Crow: yes vote. worst case?

OK, I've not yet decided which way I will vote. I'm generally for increased access but share the concerns of some others re conservation and digging permissions.


However, I don't think i have a good understanding of the potential negative impacts on access of a yes vote.

Let's just say the vote is yes.

Let's just say this gets the backs up of various landowners who say sod the lot of you. No access until official guidance is changed.

Let's just say the guidance and the position of government agencies doesn't change.

Let's just say cavers carry on caving.

Let's just say this results in a test case.

Let's just say Dinah Rose's opinion isn't sufficient and the court sides with the landowners.

We now arrive at the worst case (in terms of access to caves and for getting permission to dig etc.). Clearly some caves can be physically blocked and sealed. But many can't.

Let's just say that cavers carry on caving where they still can.

What then.

What are the consequences to those individuals (presuming they get caught).

Someone using a metal detector on crow land would be banned for 72 hours. Would it be the same for cavers or could a more serious charge be laid against them?



 

Bottlebank

New member
I think it's already agreed that one potential problem is that diggers could be charged with criminal damage.

If the site is a SSSI then Defra have published a handy list of offences - http://adlib.everysite.co.uk/adlib/defra/content.aspx?doc=59645&id=59668

The maximum fine is unlimited, I'm not sure if this would result in a criminal conviction though, I'm sure someone Graham or Bob could confirm this.

I'm not sure legally what the potential for sport caving is - trespass obviously but I that doesn't seem to be too serious in the eyes of the law - maybe someone else can clarify this.

The real damage could be as you say in entrances being sealed, in many cases this is probably easier than you think - if the land isn't on a SSSI, most farmers have diggers or can borrow one as needed - and the obvious damage to goodwill.

Even a fairly large hole can be quickly filled with a JCB.

 

Andy Sparrow

Active member
The worst case scenario is that a second ballot will then be required to change BCA's constitution, which means that nothing will be settled, and the debate will carry on and on,  for months to come...
 

bograt

Active member
Andy Sparrow said:
The worst case scenario is that a second ballot will then be required to change BCA's constitution, which means that nothing will be settled, and the debate will carry on and on,  for months to come...

Constitution changes can be made at the AGM or a SGM called for that purpose, no need for a postal ballot, just got to get people to the meeting!
Those that can't be arsed should accept the decision and not complain.
 

bograt

Active member
Then one has to think about blocking a cave entrance with a JCB, surely this is interference of a natural feature? :-\

It works both ways!
 

Bottlebank

New member
bograt said:
Then one has to think about blocking a cave entrance with a JCB, surely this is interference of a natural feature? :-\

It works both ways!

On a SSSI yes, outside of one or any other protection, I doubt it. Maybe someone can confirm this?

bograt said:
Andy Sparrow said:
The worst case scenario is that a second ballot will then be required to change BCA's constitution, which means that nothing will be settled, and the debate will carry on and on,  for months to come...

Constitution changes can be made at the AGM or a SGM called for that purpose, no need for a postal ballot, just got to get people to the meeting!
Those that can't be arsed should accept the decision and not complain.

Can any member go to any BCA meeting? I had a brief look for info on this and couldn't find any. Certainly the impression was that the C & A meeting was closed.

I must admit I'm pleased to see the BCA are consulting more widely, and that we all have a real say. Bu I also agree with those that say this is a bit rushed and they should be getting more info out to us prior to the ballot.

Andy Sparrow said:
The worst case scenario is that a second ballot will then be required to change BCA's constitution, which means that nothing will be settled, and the debate will carry on and on,  for months to come...

Not great I agree, but worst case for me is a campaign lasting many years strongly opposed by landowners and it's highly likely we won't know if that happens until after the two referenda when our own campaign starts!
 

Hughie

Active member
On a SSSI yes, outside of one or any other protection, I doubt it. Maybe someone can confirm this?

Don't see why not - especially if there's no protection order of any kind. Can always play the H&S card - that always works. A tenant may have to seek permission from their landlord (most would be fine with this - especially in the context of this thread, as they would consider that blocking a hole may relieve them of a little bit of third party liabilty.)
 

graham

New member
bograt said:
Andy Sparrow said:
The worst case scenario is that a second ballot will then be required to change BCA's constitution, which means that nothing will be settled, and the debate will carry on and on,  for months to come...

Constitution changes can be made at the AGM or a SGM called for that purpose, no need for a postal ballot, just got to get people to the meeting!
Those that can't be arsed should accept the decision and not complain.

I do wish people making what appear to be definitive statements would actrually bother reading the relevant documents.

9. PROCEDURE FOR POSTAL BALLOTS:

9.1. A constitutional amendment adopted by a General Meeting will require ratification by a postal ballot.

Makes them look a bit silly. :coffee:
 

graham

New member
bograt said:
Then one has to think about blocking a cave entrance with a JCB, surely this is interference of a natural feature? :-\

It works both ways!

What, a natural feature like a dug open entrance?  :-\
 

Bottlebank

New member
graham said:
bograt said:
Then one has to think about blocking a cave entrance with a JCB, surely this is interference of a natural feature? :-\

It works both ways!

What, a natural feature like a dug open entrance?  :-\

That's got my head spinning. So if we have permission for a dig on a SSSI, and the landowner decides to block the entrance and then rescind the permission....
 

graham

New member
Bottlebank said:
graham said:
bograt said:
Then one has to think about blocking a cave entrance with a JCB, surely this is interference of a natural feature? :-\

It works both ways!

What, a natural feature like a dug open entrance?  :-\

That's got my head spinning. So if we have permission for a dig on a SSSI, and the landowner decides to block the entrance and then rescind the permission....

It's interesting, isn't it. An awful lot of of cave entrances have been dug open. Unless the entrance had previously been backfilled by man, then each and every case is an interference with a (previously) natural feature. Some may only have dug through soft sediment, but some will have been removing hard rock. Is the result a natural feature? Not if, in the most extreme case, it's a shaft blasted through solid limestone it ain't. Along the spectrum from that to a wholly open shaft there are a hell of a lot of arguable cases.

So, quite a few caves should, perhaps be carefully back-filled to restore their natural condition.

I'm sure you'd get a grant for that sort of thing, ask the guys interested in the Lathkill restoration scenario, they'd know.
 

martinm

New member
Bottlebank said:
graham said:
bograt said:
Then one has to think about blocking a cave entrance with a JCB, surely this is interference of a natural feature? :-\

It works both ways!

What, a natural feature like a dug open entrance?  :-\

That's got my head spinning. So if we have permission for a dig on a SSSI, and the landowner decides to block the entrance and then rescind the permission....

Hmm. I would say if you'd got consent of the landowner and NE to do the dig and then (this is the important bit) found a feature of significant interest which NE wanted monitoring, the landowner would have to get consent off NE to fill it in again! (It would be a PDO/OLD or whatever.)

Then of course, as Graham says, you've got the Lathkill situation, sigh. Which, if Haddon Estates and (NE of all people) got their way would remove access to a significant number of caves & mines which NE currently require monitoring for their condition! Luckily, the cost of the proposed works have I believe now risen to about ?1.4m, so we are just keeping an patient eye on this one....  :coffee:
 

TheBitterEnd

Well-known member
We can all dream up increasingly unlikely scenarios, go to Greece and an eagle may drop a tortoise on your head but whenever I've been to Greece I have never bothered to wear a hard hat, just in case.

What it is the cost of getting in a JCB to block a cave? What is the damage to the moorland? Would an environmental impact assessment be needed?

Quite simply, why would a landowner bother? A lot of cavers seem to have hugely over inflated view of the importance of caving in wider circles. Landowners really care about money and things like gates and permits are a way of reducing liability, so is CRoW.

 

graham

New member
Matter of fact, lots of Mendip landowners are really proud of their caves. That's what they tell me, anyway.
 

TheBitterEnd

Well-known member
Good, they wouldn't want to fill them in then.

Before we get embroiled in lots of debate at crossed purposes and in the interests of your own pursuit of hard facts, how many landowners have told you this? How many have caves on CRoW land?
 

graham

New member
TheBitterEnd said:
Good, they wouldn't want to fill them in then.

Don't want 'em trashed, either.

TheBitterEnd said:
Before we get embroiled in lots of debate at crossed purposes and in the interests of your own pursuit of hard facts, how many landowners have told you this? How many have caves on CRoW land?

6 & 3. At least, those are simply the ones where I can immediately recall the conversations in some detail. I know others who have had similar conversations with other landowners. The gist of those conversations has often covered conservation issues as well as those of liability.
 

Peter Burgess

New member
graham said:
Matter of fact, lots of Mendip landowners are really proud of their caves. That's what they tell me, anyway.
Most people would have a genuine interest in, and be quite protective of, something unusual or special within their property, whether they are cavers or not. Perhaps if they felt this special feature was somehow under threat, they might well be concerned about it as much as, if not more so, than cavers.
 
Top