A couple of points to answer some posts above.
I'd hope we can all agree that a legal right given by act of parliament overrides the BCA constitution however members wish to interpret that constitution. Whether that legal right applies to caving is what this is all about.
I have indeed spoken to a number of landowners.
The CRoW Act is about recreational caving not digging. There will be no right to dig without landowner/SSSI permission CRoW or no CRoW.
Simon Wilson said:
Pitlamp said:
... the damage caused to caver / landowner relations. This is already considerable.
Can you justify that statement?
Sadly in my recent experience it is diggers who have been of greater concern to landowners NOT recreational cavers. Pitlamp will know of the problems on Ingleborough. Volunteers have had to clear up and make safe old surface digs. Some digs without permission have been left in such a mess they have been subject to complaints to the authorities. Even those with permission have been left an eyesore and there have been complaints. The landowner and local business people are not happy and this reflects badly on all cavers.
In the Brecon Beacons landowners have complained to the BBNP about old digs being in an unsafe conditions with concerns voiced over their safety for the public. It looks like the NP Authority may have to clear these up and make them safe. A dig into the back of Dan Yr Ogof, with landowner permission but without SSSI consent, led to threats of legal action from the authority and a very unhappy show cave owner.
Perhaps it is diggers who need to get there house in order and stop trying to pass the blame onto those who support CRoW.
At Draenen, the original entrance was dug without landowner consent, in fact the diggers were told they would not be granted permission, but they continued anyway. The landowner changed and permission was granted for access, but when another team dug a second and third entrance without permission we have ended up with the sorry state of affairs we have today. If the landowner changes again who knows what the access situation will be. That is exactly why a legal right of access for recreational caving is so important for the future of our sport.
Many landowners allow unfettered access to the caves on their land. Others have concerns over their legal liabilities and duty of care to those they invite onto their land. They require cavers to be insured to protect them against any liability. A big advantage of the CRoW Act for landowners is that it reduces that liability to the lowest possible in law and landowners are generally happy with that.
Some cavers support voluntary agreements with landowners as the best way forward rather than the broad sweep of the right to roam. These voluntary agreements have at their heart insurance cover and this is not guaranteed to stay cheap or as easy to source and maintain. There may be trouble brewing in the insurance market where the due diligence of those controlling access is not up to the standard expected. If this becomes onerous to maintain how attractive then is a legal right of access which does away with the need for insurance cover.
Of course a large number of caves remain on non CRoW land so we will always need voluntary arrangements and insurance for those but the fewer they are the better in my opinion.