CROW case: we have won our appeal, and so the Judicial Review proceeds
- Thread starter David Rose
- Start date
Well, I would agree that we have heard far too much about Draenen on here - more than enough twice over. Although I would say we have had many informative posts from people closely involved as well as a load of bitter arguments. I hope Draenen people can sort themselves out and it has been a pleasant break for the last year or so not to have heard much about it.
My point though is that the CRoW campaign is not about Draenen. The rights do not particularly suit that cave. Probably the Law of Property Act 1925 is a better route for the Draenen area (as others have put forward). Where CRoW really comes into its own is in the north where a legal right of access to 71% of the caves in the three Northern Caves guidebooks is the very real prize of a successful campaign. Other areas will benefit in smaller ways but cavers from all regions and areas who visit the north will be assured of the freedoms of access the CRoW Act has enshrined in law.
This is a significant step as we will now have our day in court, but although the case is strong the outcome is never certain.
My point though is that the CRoW campaign is not about Draenen. The rights do not particularly suit that cave. Probably the Law of Property Act 1925 is a better route for the Draenen area (as others have put forward). Where CRoW really comes into its own is in the north where a legal right of access to 71% of the caves in the three Northern Caves guidebooks is the very real prize of a successful campaign. Other areas will benefit in smaller ways but cavers from all regions and areas who visit the north will be assured of the freedoms of access the CRoW Act has enshrined in law.
This is a significant step as we will now have our day in court, but although the case is strong the outcome is never certain.
Stuart France
Active member
Can we discuss the Draenen politics somewhere else please unless there is some genuine link to the CROW legal action. It is not appropriate to connect Ogof Draenen to the CROW judicial review case when Ogof Draenen, none of it, is on CROW Access Land - at least not at the moment.
The last meeting minuted on PDCMG's website was more than two years ago when a decision was taken to hold an EGM to discuss the group's entrances policy. Their agreement with their landowner only covers the original entrance on his private land. The other entrances being discussed above are on Urban Common which is covered by the S193 of the Law of Property Act 1925 for recreational access purposes, not CROW. The group should have held the agreed EGM in 2019 and did not. They held one other meeting that year which is not minuted. Since mid-2019 there have been no PDCMG meetings. It's now 2021 and they keep postponing meetings on the grounds that any meeting needs to done be face to face rather than on Zoom like the rest of the world now does routinely. I'm advised they will attempt to hold a meeting in the summer (of 2021) to discuss actually holding the EGM which was decided upon back in 2018.
What PDCMG needs to do between now and whenever they get round to a meeting is have a think about CROW and what happens if the Welsh Government's Access Reform Programme (the innovation that caving is excluded from and the JR case concerns) persuaded Ministers, and in turn the Senedd, to repeal the LPA recreational access provisions, and couple this to extending the CROW Act to absorb the Urban Common land and thus harmonize it with CROW. And suppose the Welsh Government loses the rejuvenated JR case where it has been claiming CROW does not apply to caving. At that point Draenen really would be on CROW Access Land (except the bits that have always been on private land) because the government would have created enormous new areas of Access Land, and the Courts would have ruled that statutory access applies to caving on CROW Access Land.
At that point is there any need for a PDCMG (or some alternative entity) to remain involved except to be the counterparty for an access agreement covering the first Draenen entrance which will retain its private land status.
The last meeting minuted on PDCMG's website was more than two years ago when a decision was taken to hold an EGM to discuss the group's entrances policy. Their agreement with their landowner only covers the original entrance on his private land. The other entrances being discussed above are on Urban Common which is covered by the S193 of the Law of Property Act 1925 for recreational access purposes, not CROW. The group should have held the agreed EGM in 2019 and did not. They held one other meeting that year which is not minuted. Since mid-2019 there have been no PDCMG meetings. It's now 2021 and they keep postponing meetings on the grounds that any meeting needs to done be face to face rather than on Zoom like the rest of the world now does routinely. I'm advised they will attempt to hold a meeting in the summer (of 2021) to discuss actually holding the EGM which was decided upon back in 2018.
What PDCMG needs to do between now and whenever they get round to a meeting is have a think about CROW and what happens if the Welsh Government's Access Reform Programme (the innovation that caving is excluded from and the JR case concerns) persuaded Ministers, and in turn the Senedd, to repeal the LPA recreational access provisions, and couple this to extending the CROW Act to absorb the Urban Common land and thus harmonize it with CROW. And suppose the Welsh Government loses the rejuvenated JR case where it has been claiming CROW does not apply to caving. At that point Draenen really would be on CROW Access Land (except the bits that have always been on private land) because the government would have created enormous new areas of Access Land, and the Courts would have ruled that statutory access applies to caving on CROW Access Land.
At that point is there any need for a PDCMG (or some alternative entity) to remain involved except to be the counterparty for an access agreement covering the first Draenen entrance which will retain its private land status.
