Those that are still undecided may care to consider this.
Generally speaking relationships between all recreational users and landowners has improved over the last decade. This is partly due to a generational changes in attitude and the realisation that the rural economy depends as much on tourism and recreational users as it does on traditional income from farming etc. For many landowners, especially the large estates, it is the liability of allowing cavers onto their land that concerns them most. Including caving under CRoW would reduce this liability to levels of common trespass - a situation which is very appealing to landowners.
One case study is that of the Ingleborough Estate. Last Christmas, the landowner, Dr Farrar sadly passed away. Under his ownership, the Ingleborough Estate controlled their own access to the caves on their land and he was very generous with it. Any caver could apply for permission through the Clapham Estate office. The land agents have now moved to Clitheroe and no longer wish to control their own access. They do still have concerns over their liability and therefore are in the process of passing access control onto the CNCC. However, the CNCC have repeatedly stated, including as recently as the last meeting, that they will only control access on behalf of their member clubs through their traditional club permit systems. Whatever the eventual outcome of this case, whether it forces CNCC to change or not, it demonstrates that any change of landowner can have an uncertain or more restrictive effect on cave access.
A lot of scaremongering about the reaction of landowners to CRoW has been made without any evidence to support it. On the contrary, in the Yorkshire Dales NP at least, there is ample evidence that the conflicts and animosity between landowners and recreational users that were predicted never arose. As evidence I offer two quotes from the Chairman of the Yorkshire Dales Local Access Forum (a statutory body set up under CRoW), In 2006;
..indications are that many of the problems and pressures envisaged by some have not materialised and that, in the main, users have been responsible and understanding of the needs of those that farm, own and manage land over which the new rights can now be exercised.
And again in 2009;
Indeed, it may be that the landowning/farming interest is now confident that public access does not threaten its own interests.
Why should it be so different for caving?
