New stage of CROW access campaign

David Rose

David Rose

Well-known member
Following our partial victory in the BCA judicial review, our representations on CROW access have now been lodged with the Welsh government, NRW and Defra.

They make a broad case as to why caving should be treated with the same "equity" as other activities and should be recognised as coming within the right to roam provisions of the CROW Act. They can be read here (see attachment).

The other side must reply within two months.

 

Attachments

Good effort David and team  :thumbsup:

An excellent summary, with each point well evidenced in clear, concise English.

Let's see how they respond...
 
A refreshingly readable document, although I trust that paragraph 6 will be amended to have the word 'not' included between 'does' and 'make sense'...
 
Excellent! To any intelligent person, it's an overwhelmingly unchallengeable submission.

(PS, Para. 23, endo of line 16 should read in the plural - contains)
 
It?s lovely and indeed long. A few comments:

1. You cannot invoke BCA insurance as protection for landowners. That is a private venture that could cease to exist at any time. In fact, if you follow your own arguments it is already completely pointless on access land from the landowners perspective. Whether cavers want third party insurance is their own affair.

2. Crow specifically excludes commercial activity as it is self-evident landowners are entitled to both control and share in any income from the land. That covers all paid guiding. They may waive it, but they will obviously defend the principle.

3. All the ?excluded? activities are not banned, merely requiring permission. It is not at all unreasonable that Joe Public would think caving is no different to horse riding or cycling - activities with orders of magnitude more participation.

4. The problems will be in the detail. I will give you a scenario. I go up on the fell and dig out a clint to a depth of three feet. I proudly announce my new cave and assert an inalienable right to enter it and indeed do some light fettling until it reaches a depth of several hundred feet, scaffolded the whole way. Some might call it a mine, and that would be an interesting legal discussion given the vast historic case law on subsurface rights.

5. Good luck implementing access control or gates on CRoW land if there is a legal right to enter. No court would touch it if access was forced. I imagine this is the main legitimate concern of environmental quangos.

I would note we current have unrestricted access in practice to caves on CRoW land in England, and specific access in Scotland, the issue in Wales is one of governance and behaviours. If you elect the Stasi, you get what?s coming to you. It?s prob over a thousand years since my ancestors waded ashore in SW Wales and axed the locals, but that still counts as being an incomer in some parts.
 
Just to comment on your first and last points.

Landowner liability features as an issue for access in some areas.  CRoW addresses it on Access land and it is prominent in the Law of Property Acts.  Whether the fear of liability meets the reality is certainly arguable.  Never the less DEFRA and NE have also mentioned the issue of insurance during discussions.  Therefore is is covered in the response both to highlight the BCA offering and to suggest limiting liability in law is beneficial for cavers access.

I'm not one for gating caves unless it really is necessary.  There is, however, a detailed route in the CRoW Act to be followed should restrictions be required.  The least restrictive action to meet the need is the adage.  There are, however, several areas of designated CRoW Access land that is restricted and the public are prevented from entering by fences and gates.  A part of the Ingleton waterfalls walk for example. 

There was much discussion via Dave, the working group and the legal adviser over the approach and detail.  I think in the end it included a little bit of everything.  Lets hope it appeals to the Welsh Ministers.  Well done to Dave it was a lot of time and effort.
 
I think BCA should consider buying problematic caves, particularly on non-access land. The BMC buys crags. What else is it going to use the money for?

I have offered on land near me to make into a reserve, and it is ludicrously more expensive than the average fellside as it is near housing (whether it works is another matter).
 
Fjell said:
I think BCA should consider buying problematic caves, particularly on non-access land. The BMC buys crags. What else is it going to use the money for?
Click to expand...

The BMC buys crags as a last resort, and tries to avoid doing it.

Increasing insurance prices would be one thing that could (will?) eat up the BCA budget.
 
Fjell said:
I think BCA should consider buying problematic caves, particularly on non-access land. The BMC buys crags. What else is it going to use the money for?
Click to expand...

This is a whole different argument and while it may seem to make sense in some circumstances, it would have the potential to set a dangerous precedent. By buying land (at a presumably inflated price) you are practically inviting land owners to block cave access unless we buy it for their named price.

For example, on Mendip, access to Lamb Leer Cavern was (deliberately) lost for pretty much this very reason. The owner wanted to charge a very high fee for access and it was felt better to lose one cave than risk losing them all, if other land owners had followed suit for a quick cash win.

Individuals, or individual caving clubs buying a bit of land is a different matter, but if a regional or national body makes it policy, it could lead to serious unintended consequences in the future.
 
& on point 4, it never has been, or is allowed under CRoW, to dig on someone else's land without permission (unless you are the Crown / government, when you can make up your own rules!)
 
The Government has just issued its response to Julian Glovers 2019 Landscapes Review. (See: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/landscapes-review-national-parks-and-aonbs-government-response/landscapes-review-national-parks-and-aonbs-government-response)

I would refer you to the Glover report and specifically to Proposal 16: Consider expanding open access, which includes these words:

"But it feels wrong that many parts of our most beautiful places are off?limits to horse riders, water users, cavers, wild campers and so on. We hope that as part of the government?s commitment to connect more people with nature, it will look seriously at whether the levels of open access we have in our most special places are adequate."

The Government response to Proposal 16 is as follows:

"Proposal 16 recommends expanding open access rights to provide additional recreational opportunities. We aim to review the open access maps to clarify rights and inform any further consideration of expanding open access rights."

The Government is consulting on its response (see: https://consult.defra.gov.uk/future-landscapes-strategy/government-response-to-the-landscapes-review/). This initiative applies to Protected Landscapes, a much wider area than just CROW access land.

This is an important opportunity for cavers to follow up on David's good work by making the case direct to Government for them to implement the improvement in access for cavers included in Proposal 16.

I would hope that David on behalf of BCA would also respond to this consultation and to take a twin track approach to seeking improved access for caving.
 
I've never been down Hesp Alyn. Having posted my earlier comment, I've read a couple of accounts of trips in it and it does sound interesting. Is it all still rigged? Wardy, do you fancy a trip some time?
 
Hi Dave
We need a little drier weather, but I am definitely up for it once it dries up and we can access the further reaches- the Alyn gorge can be seen from my window as I type - we may even persuade Mike along for a "viewing".

Suggest we need to be quick though in case Mike does buy it up and slaps a turnstile plus ticket office on the place.
 
RestingCaver said:
The Government has just issued its response to Julian Glovers 2019 Landscapes Review. (See: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/landscapes-review-national-parks-and-aonbs-government-response/landscapes-review-national-parks-and-aonbs-government-response)

I would refer you to the Glover report and specifically to Proposal 16: Consider expanding open access, which includes these words:

"But it feels wrong that many parts of our most beautiful places are off?limits to horse riders, water users, cavers, wild campers and so on. We hope that as part of the government?s commitment to connect more people with nature, it will look seriously at whether the levels of open access we have in our most special places are adequate."

The Government response to Proposal 16 is as follows:

"Proposal 16 recommends expanding open access rights to provide additional recreational opportunities. We aim to review the open access maps to clarify rights and inform any further consideration of expanding open access rights."

The Government is consulting on its response (see: https://consult.defra.gov.uk/future-landscapes-strategy/government-response-to-the-landscapes-review/). This initiative applies to Protected Landscapes, a much wider area than just CROW access land.

This is an important opportunity for cavers to follow up on David's good work by making the case direct to Government for them to implement the improvement in access for cavers included in Proposal 16.

I would hope that David on behalf of BCA would also respond to this consultation and to take a twin track approach to seeking improved access for caving.
Click to expand...

This is clearly the sort of opportunity caving needs to get leverage alongside other (larger) groups. Another quote is:

?We will also continue to pay for heritage, access and engagement through our existing schemes and we will consider how to maintain investment in these areas as part of future schemes?

This aligns with a previous discussion on the evolving ELM policy with regard to providing public goods for any subsidy. There is no doubt landowners are going to get paid to maintain the landscape, so what the public gets for that money is what now matters.

You may find that the wording in CRoW becomes overtaken by events.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

David Rose
Revealed: Caving and the CROW Act - new political developments
Replies
16
Views
2K
mikem
M
thehungrytroglobite
Caving & National Parks
Replies
4
Views
2K
mikem
M
S
Welsh Goverment slashes budget for implementing its access reforms
Replies
0
Views
1K
Stuart France
S
David Rose
Caroline Lucas's Bill to extend CROW access - my attempt to lobby her
2
Replies
30
Views
6K
RestingCaver
RestingCaver
David Rose
Important CROW case update: We have a settlement and partial victory - for now
Replies
19
Views
4K
pwhole
pwhole
Back
Top