In another thread it was stated "If a landowner damaged a cave then they would be in breach of the law."

Obviously this is true if the cave is part of a SSSI.

But if the cave isn't part of a SSSI - is there any law which prevents a landowner from damaging a cave which is on his own land?

Is the situation different depending on whether the damage is surface or underground?

I've no special reason for wanting to know  - it's just that the question was raised, and I realise I haven't a clue what the answer is.

kay said:

In another thread it was stated "If a landowner damaged a cave then they would be in breach of the law."

Obviously this is true if the cave is part of a SSSI.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily so.  I think I am not up to date on SSSI law but it used to be based on the concept of Potentially Damaging Operations PDOs.  Doing a PDO was against the law, but if it were not a PDO, then it was not against the SSSI law.  So it is likely that drilling a hole in rock to place an anchor would not be a PDO but digging away a sand bank may well be.  Though with prior agreement, taking a core of the same sand bank might not be a PDO.

In general terms a land owner can do what he / she likes to their land within reason.  So say digging a new entrance through rock would only breach a law if some one came along and claimed the dig was in fact a quarry which would required planning permission. 

There are a few other laws which could directly apply, scheduled Ancient Monuments, limestone pavements orders, national nature reserves, regionally important geological sites and then there are the 'consequential' ones.  So disturbing bats etc would illegal, as would be changing a watercourse so as to cause pollution (or is that just civil?).

This is all criminal law.  Civil law (mostly I sue you for the harm you caused me) might apply in terms of an unfenced big dig but I guess that is getting well away from your interest.

Warning this is a sloppy answer since I give no detailed references to actual laws. 

So roughly saying, you don't know of a law that says "damaging a cave is not allowed".  Any protection for caves is as a by product of other protections - NNRs, Ancient Monuments, bats, injuring someone through creating a hazard on your land, etc?

Strikes me this is one for a Law professional.

Lay opinions are quite worthless for a question like this.

See here for a SSSI (Operations requiring Natural England's consent):-

http://www.peakcavemonitoring.org.uk/content/view/20/25/

If it's not in a SSSI and not part of any other statutory designation (as Bob says:- scheduled Ancient Monuments, limestone pavements orders, national nature reserves and there are more)  and doesn't affect a watercourse (check with  the EA), then I'm pretty sure that the landowner can do what they want.

Caves have been filled in on Stanley Moor near Buxton with no comeback, I think.

Dale Barn Cave in Chapel Le Dale was blocked by the tenant farmer/landowner (not sure which) some time ago. Think it's just inside Whernside SSSI, not sure. But these things do happen, so best to keep landowners / tenant farmers on board where possible. (Nowt to do with CRoW.)

Regards Mel. DCA Conservation Officer.

I understand the Dale Barn entrance is within a SSSI and the blocking of it is 'fundamentally illegal'.  Natural England and the CNCC conservation officer has written to the landowner on this matter without reply.  I also understand a softly, softly approach is being taken due to some sensitivities with the landowner and issues dating back several decades.

It was also reported at a recent CNCC meeting that one of the club reps had been threatened with prison because he was digging on a SSSI somewhere - but of course he wasn't even prosecuted.

It has also been reported that a landowner blatantly destroyed a peat bog SSSI in East Yorkshire with roads and grouse butts to improve his shooting business.  Natural England took the landowner to court and after six weeks of the trial, and a huge amount of public money wasted, Natural England withdrew and the case collapsed.

So, from these examples I would say that although it is illegal to damage an SSSI in practice the law is not generally enforced.

Then theres always the method used to block the entrances, if any material not produced specifically for the purpose is used, it is classed as waste, and any landowner/farmer requires a special derogation or license to dispose of this waste on his land.
( Council Directive 91/156/EEC) et.al.

This is why the material once known as "quarry waste" is no longer available, it was used for filling potholes on tracks.

kay said:

So roughly saying, you don't know of a law that says "damaging a cave is not allowed".  Any protection for caves is as a by product of other protections - NNRs, Ancient Monuments, bats, injuring someone through creating a hazard on your land, etc?

Click to expand...

I would offer high odds against a search of English laws finding something which mentioned "cave" and "damage" together. If you want to read up about SSSI, SAMs and so on, then the old NCA Cave Conservation Handbook has detail.  (Damn - - I have to reveal my sources.)

bograt said:

if any material not produced specifically for the purpose is used, it is classed as waste, and any landowner/farmer requires a special derogation or license to dispose of this waste on his land.

Click to expand...

Thanks Bograt for pointing out the waste directive, but can't one declare said material as 'filler' (like concrete) which is used to block the entrance?

If we are talking about entrances, then of course a landowner can get agreement from NE to breach a relevant PDO in order to carry out works, if NE can see that the works are actually beneficial. Been there, done that.

It might be that NE would agree to gating or sealing an entrance if, for example cave sediments were being damaged, be it intentionally or otherwise, by traffic through the cave.

Badlad said:

So, from these examples I would say that although it is illegal to damage an SSSI in practice the law is not generally enforced.

Click to expand...

I think that's unduly pessimistic. Quick google produces the cases below on the first page.
But I can imaging that in caving areas,  anything other than a "softly, softly" approach would have a dramatic and adverse effect on cave access.


landowner fined ?45k, costs ?90k and served with restitution order after planting non-native trees, installing tracks, fences, bridge and temporary structures:
http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/about_us/news/2013/230913.aspx

offroaders fined ?340 and costs ?1100 after damaging peat bog
http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/about_us/news/2014/150114.aspx

dog owner fined ?250 with ?250 costs for allowing his dog to disturb birds
http://www.petstreet.co.uk/Forum/410476.*Dog%20Owner%20Prosecuted%20for%20Allowing%20Dogs%20Onto%20a%20_SSSI_%20Nature%20Reserve!*_

Fields sports company fined ?40k with ?125k costs for damaging Farndale (noted for wild daffodils) by building bridges and overstocking with pheasants
http://www.shootinguk.co.uk/news/530041/Shooting_firm_receives_massive_fine_for_damage_to_SSSI.html

Hi Kay

The three examples I gave were all discussed at CNCC meetings in relation to the Dale Barn entrance situation.  The impression I was left with by the conservation officer is that very little action was taken in relation to damage to SSSI's in the Dales.  He mentioned the peat bog in East Yorkshire as an example of how little likely action is taken.  I am pleased to see by your links that action does get taken on landowners and country side abusers alike.

Bob Mehew said:

Thanks Bograt for pointing out the waste directive, but can't one declare said material as 'filler' (like concrete) which is used to block the entrance?

Click to expand...

Not unless it is specifically produced as filler, EEC is very specific about what is allowed, they have tried to block all loopholes.
Concrete may be ok, but I suspect use of a significant amount for this purpose might carry planning/environmental issues.

If the cave was known to be used as a roosting site for bats then yes under either Wildlife and Countryside Act or CRoW Act if it could be proved that it had disturbed the roost (ie there were records) If for example he had obliterated / obstructed the entrance making it inaccessible to bats or worse incarcerating them he could be done under WCA but more likely CRoW as he'll say he didn't know there were bats there but the CRoW act uses the reckless term which means that his reckless activity had cause detrement to the roost regardless of wether or not he knew bats used the site. If that makes sense.

At least one cave was blocked by a farmer on Mendip then unblocked after the Council threatened prosecution under the SSSi legislation as it was a scheduled site. this was many years ago now and the landowner was assisted by the caving community to get the site reopened.
Another site on Mendip was blocked more recently by a quarry company and Natural England became involved as it was a known bat roost. The quarry company unblocked it, again with the help of the caving community, and access was restored for cavers...

The laws do work, and in both cases the cavers came out of it on the side of right with the land owner, however, it is important to remain sympathetic to the land owners, and to help where possible, to maintain good relations with ALL land owners ( farmers DO talk to each other...)

In the US there are most definitely laws:
Federal: http://caves.org/grotto/mongrotto/USlaw.htm
State of Alabama (where I am): http://caves.org/section/ccms/bat2k/Appendix%202%20-%20State%20Cave%20Laws%20.htm

There is a good story here from Flowing Stone, a cave in Georgia. It actually starts with Ellisons, the cave with the deepest drop in the continental US. There is a quarry on the mountain and they were doing blasting. Cavers started to notice rock shifts and falls in Ellisons, and went through legal channels to get the quarry to shut it's blasting operations. Ellisons was too far away for the cave protection laws, so the quarry was allowed to continue, and the destablization of Ellisons continued alongside it, as it lies in the same fault line. Cavers scoured the mountainside close to the quarry for a significant cave to shut it all down, and Flowing Stone is what they found. It was deemed significant and the quarry was ordered to cease its operations.

Not entirely in answer to the OP but under the general topic of law relating to damage to caves there was an (failed) attempt by CSCC, on behalf of the landowner, to bring a prosecution for criminal damage to formations in Swildon's Hole (I have all the details on file somewhere) quite a few years ago; despite reliable eye witnesses, potential DNA from collected cigarette/spliff ends, photo ID in a lost wallet left behind, registration numbers etc. all placing the offenders (known villains, in this case!) in the cave when the damage occurred CPS wouldn't proceed citing this as circumstantial and stating that video evidence was needed. That was then. This is now. Helmet-mounted videos are becoming commonplace in caving. There may yet be a case in future.