Caves and Housing Developments

[cap n chris]

Originally Posted by Alasdair Neill, 23-10-10

There are currently proposals for a major housing development in a disused quarry containing caves which for the area are fairly significant, but to which there has never been any formal access. Any suggestions whether there is any scope in trying to secure future access through the planning process? At least if it went ahead there should be no danger of the caves being lost, even if there is no access.

<moderation note: split OP into two separate topics as both questions were suitably disparate to deserve it>

 

[cap n chris]

Response to OP by Graham, 23-10-10

Any chance of an SSSI designation? Does their existence impose any planning constraints, on the positioning of buildings, etc.

 

[mrodoc]

Would this development be in the P|ymouth area by any chance? Devon Caves are vulnerable. Rocky Acres cave currently being dug is in a quarry at Kingsteignton that's slowly being built upon. I am hoping the location of the dig entrance makes development over it unlikely.

 

[SamT]

Hmm - I can think of two housing developments bu ilt over caves/mines. The big one in buxton built in the 80's I think, access was lost to the caves there via tonnes of concrete being poured down them so I've heard despite protestations of the local caving activists.

More recently, the new development in Eyam on the site of the old Glebe mine. Access to the main shaft was lost despite attempts at  negotiations from J Beck et al.

I wouldn't hold your breath, I suspect the money and political wrangling involved in housing development goes way  over the heads of 'pesky' cavers. Developers investing millions are not going to want muddy cavers traipsing about their nice shiny  new housing estate.

You can try. Get folks like Natural England onside and you may have a chance.

 

[mrodoc]

Any more on this thread. Am interested.

 

[gus horsley]

Are any of the caves archaeological sites or contain bats?  Both would offer them some sort
of protection but not necessarily access.

 

[graham]

Are any of the caves archaeological sites or contain bats?  Both would offer them some sort
of protection but not necessarily access.

Nothing can guarantee access except ownership.

 

[Maggot]

Isn't Pen Park Hole (Bristol) under a housing estate as well?

 

[graham]

Isn't Pen Park Hole (Bristol) under a housing estate as well?

No. the housing estate was, quite specifically, planned to avoid being over it, cos it's quite a large void with a thin roof. After the survey was done in the 1960s a couple of, fairly small, areas were declared out of bounds for building by the planners. the bit over the main chamber isn't even allowed to have a car park on it.

We do have access to it, but that came after nigh on 10 years of quiet steady negotiation with the City Council.

Couple of years back a mobile phone company wanted to put a mast on the road side there. A further bit of survey work and radiolocation work by us and they moved their mast a short distance further down the road to avoid any problems.

 

[SamT]

http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=10976.0;topicseen

Could the stories in the thread linked above not provide good strong argument against housing developments above known areas of 'cavity'