Discussion on the post "The effect of changes in liability for Landowners under"

[Bottlebank]

There's obviously confusion over this, Graham and I are right, the current access agreements will be void under CRoW, although individual caves (or perhaps small areas?) could eventually become subject to Section 26 notices or similar, but we don't know how long these will take to get in place and my understanding is that we can't apply for them.

Of course the CNCC, or DCA for example could reach a voluntary agreement but it would have no legal basis, i.e. anyone breaching it would be covered by CRoW.

Pinning your hopes on cavers being reasonable all the time isn't much of a basis for voting yes.

 

[ah147]

[quote author=Bottlebank]
Pinning your hopes on cavers being reasonable all the time isn't much of a basis for voting yes.
[/quote]

This is a large party of why I'm voting yes.

Arbitrary restrictions, SOME of those administering access refusing trips for arbitrary reasons etc

Plenty of caves are gated simply as the discoverer convinced the land owner they should be.

I use the word a lot, but it suits perfectly, CRoW would get rid of all the arbitrary behaviour of a few administering access.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[graham]

Let's not forget (and a trawl back through this forum and Descent will provide the facts) under the current system a handful of people ignore access agreements, cut locks of gates, damage stal and generally act like idiots.

So, as we cannot stop everyone behaving like this, let's just give up trying to look after anything , eh?

 

[ah147]

Perhaps he's trying to say these cavers shall act this way regardless of access agreements in place. So should be disregarded in the CRoW argument.


Not a position I agree 100% with all the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheBitterEnd]

There's obviously confusion over this, Graham and I are right

:bow:

 

[bograt]

Mel,

See above, I think you've missed the point.

You seem to be detailing what would happen if Defra change their view. Actually you're describing the largely sensible process that goes on now. Telling a landowner his access agreement is toast and no longer applies isn't really negotiation at all.

No, I think u r missing the point. No-one who is involved in C&A in any of the regional councils or BCA will go to a landowner and say your "access agreement is toast and no longer applies". They will continue to do what they do now and negotiate amicably and sensibly with said landowner! 

I am willing to wager that you are wrong about that.

Now that statement reads volumes into the differences between the perceptions of the regions. Here in the Peak we have confidence in the relationship between the DCA and our landowners, it appears that the 'spokesman for Mendip' does not have that confidence, how about CNCC and Wales?

 

[graham]

Mel,

See above, I think you've missed the point.

You seem to be detailing what would happen if Defra change their view. Actually you're describing the largely sensible process that goes on now. Telling a landowner his access agreement is toast and no longer applies isn't really negotiation at all.

No, I think u r missing the point. No-one who is involved in C&A in any of the regional councils or BCA will go to a landowner and say your "access agreement is toast and no longer applies". They will continue to do what they do now and negotiate amicably and sensibly with said landowner! 

I am willing to wager that you are wrong about that.

Now that statement reads volumes into the differences between the perceptions of the regions. Here in the Peak we have confidence in the relationship between the DCA and our landowners, it appears that the 'spokesman for Mendip' does not have that confidence, how about CNCC and Wales?

Yet again Bograt fails to get the point. Here on Mendip we have extremely good and amicable relationships with landowners. However I am perfectly willing to wager that cavers, some of whom may or may not be involved in cavers' representative bodies up and down the country will indeed delight in agreements being torn up . I recall the contributor to this forum who talked about being somebody's "worst nightmare" with regard to this.

 

[bograt]

Aah, I see, a case of 'selective reading';

Quote from Mel - "No-one who is involved in C&A in any of the regional councils or BCA "

Response from Graham - "I am willing to wager that you are wrong about that."

Further response from Graham - "I am perfectly willing to wager that cavers, some of whom may or may not be involved in cavers' representative bodies up and down the country"

BTW Graham, do you actually hold an 'official' post in C&A, either CSCC or BCA?

 

[graham]

BTW Graham, do you actually hold an 'official' post in C&A, either CSCC or BCA?

Me? No. I resigned my CSCC & BCA roles some time ago. I'm a great believer in representative bodies not being run by the same clique for too long.

You?

 

[bograt]

Been a senior officer in my local regional body for a looong time.

Its not a case of running it, its more a case of inputting experience for the youngsters to build upon.

 

[graham]

QED 

 

[martinm]

Been a senior officer in my local regional body for a looong time.

Its not a case of running it, its more a case of inputting experience for the youngsters to build upon.

Absolutely  agree  Terry. Hope u r able to make the DCA meetings on Sat, erm lol the SGM is about making u chairman isn't  it, so I guess u will be there. Will be good to have a chat sometime later. 

 

[Bob Mehew]

I am probably wasting my time

There's obviously confusion over this, Graham and I are right, the current access agreements will be void under CRoW, although individual caves (or perhaps small areas?) could eventually become subject to Section 26 notices or similar, but we don't know how long these will take to get in place and my understanding is that we can't apply for them.

Only around 20 caves on Access Land have locked gates on them.  The rest (several thousand) are unlocked and therefore are already subject to the potential destructive whims of the regrettable few.  CRoW applying to caves will not change that fact or even that threat.

I have already quoted the time scales in NE's guidance material about seeking Directions for the remaining  caves but you appear to reject that.  So I am not even going to provide a link to their "Statutory guidance to relevant authorities on their functions in relation to local access restrictions". 

I will however attempt to correct your incorrect understanding in that you CAN make a representation for such a direction and NE's guidance states they should consider it. 

 

[graham]

Only around 20 caves on Access Land have locked gates on them.

There's 8 or 9 in just one fairly small part of Mendip.

 

[ah147]

I am probably wasting my time

Bobs post was highly informative. Personally if 20 out of 2000+ are locked that means that >99.9% are open to any damage anybody wishes to cause anyway. So may as well let us all down and monitoring shall occur more regularly by responsible cavers.

Only around 20 caves on Access Land have locked gates on them.

There's 8 or 9 in just one fairly small part of Mendip.
[/quote]

Well that's unfortunate. But I highly doubt Bobs figure to be wrong, having being heavily involved in the CRoW working party.

But these 8 or 9 caves make up less than 0.05% of the caves that access would be opened up for.

 

[graham]

You may highly doubt Bob's figure, but I don't. I haven't been involved in the CRoW working party but reckon I could reach the magic 20 just by counting caves that I know to be both locked and on access land on Mendip alone.

Are you trying to tell me that there are no other locked caves anywhere in the country? I find that hard to believe as well.

 

[Ed W]

Graham said,

You may highly doubt Bob's figure, but I don't. I haven't been involved in the CRoW working party but reckon I could reach the magic 20 just by counting caves that I know to be both locked and on access land on Mendip alone.

Are you trying to tell me that there are no other locked caves anywhere in the country? I find that hard to believe as well.

But, it should be noted that at the last CSCC meeting, the Conservation & Access officer stated that of this set of locked caves located on access land on Mendip, that as far as he was concerned that there were only 4 of these that were of cause for concern with regard to potential increased access and subsequent impact on conservation.  Being closely involved in the access arrangements for three of these sites, I would be very confident that it will be very straightforward to justify access restrictions for conservation at these sites.  Yes there are concerns about red tape etc, but this is being worked on.

As for the rest of these locked caves on Mendip access land, should CROW be reinterpreted to allow caving as a right, it will be a case of working with the landowners to decide whether the reduced liability from CROW will ease their worries over potential danger, or whether we as cavers help them make a submission under Section 25 if the cave does really pose a danger to the public.

To my mind CROW does not mean a wholesale tearing up of the relationship between cavers and landowners.  There are many cases of voluntary access "restrictions" in place at present, such as the routes we are often asked to follow to particular entrances (Easegill from Bull Pot farms springs to mind).

Off topic about landowners liability for a second, the various threads on this show, rightly or wrongly, that there is a perception that some access restrictions are not well justified.  One outcome of CROW will be that any access restrictions on access land will be publically justified and consistent.  Surely this will be a better situation than at present?

 

[TheBitterEnd]

Well said Ed W   

 

[graham]

Ed

Two points:

I am sure that Les's figure of four is an underestimate, as I understand that in the absence of any change in the law, some landowners & their agents are keeping their powder dry and not bringing their sites to wider notice, as they do not feel the need to do so, whether the grounds for concern may be in terms of conservation or safety. You may regard that as misguided but that remains their prerogative.

Yes, your point about perception of access restrictions is correct. However that does not mean it is justified. Some people regard any restrictions on their activities as been unjustified. There remains the point, of course, that large numbers of caves will not be covered should this legal change occur, but if this vote does lead to a further vote and an explicit change in the constitution to exclude landowners from BCA's view then antagonism between some cavers and some landowners will undeniably occur. I do not think this will be good for caving in the longer term. It's only taken us 30 years to clear up the last mess even though the caves that took that long to reopen were specifically excluded from the scheduling that caused the problems in the first place.

 

[Peter Burgess]

To my mind CROW does not mean a wholesale tearing up of the relationship between cavers and landowners.  There are many cases of voluntary access "restrictions" in place at present, such as the routes we are often asked to follow to particular entrances (Easegill from Bull Pot farms springs to mind).

One factor not taken into account by this statement is the real (to me) likelihood that somewhere at some time, individuals with a sense of entitlement will simply say "it's only a voluntary agreement and I would prefer to execute my rights under CRoW". I think this issue has to be addressed as an unintended consequence.