Concreting Drws Cefn

[Alkapton]

I was not at the last PDCMG meeting and have only in last few days noticed this thread.

I have looked at the minuets of the last meeting - there is no mention of concreting the entrance to Drws Cefn.  (aside from the CCC letter)

I have not been to every meeting since the connection was made to Draenen but looking at previous minutes I can see no mention of concreting the entrance to Drws Cefn.  I see only a gate mentioned.

I have heard rumors of an intention to concrete the entrance, and had I been at the recent meeting I would have sought clarification of PDCMG's intentions regarding access to Draenen via Drws Cefn. 

What angers me is that it seems to me the PDCMG Committee seem to think they can decide amongst themselves to concrete the entrance without any consultation with member clubs.

A resolution was passed many years ago, almost as soon as the connection was made, giving PDCMG the 'power' to control access to Draenen from any second (or subsequent) entrance.  I forget the exact words but since they are very much what I scribbled on a bit of paper at the time I know what they were intended to mean at the time.  That PDCMG controls access (by any means it sees fit???) not the Committee.

There has been no vote to concrete the entrance.  Cwmbran would certainly have voted against this as would many others.

There has not even been discussion about concreting the entrance at any meeting I've been to since the gate was agreed upon.

If it is true a commercial company has already been approached regarding alterations to Drws Cefn then it is true that PDCMG Committee is acting according to its own agenda.  It is not even interested in the opinion of member clubs as it has never asked the question.

I can have no confidence in such a Committee.  There is a case for the existence of a new CMG that represents the interests of cavers in general, rather than an elite few.

Also.  IT IS IMPORTANT that once a new surface entrance is made to a system, (especially one like Draenen) that it be left open for rescue purposes.  Its existence can save lives and money.

To concrete the entrance to a cave that that is a little bit older than the existence of the PDCMG is an act of vandalism in itself.  Hence the current PDCMG constitution in itself should be sufficient to prevent this happening.

 

[martinm]

What angers me is that it seems to me the PDCMG Committee seem to think they can decide amongst themselves to concrete the entrance without any consultation with member clubs.

A resolution was passed many years ago, almost as soon as the connection was made, giving PDCMG the 'power' to control access to Draenen from any second (or subsequent) entrance.  I forget the exact words but since they are very much what I scribbled on a bit of paper at the time I know what they were intended to mean at the time.  That PDCMG controls access (by any means it sees fit???) not the Committee.

See the access agreement with the landowner of the land where (now 3) entrances (original one gated, 2nd one blocked)  reside:-

http://www.pdcmg.org.uk/PDCMG_lic_red.pdf

Section 2.10. Entrances 2 and 3 are on CRoW land.

PDCMG seem to not be bothered about changing the status quo by possibly renegotiating things with the landowner. Not sure why, but it is being looked into by peeps in the know... The decision of the QC regarding CRow access to caves will be important as a starting point. The plans to block the 3rd entrance have been put on hold by PDCMG (see the minutes) until this opinion has been received. Nuff said. 

 

[Tony_B]

If it is true a commercial company has already been approached regarding alterations to Drws Cefn then it is true that PDCMG Committee is acting according to its own agenda.  It is not even interested in the opinion of member clubs as it has never asked the question.

I can't verify Alkapton's statement, and to be honest I had been trying to keep out of this as much as possible, but...

A few years ago when the Drws Cefn issue first blew up I was, at the time, Chairman of SWCC. When the PDCMG convened a meeting to discuss the matter, an SWCC member asked that the club committee form a view on the issue and brief the club's PDCMG rep accordingly. We held a sensible and reasoned discussion, at which the club rep was present, and took a vote (in SWCC committee) as to how we wanted our vote (at PDCMG) to be used.

After the PDCMG meeting, SWCC took some flak from a prominent member of the PDCMG for voting as we did. Some of that was directed at me personally, the clear implication being that I should have directed the SWCC committee to vote in a particular way. This struck me as a rather odd interpretation of democracy.

 

[RobinGriffiths]

http://www.pdcmg.org.uk/PDCMG_lic_red.pdf

So the owner stated as Pwlldu Conservation Limited is a person who owns the land and has set this legal entity up to negotiate with PDMCG? Am assuming this is the case and is totally separate from PDMCG.

 

[NigR]

The decision of the QC regarding CRow access to caves will be important as a starting point. The plans to block the 3rd entrance have been put on hold by PDCMG (see the minutes) until this opinion has been received. Nuff said.

You need to read the relevant section of the minutes (8. AOB) very carefully. It does indeed say (in two different places) that Chris Seal (CSS rep) "suggested" that no further action should take place before the QC's decision is known. In fact, great efforts were made to persuade the Secretary to agree to this but she steadfastly refused to do so, merely saying (as stated in the minutes) that nothing was likely to occur before then due to the timescale involved. She also went to great lengths to make it clear (again as stated in the minutes) that preparations would continue regardless.

I received the following verbal report from Paul Shea (GOG observer) later the same evening:

"They are busting to concrete Drws, absolutely gagging for it, no chance at all of them changing their minds, CRoW review or not."

 

[cavemanmike]

maybe the pdmcg should get a vote of no confidence by the relevant parties. just a thought

 

[bograt]

maybe the pdmcg should get a vote of no confidence by the relevant parties. just a thought

Who are the relevant parties Are they Here??

 

[martinm]

maybe the pdmcg should get a vote of no confidence by the relevant parties. just a thought

Read the access agreement. The only relevant party is the landowner who owns all the land with the 3 entrances on it. If he won't change his mind there's not much you can do.

PDCMG are using the presence of bats to exclude cavers from new entrances as well, under the excuse that the cavers will disturb the bats. As I've said before if they put another crappy structure in Drws Cefn like the one they placed over the Nunnery (2nd) entrance, that will disturb the bats more than cavers ever will. (Especially given the proven low footfall...) 

 

[Rhys]

(Especially given the proven low footfall...) 

Mel, I agree with the jist of what you're saying, but this "proven low footfall" is not a reliable statistic. Ogof Drws Cefn may well have been open for a while, but its use has never been officially sanctioned by PDCMG or the landowner. Nor has it been publicised as available for use. Most cavers will have respected this situation and stayed away - I've never used it. If the entrance were brought into official use, footfall would quite likely increase dramatically. Through-trippers would use it and diggers/touristers would use it to access the south east areas. More use of the entrance is exactly what Nig et al are trying to promote, after all!

Rhys

 

[Simon Wilson]

(Especially given the proven low footfall...) 

snip..... If the entrance were brought into official use, footfall would quite likely increase dramatically.

Have you got a reason for that?

... More use of the entrance is exactly what Nig et al are trying to promote, after all!

Rhys

Are you sure about that?

 

[braveduck]

If any entrances  to any cave  are concreted shut , it should be done by the land owner, if any cavers are involved ,they should be thrown out of BCA and have their caving insurance revoked !

 

[Badlad]

The PDCMG single entrance policy must be flawed.  The cave is clearly a multiple entrance system and already has three known entrances.  There will probably be more.

King Canute tried and failed to hold back the tide.  I think the PDCMG will fail to maintain a single entrance too.  The tide of exploration is strong and they are up against a cavers desire to explore, without which remember, the cave would never have been discovered in the first place.  The reputation of the cave itself is already tarnished with many years of bad feeling and that is doing no one any good.  Time for someone in the PDCMG to stand tall, swallow some pride and put an end to this bitter divisiveness.  Whoever does this will certainly earn my respect and that of a lot of other cavers too.

 

[graham]

If any entrances  to any cave  are concreted shut , it should be done by the land owner, if any cavers are involved ,they should be thrown out of BCA and have their caving insurance revoked !

Now let me get this right. you are saying that any cavers who are involved in complying with a landowner's wishes on how to manage his caves should be thrown out of BCA.

Is that right?

 

[Simon Wilson]

If any entrances  to any cave  are concreted shut , it should be done by the land owner, if any cavers are involved ,they should be thrown out of BCA and have their caving insurance revoked !

Now let me get this right. you are saying that any cavers who are involved in complying with a landowner's wishes on how to manage his caves should be thrown out of BCA.

Is that right?

You know perfectly well the Braveduck isn't saying that. He thinks that cavers should not be filling caves with concrete.

 

[Ian Adams]

Now let me get this right. you are saying that any cavers who are involved in complying with a landowner's wishes on how to manage his caves should be thrown out of BCA.

Is that right?

Did the landowner stipulate a "wilderness" policy too ?

 

[Peter Burgess]

I blocked an entrance once with concrete. There was a perfectly logical reason for doing so. It stopped a spate of break-ins and vandalism. There was another highly visible entrance, visibility which deterred the idiots, that could be used so access was still possible. Once the attention given to the blocked entrance faded away, the owner was happy for us to install a much better gate which has survived for many years. I don't feel I did anything against the policies of the NCA (as it was) or anyone else. The whole thing was done in collaboration with the owner. Had we not blocked the entrance our way, the owner most likely would have taken a gurt big digger up there and made much more permanent job of it.

 

[Rhys]

(Especially given the proven low footfall...) 

snip..... If the entrance were brought into official use, footfall would quite likely increase dramatically.

Have you got a reason for that?

... More use of the entrance is exactly what Nig et al are trying to promote, after all!

Rhys

Are you sure about that?

I can't predict the future, but I gave some plausible reasons in the post you quoted as to why footfall might increase.

Also Nig has said of Ogof Drws Cefn:

Up until now it has hardly been utilised to even a miniscule fraction of its capacity. Exploration has scarcely begun, never mind being completed.

As well as this, it's being stated that use of the entrance is to be legitimised for the good of all cavers etc. I think the intention is for the entrance to actually be USED! If it is open and legitimised, it will be used.

Anyway, this is silly. My concern was that Mel was quoting a "fact" about proven footfall which is far from proven. It's not her fault; she's been fed a line.

Rhys

 

[Huge]

There's been a fair bit of that in this thread and others about Draenen, Rhys. Along with a lot of total crap, supposition dressed up as other peoples actions/intentions, spin and hidden agendas on the part of the multi entrance lobby.

The single entrance lobby don't post here so don't know if we'd be treated to the same from them.

It's not what their objectives are, I just don't like the way they go about things.

Be careful what you believe people.

Sent from the 'middle ground'. (see one of Ian's earlier posts)

 

[Rhys]

  I think the PDCMG will fail to maintain a single entrance too. 

I think you're right that, in the end, the time will come when the single entrance policy falls. However, at the present time, the constituent clubs that make up PDCMG have voted to enforce that policy - and they have the support of the landowner. Democracy and the current interpretation of the law is on their side.

 

[Alkapton]

OK read the access agreement with the landowner.  Is that meant to justify a little clique concreting an entrance? NO, it definitely does not do that.

It shows that the landowner didn't want entrances added to Draenen (I wonder why) But an entrance has been added.

The landowner was happy for it to be gated, and it was gated for a short time until either Travelers removed it for beer tokens or diggers removed it for access or someone removed it to piss off the landowner enough to get the entrance concreted. 

My point is PDCMG were in compliance with the access agreement only until the gate was removed.  After that time access to Ogof Draenen is completely uncontrolled.  This is certainly against the landowners wishes.

Speaking to the son of one of the landowners the issue is not one of "There shall only be one entrance", it is one of control, of being safe.

The complete failure of PDCMG to replace the gate, the failure to put a log book in the right place with respect to Drws Cefn, the total failure of PDCMG to control access to Draenen just goes to prove how completely incompetent the PDCMG Committee is.

Is this delay just a deliberate ploy to get the landowner so pissed off that "There is only one entrance to Draenen" lobby get to party with concrete again?

No!  we need a competent Management Committee that complies with the landowners wishes.  Not a bunch of University jerks who think that "Wilderness" when applied to a European cave has some actual meaning.  At no time when in Draenen are you more than a mile from another human being.  "Wilderness" means nothing.  What does mean something is SSI.  That means something, it means the place is important.    Wilderness, what is that? Tundra? Antarctica?  The Gobi Desert?  It don't mean a hole in the ground that takes less than a day to reach the furthest point.  We is cavers we don't care about meaningless terms the same way elitist snobs do - we care about reality.