Landowners - what did they ever do for us?

[jasonbirder]

It'd be good to see a clear list of Dales caves on access land where there is no access at all.

What about those where there is no access at all unless you are connected to the committee of a CNCC affiliated caving club?

 

[jasonbirder]

running a campaign that in itself may result in temporary or permanent damage to landowner relations, and that even if it's successful will probably make it more difficult over time

Landowners have been "compelled" to give access to walkers on CRoW land for many, many years now...in far higher numbers than their will ever be of cavers...is there any evidence at all that this has irrevocably soured relations between landowners and walkers? Or is the situation as it was before CRoW?

 

[Martin Laverty]

So, unlike a similar question applied to Romans, there doesn't seem to be an ever growing list of things for which (to narrow and crystallize the question) cavers should thank the owners of land to which the CRoW act gives the public a (qualified) right of access, but several grievances have been accumulated by some  (perhaps only a few, certainly not all) or, in their name, by other cavers. There can be no question that they have an a priori right to be respected, and their land and livelihood not materially damaged, but they have an equal duty to respect the laws of the land. They might act to inspire more than respect and it might be appropriate for BCA and access bodies to encourage such acts (eg by pointing out their reduced liability under CRoW), but it must be inappropriate for BCA and access bodies to suggest that the exercise of legitimate rights might be impeded for other than conservation reasons.

Some such landowners are cavers or mine explorers (eg the South Wales Cave Club, or (thanks Roy Fellows) the Cambrian Mines Trust), and some have been captivated by the potential interest inherent in their land so diligently communicated by the admirable examples (albeit not in CRoW areas?) of Mel Milner and the Old Ruminator. Some, like the National Trust, may have an express purpose of maintaining public access; in the Forest of Dean, cave and mine access appears to be secure for Forestry Commission land. However, in the Dales it seems clear to me that landowners (often through agents) were happy to ignore the (probable - thanks to the D.Roses) rights of cavers and acquiesce in the time-honoured practices of a near-moribund access organisation. The CNCC seems to be under resuscitation, which can only be helped by reducing the self-imposed burden of caves on CRoW land on its officers and meets secretaries.

Overnight, another topic popped up on this forum which pointed a way to answering my question of how we might find out who owns CRoW land [ http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=17429.0 ]. A quarried area in Wales is for sale, and the accompanying documents show the names of adjacent land owners - a Duke, (the old name of) a quarrying company, and a charity (the Honourable Artillery Company, you may be as surprised as I was to hear). My guess was that the names came from the Land Registry, but their website works (neither freely, nor easily) off addresses and postcodes [ https://www.gov.uk/search-property-information-land-registry ], so maybe not applicable to parcels of uninhabited moorland? I think most landowning cavers (ie those owning houses, as alluded to by TBE) leave this sort of thing to solicitors...

Descent 241 (Dec 2014/Jan 2015) carries an interesting letter from Joe Giblin, of Preston, which I trust he will allow me to quote. It draws attention to locally successful protests in Lancashire for public access rights two generations before Kinder [cf http://www.bbc.co.uk/lancashire/content/articles/2008/03/18/history_darwen_tower_feature.shtml ] and concludes that "Whichever way the BCA vote goes, this will not be the end of the matter - but rest-assured the anti-access landowners will still ensure they have their say." Concluding at the heart of the BCA's constitutional issue with what we might leave - for now - as a rhetorical question - "Why do their job for them?".

 

[martinm]

Some great points made above!  Very thought provoking. I've lost track a bit, lol. But:-

1. A "yes" vote does not mean things will change. Even if NE/Defra eventually agree that CRoW applies to caving, it doesn't mean anything anything has to change in every region. If it helps in certain areas then local cavers can use it to maybe 'nudge' landowner attitudes. But it must be done sensitively.

2. Walkers (including me) have enjoyed the benefits of the CRoW legislation for a good few years now and I am not aware of any problems.

3. You really should vote. Vote for your local area. I'm in the Peak, we have no problems here. However, I am aware of issues oop North and in Wales (I 'talk' to several of their C/C&A officers) so have voted with their issues in mind, not mine, cos I don't have any. But you should still vote, else your view, whatever it is, will not count.

4. Some landowners do view this forum, as do BCA officers, so they will be aware of any discussions on here.

A good thread this though, brings together relevant issues very well, I think.

 

[Simon Wilson]

Can someone assure us we are not simply seeing a "nasty mill-owner won't let his plebeian mill-workers play on his land" debate here? Unless someone knows better than me, I thought the days of Victorian attitudes, or even 1930s ones, was just history nowadays.

You have a very parochial attitude indeed and you think wrong. Even though the Northern grouse moors are all access land it is still quite common to be accosted by a gamekeeper gun-in-hand demanding to know what you are doing on the moor after dark or asking what you have in your bag. And actually my local grouse moor is owned by a mill owner. Other moors near me are owned by the Duke of Lancaster, the Duke of Westminster and the Duchess of Devonshire all of whom have extremely zealous gamekeepers. If you go there in daylight looking like a walker you will have no problem whatsoever but anything else and you will be asked questions if they see you - I don't have a problem with that but I would prefer not to have to pretend to be a walker when I go caving.

Thanks for the very enlightening observation on my thinking. I hear what you say, but if the "mill-owners" are still around, I don't see any reason for adopting the militant "mill-worker" attitude that some adopt.

I think everybody agrees with you and also see no reason to adopt a militant mill-worker attitude. It is a fact that the movement to increase access to the countryside has historically had a political aspect but it has never been entirely political. Some have said the CRoW act has it's roots in the movement for greater access to the Peak District out of which the Ramblers Association grew. But it could also be said to be partly rooted in the movement for access to the Lakeland fells which is connected to a more gentile section of society with benevolent motivation.

Why do you claim that some have adopted a militant mill-worker attitude? Who are they and what exactly have they said? I doubt you will be able to come up with anything substantial to justify what you say and I think you are being mischievous.

 

[David Rose]

Well put, Martin. Why indeed should we do their job?

As for Great Whernside: yes, I am aware that there has been activity there. But it's hardly a satisfactory position to be trying to cave or even dig when this is currently perceived as unlawful. As matters stand, the consequences of (say) a rescue from deep inside Langcliffe Pot are not pleasant to contemplate.  Things should not be this way. We should vote Yes because the status quo is unjust and wrong.

 

[Jopo]

As matters stand, the consequences of (say) a rescue from deep inside Langcliffe Pot are not pleasant to contemplate.  Things should not be this way. We should vote Yes because the status quo is unjust and wrong.

Can you explain what difference CRoW would make to a cave rescue please.

Jopo

 

[Blakethwaite]

As matters stand, the consequences of (say) a rescue from deep inside Langcliffe Pot are not pleasant to contemplate.  Things should not be this way. We should vote Yes because the status quo is unjust and wrong.

Can you explain what difference CRoW would make to a cave rescue please.

Jopo

And how class war CRoW will help digging?

 

[David Rose]

If there was a rescue inside Langcliffe now, the interpretation of the law as now recognised by Defra and NE would mean that the party being rescue was there unlawfully. They might become liable for any damage to the land caused, for example, by landrover tracks etc; the fact they were down the cave "illegally" would in general make the situation quite unpleasant. There was a rescue in the late 60s in Langcliffe which led to the present ban. I've been down Langcliffe twice clandestinely, and I remember feeling quite uneasy.

Crow access would not, in itself, mean anyone could dig where they pleased. But if a landowner came to see that Crow access for cavers wasn't really the end of the world., it might make discussing permission to dig a lot easier.

One thing's for sure. There can't be anything worse than a blanket ban on caving on one of the most promising hills in Britain. Things can only get better.

 

[Duncan Price]

If there was a rescue inside Langcliffe now, the interpretation of the law as now recognised by Defra and NE would mean that the party being rescue was there unlawfully. They might become liable for any damage to the land caused, for example, by landrover tracks etc; the fact they were down the cave "illegally" would in general make the situation quite unpleasant.

Not wanting to highjack this thread, but I am interested what the BCA PL's position would be in this instance supposing there was a claim for damages and the caver's were there without the landowner's permission.  David's message intimates that if you are underground without the appropriate permission then BCA PL cover will not apply.

This is relevant to a thread in the CDG members' forum.

 

[Bottlebank]

Crow access would not, in itself, mean anyone could dig where they pleased. But if a landowner came to see that Crow access for cavers wasn't really the end of the world., it might make discussing permission to dig a lot easier.

It might, but be honest David it's wishful thinking isn't it?

He may not be happy about it, and refuse all digging permissions.

He may not be happy to go back to having the higher level of liability he has now.

He may not be happy that he has no control over the numbers of cavers visiting any cave found.

He may also talk to other landowners and they may decide to back him.

It would be far safer to negotiate access for cavers and diggers without CRoW.

 

[Bottlebank]

Just to add to that, it may also prove to be a lot quicker to negotiate access.

A CRoW campaign may take years, will the various regional councils especially the CNCC feel it's worth their while to continue to try to negotiate access for areas like Great Whernside and better access for other areas in the meantime?

 

[Pete K]

Fixed that for you....

He or she may not be happy about it, and refuse all digging permissions. No Change to what may happen already. Moot point.

He or she may not be happy to go back to having the higher level of liability he has now but is happier to have an overall reduced liability giving a strong base to negotiate from.

He or she probably won't care about the cavers out of sight underground as they already have walkers etc... freely on the land.

He or she may also talk to other landowners and they may decide to back him thinking that cavers really are a good bunch and frankly they never saw the problem with them and are glad the clique access bodies he or she has had to deal with are no more.

It would be no difference to negotiate access for diggers with or without CRoW. Every other (non commercial) caver can enjoy greater rights.

 

[Bottlebank]

Fixed that for you....

He or she may not be happy about it, and refuse all digging permissions. No Change to what may happen already. Moot point.

He or she may not be happy to go back to having the higher level of liability he has now but is happier to have an overall reduced liability giving a strong base to negotiate from.

He or she probably won't care about the cavers out of sight underground as they already have walkers etc... freely on the land.

He or she may also talk to other landowners and they may decide to back him thinking that cavers really are a good bunch and frankly they never saw the problem with them and are glad the clique access bodies he or she has had to deal with are no more.

It would be no difference to negotiate access for diggers with or without CRoW. Every other (non commercial) caver can enjoy greater rights.

That's not fixed it Pete, simply added a whole extra layer of wishful thinking

 

[Pete K]

I'm a natural optimist!

 

[robjones]

If there was a rescue inside Langcliffe now, the interpretation of the law as now recognised by Defra and NE would mean that the party being rescue was there unlawfully. They might become liable for any damage to the land caused, for example, by landrover tracks etc; the fact they were down the cave "illegally" would in general make the situation quite unpleasant.

Not wanting to highjack this thread, but I am interested what the BCA PL's position would be in this instance supposing there was a claim for damages and the caver's were there without the landowner's permission.  David's message intimates that if you are underground without the appropriate permission then BCA PL cover will not apply.

This is relevant to a thread in the CDG members' forum.

Mods: this is a potentially far reaching point and, I suggest, well worthy of splitting to its own thread. I will certainly follow replies with keen interest - thanks Duncan for flagging this up.

 

[paul]

If there was a rescue inside Langcliffe now, the interpretation of the law as now recognised by Defra and NE would mean that the party being rescue was there unlawfully. They might become liable for any damage to the land caused, for example, by landrover tracks etc; the fact they were down the cave "illegally" would in general make the situation quite unpleasant.

Not wanting to highjack this thread, but I am interested what the BCA PL's position would be in this instance supposing there was a claim for damages and the caver's were there without the landowner's permission.  David's message intimates that if you are underground without the appropriate permission then BCA PL cover will not apply.

This is relevant to a thread in the CDG members' forum.

Mods: this is a potentially far reaching point and, I suggest, well worthy of splitting to its own thread. I will certainly follow replies with keen interest - thanks Duncan for flagging this up.

[gmod]Just start a new thread. It's easy.[/gmod]

 

[Peter Burgess]

I'm not advocating mass trespass anywhere.

I've been down Langcliffe twice clandestinely, and I remember feeling quite uneasy.

Legally, not a great deal of difference. Only in scale.

Perhaps this is one reason I am less than happy with what the "yes CRoW" campaigners are about. There is a fair sprinkling of this attitude amongst a few of the strongest advocates. The best way to gain the moral high ground is to demonstrate you have high morals in the first place, not wave the "it's morally right to have free access" banner everywhere.

No, I am not trolling, or being mischievous, just trying to understand my unease in all this. And, no, I don't pretend I haven't been places that I shouldn't have been, but I am prepared to work with the way things are, and achieve better results for cavers through current good practice, with respect to landowner relationships.

 

[Ian Adams]

The "moral high ground" is a very good and noble place to be.

What if it is the case that cavers have had the right to enter caves the whole time and we/they have been "hoodwinked" ?

Is there any evidence to support the contention that cavers have always had the right since the advent of CRoW ?  Yes, there is.

Is it reasonable to "Look into that evidence" in more detail ?  Yes, it is.

Is it "morally right" to block that process ?  No.

Still think you are sat on the moral high ground Peter ?

:-\

Ian

 

[droid]

No there isn't 'evidence', Ian. Unless your definition of 'evidence' is an untested opinion.