Concreting Drws Cefn
- Thread starter NigR
- Start date
Peter Burgess
New member
Mel - July 4th, 8:45. I refer you to my signature.
Did PDCMG invite CCC opinion on this? No. Don't worry, the answer is pretty obvious.
There is the potential here for a bit of a can of worms being opened. If a club (rather than an access group) have, through agreement with an owner, an obligation to look after an entrance which at some time might involve an unfortunate reduction or loss of caver access, will the CCC write a letter to them as well? Given that the club may only have the option of limiting use or having the place blocked if they don't? I refer readers to the question of whether owners' considerations are being ignored.
It is a very risky thing for a regional council to get involved in a club's or an access body's decisions if they haven't been invited to do so by that body.
Forget Drws Cefn for a moment, and put your own club in the unenviable situation of being pushed against your better judgement to either question the owners' requirements, or face hostility of cavers who aren't interested in your agreements with owners.
I suspect very few of those contributing here (including me) can be certain of what may or may not be possible here, but isn't it so easy to just criticise and show righteous indignation on what is unfolding?
Don't get me wrong - the loss of an entrance is not something I like seeing happen in any way.
Did PDCMG invite CCC opinion on this? No. Don't worry, the answer is pretty obvious.
There is the potential here for a bit of a can of worms being opened. If a club (rather than an access group) have, through agreement with an owner, an obligation to look after an entrance which at some time might involve an unfortunate reduction or loss of caver access, will the CCC write a letter to them as well? Given that the club may only have the option of limiting use or having the place blocked if they don't? I refer readers to the question of whether owners' considerations are being ignored.
It is a very risky thing for a regional council to get involved in a club's or an access body's decisions if they haven't been invited to do so by that body.
Forget Drws Cefn for a moment, and put your own club in the unenviable situation of being pushed against your better judgement to either question the owners' requirements, or face hostility of cavers who aren't interested in your agreements with owners.
I suspect very few of those contributing here (including me) can be certain of what may or may not be possible here, but isn't it so easy to just criticise and show righteous indignation on what is unfolding?
Don't get me wrong - the loss of an entrance is not something I like seeing happen in any way.
droid
Active member
Seems to me that there's a fundamental lack of trust between the Access group and CCC executive.
The Access group have come up with a solution to a problem; CCC don't appear to recognise a problem and reject the solution.
Have CCC been involved in any negotiations with the landowner? Do they know ALL the facts/problems?
Often, in solving a problem, a certain amount of pragmatism and compromise is needed. Something that is noticeably lacking in the 'Free Access for All' lobby.
The Access group have come up with a solution to a problem; CCC don't appear to recognise a problem and reject the solution.
Have CCC been involved in any negotiations with the landowner? Do they know ALL the facts/problems?
Often, in solving a problem, a certain amount of pragmatism and compromise is needed. Something that is noticeably lacking in the 'Free Access for All' lobby.
martinm
New member
droid said:
Sigh, the PDCMG were forced into the current situation. (An access agreement signed in 2000 by the then landowners.) I believe the landowners have now changed. CCC are trying to relax the access terms in a very reasonable way. Was gonna say more, but I've got C&A work to do up the Peak, so I haven't got time for this. I will talk to the CCC C&A officer about things when I get back.
Have fun arguing...
Rhys said:
You can call me pedantic if you like, but Cambrian CC doesn't have a C&A officer. According to the constitution, the title is Conservation officer.
[/quote]
That is true, Rhys.
However, I know for a fact that the present incumbent left his home at 7.45 a.m. last Sunday and travelled 80 miles down to West Wales specifically to sort out an access related problem, the results of which will be of benefit to all cavers. Are you suggesting that he should not have bothered simply because of his constitutional title?
Simon Wilson
New member
droid said:
There is no "'Free Access for All' lobby". We almost certainly have the vast majority who want to know what the law is and for all to stay within the law - that is all there is to it. You are deliberately misrepresenting the situation.
Peter Burgess
New member
There are the "free access" Taliban and the "free access" diplomatic corps. I imagine the latter get very p'd off by the former. Anyway, this time CRoW is a diversion from the topic.
Martin Laverty
Member
Peter: CRoW is very much on-topic for Drws Cefn and the 'landowner': the current 'landowners' have leant heavily of the advice of PDCMG, bolstered by the dubious advice from BCA which has now been removed. If PDCMG do not appraise them of developments, perhaps CCC should.
Graham: Wales might take into account the mixed messages from DEFRA, but I think you are very much in the minority in thinking the situation is clear in England, let alone Wales. The Welsh Government has it under review...
Rhys: CCC has been moving away from its old disavowal of direct interest in access for some time, so your comment on lack of a Conservation AND ACCESS officer does indeed seem pedantic. I applaud the change in approach.
Graham: Wales might take into account the mixed messages from DEFRA, but I think you are very much in the minority in thinking the situation is clear in England, let alone Wales. The Welsh Government has it under review...
Rhys: CCC has been moving away from its old disavowal of direct interest in access for some time, so your comment on lack of a Conservation AND ACCESS officer does indeed seem pedantic. I applaud the change in approach.
Peter Burgess
New member
Regional bodies, or at least CSCC, have been active in access matters for quite a while. I should know as they provided some funding for WCMS for entrance works a few years ago, which was very welcome. But that was by invitation; their involvement was not by imposition, or by them taking some form of moral high ground.
Brains
Well-known member
Just a quick thought... Perhaps matters might be easier (yeah, right ) if the body believed to be acting out of line by CCC (and a significant number of cavers) were called an access group, as opposed to a management group?
Perhaps CCC would vote to suspend the group, or constituent members, if they were deemed to acting contrary to the raison d'etre of the council?
For the record, are these entrances on CRoW land or not?
What are the current landowner views or reassesing the old agreement, especially in view of the remarkably low numbers of visits recorded?
How difficult is enlarging or merging SSSI?
Dependent on the QC's response, how difficult are the measures for exclusion under CRoW to put in place?
) if the body believed to be acting out of line by CCC (and a significant number of cavers) were called an access group, as opposed to a management group?Perhaps CCC would vote to suspend the group, or constituent members, if they were deemed to acting contrary to the raison d'etre of the council?
For the record, are these entrances on CRoW land or not?
What are the current landowner views or reassesing the old agreement, especially in view of the remarkably low numbers of visits recorded?
How difficult is enlarging or merging SSSI?
Dependent on the QC's response, how difficult are the measures for exclusion under CRoW to put in place?
Peter Burgess
New member
Well, Brains, here are the respective lists
http://www.cambriancavingcouncil.org.uk/member_clubs.html
http://www.pdcmg.org.uk/com.htm
So who is at risk of suspension, by way of your suggestion? And if a club that opposes the blockage wanted to remain in CCC would they be best advised to leave PDCMG?
Be careful what you wish for!
http://www.cambriancavingcouncil.org.uk/member_clubs.html
http://www.pdcmg.org.uk/com.htm
So who is at risk of suspension, by way of your suggestion? And if a club that opposes the blockage wanted to remain in CCC would they be best advised to leave PDCMG?
Be careful what you wish for!
Martin Laverty
Member
Peter: There used to be a complete spectrum of involvement in access by regional councils from the CNCC - set up exclusively to mediate access - to CCC - renouncing any involvement; the DCA seems to have been a happy medium. Meanwhile, most cavers didn't really know but, not unreasonably, probably assumed (as BCA seems to have, too) that they could all act similarly, and on any topic involving caves and cavers in their region. Anyway, back on topic...
Still little discussion of the wilderness conservation concept applied to Draenen in their little-read Conservation Policy and Guidelines [ http://www.pdcmg.org.uk/plancons2003.htm ]
Graham pointed out that this seems to be largely a transatlantic import (along with the example of OFD, which is highly debateable), and Wikipedia gives a good summary of the concepts as discussed for the surface [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilderness ]. What is not emphasised there is the idea of remoteness, which I think is what its proponents in PDCMG espouse - their stand would have all entrances to the Three Counties system blocked except for Low Douk. Would that be reasonable?
Another parallel some have suggested is the climbing community leaving some crags without any fixed aids - ie maintaining a psychological edge (there is an aesthetic appeal too, I suppose) - in this case through physical endurance required to get to the far reaches rather than explicit risk. Is that desirable?
But the last paragraph of the Wikipedia article perhaps sums up (for avoidable voids like Draenen) one extreme while skewing the other when it says: "applying any control to define nature unavoidably voids the very freedom and independence of human control that defines wilderness"
Still little discussion of the wilderness conservation concept applied to Draenen in their little-read Conservation Policy and Guidelines [ http://www.pdcmg.org.uk/plancons2003.htm ]
Graham pointed out that this seems to be largely a transatlantic import (along with the example of OFD, which is highly debateable), and Wikipedia gives a good summary of the concepts as discussed for the surface [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilderness ]. What is not emphasised there is the idea of remoteness, which I think is what its proponents in PDCMG espouse - their stand would have all entrances to the Three Counties system blocked except for Low Douk. Would that be reasonable?
Another parallel some have suggested is the climbing community leaving some crags without any fixed aids - ie maintaining a psychological edge (there is an aesthetic appeal too, I suppose) - in this case through physical endurance required to get to the far reaches rather than explicit risk. Is that desirable?
But the last paragraph of the Wikipedia article perhaps sums up (for avoidable voids like Draenen) one extreme while skewing the other when it says: "applying any control to define nature unavoidably voids the very freedom and independence of human control that defines wilderness"
Peter Burgess
New member
Thank you, Martin.
