Some good news on cave access

[ah147]

Ahh OK. I did say uninformed mind

 

[Ian Adams]

It is very heartening that this thread has remained positive and I do believe that "badlad" has taken a momentously positive step forward on behalf of cavers sat on both sides of the access fence.

I would like to personally thank you (sorry I don't know you personally) and I hope that your work develops and that we will all (all cavers) benefit with easier and better access arrangements in the good vein in which it is clearly intended 

Best Regards,

Ian Adams

 

[Bob Mehew]

Not a "spanner in the works" but off topic. Mines are covered by separate legislation, The Mines and Quarries Act 1954. Mineral workings are excepted under Schedule 1 of the CRoW Act.

No it is a useful observation even though CRoW Schedule 1 states "Land used for the getting of minerals by surface working (including quarrying)".  I reckon that means 'open cast' style working not mining.  But you pushed my thinking along a bit.

Words are tricky things, so I am also reflecting long and hard on Sec 2(1) which states "...on any access land for the purposes of open-air recreation...".  One presumes that if the legal minds which drafted this statement meant 'in the open air on any access land for the purposes of recreation' they would have said so.  'Open air' appears to only modify / limit the meaning of the word 'recreation' and not the words 'access land'.  But it is going to take some while to come to any view.  I have just spent a total of 5 hours looking for helpful legal definitions without clear success.

Having said that, I am mindful that we do (well I do) want to retain good relationships with land owners because there are things which cavers want to do which clearly are not within CRoW, like digging on the surface of the land (see Schedule 2 l and m).  I did wonder whether to say anything as conducting debates on an open forum can be disruptive to such good relationships.

I guess I should also add that I take no responsibility for any one acting upon my current thoughts.  Yesterday evening I had quite a different view point, as Tim (not Tony) will tell you.

PS - I would have lost my bet on "I would offer high odds against a search of English laws finding something which mentioned "cave" and "damage" together".  Only because Lord Cave was a law lord.

 

[TheBitterEnd]

I guess that caving was a long way from the minds of those who drafted the legislation and my hunch is that they wanted to exclude vehicles, caravans, tents etc. However we are stuck with those words and ultimately only the courts can decide.

It also leaves me wondering what "closed air" recreation would be. Whilst I expect that Google would turn up some results I am not sure they would be relevant or be something I would want in my search history  :ang:

 

[braveduck]

The opposite of outdoors and open air is indoors !
So enclosed air is also indoors. We seem to be looking for problems that don't exist.
Lets get a grip and move forward !

 

[Alex]

right of access (under CRoW) to open caves and potholes on the sides of mountains etc

To me I that reads as any cave without a gate or lid? As they are open, it does not appear to restrict how far you can go in. I mean you normally only count yourself as in doors if you are behind a door. So provided the cave has no door or gate you are still in the open air, as it's open at one end, no matter how far you are in the system unless say you free dive a sump?

So basically there quote does not tell us anything new as it can still be interpreted in different ways.

 

[Bottlebank]

I haven't read the article as my Descent subscription ran out recently but I'm sure people are going to keep pushing for access under CRoW.

I still think we've very little to gain from this and everything to lose.

I'm really not looking forward to the day I have a conversation with a farmer when I want to dig in his field and he refuses because some idiot has been protesting his CRoW rights to cave without permission.

I had a conversation with one farmer about a year ago after we emerged from a cave on his land where I thought we didn't need permission, entirely my fault, I hadn't bothered checking. It turned out we did and we were supposed to have paid a couple of quid each. We apologised, paid up and have been welcome back since. I can imagine how that conversation would have gone if one or two of the CRoW enthusiasts had been on the trip.

 

[Simon Wilson]

Which cave and which farmer was that?

 

[Bottlebank]

Which cave and which farmer was that?

It was a Derbyshire cave, I'd been down it two or three times over the years and hadn't realised a fee was payable.

It was all very friendly, but then I didn't advise him we had every right to be there.

The access arrangements for quite a few Derbyshire caves are an example of why it would only take one or two people to start crying "CRoW" to really screw things up for diggers. Granted the farmers who charge for P8 and Giants probably wouldn't want to fall out with cavers (and these aren't on Access land anyway) but some that are much less used probably wouldn't be too bothered about any loss of revenue.

I know I've asked before but just what are people hoping to gain by CRoW?

My impression is that people like Simon want to use CRoW as a big stick to "reform" the regional councils - or make them redundant. In other words it's a political move not one based on what's best for caving. Which caves do you expect to gain access to that you don't already have - I'm sure there's a few but I can't think of many?

As I said I haven't read Tim's article but I'm a long way from convinced that rewriting the explanation of what the Act means to suit your own goal is anything other than that, and certainly not "good news on cave access".

 

[cavermark]

My impression is that people like Simon want to use CRoW as a big stick to "reform" the regional councils - or make them redundant. In other words it's a political move not one based on what's best for caving. Which caves do you expect to gain access to that you don't already have - I'm sure there's a few but I can't think of many?

This is nothing like the impression that I got from reading the article.

 

[Stu]

What cave in Derbyshire?

I'm scratching my head as to which caves are on CRoW and charge a fee. Granted I don't know every situation, but as one of the people on the CRoW Working Party I haven't come across any not mentioned - though I'm still ploughing through the list.

As for your comment about it being political and having a desire to reform the regions, I think you're way off there. In fact Derbyshire is a great example of an area with very few caves on CRoW land, yet we don't seem to have any of the (what I'll call) nonsense that we see in the Dales i.e. CRoW entrances that are off limits if you're wearing a caving suit (unless you don't mind waiting for permits)!

Nothing, that is on the agenda of people who might be seen as reformists, is intended to severe relations with landowners. No one is hell bent on "demanding" access and consequences be damned.

 

[Bottlebank]

To save you

What cave in Derbyshire?

I'm scratching my head as to which caves are on CRoW and charge a fee. Granted I don't know every situation, but as one of the people on the CRoW Working Party I haven't come across any not mentioned - though I'm still ploughing through the list.

As for your comment about it being political and having a desire to reform the regions, I think you're way off there. In fact Derbyshire is a great example of an area with very few caves on CRoW land, yet we don't seem to have any of the (what I'll call) nonsense that we see in the Dales i.e. CRoW entrances that are off limits if you're wearing a caving suit (unless you don't mind waiting for permits)!

To save you looking it wasn't on CRoW land. My point was that if it had been the resulting argument could have damaged relations between farmer and cavers.

Nothing, that is on the agenda of people who might be seen as reformists, is intended to severe relations with landowners. No one is hell bent on "demanding" access and consequences be damned.

Based on conversations (in person, not here) recently with one or two of the "reformists" I'm very afraid you're very wrong, I wish you weren't. That's exactly what at least one of them seems to be demanding and he's shown no signs of caring what the consequences are. He refuses even to discuss it.

 

[Ian Adams]

I'm really not looking forward to the day I have a conversation with a farmer when I want to dig in his field and he refuses because some idiot has been protesting his CRoW rights to cave without permission.

A reasonable concern.

Personally, I am very much in favour of CRoW and open access. I am also in favour of maintaining the best possible relationship with landowners for many reasons (digging aside) not least because it is their land. Good relationships with landowners serve as win/win scenarios. Bad ones do not.

I believe that the majority (if not all?) of the open access proponents will also be in favour of maintaining (at the very least) "good and proper" relations with landowners.

For my own thoughts, personally, I do not believe that CRoW will become a "weapon of war" against landowners.

Ian

 

[Stu]

To save you looking it wasn't on CRoW land. My point was that if it had been the resulting argument could have damaged relations between farmer and cavers.

My point was that if it had been on CRoW one assumes there would never have been a problem anyway. Not sure this proves or disproves anything.

Based on conversations (in person, not here) recently with one or two of the "reformists" I'm very afraid you're very wrong, I wish you weren't. That's exactly what at least one of them seems to be demanding and he's shown no signs of caring what the consequences are. He refuses even to discuss it.

Well luckily it won't get decided by "one person", which is why BCA is on it...

 

[droid]

On a local level it might be.

it only takes one idiot to annoy a farmer.....

 

[Bottlebank]

On a local level it might be.

it only takes one idiot to annoy a farmer.....

Just what I was about to say.

 

[jasonbirder]

I really don't understand the argument that allowing open access to caves on CRoW land would impact on relationships with landowners...

I understand the argument...Landowners want a say i who crosses their land...if they don't have the final say they will get the hump...and then be awkward for awkwards sake about sums it up...

So...have there been significant access problems on Land near Public Footpaths? Have caves that are currently on CRoW land but with no previous access restrictions become more restrictive overnight?

Or are we worrying over nothing...CRoW means landowners have had to accept unfettered access for walkers rambler birdspotters photographers climbers etc etc...has this instantly resulted in animosity between landowners and these groups...or is it a storm in a teacup...

 

[graham]

I know of landowner who has recently refused permission for a dig, this person does own access to a cave and really is unhappy about people believing they have a right to be on his land. That is, I am sure, a large part of his reasoning against allowing a dig on another piece of land that he owns.

So, no it ain't theoretical and no I ain't going to tell you all who or where on an open forum 'cos I do not want any of the usual idiots suspects to do anything stupid which may exacerbate the situation.

 

[braveduck]

Come on Graham ,one snow flake does not make a winter !

 

[graham]

Come on Graham ,one snow flake does not make a winter !

I merely give a concrete example of something that some ostriches cavers claim has never happened and will never happen.