Bob Mehew said:
I am probably wasting my time
Bottlebank said:
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.
I don't mind giving the link:
http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/file/5064677780357120
1.1.22 The relevant authority may give a direction without application for nature conservation,
heritage preservation, public safety or fire prevention reasons. Any person may make a
representation to the relevant authority if he believes a direction may be necessary on any
of these grounds. There is no right of appeal if the authority does not act in accordance with
a representation, except for the relevant advisory body, which may refer to the Secretary of
State any decision not to act in accordance with its advice on nature conservation or heritage
preservation grounds.
OK, accepted, we could make representation, sorry.
2.1.4 The relevant authority should not restrict CROW access rights unless it is satisfied from the
supporting evidence that a restriction is necessary. It may in practice be required to consider
the need for restrictions in relation to future circumstances about which it cannot be absolutely
certain and may therefore need to weigh the available evidence carefully, giving a direction only
where it judges that the feared consequences of unrestricted CROW access rights are significantly
more likely to happen than not. Where there is reasonable doubt it should delay its decision until
it has sufficient evidence to be certain one way or the other, provided where an application has
been received that it has the agreement of the applicant ? see paragraph 2.1.10. Without such
agreement it should refuse to give a direction, while making clear its willingness to reassess the
case in the future should new evidence emerge.
In other words, we do not know how long this will take.
2.1.8 It is not a responsibility of the relevant authority to assess the need for land management
restrictions on any land, unless it receives a valid application from a person with an interest in
that land. Should the relevant authority receive a representation from another person on these
grounds it may, where appropriate, suggest that the occupier (where known) be contacted by the
person making the representation and provided with any relevant information.
Would we be considered "a person with an interest in
that land"?
2.1.10 Application cases must normally be decided within six weeks of receipt unless the
relevant authority proposes a long-term restriction, in which case the application must be
decided within four months. The relevant authority may take longer where necessary to make its
decision, but only with the consent of the applicant.
Again, we do not know how long this will take, if we are not deemed to have a legal interest then it could be stalled forever.
The chart on page 20 is worth considering, it would seem an application to protect a cave could fail at almost every point.