Browns Folly Quarry / Mine - ongoing deliberate destruction
- Thread starter Brains
- Start date
royfellows
Well-known member
We're off.
Advice again, just stay away.
Advice again, just stay away.
Alex
Well-known member
It sounds like keeping this place clean is a loosing battle, I guess it will be like the paris catacombs now? It seems Brains despite all your work, your efforts seem like they should be best placed elsewhere. How much stress is this causing you. Be done with it, feck em! Not worth your health.
Brains
Well-known member
Thank you for your concern Alex, but I am not the caretaker and am a long way from Wiltshire.
My health is not perfect but that isnt related to this situation - yet!
My concern is that the site is being systematically targeted by "professional" vandals, and the person that does the vast majority of the work is being harrassed and bullied for his endeavours, while the perpetrators are left to continue in impunity. The only response mooted so far has been to let the cack have the place, either as a "sealed" system or just abandoned by those that care. There are numerous entrances, and more could be created quite simply. With it being a bat roost complete closure is not going to happen anyway.
Lots of people must know exactly who is doing this, and implicity supporting it by going to the underground parties. Everyone that drops litter is also contributing even if they dont daub emulsion or spray paint, pull down deads, smash artefacts and generally foul wherever thay can like toddlers that arent toilet trained.
To me, being so far removed, it is of little real significance. It is a venue far from the main caving areas, with little technical appeal other than navigation. It is if major historical importance to the locality and perhaps nationally, as well as being a major roost spot.
If you know the culprits, please persuade them to desist. If it is you, please, move onto something less contentious
My health is not perfect but that isnt related to this situation - yet!
My concern is that the site is being systematically targeted by "professional" vandals, and the person that does the vast majority of the work is being harrassed and bullied for his endeavours, while the perpetrators are left to continue in impunity. The only response mooted so far has been to let the cack have the place, either as a "sealed" system or just abandoned by those that care. There are numerous entrances, and more could be created quite simply. With it being a bat roost complete closure is not going to happen anyway.
Lots of people must know exactly who is doing this, and implicity supporting it by going to the underground parties. Everyone that drops litter is also contributing even if they dont daub emulsion or spray paint, pull down deads, smash artefacts and generally foul wherever thay can like toddlers that arent toilet trained.
To me, being so far removed, it is of little real significance. It is a venue far from the main caving areas, with little technical appeal other than navigation. It is if major historical importance to the locality and perhaps nationally, as well as being a major roost spot.
If you know the culprits, please persuade them to desist. If it is you, please, move onto something less contentious
royfellows
Well-known member
Apologies to Brains as I misjudged the tone of his posting. PMs exchanged
royfellows
Well-known member
I thought it was UK Caving reverting to standard mode.
Maybe a lesson here for us all?
Wayland Smith
Active member
Just trying to think logisticaly here.
Avon Wildlife manage a reserve, on which there are some entrances.
Who owns the mineral rights?
Is there a "mine operator?"
Avon Wildlife manage a reserve, on which there are some entrances.
Who owns the mineral rights?
Is there a "mine operator?"
royfellows
Well-known member
There are entrances on AWT land and some on other land. Mineral rights are tricky as they can be definitive. That is, "all mines and minerals" in a transfer deed would include stone, basically what it says on the tin.
At face value, unless there exists manorial rights, and in the absence of any prior severance, all minerals and mines will belong to the land owner. Land registry search would reveal all.
At face value, unless there exists manorial rights, and in the absence of any prior severance, all minerals and mines will belong to the land owner. Land registry search would reveal all.
crickleymal
New member
I'm not sure. The main access is on land that I don't believe is owned by AWT. Are there mineral rights when it's a stone quarry?
Another thing I would like to see is some sort of preservation order on some of these places. They are as historically significant as a black and white cottage (of which there are hundreds) yet those get listed status and places like this get nothing.
Posted whilst Roy was replying.
Another thing I would like to see is some sort of preservation order on some of these places. They are as historically significant as a black and white cottage (of which there are hundreds) yet those get listed status and places like this get nothing.
Posted whilst Roy was replying.
Brains
Well-known member
crickleymal said:
Another quarry nearby is Ridge / Monks Park. The Ridge section contains a lot of significant WW2 art, but is currently closed by the quarry company. Monks Park may be reopend and used to extract stone, or more likely linked to another quarry (Elm Park?) and used for backfill of waste It would be a crime if Ridge was destroyed...
Some photos of Ridge - FB says should be visible to all even without a FB a/c?
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.350757921714773.1073741862.101523366638231&type=1&l=c12ed554e1
royfellows
Well-known member
All mines and minerals is a catch all definition with "minerals" now defined in law under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which as the last revision. Basically, not remembering the exact words, but anything economically extractable barring peat. Peat generally being taken to mean top soil
So as I previously posted, stone would be included in the above.
Generally, there is a complete freedom of contract in a land conveyance with the legal ability for any kind of rights to be retained by a seller where the purchaser agrees to buy under those terms. This can be minerals, grazing, shooting and fishing, water abstraction, or the right to lay pipes and cables and fibre optics.
So as I previously posted, stone would be included in the above.
Generally, there is a complete freedom of contract in a land conveyance with the legal ability for any kind of rights to be retained by a seller where the purchaser agrees to buy under those terms. This can be minerals, grazing, shooting and fishing, water abstraction, or the right to lay pipes and cables and fibre optics.
dave_the_cave
Member
crickleymal said:
The underground void is not owned by either AWT or Hobhouse. I think AWT only manage their land which is owned by friends of the earth as a result of a gift (from Hobhouse)
The surface land ownership is conditional on access being provided to the underground quarry on their land.
The underground of the old workings was returned to the previous owners from the MOD after the second world war. This was owned by Randall & Saunders but their deeds and records were destroyed in the second world war. Randall & Saunders were taken over by Hanson, who as a result probably own the quarry. But they have never asserted this right nor have taken any responsibility for the quarry.
crickleymal
New member
Just makes it all the more intriguing
royfellows
Well-known member
One thing I can say on a public forum is that the popular entrance, which is closed down to a hands and knees crawl, has had manure, and its also alleged, human excrement dumped in it. However, I take my own advice and have not been near the place for years, so do not know current status. I believe that there has also been some allegations of 'booby traps'.
There are some non public more serious issues.
Here is a parallel thread that clearly demonstrates the level of aggravation:
http://www.darkplaces.co.uk/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=11853
There are some non public more serious issues.
Here is a parallel thread that clearly demonstrates the level of aggravation:
http://www.darkplaces.co.uk/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=11853
popeass1
New member
Well I had quite an interesting conversation with an AWT volunteer yesterday, regarding the situation at browns folly, during which they stated they do infact have part ownership of the underground space, certainly something I've not heard before.
Roy, you say there's certain facts only a few here know, would that be actual facts, ie "a thing that is known or proved to be true." or hearsay and conjecture?
Roy, you say there's certain facts only a few here know, would that be actual facts, ie "a thing that is known or proved to be true." or hearsay and conjecture?
royfellows
Well-known member
popeass1 said:
Unsure of definition of word fact, have to look it up, but this does not fit my definition or my meaning.
Comment on "hearsay"
From a known reliable source, or otherwise colors my judgment, I expect that a lot of people would feel the same.