If CRoW applies to caving - some comments

[damian]

I don't know about "carefully worded" but see http://british-caving.org.uk/wiki3/doku.php?id=conservation_access:news for update.

On 8 September BCA?s Chairman, Andy Eavis, had an initial exploratory meeting with representatives from DEFRA and Natural England. This was informal in nature with plenty of common ground in evidence and all parties expressing a willingness to meet again in the future. There was also a general request that all communication with the Bodies be channeled through BCA. It is clear that BCA now needs to develop an official policy on CRoW and a route to achieving this will be addressed by the October meeting of BCA?s Council.

Damian Weare (BCA Secretary), 17 September 2014

Basically it was not a meeting with any minutes taken and conversations were held "off the record". This suited the Bodies and, as such, we are unable to go into any more detail.

 

[martinm]

Thanx for that Damian.  I've also had an 'initial exploratory meeting' with the National Trust Peak District Projects Manager. All good. Won't follow this up formally until after the next BCA meetings and we hopefully have the BCA national policy in place. He said he would then identify and contact NT head office to clarify their stance on the matter. I'm sure all will be good, we have good relations with the NT, certainly in the Peak.

Regards Mel. DCA Conservation Officer.

 

[graham]

Gosh, so DEFRA haven't read counsel's opinion & rolled over then.

 

[Lazarus]

Gosh, so DEFRA haven't read counsel's opinion & rolled over then.

Was that ever the intention?
Oh and what's this... A typical 'smug graham post' thinking he knows everything about anything.    It has to be said and I doubt I'm on my own here, I would love DEFRA to change their stance, just to wipe that smugness off your face. Personally I couldn't give a toss what the outcome is, I can go most places with only minor inconvenience!

Slightly O/T: If ever there was a reason for people to despise UKCaving your last few posts on here sum it up perfectly. Well done.

 

[Hughie]

Gosh, so DEFRA haven't read counsel's opinion & rolled over then.

Was that ever the intention?
Oh and what's this... A typical 'smug graham post' thinking he knows everything about anything.    It has to be said and I doubt I'm on my own here, I would love DEFRA to change their stance, just to wipe that smugness off your face. Personally I couldn't give a toss what the outcome is, I can go most places with only minor inconvenience!

Slightly O/T: If ever there was ever a reason for people to despise UKCaving your last few posts on here sum it up perfectly. Well done.

One would imagine so. Otherwise, seeking the opinion of a QC could be considered overkill.

Personally, I think NE will turn it down with the perceived risk of increased public liability. They're being a little bit cautious with public money at the moment.

Makes no odds to me either way.

 

[graham]

Gosh, so DEFRA haven't read counsel's opinion & rolled over then.

Was that ever the intention?

You'd have to ask those who gave her the brief.

or possibly those numpties who, we are told, put a copy of the opinion in their car windows instead of a permit.

Oh and what's this... A typical 'smug graham post' thinking he knows everything about anything.    It has to be said and I doubt I'm on my own here, I would love DEFRA to change their stance, just to wipe that smugness off your face. Personally I couldn't give a toss what the outcome is, I can go most places with only minor inconvenience!

Well, actually I asked a question, I didn't claim to know anything. But then I'm not a genius who'd cheerfully see our caves trashed just 'cos someone irritated them on an internet forum.

Slightly O/T: If ever there was ever a reason for people to despise UKCaving your last few posts on here sum it up perfectly. Well done.

Do you know, I really don't think most people, including me, think I actually set the tone on this place.

 

[Lazarus]

Gosh, so DEFRA haven't read counsel's opinion & rolled over then.

Was that ever the intention?
Oh and what's this... A typical 'smug graham post' thinking he knows everything about anything.    It has to be said and I doubt I'm on my own here, I would love DEFRA to change their stance, just to wipe that smugness off your face. Personally I couldn't give a toss what the outcome is, I can go most places with only minor inconvenience!

Slightly O/T: If ever there was ever a reason for people to despise UKCaving your last few posts on here sum it up perfectly. Well done.

One would imagine so. Otherwise, seeking the opinion of a QC could be considered overkill.

Personally, I think NE will turn it down with the perceived risk of increased public liability. They're being a little bit cautious with public money at the moment.

Makes no odds to me either way.

I doubt it was overkill, considering we had been sold short by a minority years ago the opinion of a QC is there to back up a more enlightened view.

Public liability, hmm, but what of the thousands of miles of coastal access that we are promised - very precarious some of that coast, perhaps even crumbly and prone to collapse - too risky, no, obviously not....

 

[peterk]

Isn't the best way to reply to a simple question (even if you think it has hidden purpose) to just give a straight answer?

Everybody miss this observation. Here we go again with the same old posts. 

 

[Lazarus]

Well, actually I asked a question, I didn't claim to know anything. But then I'm not a genius who'd cheerfully see our caves trashed just 'cos someone irritated them on an internet forum.

Tone of the question? And assumptions, yet again.  :

As for your posts graham:
Any news yet on how DEFRA haven't actually changed their position re CRoW?
<shrugs>
Truth will out.
Any news yet on how DEFRA have actually changed their position re CRoW? i.e. that it does apply to caves & caving (and old mines...)?  :-\
Nope, none.
Gosh, so DEFRA haven't read counsel's opinion & rolled over then. 
numpties..caves trashed.. irritated..I actually set the tone..

Oh well, you're right and everyone else is wrong, nothing new there then. Like I suggested, overbearing individuals (not just you, I didn't say that, you're one of a small number) with too much time on their hands trying to dictate everything on here.

I think, as an irritated numpty, it's best I leave this forum so I can pirate and trash a cave or two, maybe head to Mendip and destroy some locked gates, that's what us lesser twats do, isn't it?

 

[graham]

Oh well, you're right and everyone else is wrong, nothing new there then.

Not everybody, there seem to be a significant number of cavers on Mendip and elsewhere who share my concerns. Like me they are relieved that DEFRA seems not to have moved.

I think, as an irritated numpty, it's best I leave this forum so I can pirate and trash a cave or two, maybe head to Mendip and destroy some locked gates, that's what us lesser twats do, isn't it?

Well it is undeniably the case that some twats have destroyed locked gates, though the most recent cases seem to be in Wales rather than on Mendip. These cases have been recorded on here.

I also have concerns about intentional vandalism that has taken place in caves, not just in Wales.

Do you deny that these things have happened?

 

[Andrew W]

Your tone really isn't helpful, Graham. You made a cryptic remark. When I asked you if you were in possession of information that we mere mortals were not, you followed it up with a series of equally cryptic remarks when it appears clear that you already knew the outcome of the meeting in question. Why not speak plainly lest anyone be mistaken in thinking you a troll?

Damian's comment suggested that discussions were still ongoing and that nothing had been formally documented by either party. This is hardly a surprising outcome of an initial exploratory meeting. I don't think anyone expected a formal declaration either for or against CROW access from that meeting. Whether or not there was anything positive for open access gained from the meeting I have no idea, having not been there and having no information on those discussions. If you think you know more than the rest of us on what went on why not simply say so?

 

[bograt]

Seen somewhere ( CBA to find it at the moment); total number of caves on Mendip affected by CRoW; 7,; those in the Dales; many dozens,; figures in the Peak District and Wales to be confirmed.
ONE PERSON, worried about seven caves is disrupting this debate, and folks are apparently taking him seriously??????

 

[martinm]

Gosh, that was an 'initial exploratory meeting' , they all got on great and I'm sure future meetings will be held once an official BCA policy is agreed upon. It won't affect the Peak much, it probably won't affect Mendip, so just leave it alone. This was all discussed at the BCA C&A meeting. It is being considerately dealt with by all the people concerned from all areas of the country... 

 

[bograt]

Thanks for that Mel, its good to know there is a 'steady hand on the tiller' from DCA.

To the rest of you, I've not detected any suggestions of what the BCA policy should be??

 

[RobinGriffiths]

or possibly those numpties who, we are told, put a copy of the opinion in their car windows instead of a permit.

Isn't this the way to go though? Get a farmer to sue, and test it in a Court of Law ?

 

[martinm]

Thanks for that Mel, its good to know there is a 'steady hand on the tiller' from DCA.

To the rest of you, I've not detected any suggestions of what the BCA policy should be??

Thanks Boggie. We are all working on this for the benefit of caver access AND conservation. We are all aware of the issues involved. We are working on improving access where possible, but also keeping in place reasonable restrictions where already in place to protect vulnerable cave environments.  There is not much to worry about.  Trust me.    And if any concerns eventually crop up, we can all discuss them and deal with them like adults, hopefully.

And in response to the message just posted, we don't want to upset landowners... 

 

[graham]

To the rest of you, I've not detected any suggestions of what the BCA policy should be??

Well, Bograt. At the moment one could say that BCA does have a policy on the matter given that a guiding principle in its constitution states that:

4.6. That the owners and tenants of property containing caves have the right to grant or withhold access.

In order to even consider lobbying for a change in DEFRA's position of CROW, BCA would first have to change its constitution, else it would be acting against it. Now, doubtless someone work try to come up with some extremely convoluted form of words that might try to square this circle, but please try to imagine the straightforward effect that such a constitutional debate would have on the relationship between cavers and landowners all over the country. It would not be pretty.

I fully support any move in BCA to review this matter because I think it extremely important that all cavers get a full understanding of what any change in the law in this area would involve. For example, I presume that everyone currently taking part on here has read the submission to the last C&A meeting from ACI and understands their claim that should CRoW apply to caves and caving that they then would have free reign to run their businesses wherever they liked in the affected caves. I'm sure that will go down really well with all landowners big and small.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[graham]

or possibly those numpties who, we are told, put a copy of the opinion in their car windows instead of a permit.

Isn't this the way to go though? Get a farmer to sue, and test it in a Court of Law ?

Farmland as such isn't generally designated as Access Land.

 

[peterk]

or possibly those numpties who, we are told, put a copy of the opinion in their car windows instead of a permit.

Isn't this the way to go though? Get a farmer to sue, and test it in a Court of Law ?

Is there a legal expert here? I think the landowner would apply for a court injunction and I think that can be a very one sided process.  Having obtained an injunction then if it is breached you forget civil actions for some time because "contempt of court" criminal action kicks in. The Supreme Court has ruled that an injunction against students occupying part of a university was to cover the whole campus but have rejected an injunction sought against travellers to apply to the parcel of land occupied and also other separate parcels that could be occupied.

I would like to see a professional opinion on the the prospects and costs of pushing access by "confrontation" and indeed to what extent a ruling either way would apply to other similar locations.  Looking forward if DEFRA decided that "We think CROW covers caving" then:
Landowners can ignore it? Courts would treat the statement in the same way as the opinion of any expert witness?
Can CROW be amended in this area by a Statutory Instrument - in effect a Minister's signature or would it require an Act?

 

[bograt]

Isn't this getting just a little bit too heavy?.

Just to clarify;

CRoW applies to unimproved land, that is land that has not been cleared, fertilised or prepared for cropping i.e. rough grazing, usually for sheep. It is still farm land, owned by someone, but open access would not have a significant impact on the farm business.

CRoW also specifically excludes use of access for profit or gain, so if ACI consider it a free rein to fill their pockets, they are mistaken, this could be a likely cause for legal action.