bca meeting 25/3 /2017

[RobinGriffiths]

Landowners can be bloody intransigent though. There is a bit of the Wales Coastal Path near where I live, and there is continuous access through NT property almost to a public road, the last 15m thereof, not NT property, the landowner is defending with their life. All visible on the web - there have been attempts for a permissive arrangement, which has been declined, and now the local authority are trying to create a right of way, and part of the argument is that locals have been crossing this 15m strip for years - indeed I had been running it daily for 5 years before my achilles gave up. Not sure if my anecdote brings anything to the barbecue, but hey-ho.

Anyway, the funny thing is that this property advertises itself for accommodation on the web. And one of the selling points they advertise is.... and you can see this coming...  'convenient access to the Coastal Path'.

 

[Ed]

As DEFRA are the statutory undertakers of CROW if they are saying caving to the extent of day light is covered by CROW this is a definitive statement defining the framework / boundaries of the legislation.

As such they need to define what they mean the extent of day light with facts and figures ie Ca / lx. In addition, they are normally required to produce a Guideline Statement that includes real world example - they should be sending staff down to collate these.

They need to do this as it is setting the boundaries (for want of better description) of the extent of the legislation itself and therefore must be quantifiable - it is not a subjective assessment for breach of the legislation as Statutory Nuisance is under EPA 1990

Can the BCA ask for these from DEFRA in order for DEFRA to back up their statement?

Can the BCA also ask them to clarify if they mean the extent of day light or sun light? If they say day light that would specifically exclude night time caving. As such that will not stand as it against the intent of the act as CROW makes no distinction between day time and night time access.

If they say sun light - ask them to define it. Is it the limit to the human eye or the extent of photon penetration? If to the human eye  who's eye as not all caves have good eye sight or what international weighting standard are they using to define "average eye" (with sound there is a whole heap of stuff regarding weighting measurement for the human hearing).

 

[TheBitterEnd]

Or they could just define it as the point beyond which you cannot see the sky.

 

[Badlad]

I have to agree with much of what Andrewmc says in his post no. 355 above. 

What I can say to the points raised about the CNCC is this.  The CNCC has a number of new faces and has adopted a more forward looking approach to access in recent times.  We are aware of the way the BMC does things and I have spoken to a number of their reps to find out more detail.  As the new Access Officer I have had some very positive meetings with a number of large caving landowners in the Dales since I took over.  At present we are working hard on a completely new approach to the traditional access arrangements.  When this comes to fruition it will be a compromise  position which will offer benefit to both landowners and all cavers.  However, it is going to take some time and progress will be reported to CNCC meetings and through the newsletter as and when we can.

The CNCC has supported the BCA on campaigning to confirm cave access freedoms under the CRoW Act.  We are all awaiting the outcome of the BCA AGM to see where we are going with this.  However, I am confident that the days of BCA (or CNCC even) threatening disciplinary action to cavers who breach access agreements on CRoW land are over.

Tim Allen
CNCC Access Officer

 

[Dave Tyson]

Or they could just define it as the point beyond which you cannot see the sky.

Which then begs the question who is going to check? Will the DEFRA police sit outside cave/pothole entrances to make sure cavers stay visible or will that be left to the anti-CRoW cavers to sit in judgement  :tease:

It's a load of nonsense and when the CRoW act was passed cavers should have ignored any edicts from the BCA and others and just gone caving. By now any dust would have settled and a huge amount of pointless discussion  (and the expense of balloting) would have been saved...

Dave

 

[tony from suffolk]

Or they could just define it as the point beyond which you cannot see the sky.

"They" being? DEFRA have already given their interpretation, the sheer nonsensical, ridiculous nature of which is perfectly illustrated in Ed's posting.

 

[droid]

It's a load of nonsense and when the CRoW act was passed cavers should have ignored any edicts from the BCA and others and just gone caving. By now any dust would have settled and a huge amount of pointless discussion  (and the expense of balloting) would have been saved...

Dave

Like in the 80's when the CNCC were largely ignored by the Penzance Caving Club? 

 

[NewStuff]

...ignored any edicts from the BCA and others and just gone caving.

Which is exactly what we are doing. 

 

[RobinGriffiths]

It's very refreshing that BMC thing though isn't it. Just carry on, if you get told to leave, do so courteously. It's almost like they are supporting the climbers to continue climbing.

 

[crickleymal]

It's very refreshing that BMC thing though isn't it. Just carry on, if you get told to leave, do so courteously. It's almost like they are supporting the climbers to continue climbing.

Sounds exactly like the advice given to urban explorers.  :ang:

 

[cap n chris]

Anyone got any news on the meeting please

2 months, 1 day later.

Minutes available yet?

 

[Jopo]

It's a load of nonsense and when the CRoW act was passed cavers should have ignored any edicts from the BCA and others and just gone caving. By now any dust would have settled and a huge amount of pointless discussion  (and the expense of balloting) would have been saved...

Dave

Is a director of Cave Access Ltd recommending that all access and agreements should be ignored and cavers just go caving/mining regardless?

First sentence from the CAL website home page

Introduction
Cave access Limited is a company created to manage recreational access on behalf of Cavers and Mine Explorers to various mines and caves on land owned by Natural Resources Wales (NRW). This is a new organisation which merges three former public bodies - Forestry Commission Wales, Environment Agency Wales and Countryside Council for Wales.

 

[Dave Tyson]

It's a load of nonsense and when the CRoW act was passed cavers should have ignored any edicts from the BCA and others and just gone caving. By now any dust would have settled and a huge amount of pointless discussion  (and the expense of balloting) would have been saved...

Dave

Is a director of Cave Access Ltd recommending that all access and agreements should be ignored and cavers just go caving/mining regardless?

First sentence from the CAL website home page

Introduction
Cave access Limited is a company created to manage recreational access on behalf of Cavers and Mine Explorers to various mines and caves on land owned by Natural Resources Wales (NRW). This is a new organisation which merges three former public bodies - Forestry Commission Wales, Environment Agency Wales and Countryside Council for Wales.

None of these areas are CRoW Land and the CRoW act does not apply to Mines. I am very happy to abide by the wishes and respect the landowner on non-CRoW land. On CRoW land I can walk, climb and do anything which is not specifically forbidden by the CRoW act and in return the landowner gains some protection from liability - both sides win. 

Dave

 

[Ian Adams]

None of these areas are CRoW Land and the CRoW act does not apply to Mines. I am very happy to abide by the wishes and respect the landowner on non-CRoW land. On CRoW land I can walk, climb and do anything which is not specifically forbidden by the CRoW act and in return the landowner gains some protection from liability - both sides win. 

+1

I think "we" could go a little further.

Personally, I would also respect the (reasonable) wishes of a CRoW landowner.  Of the many cavers that I know, I don't know any who would act to the contrary.

It doesn't need rules, regulations, by-laws or statutes to be reasonable and respectful.

Since Her Majesty's Government indemnifies landowners against CRoW activities, it is indeed a win/win as Dave states.



Ian

 

[NigR]

Personally, I would also respect the (reasonable) wishes of a CRoW landowner.  Of the many cavers that I know, I don't know any who would act to the contrary.

Please define "reasonable" in this context.

 

[nickwilliams]

Since Her Majesty's Government indemnifies landowners against CRoW activities

HMG does nothing of the sort.

CROW limits the liability of the owner or occupier of Access Land such that they need to take no action to protect visitors from hazards caused by natural features of the landscape. That is all.

 

[Ian Adams]

I didn?t think such a conciliatory post would attract such strong attention ?.

To clarify then ?

Personally, I would also respect the (reasonable) wishes of a CRoW landowner.  Of the many cavers that I know, I don't know any who would act to the contrary.

Please define "reasonable" in this context.

?Reasonable? Examples;

Please close the boundary field gate after going through it.
Please keep your dog on a lead, I have sheep kicking around somewhere.
Please don?t leave all your tubs and crap in the field outside the entrance of the cave.

And ? ?I am not a caver but I would like to preserve the aesthetic beauty of the cave which is on my land. Please do not damage, change or alter my visual experience by bolting a gate across the entrance?

I think all those meet the definition of ?reasonable?. 

Since Her Majesty's Government indemnifies landowners against CRoW activities

HMG does nothing of the sort.

CROW limits the liability of the owner or occupier of Access Land such that they need to take no action to protect visitors from hazards caused by natural features of the landscape. That is all.

That is precisely what I meant (and said). I am pretty sure you knew that  :spank:




Ian

 

[droid]

So what about the *altering* of the 'natural features of the landscape' by cavers to facilitate ingress?

I.e. digging.

Is that covered, Ian?
Because I suspect Nick knows full well whether it is or it isn't.....

 

[Ian Adams]

You already know the answer to that Mr Droid 

 

[droid]

Really Ian?

Enlighten me please.