A simple question - How many Mendip Caves are on Access Land?
- Thread starter Madness
- Start date
Bob Mehew
Well-known member
Sorry, getting forgetful in my old age. Over a year ago the working group on CRoW was given a list containing some 150 plus names of caves on Access Land on the Mendips. Of these, 7 were gated, one charged an entry fee (but the entrance might be on excepted land) and one was a show cave. The rest appeared to have no restriction, though I emphasise the word 'appeared'. I don't claim it as being accurate or being up to date. I think I should leave it to those on Mendip to make a judgement on whether to release further detail.
From what I personally know as (I guess an ex) Mendip caver, my judgement is that 6 of the 7 gated ones would probably have little problem in getting a Direction assuming CRoW applies to caving etc etc. I have not seen the 7th so would not like to comment.
And in advance I will decline to participate in any guessing games.
From what I personally know as (I guess an ex) Mendip caver, my judgement is that 6 of the 7 gated ones would probably have little problem in getting a Direction assuming CRoW applies to caving etc etc. I have not seen the 7th so would not like to comment.
And in advance I will decline to participate in any guessing games.
andrewmcleod
Well-known member
Aubrey said:
Edit: realised Brains said pretty much the same thing a bit earlier in the thread.
The current campaign does not wish to change the law, consequently there will not be a sudden opening to free access. If the campaign is correct, access has been granted all along, the current access restrictions are illegal, and anyone could have challenged this at any point in the past. If the campaign is correct, then I _currently_ have a right to freely enter, for example, Upper Flood and St Cuthbert's. Even though I support the clarification efforts, I don't think this is necessarily a good thing. It's not that access _will_ be granted, but that access _was_ granted however many years ago - we just didn't know it.
Consequently, if I was in charge of a currently gated cave on access land I would be considering preparing for or even putting in a 'hypothetical' Section 26 application.
This said, there is probably no real problem continuing in the interim to gate and leader lead caves, where essentially all cavers agree this is the responsible thing to do (even when it is known that access is a legal right) unless someone complains...
Second edit:
Dealing in advance with the legal processes for the few significant Mendips caves this would affect would, I hope, go some way to assuaging the doubts and fears of the anti-CROW camp.
Peter Burgess
New member
I think that someone somewhere will most definitely try their luck with a complaint. I refer you to recent legal nonsense in Wales.
NewStuff
New member
Peter Burgess said:
Assuming for the moment that the clarification is that CRoW *does* apply to caving, then anyone complaining about the odd protected site (Upper Flood etc), is on to a losing battle, given that most people are happy for truly special sites to have protection. It's not a valid argument as I haven't met a single caver that would *want* to complain or argue about it. Same applies to something right on a public footpath - Whack a great big derby key on it, no-one will have an issue, we all know stuff gets fill if Joe Public takes a header down it.
Comparing that kind of thing to the issue in wales is, yet again, apples and oranges, they are totally different situations. It's why I have no issue with people saying that you resort to dirty tricks, you make invalid and skewed comparisons, and I don't for a second think you do it out of ignorance.
As I said in an earlier post, there are currently 9 sites listed as being on access land and also with some kind of access control which involves a locked gate.
One, Giants Cave, is listed as a show cave and cannot therefore be considered under CRoW legislation - it must be exempt.
All the other 8 sites are SSSIs:
Two of these are gated because of a deep open shaft close to a public footpath or easily accessible to the public - perfectly sensible and it should be easy to continue to safeguard these on grounds of public safety (Section 25 legislation would apply).
One, Aveline's Hole, has a gated and locked section to protect ancient symbols - perfectly sensible and surely there would be no doubt that a section 26 would apply.
One, Foxes Hole, is gated to protect bats as formerly people held parties in the cave - again, perfectly sensible and should continue to be protected under the legislation relating to bats.
Four remain: Upper Flood Swallet (leadership system), Shute Shelve Cavern, St. Cuthberts Swallet (leadership system), Manor Farm Swallet (the owner charges for entry).
It does seem that the restrictions on these sites are sensible and, if they are widely accepted by Mendip cavers, I would expect that BCA would be in support of continued protection of these sites when CRoW is deemed to apply to caves.
I have a query from a Mendip caver who no longer posts on this forum:
"I note that you have recently spoken about the number of gated caves on Mendip, based on information collected in 2013. Of course things move on and there is, of recent weeks, another gated cave there. See http://darknessbelow.co.uk/?p=1459 for details. It is my understanding that to effect a Section 26 notice under the Act it would require a consultation period of four months. I may be wrong on that, but it was certainly a period of several months. After that length of time, I expect that this delightfully decorated little gem would be as trashed as so many other unprotected caves in
that area now are."
My understanding is that, when the CRoW legislation comes into effect, there would normally be a period of time during which existing controls would be examined before they are removed outright in order to give time to make necessary adjustments. So, this latest cave would join the others in being left as "status quo" for a while in order to give time for any representations to be made. If, as seems likely, all these caves are considered to be still worthy of special protection then there should be no problem in obtaining a section 26 (or section 25, or whatever else is required) as this would be supported by local cavers, by CSCC (presumably?), by Natural England, Bat Conservation Trust, etc. and, I would expect, by BCA.
So, as has been pointed out by andrewmcleod, it would surely be wise for those most concerned to get their arguments and evidence together and all lined up to ensure the continued protection of these special sites. It seems unnecessarily defeatist to throw one's hands up and say "they'll all be trashed!" - instead, get your collective acts together to prevent this happening and I'm sure you will get support from all sensible cavers.
One, Giants Cave, is listed as a show cave and cannot therefore be considered under CRoW legislation - it must be exempt.
All the other 8 sites are SSSIs:
Two of these are gated because of a deep open shaft close to a public footpath or easily accessible to the public - perfectly sensible and it should be easy to continue to safeguard these on grounds of public safety (Section 25 legislation would apply).
One, Aveline's Hole, has a gated and locked section to protect ancient symbols - perfectly sensible and surely there would be no doubt that a section 26 would apply.
One, Foxes Hole, is gated to protect bats as formerly people held parties in the cave - again, perfectly sensible and should continue to be protected under the legislation relating to bats.
Four remain: Upper Flood Swallet (leadership system), Shute Shelve Cavern, St. Cuthberts Swallet (leadership system), Manor Farm Swallet (the owner charges for entry).
It does seem that the restrictions on these sites are sensible and, if they are widely accepted by Mendip cavers, I would expect that BCA would be in support of continued protection of these sites when CRoW is deemed to apply to caves.
I have a query from a Mendip caver who no longer posts on this forum:
"I note that you have recently spoken about the number of gated caves on Mendip, based on information collected in 2013. Of course things move on and there is, of recent weeks, another gated cave there. See http://darknessbelow.co.uk/?p=1459 for details. It is my understanding that to effect a Section 26 notice under the Act it would require a consultation period of four months. I may be wrong on that, but it was certainly a period of several months. After that length of time, I expect that this delightfully decorated little gem would be as trashed as so many other unprotected caves in
that area now are."
My understanding is that, when the CRoW legislation comes into effect, there would normally be a period of time during which existing controls would be examined before they are removed outright in order to give time to make necessary adjustments. So, this latest cave would join the others in being left as "status quo" for a while in order to give time for any representations to be made. If, as seems likely, all these caves are considered to be still worthy of special protection then there should be no problem in obtaining a section 26 (or section 25, or whatever else is required) as this would be supported by local cavers, by CSCC (presumably?), by Natural England, Bat Conservation Trust, etc. and, I would expect, by BCA.
So, as has been pointed out by andrewmcleod, it would surely be wise for those most concerned to get their arguments and evidence together and all lined up to ensure the continued protection of these special sites. It seems unnecessarily defeatist to throw one's hands up and say "they'll all be trashed!" - instead, get your collective acts together to prevent this happening and I'm sure you will get support from all sensible cavers.
droid
Active member
Trouble is, NewStuff, you're relying on *everyone* in the caving firmament to show reasonableness.
Recent events on Mendip show that you can't always rely on that. And yes, I do realise that Hunter's lodge was gated etc.
Peter's reference to DC was entirely valid: put a restriction on a cave for any reason and *someone* will object. Maybe out of spite, maybe out of some idea that there should be totally free access to any underground feature regardless of....errr ....anything....
Recent events on Mendip show that you can't always rely on that. And yes, I do realise that Hunter's lodge was gated etc.
Peter's reference to DC was entirely valid: put a restriction on a cave for any reason and *someone* will object. Maybe out of spite, maybe out of some idea that there should be totally free access to any underground feature regardless of....errr ....anything....
NewStuff
New member
droid said:
You can't please all of the people, all of the time.
As I (and others) have said previously, the *overwhelming majority* will have no issue. If someone wanted to rip gates off, then they would have already. That said, you do get, lets be polite here, idiots, in every single walk of life. Just as a gate will not stop them, then CRoW and valid, legitimate exemptions will not either. If you cater for the lowest denominator, then the overwhelming majority of responsible cavers *will* suffer.
Now, if you have gates that do not protect exceptional decorations, archaeology, or prevent accidental access and that the access through said gates lies via knowing funny handshakes, being a member of a particular club, or just not being on a blacklist for not other reason than you are not liked*, then I'll happily help remove them. They divide us as a group when we should be working together and need to go.
*I know I'm on a couple of these lists.
andrewmcleod
Well-known member
Jenny P said:
Hi Jenny, thanks for the complete list of caves. I should ask why you think there would be a period of time though?
The aim of the pro-CROW camp, as I understand it, is not to bring CROW legislation into effect, or in fact to alter our legal rights of access in any way. They are arguing that CROW legislation brought in in 2005 or whenever included the right to enter caves, and that we have only not used this right because the statutory bodies have (incorrectly in their view) held that CROW does not gain access to caves.
droid
Active member
And here I have a dilemma NewStuff. I cannot disagree with what you say, and I particularly object to blacklists based on personal emnity.
However, I also see the reasoning behind seemingly stringent gating/access arrangements for certain caves, and not just on Mendip. There's plenty of caves to go at. Restricting access to a few outstanding caves isn't going to bring the caving firmament crashing down on our heads.
It's worked reasonably well up to now.
However, I also see the reasoning behind seemingly stringent gating/access arrangements for certain caves, and not just on Mendip. There's plenty of caves to go at. Restricting access to a few outstanding caves isn't going to bring the caving firmament crashing down on our heads.
It's worked reasonably well up to now.
Probably because I think that, in the end, common sense will prevail. Despite all the name-calling and aggro, all of us are keen to do the best we can to conserve caves - but that means to use them appropriately as well as to "preserve" them. I don't believe anyone wants caves to be trashed, nor do I think that N.E. and the powers that be will be anxious to leap into immediate action, provided that no-one pesters them to act "yesterday".
If we are satisfied that the CRoW legislation does apply to caves, and has done so all along, we'd be pretty daft if we then demanded instant action from the powers that be. There is bound to be a period of adjustment and discussion which will allow us all to think through how this is to work. This will give time to talk to landowners and explain to them the benefits - no more worries about liability for starters. It will also give time for local cavers to agree on where they think controls are appropriate and how this can best be managed within the legislation.
If we work together and act sensibly there is every reason to think we can sort this out to the benefit of all. Access allowed where it is appropriate and where it is not currently allowed; controls maintained where it is sensible to do so and where local cavers are agreed on the need for it.
Simples.
If we are satisfied that the CRoW legislation does apply to caves, and has done so all along, we'd be pretty daft if we then demanded instant action from the powers that be. There is bound to be a period of adjustment and discussion which will allow us all to think through how this is to work. This will give time to talk to landowners and explain to them the benefits - no more worries about liability for starters. It will also give time for local cavers to agree on where they think controls are appropriate and how this can best be managed within the legislation.
If we work together and act sensibly there is every reason to think we can sort this out to the benefit of all. Access allowed where it is appropriate and where it is not currently allowed; controls maintained where it is sensible to do so and where local cavers are agreed on the need for it.
Simples.
NewStuff
New member
droid said:
It's all about how, and why, that access is restricted. Myself and others have had difficulty in gaining access to some places that have *no need* for protection, You ask for access, show you are a legitimate caver (club member or BCA card etc), yet you find yourself met with all manner of bovine excrement masquerading as a legitimate reason to deny access. Whilst I can't do anything about caves on private ground, or likely abandoned mines either, I *can* try to help get caves on access land opened up so this kind of shenanigans are no longer possible. I'm not the kind of person to just stand back and let things lie for an easy life, if I can do something for the better, then I'll do it, even if it means wading into the politics of caving. It's not pleasant, but I'm certain enough that the end result is worth it. If enough people hadn't been on the pointy end of some sort of access discrimination, then no-one would be pushing for a clarification in the law, as it wouldn't be a problem in the first place.
droid
Active member
I have no time for 'politics'. Say it as you see it is my philosophy. However I don't trust the inherent 'goodness' of the caving community as much as you do, and recent events on Mendip haven't helped that.
Neither do those that restrict access as part of some 'fiefdom', and I recognise that in some instances CRoW will help with that.
Clarification of the Law isn't the problem. Potential problems associated with that clarification are, and regarding CRoW ass some sort of problem-free zone is a mistaken attitude *in my opinion*.
Hence the continued debate.
Neither do those that restrict access as part of some 'fiefdom', and I recognise that in some instances CRoW will help with that.
Clarification of the Law isn't the problem. Potential problems associated with that clarification are, and regarding CRoW ass some sort of problem-free zone is a mistaken attitude *in my opinion*.
Hence the continued debate.
jasonbirder
Member
I think you only have to look at the byzantine efforts some will go to try and block the accepted and mandated decision of British Cavers to realise that...
jasonbirder
Member
Trying to over-ride the Referendum by using arcane references to clauses in a Constitution nobody has ever previously read?
Surreptitiously trying to drop items onto the agenda of a poorly attended Council Meeting ordinary members don't have voting rights in?
Doesn't strike you as a little Machiavellian?
Surreptitiously trying to drop items onto the agenda of a poorly attended Council Meeting ordinary members don't have voting rights in?
Doesn't strike you as a little Machiavellian?
cap n chris
Well-known member
4. Pretty certain.
