CNCC in September

[Bottlebank]

Thanks Glenn, I had seen that but it's a bit ambiguous.

Read with the rest of the document it appears mean additional permit type, not that additional permits will be issued.

The current agreement for Leck Fell says: "Only two clubs per day allowed on the Fell. Written application to the C.N.C.C. three months in advance."

Will this now become two clubs plus one commercial trip per day or will the commercial permit mean ony one club permit is available if a commercial caver wishes to use theirs?

 

[graham]

Bottlebank has a point, this looks like potentially a 50% increase in caver traffic on these fells is being allowed, but only if it is paid for.

If a commercial permit for a given day is not issued, will it be made available to other CNCC members? If so, will they get the invoice as well?

 

[Bottlebank]

I've no problem with a 50% increase, if paid for, or that the extra permit can only be for commercial use.

My concern is that reading the document we were sent if a commercial caver takes up a permit there will be a 50% reduction in the number available to us.

The situation on Casterton isn't such a problem, there are more permits available and obtaining them is now, as someone has mentioned, much easier, and practical than it was.

 

[Glenn]

Which part of;

"The Access Officer checks the availability of the cave entrance with the relevant CNCC meets secretary, if there is availability the Access Officer issues a permit"

is ambiguous?

 

[Bottlebank]

The bit that isn't there and doesn't explain whether the commercial permits are in addition to the existing ones.

It seemed such a simple question? A straight answer would really be appreciated!

 

[graham]

Which part of;

"The Access Officer checks the availability of the cave entrance with the relevant CNCC meets secretary, if there is availability the Access Officer issues a permit"

is ambiguous?

All of it, Glenn. This is not an attempt to be difficult, it is simply a request for clarification. One way of reading this is to see that there is a new - and completely separate - commercial access system for which no more than one permit per day (per entrance) is allowed. This access is charged out by CNCC who subsequently reimburse the landowner.

If that is the case then it satisfies Bottlebank's query as it has no impact at all on the availability of club permits.

It does, however, raise the point that dealing with the invoicing is an additional burden on CNCC's resources and one wonders whether they (CNCC) will be reimbursed for this additional admin from the sums collected.

There is also the subsequent point that, given that an increase in the global number of permits has been agreed with the landowners, if the commercial bods do not take them up on a given date, will they then be made available to the wider CNCC membership? If so, will this be on the same (charged) basis as they were being made available originally? If not, why not, given that it has been agreed that the fells and the caves can handle the additional traffic?

 

[Glenn]

Sorry, I'm really not being vague, but;

"Using the existing structure within the CNCC, the CNCC will administer the additional commercial permit"

means just that, it is an additional permit (for commercial groups), which is in addition to existing permits. Of course, this is just the first stage of the process. The next stage is for the landowners to agree the proposal.

 

[graham]

Ah, I see this has not been agreed with the landowners yet. OK.

Given that these sites are SSSIs what does Natural England say about this significant potential increase in traffic and change of usage?

 

[Bottlebank]

Glenn, thanks for answering the question. That's fine, and all we needed to know!

The proposal and discussion seemed to cover the structure, the payments, the admin and everything but the impact on cavers, which is what had some of us worried.

 

[Alex]

I guess the no novice rule will also have to be replealed as commercial groups normally comprise of novices.

This is probbably good news, I intially got into caving due to commercial groups, we sort of need this sort of thing to boost the numbers to prevent this becomming a dying sport. Yes those that are left will get caves all to themselthes but if hardly anyone is caving then the gear manufacturers would go bust and then were would you get your oversuits from!

I personally will just use one of the less popular entrances as there are plenty to choose from so avoiding the ques would not be a massive deal. (Not like I have had to que in there for years now anyway!)

 

[Glenn]

I guess the no novice rule will also have to be replealed as commercial groups normally comprise of novices.

Alex, please read the proposal.....

 

[Smiley Alan]

Page 22 of the CNCC minutes (September meeting), 2nd paragraph;


"Using the existing structure within the CNCC, the CNCC will administer the additional commercial permit. The procedure will be; commercial group requests from the Access Officer a permit and states the intended group use of that permit using the definitions ?types of commercial caving? appendix A. "

will the commercial group  need to be members of CNCC to apply for a CNCC permit ?

if they wont then does that mean its not far off a time when non-club DIMs will be able to visit CNCC sites ?

 

[Glenn]

Page 22 of the CNCC minutes (September meeting), 2nd paragraph;


"Using the existing structure within the CNCC, the CNCC will administer the additional commercial permit. The procedure will be; commercial group requests from the Access Officer a permit and states the intended group use of that permit using the definitions ?types of commercial caving? appendix A. "

will the commercial group  need to be members of CNCC to apply for a CNCC permit ?

if they wont then does that mean its not far off a time when non-club DIMs will be able to visit CNCC sites ?

Why does no one read the proposal?

The first paragraph describes the creation of a new class of CNCC member club - Commercial Groups. So it's no to your second question. In fact, the concept of the CNCC Commercial Group membership is not new, as it existed prior to the creation of BCA.

 

[exsumper]

GLEN: 2 points from the minutes.
First : Why haven't the instructors and commercial outfits who have been trespassing on Leck and Casterton fells; Jeopardizing access for all! Not had their insurance and CIC certificates revoked by the BCA ?

Second : I trust that the invoices mentioned are for nothing more than a nominal access fee, And for an amount no greater than what a normal club would pay under the present system.  If this is not the case, and the CNCC and BCA intend to propose to landowners that they charge a commercial rate for access to their caves. They'll be real trouble!!!

 

[Glenn]

ALECS, point 1 - that's down to the CIC panel/Training Scheme administrator, certainly not CNCC

Point 2, The landowners view is that if people are making money out of caving on their land, they should pay a realistic price for that activity, and it will ultimately be the landowner that sets that level of payment.

 

[exsumper]

Glen : Nice dissembling :

Point one , I said BCA not CNCC  and by that I obviously meant the BCA organisation that administers such things.
What action have they taken then?

Point two:  Can't believe you, BCA/CNCC can't see the problems with what you're proposing

"And if that lot are paying  me a fortune to visit my cave, Why can' t you scruffy lot."

"My neighbours just  started to charge a fortune for cavers on his land , can't see why you can't pay the same to visit that ole you're digging."

The proposal will be to the detriment of past and future access agreements and non-commercial cavers.

Well done the BCA/CNCC  :spank:

 

[Bottlebank]

Why does no one read the proposal?

I think you are missing the point Glenn, I had read the proposals, and the minutes. You are sitting there having attended the meetings and been involved or aware of the discussions, so you'll be quite clear about exactly what was and wasn't said/agreed etc.

Using the existing structure within the CNCC, the CNCC will administer the additional commercial permit

This could refer to an additional permit or an additional class of permit. The proposals didn't clarify the point I raised, and the minutes suggest more time was spent discussing the purchase of a new saw than they did the effect of this proposal on cavers. Nowhere did it make clear that there would be no reduction in permits to cavers or that additional permits would be issued.

If the CNCC claim to represent cavers it seems odd they should resent us asking for clarification of something they have agreed to or discussed?

 

[graham]

"And if that lot are paying  me a fortune to visit my cave, Why can' t you scruffy lot."

"My neighbours just  started to charge a fortune for cavers on his land , can't see why you can't pay the same to visit that ole you're digging."

I'd like, here, to make the point that one cave on Mendip remains closed because for the last several decades cavers have refused to pay the very large fee demanded of them. Since this issue first arose there has been tacit agreement amongst all who cave on Mendip that we would not take the first step down a road whose end could be clearly seen.

 

[Badlad]

When this issue came up at the June CNCC meeting the discussion centred around a letter that had been sent by a local commercial caver to his MP.  This letter asked why he was prevented from going about his commercial caving work on Leck and Casterton Fells and asked that his MP intervene.  The outcome to that discussion at that meeting, as I understood it, was to suggest that commercial cavers made their own representations to the landowner via their own association.  What happened between the June meeting and the September meeting that changed this position?

If the CNCC are now to represent commercial groups as well as traditional clubs, then is there not a danger of a conflict of interest?

Can I echo the concerns of those who see a potential problem in offering to administer an access fee on behalf of the landowner for commercial groups.  Any landowner is sure to be in favour of this and naturally to press for more.  If two or more commercial groups wish to pay for a permit on the same day will there not be a pressure to 'sell' them one of those normally used by caving clubs.  This is a Pandora's box and should not be opened by the CNCC.

Also requiring careful consideration is the definition of commercial caving.  There are many levels.  Consider a group of cavers from outside the area, Europe, Ireland, down south, they may consider hiring a local cave guide to show them around the best trips in the Dales.  Is this commercial caving? Will they need to pay ?20?

The CNCC should stick with their traditional club representations, concentrate on sorting out their problems with the bolting programme and the BCA and steer well clear of representing commercial interests.

 

[Smiley Alan]

the outcome to that discussion at that meeting, as I understood it, was to suggest that commercial cavers made their own representations to the landowner

i read that BCA said it first and formost ackowledged that landowners have the ultimate say in who does what on their land so surely that means a caving company can go direct to a landowner and make there own arragments and does'nt need to bother with anything CNCC says , specailly if there going to be paying good money ?