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

[cavermark]

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.

It may not be possible to do things as quickly when involving third parties - BUT IT CAN BE DONE.  So the problem has a SOLUTION  - it may not appear as effective for some sites as keeping the status quo, but it is a COMPROMISE that enables the enormous benefits of the changes to be reaped in other areas.

Perhaps BCA will provide help and resources to people making the applications - thus speeding them up as much as possible. 

 

[Madness]

I've only taken interest in the CRoW issue over the last couple on months, I wasn't on UK Caving until just before the vote and I've not retrospectively read all the posts relating to it. Before and after the vote, how much time and effort has been spent talking to 'the CRoW cautious' in an attempt to lesson their fears? Has the BCA organised any meetings whereby all parties could sit around a table and discuss things amicably? Most situations can be resolved if aposing sides are prepared to talk.
Being sucessful in the reforendum, shouldn't be the end of talking.

 

[Peter Burgess]

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

I suggest, if you haven't done so, that you visit Mendip and take the trouble to visit some of the well-preserved and protected small caves, before deciding what is best for them, and for Mendip as a whole. To divide caves simply into either badgers' toilets or large spectacular systems is not helpful.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Oh, and for the best ones you will probably have to get in touch with someone to let you in. Which is probably why they are still in good nick and of immense interest.

 

[Madness]

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

The size of a cave isn't important. But how 'important' a cave is in the mind of cavers is.

As I don't know the Mendip are at all caving wise, I was trying to find out how many caves in Mendip would possibly be effected - And I don't mean shallow scrapings that are full of badger shit that the average caver doesn't know exists.

Basically, I'm after relevant facts.

I'm still not sure if it's 2 or 4 caves that would be effected.

 

[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.

It may not be possible to do things as quickly when involving third parties - BUT IT CAN BE DONE.  So the problem has a SOLUTION  - it may not appear as effective for some sites as keeping the status quo, but it is a COMPROMISE that enables the enormous benefits of the changes to be reaped in other areas.

Perhaps BCA will provide help and resources to people making the applications - thus speeding them up as much as possible. 

Please explain to us all how it is possible to speed up a statutory consultation period of several months?

 

[jasonbirder]

Please explain to us all how it is possible to speed up a statutory consultation period of several months?

I don't know...
Nor do I know whether so-called "Dark matter" exists in Super-Massive Black Holes or in an unknown form of atomic particle...
But I DO KNOW...neither question has much bearing on a Referendum that's already been taken...and a policy that has already been mandated...

 

[cavermark]

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.

It may not be possible to do things as quickly when involving third parties - BUT IT CAN BE DONE.  So the problem has a SOLUTION  - it may not appear as effective for some sites as keeping the status quo, but it is a COMPROMISE that enables the enormous benefits of the changes to be reaped in other areas.

Perhaps BCA will provide help and resources to people making the applications - thus speeding them up as much as possible. 

Please explain to us all how it is possible to speed up a statutory consultation period of several months?

I meant speeding up the form filling before the consultation period and providing all necessary information to prevent further delays. Perhaps with the assistance of people familiar with the process who have gone through the process before.

 

[Peter Burgess]

It was a trick question. You can't shorten a statutory consultation period.

 

[Peter Burgess]

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

The size of a cave isn't important. But how 'important' a cave is in the mind of cavers is.

As I don't know the Mendip are at all caving wise, I was trying to find out how many caves in Mendip would possibly be effected - And I don't mean shallow scrapings that are full of badger shit that the average caver doesn't know exists.

Basically, I'm after relevant facts.

I'm still not sure if it's 2 or 4 caves that would be effected.

I imagine there are many more than that, small and large. Mostly what racing snakes would consider pointless and irrelevant, but badger shit often hides archaeology, for example. A list has been compiled, affected caves that is, but not by me.

 

[Bob Mehew]

It was a trick question. You can't shorten a statutory consultation period.

To be pedantic it is only a consultation.  The requirement is laid down in statutory guidance issued under Sec 33.  The time period is also an NE intent not a legally imposed requirement.  It also has weasel words which allow them to take longer - as happened in the example I read up on.  (Unfortunately the LAF seem to have given up their web site form which I got the detail so I can't reference it.)  Please don't mislead people.

For those who wish to read more, I believe the NE postion is given at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140304112715/http:/www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/RAG%20V4%20for%20website_tcm6-12375.pdf and NRW at https://naturalresources.wales/media/1173/how-to-use-restrictions-templated-1.pdf.

I can't be bothered to look but I think you will find this aspect was discussed on this forum around October 2014.

 

[cavermark]

It was a trick question. You can't shorten a statutory consultation period.

No, but you can prevent it being lengthened. (Which is what I was suggesting. In a straightforward manner. Not trying to trick anyone to distract from a valid point being made).

 

[Peter Burgess]

No I realise that - no worries.

 

[cavermark]

Oh, and for the best ones you will probably have to get in touch with someone to let you in. Which is probably why they are still in good nick and of immense interest.

Returning to the theme of the original post...
How many of these sites requiring someone to let you in are on access land?

 

[Peter Burgess]

A list has been compiled, affected caves that is, but not by me.

And I don't have it.

 

[Brains]

Do you know - from your colleagues at Darkness Below for example - if Section 26 paperwork is being prepared "before the event" for at least the 2-4 sites we know of that are present on Access land in the mendip area. As the law is currently interpreted this isnt needed BUT should the law be clarified in favour of access then this would help prevent an awkward gap in protection. I would imagine any restrictions would remain in place as a temporary stopgap until proper details can be put in to action. I would like to feel reassured that a continuity of protection could be maintained.
I am sure even the most ardent proponent of access would not begrudge the time taken to sort this out.

Does anyone know for certain if the newly extended Fester Hole/ Tweentwins is on access land? The picures show it to be very well decorated, and I hear a gate and leader system are being mooted. Should section 26 preparatory work be done for this site as well?

 

[cavermark]

A list has been compiled, affected caves that is, but not by me.

And I don't have it.

Does anyone know who does? 

 

[Peter Burgess]

Sorry, Brains, I am not a messenger boy for banned members. If they were still here, they could speak for themselves. Go figure.

 

[Brains]

Sorry, Brains, I am not a messenger boy for banned members. If they were still here, they could speak for themselves. Go figure.

Oh well never mind, I am sure when it comes down to it, all the details will be worked out and no one will die or the earth stop spinning on its axis - or currently protected sites damaged
Must be hard work being on the team and not talking to each other
As you say, if they could speak for themselves I am sure they would.

Do any other people from Mendip know the answer and care to share?

 

[Peter Burgess]

You are funny. We talk to each other all the time. Just not here.