BCA 'referendum' on CRoW

[Bob Mehew]

Sigh.  Obtaining a SSSI is a totally different procedure.  Your experience is irrelevant as much as you might like to suggest otherwise.

I take it from you response you will not be involved in applying for Section 26 Directions, so I don't need to keep you directly informed of my work. 

PS - I may be delayed getting advice out as NE have helpfully just had their web access switched to the ####ing gov.uk portal.  I wonder how many links have been disrupted. Initial look see suggests every bloody one.  Excuse me whilst I go and weep.

 

[Peter Burgess]

If your primary influence for deciding how to vote is the effect on conservation/protection procedures, and I accept that not everybody's is, how can you possibly come to a decision if you do not know whether the potential future process is better or worse than current practice?

 

[Bob Mehew]

If your primary influence for deciding how to vote is the effect on conservation/protection procedures, and I accept that not everybody's is, how can you possibly come to a decision if you do not know whether the potential future process is better or worse than current practice?

I repeat, in my view Graham's experience of his time scale for getting SSSI status is irrelevant to the time scale for the process of getting a Section 26 Direction. 

If a cave does warrant SSSI status, say because it has been newly discovered in a new area, then it is entirely feasible that a provisional SSSI case could be made to get a 'non long term' direction "...normally be decided within six weeks of receipt..." (I cite NE's guidance) thus giving time to get through the SSSI process.  The real problem in such circumstances is, as I see it, diggers keeping their mouths shut for those 6 weeks or so whilst the direction is obtained.  And of course there is always the potential problem that if you approach the authorities with the wrong spirit and get their backs up, then they are not going to be overly helpful and prompt in their responses.  From the reports that I have heard, NE seem quite good in dealing with cavers (especially to those who have been digging without their permission on SSSIs - not the best of starting points).

 

[graham]

I repeat, in my view Graham's experience of his time scale for getting SSSI status is irrelevant to the time scale for the process of getting a Section 26 Direction.

Yet you cannot actually say what the timescale might be for getting a Section 26 direction.

Still if you are searching on .gov.uk this link might be helpful to you. It's quite recent.

 

[Bob Mehew]

Yet you cannot actually say what the timescale might be for getting a Section 26 direction.

Graham you are misrepresenting me yet again.  I said that I would divulge the time scales provided by NE tomorrow.  To stop you making more erroneous claims on this point, the relevant information is:

Application cases must normally be decided within six weeks of receipt unless the relevant authority proposes a long-term restriction, in which case the application must be decided within four months. The relevant authority may take longer where necessary to make its decision, but only with the consent of the applicant.

See Chapter 2.1.10 in RAG V  at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140605090108/http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/RAG%20V4%20for%20website_tcm6-12375.pdf (they switched every web link I had!!!!!!!!!!!!)

 

[graham]

Fine Bob. Can access restrictions be legally kept in place during that four month period? it doesn't take anywhere near that long to trash a cave.

And, as I have noted before, has anyone considered the very important point that shiny pretty stal may have great aesthetic value but little scientific value? Will NE take aesthetics into account before issuing an order?

 

[bograt]

This thread is related to a Yes or No vote, could Graham give a valid and coherent reason why he is so obviously against the proposal?

 

[David Rose]

Graham, it's my business - and the business of this forum - to ascertain when you last went underground and how often you do for a simple reason. Most of us are active cavers. I've been one for more than 40 years, and I love the sport now as much as I ever did. Pressures of work and family mean I don't go caving as much as I would like, but I absolutely consider myself an active caver still. My last trip was to almost - 1000 metres in the Picos, over three days' camping underground, with a lot of pushing a potential (though eventually frustrating) leadi. My next trip will be with my ten year old son and one of his mates to sump 1 in Swildon's over half term. I'm looking forward to that enormously. 

I know there are many younger, harder people out there. But I think I still know what motivates them, for the simple reason it still motivates me. Does "it" still motivate you? I'm not trying to be rude, just work out where it is you're coming from, with all this aggression you seem to have. It's like you want to win a battle, not figure out how we can all be happy - and get better access to our caves.

So, once again, please answer my questions. When did you last go caving? What did you do? How often do you manage to get underground, nowadays?

 

[Rhys]

[gmod]Enough willy waving. Please stay clear of the personal stuff andf stick to the topic. Graham's, David's or anyones caving prowess is not the issue here[/gmod]

 

[bograt]

Nice moderating Rhys .
Totally irellevant Dave, lets concentrate on getting an answer out of Graham as to why he doesn't like the acceptance of CRoW.
He keeps harping on about lack of information, but offers none himself, what doe's he fear?????

 

[Peter Burgess]

Well, over the months that this has been debated, Graham has made it pretty clear where he stands and the reasoning behind it. So unless his thinking has changed, you only need to look back at past contributions. If it matters so much to you, I suggest you settle down with some coffee and have a long read.

 

[David Rose]

Bograt, that is also a very good question. Maybe it's another way of trying to figure out the same thing I was. But I'm heartened that most people seem to want the same objectives I do: both protection of vulnerable sites and recognised rights of access, at the same time. Months ago I posted here suggesting these goals are not mutually exclusive, and that I was sure we could devise ways of ensuring this was the case. I sense that view is becoming widespread. 

 

[droid]

Bograt: if there's a paucity of information, how can Grasham provide it?

And according to Dave Rose, this 'vote' should be entirely superfluous. This thread gets more hilarious by the minute......

 

[David Rose]

No, the vote is important. It will render threads like this superfluous: we'll all finally know what we're talking about.

 

[droid]

I rather doubt that, David......

 

[Bob Mehew]

Can access restrictions be legally kept in place during that four month period? it doesn't take anywhere near that long to trash a cave.

I have already answered that question Graham but obviously you don't wish to recall my posting at 3.15 this afternoon.  So I will repeat The real problem in such circumstances is, as I see it, diggers keeping their mouths shut for those 6 weeks or so whilst the direction is obtained. For 6 weeks insert 4 months.  I am aware of a chamber in a very popular cave whose presence has been known for many years but kept discretely quite to avoid such despoliation.  So it can be done.

And, as I have noted before, has anyone considered the very important point that shiny pretty stal may have great aesthetic value but little scientific value? Will NE take aesthetics into account before issuing an order?

Obviously you have forgotten what is said in the acts.  Section 26(3) of CRoW states The purposes referred to in subsection (1) are? (a) the purpose of conserving ... physiographical features of the land in question....  Sec 28 of W&C act which coves creating SSSIs states Where Natural England are of the opinion that any area of land is of special interest by reason of any of its ...  physiographical features....

And to save me time and counter your next objection, I would suggest any reasonable person would consider 'physiographical' as covering what you derogatorily call 'shiny pretty stal'.  But of course if you present a case which uses the phrase 'shiny pretty stal', then as I said at 3.15 ...there is always the potential problem that if you approach the authorities with the wrong spirit.... 

Fine Bob.

I take it that you accept my posting of 5.06.  Does that extend to an apology for misrepresenting me?

 

[peterk]

The start of this thread had a comparison between this vote and the recent referendum.  From what I'm reading that comparison holds good - polarised views with personal attacks.  Everyone assumes they know the exact views of their opponents and avoids answering direct questions. At what point in the future will "big business" (AKA Landowners) bring their opinions into the argument?

I asked some time ago how "caving is covered by CROW" will be implemented in English Law and I've seen no hint of an answer.  I've resurrected that question because I've been looking at CROW restrictions and their administration and from what I've read I can't see anything changing for years.  In the case of England the reviews of CROW restrictions and their renewal are now started 12 months before the expiry date, the 10 year period between reviews of access land has now been changed to 20 years and the  2013/4 statutory review of the maps of ?open country? and registered common land under section 10 of the CROW Act 2000 has been deferred by regulations for 5 years.  On the basis of those facts I believe/have formed the opinion/think that the government cuts on civil service expenditure have bitten hard on CROW resources and any action to make caving part of CROW will only be taken for near zero cost solutions.

 

[graham]

I asked some time ago how "caving is covered by CROW" will be implemented in English Law and I've seen no hint of an answer.

Thank you, Peter. This is exactly what the pro- camp should be explaining and have thus far manifestly failed to do.

 

[Bob Mehew]

The argument we pro CroW have been putting forward is that all it requires is a statement by NE that it does.  I presume you have read Descent and the link which is also at http://tinyurl.com/pro-CRoW-caving which provides the arguments as to why and also the anti arguments.  There is then a consequential which is getting those caves considered worthy of safeguarding into a legal position.  This could easily be done in tandem so the announcement is made at the same time as the directions being issued.  We claim that the maps which show Access Land already cover the caves beneath the surface.  So there is no need to change anything else, though updating some of the advice would be needed. 

I understand work is in hand by BCA on the land owner front but am not privy to the detail. 

Alternatively as I said months ago, someone takes a civil claim against an access controlling body which will solve the problem one way or other.  There are other alternatives but I won't go there on this forum.

And for what it is worth, Graham has previously brought up some useful points which help in making our pro case.  Which is why I am prepared to answer him on some occasions despite his general tone and misrepresentations. 

 

[badger]

I am neither pro/against, and I do find the against camp especially Graham frustratingly negative ( I try not to get involved in mudslinging as think it is negative, so apologise as it is not intended as such but more how I feel) , or put it another way they have some very valid points but I don't feel they put questions/views across in the right way, however in this situation and the start of this topic I feel Graham has voiced very valued points, we know even locked caves with access procedures are easily vandalised as seen from this forum, I know of a leader led cave that (this is only hearsay from) but it is alleged that a leader was prepared to take a group into an off limits area. we also know that certain well visited caves (swildons) has suffered from extensive caving, so for those concerned with a lack of access restrictions do have valued points that need answering, balance this with those people very frustrated with not being able to get permits to caves, especially it would seem those of Yorkshire.
if we vote yes, I think we need to have in place or the motions in place a list of caves that need some form of access restrictions.