Some good news on cave access

[cavermark]

oops.. :-[

 

[paul]

[gmod]Can we please stop the personal bickering and try and keep on topic. [/gmod]

 

[Alex]

No... it's funny. These threads never seem to go anywhere so might as well have a chuckle.

 

[David Rose]

It seems to me that Tim Allen's article in Descent breaks significant new ground. If the law and the public bodies which apply it say we can walk to and descend the entrance pitches to Cow Pot, Gavel Pot etc without the need to seek permits, it seems to me most unlikely that any court would decide that the right of access ends with the daylight. The point that using CRoW to justify access reduces landowners' potential liability is also, I think, very important: they might easily come to see that CRoW actually represents a win for them.

With any luck, there won't be any need to make a big deal of this. My hunch is that apart from on Casterton and Leck Fells, abolishing permits will make little difference to the numbers going underground, and even there things would swiftly settle down after an initial surge. There doesn't seem to be much problem in places such as Kingsdale: why should Leck Fell be any different? Why should it be more of an issue to go down Lost Johns or Notts 2 than Deathshead Hole? Why would someone able to abseil down the Deathshead shaft freely, but then be trespassing if he or she went on to the streamway? The courts like logic, and there is none in saying CRoW only applies to entrances. If it did, where would the right to access end exactly? If you're in the dark but there's a strong draught blowing from the entrance, are you still in open air? And who could possibly police a framework that only allowed access to entrances? Would landowners count the ropes in your tackle bags and say," aha, I see you plan to rig the Cow Pot second pitch ? so get off my land"? I doubt it. Anyway, they would have no legal right to look in your bag!

I would recommend that the BCA seek a legal opinion.

I would also suggest that the document written by Dave Judson on the BCA website, which is entitled "The BCA position on CRoW", should now be withdrawn, or at least be subject to a document pointing out that the position it describes is inaccurate.

Thanks to Jenny Potts, we have the data on CRoW sites to support the legal position. This is an opportunity to bring caving into line with other recreations which have derived benefit from CRoW legislation.In my view, we must seize this chance.

 

[TheBitterEnd]

With any luck, there won't be any need to make a big deal of this.

No chance. As I said in post #14 above the people who will make the biggest hullabaloo about this are cavers themselves. Just look up-thread, toys have already been thrown out of prams over something that, as you say, will in practice make no significant difference to the amount and nature of sport caving that occurs.

 

[blackholesun]

With Leck Fell, David, I believe that you park on private land (or undergo a very long walk). As CROW doesn't give any rights of way to those not on foot, the landowner could say, 'Sure, walk around, go up and down some entrance shafts, but don't park on my land unless you have a permit'. I'd like to have more access to Leck Fell, certainly, but without a corresponding increase in access to parking, it wouldn't be very convenient.

With Casterton Fell, the whole system is something of a joke. Occasionally someone conscientious and well meaning is heard to ask at Bull Pot Farm, 'We've changed our plans for tomorrow, instead of going down YY which we originally got a permit for, does anyone have the permit for XX and can we tag along with them?' Such concern for sticking to the rules is typically met with much amusement. Removal of the need for permits there probably wouldn't even cause an initial surge and very few would notice or be affected.

If you were to experience the astronomically unlikely chance of being questioned on Casterton Fell then claiming that you were only going to do the entrance would probably just be the equivalent to saying you got lost on the way to Pippikin pot.

 

[blackholesun]

Not that I disagree with the essence of what you say, David, it's just the parking issue and the existence of another excuse mean that there are some other practical considerations.

Instead of theorising what landowners will think, or readying our arguments in case we happen across one on a 'pirate' trip, perhaps it could be useful to ask one?

I (still) think that the Ingleborough estate would provide as useful place to start. Many walkers already visit, so cavers do not make a large percent of the footfall. You can climb (in Trow Gill) without a permit. There must be reasonably good relations with the owners to allow two winch meets a year, and also the owners know they are not liable for damages if a caver hurts themselves after the fatality and the court case.

If lots of people all write to Dr. Farrer, it would obviously be very counterproductive for all cavers. However, a well thought through, measured, letter asking if he would allow for open air caving to take place on his land in the light of the CROW act (such as abseiling down GG main hang) could be a useful step forwards.

 

[Ian Adams]

It seems to me that Tim Allen's article in Descent breaks significant new ground. If the law and the public bodies which apply it say we can walk to and descend the entrance pitches to Cow Pot, Gavel Pot etc without the need to seek permits, it seems to me most unlikely that any court would decide that the right of access ends with the daylight.

Agreed, Occam?s Razor.

The point that using CRoW to justify access reduces landowners' potential liability is also, I think, very important: they might easily come to see that CRoW actually represents a win for them. 

Agreed ? a point I have made (and others I think). There is a huge benefit to landowners under CRoW with regards liability issues especially since the BCA insurance has a large excess and is not clear as to what is actually covered.

With any luck, there won't be any need to make a big deal of this. My hunch is that apart from on Casterton and Leck Fells, abolishing permits will make little difference to the numbers going underground.

Agreed again. Caving numbers and caving trips would not necessarily increase at all. In fact, in South Wales, the opposite has been the case in Ogof Draenen and the Drws Cefn entrance.

I would recommend that the BCA seek a legal opinion. 

Why not?  The BCA constitution provides that it should act in the best interests of cavers and to facilitate better and easier access (paraphrased before I get jumped on). I completely agree.

I would also suggest that the document written by Dave Judson on the BCA website, which is entitled "The BCA position on CRoW", should now be withdrawn, or at least be subject to a document pointing out that the position it describes is inaccurate.

Agreed. It is now clearly inaccurate.

Thanks to Jenny Potts, we have the data on CRoW sites to support the legal position. This is an opportunity to bring caving into line with other recreations which have derived benefit from CRoW legislation.In my view, we must seize this chance.

We must indeed seize the chance.

I cannot understand why some people throw objection after objection (usually to deflect from the central issue) to the point it becomes farcical to fight against CRoW.  CRoW is not a weapon of war, it is a means for people (of all ilk?s) to enjoy the land and to protect landowners from liability.

As cavers, we should embrace it and, of course, respect the landowners wishes.

Ian

 

[bograt]

Agreed ? a point I have made (and others I think). There is a huge benefit to landowners under CRoW with regards liability issues especially since the BCA insurance has a large excess and is not clear as to what is actually covered.

Bear in mind that CRoW indemnity will only apply for those activities expressly allowed under the act, i.e. on the surface, incidents underground will still require a separate insurance.

 

[Ian Adams]

Bear in mind that CRoW indemnity will only apply for those activities expressly allowed under the act, i.e. on the surface, incidents underground will still require a separate insurance.

Interesting point. I wonder if CRoW liability insurance would cover incidents under ground if it is established that "caving" is permissible under CRoW legislation ?

Ian

 

[droid]

Logically, it would.

The sticking point is the word 'logically' though....

 

[bograt]

Another one to think about;

If caving were permissible under CRoW, so indemnity was covered, how is it going to be resolved in the case of a through trip with only one entrance on CRoW land? :-\ :-\

 

[Stu]

Another one to think about;

If caving were permissible under CRoW, so indemnity was covered, how is it going to be resolved in the case of a through trip with only one entrance on CRoW land? :-\ :-\

One presumes boundaries are applied underground...

 

[Bob Mehew]

Another one to think about;

If caving were permissible under CRoW, so indemnity was covered, how is it going to be resolved in the case of a through trip with only one entrance on CRoW land? :-\ :-\

One presumes boundaries are applied underground...

Yes they do.  Assuming that caving is permitted within a cave on CRoW land, then you need the permission of the other land owner to cross the boundary.  But can someone come up with an example on one entrance on and the other off 'CRoW land'? 

Bear in mind that CRoW indemnity will only apply for those activities expressly allowed under the act, i.e. on the surface, incidents underground will still require a separate insurance.

Interesting point. I wonder if CRoW liability insurance would cover incidents under ground if it is established that "caving" is permissible under CRoW legislation ?

This is poorly phrased.  CRoW provides a limit on the extent of liability of the land owner not 'insurance'.  I see no reason why not, assuming CRoW does apply. 

It seems to me that Tim Allen's article in Descent breaks significant new ground. If the law and the public bodies which apply it say we can walk to and descend the entrance pitches to Cow Pot, Gavel Pot etc without the need to seek permits, it seems to me most unlikely that any court would decide that the right of access ends with the daylight.

The topic of whether CRoW covers caving is complex and far from clear cut.  NE's advice indicates it does to some extent, but they clearly think there is a limit and hence would disagree with your suggestion that a court would decide the way you suggest. Whether an argument can be made to demonstrate that CRoW does cover all caving is going to take time.  The concern of many other cavers is that if some caver tries to push this 'on the ground' then they could end up precipitating a major battle between land owners and cavers.   

PS - you may wish to think of the poor canoeists whose rights were initially in the bill but removed by the time CRoW became an Act.  As well as those who pursue swimming, hang gliding and paragliding which are explicitly not covered by CRoW.

 

[barrabus]

If lots of people all write to Dr. Farrer...

Dr Farrer died earlier this year.

Craven Herald article

 

[bog4053]

The bulk of the current discussion focuses on what cavers are legally entitled to under the CROW act.  If the issue is about improving access to caves it can be better achieved via the Caving Governing Bodies.  In addition to Tim's article in Descent 237 there is  another on Access versus the Environment.  It is a much more sensible and reasoned debate than the one here on UK Caving Forum.  The environment both above and below ground is more important than people's rights under an ill thought out piece of legislation.

I believe this subject was motivated by issues around Leck Fell.  I've spent most of my time in recent years on Leck and Casterton and for both I've never had a problem getting permits at short notice.  CNCC has good relations with both landowners and we had major surface digs at Shuttleworth Pot and Cupcake.  What more do we want and why on earth would we want to alienate landowners by not asking permission when it is so readily given?

 

[SpeleoTrog]

Yes they do.  Assuming that caving is permitted within a cave on CRoW land, then you need the permission of the other land owner to cross the boundary.  But can someone come up with an example on one entrance on and the other off 'CRoW land'? 

OFD - Top Entrance is on CROW land whereas both Cwm Dwr and OFD1 are not. All 3 Cwm Dwr caves lie within a quarry and OFD1 is on privately owned land. As it happens, the different landowners are all pro caving and work together to dovetail their permits and access agreements. That may not have been the case if the recent sale of the land around OFD1 had gone differently.

 

[graham]

The environment both above and below ground is more important than people's rights under an ill thought out piece of legislation.

Yes indeed it is, unless you are one of those who regard their perceived 'rights' as being more important than anything else.

Speaking personally, I do not regard the legislation as being particularly ill thought out. No legislation is perfect and this piece has, hitherto, worked quite well. There will always be marginal cases where things could be better, but in my personal view, the current situation with regard to access on Leck and Casterton Fells is not one of them. There is no doubt that many people are unhappy with how that works at present but most, if not all, of those issues could be dealt with internally within CNCC and by discussion with the landowners. using a national legal sledgehammer to crush a local, relatively minor, nut seems to me to be overkill in the extreme.

 

[Fulk]

blackholesun:

With Leck Fell, David, I believe that you park on private land (or undergo a very long walk). As CROW doesn't give any rights of way to those not on foot, the landowner could say, 'Sure, walk around, go up and down some entrance shafts, but don't park on my land unless you have a permit'.

To the best of my knowledge, the road up Leck Fell is a public road maintained by the local council at their expense.

I believe that there is some obscure legislation that allows parking within a specified distance of a public road (5 m or whatever) . . . . though, of course, in the present case, parking would be quite inappropriate within most of the 10-m corridor (and I guess that if you tried to park in somebody's front garden and quoted such legislation, they would not be amused).

 

[kay]

To the best of my knowledge, the road up Leck Fell is a public road maintained by the local council at their expense.

I believe that there is some obscure legislation that allows parking within a specified distance of a public road (5 m or whatever) . . . . though, of course, in the present case, parking would be quite inappropriate within most of the 10-m corridor (and I guess that if you tried to park in somebody's front garden and quoted such legislation, they would not be amused).

A grass verge alongside a road which is not clearly part of a roadside property is considered as part of the highway, and you may park on it as long as you do not cause an obstruction.