jasonbirder
Member
Use your imagination, Stu. It's not rocket science
I'm fairly certain given Graham's proclivities he's refering to Concrete
Use your imagination, Stu. It's not rocket science
graham said:stu said:graham said:Maybe you should express yourself with more clarity, then.stu said:graham said:stu said:The caving omission at best was through lack of organisation at national level. I don't want to consider the alternative reasons.
Maybe you should. Maybe there were wholly valid alternative reasons. Maybe they remain valid today. To refuse to even consider this is to close down debate.
Think you misinterpreted my meaning of not considering the alternatives.
Pretty sure you get the drift.
In which case my previous comment stands and there is no point in continuing to debate with closed minds.
Jenny P said:The landowner normally owns whatever is directly below their land as far as the centre of the earth. (The exception might be where they have sold the mineral rights to someone else.) However, the landowner owns the walls of the cave but it's a moot point as to whether they own the space which makes up the cave
This also applies to the designation of Scheduled Ancient Monuments where these relate to mining remains on the surface - DCA has recently had occasion to query this and the answer is that the scheduling applies to the remains below ground as well as those above ground.
Interesting case is the Giants - Oxlow connection where the former owner of Giants refused people permission to do the connection, even if they had asked permission beforehand to exit onto his land and had paid his 'trespass fee'. Theoretically the system has 3 owners: the Oxlow end belongs to the owners of Oxlow House Farm; the Giants Hole end belongs to the owner of Peakshill farm; but there's a bit in the middle which belongs to Derbyshire County Council because it goes under the B6061 Sparrowpit to Castleton road.
jasonbirder said:Use your imagination, Stu. It's not rocket science
I'm fairly certain given Graham's proclivities he's refering to Concrete
Les W said:Just for a point of clarification - BCA came into being in 2003.
CRoW was 2000
NCA was the body in question during he CRoW consultations.
paul said:Once more we are drifting (prior to the last couple of posts) from the point in question: If cavers are allowed to cross CRoW designated land to a cave entrance, are they also legally allowed to enter the cave on a caving trip. Please stick to the subject.
Les W said:Just for a point of clarification - BCA came into being in 2003.
CRoW was 2000
NCA was the body in question during he CRoW consultations.
graham said:Badlad said:graham said:Badlad said:Think on this.
Most of the caves under Leck and Casterton Fells are part of the Three Counties System. A permit is required for the entrances on these fells. Yet easy and unpermitted access can be gained if you access this same system via Link, Pip, Boundary, Mistral, Bull Pot, Ireby, Large or Rift.
You can park at Bull Pot Farm, get kitted up in full caving gear, walk over the CRoW open access land, walk past Lancaster Hole (but you can't go down it), continue to the entrance of Link Pot, go caving, end up underneath the entrance shaft of Lancaster Hole (but you can't go up it) and exit via Boundary Pot and walk back to the car over Casterton Fell. This doesn't make sense.
Although what you describe is physically possible, what makes you believe it is legally so? What is it about accessing the cave via Link Pot that gives you the right to visit the bottom of the Lancaster Hole entrance shaft?
Well there lies another interesting debate. The complexities of which make a mockery of the system and one which is, of course, impossible to control or police.
So, you agree that you do not know that what you describe is legal. Fair enough. As to whether it can be controlled or policed, of course it can be. Whether the required methods would be considered acceptable in all quarters is another matter.
blackholesun said:Jenny, despite linking to that document, I'm cautious about it and may not have described it originally correctly. N.E. have replied to me to say that:
"Therefore it is fair to say that the consultant [who wrote it] didn?t express solely their opinion or that of DEFRA or Natural England."
Jenny P said:.... it would be sensible to try to do this in a non-confrontational way since we do not want to antagonise landowners unnecessarily and risk losing the limited access we have in some areas.
Jenny P said:blackholesun said:Jenny, despite linking to that document, I'm cautious about it and may not have described it originally correctly. N.E. have replied to me to say that:
"Therefore it is fair to say that the consultant [who wrote it] didn?t express solely their opinion or that of DEFRA or Natural England."
Agreed, but it is at least a small chink of light and worth following up if it's part of a document that NE commissioned.
bograt said:Wow Jenny, thats one hell of a missive!
Caving is referred to significantly in the Earth Heritage Sites section, page 175 on, there is some suggestion that NE could apply some form of access control to caves on conservation grounds.
Cap'n Chris said: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.
Andyj23UK said:the only people who seem to benefit are those who " manage " caving access - which begs a question ... or 3