Access lost to Ogof Carno

[NigR]

I find it very sad that this thread has gone on so long without someone mentioning the C.C.C. , either in a supportive way or otherwise.

Cambrian Caving Council has indeed been mentioned several times, initially by the OP. As has already been stated, Cambrian is still involved in ongoing negotiations in the hope that access can be restored. Personally, I am supportive of these efforts and hope they meet with success. Being realistic, however, I am not as optimistic regarding a favourable outcome as are several others who have posted to this thread. I hope I am proved wrong.

Generally speaking, I think the Cambrian Caving Council's Conservation and Access Officer does a fine job in securing and maintaining access for cavers in Wales. It is just a shame that a more proactive approach cannot be followed on occasion, this almost always being due to self-imposed restraints within the actual constitution. It would be really nice to have a Regional (or National) body that was prepared to support cavers' interests to the same extent that the BMC does for climbers.

 

[graham]

"Value of land" depends upon what it was worth before the discovery. (E.U. decides)

: :doubt:

 

[David Rose]

Hold on a sec. If there were a right to roam underground, all that would mean in practice is that some people wearing caving gear, possibly carrying tackle bags, would have the right to walk across land to an entrance and then disappear for a while, and then emerge and walk back across the land again. At present, those same people can exercise the legal right to walk to the same spot. I just don't see how would this make such a critical difference to a landowner if he or she were approached by a group that wanted permission to dig. If an owner were minded to allow such a project, presumably they would be broadly sympathetic to cave exploration, wouldn't they? And why would finding a cave reduce the value of the land? It might even enhance it. If the hole turned out to be the entrance to major, popular system, the owner could charge for access to a changing barn, as with Swildons.

It seems to me the risk here is a tad hypothetical, and rather small. Set against that is the prospect of regaining access to some major systems: Langcliffe Pot, for example, a very fine trip which currently has to be done in conditions of secrecy. And wouldn't it be nice not to have to go to the trouble of asking for permits for Leck Fell, Casterton Fell, the Ingleborough caves controlled by the estate office, etc etc? Would the landowners actually be losing anything? Couldn't we even try to persuade them that where access is free and open (to Meregill, for example, to stay with the Dales) no harm is done? Maybe some of the landowners might even support us.

 

[TheBitterEnd]

Might it be that people are talking at crossed purposes? I suspect some people have in mind a right to cave on existing CROW land where as others are thinking of a general right to cave where ever a cave exists (which may or may not confer the right to cross land to access the cave).

 

[Ian Adams]

Whether we are at cross purposes or not, I think David's "thoughts" and idealogy is, at least, a great starting premises (ie. open access on CROW land)



Ian

 

[Duncan Price]

I also think some of the restrictions which exist on caves which are partially open need revisiting. For example, why can't anyone under the age of 16 go down caves such as Agen Allwedd, Longwood and GB? I like taking my kids caving and they're pretty responsible. I like to think I am. It's amazing how many places they're not allowed to visit. (My older son will be 14 this year and is very competent.)

David - as an aside - there is no restriction on taking minors into Agen Allwedd as long as the trip is lead by an adult (see: http://www.mlcmac.talktalk.net/aarules.htm).  There has been a ban on carbide for many a year though you seem not to know this as (this article from 1990: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/22755151/Agony_Aggy.pdf (500 kB)) demonstrates.  :tease:

 

[graham]

I also think some of the restrictions which exist on caves which are partially open need revisiting. For example, why can't anyone under the age of 16 go down caves such as Agen Allwedd, Longwood and GB? I like taking my kids caving and they're pretty responsible. I like to think I am. It's amazing how many places they're not allowed to visit. (My older son will be 14 this year and is very competent.)

David - as an aside - there is no restriction on taking minors into Agen Allwedd as long as the trip is lead by an adult (see: http://www.mlcmac.talktalk.net/aarules.htm).  There has been a ban on carbide for many a year though you seem not to know this as (this article from 1990: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/22755151/Agony_Aggy.pdf (500 kB)) demonstrates.  :tease:

The letter from Bill is really rather splendid, thanks Duncan.

Of course were caves visited as a right then restrictions such as this one on the use of carbide would be impossible.

 

[David Rose]

Goodness me. I have never read either this article or the response before.  It's true we went up Turkey Stream for a bit before realising our mistake. Just about everything else in the piece is totally untrue.  How bizarre.

 

[NigR]

Having been over to Carno this afternoon, I can confirm that there is indeed a fair amount of preparatory work already taking place in the immediate vicinity of the adit entrance. This consists primarily of tree clearing, although there is also some recently installed pipework nearby as well. There are now no trees left to clear and, at the present time, I fail to see how anyone could possibly justify denying access on health and safety grounds. You can walk right up to the entrance just as you have always done, the only difference being that your feet get a little bit muddier than they used to. Nothing at all has changed at the gate itself other than the appearance of a rather expensive looking shiny new padlock. Certainly no hi-tech alarm systems or death rays (not yet at least)!

Might post some pics later but not really sure if I ought to, would hate to see this site closed down "in the interests of national security"!

 

[Ian Adams]

Certainly no ... death rays ...

Aren't they reserved for use on forums ?

:blink:

Ian

 

[tony from suffolk]

Goodness me. I have never read either this article or the response before.  It's true we went up Turkey Stream for a bit before realising our mistake. Just about everything else in the piece is totally untrue.  How bizarre.

C'mon David, you must never let facts get in the way of a good tale!

 

[Duncan Price]

Goodness me. I have never read either this article or the response before.  It's true we went up Turkey Stream for a bit before realising our mistake. Just about everything else in the piece is totally untrue.  How bizarre.

C'mon David, you must never let facts get in the way of a good tale!

My reply to Bill Gascoine was reproduced as in the following CSS N/L and is here: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/22755151/Agony_Aggy_Again.pdf


By this time the BUSS digging key (loaned to David) had been surrendered as I was no longer a member of the University club and the rest of the diggers had also moved on so I cannot blame David or his mate for loss of access.  I think that I did want any reasonable person would have done - loaned them a key on the basis that OUCC had an annual permit for the cave.  I didn't expect this sort of outcome, which could have seriously queered the pitch had not Bill (God bless him) took it in good humour.

The above digression is relevant both because it involves Bill Gascoine who originally negotiated access to Carno Adit and also it shows what can happen if the wrong message is sent out.  I don't have a problem with having to ask for access.  The landowner's typical responses are:

1. Fine, do what you like, everyone welcome, you don't need to ask again.
2. OK but I want some sort of cave management body to talk to rather than individuals in case there are any problems.
3. No - but I'll turn  blind eye if you do.
4. No.

And various other permutations.

I don't have any particular grievence wih selected access - particularly when parties have put in a lot of effort to bring round a particular landowner to allowing any access.  Good on them for putting in the hard work.

I have no sympathy for people who demand access as some "right" - how would you feel if I demaned access to your property - maybe wanted to sunbath in your garden or something?

 

[David Rose]

I don't think suggesting there should be a cavers' right to roam has much to do with "demeaning" a landowner's property or suggesting anyone has a right to sunbathe in my garden. Nor is my taking a wrong turn in Aggy 23 years ago of great relevance to the debate. Very few caves lie on land whose value would be intrinsically affected by allowing wider access, and I think a lack of understanding is as much a problem as anything. For this, I totally accept, some of media colleagues are to blame.

I think there issues which need to be addressed here around conservation inside the caves. But not, in my view, access to their entrances.

 

[Les W]

No disrespect to you David, I think you've been doing an awesome job of positively promoting caving, but I did find this statement quite amusing coming from a Journalist at the Daily Mail... 

Just about everything else in the piece is totally untrue.

 

[paul]

I don't think suggesting there should be a cavers' right to roam has much to do with "demeaning" a landowner's property or suggesting anyone has a right to sunbathe in my garden. Nor is my taking a wrong turn in Aggy 23 years ago of great relevance to the debate. Very few caves lie on land whose value would be intrinsically affected by allowing wider access, and I think a lack of understanding is as much a problem as anything. For this, I totally accept, some of media colleagues are to blame.

I think there issues which need to be addressed here around conservation inside the caves. But not, in my view, access to their entrances.

Something to add to the debate: many cave entrances in the Peak are on private agricultural land with no Public Right of Way anywhere near the entrance, never mind a Right to Roam under the CROW. It is only because the landowner and/or tennant allows access (possibly on payment of a "goodwill fee") that cavers can currently access these caves (or mines) at all.

 

[bograt]

DCA is, however, apparently unique in having a superb access team to sort these things out for them. 

 

[Les W]

DCA is, however, apparently unique in having a superb access team to sort these things out for them. 

Not necessarily unique...  :-\

 

[bograt]

-----apparently----

 

[NigR]

Might it be that people are talking at crossed purposes? I suspect some people have in mind a right to cave on existing CROW land where as others are thinking of a general right to cave where ever a cave exists (which may or may not confer the right to cross land to access the cave).

This still appears to be the case.

The above digression is relevant.......

.......how would you feel if I demaned access to your property - maybe wanted to sunbath in your garden or something?

Sorry, Duncan but your "digression" - resurrecting an obscure article from 20+ years ago - is not relevant at all. It is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to bring scorn upon and totally discredit someone whose opinion you do not agree with. It is also completely unnecessary because had you fully comprehended the points that David is trying to make you would have realised that he is only demanding the right to sunbathe (or cave) in your garden if your garden happens to be on Open Access land (and if this is the case then he can already go and sunbathe there whenever he wants, so tough luck!).

 

[mikem]

Actually, he can't, CROW land has very limited rights and only a very small number of caves in Devon, Mendip, South Wales or the Peak are actually on access land (the situation in Yorkshire is somewhat different, but there are still many caves that aren't):

The new right under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW) covers most recreational activities carried out on foot, including walking, sightseeing, bird watching, climbing and running, but there are some common sense restrictions in place which limit where people can walk or take a dog.

What the right doesn?t include

There is no new entitlement to ride a horse, a bicycle or use any other mechanical transport; to camp, hang-glide or paraglide, use a metal detector, take part in organised games or commercial activities, swim, use boats or windsurfers in nontidal rivers or lakes; or remove anything from the area ? including stones, fallen wood or plants. However, existing rights such as riding a horse on a public bridleway are not affected. See ?Responsible access?

Excepted land

This is land on which the right of access is NOT available at any time, even if it appears on maps of access land. It is generally obvious on the ground and includes:

Buildings and the land attached to them (eg. courtyards).

Land within 20 metres of a house, or a building containing livestock.

Parks and gardens.

Land beneath structures ? such as electricity substations, wind turbines or telephone masts (though this does not prevent use of access land around them).

Quarries and other active mineral workings.

Railways and tramways.

Golf courses and race courses.

Aerodromes.

Land being developed in one of the ways above.

Arable land ? ploughed for the growing of crops within the past year.

Temporary livestock pens.

Racehorse training gallops ? between dawn and midday on any day and at any other time when it is in use for that purpose.

Land under Military Byelaws (eg. Ministry of Defence training areas).

Where ?excepted land? is served by public rights of way (eg. Footpaths or bridleways) or other legal access rights, access by those means is still allowed.

Mike