BCA 'referendum' on CRoW

[droid]

Surely it's better to hash out problems before the vote than after? Bit late once (you hope) caving is included in CRoW and some wholly predictable unwanted outcome occurs.

And Stuart: I reckon the problem is what happens in the event of a rescue. You will recall (maybe) why the CNCC was formed in the first place?

 

[Bartleby]

I've tried to read all the CRoW theads on here, even read the one of Aditnow and am confused.  So CRoW went through at least 15 years ago!?.  Why all the fuss now, or have i missed something (which is likely...)

In a nutshell then am i right in assuming that if the cave access is in 'free access CRoW' land then liability is still the land owners issue?. 

Newstuff has hit the nail on the head.....

 

[graham]

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).

Both of those apply to caves, which are not (officially) mapped linear features across (under) otherwise private land.

 

[graham]

Why all the fuss now, or have i missed something (which is likely...)

Because a localised dispute over access in one part of the country has not been resolved & some saw this as a sledgehammer way of bypassing that argument.

 

[NewStuff]

Why all the fuss now, or have i missed something (which is likely...)

Because a localised dispute over access in one part of the country has not been resolved & some saw this as a sledgehammer way of bypassing that argument.

You're still a troll, but as someone is asking a legitimate question, I want to make sure they get a decent answer, not your badly mangled interpretation of one...

Most of the places in dispute in North Wales will not be covered by CRoW, graham's reply is, being generous, incredibly misleading.

I think you'll find we, quite simply, want easier access for all, and simply want a *clarification* whether an existing piece of legislation, (CRoW act), does, or does not, cover caves. Despite certain trolls trying to make this a very complex issue, it's actually very simple. There may have been issues in the past as to why the BCA did not pursue this, but they are now, as can be seen in this and other thread, working on this.

Hope that helps.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Well, anyone who uses social media regularly will know that little if any trolling has manifested itself in the CRoW threads. I suspect a certain amount of projection takes place from time to time though.......

 

[martinm]

You're still a troll, but as someone is asking a legitimate question, I want to make sure they get a decent answer, not your badly mangled interpretation of one...

Most of the places in dispute in North Wales will not be covered by CRoW, graham's reply is, being generous, incredibly misleading.

I think you'll find we, quite simply, want easier access for all, and simply want a *clarification* whether an existing piece of legislation, (CRoW act), does, or does not, cover caves. Despite certain trolls trying to make this a very complex issue, it's actually very simple. There may have been issues in the past as to why the BCA did not pursue this, but they are now, as can be seen in this and other thread, working on this.

Hope that helps.

It has been clarified, we have the opinion of an eminent QC, Dinah Rose, after reading around 700 pages of docs supplied to her. Nothing more needs to be said about this...  Her opinion is that it does apply to caves. A link  will  be on here somewhere, I'm off to bed  though, soz. 

 

[droid]

Most of the places in dispute in North Wales will not be covered by CRoW, graham's reply is, being generous, incredibly misleading.

I have a sneaking suspicion you're barking up the wrong tree, NewStuff.

There's access 'issues' in more places than North Wales. Places where CRoW for caves would make a difference

 

[graham]

Why all the fuss now, or have i missed something (which is likely...)

Because a localised dispute over access in one part of the country has not been resolved & some saw this as a sledgehammer way of bypassing that argument.

You're still a troll, but as someone is asking a legitimate question, I want to make sure they get a decent answer, not your badly mangled interpretation of one...

Most of the places in dispute in North Wales will not be covered by CRoW, graham's reply is, being generous, incredibly misleading.

I think you'll find we, quite simply, want easier access for all, and simply want a *clarification* whether an existing piece of legislation, (CRoW act), does, or does not, cover caves. Despite certain trolls trying to make this a very complex issue, it's actually very simple. There may have been issues in the past as to why the BCA did not pursue this, but they are now, as can be seen in this and other thread, working on this.

Hope that helps.

Calling me silly names might make you feel clever, but does not advance the debate one way or the other.

I think you have probably read enough of the debate to understand that I was not referring to North Wales. Thus to imply that I did demonstrates exactly who it is (clue: not me) who is trying to be misleading here.

So, yet again, the debate on the serious issues that are thrown up gets derailed by a personal attack on little old me.  :

 

[TheBitterEnd]

Think the paddlers might disagree with you.

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.

  well said

 

[TheBitterEnd]

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).

Both of those apply to caves, which are not (officially) mapped linear features across (under) otherwise private land.

But the scale of the issue is entirely different. There are at least hundreds and probably thousands of miles of river that would have been open access but in reality there are very few caves which are not either wholly within or wholly outside access land.

Much as you would like it to be otherwise, the map delineates the boundary of the access land. It is a map of access land boundaries so caves would not have to be mapped in detail.

And just to address the "but how do you know where you are underground" question. There are places where the access land boundary follows no physical surface feature and no one has felt the need to delineate these on the surface.

The key point here though is one of scale, to reiterate, there are very few caves that cross an access land boundary.

 

[CatM]

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).

Both of those apply to caves, which are not (officially) mapped linear features across (under) otherwise private land.

But the scale of the issue is entirely different. There are at least hundreds and probably thousands of miles of river that would have been open access but in reality there are very few caves which are not either wholly within or wholly outside access land.

Much as you would like it to be otherwise, the map delineates the boundary of the access land. It is a map of access land boundaries so caves would not have to be mapped in detail.

And just to address the "but how do you know where you are underground" question. There are places where the access land boundary follows no physical surface feature and no one has felt the need to delineate these on the surface.

The key point here though is one of scale, to reiterate, there are very few caves that cross an access land boundary.

Another point/question: Is the underground course of caves considered in current access agreements? Unless I'm misunderstanding, the argument here is that a cave could cross a boundary and go out of access land, therefore you would (could) no longer be permitted to be there. It could also cross a boundary and go under another landowner's property, or into a "different" cave. A current "off the top of my head" example: Link/Mistral/Pippikin etc are non permitted. Aside from needing a rope to get up the 88 ft pitch, there is nothing to stop you going from any of those entrances right to the bottom of Lancaster/County/WR, which are permitted. In the current situation, do all landowners have a say in the access agreement, or is it just whoever has the entrance on their land? I'm guessing it's the latter, in which case why should it be any different under CRoW?

 

[TheBitterEnd]

Quite right CatM.

The point here is that no additional mapping is needed. It is trite law that a surface boundary extends all the way to the centre of the earth so the existing access land boundary maps already cover the subterranean.

As you point out there are already caves that cross landowner boundaries where different access restrictions apply and no one creates a big song and dance about it. There are also examples of access land boundaries which cross open moorland and where it would not be obvious to a walker if they had crossed the boundary, here again there is no big drama and the sky does not fall in.

 

[graham]

The key point here though is one of scale, to reiterate, there are very few caves that cross an access land boundary.

Really? I doubt that. Having mapped a number of caves that cross from one land ownership to another. It may be true for the Dales (I don't know) but the Dales isn't the whole country.

To comment on CatM's post.

The previous owners of OFD 1 did not allow everyone and anyone who was not accompanied by a designated leader to exit from their cave. In practice this meant that virtually no-one without a leader entered that part of the cave despite being able to access Cwm Dwr or OFD 2 without a leader. Similarly, back in the day, through trips from Oxlow to Giant's were specifically not permitted by the farmer at Giant's.

And, in more detail, an Irish show cave was forced to alter its route in order to stop visitors passing under someone else's land and another similar case ended up in the law courts in Dublin when the entrance was sold to one person & the land over the main chamber was sold to another. That one gave me a couple of fascinating days out in Dublin as an expert witness. Remarkable.

So to say that these things have never caused problems is simply untrue.

 

[TheBitterEnd]

Really? I doubt that. Having mapped a number of caves that cross from one land ownership to another. It may be true for the Dales (I don't know) but the Dales isn't the whole country.

So what, you are trying to make a comparison between "very few caves cross an access land boundary" and "a number of caves cross from one land ownership to another" - i.e. not necessarily crossing an access land boundary?

When the real point being made is

The point here is that no additional mapping is needed. It is trite law that a surface boundary extends all the way to the centre of the earth so the existing access land boundary maps already cover the subterranean.

 

[CatM]

Interesting. These are isolated, extreme examples though. In general, are all landowners currently consulted on access agreements? If not (or even if they are and they currently allow access under their land), and there are no (or minimal) problems now, then why should there be any more under CRoW?

 

[graham]

Interesting. These are isolated, extreme examples though. In general, are all landowners currently consulted on access agreements? If not (or even if they are and they currently allow access under their land), and there are no (or minimal) problems now, then why should there be any more under CRoW?

Why are they isolated or extreme? One was in a major Welsh cave & the other in a major Derbyshire cave.

 

[jasonbirder]

And when were these issues with the Landowner around the Chamber of Horror's Oxlow/Giant's connection?

I've heard anecdotal tales of people doing the connection...going back out...no problems (How would the Landowner know)

He merely didn't want people coming out of Giant's without paying a trespass fee...

Is that an access/mapping issue that relates to CRoW anymore than people who cave in Giants without using the honesty box is?

 

[graham]

And when were these issues with the Landowner around the Chamber of Horror's Oxlow/Giant's connection?

Certainly in the 1970s

I've heard anecdotal tales of people doing the connection...going back out...no problems (How would the Landowner know)

They did, yes, sometimes with a party down Giant's to rig Geology pot for them.

He merely didn't want people coming out of Giant's without paying a trespass fee...

Not what he told me (~1974) which was that he was worried about a rescue happening.

Is that an access/mapping issue that relates to CRoW anymore than people who cave in Giants without using the honesty box is?

It was a response to a specific question about land in different holdings.

 

[ah147]

It was the access fee on Giants. Reasonably well documented. Including barbed wire being placed at the end of the CoH at one point.

If it was anything to do with rescue he wouldn't of allowed access at all would he?