Multiple entrance access

[Dep]

Imagine an underground site with more than one entrance.
If the owner of the land around one entrance denies access does this necessarily prevent people from accessing via the other entrance which is not on the same land?

And does the surface boundary have any significance underground?

Are there any precedents here?

 

[danthecavingman]

Giants - Oxlow: The farmer at Giants doesn't like people going in Oxlow and coming out of Giants although I suspect he would be fine if you paid on exiting through Giants.

Peak / Speedwell - The gate at the end of the Level prevents exit through Speedwell but the owners don't mind people being in the Speedwell system.

I think mineral rights start to come into it with boundaries etc.

Anyone else?

 

[Peter Burgess]

Baradla Barlang in Hungary actually passes through the national border into Slovakia. I believe the actual location of the border is clearly marked underground, and crossing it, you are probably entering another country unlawfully. There may even be a gate at the underground border, but I've not been there and so I am not sure. All I know is that the underground border is obvious, so there's no excuse for crossing it. All this may change now that both countries are in the EU. As far as crossing into a second property is concerned, in law the boundary of surface property extends downwards to the centre of the earth, but no further, or else we would all own part of the surface of the earth on the other side of the planet. And someone else over there might have a claim on your property. In our case, though, its only a few fish that you might have to contend with. This means that to be 100 percent sure of what you can explore, you should seek permission from more that one person. In practice, however, this can only be done if you can tell exactly where the boundary lies underground. If you can't tell that, then it's probably best to make sure that you have permission if you are using both entrances. Of course, if one owner has denied permission, then you would only be using one entrance anyway. Until someone invents an electronic tag that can be monitored through thousands of tons of rock, I can't see how anyone could tell where you were. It all boils down to acting responsibly at the end of the day.

 

[Peter Burgess]

There is a further complication to this. I am aware of a mine in Surrey where the property deeds on one property under which a mine working lay, contained a paragraph stating that a right of access to the mine workings existed via an entrance on a neighbouring property. This was a clause that was probably included in the deeds when the surface property was divided up and sold.

 

[gus horsley]

You would have serious problems if you tried to notify every landowner whose land is traversed by the County adit - there's got to be hundreds. There used to be quite laughable problems with mineral rights in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, including one occasion when a miner died in Wheal Vor. A debate then followed as to which parish he had died in and which entrance he should be brought out of. South Crofty Mine had a small army of solicitors whose job it was to sort out the landowner problems. Technically these smae criteria could be applied to caves.

 

[AndyF]

Mining law doesn't necessarily apply to caves - at least it has never been tested in courts AFAIK.

I think it's a big grey area...

Technically, nobody "owns" land, they just have title over it, and this brings certain rights and priveleges. What goes on underground has not been defined.... You can "own" land, but not the mineral rights. These may never have been defined in a non-mining area, or may belong to a company that no longer exist.

 

[darkplaces]

Blimy, while everyones talking about how far down you own and if you own the land or simply have a right to it. Remembering planning laws mean nobody has the right to do ANYTHING with the land they think they own.....

I'll use the entrance thanks to the friendly land owner and stand behind the gates at the grumpy owner and poke my tounge out at him!

While its been my view to try and go about things in a resonable way and follow some formulated access procedure sometimes people are just out to make it as complex and as difficult as they can and I have no time for these people.

 

[Peter Burgess]

sometimes people are just out to make it as complex and as difficult as they can

Not the cavers, surely? I think Dep just wants to know where he stands, I don't think he's trying to make anything over-complicated for anyone.

English Law IS complicated! That's why lawyers charge lots of money.

 

[graham]

Ok

Firstly, as far as access for us lot is concerned mineral rights are a complete red herring.

Secondly, as far as ownership is concerned in the UK if you own the surface you own the ground beneath down to the centre of the earth.

Thus, theoretically a landowner could refuse access to passages under his land whether he owned an entrance or not. If he did own an entrance, he coudl do as the Speedwell people have done and fix an underground gate.

I am aware of a case, not in UK, where a right of access has been specifically granted to part of a cave to the owners of the adjoining land, on which the entrance lies.

I am also aware of another (non UK) case where a show cave route was altered to keep it within the boundary of the land owned by the proprietors to avoid a dispute with their neighbours.

 

[darkplaces]

no not cavers, some clubs, or most likly individuals, have a 'its my hole' mentaility (rare), but some owners just like to see anyone who wants access jump though hoops because they get over zelus with the law & lawyers. The law is purpusly vauge in areas to allow give and take and enables a judge to choose based on common sense. When people want too strict laws this is when the judge has no choice and cant apply common sense.

To me as a lay person applying reasonable common sense if a grumpy owner bars access to a cave but a nice owner allows access from his side its a matter purly of access to the entry point. Underground, well who really cares that much as long as the grumpy one has his side blocked. When it comes to mines and bringing out stuff to sell thats when mineral rights define who owns whats brought out.

I guess in scotland this is not an issue.

 

[gus horsley]

Mining rights may be a complete red herring in most of Britain, but down here in Cornwall they are a significant factor and have led to loss of access at several sites, such as Tywarnhaile. In addition, the rights have changed ownership many times. I recently had a stroppy letter from a multinational company who objected to me leading a field trip over their land, even though I had the farmer's permission. And the rights go to the centre of the earth.

 

[twllddu]

They are also a significant factor in many parts of Wales.

 

[Brains]

In Derbyshire the mining laws also have / had an effect. As reccently as the 1970's a mining exploration group managed to NICK (literally, notch the portal timbers)and then FREE (65lbs or 14 winchester pints of ore presented to the Barmmot Court) a previously abandoned lead mine. It is now theirs, with access and extraction rights, but not the land ownership IIRC, I also beleive that it is a case of not owning the mineral rights, but having a right to extract and pay a fee to the mining court, the land owner and the mineral right owner.
There are very few holes in the Peak that have no mining in them, so the same could happen again? I had heard that the Blue John Caverns were nearly nicked reccently.... Are these mining laws still current? I dont know.
Also, if I remember, if a vein of ore is found in Cornwall it may be worked by the finders - even on church property, but not on the Queens Highway! Dues, fees and taxes are another issue....

 

[Peter Burgess]

some clubs, or most likly individuals, have a 'its my hole' mentaility (rare), but some owners just like to see anyone who wants access jump though hoops because they get over zelus with the law & lawyers.

Yes, I know what you mean. But sometimes people who don't know the local circumstances, or can't be bothered to find out, get the wrong idea.

Over the years, my club has liaised with various landowners regarding access to their land. Sometimes we have had an informal, verbal arrangement that has suited both parties. Other owners want something more specific, and this is the rule nowadays rather than the exception. It is easier for a landowner to deal with one group, rather than several, and possibly many, individuals. It suits them and it is more convenient. The arrangements we have nearly always involve securing entrances, and then maintaining them. There is always the threat of loss of access if the entrances are not maintained, they are forced open, and left insecure. The people driving the need to have the entrances secured are the landowners, rather than cavers.

Despite all the effort made by us to keep some form of access, albeit control by gating, which would otherwise be denied, there are always individuals out there who grumble and think we are doing all this on our own initiative, and who resent having to ask us about how to gain access.

To keep indefinite access, the considerations of owners have to be taken into account. Despite stories to the contrary, our club has very rarely used mine entrances without some form of consent from the owner of the land on which they lie, and when it has happened, repetition is actively discouraged, and an attempt made to make future access possible with the knowledge of the owner. And, no, I am not talking here of any site near Merstham!!!

 

[gus horsley]

Also, if I remember, if a vein of ore is found in Cornwall it may be worked by the finders - even on church property, but not on the Queens Highway! Dues, fees and taxes are another issue....

You're referring to the old Stannary Laws which have never been repealed, but fell into disuse about 150 years ago. I think there might be ructions if you started digging around in graveyards! It doesn't stop people from trying to revive them though, but it's more of an academic exercise rather than a serious attempt to work a piece of ground. There is the potential for new exploration, however.

 

[Brains]

I knew i felt old, but 150 years! Doesnt time fly when your having fun! I wonder what became of that young Napoleon chap - looked like he might go far....

 

[Peter Burgess]

That would be Napoleon III, I presume?

 

[Brains]

What with the years and the Alzheimers, they all blur in to one....

 

[AndyF]

In Derbyshire the mining laws also have / had an effect. As reccently as the 1970's a mining exploration group managed to NICK ..( amine)

It is now theirs, with access and extraction rights, but not the land ownership IIRC, I also beleive that it is a case of not owning the mineral rights, but having a right to extract and pay a fee to the mining court, the land owner and the mineral right owner.
nearly nicked reccently.... Are these mining laws still current? I dont know.

Good Luck mine, Via Gellia. A PDMHS member nicked it...

If you nick a mine, you have to put so many workers underground, else the title lapses. This number is set by the Barmoot court.

These laws do still apply, once in a while the Barmoot meets up..

 

[AndyF]

...
Secondly, as far as ownership is concerned in the UK if you own the surface you own the ground beneath down to the centre of the earth.

I'm not convinced by this assertion, AFAIK it is untested in a court.

If you take some large coal mines up int grim north, they go under hundreds of peoples properties. they don't ask permission!

If I owned the ground, it would be theft surely...??