I was wondering if anyone knows the answer to a question which has become the subject of a local debate .....

We have a cave in our area where the entrance is within a SSSI land designation. The description of the SSSI in this case does mention the cave as being covered ~ this seems to be fairly clear cut.

However, a survey of the cave shows that the cave extends well beyond the topography of the SSSI and leads to the question ...

Is the part of the cave that is beyond the surface marked SSSI designation still protected ?

Regards and thanks in advance,

Ian

My understanding is that the cave itself is designated as a SSSI (based on its own merits) rather than being listed as an SSSI by default of being under (or accessible from) land which is a SSSI.

Therefore, if the cave is an SSSI and a (as yet undiscovered) part of it lies underneath non-SSSI land, the subsequent discovery of that bit of cave (even if it is done via a non-SSSI piece of adjacent land), if linked, renders the whole cave SSSI.

So I guess the question is .... is the cave itself designated a SSSI.

For what reason is the 'land' designated a SSSI.

Someone from English Nature should be able to assist.

Have a look at

http://www.peakcavemonitoring.org.uk/

you may find some answers there possibly. Otherwise - try emailing someone from EN. Jo Poll is a very helpful person.

SSSIs are designated for a specific reason, eg habitat of a particular plant or animal species, or the particular geology. One SSSI I know is the type locality for a particular type of shale - ie the site where this shale was originally found. IF your SSSI is because of the limestone, then it would cover the cave (though whether outside the boundary I don't know); if, on the other hand, it's an SSSI because of the plants or insects living there, then I'd be surprised if the cave itself was included.

Apart from asking Natural England (the new name for English Nature), a great many SSSIs have their description somewhere on the web, so Googling might give you the info you need. This is Natural England's own index to SSSIs:
http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/Special/sssi/search.cfm

Assuming nothing has changed ...

After LNRC was designated an SSSI back in the 80s, I saw a map which showed the designated area; it followed certain field boundaries as being the way in which these things were defined "on the ground", bearing in mind that (in non-technical legal terms) the designation is shown on the Land Registry as affecting certain defined parcels of land. I then handed the chap from the CCW (as then was) the updated survey and he went off to extend the designation to cover a couple more fields.

IIRC at the time a major discussion point was just how much of the drainage catchment might be affected as "operations" that affected the surface streams would doubtless impact on the cave. The answer to this tended to be a bit vague.

It's a shame that the highly qualified people who set these areas up failed to grasp the fact the catchment areas for caves can stretch far beyond the limit of the known cave.

In Castleton there has been an ongoing operation (which seems to have finally ceased) where thousands of tons of industrial waste has been tipped and spread on an area directly adjacent to the Castleton SSSI boundary.

The bottom line is that it's arguably pointless setting up an SSSI for speleological reasons without including the entire catchment area for the cave.

kay said:

SSSIs are designated for a specific reason, eg habitat of a particular plant or animal species, or the particular geology. One SSSI I know is the type locality for a particular type of shale - ie the site where this shale was originally found. IF your SSSI is because of the limestone, then it would cover the cave (though whether outside the boundary I don't know); if, on the other hand, it's an SSSI because of the plants or insects living there, then I'd be surprised if the cave itself was included.

Apart from asking Natural England (the new name for English Nature), a great many SSSIs have their description somewhere on the web, so Googling might give you the info you need. This is Natural England's own index to SSSIs:
http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/Special/sssi/search.cfm

Click to expand...

I had been under the impression that the land on which Upper Flood Swallet was situated was an SSSI
I have just put in Blackmoor, Ubley, Charterhouse
none of these were relevant?
do "they" call these SSSI by names ordinary people don't know
or is Upper Flood not part of an SSSI

The 2002 Inventory of Scientificially Significant Features in Cave SSSIs (Farrant & Lowe: BGS commissioned report CR/02/034) does indeed list Waterwheel Swallet & Upper Flood Swallet but only under the heading "Significant caves within the SSSI boundary"; you are correct insofar as Blackmoor, WS & UFS are not listed as SSSI caves in their own right (although it is easy to imagine that, after a review, UFS would perhaps be considered as a worthy additional site to those which are listed).

Charterhouse Cave is a SSSI, as are Longwood, Manor Farm Swallet and Grebe Swallet.

Just because a cave entrance is on SSSI land it does not automatically result (see above) that the cave itself is considered an SSSI.

Please don't let's have this thread go off at a tangent; if necessary, start another one!

Moose said:

It's a shame that the highly qualified people who set these areas up failed to grasp the fact the catchment areas for caves can stretch far beyond the limit of the known cave.

In Castleton there has been an ongoing operation (which seems to have finally ceased) where thousands of tons of industrial waste has been tipped and spread on an area directly adjacent to the Castleton SSSI boundary.

The bottom line is that it's arguably pointless setting up an SSSI for speleological reasons without including the entire catchment area for the cave.

Click to expand...

Some of them certainly did understand, but they felt that they would not "get away with" scheduling that much land. Many of us still remember the problems that arose on Mendip through a botched scheduling exercise and the caves that are still closed as a result of that.

cap 'n chris said:

The 2002 Inventory of Scientificially Significant Features in Cave SSSIs (Farrant & Lowe: BGS commissioned report CR/02/034) does indeed list Waterwheel Swallet & Upper Flood Swallet but only under the heading "Significant caves within the SSSI boundary"; you are correct insofar as Blackmoor, WS & UFS are not listed as SSSI caves in their own right (although it is easy to imagine that, after a review, UFS would perhaps be considered as a worthy additional site to those which are listed).

Charterhouse Cave is a SSSI, as are Longwood, Manor Farm Swallet and Grebe Swallet.

Just because a cave entrance is on SSSI land it does not automatically result (see above) that the cave itself is considered an SSSI.

Please don't let's have this thread go off at a tangent; if necessary, start another one!

Click to expand...

Looking for 'Charterhouse Cave

There are no records to display.

This does not seem to work Kay / Chris

The law setting up SSSIs is the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (c. 69) (search for it at http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/Home.aspx ).  It states "...of the opinion that any area of land is of special interest by reason of any of its flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features...".  So the first key feature is the specified area of land.

Now as I understand it, land is defined as being not just the surface but also all the way down to the centre of the earth and up to the boundary with space (though I can't cite a basis for this statement).  [And I am going to ignore the possible controversy about mineral & light rights etc.]  So by specifying the land, one might think one captures the cave under it.  More importantly if the bit of the cave is outside the specified land, then it is not caught.

However the specification needs to include the feature of interest, so unless the cave is named (and I would suggest identified by say a survey otherwise what do you do about two caves which are linked but with different names) the cave is not necessarily caught within the SSSI.  But the other feature is that the SSSI only has power to stop operations which are specified (they used to be called the Potentially Damaging Operations).  So unless the operation is specified (say like not disturbing sediment layers), there is no safeguard for the cave or land from that operation.  I won't get into the wonders of how one can side step such defined operations, save to say that SSSI status does not mean the cave is safe even from operations on the SSSI (what about filling in the entrance?), let alone operations off the SSSI which impact on it (like catchment areas).

If I recall correctly, the problem with the Mendip designation was due to the proposed list of operations being much much larger than anyone ever imagined and it was claimed that the list would have stopped the farmers using the land for agricultural purposes.

I should add that there is also scheduled ancient monuments law which can help / hinder (the Assynt Bone Caves has this added complication) and that the law is slightly different between England and Wales and Scotland.  Lastly, I am not a lawyer so don't rely on this advice in a legal battle.

cap 'n chris said:

The 2002 Inventory of Scientificially Significant Features in Cave SSSIs (Farrant & Lowe: BGS commissioned report CR/02/034) does indeed list Waterwheel Swallet & Upper Flood Swallet but only under the heading "Significant caves within the SSSI boundary"; you are correct insofar as Blackmoor, WS & UFS are not listed as SSSI caves in their own right (although it is easy to imagine that, after a review, UFS would perhaps be considered as a worthy additional site to those which are listed).

Charterhouse Cave is a SSSI, as are Longwood, Manor Farm Swallet and Grebe Swallet.

Just because a cave entrance is on SSSI land it does not automatically result (see above) that the cave itself is considered an SSSI.

Please don't let's have this thread go off at a tangent; if necessary, start another one!

Click to expand...

using Kay's link
to Natural England http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/Special/sssi/search.cfm
The area in question seems to be designated "The Cheddar Complex"

I think Grahams memory is correct the initial sssi designation caused a big problem for access. But if my memory serves me right,  the majority of the problems, as graham says, some of which are still ongoing, were caused just by lack of initial consultation with and explanation to the landowner. A lack of basic common courtesyand good manners, on the part of the government department and officials  concerned. :spank: :chair: :thumbsdown: