Access - why the discrepnancy?

Stu

Active member
Penyghent Pot - http://cncc.org.uk/access/details.php?id=63

Pen-y-ghent crag - https://www.thebmc.co.uk/modules/RAD/ViewCrag.aspx?id=488

12388608704_4b53c8a67e_o.jpg


The question, why the discrepancy, it has been asked of the landowners, right?

It hadn't occurred to me up until now. I know it's been asked on this forum many, many times - the apparent contradiction. But has it ever been put to the landowners? They must have another reason that isn't "retain control of access" because, well, I've got the law of the land on my side allowing me to walk right up to it. And anyway "retain control of access" sounds a bit feudal to me.
 

Stu

Active member
Yes for sure, the definition of whether the outdoor pursuit of caving is indeed an outdoor recreation (for example a Peak based instructor might advertise caving on their website offering outdoor pursuits  ;)), has been done to death.

It's not really the answer to the question though. Why are you not allowing caving without a permit system in place, to carry on on CRoW land - the answer might be because it falls outwith the Act. Who knows? Your answer fits that question.

Has the discrepancy been brought to their attention though? I mean, with the example of Penyghent Pot, the landowner allows caving with a permit, so one presumes they're OK with caving. And they are obligated under law to allow anyone to wander at will along that section of moor, something I assume they could have blocked when the Act was going through its consultation phase - many did just so - and made a case for exemption. So it appears that maybe they just weren't fussed.  :confused:

So in this specific case (there are others - I've been checking), what does the permit system actually do? (Now this is two questions, I know - sorry).

 

peterk

Member
The word in the act is open-air. If it said outdoor then there would be the basis of an argument but while the Oxford English Dictionary defines open air as "Free or unenclosed space outdoors, usually exposed to the weather" I think the chances of change are zero.
I don't think the landowners were in the least bit concerned with caving - The legal team for The Country Land and Business Association would have reported "as the bill stands the great unwashed must remain above ground where there's a chance of a sporting shot.
 

graham

New member
I know this will sound a bit obvious but caves are not fells.

One of the ways in which CRoW was originally sold to landowners was that any additional footfall that it might generate would be mitigated - and more - by the fact that the new rules would allow visitors to spread out over the area and thus reduce footfall and inevitable wear and tear on the extant footpaths. Whether this has actually worked I do not know, but it is clear that it does not apply in the same way to, say, Pippikin Pot in the way that it might to Leck Fell.

The only way to mitigate the effects of footfall in small, frequently delicate, caves is to limit the number of feet. To an extent (and I have argued this elsewhere) this can also be an argument against narrow taped paths in certain caves where this can lead to accelerated erosion of sediments. In other places you'd do no harm. Indeed if you could get novice groups into, for example, the OFD streamway without having to take them through the fossil passages around Top Entrance, then you'd effect little in the way of change, to the cave at any rate, the novices might get a bit battered.
 

Stu

Active member
I agree Peter. Caving may (or may not) be outwith the Act. Again not the question I asked though...

Why the discrepancy - to what end the permit system? What advantage does it serve the landowner when in this instance, there are huge contradictions in play? Is this question ever asked when approaches are made?

Anyway Peter, we shouldn't be bickering. We should be forming an alliance... How does CNCC grab you - Confederation of Northern Commercial Cavers?  ;)
 

TheBitterEnd

Well-known member
So how far down Hull Pot, or Rowten, or whatever, can I descend before it stops being "open air"?

What is "closed air" recreation (and do we really want to know  ;)  )

The act is drafted in such a way as to allow any recreation other than those things specifically excluded my hunch is that "open air" was intended to exclude things in vehicles etc.

As you say this has been done to death in other threads and only the courts can decide. But why do cavers seem to want to make so much of it? Since it is exceptionally unlikely to go to court and since land owners get significantly reduced liability if I access there land under the CRoW act why wouldn't they go down that route? If they "permit" (the word used in the act) me to access their land they have full Occupiers Liability.
 

graham

New member
stu said:
graham said:
I know this will sound a bit obvious but caves are not fells.

I know. Have you seen the new motorway path coming of Pen-y-Ghent?

No, haven't been there for a while, but I remember what the old one was like. Would you like to see our caves go the same way?
 

peterk

Member
stu said:
I agree Peter. Caving may (or may not) be outwith the Act. Again not the question I asked though...

Why the discrepancy - to what end the permit system? What advantage does it serve the landowner when in this instance, there are huge contradictions in play? Is this question ever asked when approaches are made?

Anyway Peter, we shouldn't be bickering. We should be forming an alliance... How does CNCC grab you - Confederation of Northern Commercial Cavers?  ;)

I think you are assuming I'm someone else. I'm flattered .
 

Stu

Active member
graham said:
stu said:
graham said:
I know this will sound a bit obvious but caves are not fells.

I know. Have you seen the new motorway path coming of Pen-y-Ghent?

No, haven't been there for a while, but I remember what the old one was like. Would you like to see our caves go the same way?

No.


... Hey, wait. I see what you did there. Tricky...
 

Stu

Active member
peterk said:
stu said:
I agree Peter. Caving may (or may not) be outwith the Act. Again not the question I asked though...

Why the discrepancy - to what end the permit system? What advantage does it serve the landowner when in this instance, there are huge contradictions in play? Is this question ever asked when approaches are made?

Anyway Peter, we shouldn't be bickering. We should be forming an alliance... How does CNCC grab you - Confederation of Northern Commercial Cavers?  ;)

I think you are assuming I'm someone else. I'm flattered .

Oh yes. You're not. Got my glasses on now.

You'll not get a permit from the new CNCC now...
 

Stu

Active member
Don't do it TheBitterEnd, I was only asking semi-seriously.  :eek:

Though it interests me that the climbers at Hull Pot don't need a permit. Maybe we don't for that first drop into the pot?!
 

graham

New member
stu said:
graham said:
stu said:
graham said:
I know this will sound a bit obvious but caves are not fells.

I know. Have you seen the new motorway path coming of Pen-y-Ghent?

No, haven't been there for a while, but I remember what the old one was like. Would you like to see our caves go the same way?

No.


... Hey, wait. I see what you did there. Tricky...

That's the point isn't it. It's not tricky at all. It's quite straightforward providing that, unlike some of the posters on here (not you, Stu), you don't have an ideological desire for unrestricted access that trumps every single other consideration.
 

kdxn

New member
I recently queried Natural England regarding Cave access and CRoW.

My questions related to Caving not being specifically excluded from CRoW as some activities are. Climbing is specifically included in CRoW as an allowed activity and one of my arguments was that Caving could be considered a subset of Climbing but this argument fell foul of the CRoW statement about open air activities. One of my other queries concerned Commercial Caving. CRoW specifically excludes all commercial activities. These are at the sole discretion of the Land Owner. The Land Owner also has the right, within CRoW, to restrict access at certain times of the year.

It was explained to me, by Natural England, that CRoW allows access to a cave entrance but does not allow ingress. Natural England gave me permission to share their full answer with the BCA working group on Cave Access and I have done that. I do not have their permission to post their full answer here but have summarised the key points above.

Personally I would like to see Caving included as an allowed activity within CRoW but that will require a change of the law. Perhaps if all cavers and BCA lobbied for this ?
Wales are looking to update CRoW hopefully (?) with appropriate input from Cavers. If we can get caving open access in Wales then perhaps that could be leveraged to provide the same in the rest of the UK ??

The big question is do all Cavers want such open access ?
Or is a permit and/or gate system wanted ?

Whatever, that needs to be expressed to the regional club committees and the BCA.
Although having said that, I have my concerns whether the current UK caving organisational setup is representative and democratic.
For example, BCA has about 5500 members, yet the BCA AGM 2013 had 29 attendees.
I am a member of two Northern caving clubs but see little reported back to me on what CNCC and BCA are doing and as far as I am aware, the club memberships have never been canvassed on any CNCC or BCA issues to instruct the voting by the club rep's.
The largest gathering of cavers in the UK is Hidden Earth, yet this is not used to gather opinions or votes on what our 'representative body(s)' should be doing.

In the age of online surveys and voting systems, surely it is time to make all of our voices heard, instead of restricting it to those few who have the time to attend meetings ?

 

Stu

Active member
You make a valid point about conservation Graham and I will concede that when it's brought up.

It's a while since I dropped the revolutionary lefty belief and think that a gradualist approach might serve us all better; as long as all topics are up for fair and reasoned debate and let consensus rule even if the result is unpalatable to us personally.
 

dunc

New member
graham said:
I know this will sound a bit obvious but caves are not fells.

One of the ways in which CRoW was originally sold to landowners was that any additional footfall that it might generate would be mitigated - and more - by the fact that the new rules would allow visitors to spread out over the area and thus reduce footfall and inevitable wear and tear on the extant footpaths.
And they were sold out. The vast majority of walkers like to follow patterns. Fell ridge being by far the most popular one, even with the CRoW act I'd guess most people still stick to defined paths and the same problems still exist as before. I am a person who gets out and about on the fells occasionally and whilst I have moments of sticking to a defined path I do venture off-path, I'd guess I'm a minority rather than part of the majority. Similar patterns probably occur in caving.

The only way to mitigate the effects of footfall in small, frequently delicate, caves is to limit the number of feet.
I agree with that, but, the original post related specifically to a very active (to kind of quote a book; one of the finest sporting pots) northern cave, not some formation adorned fossil cave.
 

graham

New member
Stu

I have had the privilege of visiting a couple of caves in the foothills of the Pyrenees. These were discovered about a century ago & contain some of the finest examples of Palaeolithic art in the world. They have been in the same ownership ever since, about 2,000 individuals have ever visited one of them and fewer than a thousand have visited the other. it would be a crime to allow all and sundry access to these places as of right.

Now,  this might be seen as something of an extreme example because of the unique nature of the content. I don't think so, though, because many of our caves are even more fragile than these places and even more susceptible to damage. I know this, I've been there. The point is that if we are to allow unlimited access then we shall lose so much and future visitors will not be able to share our experiences. To my mind that would be a crime.

My position on this comes from forty years of visiting some of the most amazing places in Europe. I have discussed these matters with cave owners, landowners, cavers and cave specialists time and again. There are places that can take footfall and there are places that cannot. Legislation is too crude a tool for this, it has to be restrictive with consideration given on a case-by-case basis. Does that mean that some people will have to wait before getting down some places, yes it does, but that is a small price to pay. There are some places I shall now never see, but I don't care because I have had the privilege of seeing some amazing things in my time.
 

graham

New member
dunc said:
I agree with that, but, the original post related specifically to a very active (to kind of quote a book; one of the finest sporting pots) northern cave, not some formation adorned fossil cave.

For sure. How do you legislate for Penyghent pot without legislating for Boreham's China Shop? Especially taking into account newly discovered places.
 
Top