Drws Cefn- the next instalment?

[Wayland Smith]

But parts of Draenan pass under land owned by other people.
Also land not controlled by P.D.C.M.G.
So another new entrance is quite possible (and I believe being looked for.)
Even if the current land owner removes access permission other things are quite possible.

 

[Clive G]

For the sake of repeating myself, Drws Cefn was dug open when the land was owned by the Coal Authority, back in the late 1990's. It was much later that it was connected to Ogof Draenen. This important distinction was not clear in the recent Descent article.

Personally I don't think Drws Cefn is the right place for a legal challenge, as we risk jeopardizing access to one of our longest and best caves if the judgement goes against us. There are plenty of other sites on access land where the legal status could be challenged. This whole sorry saga appears to me to be far more about individual egos than the best interests of cavers.

Eighteen months after I dug open the way into the 1984 extensions in Daren Cilau, having heard that the Duke of Beaufort had requested copies of surveys of the new finds, I had a telephone conversation with his land agent, M.J. Dawson, about the new discoveries and followed this up with a letter dated 15th April 1986, which M.J.D. replied to on 18th April.

My parting shot was: "I might add that my interest is spurred from a feeling of personal concern and responsibility that having discovered something of such great interest and value that its future use should be open to as many people as possible, whilst leaving the essence of its character intact."

This we have achieved with Daren Cilau through retaining the difficult nature of the most convenient entrance passage to the further reaches of the system, not involving a long technically-demanding cave dive.

The point here is that you can dig caves anywhere where limestone abounds, but a landowner may have certain paths he wishes visitors to keep to and features, buildings, crops or archaeological remains that he wishes to protect by keeping visitors at a safe distance. He may also develop an interest in creating a show cave accessed via his land. Those who don't actually own the land can only discover the existence of such factors through consultation and dialogue with the landowner.

So, did those who dug open Drws Cefn from the surface (there was no cave there at all at first) subsequently discuss their find with the landowner (Coal Authority, or otherwise), to regularise and confirm the acceptability of what they had done on private land, without permission? Even the CRoW Act does not automatically authorise cave digging on open-access land without the agreement of the landowner. So, what was the response of the landowner in the case of Drws Cefn? Did the landowner make any stipulations - which only the landowner can remove, if he so wishes?

The point being made in a posting above about those supporting CRoW access to caves needing to support this specific legal action in respect of Drws Cefn/Ogof Draenen is utterly spurious and, if not naively proposed, politically motivated.

There is a long-established cave management body for Ogof Draenen which has the full support of the landowner and also a good many cavers. This is no different than the situation with the cave management of Ogof Ffynnon Ddu and I don't think there is any reasonably-minded person who would go around and start proposing a legal action in respect of 'open access' to OFD.

No, this is simply and plainly an unbridled attempt to unsettle the current Ogof Draenen Cave Management Group and so if you're in the 'club' that seeks to do these sort of things (for whatever reason that escapes me) and would like to replace the existing group with a different management group, comprised of different 'selected' people (whoever these might be), then wade in and give your support - at least be honest and open, rather than secretively deceitful, about what you are attempting to do.

However, if you support the OFD cave management structure then what justification is there for being hypocritical and unsettling the current Ogof Draenen cave management arrangements?

Actually, come to think of it, there were one or two people around trying to unsettle things in BCRA when the access to Ogof Draenen was first being arranged with the Coal Authority and support was sought - so I've been quite aware that, in relation to people who like to be in control of affairs behind the scenes, there has been an 'undertow' operating in respect of Ogof Draenen for a long time.

Respecting the fact that some caves need to be managed (and Ogof Draenen has been managed for a good many years with notable success), not only for keeping out those that would harm themselves or the cave, but for the proper management and servicing of technical fixed aids inside the cave and the coordination of scientific studies within the system, apart from taking decisions to help conserve the cave system for future generations of cavers, is not incompatible with seeking to have the CRoW Act clarified such that automatic access to non-managed, open-access caves - naturally existing or dug open with the landowner's permission (current or retrospective) - is guaranteed. 

 

[Madness]

My personal opinion is that any 'test case' relating to the clarification of CRoW should not involve a cave system that was dug and entered without the landowners permission. I think the issue with this particular cave should be put on the back burner until Tim Allen and the BCA have had a chance to do their stuff.

 

[cavermark]

My personal opinion is that any 'test case' relating to the clarification of CRoW should not involve a cave system that was dug and entered without the landowners permission. I think the issue with this particular cave should be put on the back burner until Tim Allen and the BCA have had a chance to do their stuff.

Makes sense to me too.

 

[David Rose]

The issue of whether permission was granted for digging in the 1990s is not relevant to the CROW point. The cave is there, it is open, and it is on CROW access land. The small number of trips into Drws that have been taking place aren't causing harm.

I have publicly stated my own hope and wish that the whole CROW issue could be decided by persuasion, without recourse to the courts. Unfortunately thus far DEFRA, NE and NRW have shown themselves to be intransigent and unreasonable, unwilling to budge an inch from a legally perverse position - that cavers can enter systems on access land freely as far as the daylight ends, but can go no further.

Meanwhile, I am told, there are proposals to prevent access to Drws Cefn, supported by some cavers. In my view (and some of them are my friends) their position is very wrong. Sometimes one cannot be selective about where one has to stand and fight. The choice in such circumstances is to struggle or capitulate. It is beginning to seem that this litigation may simply be unavoidable. If so, I for one will support it both in terms of the general principle and in relation to this particular cave.

 

[Brains]

AFAIK the coal board retained the mineral rights at the time of sale, therefore it can be reasonably argued that the present landowner is irrelevant to underground exploration or perhaps even surface digging.

If the cave was already (dug) open BEFORE the CRoW act became law, then that issue may prove to be a red herring.

With the current legal process, to wilfully block the entrance could be seen as contempt of court, being a malicious attempt to circumvent the law?

IMO a quick resoloution is the best way forward...

 

[martinr]

....

With the current legal process, to wilfully block the entrance could be seen as contempt of court, being a malicious attempt to circumvent the law?
.....

With respect, that is nonsense. It hasn't reached court*, there can be no contempt.

* AFAIK

 

[NewStuff]

They have, as I understand it, been given notice of the intention to proceed with the legal avenue. I would think any concrete would need to be kept firmly in the mixer until the legal proceeding are finished.

 

[cavermark]

I have publicly stated my own hope and wish that the whole CROW issue could be decided by persuasion, without recourse to the courts. Unfortunately thus far DEFRA, NE and NRW have shown themselves to be intransigent and unreasonable, unwilling to budge an inch from a legally perverse position - that cavers can enter systems on access land freely as far as the daylight ends, but can go no further.

My impression was that the "official" negotiations via the BCA were in early stages and that a softly, softly, considered approach was being followed. Which has by no means reached a dead end yet...

 

[David Rose]

There are no official "negotiations" as such - only a BCA lobbying effort led by Tim Allen which has been very effective in building support from other outdoor bodies, MPs etc, and which will continue. All cavers should be grateful for the many hours' effort he and others have been putting in.

Even if the Drws situation does end up in court, then this campaign will continue. The two are not mutually exclusive. 

 

[Badlad]

Dear all

The BCA campaign for CRoW to apply to recreational caving is progressing very well, as has been reported to Council meetings and on this forum.  As the BCA is but a minnow in the outdoor recreational sector, the strategy is to gather wide support from other organisations in order to influence and bring pressure for change on those in authority.  I believe this is also very positive for British caving and regardless of what happens at Drws Cefn these efforts will continue.

The BCA is very unlikely to pursue the legal route.  It would not want the financial risk let alone taking account of the many other considerations.  If it did choose to make a legal challenge I doubt very much that it would make it over the Drws Cefn/Ogof Draenen system.  This is a cave which is subject to a bitter dispute between cavers which has been escalating for many years drawing more and more people and organisations into it.  It reflects very badly on British caving and is the responsibility of ALL those who have actively contributed to the situation. 

If BCA did decide to mount a legal challenge I would recommend they chose a cave where cavers were in agreement, where the landowner was broadly supportive or at least ambivalent and where the authority had expressed a sympathy with the national association's view. 

Having said that, judicial review is the legal right of every UK citizen and NGO if they feel that a decision taken by a local authority should be challenged.  Those challenging NRW are perfectly entitled to do so and whether the BCA, NRW, PDCMG, the landowners or anyone else doesn't like it, they seem to have all missed the opportunity to do anything about it now.

If the judicial review process goes through to a conclusion I hope that it brings a positive result and that those involved get what they are wishing for.

 

[tony from suffolk]

I have publicly stated my own hope and wish that the whole CROW issue could be decided by persuasion, without recourse to the courts. Unfortunately thus far DEFRA, NE and NRW have shown themselves to be intransigent and unreasonable, unwilling to budge an inch from a legally perverse position - that cavers can enter systems on access land freely as far as the daylight ends, but can go no further.

... And it's difficult to imagine a more perverse and utterly ridiculous stance, only possible by being concocted by civil servants desperately scrabbling around to justify their completely untenable stance on this. I mean, how unbelievably crass can you get?

I've been dealing with this stuff all my working life. Just watch what happens when the judiciary beams in and brings logic to bear. They'll all scuttle off back to their little holes and plead ignorance.

 

[Rhys]

As I understand it, the digging was not on the surface but underground, in order to connect Drws to the main Draenen system. Digging already takes place underground in many caves without the permission of the landowner who happens to own the entrance, on both CROW and non-CROW land.

Ok, I hadn't realized that it wasn't a surface dig.  My point about needing landowner permission (and therefore goodwill) for surface digs still has some relevance I feel.

The following quote suggests that Drws Cefn started as a surface dig.

The entrance to Drws Cefn is a completely natural feature (a small vertical pothole) that became infilled with glacial deposits at the end of the last ice age. These deposits were then removed to reveal the open cave passage which lay beneath. Further on, this passage was indeed enlarged artificially during the course of its exploration but this is no different to what you find with many caves, including the original Ogof Draenen entrance.

 

[David Rose]

If CROW were recognised as applying to caves, would the past removal of some glacial infill from a natural entrance mean that this entrance would not be covered by the Act's provisions? I very much doubt it. Consider: a climber might well removes loose flakes or trundle boulders from a new route before making the first ascent. If the crag were on CROW access land, would this make any difference? I don't think so.

I think this argument over the history of Drws Cefn is irrelevant now. As I said before, the cave is there. It exists and is open. If CROW applies to caves, then that is how it should stay. The same should apply to many other entrances on CROW land from which infill was once removed.

 

[Simon Wilson]

In addition, people have been filling in caves for thousands of years. So a great many digs are the reopening of caves which where naturally open in the past.

 

[Rhys]

David and Simon

You are both effectively saying that if CROW applies to caving, then it also gives a right to surface cave digging. It has generally been agreed that this would not be the case.

Perhaps the judical review might consider this point.

 

[droid]

David seems to be talking about past removal of fill, Simon about future removal.

Two different things.

 

[Alex]

I think they are saying it applies to caves already opened now but would not apply to anything opened in the future, once and if the act is re-interpreted. There is also SSI permission for digs needed.

 

[David Rose]

Yes, Alex, that is what I am saying. In my opinion, this is the only reasonable approach. If it were held that CROW did not apply to caves that had once been dug open, imagine the situation with a system such as Gaping Gill - where some entrances have always been open, and others have required varying degrees of digging. Or, for that matter, Easegill. It didn't take long to get into Lancaster Hole, but it was only entered after the removal of infill. The fact this happened in the 1940s makes no difference, so far as I can see. 

 

[David Rose]

To be specific: I'm saying CROW should apply to caves that have been dug into - but wouldn't grant unrestricted rights to dig on the surface elsewhere.