BCA Statement on land ownership and caves

langcliffe

Well-known member
nickwilliams said:
BCA's Legal and Insurance Officer, in consultation with the Association's legal adviser, has issued a statement on the legal situation regarding land ownership and caves. It can be downloaded from:

http://www.british-caving.org.uk/membership/landownership+caves_240310.pdf

Nick.
It's a pity that it's incorrect. The CROW does not give specific permission to access caves, but then nor is access to caves specifically excluded. The permitted activities are examples, not a definitive list. I have been told by DEFRA that it would take a High Court judgement to establish whether or not caving is included.

I think that it's a shame that the BCA is continuing to take a viewpoint which suits its own agenda, and present it as the legal position.
 

nickwilliams

Well-known member
Having already had one PM associated with this topic, please can I point out that I am not responsible for this document, I was simply asked to draw it to the attention of the forum.

People who have comments to make on this document should contact the BCA Legal and Insurance Officer (currently David Judson) directly, contact details are on the BCA web site at http://www.british-caving.org.uk/?page=8. So far as I am aware, David does not participate in this forum and so you are unlikely to get a response from him by posting here.

I am afraid that due to other commitments I am not in a position to be able to act as a go-between on this and am therefore unlikely to respond to any further postings or PMs on this topic.

Nick.
 

langcliffe

Well-known member
nickwilliams said:
I am afraid that due to other commitments I am not in a position to be able to act as a go-between on this and am therefore unlikely to respond to any further postings or PMs on this topic.
Nick.
That's all right, Nick. I have no intention of entering a debate - we've done that over the years ad nauseam. I was simply registering a point for people who may be naive enough to take an official BCA document at its face value.
 

langcliffe

Well-known member
stu said:
Not picking a fight; what might that agenda be?
Quote from the document: "Think about it, free access to caves and potholes would be quite inoperable (and dangerous) in many situations including popular sites such as Lancaster Hole, Gaping Gill, Ogof Fynnon Ddu, Swildons Hole, etc."
 

Stu

Active member
langcliffe said:
stu said:
Not picking a fight; what might that agenda be?
Quote from the document: "Think about it, free access to caves and potholes would be quite inoperable (and dangerous) in many situations including popular sites such as Lancaster Hole, Gaping Gill, Ogof Fynnon Ddu, Swildons Hole, etc."

Thought as much.
 

peterk

Member
Whilst CRoW does (with limitations) give access to rock faces, (they are regarded as land
that just happens to be vertical rather than horizontal), it absolutely does not give legal access to
caves, potholes or abandoned mines.



I thought that climbing was allowed on open access land because "Any person is entitled by virtue of this subsection to enter and remain on any access land for the purposes of open-air recreation" Sec 2(1).  The phrase "open-air recreation" looks to have no legal definition and was plucked from the act(s) relating to the creation of National  Parks..  Where does GG become a cave if the shaft can be climbed :-\ .
 

NigR

New member
Interesting timing.

Personally, I think that the CRoW Act has long been in dire need of clarification so far as caving is concerned.

langcliffe said:
I have been told by DEFRA that it would take a High Court judgement to establish whether or not caving is included.
This is also the advice I have been given.

The ideal opportunity to provide a perfect test case may well soon be at hand.

 

langcliffe

Well-known member
I'm not actually saying that the BCA agenda is necessarily wrong. That is a topic for discussion.  I'm just surprised that the Council allow Dave Judson to get away with passing off such crap as a BCA policy document. It doesn't do their credibility any good at all, and shows a total lack of respect for the membership.
 

Peter Burgess

New member
Dave Judson (and others) proved to be very useful to me a few years ago with regard to an access issue. It's all too easy to start a stupid argument on the internet. Perhaps if some here had the opportunity to have actually used for real the mine of useful information and experience in the hands of these VOLUNTEERS, they would be less inclined to slag off their efforts at every opportunity. Who's going to be next? Destroy the reputation of the BCA and what have you got left to promote the interests of cavers at a national level? Sweet Fanny Adams. What's the matter with you? Could you do any better? Have you got the time to do what these dedicated few do for YOU? I doubt it.



 

martinr

Active member
langcliffe said:
I'm not actually saying that the BCA agenda is necessarily wrong. That is a topic for discussion.  I'm just surprised that the Council allow Dave Judson to get away with passing off such crap as a BCA policy document. It doesn't do their credibility any good at all, and shows a total lack of respect for the membership.

Talking of credibility, I've just noticed langcliffe's profile info:

Personal Text: Last seen in a cave in 1967
Gender: Female
Age: 70
Location: Wetwang

?????

 

langcliffe

Well-known member
damian said:
Please explain.
By all means - the BCA Council are palming off on their membership what could be kindly described as opinion, as definitive truth - e.g. "The law in England and Wales is thus absolutely clear; access to caves and disused mines is entirely at the discretion of the landowner and/or occupier (e.g. the farmer)."  A less generous interpretation is that they are passing off untruth as truth. Either way, it shows a lack of respect for the membership.
 

langcliffe

Well-known member
Peter Burgess said:
Dave Judson (and others) proved to be very useful to me a few years ago with regard to an access issue. It's all too easy to start a stupid argument on the internet. Perhaps if some here had the opportunity to have actually used for real the mine of useful information and experience in the hands of these VOLUNTEERS, they would be less inclined to slag off their efforts at every opportunity. Who's going to be next? Destroy the reputation of the BCA and what have you got left to promote the interests of cavers at a national level? Sweet Fanny Adams. What's the matter with you? Could you do any better? Have you got the time to do what these dedicated few do for YOU? I doubt it.

I do my bit. And yes, any organisation should be within the reach of criticism. The fact is that at least two people have been told by the Government Department responsible that the law is NOT clear, as a reading of the CROW will also confirm. David Judson has done a lot for the caving world - but that doesn't change the fact that this document is crap, and should not have been released by Council.
 

graham

New member
It is perfectly true that just about anything can be challenged in the courts. Why would any caver wish to challenge this when they sure as hell would not be able to challenge the closure of every cave on access land with a ton or two of readymix the day before the hearing.

CRoW most certainly does not give any right to dig and no landowner would ever allow digging again.

And the document released by Judson is not crap. It is in line with the consultations that were carried out during the development of the bill that became CroW. Langcliffe, who of course has a sublime understanding of how the law operates, will know that the courts do take into account the intent of the lawmakers should there be any unintended lack of clarity in their final wording.
 

Peter Burgess

New member
langcliffe said:
damian said:
Please explain.
By all means - the BCA Council are palming off on their membership what could be kindly described as opinion, as definitive truth - e.g. "The law in England and Wales is thus absolutely clear; access to caves and disused mines is entirely at the discretion of the landowner and/or occupier (e.g. the farmer)."  A less generous interpretation is that they are passing off untruth as truth. Either way, it shows a lack of respect for the membership.
What I do know is that very few of the sites I visit are affected by the CROW act and as such, the BCA statement reflects precisely the nature of cavers' relationship with mine/cave owners. I for one would be highly exasperated if a few "me me me" cavers forced the issue to the extent that exerting a 'right' of access to CROW land caves spoilt the harmonious relationships many of us have developed over the years using trust and respect.
 

langcliffe

Well-known member
graham said:
It is perfectly true that just about anything can be challenged in the courts. Why would any caver wish to challenge this when they sure as hell would not be able to challenge the closure of every cave on access land with a ton or two of readymix the day before the hearing.
True.  As I have already said above, I don't necessarily disagree with the reasons for the BCA's stance as implied by the document.

graham said:
CRoW most certainly does not give any right to dig and no landowner would ever allow digging again.
I agree.

graham said:
And the document released by Judson is not crap. It is in line with the consultations that were carried out during the development of the bill that became CroW. Langcliffe, who of course has a sublime understanding of how the law operates, will know that the courts do take into account the intent of the lawmakers should there be any unintended lack of clarity in their final wording.
I do not claim to have a sublime understanding of the law. I do claim to be able read the CROW legislation, and to having had sensible conversations with the Department responsible for administering it. It really doesn't matter what the intent of the Act was, it's the wording of the Act that counts.
 

langcliffe

Well-known member
Peter Burgess said:
I for one would be highly exasperated if a few "me me me" cavers forced the issue to the extent that exerting a 'right' of access to CROW land caves spoilt the harmonious relationships many of us have developed over the years using trust and respect.
I agree.
 
Top