they were looking at buying Win Hill and if that is anything approaching the price tag it is being advertised at I would struggle to see how it would make a return on the investment.

With regard to the purchase of Crookrise it would have to meet the BMC's stated policy the requirements of which are as follows:

www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-core-policies

The first option will always be to secure access through other means such as informal or statutory agreements. Where this is not possible, access should be secured by encouraging an appropriate 3rd party (e.g. a local authority) to purchase or lease the site. As a final option the BMC will consider purchasing land itself to secure access.

In such circumstances the following factors should be taken into consideration:

purchase cost
management implications e.g. staff/volunteer time, liability, ongoing costs, long term management problems such as erosion or vandalism etc
significance of the site, including its popularity and the availability of alternative venues, and scope for access problems being resolved in the future

The BMC also recognises that there are many schemes under which landowners and occupiers may receive payments for the providing and managing access. Where it is not possible for a banned site to be included in such a scheme and the above options have been explored, unsuccessfully, the BMC may consider a final option of paying for the management of the site (including the provision of access), either indirectly through a 3rd party or directly as an occupier. This should only be considered in the case of intractable problems at nationally significant sites. Any such agreement must not compromise the provision of free access to other sites. The BMC has a policy of dedicating its own land as access land under the CRoW Act 2000 wherever possible.
Post edited at 13:48
 petellis 29 Mar 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I wonder how the BMC intend to manage the land?

Are they going to graze it? Or are they going to let the trees in?
 toad 29 Mar 2017
In reply to ukb shark:
As far as "appropriate third party" is concerned, that aspect needs urgently revising. Local authorities and indeed other groups, like land owning charities, are moving rapidly away from direct ownership. In part that is due to austerity related budget cuts- (see the lancs county council link elsewhere on, I think, this thread ) but also wider aspects of the current financial situation. This means the BMC is likely to have to consider purchase more often, because the number of suckers to do it for them is shrinking.

Historically, Many similar sites might have had a commuted sum / endowment to cover ongoing management costs, but these are now worthless as income generators. Brexit and the current preoccupation with "red tape" also mean that agri environment grants are probably going, especially for non agricultural landowners. So maybe the BMC is going to have to think the unthinkable and look to generate climbing related income from their own sites, especially those that are bolted or otherwise high maintenance. A Stoneycard, perhaps?

ETA the lancs council link might be on the other thread, but worth looking at, as it has important ramifications
Post edited at 14:18
 Simon Caldwell 29 Mar 2017
In reply to Offwidth:

On a mostly non-climbing exploratory visit one summer I managed to walk along the foot of the entire crag from left to right, and even the densest undergrowth didn't seem too bad. That's what comes of climbing on the obscure parts of Whitestonecliffe and Peak Scar I guess, everything else is a path in comparison!
pasbury 30 Mar 2017
In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I think the BMC should be in the business of buying crags where appropriate. They then should undertake to never charge for access to the crags, management policy should be agreed and can be undertaken by volunteers - I'd help maintain any BMC owned crag at the drop of a hat (none close to me though).
 Will Hunt 30 Mar 2017
In reply to ukb shark:

> Crag work is mainly done by volunteers and activists. I suggest you put on the Yorkshire Area meeting agenda to do a crag clean up and volunteer to organise the event. That's how stuff happens.

For what it's worth, the access at Guisecliff is not the best. The crag forms the boundary of the CRoW access land and the farmer has been know to challenge climbers (I believe Dave Sutcliffe was berated while actually in the process of leading one of his new E8s). I've raised the possibility of cleaning up Comet Buttress but been advised against it as it's likely to cause problems with access.

Having said that, there are certain lines that stay clean there. Luckily for the VS leader, one of these is Comet Wall (HVS 5a) which is really only VS and is amongst the finest in Yorkshire. Steep, well protected, clean as a whistle, and on massive holds all the way.

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