DYO
- Thread starter Scrappycaver
- Start date
- Status
Scrappycaver
New member
Can I just clarify that the landowner DID NOT come close to prosecution ,this is false information. Short of the nrw gaining access from the farm no other contact was ever made. It was left to Mark Wilding to follow. APSOLUTLY no warnings or even advice were given to anyone !
Following the positive response on this thread I've been asked if Tony will kindly pass on the relevant phone numbers/ address to make requests for future digs.
Merry Christmas
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Following the positive response on this thread I've been asked if Tony will kindly pass on the relevant phone numbers/ address to make requests for future digs.
Merry Christmas
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Stuart France
Active member
Martin Laverty has already provided specific links to the SSSI documents for the Dan-yr-Ogof catchment area. Seems to me that some clarity on how SSSIs operate generally would help. First, the national background:
The concept of a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) appears in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 as amended by the Countryside Act 1968 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. This national level law is still in force notwithstanding contemporary EU conformity trends. So second, European Union:
The EU Habitats Directive 1992 aims to harmonize conservation legislation. Thus the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 repeats the 1981 Act almost word for word but applies it to ?European? sites. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 is a further step along the EU road, introducing the concept of ?Sites of Community Importance? (SCIs) along with scheduling categories of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protected Areas (SPAs). Practically nobody understands anything any more: a fruit cake baked with mixed standards.
For anyone on SSSI land, it is a UK offence to intentionally or recklessly damage, disturb or destroy land known to be an SSSI, or intentionally or recklessly disturb the wildlife. As to cavers? digs in the DYO Dry Valley, whether any conservation offence occurred or not depends on whether any actual damage to the cited conserved interests could be proven. The conserved interests are listed in the site?s SSSI Citation document to which I will return later.
For the landowner only, it is also a UK offence to carry out or allow to be carried out any activity that may likely damage the SSSI without consent from the relevant conservation agency. These Potentially Damaging Operations are listed in the SSSI PDO document. This is where the legal edifice above begins to fall apart.
Take the PDO document covering the DYO catchment. The first thing it says in bold type, is ?The list of operations is not a prohibited list?. The last thing it says, in red italics, is that the published version of the document ?is not a definitive legal version? and to contact NRW for the latter. What this means is effect is that NRW can make the law up as it goes along by replacing its published documents whenever it wants to and without telling anyone.
Most of the PDOs concern farming and upland management. But a few relate to caves, generally to avoid farmers blocking up or altering cave entrances, or permitting recreational activities ?within the control of owner? likely to damage cave systems. As the PDO list restricts the landowner, a caving project ought to join with the landowner to consult NRW (or equivalent body) to agree on a set of methods that will not harm the stated scientific interest. NRW says that it simply wants to be consulted and is not looking for ways to veto responsibly conducted projects.
Returning now to the Citation document, this too provides infinite wriggle room by denying the published version has any legal status. Clearly someone, myself perhaps, needs to force NRW into putting documents that do have legal status into the public domain, for example as public answers to Freedom of Information inquiries. The published SSSI documents were prepared in 2009, according to hidden dates within them. So NRW would have a hard time now if they happened to release revised documents during the currency of an investigation a decade later that had the effect of entrapping someone by rules changing dynamically.
As to the specifics of this citation, it begins with 300 words on botany and bird life. Over the page it ends with the geology part about Dan-yr-Ogof and Tunnel Cave in under 100 words:
?The caves are excellent examples of phreatic systems, rejuvenated, and modified by vadose erosion, and contain many textbook examples of underground geomorphic features. They also demonstrate a close response to geological structure with the main drainage oriented in a synclinal axis. Extensive calcite and clastic deposits combine with the morphological features to produce a very complete record of cave development in sympathy with the progressive Pleistocene excavation of the Tawe valley.?
Translating that into plain English as best I can: ?These are typical examples of limestone caves formed in stages by water, like most caves, and stalactites formed. Cave water flows downhill, like water generally does, and bedrock with a gutter shape makes a good water conduit. Bits of worn off rock from ages ago have settled in the valley below.?
Given that this, wriggle room apart, is NRW?s full statement of the geological scientific interest here, it is hard to imagine, myself anyway, how any caving activities by that measure are harmful.
Apologies for the length of this, but hopefully useful to some.
Stuart France
Cambrian Caving Council
The concept of a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) appears in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 as amended by the Countryside Act 1968 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. This national level law is still in force notwithstanding contemporary EU conformity trends. So second, European Union:
The EU Habitats Directive 1992 aims to harmonize conservation legislation. Thus the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 repeats the 1981 Act almost word for word but applies it to ?European? sites. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 is a further step along the EU road, introducing the concept of ?Sites of Community Importance? (SCIs) along with scheduling categories of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protected Areas (SPAs). Practically nobody understands anything any more: a fruit cake baked with mixed standards.
For anyone on SSSI land, it is a UK offence to intentionally or recklessly damage, disturb or destroy land known to be an SSSI, or intentionally or recklessly disturb the wildlife. As to cavers? digs in the DYO Dry Valley, whether any conservation offence occurred or not depends on whether any actual damage to the cited conserved interests could be proven. The conserved interests are listed in the site?s SSSI Citation document to which I will return later.
For the landowner only, it is also a UK offence to carry out or allow to be carried out any activity that may likely damage the SSSI without consent from the relevant conservation agency. These Potentially Damaging Operations are listed in the SSSI PDO document. This is where the legal edifice above begins to fall apart.
Take the PDO document covering the DYO catchment. The first thing it says in bold type, is ?The list of operations is not a prohibited list?. The last thing it says, in red italics, is that the published version of the document ?is not a definitive legal version? and to contact NRW for the latter. What this means is effect is that NRW can make the law up as it goes along by replacing its published documents whenever it wants to and without telling anyone.
Most of the PDOs concern farming and upland management. But a few relate to caves, generally to avoid farmers blocking up or altering cave entrances, or permitting recreational activities ?within the control of owner? likely to damage cave systems. As the PDO list restricts the landowner, a caving project ought to join with the landowner to consult NRW (or equivalent body) to agree on a set of methods that will not harm the stated scientific interest. NRW says that it simply wants to be consulted and is not looking for ways to veto responsibly conducted projects.
Returning now to the Citation document, this too provides infinite wriggle room by denying the published version has any legal status. Clearly someone, myself perhaps, needs to force NRW into putting documents that do have legal status into the public domain, for example as public answers to Freedom of Information inquiries. The published SSSI documents were prepared in 2009, according to hidden dates within them. So NRW would have a hard time now if they happened to release revised documents during the currency of an investigation a decade later that had the effect of entrapping someone by rules changing dynamically.
As to the specifics of this citation, it begins with 300 words on botany and bird life. Over the page it ends with the geology part about Dan-yr-Ogof and Tunnel Cave in under 100 words:
?The caves are excellent examples of phreatic systems, rejuvenated, and modified by vadose erosion, and contain many textbook examples of underground geomorphic features. They also demonstrate a close response to geological structure with the main drainage oriented in a synclinal axis. Extensive calcite and clastic deposits combine with the morphological features to produce a very complete record of cave development in sympathy with the progressive Pleistocene excavation of the Tawe valley.?
Translating that into plain English as best I can: ?These are typical examples of limestone caves formed in stages by water, like most caves, and stalactites formed. Cave water flows downhill, like water generally does, and bedrock with a gutter shape makes a good water conduit. Bits of worn off rock from ages ago have settled in the valley below.?
Given that this, wriggle room apart, is NRW?s full statement of the geological scientific interest here, it is hard to imagine, myself anyway, how any caving activities by that measure are harmful.
Apologies for the length of this, but hopefully useful to some.
Stuart France
Cambrian Caving Council
Tony_B
Member
Scrappycaver said:
Our request was sent to, and approved by, the Brecon Beacons NPA - I will find out the exact contact details. However please note that our dig is not on the SSSI and therefore not subject to the NRW restrictions outlined by Stuart above. The BBNPA act as agents for the landowner, Welsh Water, and consulted WW as well.
Scrappycaver
New member
YES. Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary. DYOCAP are not in any position to answer for the landowner or myself.Tony_B said:
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Scrappycaver
New member
YES. Unless you can provide evidence to the contrary. DYOCAP are not in any position to answer for the landowner or myself.Tony_B said:
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Scrappycaver
New member
Tony..thanks for the information . Is it best to get permission prior to digging as I believe unless I'm mistaken you had already illegally been digging it...obviously 'blissfully ignorant' AGAIN after such a unique case nearby. And did not the national parks grill it and remove scaffolding for public safety?? I'm pretty sure it was in the cambrian caving news . It may not be in a SSSI but it was PRIVATE land.Scrappycaver said:
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Tony_B
Member
No, it was not dug illegally. It was dug, the same as everything else up there always has been, in the knowledge that cavers have always poked at stuff on that hill and no-one was ever bothered. Until the unfortunate events detailed above, which completely changed everything. The BBNPA and NRW suddenly started taking notice and the matter was highlighted in a Cambrian Caving Council Newsletter, in a piece co-authored by a BBNPA rep and Stuart France. We then obtained verbal permission to 'have a look' with a view to ascertaining whether a formal proposal for permission was worthwhile. Once the site looked interesting we held off, submitted the proposal and were given the go-ahead.Scrappycaver said:
If you are going to sling mud on here, and start accusing me of illegal digging, perhaps you ought to make it clear what permissions are in place for the project/s you are currently working on?
Tony_B
Member
thomasr said:All very interesting reading and much respect for all the research done I feel though a dictionary of all these abrieveated bodies and terms would be of use to the lazy amongst us
All these have been written out in full in earlier posts, but...BBNPA is the Brecon Beacons National Park Authority, NRW is Natural Resources Wales (formerly the Countryside Council for Wales, or CCW), the DYO CAP is the Dan-yr-Ogof Conservation Advisory Panel, the body which manages caver access to DYO on behalf of, and in liaison with, the showcave management.
Scrappycaver
New member
I'm only caving Tony.. you're the digger. I was just highlighting that you had already dug /scaffolded another shaft without seeking the concent of the national parks and Welsh water.Tony_B said:
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Ogof anghenfil
New member
At last we have a sensible post.
Who are these 'reporters' at Darkness Below who are trying to stir up trouble?
Who are these 'reporters' at Darkness Below who are trying to stir up trouble?
- Status