Lancaster Easegill
- Thread starter martinr
- Start date
cap n chris
Well-known member
If I drive up on the Saturday and catch up with you what's the chances of organising permits for a last minute trip into Notts Pot?
D
Dep
Guest
The point was also made on the other thread that the issue isn't in organisation, even when the trip is known about ages in advance (a the GB one I was talking about has been) and carefully planned it isn't always possible to guarantee the names of who will be along.
We have shift workers and people whose lives don't always allow that much foreknowledge.
And if some one drops out on a trip with limited numbers is it not unreasonable to allow someone on a reserve list to substitute at the last minute.
A request was made to allow a little more flexibility in what is otherwise a fine system, otherwise what you are really saying is that certain sites are only available to people who can plan their lives weeks in advance, great for anyone who can but not so good for anyone who can't.
Access control bodies should at least consider sensible suggestions that would benefit the greater good without rocking the boat too much. There is scope to make small changes in the system that would solve or partially mitigate these problems without causing major upsets.
Several people have made sensible suggestions on the other thread - please try to understand the point that they are making as after carefully reading some of the various responses I am not sure that you have.
But at the same time please don't think I am being ungrateful or arsey - thank you to those who have offered other options to obtain keys and permits - all in all this is a damned useful forum with some very helpful people.
We have shift workers and people whose lives don't always allow that much foreknowledge.
And if some one drops out on a trip with limited numbers is it not unreasonable to allow someone on a reserve list to substitute at the last minute.
A request was made to allow a little more flexibility in what is otherwise a fine system, otherwise what you are really saying is that certain sites are only available to people who can plan their lives weeks in advance, great for anyone who can but not so good for anyone who can't.
Access control bodies should at least consider sensible suggestions that would benefit the greater good without rocking the boat too much. There is scope to make small changes in the system that would solve or partially mitigate these problems without causing major upsets.
Several people have made sensible suggestions on the other thread - please try to understand the point that they are making as after carefully reading some of the various responses I am not sure that you have.
But at the same time please don't think I am being ungrateful or arsey - thank you to those who have offered other options to obtain keys and permits - all in all this is a damned useful forum with some very helpful people.
Stu
Active member
To add a controversial ingredient...
Easegill and many of the tributary caves are on open access land.
Don't know if this link will work
http://www.openaccess.gov.uk/wps/portal
(edited - it won't. Type in Caterton Fell in the relevant spaces)
but it may prove enlightening
A situation I think needs a lead from the BCA/CNCC. Caving seems to be way behind other "outdoor recreations" in recognising this fact.
Easegill and many of the tributary caves are on open access land.
Don't know if this link will work
http://www.openaccess.gov.uk/wps/portal
(edited - it won't. Type in Caterton Fell in the relevant spaces)
but it may prove enlightening
A situation I think needs a lead from the BCA/CNCC. Caving seems to be way behind other "outdoor recreations" in recognising this fact.
nickwilliams
Well-known member
stu said:
If by this you mean that access to the land is freely available for caving, then I am afraid you are wrong. CROW only gives right of access for walking (with or without a dog!); it does not legislate a right of access for caving (or pretty well anything else, either).
On this basis, CNCC still have to have access agreements from the various landowners if we want legitimate access to the caves. Of course, I'm not saying that people who 'walk' can't also, in practice, disappear underground, but I am afraid CROW does nothing to reduce the need for CNCC to agree formal access agreements with the landowners.
Nick.
Les W
Active member
Dep said:
Hi Dep
The system is flexible, if as you say you are unsure of the names or you need to change one then go to one of the 10 clubs and it can be sorted on the spot.
Also IMO the ability to pick up a key "on spec" is a real benefit and only carries a small risk. A simple contact the night before can almost 100% guarantee the availability of keys and permits in Priddy only 5 miles from the cave.
I do realise that in your case (WCMS) that this is doubling your personal journey as your club is located at Longwood, but for by far the vast majority of cavers, the arrangements don't inconvenience them at all. The benefits of picking up a key are that it avoids all the hassle of keys in the post etc. and if you are going to collect the key, then the paperwork is also able to be sorted at the same time. Clubs can and will be very flexible with arrangements to try and help where possible, no access system is perfect but to be fair, this one works for a majority of the UK's cavers with no real problems.
We even have an arrangement with Roger Dors at the Hunters to "buy back your key if there is nobody around to return your deposit at the hut's (I realise this is a bit of a double edged sword because now that you have been "forced" to go into the "Centre of the Universe...
)
nickwilliams
Well-known member
Are you talking to me or Les?
Assuming you were answering my post and that your question was "why does CROW only apply to walking" the answer is that this is because when the legislation was written, it was very specifically intended only to permit a right of access for walking, and nothing else, and it would not have got through the House of Lords had it been otherwise. So, that's what the legislation says.
Sooner or later there will be some case law which tells us whether walking includes (for instance) stopping for a piss, or to eat your sandwiches, or whatever, but I suspect it will be a long time before anything to do with caving is tested. Even if it is there is no guarantee that such a test would turn out to be of benefit to us.
Nick.
Assuming you were answering my post and that your question was "why does CROW only apply to walking" the answer is that this is because when the legislation was written, it was very specifically intended only to permit a right of access for walking, and nothing else, and it would not have got through the House of Lords had it been otherwise. So, that's what the legislation says.
Sooner or later there will be some case law which tells us whether walking includes (for instance) stopping for a piss, or to eat your sandwiches, or whatever, but I suspect it will be a long time before anything to do with caving is tested. Even if it is there is no guarantee that such a test would turn out to be of benefit to us.
Nick.
Stu
Active member
Sorry Nick, yes it was to you.
Surely the permit systems had nothing to do with access to a cave per se rather access across the land to a cave. My very basic understanding of the law leads me to believe that no person can own a cave. If access to the land is/was the issue isn't it clear under CRoW that access on open land is now just that... open. My understanding of it at the time was that caving was discounted under the Act as the issue was access to land.
I want to investigate this further at a more convenient time!!
Surely the permit systems had nothing to do with access to a cave per se rather access across the land to a cave. My very basic understanding of the law leads me to believe that no person can own a cave. If access to the land is/was the issue isn't it clear under CRoW that access on open land is now just that... open. My understanding of it at the time was that caving was discounted under the Act as the issue was access to land.
I want to investigate this further at a more convenient time!!
Pitlamp
Well-known member
If you examine the history of why CNCC was formed and how it operates you might just realise that we're often lucky to have any access to certain cave systems at all. I do know that CROW has resulted in closures of areas of land to us outdoors types as a backlash against CROW, where formerly the landowners / farmers were quite happy to have a local arrangement.
It's all very well talking about the minutiae of the law but often what actually counts on the day is the goodwill of the person concerned. So let's just be a bit careful here, eh?
It's all very well talking about the minutiae of the law but often what actually counts on the day is the goodwill of the person concerned. So let's just be a bit careful here, eh?
graham
New member
There is one very good reason why cavers would have disadvantaged by caving being included as of right in the CROW legislation. It would have probably brought the digging of surface sites to a complete halt; after all what landowner is going to agree to a dig which, if successful, would lead to a right of access by cavers that did not exist previously?
There are other considerations which apply, which would make a right of access under CROW work against our interests as well.
There are other considerations which apply, which would make a right of access under CROW work against our interests as well.
A
andymorgan
Guest
According to some Northern cavers I have spoken to, they are using right to roam for access to caves.
