BCA 'referendum' on CRoW
- Thread starter graham
- Start date
AR
Well-known member
Bartleby said:
This was discussed on Aditnow: http://www.aditnow.co.uk/community/viewtopic.aspx?t=9834
I have no idea in the photos you saw, but my assumption is that a fair amount of tape is 'removed' from cave photos in post processing of the photos as it is not deemed correct to have tape in cave photos - or at least that was what was being said at Hidden Earth ref the photo competitions. Whether it was physically removed for the photos in question i don't know.John S said:
I've been avoiding the various CRoW topics, since they usually result in pointless bickering, but I have a question regarding gates to caves on CRoW land that I haven't been able to find an answer to, so have resorted to risking stirring up the hornets nest again and asking on here. I apologise in advance if this ends up in yet more bickering and more work for the ever patient moderators.
We've been told that locked gates to caves on CRoW land will (probably?) need to be removed, unless there is a Section 26 Order put in place by the DEFRA / Natural England cave conservation pixies. However, my reading of Schedule 2 of the Act is that public safety is another reason that locked gates can be in place:
So, for example, on Mendip there is Coral Cave that is right next to a footpath and which has been gated and locked with a CSCC key to prevent numpties falling down the entrance shaft. It seems to me that the CRoW act explicitly allows for such a 'barrier or other device designed to prevent accidents to people'.
To take this one step further, it seems to me that, for example, the MCG could announce that the gate to Upper Flood Swallet that is currently there for conservation reasons will be removed at 10:00 tomorrow morning, and then at 10:01 another gate (that might bear passing similarity to the existing gate) will be installed for public safety reasons (since any cave is a cold wet dark place that has obvious dangers associated with it, I'm sure that public safety could given as a valid reason to install new gates to any cave).
Is my reading of the Act correct?
We've been told that locked gates to caves on CRoW land will (probably?) need to be removed, unless there is a Section 26 Order put in place by the DEFRA / Natural England cave conservation pixies. However, my reading of Schedule 2 of the Act is that public safety is another reason that locked gates can be in place:
(see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/37/schedule/2 for the full list in all its mind numbing glory)Section 2(1) does not entitle a person to be on any land if, in or on that land, he?
... [snip] ...
without reasonable excuse, interferes with any fence, barrier or other device designed to prevent accidents to people or to enclose livestock,
So, for example, on Mendip there is Coral Cave that is right next to a footpath and which has been gated and locked with a CSCC key to prevent numpties falling down the entrance shaft. It seems to me that the CRoW act explicitly allows for such a 'barrier or other device designed to prevent accidents to people'.
To take this one step further, it seems to me that, for example, the MCG could announce that the gate to Upper Flood Swallet that is currently there for conservation reasons will be removed at 10:00 tomorrow morning, and then at 10:01 another gate (that might bear passing similarity to the existing gate) will be installed for public safety reasons (since any cave is a cold wet dark place that has obvious dangers associated with it, I'm sure that public safety could given as a valid reason to install new gates to any cave).
Is my reading of the Act correct?
estelle said:
It is interesting what was said at photo comp at Hidden Earth
Will start a new thread on this
http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=17194.0
martinm
New member
(see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/37/schedule/2 for the full list in all its mind numbing glory)complex said:
So, for example, on Mendip there is Coral Cave that is right next to a footpath and which has been gated and locked with a CSCC key to prevent numpties falling down the entrance shaft. It seems to me that the CRoW act explicitly allows for such a 'barrier or other device designed to prevent accidents to people'.
To take this one step further, it seems to me that, for example, the MCG could announce that the gate to Upper Flood Swallet that is currently there for conservation reasons will be removed at 10:00 tomorrow morning, and then at 10:01 another gate (that might bear passing similarity to the existing gate) will be installed for public safety reasons (since any cave is a cold wet dark place that has obvious dangers associated with it, I'm sure that public safety could given as a valid reason to install new gates to any cave).
Is my reading of the Act correct?
[/quote]
I think that is correct, that is why people won't go around removing gates willy nilly if CRoW does apply. All caves and potholes have an inherent risk to members of the public, so making them safe so that, say, inquisitive kiddies/unsupervised members of the public who aren't cavers can't go in them and maybe get into trouble.
All the caves close to public footpaths in the Manifold Valley have had gates installed on them either by me or the NT depending whose land they are on. They all just need a 'Derbyshire Key' to gain entry though, there are virtually no padlocks.
Regards Mel. DCA Conservation Officer
Bob Mehew
Well-known member
Apologies for the delay in response but my weekend was wiped out by a family emergency and I am just recovering from the aftermath.
Complex asked at http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=17137.msg226166#msg226166 above, if the exception in Schedule 2 to not interfere with a fence designed to prevent accidents (I paraphrase) overrode the right of access. My problem with this is if it does, then it drives a coach and horses through the intent of the act. I suggest such a padlocked gate to prevent accidents would be normally be excessive (though it could be allowed for by a Sec 25 Direction) so padlocking the gate would deprive the right of access. So the provider of the padlock would be committing a breach of civil law whilst the person cutting the padlock off could be committing criminal damage. An interesting stand off.
Complex asked at http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=17137.msg226166#msg226166 above, if the exception in Schedule 2 to not interfere with a fence designed to prevent accidents (I paraphrase) overrode the right of access. My problem with this is if it does, then it drives a coach and horses through the intent of the act. I suggest such a padlocked gate to prevent accidents would be normally be excessive (though it could be allowed for by a Sec 25 Direction) so padlocking the gate would deprive the right of access. So the provider of the padlock would be committing a breach of civil law whilst the person cutting the padlock off could be committing criminal damage. An interesting stand off.
jasonbirder
Member
Probably because whilst you and a few like-minded people may be interested in the interpretation and implementation of sub-section 23a paragraph 14 in the blah blah act of 1812 as interpreted by the department of duck monitoring etc etc...Most people look and think that CRoW has been in force for nearly 15 years...have there been any significant changes to paths/landscapes/crags/cliffs? Has there been a landowner meltdown anywhere? Have crags been dynamited/spray-painted...have rare birds been trampled and killed? Nope...its worked pretty well and that's on the surface where there are literally hundreds of times more people in thousands of different places...
Caves/Cavers...its not going to be a problem is it?
TheBitterEnd
Well-known member
Well said jasonbirder
Simon Wilson
New member
TheBitterEnd said:
"LIKE"
Bottlebank
New member
Bartleby said:
Can only speak for myself, it's not that I'd like it to be a problem, ideally I'd like CRoW to apply to all aspects of caving, but I have real worries about the effects it will have.
Peter Burgess
New member
Utter nonsense. Please credit the vast majority of caves whatever their views on CRoW as holding good intentions.Bartleby said:
jasonbirder said:
But I think it would be fair to look at the efforts of the BMC and the structures they have in place that range from the wildlife issues down to bolt placements. Is it not the case that that these are similar to the issues that are being raised and no concrete proposals to address them are being made. Isn't it a reasonable part of any business case to address risks and state how they can be mitigated? - it also demonstrates that a considered submission is being made and also takes the high ground in any subsequent debate with objectors "we identified this and have proposed a working solution"
I thought that much of the "CROW applies" was based on a legal opinion and I fail to see why it is thought that "legal quotes" that are posted regularly should be dismissed if they are contrary to a specific view.
NewStuff
New member
Peter Burgess said:
The Vast Majority? Yup, won't argue that one. But there are a couple of people, well, the posts *do* make it seem as if they would like to put as many problems in the way of this as possible. Problem is, they like to give the impression they "speak" for the vast majority when they clearly do not.
Peter Burgess
New member
Don't ever forget that the lone voice crying in the wilderness can often have greater credibility and a better understanding of an issue than the massed hoards. Revelation only comes with the passing of time.
History is littered with momentous events, precipitated by popular demand, that turned out to be phenomenal mistakes. I can't say whether "yes" or No" is going to prove the best way to vote, I can only use my own judgement to make that decision, and urge others likewise to think for themselves, and consider all sides of the issue.
History is littered with momentous events, precipitated by popular demand, that turned out to be phenomenal mistakes. I can't say whether "yes" or No" is going to prove the best way to vote, I can only use my own judgement to make that decision, and urge others likewise to think for themselves, and consider all sides of the issue.
tony from suffolk
Well-known member
Peter Burgess said:
Indeed, but then the final passing of the CRoW act itself was a momentous event, with many obstacles,real or manufactured, thrown in its path before its implementation. Was it a mistake? Were all the agitators who threw up objections at the time proved correct? Did the main intention of the CRoW legislation overcome these barriers?
No, no, yes.
Stu
Active member
graham said:
Canoeing has been mentioned a few times within these threads usually in the form of a warning. I'm not sure it's a relevant example though. It's a long time since I was a BCU member and I'm not any sort of paddler nowadays so some of this is from memory only.
Caneoing was to be include in CRoW right up to the final readings of the white paper but was excluded after very heavy lobbying by the fishing fraternity based on an economic objection (though not solely the only objection). This was taken up by the Conservatives who wanted the exclusion to be placed in the final Act (the Tories very much opposed CRoW in totality) and the Labour government allowed it as it didn't want a protracted implementation of CRoW (the Act being a big part of the Labour "thing"). Not only did canoeing get excluded but so did paddling/swimming - remind me how many bathers/wild swimmers have been turfed off the land?
The other objections lay around a) the necessity to map the waterways (cost) and b) that access to the open waterways might be problematic where there were no rights of way on private land (technical).
So arguably canoeing had its moment, its test, and failed. Caving didn't even get to the table. That for me is the travesty, that the then national body thought itself not needing to ask its membership. Has canoeing somehow lost out for having the temerity to ask for open access? Not really, canoeing is still a massive sport both in terms of participation and influence and much (and I mean fricking loads) "pirating" of rivers happens week in and week out. Also the BCU hasn't given up the fight.
We share the same space notionally as mountaineers, walkers, climbers (they go up and over the land and we go down it). The conflict between cavers and landowners just doesn't stack up no matter how much anonymous and anecdotal evidence is put forward. Surely we have a strong precedent for our not being any more of an inconvenience then those that have gone before us for the last fourteen years.