Statement from the Trustees of Pwll Du Cave Management Group

NameOfTheDragon

New member
The following is a statement by the Trustees of Pwll Du Cave Management Group (PDCMG). A copy is also available on the PDCMG web site at http://www.pdcmg.org.uk/



THE Cambrian Caving Council newsletter (55) for October and the BCA Newsletter (31) for November announced the creation of Twll Du (Black Hole), a new entrance to Ogof Draenen. Both articles presented the news as something of a challenge to the Pwll Du Cave Management Group, the body created to ?promote the conservation, management, scientific study and exploration of the caves of the area and access to them?. As trustees of the group, on that much at least we can agree. The creation of this new entrance is highly controversial and raises a number of issues that we feel necessary to bring to the attention of cavers.

When Morgannwg CC discovered Ogof Draenen in 1994, rather than exercising their explorers? prerogative, MCC made other clubs welcome in those early weeks of exploration. In 1996 MCC proposed the establishment of a democratic body to manage the inherent tension between access and conservation for the entire catchment area of the cave, and to handle relations between cavers and landowners. All clubs active in the system were invited to join the Pwll Du Cave Management Group (www.pdcmg.org.uk) with a vote for each club; it was formally constituted in October 1996. Currently comprising representatives from fourteen clubs, the PDCMG is the most representative and democratic cave management group in the UK.

At around the time that the newly-formed PDCMG was negotiating an access licence to Ogof Draenen with the Coal Authority, a second entrance was covertly dug, also on Coal Authority land. After a democratic vote this entrance was capped by PDCMG volunteers drawn from a number of clubs. Shortly afterwards, on 4th April 1997 the Coal Authority proposed a draft license containing the following clauses:

  • The Licensee shall take appropriate precautions/ action to prevent unauthorised persons from entering into the cave system underlying the Pwll Du Site and shall notify the Coal Authority immediately  on each occasion that such trespass occurs.
  • No additional entries into the cave system shall be created on land owned by the Coal Authority without its prior written consent. The Coal Authority shall be notified immediately if entries to the cave system are created on neighbouring land.

Negotiations continued at some length but it was not possible to get the license approved before the Coal Authority sold the land to Pwlldu Conservation, a private limited company incorporated in 1998 and owned by locals. PDCMG began negotiations with the new landowners who had received the draft license from the Coal Authority and who required the meaning of these clauses to be retained. The final access licence http://www.pdcmg.org.uk/PDCMG_lic_red.pdf was signed in 2000 by the landowner and the PDCMG trustees, and has enabled access through Ogof Draenen?s original entrance for all cavers ever since. This entrance is gated as part of the agreement, with keys readily available.

In 2009 another entrance, Drws Cefn (Backdoor Cave), was dug into Ogof Draenen. This also lies on Pwlldu Conservation land, but ? unlike the other two entrances ? it is also on CRoW open access land. Although CRoW status confers the ?right to roam?, under the law it does not permit unauthorised disturbance of the land (ie. digging). When the PDCMG discovered the location, the landowner was informed and he again requested assistance to close it. This has not yet been achieved due to ongoing issues relating to the presence of bats, so that any work requires the approval of Natural Resources Wales. Our efforts to carry out the request of the landowner and fulfil the terms of our access licence have also been impeded by cavers who used Drws Cefn as a case with which to challenge the current interpretation of the CRoW Act by both DEFRA and NRW. As a direct result, NRW has reaffirmed its position in very clear terms: the CRoW Act does not apply to caving. Clearly then, digging a new entrance without the permission of the landowner is illegal.

It was thus with great sadness that the first task of the new secretary elected at the PDCMG meeting held on 15 October 2017was to tell the landowner that this fourth entrance, Twll Du, had been dug into Ogof Draenen. There were already clues that another entrance existed, based on reports in social media, from meeting cavers who had not signed into the logbook (another condition of access), and ? most unfortunately ? the growing visible effects of uncontrolled access on a sensitive part of the cave which contains many unique and fragile formations. Subsequent to the reckless enlargement of the Last Sandwich crawl as reported in issues of Descent for August and October, we had to report to the PDCMG meeting that a number of the short grovels through the fragile gypsum-encrusted Midwinter Chambers had also been enlarged.

Neither the Cambrian nor the BCA reports indicate that, like the other entrances that were secretly dug into the cave, Twll Du is also on Pwlldu Conservation land; it is not far from Drws Cefn and directly adjacent to the tramroad, a Scheduled Monument protected by law for which the landowner is legally responsible. Nor do the reports reveal when the entrance was created, though social media suggests this was some months ago, nor the person or persons responsible (though there are strong hints online). Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident ? similar activities on the Black Mountain, an SSSI, antagonised the NRW and the Dan yr Ogof showcave owner to such an extent that access to Dan yr Ogof was put at risk for all cavers. It is also particularly regrettable that this new entrance to Ogof Draenen was reported with such a fanfare in both publications.

The BCA?s new Minimal Impact Caving Guidelines state that:

Modification of cave entrances and passages [?] should only be undertaken after all possible effects have been assessed and the appropriate permission obtained from the landowner. Any modifications must be the minimum required. The long term impact of any work and materials used must be considered. If the site is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest or a Scheduled Monument, a ?Consent? will also be required from the Statutory Conservation Body.

It would appear that officers of the CCC and the BCA are applauding actions that directly contravene their own guidelines and values. The action also, of course, again contravenes the licence which grants access to Ogof Draenen to all cavers via the legitimate, original entrance. Although the BCA has just passed a constitutional amendment to remove its recognition of a landowner?s right to grant or withhold access, this requirement is still part of the CCC constitution. For a legal challenge to be made to the NRW to claim access to a cave via a covertly dug entrance to enter a cave with established access undermines the existing negotiated agreement ? it also risks alienating other landowners towards cavers generally and cave diggers in particular. It would have been much more helpful to make a legal challenge to the government departments? interpretation of the law in order to gain cavers? access to an area where there is currently no access to caves or currently no known cave passage, but where there are a number of dig sites that cavers would like to explore. Digging a new entrance as a shortcut into previously remote cave passage explored by others is not cave exploration.

Alongside the cavers who are breaking the terms of our access licence, the PDCMG has been subject to a relentless and poisonous campaign of intimidation and misinformation. We understand that most cavers will not want to become involved in such a bitter dispute and may wish to adopt a neutral stance. However, we ask people to accept that there is no equivalence between a properly constituted, representative and democratic body that acts within the law, and a group of renegades who act unilaterally and covertly without any regard towards the expressed desires of the landowner, conservation of the cave or risk to access for others who abide by the rules. The lack of respect to other cavers and in particular to the landowner is staggering.

We certainly have been presented with a challenge. If you were the landowner and were not a caver, but had a deeply ingrained concern for conservation, what would you do?

Charles Bailey, Chris Densham and Tim Long, Pwll Du CMG Trustees


 

NameOfTheDragon

New member
Since the above statement was drafted, Cadw has investigated the site and determined that the Twll Du entrance was illegally dug through into a nationally protected scheduled monument, the Garnddyrus Forge and Hills Tramroad.

Cadw has stated that it is an offence to cause damage or disturbance to a Scheduled Monument without Scheduled Monument Consent from Cadw. No consent was sought, or granted, for the hole to be opened, and it was therefore an illegal act. Cadw is seeking a community resolution to securely seal the hole and stabilise the tramway. Cavers are advised that any damage caused to the scheduled monument through the use of the hole to access Ogof Draenen would also be considered in breach of the law.
 
Yawn, the debate goes on.

The Morgannwg were digging without permission when Draenen was first entered. Were the Coal Board consulted about the use of explosives etc?

The original entrance will not survive if the boulder choke collapses.

Why don't you all sit down with a cup of tea and sort this out.

There have been insinuations that Draenen has been extended further beyond it's previous limits. A survey and up to date measurement of the cave would be interesting.....

Stop the bitching and posturing and sort this out, if more cavers came off the sideline there might be a groundswell of opinion in favour of more open access. That would be up to all parties to sit down and negotiate rather than this ridiculous bickering.

I'm tired of reading all the tedious 'I'm right and you're wrong' posts regarding Draenen. It's a superb system comprised of a lot of IMHO boring passage but with a hell of a lot of potential. There are some stunning bits but a lot of it is like walking around in a quarry at night. Again just MHO.

It would serve you all right if someone went and blew in all the entrances overnight and no-one ever had access into Draenen again. Shame on you both sides for not being able to come to a compromise with the Land Owner and get something sensible put in place. A single entrance policy is never going to work. It would be like locking Lancaster Hole and concreting all the other entrances into Easegill etc. then cocking a snoot and saying you can't come in....

My last trip into Draenen was over ten years ago as far as the Snowball which was about my limit, I remember being very tired but satisfied with a good trip by the time I came out. I had no problem with the single entrance policy having been in and out that way several times over the years. But things changed rightly or wrongly and what's been done cannot easily be undone. My gut feeling is a lot of the animosity on this topic started with the blocking of the Nunnery entrance which was being used by the surveying team to speed up their still unpublished work which was being done to a much higher standard throughout the cave than was being done by other parties much faster but to a lesser degree of accuracy in the extensions that were being found at a rate of knots back in the early days of exploration.

So my summary as a bystander would be.... Stop arguing and sit down with all relevant parties and sort this out. Stop posturing. Stop bickering. Get the survey sorted and published. Get pushing the digs and extend this wonderful system for the benefit of explorers, scientists, and tourist trips. If the Landowners are really that fed up then maybe they should just stop all access and Draenen will be lost to us all forever, until another way in is dug....

Dan.
 

NameOfTheDragon

New member
If you are implying that bats may have been using Twll Du then I don't believe that. Twll Du was completely sealed with no possible access for bats, as evidenced in the various photographs such as the one used by Darkness Below at http://darknessbelow.co.uk/news-statement-from-the-trustees-of-pwll-du-cave-management-group/. Photographs taken by Cadw during their inspection are likely to make this even more clear.

If bats were in fact present and using Twll Du, then the manner in which the diggers sealed the hole with a board, earth and rocks would have trapped the bats in the cave and they would now additionally be guilty of endangering bats. If the bats were not imaginary and not trapped, then they must have an alternative access point and Twll Du is not a factor.

Frankly, this is a transparent gambit. If you had a photograph of the bats then I'd be more inclined to believe it.
 

David Rose

Active member
Given the heat this subject is already causing, I think we have a right to know who NameOfTheDragon is. Are you one of the trustees?

I have to say, I find it regrettable that the statement accuses cavers who disagree with its authors of being "renegades", and contrasts this with their allegedly superior concept of "democracy".

I can reveal that the statement was NOT discussed with any of the PDCMG members. It is solely the work of the trustees. Is that really democratic?

Dan, you are so right on every point you make. I do hope all sides in this read your post carefully, and digest it. It's time to bring this ugly mess to an end.
 

NameOfTheDragon

New member
Dan, unfortunately it's not that simple. Cavers must accept that they have to operate within the law and abide by the wishes of land owners, just as PDCMG does. Your characterisation of this as "bickering" is disingenuous. Whatever people think, the opening of Twll Du has created a serious legal issue and it was highly irresponsible.
 

BradW

Member
David Rose said:
I have to say, I find it regrettable that the statement accuses cavers who disagree with its authors of being "renegades", and contrasts this with their allegedly superior concept of "democracy".
There is a serious misrepresentation of the facts there, by David Rose. But then again this is not surprising. The statement contains the phrase ".... and a group of renegades who act unilaterally and covertly without any regard towards the expressed desires of the landowner."

This is not the same as people who don't hold the same view as the trustees, which we are all entitled to do, and we would not be called renegades by any sensible person. This phrase is specifically aimed at those who have perpetrated this unfortunate act with what could be serious legal consequences, by the look of it. Anyone with a reasonable grasp of the language can understand this.

But, if it suits someone's purpose to distort a statement for their own aims, so be it. The truth will out one day.

 

PaulW

Member
David Rose said:
Given the heat this subject is already causing, I think we have a right to know who NameOfTheDragon is. Are you one of the trustees?

Looking at previous posts, which didnt take much doing, gives you a name
 

NameOfTheDragon

New member
David Rose said:
I can reveal that the statement was NOT discussed with any of the PDCMG members. It is solely the work of the trustees. Is that really democratic?

Sir, you are in no position to reveal anything. The statement is from the Trustees of PDCMG exactly as it very clearly states. The trustees are not committee members and do not vote on the committee as I am sure you are well aware. There is no attempt to claim that the statement is anything other than it is. The cave access license for the area is granted by the land owner to the trustees and management of access is delegated by the trustees to PDCMG. As the license holders, the Trustees' primary responsibility is ensuring that the land owner's terms of access are satisfied. When cavers create issues by damaging scheduled monuments, the trustees have no option but to distance themselves and law abiding cavers from those actions. If you wish to stand up and be counted with those who created this problem, then carry on by all means.

I would say (my personal opinion) that a multi-entrance policy is not out of the question, but there are many considerations to be weighed up. Put yourself in the position of the land owner at this point. An entrance has been opened without the knowledge or consent of Pwlldu Conservation Ltd (the land owner) damaging a legally protected scheduled monument in the process. Cadw is angry, the land owner is angry. How, in those circumstances, is anyone supposed to "have a nice cup of tea" with the land owner and justify more entrances?  If cavers ever hope to have permission for more entrances from the land owner, then I would suggest that creating this sort of problem is not the smartest way to go about it. Given the sensitivity of the site, recklessly opening entrances without permission actively harms the possibility of a multi-entrance policy.
 

BradW

Member
Well said, sir. It matters not what your views are on access and how many entrances, what has happened is just plainly and simply wrong in several ways. You have my support, and I despair that the "high ups" in the current caving world seem so ambivalent on this, at the very least.

 

David Rose

Active member
Wonderful how anonymous people hiding behind pseudonyms can use "Sir" in a way that makes it sound aggressive. Why not identify yourselves? You know who I am.

This "damage" to a scheduled monument: the entrance is not actually on the tramway, which constitutes the actual monument, but on the slope above it. It's not clear to me what has been damaged: a natural hole in the ground that was blocked with earth has been re-opened. Had the cave emerged a little further up the slop, it would not have been within the monument boundary.

So: we all going to get pompous and legalistic and accuse fellow cavers of being "renegades" in the sport's only printed magazine? And then watch things escalate? Or try to defuse this?
 

NameOfTheDragon

New member
David Rose said:
This "damage" to a scheduled monument: the entrance is not actually on the tramway, which constitutes the actual monument, but on the slope above it.

That would be a matter for Cadw to decide, and decide it has. I don't think you appreciate the seriousness of the situation. This is long past opinion.
 

Dave Tyson

Member
BradW said:
I can't think of a more apt saying than "if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging"
I think a better statement might be:

"find yourself a hole outside the Pwlldu Conservation land boundary and keep digging till you reach Ogof Draenen"  ;)

Dave
 

David Rose

Active member
It would be helpful to have some precision here.

Please specify exactly which scheduled monument contains Twll Du, the new entrance to Ogof Draenen, and how exactly the entrance has damaged it, with the appropriate Coflein website link and designation number.

Several sites are mentioned around Cwm Ifor, but how big are their footprints? Where does the boundary lie in relation to the entrance?
 

BradW

Member
Sir, you are a professional investigative journalist, I believe? Why, then are you asking a caving forum such questions, whereas even I know that Cadw are probably better qualified to know about Scheduled Ancient Monuments in Wales?
 
Top