Booking system revamp
- Thread starter CNCC
- Start date
Cavematt
Well-known member
Ed, you are correct that Birks Fell and Hell Hole (both the Stump Cross and the Whitewell one) still have a permit system in place, although permits are easily and quickly available by email. Your previous message seems to suggest they are not available by email. Have you had any issues getting a response to a permit request email for either of these sites?
Rest assured that with access issues now addressed in the core Three Peaks/Three Counties area, the CNCC is now looking to other areas. Birks Fell is a cave that the CNCC know needs to be brought out of the permit system as it is on access land and approached via a public footpath for the best part. There is absolutely no justification for any restrictions on caver access at Birks Fell. The matter has been discussed at a few recent meetings. However, the CNCC would prefer to engage with the landowner initially to achieve a harmonious solution. In the case of Birks Fell, the landowner is the National Trust, so communications may be challenging.
I am sure the CNCC Access Officer has given Birks Fell consideration and it will no doubt be discussed at upcoming meetings (which you are welcome to attend). At the moment however, resources are focused on addressing the rather pressing issues at High Birkwith, which are frustrating.
The CNCC have nonetheless demonstrated (during the recent Langcliffe Estate situation) that if they are not able to achieve a productive discussion with landowners, they will step back from unfair and unwarranted access agreements and will happily endorse open access under CRoW even if this goes against landowner wishes. The decision to do this would be carefully considered on a case-by-case basis.
The CNCC has been accused in the past of working more for landowners than for cavers, but this certainly isn't true today. Let's see what happens with Birks Fell.
My knowledge of the situation at Stump Cross is more limited; but the show cave owners have been extremely amenable over the years and have granted a lot of permissions for digging projects on their land and even in Stump Cross Caverns itself. Therefore, once again, achieving a compromise solution to eliminate permits is far more desirable that a more radical action (at least initially) to avoid complicating other accesses which are not covered by CRoW. I'm sure this is an area that will be looked at in due course.
The CNCC are aware people will visit caves without a booking or permit. Nobody is swooning in shock at such revelations. I don't think this is something they are concerned about about any more; the days of Access Officers getting called into Estate Offices for a telling-off are long gone, as are the myths of CNCC 'permit police'. The primary focus of the CNCC today is achieving maximum/open access with best possible landowner relations along the way. Naturally, the CNCC is going to encourage cavers to support whatever solution they come up with to achieve this.
Rest assured that with access issues now addressed in the core Three Peaks/Three Counties area, the CNCC is now looking to other areas. Birks Fell is a cave that the CNCC know needs to be brought out of the permit system as it is on access land and approached via a public footpath for the best part. There is absolutely no justification for any restrictions on caver access at Birks Fell. The matter has been discussed at a few recent meetings. However, the CNCC would prefer to engage with the landowner initially to achieve a harmonious solution. In the case of Birks Fell, the landowner is the National Trust, so communications may be challenging.
I am sure the CNCC Access Officer has given Birks Fell consideration and it will no doubt be discussed at upcoming meetings (which you are welcome to attend). At the moment however, resources are focused on addressing the rather pressing issues at High Birkwith, which are frustrating.
The CNCC have nonetheless demonstrated (during the recent Langcliffe Estate situation) that if they are not able to achieve a productive discussion with landowners, they will step back from unfair and unwarranted access agreements and will happily endorse open access under CRoW even if this goes against landowner wishes. The decision to do this would be carefully considered on a case-by-case basis.
The CNCC has been accused in the past of working more for landowners than for cavers, but this certainly isn't true today. Let's see what happens with Birks Fell.
My knowledge of the situation at Stump Cross is more limited; but the show cave owners have been extremely amenable over the years and have granted a lot of permissions for digging projects on their land and even in Stump Cross Caverns itself. Therefore, once again, achieving a compromise solution to eliminate permits is far more desirable that a more radical action (at least initially) to avoid complicating other accesses which are not covered by CRoW. I'm sure this is an area that will be looked at in due course.
The CNCC are aware people will visit caves without a booking or permit. Nobody is swooning in shock at such revelations. I don't think this is something they are concerned about about any more; the days of Access Officers getting called into Estate Offices for a telling-off are long gone, as are the myths of CNCC 'permit police'. The primary focus of the CNCC today is achieving maximum/open access with best possible landowner relations along the way. Naturally, the CNCC is going to encourage cavers to support whatever solution they come up with to achieve this.
Birks Fell was one picked at random from the area. As for Stump Cross were aware of show caves are bit special (yes, do rightly need to ask) but there are others on the Stump Cross "patch" that aren't connect to the show cave that are supposed to require permit.
From the CNCC website - for the area in question:
[size=10pt]By Email
adsrah@outlook.com
Where possible, should be sent from an email address associated with your club (e.g. officer@cavingclub.co.uk), or from an address that can be easily validated as being associated to your club (via your club website for example). Other email addresses are fine, but first applications should be accompanied by a letter (an attached scan, or by post), with club letterhead, signed by an officer of the club. This will authenticate the email address for all future permit applications.[/size]
Woud still need to faff around in the first instance
And if you aren't caving as part of a club?
Or if you wake up on Saturday and think -- oh nice dry day - lets go do a local cave......take you longer to get a permit than do the cave.
From the CNCC website - for the area in question:
[size=10pt]By Email
adsrah@outlook.com
Where possible, should be sent from an email address associated with your club (e.g. officer@cavingclub.co.uk), or from an address that can be easily validated as being associated to your club (via your club website for example). Other email addresses are fine, but first applications should be accompanied by a letter (an attached scan, or by post), with club letterhead, signed by an officer of the club. This will authenticate the email address for all future permit applications.[/size]
Woud still need to faff around in the first instance
And if you aren't caving as part of a club?
Or if you wake up on Saturday and think -- oh nice dry day - lets go do a local cave......take you longer to get a permit than do the cave.
Alex
Well-known member
With regards to Birks fell, the only reason the land owner wanted a permit system was "To know who was down there inc-ase someone got into trouble" the reason I know this I happened to meet him and asked him, this was several years ago and for all I know the farm has changed hands since then. However if it's still the same guy, I would think he would be quite up for an electronic system provided he can see it and know someone was down there.
I guess just because someone booked it does not means someone is down there, but the same is true for the old system. Birks Fell should be an easy win.
Nearby, Lancliffe on the other-hand... that's going to be hard!
I guess just because someone booked it does not means someone is down there, but the same is true for the old system. Birks Fell should be an easy win.
Nearby, Lancliffe on the other-hand... that's going to be hard!
Just to bring this back to the OP for a moment. Very well done on the improvements to the booking system. Lot's of people do use it and it does work for both cavers and landowners. It is a very well designed and simple to use system which is essential in encouraging any sort of engagement - keeping all the people happy all of the time.
Matt has put over the CNCC position very well. Birks Fell and other access arrangements are on my radar. Some approaches have been made but no improvement to report yet. Covid and a high workload at the moment has meant that I haven't been as active as I would normally be. Certain caves, such as Robinsons and Stump Cross, are always going to require some form of formal access arrangement. My job, our job at CNCC, is to make that as simple and as open as possible - to find the least restrictive arrangement which meets the need of all parties.
Cheers
Tim
CNCC Access
Matt has put over the CNCC position very well. Birks Fell and other access arrangements are on my radar. Some approaches have been made but no improvement to report yet. Covid and a high workload at the moment has meant that I haven't been as active as I would normally be. Certain caves, such as Robinsons and Stump Cross, are always going to require some form of formal access arrangement. My job, our job at CNCC, is to make that as simple and as open as possible - to find the least restrictive arrangement which meets the need of all parties.
Cheers
Tim
CNCC Access
Just to clarify on Birks Fell. The landowner is the National Trust and the occupier is a tenant farmer. The last time renegotiation was tried was by my predecessor just before I took over. The NT consulted with the tenant who still wanted cavers to use the old access system. Rather bizarrely we were able to negotiate a six month close season down to a different two month closed season.
When we re-engage here I am fairly confident that the days of a permit system are numbered.
Cheers
When we re-engage here I am fairly confident that the days of a permit system are numbered.
Cheers
