Loss of cave access, CROW and other things

[blackholesun]

As for the Hull Pot question, I think that it does highlight that it does seem unfair to allow climbing and not caving. You can push this even further, would this climb be allowed without permission if it were on CROW land?
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.html?id=209600

Personally, there's a climb that I would like to try in a cave on CROW land (in the name of exploration). I'd use my trad rack, so there would be no damage. Do I need a permit for something that would certainly be allowed a hundred meters up?

However, as potholer says though, the law is not really that fuzzy. It is also not mathematical in its logic; It can come down to what a 'reasonable' person may think and that could be along the lines of; If there has been a roof over your head and rock all around for 50 meters, then you are caving.

 

[peterk]

I don't like to contradict you, but I think that Lancs is a severe bottleneck. Precisely because it is so straightforward, that streams of beginners are sent down there. Cow Pot, into Fall Pot is right next door, and still pretty trivial, but is visited far less often as it has a couple of hanging rebelays. This is not really relevant though; You are correct, many can cave in Easegill.

But there should be no bottlenecks:
It is a condition of the access agreement with the Whelprigg Estate that novice cavers are not permitted into the Easgill system and that the system is not used for training cavers in caving techniques (other than the techniques used by experienced cavers e.g. photography, surveying, and conservation)
( http://cncc.org.uk/access/details.php?id=184

 

[blackholesun]

That is a good point peter.
In my personal experience though, I have certainly seem some who were not particularly fast on the pitch. Whether they classed as 'novices' or not, I wouldn't like to say as I don't really know how to define that in terms of caving. As for whether people helping them were 'training' them, I'd not like to comment on either.

 

[graham]

... I'd not like to comment ...

No offence, but is that because you don't want to admit that some cavers, including possibly some of our professional brethren, might perhaps sometimes play fast and loose with access conditions?

 

[Alex]

I would hazard a guess that, that particular clause is to prevent comercial groups from using it, not to prevent clubs training other members who already have some experaince. As debated ad-finitem on a mendip thread about charterhouse caves, its really hard to describe what is a novice. With open access though I guess Ease gill could be used for commerical purpouses but I would hazard to guess they would continue to use Long Churns as that is what they know.

Does CROW act however have any clauses about using the land for commerical purposes?

 

[blackholesun]

No offence taken. The reason that I don't want to comment on it is some ratio of me not knowing the exact definitions and the observation that many advise not discussing access condition violations on a public forum. The ratio may be between 0 and 100%.

I think that with the caves in the Mendips that are administered by the CCC, the permits have a condition where you must have done 5 trips first. Is that correct? That seems like a more concrete way of defining who a novice is.

Back to CROW, does anyone have any other suggestions of who to contact other than N.E. and the YDLAF for discussion of the matter?

 

[Stu]

I'd say landowners directly. The cynic in me would say it'd have to be someone outwith the CNCC.

 

[bograt]

Does CROW act however have any clauses about using the land for commerical purposes?

Yes, its not allowed.

 

[Jenny P]

But there should be no bottlenecks:
It is a condition of the access agreement with the Whelprigg Estate that novice cavers are not permitted into the Easgill system and that the system is not used for training cavers in caving techniques (other than the techniques used by experienced cavers e.g. photography, surveying, and conservation)
( http://cncc.org.uk/access/details.php?id=184

Interesting! I can recall a few years ago meeting a school group in the entrance series of County Pot, Easegill - 12 children with two adults at front and rear of the party.  All were in normal clothes (i.e. jumpers, jeans, trainers, etc.), only a couple were wearing helmets and they had about 4 hand torches between the lot of them - the adults, of course, had the torches, as well as a couple of the youngsters.  They were not far from the first pitch in County Pot when I met them coming in.  I'd have classed them as 'novices'!

 

[Stu]

As bograt says it's not allowed on CRoW however that only refers to commercial outfits having "open access". It's perfectly feasible for said outfits to seek their own permission to access land that is CRoW. I know of two in the Dales who have.

 

[Ian Adams]

Back to CROW, does anyone have any other suggestions of who to contact other than N.E. and the YDLAF for discussion of the matter?

Well, one way would be to take legal advice (Counsel - which would likely cost a lot of money and may not provide a definitive answer).

Another would be to allow a test case to go to court ... (potentially that would cost very little if anything)

Another might be to identify the government department to whom NE are accountable and to approach them directly.

Additionally, there may be a value in approaching the Scottish counterpart to NE and asking them which can then be used as a reference (or leverage?) with NE who may, at this time, be unwilling to be definitive.

It might also be worthwhile approaching the Welsh counterpart (CCW) although they are currently enduring a transistion into another "body".

Keep up the great work 

Ian

 

[bograt]

Another might be to identify the government department to whom NE are accountable and to approach them directly.

That'll be DEFRA.

 

[Jopo]

Ian
Well, one way would be to take legal advice (Counsel - which would likely cost a lot of money and may not provide a definitive answer).

Another would be to allow a test case to go to court ... (potentially that would cost very little if anything)

That then begs the question of who would represent all cavers, club, non club and the 'professionals' as expert witnesses.

Drawn from the BCA, the regions or trade bodies?

I don't think that any one opinion in this thread has had more than a couple of supporters and I can just see those who did not get their way or preffered rep. stomping off with their buckets and spades muttering 'Who gave them the right to represent me?'.
It is fairly obvious from this thread that 3 cavers in a room gets you 6 opinions.
The mind boggles.

Jopo

 

[Ian Adams]

Jopo,

I think you are addressing an issue that will manifest later ?

The focus is to determine whether or not cavers per se are able to enter caves under the CRoW act.

Once that is established (assuming we can ? it is rather irrelevant if we cannot) then we can discuss the issues of conservation, digging and access control (who or which bodies might ?manage? access) et al.

Your observation is perfectly valid ?. One step at a time 

Ian

 

[cap n chris]

... then we can discuss the issues of conservation, digging and access control

Beg to differ. Conservation, digging and access control protocols should be in place before the doors open.

 

[Stu]

Not an invalid point Chris but a lot of work for nothing if CRoW Act won't encompass caving. It can be a parallel process. The first objective of the pro lobby won't happen overnight.

 

[graham]

Ian
Well, one way would be to take legal advice (Counsel - which would likely cost a lot of money and may not provide a definitive answer).

Another would be to allow a test case to go to court ... (potentially that would cost very little if anything)

That then begs the question of who would represent all cavers, club, non club and the 'professionals' as expert witnesses.

Drawn from the BCA, the regions or trade bodies?

I don't think that any one opinion in this thread has had more than a couple of supporters and I can just see those who did not get their way or preffered rep. stomping off with their buckets and spades muttering 'Who gave them the right to represent me?'.
It is fairly obvious from this thread that 3 cavers in a room gets you 6 opinions.
The mind boggles.

Jopo

The mind does, indeed, boggle. Who on earth thinks that forcing a test case would cost very little? Some people on this thread need a serious reality check.

 

[graham]

... then we can discuss the issues of conservation, digging and access control

Beg to differ. Conservation, digging and access control protocols should be in place before the doors open.

Quite agree, you and I know the consequences of opening the door before the checks and balances are in place.

And, surely, the 'open access' lobby would have a more sympathetic hearing if they could show that they had thought through the responsibilities consequent on their actions as well as any rights that they wished to gain.

 

[Ian Adams]

Nice to see the hijacking and deflecting is back.

There is a basic premise of whether or not, as a British citizen, I, you or A.N.Other can legally visit a cave on land covered by CRoW. This premise is not subject to the whims and wishes of certain people/bodies but is a matter of ?law? (ie. legislation). This is what we are trying to establish. Should it prove to be the case, I would suggest that the "uber-conservationists" might get a better level of tolerance from those who they have locked out for so long if they stopped being so bombastic about this issue and deliberately obstructive.

So far as a ?test case? is concerned, the earlier suggestion was that the onus would lay with the landowner to prove that CRoW did not afford the privilege of caving. In such an instance, the cost to the ?caver? would be very little if he/she represented themselves. It is this that I was referring to (ie. the already mooted (and multiple instances) suggestion).

Ian

PS. Additionally, no one is trying to petition to "gain" rights, we are trying to establish whether they already exist.

 

[cap n chris]

There is a basic premise of whether or not, as a British citizen, I, you or A.N.Other can legally visit a cave on land covered by CRoW. This premise is not subject to the whims and wishes of certain people/bodies but is a matter of ?law? (ie. legislation). This is what we are trying to establish.

Do you mean there is a basic premise of whether or not, as a British citizen, I, you or A.N. Other can legally visit a cave on land covered by CRoW, whether or not the legal owner of the land either directly, or via a designated access control body, wishes or whims to allow that access?

Or, put another way, you'd like to find out whether the law can be interpreted such that it allows you over-rule or ignore any wishes of the landowner.