Mark Wright said:
The proposed amendment has clearly been worded to further derail the campaign......
How do you work this one out?
Its basically mirroring a change to the constitution of Cambrian Caving Council of which I am legal and insurance officer and if memory serves me correct was originally instigated by me.
There is a situation in law whereby land ownership and mineral ownership can be in separate hands, and where this is the case and access to an abandoned mine is desired then the authority to grant or withhold permission will lie with the mineral owner. Likewise if a natural cave has had material extracted from it and sold, then it will be mineral property.
The change was instigated simply to reflect the true legal position and would actually work in favor of someone requiring access as even where a natural cave is concerned a mineral owner has full rights over land and beneath it. So a separate mineral owner could give permission even against wishes of the landowner, and vise verse. Access could only be denied by the two acting in concert.
If there is any desire by parties to use this to derail the CROW campaign, then it will be entirely due to their own possibly fanciful interpretation.
Having said all of this it may well be best option to remove it completely as suggested.