A simple question - How many Mendip Caves are on Access Land?

[Peter Burgess]

It would add fuel to the fire. I am sick of it. It doesn't matter how much genuine concerns are expressed, those doing it just get vilified and ridiculed. I am not doing that again.

You can't accuse pro-CRoW people of ignoring your concerns and then refuse to list your concerns when asked by a pro-CRoW person about them!

Watch me. The concerns have been aired in many places. I do not need to repeat them. Anybody really wanting to find out what concerned people think will find it.

 

[badger]

Mendip has huge potential for more discoveries. We are not talking about the present situation here. Conservation minded cavers and owners will be reluctant to open up new sites if they think there is the slightest chance of legislation being used to put them at risk.

not sure the conservation is an issue as if this is an issue then section 26 will allow a gate and access controlled like we see at the newly extended festers hole. and if conservation is our primary goal then no caver would ever enter a cave cause as soon as we do we change its whole being. HLIS being on private land and being gated did not stop it being vandalised. and the mere fact we are digging is this not a conservation issue?
and not sure why crow would be an issue as diggers with or without crow still have to gain permission from the relevant people/ne already. those that don't are and will be breaking the law.
landowners who already have an issue with cavers will still have an issue with cavers,
those cavers who already flout excisting access arrangements will still flout them crow or no crow

 

[Brains]

Mendip has huge potential for more discoveries. We are not talking about the present situation here. Conservation minded cavers and owners will be reluctant to open up new sites if they think there is the slightest chance of legislation being used to put them at risk.

not sure the conservation is an issue as if this is an issue then section 26 will allow a gate and access controlled like we see at the newly extended festers hole. and if conservation is our primary goal then no caver would ever enter a cave cause as soon as we do we change its whole being. HLIS being on private land and being gated did not stop it being vandalised. and the mere fact we are digging is this not a conservation issue?
and not sure why crow would be an issue as diggers with or without crow still have to gain permission from the relevant people/ne already. those that don't are and will be breaking the law.
landowners who already have an issue with cavers will still have an issue with cavers,
those cavers who already flout excisting access arrangements will still flout them crow or no crow

Agreed

 

[droid]

So CRoW will make no difference to landowners or access? is that what you are saying?

In which case BCA is throwing money (and Tim Allen's efforts) in the bin.

 

[Brains]

It will make a difference to sites on access land. It will not be the end for digging or exploration  - these can continue as they do now, and finds that require protection can be given it if so desired.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Section 26 is nothing like the cure all you all seem to think it is. Reality check is required here, I think.

 

[RobinGriffiths]

Section 26 is nothing like the cure all you all seem to think it is. Reality check is required here, I think.

It's obviously a rubbish, not thought through law then in that case. Erm...

 

[droid]

Section 26 is nothing like the cure all you all seem to think it is. Reality check is required here, I think.

It's obviously a rubbish, not thought through law then in that case. Erm...

That would be a novelty, wouldn't it?

 

[NewStuff]

Section 26 is nothing like the cure all you all seem to think it is. Reality check is required here, I think.

I've never seen anyone explain why.

 

[Aubrey]

Apparently it takes 6 months or more to get a Section 26 order in place and in these times of austerity there are no resources to process the applications.
If previously controlled caves were suddenly opened up to free access there is the possibility of a lot of damage before a section 26 order could be put in place.

I do sometimes wonder if DEFRA's stance on CRoW is influenced by a desire to avoid a lot of work.

 

[PeteHall]

Apparently it takes 6 months or more to get a Section 26 order in place and in these times of austerity there are no resources to process the applications.
If previously controlled caves were suddenly opened up to free access there is the possibility of a lot of damage before a section 26 order could be put in place.

I have seen it stated here, but can't remember where, that a temporary order can be put in place while the Section 26 is being processed. This would make sense and I can't see why any caver would object to that, in cases where there is a genuine need to control access for conservation.

I do sometimes wonder if DEFRA's stance on CRoW is influenced by a desire to avoid a lot of work.

That would seem to be the only logical reason!

 

[Bob Mehew]

Apparently it takes 6 months or more to get a Section 26 order in place and in these times of austerity there are no resources to process the applications.
If previously controlled caves were suddenly opened up to free access there is the possibility of a lot of damage before a section 26 order could be put in place.

I do sometimes wonder if DEFRA's stance on CRoW is influenced by a desire to avoid a lot of work.

As I recall, when CRoW came in in 2005, temporary Directions were issued to cover the period whilst consultations took place.  As I understood it, the view from NE was that whilst they consider CRoW does not cover caves, they can't issue a Direction or do any work so it is a classic Catch 22 situation.  It just requires some work up front possibly aided by cavers to ensure the applications are in and things are ready before the formal switch of opinion takes place. 

And that includes BCA having formulated an opinion on an appropriate test to determine whether a cave should have a Direction as no doubt BCA would become one of the formal national consultees.  No doubt there should also be some other ground work done with potential objectors, Local Access Forums, what type of restrictions would be put in place and so on.  Yes there is work to be done but it is difficult to get the go ahead to do it when people are still bogged down with aspects thought to have been resolved by the referendum.

 

[Peter Burgess]

All I can say is that if you leave important issues to be dealt with by third parties, it won't be done as quickly as you can do it yourself, which is why messing about and relying on legislation is the wrong thing to do. Sensible protection of sites with consent of immediate involved parties has always been the best way to do things. Messing about with Right of Access etc etc is just not going to cut the mustard when something needs doing urgently.

 

[jasonbirder]

Are people suggesting, that 12 months after the most extensive and expensive referendum in BCA history...and a clear mandate in favour of ensuring CRoW legislation applies to caving...
That because of questions over section 26 - then that should be IGNORED?

By all means lets see what can be done with section 26 - but lets get moving on CRoW and not have another "speedbump" in the road...

Because we ALL know...that if we mess about with this issue...sure as apples are apples - the people that object "because they care about conservation" will be back objecting "because they care about digging" or "because they worry about Landowner relations" "are unsure about insurance Implications or "Bats" or whatever the objection du jour is...

Funnily enough...in most cases...the objections change...but the objectors stay the same...

 

[Peter Burgess]

I am providing a reason why adoption of CRoW for cave access may not be the Nirvana that JB and his pals seem to think it will be. Be prepared for problems, and ones that won't be easy to resolve. And won't be problems caused by me or by anyone else, but by the new "system".

 

[Aubrey]

As I recall, when CRoW came in in 2005, temporary Directions were issued to cover the period whilst consultations took place. 

Where can we find out more about the availability and processes for temporary Directions?

 

[crickleymal]

I thought this was supposed to be a simple question about caves on access land 

 

[jasonbirder]

The answer was a very simple - lots of small sites, but very few major cave systems...(Possibly as few as 2 depending on your definition)

 

[Peter Burgess]

Why does it matter how large a cave is? Really, why?

 

[jasonbirder]

For the obvious reason that more Foxes and Badgers than Cavers are likely to visit for example Beetle Drop