CROW Setion 26 - Which Caves Need Protection?

Ed W

Member
At the risk of starting yet another multiple page thread consisting mainly of people questioning each other's parenthood...

We have had loads of "discussion" about the pros and cons of a reinterpretation of CROW to include caving as an authorised activity, in fact to my mind we have done it to death and the arguments have now gone full circle so often that I suspect I am not the only one who has gone dizzy.  However, whether you are for or against, there is now a distinct possibility that we as cavers may get the right to visit caves on CROW Access land.  Given that one of the main bones of contention has been the balance of open access vs conservation, I think that one of the major activities that should be taking place now (and I know that there is at least some thought about this going on at BCA and Regional Council level) is to identify which sites are either especially sensitive or present significant risk to the public, and then to propose to the local access governing bodies (and Natural England) what practical access controls would be suitable and effective for each of those sites.  In the case of public protection I think this is relatively easy, following the CSCC Standard Key or Derbyshire "Key", which effectively allows any caver access when they want but keeps Joe Public safely out.

The conservation one is more difficult.  I have stated before that I don't think gates by themselves are effective at conserving caves, to my mind the only reasonably effective method is the Warden led trip - and I personally would hate to see this most restrictive of methods extended to all but the most sensitive sites requiring the highest protection.

So (after a lot of rambling) the point of this thread is if open access does come about, which caves on CROW land do you think need special protection and why, and what access controls do you think would be appropriate and effective?

I will kick off with three examples that I happen to know reasonably well on the Mendips.

1.  Upper Flood Swallet - this caves has been mentioned ad-nauseum on some of the other CROW threads.  The cave lies on open access land in Blackmoor Valley and is one of Mendip's longest caves (4km long).  The cave is gated and access controlled by the MCG on behalf of the landowner, and currently access is for Warden led trips with a maximum party size of 3.  The cave is very vulnerable, being festooned with pristine formations, especially in Neverland, but probably the most sensitive part of the cave in many respects is Midnight Streamway, a low crawl in a very well decorated passage.  Extreme care has to be taken to avoid damage, and one clumsy/tired/idiot could wreck it in minutes.  Neverland (only discovered in 2006) is also incredibly sensitive, but in extremis could be protected by an internal gate if necessary - MIdnight Streamway is on the main route through the cave.  To my (unfortunate) experience I believe that  if this cave were subjected to open access Midnight Streamway would be destroyed in no time, and as such I would suggest that some form of warden controlled access and limited party size should be retained.

upper_flood_swallet2.jpg


I Hope Pete (MRODoc doesn't mind me reproducing one of his photos here), but this shows what Midnight Streamway is like.

2.  Grebe Swallet - This relatively short cave/mine (300m) lies at the upper end of Velvet Bottom.  Access is controlled by the landowner, and is warden led with a maximum party size of 3.  The sensitive feature of this cave is the delicate miner's remains (from 1753) including tools, boots and, most vulnerable of all, graffiti scratched into mud on the cave walls.  I would suggest that the nature of these Archaeological remains is such that a warden is required to point them out and protect them, even though the original (modern) explorers went to great lengths to provide physical protection for many of these features.

559947_10151261689065974_566568889_n.jpg

Miner's signature in Grebe

3.  Bone Hole (Old Cave) - The cave lies in the upper part of Cheddar Gorge and is locked with access controlled by the MCG on behalf of the landowner.  Trips are accompanied by a warden with a maximum party size of 5.  The access restrictions are in place to preserve the extremely important archaeological deposits, including Human bones, in the unstable scree of Skull Slope.  Undue disturbance of these remains would be a tragedy for archaeologists, and could even lead to loss of what access we do have to the place.

Bone_Hole_2009.jpg

Skull slope in Bone Hole

I would be interested in other peoples views about which caves (in all regions) it is reasonable to restrict access to and why.

Ed

 

Hughie

Active member
Wouldn't any form of control contravene "Access to caves on CROW land"? Imo it can't be selective. All or nothing.
 

Ed W

Member
No Hughie, Section 26 allows for access to be restricted to sensitive parts of CROW Access land as has been discussed at length on the other threads.
 

bograt

Active member
Ed W makes a very valid point, I think this is one of the important aspects that need to be addressed by the BCA C&A group in the light of recent developments in the CRoW debate, a part of 'the way foreward'.

Obviously the best people to advise on this subject are the regional councils so I would emphasise the importance of all regional bodies representatives participating in this action, its not going to be an easy process, but its got to be right and to the satisfaction of British cavers.

I would also take this opportunity to point out to cavers that if you are not satisfied that your representative is going to present the right point of view, make the effort, go to a meeting, and replace them.
 

martinm

New member
Personally, I don't see 'open access' via CRoW and gated caves/leader systems  mutually exclusive and I'm sure NE would agree. There are a great many caves on access land that could easily be explored without undue damage and not need 'protection', the ones you have highlighted are examples of those sites which do need protection/guidance and I can't see anything changing on that score. (Great photos by the way.  (y) )

As I have said before, an excellent example is Bagshawe Cavern in the Peak. You need to book a trip and get the main key, but then most of the cave is open. There are two areas of the cave however which are considered 'sensitive' and are gated, but you can visit them with a leader. This is an ideal compromise.

I think that this thread could be very useful and supplement the CRoW database the BCA working party are building. That is mostly concerned with access, but a database of sites that you think need protecting to some extent would I think be very useful. We could then incorporate that into any BCA policy of access, etc.

I don't think anyone is pushing for open access for everyone, everywhere, we all know there are vulnerable sites. Just a relaxation of access for the less vulnerable sites. I would be very interested to see a list of vulnerable areas in the 3 counties system, for example, then maybe access could be made easier for the less vulnerable sites, but maybe control access to the vulnerable areas. Just a thought.
 

Badlad

Administrator
Staff member
There is statutory guidance issued by Natural England to the "Relevant Authority".  The Relevant Authority is that which has the power in each different area to make a restriction on Access Land.  There is a very strict and audited procedure which must be followed on a step by step basis.  The over riding principal is that the "least restrictive option" must be employed to meet the need.  I think you must first have a strong case that the natural features are in danger. In the first instant management techniques are encouraged, then possible restriction.  A few quotes:

Access management has no legal effect, and there is no compulsion on the public to co-operate with it

Where access management solutions cannot alone resolve concerns about potential impact from access, consideration may need to be given to some form of access restriction

Before giving a direction the relevant authority must carry out a rigorous assessment process in order to establish if it is necessary to restrict access

A direction may restrict CRoW access rights only 'to the extent necessary' for the purposes stated

What is really needed in British caving is a far greater emphasis on educating cavers to have a minimal impact on their environment.  You can restrict and manage all you like but until we grasp the education nettle at all levels of caving then we will continue to have a far greater impact on the underground environment than is necessary.
 

Brains

Well-known member
To return to the OP...
Those caves (or parts of) which currently have a leader (or warden) system in place should be seen as the default list of sites for exclusion from open access.
Those sites which currently have a secured entrance requiring getting a non standard key - the ones forming the main list contentious sites - would need reviewing case by case in an urgent maner
Those sites currently open but subject to landowner control should by default be open, if they were sensitive for non political reasons they would be in the above categories.

The list of exclusions should be reviewed and prepared ASAP to ensure ongoing protection, and all sites would need ongoing review as per the needs of the act, with an effort made to weed out those that are limited for political reasons (if any) as opposed to those limited for the needs of the location
 

bograt

Active member
With you on that one Brains, Caves that require leaders will need 'standardising' for BCA to apply for exemptions, this emphasises the need for regional reps to be 'representative' and represent the needs of caves (and cavers) in their area!.
 

martinr

Active member
bograt said:
With you on that one Brains, Caves that require leaders will need 'standardising' for BCA to apply for exemptions, this emphasises the need for regional reps to be 'representative' and represent the needs of caves (and cavers) in their area!.

AFAIK, CRoW Act says it is the person with an interest in the land who has to apply, see 2.1.8 below. I assume this means "interest" in the legal sense, so it would need to be the landowner, tenant farmer etc etc and probably not BCA who needs to apply?

Because it is not a temporary restriction, it would then take up to 4 months (allowing for consultations)  or longer with the consent of the applicant,  for any restrictions to come into effect, reviewed every 5 years IIRC

If I've misunderstood the regs, I'd be happy to be corrected

Triggers for the assessment process
2.1.6 The assessment process is normally triggered by an application or
representation from a third party. However, where the relevant authority
is also the competent authority under the Habitats Directive, it must
assess proactively the impact of CROW access rights on nature
conservation interests at sites with certain European designations.
Chapter 2.2 provides a full explanation of this duty.
2.1.7 Where there is an application, the onus is on the applicant to
provide the information necessary for the relevant authority?s decision,
as set out in regulation 6. The relevant authority may also request
information or views from third parties to help with its decision where
practicable.
2.1.8 It is not a responsibility of the relevant authority to assess the
need for land management restrictions on any land, unless it receives a
valid application from a person with an interest in that land. Should
the relevant authority receive a representation from another person on
these grounds it may, where appropriate, suggest that the occupier
(where known) be contacted by the person making the representation and
provided with any relevant information.
2.1.9 The relevant authority should give all representations on any of
the other prescribed grounds reasonable consideration, although the need
for detailed assessment will depend on the information it receives.
Time available for decisions
2.1.10 Application cases must normally be decided within six weeks of
receipt unless the relevant authority proposes a long-term restriction,
in which case the application must be decided within four months. The
relevant authority may take longer where necessary to make its decision,
but only with the consent of the applicant.

source
 

bograt

Active member
Just goes to show the importance of the local access officer being in contact with landowners?---
 

JasonC

Well-known member
I would imagine that, if approached by NE or a regional caving body, a landowner would not object if the former applied for an access management or restriction on his behalf.
I would also guess that the many of the most sensitive sites - for aesthetic or archeological reasons - are already covered by SSSI status or similar.

Certainly, Ed's proposal to get the existing warden-controlled caves covered by CRoW exemptions is sensible, but I wouldn't want to see a rush to add caves to the list which are currently freely accessible (albeit with a permit) - that would hardly be progress !
 

Ed W

Member
Thanks for the input so far, and more importantly keeping the thread civil!  I think what I am trying to say is that we as cavers need to think about the justification for restricting access to those sites which need it.  Just because its locked/leader today doesn't necessarily (to my mind) mean that it should continue if/when caving becomes embraced by CROW, equally there may be the odd site (and I think it would be very rare) that we might think needs more protection than it has at present.

The conservation argument has been made very forcefully on some of the other CROW threads, so I am genuinely interested in hearing which caves people think specifically need protecting, why they think that and how best they think that should be done.
 

graham

New member
Whilst Ed is right to raise this issue, one of my fears is that we might be forced to go down this road. A very serious problemis the time that has to be taken to get this possible protection into place; several months if I read it aright.

Now, whilst some may think that this is not a problem and that all good people will work to see that this happens, sadly not everyone is actually of good will.

A few years back, some Late Upper Palaeolithic engraving was discovered in a cave in South Wales. Sadly, word got out very quickly, as it can so easily do, and the engraving wasvery badly vandalised before CADW could get a gate on the cave.

Such a situation could arise with some of the sites that Ed mentions & irreprapable damage could (would) be done in the time between the request being put in and the paperwork being completed.

Don't tell me it won't happen, as described above, it already has.

I'd like to know how education could have stopped this happening.
 

menacer

Active member
I dont really understand this statement. Some people found some stuff and couldnt keep their traps shut. This is more a case study for silence/discretion,  over access restrictions.

Education therefore is this. " If you find something, keep your trap shut. If you dont want to find something in the very limited area that you cant control or immediately put a gate on, dont look for it. "

For what its worth, I cant see anyone forcing the removal of existing gates or changing access arrangements without consent for some arrangement with the local caving community.  If they were such minded, it would have been done already.

It could be very interesting to see how open to changes/flexibility the Mendip caving community is.
 

graham

New member
When you 'find stuff' it gets out. Other people knew where they were and others, again, needed to be informed.

What this case shows is that not everyone is of good will.  Now, in the current situation,  the mouths have already blabbed. The caves are well known. If the current protection gets removed by 'persons unknown' then damage will happen. Ed has shown just how vulnerable some sites are.

If that happens, then I know who's to blame.
 

Ed W

Member
I was hoping that this thread could avoid the pros and cons of open access as that has been done to death, autopsy, burial and exhumation for another trip round the roundabout on the other threads.  For what it is worth I am sure that us cavers can work with the authorities to ensure that those sites that need protecting get protected.  Likewise I am sure that any new discoveries can be kept quiet long enough to get them protected if the explorers show a little self restraint.

What I was originally interested in are which sites located on open access land do people think need protecting, what the reasons are for these particular sites to need protecting beyond the "run of the mill" caves, and what measures do people think would be appropriate and effective to achieve this.  As Mel Milner has said, this could be really useful in aiding BCA and its regional councils in compiling evidence to submit to the local access councils to aid adoption of whatever access restrictions are needed for those few special caves that need it.

So far I have provided three examples, out of 150 caves believed to lie on CROW Open Access land on Mendip.  Someone has mentioned one other (St Cuthbert's) in passing, but not really amplified why.  So in total so far, of the 150 Mendip caves on access land are we saying that only 3 or 4 require access restrictions to preserve them (ignoring those which may require securing to prevent a danger to the public)?  This equates to some 2.5% of the caves on access land, and extrapolating this across the estimated 2,000 caves on access land across the UK this would lead to access controls being appropriate to only perhaps 50 odd such sites in the whole country.

This leaves some 1950 sites for cavers to enjoy to their hearts content and with long term access guaranteed.  It also means that each regional council would only have a handful of special sites to concentrate their efforts in dealing with the access authorities.
 

tony from suffolk

Well-known member
graham said:
When you 'find stuff' it gets out. Other people knew where they were and others, again, needed to be informed.

What this case shows is that not everyone is of good will.  Now, in the current situation,  the mouths have already blabbed. The caves are well known. If the current protection gets removed by 'persons unknown' then damage will happen. Ed has shown just how vulnerable some sites are.

If that happens, then I know who's to blame.

There is a difference in that the vulnerable caves on Mendip, specifically Upper Flood and Cuthberts, are already protected by gates. I suppose under the scenario where these sites are deemed accessible under CRoW legislation someone could apply for these gates to be removed. But then it seems clear these caves can be afforded special protection under the legislation anyway.
 

georgenorth

Active member
Ed W said:
So in total so far, of the 150 Mendip caves on access land are we saying that only 3 or 4 require access restrictions to preserve them (ignoring those which may require securing to prevent a danger to the public)?  This equates to some 2.5% of the caves on access land, and extrapolating this across the estimated 2,000 caves on access land across the UK this would lead to access controls being appropriate to only perhaps 50 odd such sites in the whole country.

This leaves some 1950 sites for cavers to enjoy to their hearts content and with long term access guaranteed.  It also means that each regional council would only have a handful of special sites to concentrate their efforts in dealing with the access authorities.

50 sites across the country is likely to be a significant overestimate I'd say. Certainly in the Dales I don't think there's any sites where it would be considered acceptable to have Mendip style access restrictions. I'm guessing that the same holds true in Derbyshire.
 

menacer

Active member
Ed W said:
What I was originally interested in are which sites located on open access land do people think need protecting, what the reasons are for these particular sites to need protecting beyond the "run of the mill" caves, and what measures do people think would be appropriate and effective to achieve this.  As Mel Milner has said, this could be really useful in aiding BCA and its regional councils in compiling evidence to submit to the local access councils to aid adoption of whatever access restrictions are needed for those few special caves that need it.

So far I have provided three examples, out of 150 caves believed to lie on CROW Open Access land on Mendip.  Someone has mentioned one other (St Cuthbert's) in passing, but not really amplified why.  So in total so far, of the 150 Mendip caves on access land are we saying that only 3 or 4 require access restrictions to preserve them (ignoring those which may require securing to prevent a danger to the public)?  This equates to some 2.5% of the caves on access land, and extrapolating this across the estimated 2,000 caves on access land across the UK this would lead to access controls being appropriate to only perhaps 50 odd such sites in the whole country.
O

In trying to comment on this, Its the contradictions I struggle with.
For example where you say ...may require securing to prevent a danger to the public..."  On that basis, why isnt Thrupe lane locked?  Or any shaft in Yorkshire, the law ( where tested) accepts they are a natural hazard or otherwise theyd gate Cheddar Gorge cliffs.

The other claim is to protect the formations, yet Stoke lane or Pierres Pot, isnt locked, so people then say, ahhh the sump is a natural barrier, well ok, but so is a squeeze for larger people, or often the distance into the cave or numerous pitches that need to be negotiated, they all prevent access to incapable cavers.
( so where a vulnerable, un protectable  formation is close and easily accesable ( no pitches, no squeezes, no sumps) to the surface my own opinion would be this may be a valid reason to maintain a currently locked cave system)

Equally capable cavers are not immune to causing damage, yet the drawn line was to prevent free access to all cavers rather than realise incapable ones arent going to get to many of the vulnerable, to be protected locations ( just out of interest how many " leaders/wardens" have ever considered that some of the people you are  taking down " your cave" are probably far more capable than yourself, yet here you are being required to mother them)

I feel the pain mostly for clubs like the BEC who as the majority club representing CSCC officer positions may find themselves ( representing cavers at National level) having to prove to themselves  ( at club level) why St Cuthberts should remain locked....Ouch...

As for caves like Spider, is the Derbyshire key the perfect solution again?? If " someone " feels a gate is needed.

Technically if you have an adjustable spanner, which anyone can purchase and own then you are not being denied access.

Sorry Ed, slightly off topic again, its just who decided what and why, on what basis....is it logical....how many of those proponents of strict conservation measures have enjoyed unfettered access elsewhere in the uk and abroad,  seen wonderful caves, stunning formations and were able to pass within 1 metre of them without a nanny, tape or in some cases both.
 
Top