Hi all,
Iain Barker has reccently pointed out that people are entering parts of site that contains a working mine. As DCA officier he rightly points out this is not condoned, or even legal.
However, he states that an accident in this site could lose us access to all other sites where permission has been granted as this is what the owners are waiting for... but surely the access that has been negotiated elsewhere is for legitimate access with an appropriate indemnity. I fail to understand the link between an access issue at one site and a knock on to all others. Am I being dense here - I maybe suffering from man flu as I cant work out how to quote Iains post - perhaps a mod could insert it for perusal  :-[ :-\

The problem with access and Landowners, is that of "perceived liability". If something happens concerning landowner A and Landowners B, C, D, etc. hear about it, they get concerned about their "liabilities" and reappraise ways of reducing their percieved risk. The net result can be a withdrawal of access as they think this is the best way to reduce their liabilities. The fact is that they are not exposed, as they are not liable for what happens underground, but the damage is done and there then needs to be a vast amount of work from the dedicated few to set minds at rest and restore access.

Les W said:

The fact is that they are not exposed, as they are not liable for what happens underground,

Click to expand...

I would disagree with the absolute nature of this statement.  The liability of the land owner is dependent upon the particulars of the event which gives rise to the dispute / claim.  This potential for a liability is heightened in the case of a mine (working or redundant), in that there is a legal duty on the mine owner to control access.  (And in the case of a mine abandoned before 1880 something - that duty falls to the local authority or its equivalent.)  But I accept that in many (but unfortunately not all) cases which one can foresee, the events which give rise to a claim are unlikely to involve the land owner.

I agree with Ian that in the event of a mine owner finding a caver trespassing in his mine, other land owners might well take alarm and might then withdraw access agreements.  And with Les in that it will then take the hard work of a few to try and regain access.  I also note there are some examples where such work has failed, one being rather close to Les.  So I suggest it is self evident that it is in all cavers interests to not upset any land owner.  Unfortunately I fear there are a few cavers who don't / won't care.

Bob Mehew said:

Les W said:

The fact is that they are not exposed, as they are not liable for what happens underground,

Click to expand...

I would disagree with the absolute nature of this statement. 

Click to expand...

The absolute nature of the statement was simplistic. I didn't want to get into a wider debate about legalities at some sites and also the nature of BCA's cover of landowners.

Bob Mehew said:

I also note there are some examples where such work has failed, one being rather close to Les.

Click to expand...

I am too aware of the "local issues". We have lost access to a cave site on Mendip, directly as a result of the involvement of the local statutory agencies (SCC, EN). It happened a few years ago at a different site, some miles removed, and concerning a different landowner. The issues at that site were resolved to everybody's approval but the other site remains closed. 

Access politics affect us all and lots of hard work can be undone by just a few thoughtless individuals. Please respect landowners wishes where requested. 

How long after underground workings are disused/not maintained does a mine cease to be 'working? 
Would over a quarter of a century count?

LarryFatcat said:

How long after underground workings are disused/not maintained does a mine cease to be 'working? 
Would over a quarter of a century count?

Click to expand...

I have lost my paper copy of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 and the one on the web has been amended out of recognition with references to amending law all over the place.  I have a vague recollection that a mine only ceases to work when it is declared abandoned and in which case the mine owner then has duties to fence the mine to ensure no "accidental" entry.  I am confident that absence of working does not mean abandonment (c.f. a recent report about one Cornish tine mine which was allowed to be flooded but they are now talking about reopening!).  Not very helpful I am afraid.