jasonbirder
Member
Not what he told me (~1974)
Glad you had some current and relevant examples
Not what he told me (~1974)
Alex said:I thought giants was a parking fee, not an access fee. So if you parked half a mile away no fee would be administered. Same with Alum pot.
graham said:jasonbirder said:I've heard anecdotal tales of people doing the connection...going back out...no problems (How would the Landowner know)
They did, yes, sometimes with a party down Giant's to rig Geology pot for them.
Chocolate fireguard said:graham said:jasonbirder said:I've heard anecdotal tales of people doing the connection...going back out...no problems (How would the Landowner know)
They did, yes, sometimes with a party down Giant's to rig Geology pot for them.
I assume you mean Garlands.
Chocolate fireguard said:graham said:jasonbirder said:I've heard anecdotal tales of people doing the connection...going back out...no problems (How would the Landowner know)
They did, yes, sometimes with a party down Giant's to rig Geology pot for them.
I assume you mean Garlands.
Hi Bob,Bob Mehew said:Apologies for the delay in response but my weekend was wiped out by a family emergency and I am just recovering from the aftermath.
Complex asked at http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=17137.msg226166#msg226166 above, if the exception in Schedule 2 to not interfere with a fence designed to prevent accidents (I paraphrase) overrode the right of access. My problem with this is if it does, then it drives a coach and horses through the intent of the act. I suggest such a padlocked gate to prevent accidents would be normally be excessive (though it could be allowed for by a Sec 25 Direction) so padlocking the gate would deprive the right of access. So the provider of the padlock would be committing a breach of civil law whilst the person cutting the padlock off could be committing criminal damage. An interesting stand off.
Sec 25(1)(b) does allow a direction to be issued for "...avoiding danger to the public...". But please note NE do state that "We cannot give a public safety direction to manage risks arising from natural features in the landscape, such as cliffs or potholes. Often these risks should be obvious to the public and the main onus is on the public to keep themselves and their children safe." (Extract from 2nd para p13 CAX150-4 at http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/file/91047.) CAX150-4 does give as a potential example "dangerous abandoned mineral workings". But please also note in providing restriction to Access Land, the Government have as a policy "the least restrictive option" which NE follow. The Derbyshire experience has shown that the simple nut and bolt solution for a catch to a gate is sufficient for mine shafts. (But see also below.)complex said:I have always been told that public safety will trump almost every other piece of legislation (with the exception of "National Security" which appears to override everything else these days). It appears from your answer that you agree that public safety could well take precedence over the right of access to open access land.
My reason for saying that is not because of public safety but because of the other permitted reason, livestock. Take the case of a farmer who decides to fence off a parcel of Access Land for deer. They have high fences you can't get over. And he also locks the high gate which you can't climb over. In such a case it effectively is stopping access. Extrapolate that to a farmer who just fits similar 'high' gates so you can't climb over them and provides no styles over walls. That is why I think it drives a coach and horses through the intent of the act. But I think this is off topic and I have no wish to put ideas into land owners' minds.complex said:I guess that the difference between us is that I don't see it as a problem - the public have a right to wander over nice safe places like fells and so on, but that right is (potentially) withdrawn when it comes to dangerous places such as a mine shaft next to a public footpath. It only "drives a coach and horses through the intent of the act" if you believe that the act gives the general public the right to wander freely around these seemingly dangerous places.
I have no recollection of seeing Coral Cave so I can't comment on the specific. But to me the key point is whether a locked gate is required as opposed to a gate held shut by a nut and bolt or a gate held shut by a simple catch. A risk assessment is required which should take into account factors such as the potential for unaccompanied children of young age coming by who can't reasonably be expected to recognise the hazards. That risk assessment would identify what as the appropriate 'least restrictive option'.complex said:I would have thought it all comes down to the assessment of risk to public safety for each individual site. For some (mainly Mendip) sites such as Coral Cave, the entrance has already been deemed sufficiently risky to public safety that a gate has been installed. In the eyes of a competent H&S lawyer, I would have thought that the only way that the gate can now be safely removed is by demonstrating that the risk to public safety has been reduced through other means so that the gate is no longer required. I'm fairly sure that if the gate has been removed simply to allow the general public to wander around to their hearts content, if there were to be an accident then the person who had removed the gate would be facing some difficult questions from a highly paid legal team. I wouldnt want to be the person who had sanctioned the removal of the gate in those circumstances.
Which implies that you would prefer such bodies to take instruction and direction when justified (justified by whom?), rather than allowing local people to use their local judgement as to what is best for the situations where up to now they have always known best. Do you really think this is an improvement?Bob Mehew said:I am quite happy for access controlling bodies and regional councils to apply for Directions to formalise restrictions where a case can be made to justify them.
Ed W said:It only becomes an issue if the body currently controlling access cannot provide sufficient justification for doing so.
Yes, and people have the option to change their decision in that poll. If people consider carefully what everyone says on both sides, and realise perhaps a point they had not earlier considered through all the bluster, they might do so. If you value your regional council not being neutered, then reject this concept, however appealing it might seem to you at first sight.Ed W said:It does not currently seem to be disturbing to around two thirds of cavers on UK Caving according tot he poll...
Bob Mehew said:Sec 25(1)(b) does allow a direction to be issued for "...avoiding danger to the public...". But please note NE do state that "We cannot give a public safety direction to manage risks arising from natural features in the landscape, such as cliffs or potholes. Often these risks should be obvious to the public and the main onus is on the public to keep themselves and their children safe." (Extract from 2nd para p13 CAX150-4 at http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/file/91047.) CAX150-4 does give as a potential example "dangerous abandoned mineral workings". But please also note in providing restriction to Access Land, the Government have as a policy "the least restrictive option" which NE follow. The Derbyshire experience has shown that the simple nut and bolt solution for a catch to a gate is sufficient for mine shafts. (But see also below.)complex said:I have always been told that public safety will trump almost every other piece of legislation (with the exception of "National Security" which appears to override everything else these days). It appears from your answer that you agree that public safety could well take precedence over the right of access to open access land.
My reason for saying that is not because of public safety but because of the other permitted reason, livestock. Take the case of a farmer who decides to fence off a parcel of Access Land for deer. They have high fences you can't get over. And he also locks the high gate which you can't climb over. In such a case it effectively is stopping access. Extrapolate that to a farmer who just fits similar 'high' gates so you can't climb over them and provides no styles over walls. That is why I think it drives a coach and horses through the intent of the act. But I think this is off topic and I have no wish to put ideas into land owners' minds.complex said:I guess that the difference between us is that I don't see it as a problem - the public have a right to wander over nice safe places like fells and so on, but that right is (potentially) withdrawn when it comes to dangerous places such as a mine shaft next to a public footpath. It only "drives a coach and horses through the intent of the act" if you believe that the act gives the general public the right to wander freely around these seemingly dangerous places.
I have no recollection of seeing Coral Cave so I can't comment on the specific. But to me the key point is whether a locked gate is required as opposed to a gate held shut by a nut and bolt or a gate held shut by a simple catch. A risk assessment is required which should take into account factors such as the potential for unaccompanied children of young age coming by who can't reasonably be expected to recognise the hazards. That risk assessment would identify what as the appropriate 'least restrictive option'.complex said:I would have thought it all comes down to the assessment of risk to public safety for each individual site. For some (mainly Mendip) sites such as Coral Cave, the entrance has already been deemed sufficiently risky to public safety that a gate has been installed. In the eyes of a competent H&S lawyer, I would have thought that the only way that the gate can now be safely removed is by demonstrating that the risk to public safety has been reduced through other means so that the gate is no longer required. I'm fairly sure that if the gate has been removed simply to allow the general public to wander around to their hearts content, if there were to be an accident then the person who had removed the gate would be facing some difficult questions from a highly paid legal team. I wouldnt want to be the person who had sanctioned the removal of the gate in those circumstances.
And just in case it is not clear; I don't wish to remove access restrictions to all caves on Access Land, just to those caves on Access Land where the restrictions were never put in place for conservation reasons. I am quite happy for access controlling bodies and regional councils to apply for Directions to formalise restrictions where a case can be made to justify them.