The CRoW Act.

T

tubby two

Guest
Does anybody know what the implications of this new CRoW act will be on cave access? It's the long awaited Right to Roam legislation that ramblers have been getting so excited about, but i was wondering how it applies to going underground. I assume it means you can just walk up to any cave entrance that is located on access land, but do you have the same right to go down the cave, or is that something different.
For example, Leck Fell, i dont actually know if it will be access land, but would assume it will, hence, will permits become irrelevant in these areas?
I cant really decide wether that would be a good or bad thing. Anyone know more...?


tt.
 
M

Mine Explorer

Guest
According to the Countryside Agency's own leaflet on the new CROW act (page three) rock climbing is specifically mentioned as being allowed (providing there aren't already conservation restrictions on climbing in that area etc).

Some rock climbers like to start at ground level at the bottom of the pitch and work up. I happen to start at ground level at the top of the pitch and work down. It's not my fault if the pitch in question has a rock face on all four sides and is only about 4ft wide :roll:
 

Stu

Active member
Trail magazine did a useful (though i've bl**dy forgotten the exact detail) little summary in about five lines. Pretty much any uncultivated area that isn't exempted can be walked over. Something like a 20 metre detour must be made away from sites of residence (so no traipsing through the farmers yard - unless that's already allowed!). Seem to remember that things like walls and fences are now allowed to be crossed over as long as any damage is repaired. Don't think the Act was ever intended to establish specific access to particular pursuits - if a crags on access land you can climb. It will be the same for caves.

But as I can't yet find the article this is all from memory.
 
M

Mine Explorer

Guest
stu said:
... Pretty much any uncultivated area that isn't exempted can be walked over....

...But best to check the various official on-line maps first rather than get it wrong.
 

Stu

Active member
Mine Explorer said:
stu said:
... Pretty much any uncultivated area that isn't exempted can be walked over....

...But best to check the various official on-line maps first rather than get it wrong.

Nah...as soon as you hear the subtle ring "oi gert orf moi laaand" will pretty much confirm you're wrong!!! Eek
 
M

Mine Explorer

Guest
stu said:
Nah...as soon as you hear the subtle ring "oi gert orf moi laaand" will pretty much confirm you're wrong!!! Eek

Ah! But if you've checked the official maps first... you can respond by telling 'um where to go.
 

Stu

Active member
All the latest Explorer (Orange) maps will show access land too. Think Yorkshire access is up and running.
 

langcliffe

Well-known member
Mine Explorer said:
According to the Countryside Agency's own leaflet on the new CROW act (page three) rock climbing is specifically mentioned as being allowed (providing there aren't already conservation restrictions on climbing in that area etc).

This is DEFRA's interpretation of the Act, which actually states in Section 2:

"Any person is entitled by virtue of this subsection to enter and remain on any access land for the purposes of open-air recreation".

DEFRA have no powers enabling them to provide a legally binding interpretation of the Act - only the judiciary can do that. Under Section 20 they do have the power to produce a code of conduct for the guidance of persons exercising the right, but again, it cannot be legally binding.

Whether or not access to and descent of a cave is permitted under Section 2 is anybody's guess - and will be until there is a court case.
 
G

George North

Guest
If anybody's interested the act in full is here:

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000037.htm#aofs

I too have no idea whether caving consitutes 'open-air recreation'

Although under:

"RESTRICTIONS TO BE OBSERVED BY PERSONS EXERCISING RIGHT OF ACCESS

General restrictions
1. Section 2(1) does not entitle a person to be on any land if, in or on that land, he-" ....

..."(i) bathes in any non-tidal water,"

or..."(m) obstructs the flow of any drain or watercourse, or opens, shuts or otherwise interferes with any sluice-gate or other apparatus,"

Both of which could be used to restrict access to caves.

We shall see (no doubt as Langcliffe says, in court.)
 

martinr

Active member
The original question was: Does anybody know what the implications of this new CRoW act will be on cave access?

The answer is there are no implications for access.

What the Crow Act does is allow any person to enter and remain on any access land for the purposes of open-air recreation. So, you can walk up to the entrance if the land is access land. But that is it. To enter the cave, you still need the land-owners permission (or more precisley, the cave owners permission).
 

rich

New member
martinr said:
The original question was: Does anybody know what the implications of this new CRoW act will be on cave access?

The answer is there are no implications for access.

What the Crow Act does is allow any person to enter and remain on any access land for the purposes of open-air recreation. So, you can walk up to the entrance if the land is access land. But that is it. To enter the cave, you still need the land-owners permission (or more precisley, the cave owners permission).

So why do you think caving is not a form of open-air recreation? It's clearly not an indoor sport.
 

martinr

Active member
My dictionary defines open-air as "outdoors, not enclosed, without a roof"

Most of the caves I've been to are not without a roof
 

Stu

Active member
martinr said:
The original question was: Does anybody know what the implications of this new CRoW act will be on cave access?

The answer is there are no implications for access.

What the Crow Act does is allow any person to enter and remain on any access land for the purposes of open-air recreation. So, you can walk up to the entrance if the land is access land. But that is it. To enter the cave, you still need the land-owners permission (or more precisley, the cave owners permission).

So the question should be do we know who owns the caves? I suspect that this may be complicated for a while e.g. trespass fees to places such as Giant's or Alum I guess will still be charged (cultivated land). Areas such as Casterton which, although effort has been made to make cultivated in the past has largely failed, will mean "open access" - the cave ownership wasn't in question.

So, who owns the caves?
 

martinr

Active member
Who owns the caves? Cuckoo Cleeves, Mendip is currently for sale. The bloke who owns the field obviously thinks he owns what's underneath as well. And several prospective purchasers think they are bidding to buy the cave, so they must agree with him. But do landowners also own what is underneath their land, and if so, how far down? Do I own a bit of Australia (or whatever is at the antipodes of my house)?
 

paul

Moderator
martinr said:
Who owns the caves? Cuckoo Cleeves, Mendip is currently for sale. The bloke who owns the field obviously thinks he owns what's underneath as well. And several prospective purchasers think they are bidding to buy the cave, so they must agree with him. But do landowners also own what is underneath their land, and if so, how far down? Do I own a bit of Australia (or whatever is at the antipodes of my house)?

The concept of "owning the cave" is irrelevant. What matters is the location of and the approach to the entrance, or entrances if more than one. As somebody said in another thread relating to mineral rights, the land owner may not even own any minerals beneath their land never mind caves. You cannot get into the cave unless you can get to an entrance!

Somebody will own the land on which the entrance is located and as far as most people I have asked agree that if the entrance is on Open Access land, you can cross the land to the entrance but you will still require permission to enter the cave. However this may need to be tested in a court case (also mentioned previously).

I have the latest 1:25,000 maps for the Peak District (where I live - Derbyshire Dales or White Peak) and there seems very little Open Access in the White Peak as there is so much cultivated land so it may all be academic anyway as the vast majority of cave entrances (and mine entrances) are not on Open Access land anyway!
 
D

darkplaces

Guest
Who owns the caves/mines/open hole?
Has always been a problem and is why people simpley go in as most people have no idea who to contact to ask, so think, oh well i'm here might as well take a look.

Hopefully the act will help foster easier access for all not just the few. I think its a wait and see. But we have to expect the normal problems.
 

Stu

Active member
paul said:
The concept of "owning the cave" is irrelevant. What matters is the location of and the approach to the entrance, or entrances if more than one.

Somebody will own the land on which the entrance is located and as far as most people I have asked agree that if the entrance is on Open Access land, you can cross the land to the entrance but you will still require permission to enter the cave.

So who "owns" the cave is relevant on access land. Because if a landowner claims to/does "own" a cave on access land they can bar entry. If they don't "own" a cave... no problem.
 

paul

Moderator
stu said:
paul said:
The concept of "owning the cave" is irrelevant. What matters is the location of and the approach to the entrance, or entrances if more than one.

Somebody will own the land on which the entrance is located and as far as most people I have asked agree that if the entrance is on Open Access land, you can cross the land to the entrance but you will still require permission to enter the cave.

So who "owns" the cave is relevant on access land. Because if a landowner claims to/does "own" a cave on access land they can bar entry. If they don't "own" a cave... no problem.

What I was getting at was that the original poster was asking about land ownership and how that affects any caves beneath their land and if the cave is indeed owned, then how far does the ownership extend.

My point was that from an access point of view, what matters is ACCESS to the cave or mine ENTRANCE and whether having permission to approach the entrance under the CRoW Act also gives you the right to enter the cave.

It is quite possible that you would have every right under CRoW to *approach* a cave or mine entrance. Whether you would also have the right to enter is another matter entirely - as I said previously this doesn't seem to be clear cut.

This means that a landowner could possibly prevent *access* to a cave or mine on Open Access land but not *approach* to the entrance. A bit of a silly situation.
 
Top