• CSCC Newsletter - May 2024

    Available now. Includes details of upcoming CSCC Annual General Meeting 10th May 2024

    Click here for more info

New Secretary for CCC.

royfellows

Well-known member
As the time is late I would like to come back on this in the fresh air of a new day. There is actually quite a tale to tell of events that lead up to the present situation, told from my personal knowledge and involvement. It will be interesting reading for all, and may answer quite a few questions.
 

NewStuff

New member
You get legit access to all of CAL sites, for one year. You give them your BCA number and get a "permit" to all sites for an entire year, no time slots or party number restrictions like so many other permits. You give them trip date and numbers, upon return from the trip(s). That's it. It's not difficult, restrictive or underhanded. Roy has already explained in detail how it came to be and why it is what it is. It pulled a rabbit out of the bag - Here in N.Wales, there was no legit access *whatsofuckingever* to a lot of these sites before this came to be. I don't think anyone thought it could be done, let alone in such a hassle free manner.

I can't see how CAL is bad. Even the ever-gobby, open-access proponent that I am thinks this is a total and utter non-issue. Please enlighten me, without woo and vague "non-democratic" handwaving, as to why CAL is bad.
 

Madness

New member
NewStuff said:
You get legit access to all of CAL sites, for one year. You give them your BCA number and get a "permit" to all sites for an entire year, no time slots or party number restrictions like so many other permits. You give them trip date and numbers, upon return from the trip(s). That's it. It's not difficult, restrictive or underhanded.


So, are CAL sites restricted to BCA members? How do you get a CAL permit if like yourself Newstuff you have cut your ties with the BCA, or like me who have not yet joined the BCA?
 

NewStuff

New member
Madness said:
NewStuff said:
You get legit access to all of CAL sites, for one year. You give them your BCA number and get a "permit" to all sites for an entire year, no time slots or party number restrictions like so many other permits. You give them trip date and numbers, upon return from the trip(s). That's it. It's not difficult, restrictive or underhanded.


So, are CAL sites restricted to BCA members? How do you get a CAL permit if like yourself Newstuff you have cut your ties with the BCA, or like me who have not yet joined the BCA?


You don't, as far as I'm aware, though I haven't actually asked, so don't take that as gospel. We were well aware when we cut ties that this would happen. I think we've (DDDWH CC) all been to all of the sites as it is, and *if* things change for the better, we've got no problem rejoining the BCA at some future date.
 

Simon Wilson

New member
I'm into vertical caving, I live near the Dales and I'm accustomed to more-or-less open access to caves, hence I never go caving in Wales. So, Jopo, please forgive me for not knowing your name.

It is clear that people hide behind pseudonyms on this forum just so that they can remain anonymous and make contentious posts. So also please forgive me for assuming Jopo was one of those pseudonyms.

Also please forgive me for thinking that there just might have been a bit political wrangling going on in Welsh caving circles.

I am interested in the CRoW issue which is why I'm taking some interest in the Draenen affair which obviously has some bearing on the CRoW issue nationally. The Draenen affair does appear to be quite some fair old shit storm which has been going on for an extended length of time. And since CCC appear to have had some involvement I can't help but wonder what has been happening within the CCC whilst this tempest has been building up.
 

Dave Tyson

Member
To answer Newstuff's and Simon's points:

The CAL agreement allows suitably insured cavers/mine explorers to access the sites listed in the agreement. The actual wording specifies that cavers be members of the BCA (and so covered by the BCA insurance), but there is provision for cavers from abroad to have access if they have equivalent insurance. Sadly the legalese is ambiguous and in places contradicts itself so we just ask for some kind of insurance cover - outdoor education centres for example have their own insurance arrangements. Cave Access Limited and the sites in the agreement are covered by the BCA Access Controlling Body provisions and these indemnify the landowner against claims from 'joe public'. CAL annually registers recreational mine explorer/caver leaders and notes their BCA number. They can then visit any of the sites in that year taking others (who should be insured with them). To be honest the agreement really could do with an overhaul, but the NRW staff on the ground seem to be happy with it as it stands from the point of view of recreational access.

The issue of Ogof Draenen and the Drws Cefn entrance etc. was discussed by CCC when I was secretary. We had a series of meetings brokered by Andrew Hinde (Natural England) to try and resolve some of the issues, but no progress was made and in the end the matter was dropped.  There are some notes in the CCC AGM minutes and the CCC newsletters. Personally I find it sad that such a large system has no freely available large scale survey due to politics and an unwillingness on behalf of the management organisation to embrace more open access. I cannot think of another underground location which has caused such acrimony (well, Milwr Tunnel might be a close second!).

The BCA and CCC constitutions do not allow any interference in member clubs or organisations unless they agree to the arbitration - IMHO this is a serious weakness and there are no sanctions which can be taken against members or member clubs who misbehave (cause damage, break gates etc.) or make access unduly difficult.

Dave (with CAL hat on, and speaking as ex CCC secretary)
 

BradW

Member
Dave's clarification is welcome. One comment: if I was a member of a club that had joined a representative body that had given itself the power to interfere in the club's business, I would urge my club to leave forthwith.
 

Chocolate fireguard

Active member
Simon Wilson said:
Also please forgive me for thinking that there just might have been a bit political wrangling going on in Welsh caving circles.

Can't say I've noticed anything like that since I started checking this forum, about 10 years ago.
 

Bob Mehew

Well-known member
Dave omits the point that the CCC consitution does not explictly cover CCC controlling access, only "To support clubs and cave access bodies in obtaining, maintaining, and improving access arrangements in Wales, the Forest of Dean and the Marches".  That is like the BCA consitution but quite unlike the CNCC whose consitution explictly allow them to control of access.  (The CSCC and DCA consitutions are silent on the point.)  So as I understand it, CCC has always felt it could not set up an access agreement in its own name.  CAL Ltd is a neat way around the problem. 



 

Rhys

Moderator
I was led to believe that the Cave Access Ltd was set up mainly to limit the personal liability of the Cambrian CC officers.
 

Simon Wilson

New member
Bob Mehew said:
quite unlike the CNCC whose consitution explictly allow them to control of access.

The CNCC consitution says, "To ensure, maintain, and where appropriate, enhance, access to caves and potholes by negotiation and/or agreements with farmers, landowners or authorities."

With regard to cave access the word control does not appear in the CNCC constitution.
 

royfellows

Well-known member
I did promise this posting so here we are. No prisoners.

The story of my involvement starts about 10 years ago when the then owners of Cwmystwyth Mines, Crown Estate (CE) decided to block off all underground access as part of ongoing safety work. A lot of people were aggrieved about this and Welsh Mines Preservation Trust (WMPT) were among the various organisations that protested against it. The various entrances were eventually grilled off and then followed the expected tug of war between those who wanted access with their hacksaws, and the Crown. I believe that there was even a thread running on it on here, ?is cutting the grills justified? or similar.

A possible solution was mooted whereby the mines could be sold to WMPT as a way of CE disposing of what was obviously a liability to them. However WMPT felt that it would be too much of a burden and interfere with their other ongoing work.

I have a background of business and forming and running companies and offered to look into the feasibility of forming a limited company for the purpose of acquiring the site on behalf of the mining history and exploration community.
As such I entered into negotiation on this through the CE mineral agents, Wardell Armstrong, who were extremely helpful. Unfortunately  in 2010 I was quite poorly, it was actually the worst year of my life, and everything ground to a halt.
Getting better towards the end of the year I picked up the reigns on this and we pushed the matter forward. A stumbling block was the state of surface buildings which were unfenced and unsafe; the remaining single story of the old barracks was spilling debris onto the council road. As a result CE embarked on a consolidation and fencing initiative and actually spent ?117,000 on the site before proceeding with the transfer.

Things were also moving in other areas, we were now into 2013 and the annual NAMHO field meet and conference had hit stumbling blocks but was saved by Peter Claughton stepping forward at the last minute by making arrangements to host the conference through Metal Links (RCAHMW) and me offering to arrange the field trips through my newly incorporated Cambrian Mines Trust (CMT)
Trips were offered into Henfwlch, Alltycrib, Temple Mine, and of course Cwmystwyth, with me being confident that the sale would be through by the date of the event.
The first setback was the loss of the first two above names trips because permission could not be obtained. Temple Mine was successfully arranged through the very kind help of the Coed Rheidol Nature Reserve manager however.

Next setback was the realisation that the transfer of the land at Cwmystwyth was becoming protracted due to a game of ping pong between the various solicitors, every time the ball went ?ping? a cash register somewhere would go ?ching? and all the while NAMHO was getting closer.
Eventually the matter was resolved and the sale completed, - a mere fortnight before the NAMHO event, but all the entrances scheduled for the trips were covered by metal grills.

The day was saved by Dave Tyson who turned up with some other helpers and he having benefit of a petrol driven angle grinder was able to reopen all of the main entrances.

Moving on to 2015, the Craig y Dinas mineral estate which included the Upper Silica Mine came up for grabs and I registered Natural Amenities Ltd to take possession.

In the same year there was a meeting of the Ceredigion Mines Forum at the Halfway Inn at Pisgah where after the main meeting finished I went into another meeting with Stuart France. We got kicked out of the pub, as they needed to close and continued on a picnic bench outside with all our paperwork spread out over the table. I believe we went on until about half past five. If Stuart reads this I bet it produces a chuckle. Anyway, Stuart had pick up the reigns after the unfortunate demise of Elsie Little with regard to an access agreement for mines on land which has previously been owned by Forestry Commission Wales. With devolution these lands became the property of the Welsh Government (WG) but are managed by Natural Resources Wales (NRW) on their behalf.

Stuart was keen on us working together due to my experience in setting up companies for this kind of purpose. I offered on the spot to be the co director of any new company formed for this purpose and Stuart readily agreed. In effect there were two separate agreements as Temple Mine belonged to Countryside Council for Wales, now part of NRW. The agreement relates specifically to mines, as per a schedule of sites which we can have added to following appropriate assessments.

I was very keen as I had personally done a lot of work already in Parc Lead Mine and Alltycrib, and had not forgotten the NAMHO 2013 affair.

Once everything was done and dusted we had some discussion about expanding our board of directors, and I suggested Dave Tyson who I had not forgotten for saving the day back in 2013.

So there we are.
So.
CMT is a company limited by guarantee with objects carefully drawn so that we qualify to include the word ?trust? in our title, its called a ?sensitive word? we can also dispense with the word ?Ltd? in our title. As original subscriber I own the company for as long as I live. The company owns the land at Cwmystwyth and as such I could literally wrap the place in gates, chains and padlocks. My signature at the bottom of this posting explains my attitude on this.

I believe that the duty of any access body is to make access as easy as possible for bona fide cavers and mine explorers. This view is shared by my fellow CMT directors. We are not democratic, we don?t do democracy and as such don?t support company hijacking. The wording of our articles supports our attitude on access.

NAL is a one director company, me. And same attitude to access

CAL, again, we as a board believe in making access as easy as possible

My purpose in posting the above somewhat lengthy story is to attempt to explain how things evolved, and I have attempted to be as open as possible. I believe that Stuart wrote about his side of things in another thread.
 

Graigwen

Active member
Writing purely as someone who has known Cwmystwyth on and off for half a century, I don't believe anything worthwhile would have been achieved at Cwmystwyth without Roy's energy and expertise.

I am not inclined to worry about whether there might have been some theoretically more democratic arrangement, I am just glad that what appeared impossible fifteen years ago has been put in place.

.
 

andrewmcleod

Well-known member
BradW said:
Dave's clarification is welcome. One comment: if I was a member of a club that had joined a representative body that had given itself the power to interfere in the club's business, I would urge my club to leave forthwith.

That would be fine, if clubs only dealt with their internal business.

But 'access controlling bodies' are a thing, and I think these (or the portion of a club's business that deals with access control) should be entirely subsidiary to the BCA - local decision making should be the default, but the BCA (or regional bodies as appropriate) should be able call bodies out on things they are doing.

Access should be shared between and by all cavers: no caver should feel they have more of a 'right' to a caver than any other.
 

BradW

Member
If a club was not part of the BCA and was not a member of any regional council that wanted a claim on what it did, then that club can do what the hell it likes. That's why I would urge any such club who felt they had their business interfered with against their wishes to leave. A club can exist perfectly well outside such bodies. Newstuff's club is possibly such an example? Clubs are not obliged to be part of any "higher" body. Some owners may insist on only dealing with a single club or similar body. That would be the landowner's wish - of course the BCA no longer has a clause respecting landowner's wishes.

 

Simon Wilson

New member
People seem to be confused about what topic we're discussing here so I'll take it back to the OP.

Jopo started the thread and appeared to be casting doubt about the democracy of the CCC. I then asked if there was some conflict within the CCC. I said I was starting to take an interest because of the national importance of the Draenen issue which has blown up and seems to be getting worse. It is on the CCC patch and I would expect them to be in the front line in trying to sort it out. ... :confused: :cautious:

I'll now move forward to Roy's latest long post about mines. It is informative about access to some mines. If we look at it in isolation, it appears to me (from over 100 miles away) an excellent outcome for mines access and very good work by a dedicated and altruistic individual or two. What's not to like?

However, it makes no mention of the CCC and appears to be off topic so why did Roy feel a need to post it on this thread? That makes me think that there will be a connection back up the thread. I can see a few scattered jigsaw pieces between the CCC, Draenen, CAL etc...

There are jigsaw pieces on different threads all over the forum of course and I could trawl through the forum and try to find them and start putting them all together but it would take a lifetime.

There have been a few long posts explaining various aspects of this complicated saga over the past couple of years. One thing that could be done is for someone who knows (instead of having to explain it all again) to create a thread and include links to the essential reading amongst those long posts.

 
Simon: I don't profess to understand the full background to all this but:
1  Roy is Legal and Insurance Officer for CCC as well as director of CAL, etc
2  Allan is a member of SWCC, as is Jopo. Allan was an officer of the OFD access body (separate but closely related to SWCC, I think) until some time last year, leaving him available to volunteer to act as Secretary to CCC when Dave Tyson (who resigned as secretary last year but took up the reins again when his elected replacement resigned suddenly) advertised for replacements.
3  Rhys used to be Newsletter editor for CCC until he resigned abruptly after a substantial change of the CCC committee in 2014 - Dave took his place (as well as being Secretary, and a Director of CAL).
4  I was co-opted into CCC as cave registrar in 2014 after the previous registrar also resigned abruptly.
5  Stuart France is Conservation and Access officer for CCC, besides being a Director of CAL, involved with the controversy over Draenen's 2nd entrance, and subsequently Drws Cefn, and Twll Du
6  BradW is ? the voice of reason ? a dissenting voice ? an Aunt Sally ?

I suspect that there may be some mistrust within SWCC, quite apart from CCC, which may have influenced the OP. Then different personal references or concerns (some from a 4 year old dispute over CCC's direction and attitude to access, including CRoW?) took over to weave this thread... It's a tangled web!
 

Simon Wilson

New member
Thanks Martin. I would probably know all that if I had been paying attention and could remember it.

So, there has been a bit of a revolution during which there was a change of officers and now the views of the officers of the CCC reflect the view of the majority of cavers. That is, generally in favour of allowing cavers to go into caves without too much fuss. So far so good.

BUT - there's a problem because even though they might be a quite a small minority the 'conrollers' (trying my best not to be too derogatory) hold a few 'key' positions - right?

Getting things out in the open can only help here. I know this has been answered before but exactly who are the individuals that make up the PDCMG and what is its history, its structure and its relationship to the CCC?
 

NewStuff

New member
BradW said:
Newstuff's club is possibly such an example?

Nope - Newstuff's club are a bunch of irreverent fools that like to poke things they shouldn't. We especially love poking fun at people that like locking stuff up. It's even more fun to leave them little notes inside the system they think is all locked up;-)

I haven't decided which one of the usual suspects you are yet, but no doubt it'll come out sooner or later.
 

Fulk

Well-known member
Simon Wilson:
I'm into vertical caving, I live near the Dales and I'm accustomed to more-or-less open access to caves, hence I never go caving in Wales.

Well, I guess the first 3 phrases could also apply to me ? but I've never had a problem with access to Wesh caves, and have enjoyed some brilliant trips there. If you never go, and have never been, caving in Wales ? well, you just don't know what you're missing!!!
 
Top