Mark Wright said:Is 'Wholly Natural Feature' a term introduced to cause more confusion? Where did it come from?
Mark
bograt said:Someone may correct me, but isn't Garden Path incorporated into the SSSI?
Mark Wright said:If the landowner has given permission (or not for that matter) then they will be ultimately liable for the cave dig.
Mark Wright said:If the landowner has given permission (or not for that matter) then they will be ultimately liable for the cave dig. The liability is reduced by taking suitable and sufficient steps to remove the hazard with the installation and subsequent maintenance of a suitable and appropriate fence. If the diggers are doing their bit for landowner/caver relations they could take responsibility for the costs and erection and maintenance of the fence unless of course the landowner is a generous one or the local regional council has funds put aside for this.
Mark Wright said:I'm not suggesting that the dig 'reverts to being a natural feature', I'm suggesting (in most cases) its always been a natural feature. At some point in the past the sediments weren't there but it would still have been a natural feature. There are many cave entrances that have been heavily worn over the years by the passage of caving ropes cutting large grooves into the natural limestone feature. Does that mean those entrances are no longer wholly natural features?
Mark Wright said:Is 'Wholly Natural Feature' a term introduced to cause more confusion? Where did it come from?
mmilner said:bograt said:Someone may correct me, but isn't Garden Path incorporated into the SSSI?
yep, indeed it is. Don't think upper entrance is though. (just outside I think.) Jenny recently sent me an email about this, maybe to you too. can't remember atm. Too tired to check, am going bed now, will check tmrw. bysies.(Just hope the neighbours keep quiet now, grrr.)
graham said:]
Edit: Yup just checked again. Assuming the grid reference SK 16508 65982 is correct then Garden Path is on access land. I got that NGR from this page.
bograt said:graham said:]
Edit: Yup just checked again. Assuming the grid reference SK 16508 65982 is correct then Garden Path is on access land. I got that NGR from this page.
So, in this instance at least, NE consider an excavated entrance on SSSI and CRoW to be a natural feature?
We have a precedent.
al said:Not sure what Garden Path has to do with this discussion at all.
Yes it was excavated, but it doesn't constitute a danger to the public as it is locked.
Mind you, I'm surprised where the brown Crow access line is drawn here, as Garden Path is obviously in pasture - I suppose it's to do with the walls and other boundaries.
graham said:Bob, here's a thing. Instead of giving us yet more of your opinions, why not ask a proper lawyer?
al said:Mind you, I'm surprised where the brown Crow access line is drawn here, as Garden Path is obviously in pasture - I suppose it's to do with the walls and other boundaries.
Aubrey said:Just imaging the reaction in a court of law if someone was suggesting a shaft dug using explosives and supported with scaffolding and pipes was a natural feature.
The legal position needs to be clarified !!
Peter Burgess said:Stepping back from the detail, is not liability simply related to something a person has done or built, which differentiates "natural" from "not natural". So any alteration to anything that would otherwise be considered "undisturbed" involves a degree of liability.