• Publication week for Descent 296

    'Having just come back from expedition jetlagged and pushed for time, I thought adding eight extra pages to Descent would be the best way to get back into the swing of things. I hope you'll all find that the extra hours were well spent'.

    Click here for more details of what's in the next edition

Draenen & PDCMG


Active member
In that case, surely all the other landowners have a 'right' to their own entrances? Presumably there could be legal difficulties with accessing the original bits of Draenen if the first landowner wished to insist on his right to control access to the cave under his land, though it's hard to see how that could be enforced without blocking passages (a bit like blocking entrances though it feels even worse....)


I hope anyone interested in the currently kniown Ogof Dreanen or its potentially huge southwards extensions will attend.

Here are the sections of the PDCMG constitution that will govern this meeting:

6.5 An Extraordinary General Meeting may be called to discuss specific issues of importance to the Group. Extraordinary Meetings shall be
exempt from Clause [insert number]. ...

I do not know what other clause was intended to be excluded by Clause 6.5.
I've noticed the missing clause before and wondered. After doing some digging through the past minutes I'm pretty sure it's meant to reference Clause 6.9. See the minutes from 18 June 2011 (https://pdcmg.org/?mdocs-file=139).

Clause 6.9 states the order of business of AGM but clearly this wouldn't be needed for (typically one topic) EGMs.



Active member
I think that the landowner has "requested there be a single entrance". To what extent that has or has not been suggested to him I know not.
When Draenen was first opened up, the land was owned by the Coal Authority. Before an access agreement was later signed, their view seemed to be to keep things unofficial so that if there were some kind of incident, they could deny any knowledge that cavers were crossing their land. Cavers had been wandering around that land for more than 30 years (a least) by that point, discovering caves, digging open caves, surveying caves etc! The only proviso mentioned was 'Don't go digging any more holes on our land.' Of course, Draenen had an open entrance when first investigated by cavers in the '60s so was never a surface dig. The no digging on the land policy was later included in the access agreement.

At the time the cave was first opened up, the current landlord grazed sheep on the land, with the agreement of the Coal Authority. Some months after the breakthrough, he discovered a surface dig on the land. I had a look at it at the time and it was very minor, just a few clods of earth pulled back in a small depression. He was very unhappy with it though and told us that if he came across any more digging, he would make sure the Coal Authority refused cavers permission to cross the land to access the cave. This was well before the PDCMG or a single entrance policy had even been thought of.

Of course I'm not saying that some cavers haven't played up these no digging/opening up new entrances, wishes of the landlords.


Active member
Is all the land overlying the cave owned by the same person?
No but the area of Draenen where known passages come close to the surface and where all the entrances have been opened up so far, is all under land owned by Pwll Du Conservation Ltd.

The vast majority of the cave is deep under the surface or in other areas, passages stop well short of the valley sides.


Active member
No but the area of Draenen where known passages come close to the surface and where all the entrances have been opened up so far, is all under land owned by Pwll Du Conservation Ltd.

This is largely but not completely true. By coincidence the outcrop of the main limestone over or near the presently known cave does mainly fall within land owned by Pwll Du Conservation Ltd and the currently discussed entrances are all on this land. Another promising area is on land owned by a shareholder in Pwll Du Conservation Ltd; presumably the same restrictions would apply. A somewhat less promising area is an SSSI.