CROW and the Yorkshire Dales Local Access Forum (YDLAF)

[TheBitterEnd]

Digging is clearly excluded so why raise it at all? But be prepared to address it if it is raised.

It may be worth pointing out in the supplementary information how small a community caving is, compared say to walking and hence the fells are not going to be over run. It may also be worth pointing out the voluntary work, often supported by NE that cavers do - repairs to paths, styles, walls, etc. and removing dumped rubbish from pots.

As was pointed out in the other thread, it may also be worth pointing out that cavers don't ramble all over the place, they just head for the pot and go down it.

There is also the inconsistency of the "Hull Pot Question" - I can go climbing in Hull Pot but not caving.

 

[JJ]

blackholesun a pm has been sent.

JJ

 

[Badlad]

JJ - I'm guessing you sit on the YDLAF and the C&CAG and are a keen caver yourself.  In light of the  positive momentum and (mostly) adult discussion of this topic on this forum could you offer us a measured point of view.  Cheers

 

[Bob Mehew]

I hesitate to put my head into this potential hornets nest but I think this thread is overlooking a key feature of the CROW law.  In simple terms, CROW is about access to "the surface of the land" (my words for emphasis).  As I understand it, the interpretation of law is that the cave is different since it is not "the surface of the land" and thus not covered by CROW.  So whilst you can happily walk up to a cave entrance if it is on CROW land, you will still need permission from someone to descend into the cave.  I predict YDLAF will give you that answer. 

PS - I accept there is going to be an argument over where the surface of the land ends and the cave starts, but if we start trying to debate that line with the person who holds the right to give permission to descend the cave, then we are likely to get a very short answer.

 

[Stu]

Fair point Bob. But even simpler still CRoW is about open air recreation, which may or may not supercede that which is below. Climbing could be a meaningful analogy of a recreation that requires a perverse determination to engage in it.

 

[graham]

I hesitate to put my head into this potential hornets nest but I think this thread is overlooking a key feature of the CROW law.  In simple terms, CROW is about access to "the surface of the land" (my words for emphasis).  As I understand it, the interpretation of law is that the cave is different since it is not "the surface of the land" and thus not covered by CROW.  So whilst you can happily walk up to a cave entrance if it is on CROW land, you will still need permission from someone to descend into the cave.  I predict YDLAF will give you that answer. 

PS - I accept there is going to be an argument over where the surface of the land ends and the cave starts, but if we start trying to debate that line with the person who holds the right to give permission to descend the cave, then we are likely to get a very short answer.

In support of Bob's comment I would point out that as caving is specifically included in the Scottish legislation its exclusion from the English and Welsh version is both intended and will be upheld.

 

[bograt]

Bob, we are working for a definition of "open air recreation" as defined in the act, no reference in the act is to "surface of the land",  Graham, could you give us a link to the Scottish lagislation that mentions caving specifically? and explain in what context it is mentioned?

 

[blackholesun]

Graham, the Scottish legislation came three years later so perhaps they were trying to include activities that they felt were inadvertently left out. Perhaps they wanted to avoid all ambiguity. Do you have any more evidence for your theory than I for mine?

Bograt, the Scottish legislation explicitly allows for caving on open access land. I don't know where, but it is somewhere in http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2003/2

Can we return to the topic? For those who want to pose a question to YDLAF on this issue, what would you like it to be?

We've certainly enough threads to discuss pros, cons and interpretations of CROW.

 

[langcliffe]

Bograt, the Scottish legislation explicitly allows for caving on open access land. I don't know where, but it is somewhere in http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2003/2

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2003/2/notes/division/2/1/1

 

[danthecavingman]

This is heading off topic chaps....

CRoW is about providing access for Open-air Recreation. It has nothing to do with the 'surface' of the land.

I am not going to repeat myself and show you the list (again) of what is specifically restricted. I will not repeat myself (again) by showing the examples of what DEFRA would not consider to be open-air recreation. There is the suggestion that Natural England actually consider pot-holing to be included within CRoW.

Why, why, why, are so many people deliberately trying to sabotage / hinder this reasonable debate by being so flatly negative.

There is increasingly a lot of evidence and discussion gearing toward the possibility (probability) that Caving on access land is covered by CRoW. It has been acknowledged that digging would require the permission of the Land Owner and in the case of an SSSI would require consultation and permission from Natural England as well.
Why, do any of you cavers arguing against this, think that increased access to already open caves will be a 'bad thing'?

The most positive thing I feel that is coming out of this debate, is that before ploughing ahead and claiming right of access for caving through CRoW, interested parties are holding back and seeking guidance / clarification to avoid causing upset.

Can the doom-mongers please stop doom-mongering? What are you scared of? We should embrace our rights to greater access and freedom.

D.

 

[JJ]

JJ - I'm guessing you sit on the YDLAF and the C&CAG and are a keen caver yourself.  In light of the  positive momentum and (mostly) adult discussion of this topic on this forum could you offer us a measured point of view.  Cheers

Your assumptions are correct but a measured response is complicated.

Can I refer back to this thread http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=1039.25 and in particular Rich's comment. The answer to the question put to the National Countryside Access Forum before the full implementation of CROW - "Is caving and potholing open air recreation?" the answer then was unfortunately a resounding No!

Bringing a question to the YDAF would help raise the caving access profile. However the YDAF has little powers and certainly can not change things on the ground. Probably the best outcome of any question would be to persuade the YDAF to write to Natural England and or the Minister responsible to gain clarification on cave access on CROW Access Land.

JJ

 

[Brains]

In support of Bob's comment I would point out that as caving is specifically included in the Scottish legislation its exclusion from the English and Welsh version is both intended and will be upheld.

I disagree entirely, its exclusion was accidental and it will be included - or as some say it is already included implicitly, or it may not. You show a level of certainty worthy of a fundy, not a scientist

 

[bograt]

Bograt, the Scottish legislation explicitly allows for caving on open access land. I don't know where, but it is somewhere in http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2003/2

We've certainly enough threads to discuss pros, cons and interpretations of CROW.

The reason I asked for specifics is that it might provide a precedent to our case if it was beneficial, if, as you suggest, the Scots allow it, why doesn't England & Wales? - a further "string to our bow". After all, Scotland is still part of the U.K. at the moment and they seem to have some good ideas!

P.S. Just read your post Dan Cavingman, With you all the way

PPS. JJ, Could you please provide a link to this "resounding No!" so that we can analyse the Question asked, by whome, and look at those representing those concerned.

To the rest of you, could I suggest that this thread be kept as a sensible plan of action, and that passions and emotions be confined to the other thread?.

 

[georgenorth]

Can I refer back to this thread http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=1039.25

It's good to see that this argument/discussion has moved on in the last 8 years

 

[bograt]

JJ; Just referred back to your link, can't find any sign of a "resounding No" or have I not read it correctly?

 

[Badlad]

Thanks - JJ

I suggest the question shouldn't mention caving specifically at this stage.  Instead try to get to the bottom of why the key phrase 'open air recreation' was used in the first place.  I doubt that the legislaters used that phrase so it could exclude caving.

 

[bograt]

Now I am getting confused about what thread I am on, please refer to my previous post "in the other house".

 

[TheBitterEnd]

It may be helpful to point out to the NYLAF the cumulative and presumably unitended consequence of the permit system which means that there are very few open access all-wether caves (Pikedaw, Mistral). I don't know about the NYLAF but the National Parks Authority certainly has improving access as part of it's remit.

The issue of improving access and encouraging tourism may gain support from some quarters.

 

[Bob Mehew]

Fair point Bob. But even simpler still CRoW is about open air recreation, which may or may not supercede that which is below. Climbing could be a meaningful analogy of a recreation that requires a perverse determination to engage in it.

I suggest CROW is about "Any person is entitled by virtue of this subsection to enter and remain on any access land for the purposes of open-air recreation...".  My point, obviously poorly put, is that by going into a cave you are no longer on the access land.  Whilst I accept I am being negative, I am trying to ensure that you shape the question to avoid possible answers which will not help. 

 

[blackholesun]

Perhaps we could have:

Does the YDLAF think that caving is an activity that would be covered by the CROW act? If it is deemed to be ambiguous, would the YDLAF support cavers in trying to find clarification through contact with N.E. or a relevant governmental contact?