the shizzle > get involved: access, environment, BMC

eatswood Rocks - Access

(1/4) > >>

Bonjoy:
Slightly odd to be discussing access problems on a fully banned crag.

Although the crag remains banned, as has been the case for years, the actual owner rarely challenges visitors, mostly because he lives in the farm some way to the south and isn't passed on the approach. However, there are several houses which are passed on the way in, and although they may not actually own the woods they are well aware of climbers using the crag and are, from an access point of view, another de facto set of 'landowners'. There have been discussions between them and climbers several time in the past and it's fair to say they've waivered between ambivalence and opposition to access.

Unfortunately, it seems that recent increased visitor numbers and some thoughtless parking has caused friction which may lead to a drastic worsening if things don't improve.

I had a message yesterday from a climber who ended up chatting to a guy from  the house above the crag. He was friendly and said he was happy for climbers (who he acknowledged were well behaved and respectful) to visit the crag. However, he expressed concern about a recent increased number of visitor (up to 15 people was mentioned). He was also unhappy about cars being parked on the verges, especially near his house. He asked that no more than 3-4 climbers climb there at once. There was a threat to stop climbing if things didn't improve.

There was some confusion as to whether the chap might own some/all the woods crossed, but really this is slightly irrelevant as far as trying to abide by his wishes goes, given he's much better placed to police a ban than the farmer.

On the visitor numbers side I appreciate this will be hard to follow, especially given you won't know how many people are at the crag until you've walked all the way in. That said, 15 people is way too many given the access situation (w/wo Covid considerations), and people should be turning round and going elsewhere/home if they arrive and there's anything vaguely approaching this number. Sticking to the requested 3-4 would certainly be the best way to maintain the current status quo. The greater the number above this, the greater the risk to access.

On the parking side, there is a massive layby just up the road. Cars and vans (the guy was particularly annoyed about these) shouldn't be parked on the verges, this is doubly true for verges visible from the houses. If there are no layby spaces, which wouldn't surprise me given the parking situation everywhere round the Peak, park further away or go elsewhere.

Best practice is to park at the layby, then walk in via the footpath along the ridgeline rather than via the road. This approach is definitely the most discrete.

On the upside the guy in question was friendly and quite positive about climbers generally. From his point of view, so long as things calmed down a bit, he was happy for climbing to continue.

Lastly, if you do bump into folk at the crag please pass on this info, in case they aren't already aware.

Wood FT:
Seems totally reasonable. I wish all banned crag negotiations went like this.

spidermonkey09:
Yep, sounds very fair. No idea why people park on the verge on the corner, it's the height of laziness when the layby is so close. It's also really muddy currently so would imagine its ruining the grass.

I think this is a good example of people trying to do the right thing re covid and avoid honeypots, inadvertently creating another honeypot. Hopefully it will calm down as things relax.

Fiend:
Good report goosejoy. The layby parking and footpath over the top (told to me by Shark a couple of years back) seemed obviously very sensible. Glad the residents are aiming for a good compromise. Maybe something could be done to highlight alternate venues in the area (admittedly looking at the forecast that might be a moot point).

remus:
Thanks for the heads up bonjoy. It would be a shame to further aggravate an already sensitive situation. I can't imagine how 15 people could fit at eatswood!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page