Concreting Drws Cefn

[graham]

That's nice. What does the landowner want?

Not entirely convinced that's the only and ultimate point that's relevant...

However, I do seem to be the only one who is addressing it.

As to Robin Griffiths' mention of a landowner being influenced by the 'in group' Frankly this is insulting. It demonstrates nothing more than that certain members of the 'out group' have failed to get their own way and are getting petulant. Whether Mr Griffiths is part of that group or not, I do not know, it is simply that this line is one of theirs.

 

[Simon Wilson]

Their conservation policy is very good but given the fact there has been a second entrance open for several years and no appreciable impact on the cave, maybe now is a good time to re-negotiate the single entrance policy that was written into the original access agreement (14 years ago!) with the current landowner? This seems to be similar to the situation up at Leck/Casterton with apparently no-one willing to approach the estate owners and do similar.... 

This is totally off-topic but I'm following the Crws Defn debate with interest and can't help wondering what this strange statement by Mel is about. Nobody is willing to approach the landowner and do what? Renegotiate a single entrance policy? Renegotiate what?

The CNCC are in the middle of renegotiating the access licence with the owner of Leck Fell and there has been a recent change of CNCC Access Officer which occurred because people were very unhappy with the way the last one worked including his secrecy about his negotiations - we don't know what he was negotiating and he refused to tell us when asked. The new Access Officer has not yet met with the landowner's agent and it might be some time before he does.

Simon Wilson, EPC CNCC Representative.

 

[Simon Wilson]

That's nice. What does the landowner want?

Not entirely convinced that's the only and ultimate point that's relevant...

However, I do seem to be the only one who is addressing it.

As to Robin Griffiths' mention of a landowner being influenced by the 'in group' Frankly this is insulting. It demonstrates nothing more than that certain members of the 'out group' have failed to get their own way and are getting petulant. Whether Mr Griffiths is part of that group or not, I do not know, it is simply that this line is one of theirs.

By the "out group" I assume you mean all cavers other than the roughly four individuals of the "in-group". I think we are justified in being petulant.

 

[Hughie]

That's nice. What does the landowner want?

Not entirely convinced that's the only and ultimate point that's relevant...

However, I do seem to be the only one who is addressing it.

As to Robin Griffiths' mention of a landowner being influenced by the 'in group' Frankly this is insulting. It demonstrates nothing more than that certain members of the 'out group' have failed to get their own way and are getting petulant. Whether Mr Griffiths is part of that group or not, I do not know, it is simply that this line is one of theirs.

As a tenant and landowner, I would wholeheartedly agree with Graham.

 

[Rhys]

Permanently destroying an important natural feature merely because you don't like people cutting across from the public footpath to look at/go into it isn't a proportionate argument...

A natural feature such as a major cave system, a crag, a river, a waterfall has a significance to everyone that extends far beyond the trivialities of what particular sheep farmer happens to control the grazing rights it stands on...by all means control access to it even forbid access to it...but permanently destroy it...an act of vandalism that is beyond the pale...and I shudder to think that there may be cavers that support such an act...

Its the equivalent of draining a lake because you don't want people cutting across your field to swim in it...

I can see no reference to concrete in the Cambrian letter or PDCMG minutes. I don't know what sort of blocking works are planned for Drws Cefn, but suggesting that it will permanent destruction is probably a bit melodramatic.

Rhys

 

[Peter Burgess]

OK - I am not anti-CCC by any means. As a club rep, I do take an interest in what CCC executive does on my club's behalf, and have every right and intention of clarifying anything I think needs clarifying. I hope that is simple enough to understand. I have not forgotten the new executive's stated intention to be more "democratic" - sometimes good intentions can come back to haunt you, and I don't want to see that happen.

 

[Peter Burgess]

And anyway, regardless of all this, is it not the job of Regional Councils, by and large, to step back from clubs and access bodies, and only get involved when invited? Did PDCMG invite CCC opinion on this?

Is this another question that is going to remain unanswered?

 

[Ian Adams]

And anyway, regardless of all this, is it not the job of Regional Councils, by and large, to step back from clubs and access bodies, and only get involved when invited? Did PDCMG invite CCC opinion on this?

Is this another question that is going to remain unanswered?

It was answered here;

2) The CCC took the view that the actions of the PDCMG contravened the constitution of both the CCC and the BCA. Furthermore, it took the view that the actions of the PDCMG were wholly detrimental to cavers in general as well as detrimental to the sport of caving.

 

[RobinGriffiths]

As to Robin Griffiths' mention of a landowner being influenced by the 'in group' Frankly this is insulting. It demonstrates nothing more than that certain members of the 'out group' have failed to get their own way and are getting petulant. Whether Mr Griffiths is part of that group or not, I do not know, it is simply that this line is one of theirs.

Ummm. That was zomjon! As far as I know I'm not in any group - in or out.

Robin

 

[martinm]

Their conservation policy is very good but given the fact there has been a second entrance open for several years and no appreciable impact on the cave, maybe now is a good time to re-negotiate the single entrance policy that was written into the original access agreement (14 years ago!) with the current landowner? This seems to be similar to the situation up at Leck/Casterton with apparently no-one willing to approach the estate owners and do similar.... 

This is totally off-topic but I'm following the Crws Defn debate with interest and can't help wondering what this strange statement by Mel is about. Nobody is willing to approach the landowner and do what? Renegotiate a single entrance policy? Renegotiate what?

Simon Wilson, EPC CNCC Representative.

Sorry, I perhaps wasn't clear with this, (it was late at night), I meant re-negotiate the single entrance policy so it is a multi-entrance policy instead, as there are already 2 entrances and have been for several years. Mel.

 

[martinm]

I can see no reference to concrete in the Cambrian letter or PDCMG minutes. I don't know what sort of blocking works are planned for Drws Cefn, but suggesting that it will permanent destruction is probably a bit melodramatic.

Rhys

Hi Rhys. There is info about getting a commercial quote for works on the  Drws Cefn entrance, info about waiting for the CRoW clarification process but still continuing preparatory work and they have also concreted the previous '2nd entrance', albeit apparently leaving an access hole for bats. (I would really like to see a photo of this.)

This is a nationally important site and I can understand the concern of the PDCMG, but as the letter from CCC shows, they would prefer it to be left open, just gated. Any gate installation will involve concrete or cement dependant on suitability. (I should know, I've installed countless ones.) The original insistence on only a single entrance was down to the landowner of the time the original access agreement was drawn up and signed in 2000. (I have a copy of that.) But things change with time.

 

[shortscotsman]

[I would really like to see a photo of this

It is on the forum  posted by Rhys in
Wales / Re: Ogof Draenen  ? on: April 08, 2010, 11:16:31 am ?

..the link to Rhy's picture is

 

[martinm]

[I would really like to see a photo of this

It is on the forum  posted by Rhys in
Wales / Re: Ogof Draenen  ? on: April 08, 2010, 11:16:31 am ?

..the link to Rhy's picture is

Cool, thanx.  So big enough for a bat, but not big enough to extract an injured caver from this extensive system. Hmm. 2010. A decent gate would have been a better solution. Better for bats, better for cavers. 

 

[NigR]

Regarding the concreting and sealing of the second entrance, here is a jolly account of the fun that was had by those involved (OUCC Depth Through Thought 9.14 16/6/99):

Chelsea Flower Show

On Sunday morning a select handful of landscape gardening enthusiasts assembled on the slopes of Pwll Du to seal the second entrance of Ogof Draenen. The Ground Force crew comprised Ali, Ben, a new MCC recruit, Ian W-J, and muggins here. The main problem was that the entire slope was becoming eroded. Most of the day was spent building a series of grassed terraces, graced with a ring of small hawthorn trees. In a few years, and providing it is undisturbed, it should make a fine shrubbery. One side of the shaft was also collapsing, and this was filled with some rolled up wire fencing and capped with rocks and turf. Making the entire shaft safe would have been quite an undertaking, which we were too undermanned to attempt.

The sealing of the man hole cover, which had been agreed at the last PDCMG meeting, did not take long. A layer of grease on the cover was removed, a new lock was placed, and the recess containing the door was filled with cement, leaving a hole for bats. The entire area was then turfed over.

Of course this work will be very easy to vandalise. The unstable nature of the slope means that anyone with a little determination could break into this entrance again. I hope no-one does.

Chris 'tropical fruit all round' Densham

In reply to Mel's last post:

There is indeed a locked gate as well, it is beneath the concrete and the turf. It is claimed that, in the event of a serious rescue, this entrance could be easily opened up to extract a casualty. Ali Garmin emphasised this at the latest PDCMG meeting, using it as yet another reason why Drws Cefn should not remain accessible to cavers.

Footnote:
For those who might be unaware of the past sequence of events, it could be worth pointing out that the second entrance was opened up by members of CSS, hence the title of the OUCC report.

 

[graham]

As to Robin Griffiths' mention of a landowner being influenced by the 'in group' Frankly this is insulting. It demonstrates nothing more than that certain members of the 'out group' have failed to get their own way and are getting petulant. Whether Mr Griffiths is part of that group or not, I do not know, it is simply that this line is one of theirs.

Ummm. That was zomjon! As far as I know I'm not in any group - in or out.

Robin

My apologies.

 

[graham]

Neither has anyone yet picked up on Andy Farrant's earier mention of 'wilderness': that little-discussed concept, rather than what most would define as conservation, being the reason behind PDCMG's 'only one entrance' [lack of] access policy, as first propounded in the Conservation policy ( http://www.pdcmg.org.uk/envir.htm ).

I agree that this point does need to be more widely debated and better understood.

In caving terms, I can think of a couple of parallels:

One is from the US where back in the day there were serious worries about linking the Flint Ridge system to the 'commercialised' Mammoth Cave. However, in the US 'wilderness' has a technical meaning in law which does not apply around these parts.

The other is Top Entrance to OFD2. It is well-known that quite a number of Welsh cavers regret the opening of this entrance, as it has undoubtedly contributed to the 'wear and tear' that the proximate parts of the cave have suffered since then.

 

[Peter Burgess]

I conclude that PDCMG did not invite the opinion of CCC as Ian has taken the politician's route of either not answering the question or providing an answer to a question that was not asked. Why am I not surprised? I believe it is a fundamental principle of club caving in the UK that clubs and access bodies should be left alone to function as they deem best, without the uninvited nose-poking of regional councils.

 

[Peter Burgess]

The CCC took the view that the actions of the PDCMG contravened the constitution of both the CCC and the BCA. Furthermore, it took the view that the actions of the PDCMG were wholly detrimental to cavers in general as well as detrimental to the sport of caving.

11.6. The Council shall have the right to suspend or expel an Officer or a Member, acting against the Aims and Objects of the Council, or its interests, after full consideration of the case at a meeting. The Member's existing rights and assets in the Council may be forfeited. There shall be the right of appeal to the Council at the next Annual General Meeting.

So, what happens now?

 

[Brains]

The CCC took the view that the actions of the PDCMG contravened the constitution of both the CCC and the BCA. Furthermore, it took the view that the actions of the PDCMG were wholly detrimental to cavers in general as well as detrimental to the sport of caving.

11.6. The Council shall have the right to suspend or expel an Officer or a Member, acting against the Aims and Objects of the Council, or its interests, after full consideration of the case at a meeting. The Member's existing rights and assets in the Council may be forfeited. There shall be the right of appeal to the Council at the next Annual General Meeting.

So, what happens now?

The CCC executive get a vote of thanks for intervening in an act of anti-caver behaviour by some of its members?

 

[martinm]

I conclude that PDCMG did not invite the opinion of CCC as Ian has taken the politician's route of either not answering the question or providing an answer to a question that was not asked. Why am I not surprised? I believe it is a fundamental principle of club caving in the UK that clubs and access bodies should be left alone to function as they deem best, without the uninvited nose-poking of regional councils.

Peter, how can anyone  provide an answer to a question that was not asked? I don't understand this! 

In the Dales and the Peak regional councils ARE the access bodies. Officers of those  regional councils sometimes spend years negotiating reasonable access agreements. I think it's the same for Mendip too. I don't know much about the Welsh access situations, but am learning quickly.

At the end of the day it should be CCC who guides things in Wales. From their web site, (hope u don't mind CCC):-

"The Cambrian Caving Council is the National Association for caving in the Principality, it is comprised of caving clubs or similar organisations therein or organisations with major speleological interests or establishments therein. It represents their interests in Wales, The Marches and the Forest of Dean on a regional basis within the UK context, whilst maintaining its position as an independent autonomous body within the Principality. "

and:-

"It is a Constituent Body member of the British Caving Association of Great Britain, and is represented on its Committees, viz: Executive, Conservation & Access, Equipment, Training, Structure (and Legal & Insurance)."

Therefore I would defer to CCCs opinion and the letter sent to the PDCMG was perfectly reasonable and well reasoned. I suggest seeking the opinion of Natural Resources Wales would be a good idea too.

As I've said b4 this whole area seems as though it should be scheduled as a SSSI.