The other side of the shooting coin

[Demonic69]

A friend of mine, who used to be an avid climber - now does a lot of talking and writing about it - has just posted this link on his Facebook page Bolton gun club vs climbers
Asking his friends etc to comment and appeal the planning permission as they see fit.
My first thought was for the shooters, they own the land, follow the rules and actually contribute to the local evening, whereas the climbers don't, on any point.
Now the climbers have a right of access to the cliff face and have probably been climbing it for over half a century, the new container may disrupt this, though I can't find and evidence that the climbers have actually entered into talks with the club to try to reach some compromise.
What do you guys think, do any of you have any first hand experience of this? Could/should the climbers be able to disrupt the plans of the official and responsible owners?

[IainWR]

Needs a lot more info to make sense of the argument. Latitude & longitude, so I can look it up on Google Earth? Means of reply to the climbers? Photos of the site as is and sketch of the proposed change?

[Demonic69]

I can't help with that, though there are links to the planning requests at the bottom of the page.
I'm quite surprised this ever-so-opinionated forum has been so quiet!

[tackb]

There's loads of cliff faces but not enough ranges .............

[Fedaykin]

Certainly an ironic situation considering that amount of restrictions we suffer and the loss of ranges we can shoot at. Going through the comments in their forum they are certainly not a baying mob unlike some corners of the anti-sphere and by in large appear to be sympathetic to our concerns as shooters and the reality this site is owned by the gun club. There is even this comment which raised my eyebrow certainly:

top cat - on 10:47 Tue
In reply to GeoffM:

Look chaps, we need to take a broader view on this. As climbers we have just about millions of places to climb and routes to do. Shooters are very restricted and have, in comparison, virtually no facilities. Shooting ranges are few and far between, and subject to heavy restriction. Climbing venues are really really common: they are all over the place and have lots of routes.

If it was up to me I'd just give them what they need and be pleased to do so. As a sport we don't need this quarry and the few routes affected. The value of it to the shooters outweighs the value to climbing by many fold.

We are being selfish in objecting to this. Look at the big picture.

Now without knowing the exact site issues or what considerations there are in respect of safety it appears to me that there has been a slight c@ck up by the Bolton Gun Club in relation to planning permission and even more importantly IMHO communication with the other users of the quarry.

They have every right as owners of the quarry to expand or improve their facilities, proper consultation with the parties involved is essential to keep everybody happy. It is all about dotting the Ts and crossing the I isn't it?

As far as I can make out the climbers are by in large keen to find a mutually acceptable solution, rather then alienate them and also attract the anti mob who will quickly latch onto this the club and associated representative shooting organisations should engage with the climbers and their representative organisation. Unfortunately some of this is probably down to the slightly insular nature of our sport, it is fixable before things get too heated. For example the "Monday" issue is probably more then solvable with a chat over a few beers in a suitably neutral pub.

Frankly I would rather have the climbers on side then forced into the anti camp through a simple lack of communication.

[DOGGER2UK]

Needs a lot more info to make sense of the argument. Latitude & longitude, so I can look it up on Google Earth? Means of reply to the climbers? Photos of the site as is and sketch of the proposed change?

I don’t think you bothered to read the article .
Google Earth try Wilton,Bolton. Took about 10 seconds to find.(Latitude 53°37'1.69"N longitude 2°27'44.38"W)
Means of reply to the climbers?
Try talking to the BMC (a bit like the NRA but for climbers) Link to their site in article.
Photos of the site as is and sketch of the proposed change?
Follow the link in the article to the full planning application documents at Bolton Council.

FYI Wilton is in that bit of the country just above Chobham

[ovenpaa]

I was a very serious climber for many years and have climbed on the Grit stone in the Bolton area however I am not sure if it was actually at the range. Having said that I did climb in another quarry, the slabs forming part of the back stop. It is difficult to comment based on my experiences as they were many years ago, I do remember turning up when there was a shoot on and we just moved onto somewhere different. The big difference between climbers and shooters is a reasonable climber can find an alternative venue very quickly, often within a couple of miles and seldom more than 10 unless you are climbing somewhere like Harrison Rocks down South whereas the shooters will probably struggle.

There should be room for both.

My concern here is the club has made changes without planning permission at the time and the structure may well have a safety impact on the climbers and even be obstructing the start of some of the climbs.

[Gaz]

As far as I can make out the climbers are by in large keen to find a mutually acceptable solution, rather then alienate them and also attract the anti mob who will quickly latch onto this the club and associated representative shooting organisations should engage with the climbers and their representative organisation. Unfortunately some of this is probably down to the slightly insular nature of our sport, it is fixable before things get too heated. For example the "Monday" issue is probably more then solvable with a chat over a few beers in a suitably neutral pub.

Frankly I would rather have the climbers on side then forced into the anti camp through a simple lack of communication.

+1 on that. I read the comments expecting a frothy-mouthed mob and instead found they were mostly reasonable.

Let's hope it gets sorted amicably.

[Demonic69]

That's just what I though, having had quite a negative experience of "walkers" while riding, legally, off road I expected the climbers to be a lot more militant about potentially losing a few routes.
One of my pet peeves is when people use the planning system to stop someone building, extending etc just because it doesn't suit them, though the actual impact on their lives might be very minor, even non-existent.
At least in this case thousands if not millions of current and future climbers could be impacted, though not to any great extent.
It's good to think that the 2 groups could, potentially, come to an amicable agreement.
As for the planning, it looks like it's a temporary structure that they've decided to keep and expand on

[froggy]

Salut ,
As Ovenpaa stressed out, England is not Switzerland and there is not a huge number of places available for shooting. I feel for those guys who put the money together, and bought a place assuming they were securing a spot where they could indulge in their hobby as they see fit only to find that mere users are trying to prevent them from doing so.