Wales Outdoors 'Donates' £2000 To The Brecon Beacons National Park For Urgent Footpath Work
But will this money ever be accepted?
A Big, Huge, Massive WOW!
Sometimes things move along quickly when dealing with ‘the authorities’… In this case nothing much of use for 2.5 years and then, when I notified the BBNP that I had been contacted by members of the families of three people that have died in the area that I was concerned about, within a week I received pretty much an acceptance of my stated concerns from May of 2020, with remedial action I had suggested being planned in and with the offer from Natural Resources Wales to meet me on location to discuss solutions. It is NRW that I am most surprised about, not having had anything meaningful from them, or even acknowledgements of receipt of emails, regarding my warnings of their actions making the location of concern dangerous for members of the public.
Following the sending of my response to an email received from the BBNPA and detailed below, I received this comment from the BBNPA:
‘With regards to the suggestions you have made, I have been informed by NRW staff that they have a team focussing on this area and that these options are already under consideration. I understand that some of the actions you propose have already been agreed and are being planned in the work programme for NRW’
And from NRW:
‘To explore your proposals in more detail and to understand more fully how these may support the plans and initiatives we are currently developing, I wondered whether you would be available to meet’
There has therefore been a ‘sea change’ within the authorities. After 2.5 years of my warnings about their closure of a path creating chaos in the area for members of the public, and that this closure would lead to accidents, incidents and deaths, it is only now, and knowing that I was talking to the bereaved, that seems to have forced action on this matter.
I wrote this to the Brecon Beacons National Park and Natural Resources Wales, to which their above responses were received, requesting the following at the location of concern in the waterfalls area that they manage:
As a matter of urgency I would suggest:
fencing beside the path at point 22 blocking the two new paths
fencing totally blocking off access to the upper path from the pools below Sgwd Isaf Clun-gwyn
remedial work on the path leading to Sgwd Isaf Clun-gwyn (it's not safe in its current state)
closing of the fencing at Sgwd Clun-gwyn, so blocking access to the diversion
closing of the diversion from the top path.
And for future works:
re-instating 86 after it's been made into a feature walkway or...
making the defined new path, which meets the top path about 15 metres south of point 22, into a safe and usable route, thus making a circular - ish hike possible.
Here is my correspondence with Simone Lowthe-Thomas, the BBNP’s Director of Nature Recovery and Climate Change. Make of it what you will. I was of the opinion that the authorities had no intention of rectifying the issues caused by closure of path 86 and were seeking to distance themselves from claims from the public. Please remember that I have warned the authorities of incidents and deaths at this location and given the reasons why these will continue to occur until a circular route is once again made available to hikers and casual visitors to the area. I have offered them £2000 to kick start a fund for exactly this purpose. I have annotated Simone’s letter to me with the comments that I sent to her in response. I have chosen this method to display the correspondence for ease of understanding. My comments are italicised and bold:
Dear Mr Lamb
I have been informed elsewhere that you have published your blog, which I have not read, but further to your correspondence please note that:
Dear Simone,
Thank you for writing to me about the issues I have raised. here is a link to my blog post - https://walesoutdoors.substack.com/p/more-death-at-the-waterfalls-i-blame
The reason for my recent blog post was that the mother of the man who died in June 2024 has been in communication with me and following a lengthy email exchange we have together worked out the route taken by the deceased. His route taken fits precisely the problems associated with not having a circular route and therefore the problem that I have been warning about. Further, a sibling of one of the women who died was in communication with me in 2023, and no, I did not say, as you have implied, that they fell from the path which you are calling path 86.
What I have been warning about is a chaotic area with poor maintenance and signage and very many new 'paths' created due to the closure of path 86. It is the lack of a circular route that is the issue and that is an issue that you and NRW seem unable to grasp.
BBNPA did offer to meet with you in 2022 for this purpose– which you refused. Yes, I declined to meet but you know well enough why I made that decision. You were adamant that closing path 86 was an authority decision and you made it clear that there was no further discussion to be had on that matter. I warned you then that accidents and fatalities would be the result and that in the face of intransigence on the issue of creating a fit for purpose circular route a meeting would not be a good use of anyones time.
Visitor feedback and engagement with the outdoor providers groups and other groups in the area to inform management plans was, and continues to be, undertaken. Pro-active visitor feedback gathering is required. You need to have people on the ground, on 86 and on its approaches, asking why people are in that area, not just a few pleasantries in Gwaun Hepste Car Park.
Multi-organisation information sharing and response with the landowners, user groups and other organisations operating in the area does take place regularly, and in response to any accidents. I'm sure information sharing does take place. But that assertion is meaningless when the authorities cannot see it is their decision to not offer a circular route that is the cause of problems in the area.
BBNPA also suggested that you join with the other outdoor providers, including SWOPG, to inform and engage with the Waterfalls Safety Advisory Group and as this was the best way to share your knowledge and engage with safety planning within the area – which you rejected. This group meets formally twice a year, involving landowners, emergency services and rescue services and representatives of the outdoor providers to undertake the activities you suggest – share learning, plan for visitor safety and engagement and information management plans. I've responded to this before. I refer you back to that response.
BBNPA are not the owners of the land you are commenting on, this is NRW owned land. This limits our involvement and jurisdiction with regards to the management of this land, although we do work closely with them and others across the whole area as described above. I don't really care who owns or who has jurisdiction. I want to see a solution that will go some way to reducing the likelihood of accidents in the area. That is therefore your and NRW's responsibility.
I will share your offer to meet to discuss your suggestions to reinstate the path and the kind offer of a £2000 donation with NRW. I cannot speak on the behalf of, or share information about the operations of, another public body. Thank you.
Please find below some factual corrections to the inaccurate data and assumptions you have made with regards to accidents on this pathway (formerly right of way 86).
Pending the inquest findings, the two ladies did not die from a fall from this pathway. I have never said the two ladies fell from path 86. I have said they died in the area of concern. I do not know if an inquest has been held or any results. I do know that at the time it was unclear where the first female went into the water but that it was assumed the other followed her downstream to Sgwd y Pannwr, there dropping her bag and going in herself. Please correct me if I am wrong in this understanding.
There have not been several deaths due to falls from this pathway as you claim. There have been two recorded deaths resulting from falls from this pathway, one in 2022 and one in 2024. I have not asserted that there have been several deaths from falls from the pathway, but I have asserted that there have been several deaths in the area of concern.
There have also been three accidents resulting in serious injury recorded on pathway 86, two in 2022 after which the pathway was temporarily and legally closed under the under section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and one in 2023 again when the pathway was still legally closed. Thank you for the information.
Pathway 86 was deregistered as a right of way in 2024. Yes.
Pending the inquest findings, the location of the fatal accident in June 2024 was not, as you suggest, a fall from a ‘new pathway’ or due to the person trying to find their own way, our understanding is that the fall was from the former right of way pathway 86. You are wholly wrong. I have retraced the steps taken by the person who died in June 2024 and he descended from point 22 and then trended left. Whether he got to 86 is a moot point. The fact is that after following the diversion from Sgwd Clun-gwyn he found no further directions, as there are none, and it is likely tried to make his way by what he thought was a path to Sgwd Isaf Clun-gwyn. This is a new pathway (as in 2022 it was barely visible but it is now regularly used and quite defined) and he was trying to find his own way.
Much of the rest of the article is your own personal views, interpretations and assumptions on which we have no comment. Yes, the blog is my personal view, but it is a view based upon years of activity in this location and my average of delivering two walks in this area a week throughout most of the year with summer months being three a week and winter being one a week. It is therefore the view of the most active leader in the area and a mountain leader of over thirty years. Further, when I explain the issue to outdoor professionals, enthusiasts and general public alike, they understand what you do not. That it is clearly the lack of a circular route that is the cause of the 'new paths' and so the wandering onto dangerous and sometimes fatal ground.
Having spoken with NRW they have no further information or response to add unless they respond to you with regards to your offer to meet as per point 6 above. I would expect nothing less of NRW.
I will meet on location but the urgency in this is so that we can observe how users of the area make use of the area of concern before the end of the summer, whilst visitor numbers are still high. As stated, you are trying to direct people, make them fit your plan. That, in reality, is a nonsense. The new paths and 86 are in constant use. By closing the path you have not stopped people from using it or from trying to find their own way.
As a matter of urgency I would suggest:
fencing beside the path at point 22 blocking the two new paths
fencing totally blocking off access to the upper path from the pools below Sgwd Isaf Clun-gwyn
remedial work on the path leading to Sgwd Isaf Clun-gwyn (it's not safe in its current state)
closing of the fencing at Sgwd Clun-gwyn, so blocking access to the diversion
closing of the diversion from the top path.
And for future works:
re-instating 86 after it's been made into a feature walkway or...
making the defined new path, which meets the top path about 15 metres south of point 22, into a safe and usable route, thus making a circular - ish hike possible.
You can book our walks through the Wales Outdoors Website.
Your support is what allows these articles to keep being created and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.
1. Subscribing monthly via Substack
2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee
