Crow: yes vote. worst case?

[droid]

The 'debate' is about the 'worst case scenario' of CRoW for caves.

One such scenario is that future exploration/discovery may be curtailed. That's the relevence of my previous comment. As a commercial operator you take advantage of such exploration and discovery. So it is a little hypocritical to suggest it isn't important.

 

[Pete K]

3 of the 4 locations I mention charge per head so I think it's also the landowner who takes advantage. None of them are on CRoW land.

I still agree with you that digging permissions might be harder to come by on CRoW land. I don't agree that we should sell out the future of secure access to preserve 'potential'.
But, as you rightly remind me, this is the worst case thread so that's another debate.

No CRoW means cavers have to continue to doff their caps and jump hoops with no security for the future and with access entirely at the whim of organisations, estates or individuals. A system totally open to corruption, self service and changes without warning. That's the current worst case.

Had my fill of CRoW threads now. DCA meeting in the morning.

 

[bograt]

Would like to point out to people that there is such a thing as 'environmental stewardship' whereas farmers are paid by Europe for looking after selected natural features on their land, a cave is defined as a 'feature of geological heritage' so could possibly generate extra income to the farm, so could, potentially, be of advantage to the landowner.
(Not looked up the details, but I know how the system works)

For those who are really interested in this aspect of landowning, Google; ELS (Entry Level Stewardship) and HLS (Higher Level Stewardship) on the DEFRA website, it may open a few eyes!

 

[Hughie]

Would like to point out to people that there is such a thing as 'environmental stewardship' whereas farmers are paid by Europe for looking after selected natural features on their land, a cave is defined as a 'feature of geological heritage' so could possibly generate extra income to the farm, so could, potentially, be of advantage to the landowner.
(Not looked up the details, but I know how the system works)

For those who are really interested in this aspect of landowning, Google; ELS (Entry Level Stewardship) and HLS (Higher Level Stewardship) on the DEFRA website, it may open a few eyes!

Would agree regarding HLS (I have over 150 acres in this scheme) but it's mainly money for old rope - especially ELS. I appreciate HLS is somewhat different.

 

[bograt]

Would agree regarding HLS (I have over 150 acres in this scheme) but it's mainly money for old rope - especially ELS. I appreciate HLS is somewhat different.

But do you agree that filling sinkholes and levelling ground would cost you?

 

[Hughie]

Would agree regarding HLS (I have over 150 acres in this scheme) but it's mainly money for old rope - especially ELS. I appreciate HLS is somewhat different.

But do you agree that filling sinkholes and levelling ground would cost you?

Certainly if those features themselves are the natural feature.

However - if those features are part of the natural feature, then the occupier/landowner can enter into discussion with NE to obtain a derogation.

 

[bograt]

Would agree regarding HLS (I have over 150 acres in this scheme) but it's mainly money for old rope - especially ELS. I appreciate HLS is somewhat different.

But do you agree that filling sinkholes and levelling ground would cost you?

Certainly if those features themselves are the natural feature.

However - if those features are part of the natural feature, then the occupier/landowner can enter into discussion with NE to obtain a derogation.

I agree, I have recently had comunication with my daughter ( a future owner of a few acres of the Peak District), apparently NE and DEFRA prefer to pay the fine to Europe for not checking, rather than pay for policing of stewardship.

 

[jasonbirder]

My argument is CROW will prevent access to yet undiscovered caves.

And why on earth would it do that?

Permission from digging is a completely separate issue to getting Caving recognised as not being excluded from CRoW

The current situation is...that for a surface dig...relevent permissions need to be obtained from the Landowner...if he's pro-caving he'll say yes...if he's anti-caving he'll say no

The situation after CRoW would be identical

Landowner permissions will have to be requested and obtained...and it'll be down to the attitude and relationship of the landowner...just as it is now...

To think that CRoW would affect digging permissions would need the following unlikely chain of events...

A Landowner who currently has a good relationship with cavers and allows (or would allow) digging access...with access designated land where he is currently happy for walkers/ramblers/climbers etc etc to venture...BUT upon Caving being recognised under CRoW immediately decides he's anti-caving and bans diggers (whilst maintaining CRoW access to any existing Caves/Underground digs) and yet continues to be happy with far more numerous Walkers/Ramblers etc...

Its pretty far fetched...

If caving isn't specifically excluded under CRoW nothing would change

Though access to underground digs (a majority of dig sites) would be guaranteed/simplified.

No change to landowner liability for digging

No change for Cavers to obtain permissions from the SAME landowner...

 

[Aubrey]

My argument is CROW will prevent access to yet undiscovered caves.

And why on earth would it do that?

Did you read post 46 above?

 

[jasonbirder]

Of course, see my answer above!

On Access land currently he doesn't have ultimate control over who comes onto his land...

You are describing a situation where a landowner is presently happy for walkers/ramblers etc etc to access his land without limit or permission - but feels so passionately anti-caver that he will single them out amongst outdoor users and prevent their utilising his land...

If they feel like that its unlikely they'd allow Cavers to dig on their land regardless of CRoW

I am quite happy to agree that landowners who currently don't allow permission for digging on their land will continue to refuse that permission...

But am highly skeptical that a landowner who would currently give permission for a dig on access land AND where there is currently unfettered access for all outdoor users except cavers...would decide to refuse permission for a dig in the future...simply because Cavers are now free to come onto his land alongside walkers, hikers, scramblers, climbers, ramblers, picnickers, bird watchers etc etc...

 

[Aubrey]

You are describing a situation where a landowner is presently happy for walkers/ramblers etc etc to access his land without limit .....

Many landowners are not "happy" about free access to their land. They are law abiding so suffer the inconvenience.

Where they have a choice they are unlikely to extend this access, especially when this may involve frequent visits after dark. Currently they only see daytime visitors.

 

[Peter Burgess]

There are many kinds of "landowners". There is a massive difference between large undeveloped uplands owned by a nebulous corporate entity, or a baronial family, and cultivated land where the owner either lives there and works it, or is a landlord for a farming business or family, and has a close and intimate interest in the property and knows what's going on there in some detail. What may be true 1000ft up a winding remote valley with a few grouse and some bracken, will have little connection with the attitudes held around quiet farmland that is the target of many people seeking leisure in various ways.

 

[tony from suffolk]

You are describing a situation where a landowner is presently happy for walkers/ramblers etc etc to access his land without limit .....

Where they have a choice they are unlikely to extend this access, especially when this may involve frequent visits after dark. Currently they only see daytime visitors.

Well, it'll be after dark so they won't be able to see them anyway...

Moving on, this argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny. What incentive do landowners currently have to allow groups of cavers to dig on their land? If they allow access after the discovery of a cave system, will the numbers of cavers for land under CRoW increase significantly compared to the present situation?

 

[bograt]

Surely, this comes down to the regionl access officer? as a Peak District Landowner I would much prefer to talk out a point with someone who knows, or has access to, knowledge about how I earn my living?.

 

[Bottlebank]

You are describing a situation where a landowner is presently happy for walkers/ramblers etc etc to access his land without limit .....

Where they have a choice they are unlikely to extend this access, especially when this may involve frequent visits after dark. Currently they only see daytime visitors.

Moving on, this argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny. What incentive do landowners currently have to allow groups of cavers to dig on their land? If they allow access after the discovery of a cave system, will the numbers of cavers for land under CRoW increase significantly compared to the present situation?

The quick answer is that at the moment the incentive is small. Under CRoW they'll be accepting back liability which they had more or less got rid of in effect, so it'll be a lot smaller.

The second part of your question is a simple one, if a new cave is discovered there's obviously an increase of numbers visiting that cave, even if it's only by the initial explorers, whether that's equates to an overall increase under that landowners land no one knows.

One question I don't know the answer to is whether in the event of permitting a dig under CRoW and that dig being successful can a landowner control access in any way? I suspect not, which may be a further disincentive to allowing digging.

My club has at least one successful dig that I'm aware of that had to be sealed on completion as a condition of permission to dig as the landowner didn't want more cavers visiting.

 

[droid]

Surely, this comes down to the regionl access officer? as a Peak District Landowner I would much prefer to talk out a point with someone who knows, or has access to, knowledge about how I earn my living?.

Isn't that a pretty good argument for the 'status quo'?

Given that the situation in some parts of the country does need ameliorating.

 

[TheBitterEnd]

My club has at least one successful dig that I'm aware of that had to be sealed on completion as a condition of permission to dig as the landowner didn't want more cavers visiting.

Does that not strike you as a very selfish thing to do? Surely if that was the landowner's requirement then it would be better to just walk away and come back in a few decades when the land has changed hands or his attitudes have changed.

 

[jasonbirder]

Under CRoW they'll be accepting back liability which they had more or less got rid of

What do you mean by this...as far as I understand it under CRoW there will no change to owner liability for non-CRoW activities...

AND a reduction in Landowner liability for people accessing the land under CRoW legislation.

SO presumably liability relating to digs will be completely unchanged...

 

[Aubrey]

Well, it'll be after dark so they won't be able to see them anyway...

What a stupid reply. Cavers wear lamps which can be seen from miles away in open countryside.

 

[Bottlebank]

Under CRoW they'll be accepting back liability which they had more or less got rid of

What do you mean by this...as far as I understand it under CRoW there will no change to owner liability for non-CRoW activities...

AND a reduction in Landowner liability for people accessing the land under CRoW legislation.

SO presumably liability relating to digs will be completely unchanged...

Have a read of the statement Bob and I released which explains in more detail - http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=17182.0

Liability to caving overall will change. Liability for sport caving is reduced. Liability for digging remains unchanged.

Asking a landowner for permission to dig currently does not substantially increase his liability.

Asking a landowner for permission to dig if CRoW applies will substantially increase his liability (back to todays levels). This may make landowners less likely to give permission, and may make them more likely to seek insurance/legal advice. Landowners legal/insurance advisers are very unlikely to advise a landowner to accept a risk that they don't need to, at best they may advise the risk seems fairly small and suggest caution - they'd be failing in their job if they do otherwise and they certainly won't consider the pre CRoW position, just the facts at the time.

The best case is that digging permission and other non CRoW activities will be permitted much as today. The worst case is they will be substantially curtailed. Bob recognises this risk and thinks it worth taking, I don't.