BCA Council Meeting - CRoW Discussions

[NewStuff]

I do not think caving can be called an open air activity because 'open air' implies fresh air.
Some caves frequently have bad air or very high levels of CO2 and there is a lot of documentation about Radon in caves. If the caves were open air then these gases would be immediately dissipated into the atmosphere.

Well, Caving sure as shit isn't an indoor pursuit, given that you have to go "out of doors" to actually do it, then which makes more sense? Christ, some of you lot will jump on the tiniest thing and blow it out of all proportion in an effort to stop people going caving without your magical blessing.  :icon_321:

 

[droid]

Even though I think CRoW should (indeed does) apply to caving I would be hard pressed to go to the secretary of state with a clear statement. The cavers can?t agree what a cave is, let alone whether they want CRoW, the landowners range from interested to hostile. You also have the concern of not absolving mine owners of their duties for abandoned workings. You are only dealing with a few thousand cavers, not exactly a constituency that is going to win you an election.

The anti?s know this and know that if they keep spreading enough fear, uncertainty and doubt then the powers that be will leave this can-of-worms alone. For that reason, despite the hard work of many cavers, I really don?t think DEFRA will change its mind.

1) CRoW is irrelevant to mines, which are covered by other legislation.
2)DEFRA will leave this alone because caving is a misunderstood minority activity that doesn't merit the time spent in changing the interpretation of CRoW. The activities (whatever they are) of the 'antis' is nothing to do with this.

And Jenny hit the nail on the head re 'open air/outdoors.

 

[cap n chris]

Caving is an outdoor pursuit. Mendip Outdoor Pursuits Ltd provides caving, so it must be.

 

[badger]

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/climate/healthy-citizens-are-greatest-asset-any-country-can-have-20160418

how healthy is our OPEN AIR. unlike our caves which are obviously not open air so very unhealthy

 

[menacer]

I do not think caving can be called an open air activity because 'open air' implies fresh air.
Some caves frequently have bad air or very high levels of CO2 and there is a lot of documentation about Radon in caves. If the caves were open air then these gases would be immediately dissipated into the atmosphere.

By that logic, you'd have to  write off many of the open air streets in London as not open air ??  Equally,by that logic, should my living room be considered open air, because its CO2/pollution levels are within normal "fresh air" ranges. :ras:

 

[badger]

I do not think caving can be called an open air activity because 'open air' implies fresh air.
Some caves frequently have bad air or very high levels of CO2 and there is a lot of documentation about Radon in caves. If the caves were open air then these gases would be immediately dissipated into the atmosphere.

That logic would write off many of the open air streets in London.It would make pollution concerns void.  Equally,by that logic, should my living room be considered open air, because the CO2 levels are normal. :ras:

 

[tony from suffolk]

I do not think caving can be called an open air activity because 'open air' implies fresh air.
Some caves frequently have bad air or very high levels of CO2 and there is a lot of documentation about Radon in caves. If the caves were open air then these gases would be immediately dissipated into the atmosphere.

Straws. At. Clutching. Rearrange into a well-known phrase or saying.

What an incredibly crass post. For heaven's sake, the sheer nonsense of DEFRA's (and apparently of the anti-CRoW for caving's supporters) is no better illustrated than some of the posts here.

 

[Les W]

I'm pretty sure you don't need to define what a cave is for it to be included in CRoW as the cave is already on/under mapped land. It only needs a definition if it isn't included in CRoW as then there would need to be an arbitrary delimiting "line" where CRoW stopped applying.

I guess this is DEFRA's problem currently... 

 

[Kenilworth]

When I wrote a small book about caves in a certain cave-poor region of the US, I found it necessary to write about the definition of the word "cave."

What is a cave? The answer depends on where you are and whom you ask. Many definitions have been suggested, some requiring that the cave have a true dark zone, some requiring only that the cave be ?large enough for a person to enter,? or ?feel cavey.? State cave surveys often set minimum limits for eligibility based on length or depth. All of these definitions are imperfect and arbitrary, sometimes contradictory. For example, in a tight, sinuous cave, complete darkness may be reached in a matter of 20 or 30 feet, while a cave with a massive entrance, and 500 feet of large passage may contain no true dark zone. The definition set forth in the Federal Cave Protection Act of 1988 reads in part; ?... any naturally occurring void, cavity, recess, or system of interconnected passages which occurs beneath the surface of the earth or within a cliff or ledge (including any cave resource therein, but not including any vug, mine, tunnel, aqueduct, or other manmade excavation) and which is large enough to permit an individual to enter, whether or not the entrance is naturally formed or manmade. Such term shall include any natural pit, sinkhole, or other feature which is an extension of the entrance.? This politically influenced definition is problematic since it includes far too many features to realistically document. Practically then, each person or entity must define what a cave is depending on his own purposes and surroundings.

 

Obviously, and as you all have demonstrated with your sketches, any attempt at a final definition will be inadequate, and will introduce all sorts of unneeded terms and complications. So none other than disjunct definitions can be of any practical use.

Do you want a legislative definition to be practical? They rarely are, and so there is the danger of putting too much importance on legislation instead of common sense and good manners.

One of the conspicuous observations that must surely be shared by anyone following this issue is that the "law," whatever it turns out to be, can be, will be, and is being ignored. And this can be done without sacrificing anything whatsoever. So why all this nitpicking?

 

[Bob Mehew]

The point not touched on so far is that land is defined in law as from the center of the earth outwards.  So caves are caught within the definition of land. 

 

[Alex]

But don't you just rent that as you have to pay 2 pound a year for the land beneath your house don't you? I forgot what the tax was called as I rent my property.

 

[Madness]

The point not touched on so far is that land is defined in law as from the center of the earth outwards.  So caves are caught within the definition of land.

I think that's another can of worms you've just opened there Bob. 

 

[Madness]

If the BCA get clarification and that clarification is that CRoW does not apply to caves, then will the campaign change from one of carification to one to change the law on access?

Would it mean another BCA members vote? Would the BCA constitution need another amendment?

My first question (removed from above) seemed to lead to a debate on the definition of a cave.

Does anyone have any thoughts on my two other questions?

In my opinion the BCA should be doing anything within the law to improve access to caves, and if that means campaigning for a change in the law then they should do it. I think that any change to the constitution needs to be done now to allow this to happen.

 

[Martin Laverty]

The point not touched on so far is that land is defined in law as from the center of the earth outwards.  So caves are caught within the definition of land.

Good point, supported by the use 'land' as an adjective in 'land surface' (as opposed to 'sea surface'), that seems to refute the argument that caves would need to be specifically mapped to be covered by CRoW.

 

[andrewmcleod]

But don't you just rent that as you have to pay 2 pound a year for the land beneath your house don't you? I forgot what the tax was called as I rent my property.

It is quite common that homeowners don't actually own the land under their houses, and that the actual landowner is someone else.

http://hoa.org.uk/advice/guides-for-homeowners/i-am-buying/leasehold-v-freehold-whats-the-difference/

 

[martinr]

But don't you just rent that as you have to pay 2 pound a year for the land beneath your house don't you? I forgot what the tax was called as I rent my property.

It's called Ground Rent and it isn't a tax.  It's a payment leaseholders pay annually to the freeholder. There isn't a fixed fee, it can vary between a peppercorn and ????????? depending on the leaseholder / freeholder contract

 

[Peter Burgess]

You are also nominally owner of the space above your land up to the heavens. It doesn't make the air part of your "land", does it? Property does not simply equate to land. What is under your land may be your property, but to call it "land" is just a convenient argument for those who would like that to be the case.

 

[Brains]

Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos (Latin for "whoever's is the soil, it is theirs all the way to Heaven and all the way to hell") or cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad infernos (Latin for "whoever's is the soil, it is theirs all the way to Heaven and all the way to the depths below") is a principle of property law, stating that property holders have rights not only to the plot of land itself, but also to the air above and (in the broader formulation) the ground below. The principle is often referred to in its abbreviated form as the ad coelum doctrine

call it what you like, the freehold goes way down and way up, certain caveats for aircraft etc...
To NOT call it land is just being awkward, even if the legality makes that seem a bit odd

 

[Peter Burgess]

A cave is under your land, therefore it is not part of it. What is under your land is however usually your property. The cave is therefore no more land than your TV or your house or your cellar is, or the fracked oil in the strata is. Land is the interface between the air and the ground. Houses are built "on" land implying nothing more than a surface. I love my native tongue!

 

[Brains]

The law doesnt - from heaven to hell is your property when you buy land, so that would include air water soil rocks worms... and caves. The rights to the minerals have mostly been seperated nowadays, but would have been yours as well.
Anyway, whats the point of this nit picking?