Many climbers do operate with a degree on conscience. Whilst I don't live in the area I would hope the local climbers would perhaps decline using such a facility. If the local government realise the opposition to the project is from the very target audience they are aiming at then it may stop this plan.
Right project, wrong location.
The bit about outdoor crags being busy as a result of Climbings Olympic status and an indoor wall helping with this made me chuckle too.
I agree
I didn't say this project was 'helping' the crags become more populated, just that walls being built in protected areas outside of urban spaces was not something many people would have envisaged.
Although I doubt that huge numbers will flock to the crags, it's something that's been discussed since talk of climbing entering the Olympics first started.
A panoramic 3d view of the climbing area:
https://panorama.enscape3d.com/view/sgc8w9tz/
Looks pretty holdless to me.
I used to live in P'town and work at Ferry Meadows. Peterborough is up there as one of the most uninspiring places a climber could live, and a new wall would be very welcome. But, I completely agree that this is an insane place to build it. For a start, there are no public transport links and the park is not in a central location, so it is not convenient for local people - especially young people and those without cars. Second, it would significantly increase traffic down the single-track access road through the meadows.
This is just another example of the vacuity and bureaucracy of the dominant planning culture. Everything is about "signature" projects that make a splash, and none of it is actually about real, meaningful dialogue with local people about their needs and desires. Local councils of all colours are poor on ideas, are disdainful of democracy and are moved more by the vagaries of short-term funding opportunities than by long-term development needs. There is a country-wide, systemic but very quiet democratic crisis going on, with regard to local government.
Looks a bit claustrophobic from that model! And actually quite small compared to most modern facilities.
According to Page 9 of the Planning Documentation, there will be 50 lines in total:
http://plandocs.peterborough.gov.uk/NorthgatePublicDocs/01175998.pdf
As I read it though, 14 of those are on the tall lead walls and the rest are on the 6m high corridors around the bouldering
Independent of the wrongs or rights of the development that is a lovely planning application!
> As I read it though, 14 of those are on the tall lead walls and the rest are on the 6m high corridors around the bouldering
Being cynical, I would say that the inclusion of the 'Olympic Standard' area is a bit of a con to sell it to the Council as they will jump at the chance of having such a prestigious sounding venue in the area.
Unfortunately and as you say, the rest of the centre might be a bit of let down for 'real climbers' and I'm guessing that the real target audience is people using it as a fitness centre, etc.
Judging by some of the gas guzzling monsters I see parked up at my local climbing centre there's a fair amount of "real climbers" who obviously don't give a f*ck about the environment. Unfortunately.
Maybe that's just a London thing though, as there seems to be a fair amount of concern raised about this development.
Does look a bit small though doesn't it? I Wonder how many derelict churches, or other large volume buildings there are in the area that could offer a greater amount of lines with little or no environmental impact?
Its certainly too small for any comp at national level - have you seen the venue capacity figures in the proposal?
It might be a good training centre; entreprises can certainly put up a decent wall but for comps? Nah. The building is nowhere near big enough.....
At least it's sunny outside
> Being cynical, I would say that the inclusion of the 'Olympic Standard' area is a bit of a con...
Totally. From what I can tell "Olympic Standard" is no measure of quality, it's simply the size of the wall, which should be 15m high, overhang by between 7m and 9m and be 12m wide. The bouldering wall isn't big enough for IFSC competition, even when it's extended.
Not to mention that the facility is clearly not big enough to host serious competitions with spectators.
> Totally. From what I can tell "Olympic Standard" is no measure of quality, it's simply the size of the wall, which should be 15m high, overhang by between 7m and 9m and be 12m wide. The bouldering wall isn't big enough for IFSC competition, even when it's extended.
The Olympic wall(s) will be specifically installed for the event - speed is easy as speed walls are identical the world over. The lead and bouldering walls will be, I would think, very very good examples of walls you see week in week out on the screen of your choice whilst watching the IFSC comps. They'll be at the top end because the olympics wont have any compromises built in, either physical or financial. and as you say, the wall will conform to IFSC competition standards regarding height, overhang etc etc. So its quite easy to build an "olympic standard" wall, as all you need is a copy of the wall regs.
> Not to mention that the facility is clearly not big enough to host serious competitions with spectators.
And then this minor issue comes into play.........
It is going to be a pretty crap business proposition with only 50 lines and only 14 proper ones.
The cost and safety implications of setting those full-height lines is going to be very restrictive. My guess is that the wall will never be reset and will aimed at the climbing 'experience' market. Even then it is very difficult to see it being commercially viable.
When you look at the new wall at Innsbruck and see what they have achieved, it is very difficult not to be pretty miffed at the complete waste of money of this half-arsed 'visionary' effort.
Back in the 80’s I loved Slawston bridge, Twyford viaduct and even considered visiting Finedon...
Moving to Yorkshire was my chosen solution...
Developing the above was perhaps the alternative ... (?!)
Sounds like a daft idea to build something like this in a natural area.
Surely if the Olympics ever get held in the UK again and they're looking for somewhere to host the climbing they'll use Ratho?
> Sounds like a daft idea to build something like this in a natural area.
> Surely if the Olympics ever get held in the UK again and they're looking for somewhere to host the climbing they'll use Ratho?
If the olympics ever gets back to the UK, there'll be a venue built specifically, within the olympic park, with adequate spectator facilities. Ratho could hold a couple of thousand max.
I'm not sure why they're bothering with this whole project at all! There is already a world class climbing wall in Peterborough. 👍
> If the olympics ever gets back to the UK, there'll be a venue built specifically, within the olympic park, with adequate spectator facilities. Ratho could hold a couple of thousand max.
Why would they build a venue? Thousands of spectator seats + a climbing wall = completely useless white elephant.
Just take an existing large concert/conference/sport venue with a high enough roof and build a temporary climbing wall in it. I seem to remember the French hosted a climbing world championship in one of the big arenas in Paris.
Because its the olympics, and building new venues is what they do - see london 2012 (stadium / aquatics / velodrome etc etc). For a single sport world champs, only one venue is needed. We could quite easily "do a Paris" with the climbing world champs in many of the arenas around the uk (O2, Excel, NEC, MEN, SECC, Ingliston (or whatever its called now) etc etc.
> Because its the olympics, and building new venues is what they do - see london 2012 (stadium / aquatics / velodrome etc etc).
I'm certainly not going to bet against the Westminster government building expensive, useless sh*t in London.
There's a lot to consider here both in the original topic and some of the replies.
My two cents, I think the idea of a climbing venue in a beautiful place if well thought through makes perfect sense. Check out beautiful alpine towns with great climbing venues and you'll see a climbing culture that increases the number of young climber. Many of these young climbers then gain an appreciation for the environment and being outdoors through the sport and this education actually creates a stronger environmental awareness in the area than before.
I think the comments around gas guzzling cars and 'real climbers" is hilarious. Noone says you have to be a zen hippy to be a climber. They come in all shapes and sizes just like every other group of humans engaged in a sport.
This particular application seems ill-fated and ill-thought-through but I think the idea isn't terrible just the particulars.
If the UK climbing scene wants to make an impact they should be, in my opinion, more scientific in their approach. Map current access to climbing faciliities,.find the gaps based on access criteria like distance and public transport and then overlay it with population heat maps. Build in areas that indicate a gaps and set up fantastic grass root programs. Put together a project for 5 or 6 UK Olympic standard venues and get going with them.
Unstructured rant over
> I'm certainly not going to bet against the Westminster government building expensive, useless sh*t in London.
Useless? Have you even been on the Emirates Airline?
> My guess is that the wall will never be reset and will aimed at the climbing 'experience' market.
I fear this is pretty near the truth.
I'm a Peterborough climber and yes there is already a wall here:
https://www.facebook.com/PeterboroughWall/
It's small and old school with a friendly scene. It was state of the art when it was built in 1995 but rather dated when compared to modern walls. It's largely run by volunteers from the Peterborough Mountaineering Club and the last year or so there have been some improvements - especially more regular routesetting. The venue (competition squash court) is limited in scope for expansion.
I train at PCW but also travel to Cambridge and Keynes for climbing interest (and partly due to having climbing partners there. ) So, as loyal as I am to PCW, there's room in Peterborough for a full size modern wall. Ferry Meadows is NOT the right place for it, it needs to be on an industrial site somewhere.
I understand Big Rock had plans to expand here a couple of years back but I imagine they were holding back to avoid going head to head with Nene Park.
Nene Park used to be run as a trust on behalf of 'the people of Peterborough' (free parking). A couple of years ago the agreement changed and rumours are that they found themselves capital rich but very cash poor (massive parking charge increase and ANPR meter debacle). I would be shining the spotlight in that particular corner if I was looking for motives. It's pretty clear that this is an attempt to increase visitor numbers and cash flow. It's certainly not led by local climbers needs.
The park itself is a beautiful spot and I walk, run, cycle and sail my boat there often. There are otters in the lake and bats amongst the trees. I fear that the motive of this development is to cash in on the commercial climbing boom, and not for the good of locals, either climbers, visitors or wildlife.
I've updated the news piece with a statement from Nene Park Trust.
It would be worth Nene Park Trust having an established wall operator look over their business case.
My gut feeling is that the current design would not generate enough revenue to cover operating costs yet alone the initial 2m investment.
A purpose built 34m indoor wall* is very unusual to say the least.
*The 'gold standard' Innsbruck wall is only 17m.
> It would be worth Nene Park Trust having an established wall operator look over their business case.
> My gut feeling is that the current design would not generate enough revenue to cover operating costs yet alone the initial 2m investment.
Sounds like another Ratho without actually being a great climbing wall.
> A purpose built 34m indoor wall* is very unusual to say the least.
Unusual = unheard of. For comps, no more than 19m is needed.
> *The 'gold standard' Innsbruck wall is only 17m.
Indeed.
Hi Climbers ,
Firstly I would like to make this clear that from the beginning we are not against this Wall just its site!
lets look at Nene Park Trusts ie Mathew Bradbury/ Andrew Mc Dermots info given to you re Ferry Meadows ,Pboro! and fill in some of the blanks for you !
The actual site for this Wall in Ferry Meadows is on a level 3 Floodplain ! Level 3 is the most serious , and within level 3 are 2 categories a& b , both serious both these levels are here! Yes we can build on this because we can ! Doesn’t mean you should ! Every year you look at tv etc to see areas that have come unstuck because of such decisions ! This Floodplain is there to prevent the City from flooding! The Environmental Agency would rather it was built elsewhere!
Andrew states the Wall will only take up 2 mtrs! The wall will be Red, at 34.25mtrs high ! It will be the 3rd highest building in the City except it won’t be in the City it will be in the Heart of our Country Park and Mathew is proud of how far away you will be able to see it - most of the Park!
This site is literally the Heart of the Park where groups congregate ,elderly relatives are taken for the views and disabled alike , it affords some of the best views here!
Also for it be built here these are the further sacrifices we have to make -
The proposed site is currently a small car Park, this Car Park will go to be relocated next door onto Oak Meadow ! To make this Meadow fit for purpose means a permeable / drainage surface has to be laid , the plans show a series of hardcore footpaths to be installed for public access etc
Further currently the Park is in its own natural darkness ! However these Plans intend to open the Park until 10pm every night, 7 days a week ! To do this lighting has to be installed. From the last light it’s about one & half miles to the Wall , the new Car Park and public areas will have to be lit as will the Wall and then of course there’s all the headlights!
The Wildlife Corridor runs through Oak Meadow and I’m sure you can see the impact these changes will have !
Some Historyfor you- this area Land used to be gravel pits , in the 70’s/80’s when the Development Corporation wound up ( related to new town developments) this Land was ‘gifted’ to the People of Pboro as a Country Park etc etc . In relation to the Countryside and getting away from it al etc to nature - walking ,cycling , fishing , picnics etc! Look on the Reviews at there own website, there are hundreds and 98% agree to this day!The responsibility’s of managing the Park was set up and entrusted to the Charity Nene Park Trust ( one of your own) for 99 yr lease. Nene Park TrustCharity is set up as a closed Trust so essentially you cannot gain any info from them legally , even though it was gifted to us!
The actual Landowners are Pboro City Council who bought it for a pound !
Nene Park Trust do not own any Land and in looking at other sites respond by saying we’re a charity so can’t justify purchasing Land ! They do however have Reserves of £38 mill !
To access the Country Park ( although originally gravel pits it’s now matured and in the loss of green spaces we are desperate.)because of its location is by Vehicle , something recognised by Nene Park. Where ever you come from you have to access Oundle rd to get there! This is a seriously busy main rd already as is known ,
There are future plans to build a further 650 + 100 new home on this road , 2 new office blocks, also there is a large Business Oark on this road including some national Headquarters etc
These briefly our sacrifices which need not happen! As a part of the Plans legally alt sites have to be considered. Eg looked at a disused fish n chip shop in a small terrace shops of about 5 !!!!
What has never been mentioned is a site called Splash Lane which is part of Nene Park over the other side , This site has recently had a small section re sub-let leaving an area of approx 14 acres of unused land , with a car park for up to 200 and an established , wide roadway etc!!!!!
I am aware in dealings with Nene Park Trust regarding this matter that it’s like dealing with shifting sand in my opinion!
In relation to this also PCC have declared a Climate Emergency and also aspire to be an Environmental Capital!
Pboro Residents particularly and the Visitors to the Parkhave too much to sacrifice for this Wall to be placed in the heart of our Park. You will know how precious mental health and wellbeing is in this day and age and presumably some of you may use Climbing for this reason . However for lots or reasons this is not every bodies choice . The same as why should we have to be moved further up the Valley , ( by car) to get what we already have ?
If you’ve read this thank you so much for your patience , I just felt you needed to know more than you’ve been led to believe . There is a significant amount of People local and otherwise against these proposals , the sit in the Country Park is the issue ! Thank you ! Vicky Johnson
People might like having a climbing wall in the middle of a country park - a pleasant place to have one, for all the reasons you are against it.
It may be pleasant, but is it necessary, needed or wanted by its target user group? I would say no based on the article and the extra information Ms Johnson has kindly provided. In that case you have to look at other motivations for building it such who is going to build it and their links to the people proposing the idea. Follow the money and you'll find who really wants the development (my tin foil hat is not too tight, thanks for your concern though.)
Just put it somewhere else , problem solved 👍
> People might like having a climbing wall in the middle of a country park - a pleasant place to have one, for all the reasons you are against it.
A few outdoor artifical boulders yes but a rather large and exceptionally ugly building isnt really what fits a country park.
> It may be pleasant, but is it necessary, needed or wanted by its target user group? I would say no based on the article and the extra information Ms Johnson has kindly provided. In that case you have to look at other motivations for building it such who is going to build it and their links to the people proposing the idea. Follow the money and you'll find who really wants the development (my tin foil hat is not too tight, thanks for your concern though.)
True. In this instance I was just being a bit contrarian, however you do tend to find that environmental types tend to find a reason to oppose most things, even each other (don't build renewable power here because it might upset a birds habitat, even if it reduces carbon emissions for example. Nuclear is the very obvious one - great source of essentially unlimited renewable energy with little climate impact on the one hand, toxic environmental pollutant on the other.)
The second BMC Members Open Forum webinar took place on 20 March. Recently-appointed BMC CEO Paul Ratcliffe, President Andy Syme and Chair Roger Murray shared updates on staff changes, new and ongoing initiatives, insurance policy changes and the current...