Statement from the Trustees of Pwll Du Cave Management Group
- Thread starter NameOfTheDragon
- Start date
NameOfTheDragon
New member
David Rose said:
I prefer not to advertise a precise location but the monument number is MM189. I have already mentioned the name of the monument both in my previous posts and in the Trustees' statement. David, you have already implied in a previous post that you know where the entrance is so there is no need for me to be more specific (I don't think I actually even have a grid reference). What I will say is that from my own examination, the scheduled monument is considerably wider than the visible tram road and incorporates works and retaining walls both above and below.
It is not for me to interpret Cadw's assessment. Cadw has inspected the site and determined that the entrance has caused damage to the monument. This is not a matter of my opinion, it is Cadw's position based on its own assessment. If you need further details then I'd recommend that you contact Cadw directly to get an authoritative answer, rather than me possibly giving you incorrect or misleading information.
andrewmcleod
Well-known member
NameOfTheDragon said:
The moral of the story might be that agreeing to restrictive access agreements of this nature, which place responsibility to managing things on the access body, may come back to bite you... access bodies should negotiate to improve access for cavers, not manage it for land owners.
If they become a management body acting for the landowner they risk losing sight of the purpose of their existence...
(given that the landowner and PDCMG are unable to close Dwrs Cefn due to bats and the threat of legal action, one has to ask what practical effect losing the access agreement if the PDCMG were to hold their heads high and say 'this doesn't work for caving' and walk away?)
PS I'm not defending the actions of others, but the current system doesn't seem work for the larger caving community.
RichardB1983
Member
The Scheduled Monument boundaries for MM189 can be seen here:
http://lle.gov.wales/map#m=-3.07951,51.79733,17&b=osraster&l=3;;
You can change the imagery to other backgrounds - e.g. satellite view
Interestingly, it seems some of the tramway falls outside of the scheduled monument boundaries where the tramway doglegs. But it's quite a bit wider than the tramway in other areas.
http://lle.gov.wales/map#m=-3.07951,51.79733,17&b=osraster&l=3;;
You can change the imagery to other backgrounds - e.g. satellite view
Interestingly, it seems some of the tramway falls outside of the scheduled monument boundaries where the tramway doglegs. But it's quite a bit wider than the tramway in other areas.
Ship-badger
Member
I am proud to be a renegade. Trustees? Management Groups? Stuff them.
Ship-badger said:
Strange statement from a member of this club.
http://www.zen159313.zen.co.uk/rfdcc/sites/caves/otter_hole/otter_hole.htm
Jopo
NameOfTheDragon
New member
andrewmc said:
I find it difficult to accept that characterisation, when PDCMG is the "most representative and democratic cave management group in the UK". I would say that on the whole, the "larger caving community" is well represented and served by PDCMG _because_ it keeps the land owner happy. I fail to understand how antagonising land owners or conservation bodies in any way helps the case of cavers.
Martin Laverty
Member
Trustee Tim, Even if the PDCMG was "most representative and democratic cave management group in the UK" it is in in a pretty small group isn't it? OFD, DYO, MLCMG that I can think of in Wales, Peak Cavern perhaps?
As you know PDCMG was set up to represent the clubs involved in active exploration in 1996, so was skewed away from more recreational and non-local clubs; this bias may have reduced over the years (in spite of some blatant attempts at gerrymandering that I was witness to) but I suspect that andrewmc's view that "the current system doesn't seem work for the larger caving community" might well win a vote organised (heaven forbid!) amongst the BCA membership. His point that "access bodies should negotiate to improve access for cavers, not manage it for land owners" is very pertinent, albeit they will, by their very name, manage access (and more), but with the emphasis being on the responsible use of the cave (whereas landowners - and some elements in statutory authorities - might well prefer there was no cave at all).
On Twll Du itself, the photo demonstrates clearly that the entrance is not on the tramway itself (albeit within the - perhaps somewhat arbitrary? - boundaries laid down - rather negligently, it appears, near Garnddyrys, as RichardB1983 has alluded to) and has not damaged any abutment. It will be interested to see what precisely Cadw adjudges the damage to be - perhaps to the edge of its levelled base, which might even have filled in an open cave entrance, perhaps? I walked past the entrance in August and it was quite invisible, hidden by gorse and other vegetation, but that has clearly now gone.
I was not familiar with the meaning of 'a community resolution' - here is a local links to check for yourself its meaning and implication: http://www.connectgwent.org.uk/what-is-a-crime/anti-social-behaviour/
Whether or not any offenders are identified, a resolution is clearly required in terms of 'securing' the site for the future. Just replacing some rocks and turfing over could eventually restore the staus quo, but be open to the threat of disturbance which has kept Drws Cefn open. Capping with concrete or the like would be unnecessarily obtrusive and not, I think, in keeping with an ancient monument. I hope that the PDCMG and other interested bodies (Cambrian CC, local clubs and amenity groups, NRW, local authority planners...) will be willing, able, and allowed the opportunity to persuade Cadw and Pwlldu Conservation that there is a case for leaving an accessible but discrete (as it was, apparently for almost a year) entrance for cavers (and bats? who knows?), secure from misuse: all cavers I know who have been down say it is by far the most impressive of Draenen's entrances so far - as soon as you get inside... It might even allow the PDCMG to make the local landowner happy again - it's a long way from his house, where the view of cavers has annoyed him in the past, and not on his private access land...
As you know PDCMG was set up to represent the clubs involved in active exploration in 1996, so was skewed away from more recreational and non-local clubs; this bias may have reduced over the years (in spite of some blatant attempts at gerrymandering that I was witness to) but I suspect that andrewmc's view that "the current system doesn't seem work for the larger caving community" might well win a vote organised (heaven forbid!) amongst the BCA membership. His point that "access bodies should negotiate to improve access for cavers, not manage it for land owners" is very pertinent, albeit they will, by their very name, manage access (and more), but with the emphasis being on the responsible use of the cave (whereas landowners - and some elements in statutory authorities - might well prefer there was no cave at all).
On Twll Du itself, the photo demonstrates clearly that the entrance is not on the tramway itself (albeit within the - perhaps somewhat arbitrary? - boundaries laid down - rather negligently, it appears, near Garnddyrys, as RichardB1983 has alluded to) and has not damaged any abutment. It will be interested to see what precisely Cadw adjudges the damage to be - perhaps to the edge of its levelled base, which might even have filled in an open cave entrance, perhaps? I walked past the entrance in August and it was quite invisible, hidden by gorse and other vegetation, but that has clearly now gone.
I was not familiar with the meaning of 'a community resolution' - here is a local links to check for yourself its meaning and implication: http://www.connectgwent.org.uk/what-is-a-crime/anti-social-behaviour/
Whether or not any offenders are identified, a resolution is clearly required in terms of 'securing' the site for the future. Just replacing some rocks and turfing over could eventually restore the staus quo, but be open to the threat of disturbance which has kept Drws Cefn open. Capping with concrete or the like would be unnecessarily obtrusive and not, I think, in keeping with an ancient monument. I hope that the PDCMG and other interested bodies (Cambrian CC, local clubs and amenity groups, NRW, local authority planners...) will be willing, able, and allowed the opportunity to persuade Cadw and Pwlldu Conservation that there is a case for leaving an accessible but discrete (as it was, apparently for almost a year) entrance for cavers (and bats? who knows?), secure from misuse: all cavers I know who have been down say it is by far the most impressive of Draenen's entrances so far - as soon as you get inside... It might even allow the PDCMG to make the local landowner happy again - it's a long way from his house, where the view of cavers has annoyed him in the past, and not on his private access land...
NameOfTheDragon
New member
Martin Laverty said:
It remains to be seen how Cadw wants to resolve the situation and with whom it will consult. I have only partial visibility of the goings on so I would be unwise to speculate beyond the factual information I have already posted. By the way, I wouldn't necessarily take those online maps as definitive. I don't know how Cadw tracks these things internally but they do not appear to be in any doubt about their assessment. In order to have committed an offence, one only has to "cause damage or disturbance to a Scheduled Monument without Scheduled Monument Consent from Cadw".
Under better circumstances, we might have had an interesting discussion about additional entrances but the manner and location in which this one has arisen is rather unfortunate. Never say never, but it is hard to imagine how we go from here to having an officially sanctioned additional entrance. I do personally think that a case might be made if it could just be done within the terms of the access license, but it is extremely difficult to make a convincing case when certain actors insist on undermining the PDCMG. It would also not be a decisiopn to be taken lightly. Of primary concern would be the impact on cave conservation. I understand that the famous "snowball" formation in Snowball Passage has recently mysteriously moved to a different location, for example. No doubt a well-meaning gesture, designed to protect it from increased traffic from the new entrance. However, it is a clear demonstration of the immediate and irreversible impact of proximity to an entrance.
David Rose
Active member
There are at least two maps online, from Cadw and Coflein, and they are very different. I believe there is yet another one from Archwilio, the local archaeological trust. And these are just online maps. They may not reflect the exact boundary on higher resolution, larger scale plans on paper.
There is no upper retaining wall in the vicinity of the entrance, Nameofthedragon, so it seems you may be mistaken as to its location.
My point is: all this may be a lot greyer than it first seems. And if there is a lack of certainty as to whether the Twll Du hole is within the boundary, I would argue as pointed out earlier that even if it is technically, it is not actually part of the monument, and its opening has not damaged it.
I am not trying to inflame matters. Quite the reverse. I would like to see people sit round a table and have a reasonable discussion about how to achieve consensus over the Draenen system, and build from that. But I am also convinced that the single entrance policy does not command a high degree of support from those who cave in Wales, and the attempt to cling to it is the ultimate source of the conflict and bitterness. I accept that others disagree, and do so for genuine reasons.
There is no upper retaining wall in the vicinity of the entrance, Nameofthedragon, so it seems you may be mistaken as to its location.
My point is: all this may be a lot greyer than it first seems. And if there is a lack of certainty as to whether the Twll Du hole is within the boundary, I would argue as pointed out earlier that even if it is technically, it is not actually part of the monument, and its opening has not damaged it.
I am not trying to inflame matters. Quite the reverse. I would like to see people sit round a table and have a reasonable discussion about how to achieve consensus over the Draenen system, and build from that. But I am also convinced that the single entrance policy does not command a high degree of support from those who cave in Wales, and the attempt to cling to it is the ultimate source of the conflict and bitterness. I accept that others disagree, and do so for genuine reasons.
I just despair when I hear Draenan mentioned. I keep thinking to myself that it can't get any worse and it then it usually does. How can the discovery of such a great cave have gone so wrong.
To me the fundamental flaw is an unrealistic ideology that a single entrance policy will protect a wilderness. To achieve and thwart this position all sorts have been thrown at the argument; landowner rights, CRoW, conservation, bats, camping mess, explosives, concrete, threats of legal action, judicial review, vandalism, theft, survey disputes and more no doubt. After years of this where are we? - in an ever worsening spiral.
Put together the tenacity of cavers, the proximity of the cave to the surface and the example of Lancaster Hole/Easegill and you must realise that it is like King Canute trying to stop the tide coming in. Ain't going to happen.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of all those involved it must finally be time to sort out a resolution which satisfies all.
To me the fundamental flaw is an unrealistic ideology that a single entrance policy will protect a wilderness. To achieve and thwart this position all sorts have been thrown at the argument; landowner rights, CRoW, conservation, bats, camping mess, explosives, concrete, threats of legal action, judicial review, vandalism, theft, survey disputes and more no doubt. After years of this where are we? - in an ever worsening spiral.
Put together the tenacity of cavers, the proximity of the cave to the surface and the example of Lancaster Hole/Easegill and you must realise that it is like King Canute trying to stop the tide coming in. Ain't going to happen.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of all those involved it must finally be time to sort out a resolution which satisfies all.
This reversion to the old argument about an entrance policy is a distraction. The present very serious issue is that one party has possibly committed a criminal act (which others are now trying to make excuses for), and the other party hasn't. I know where I stand. Shame on those who want to excuse possible criminality.
Focusing on this criminal act is one way forward. It didn't work when gates were stolen and vandalised before. I don't see it as a resolution now. But, hey, keep throwing the kitchen sink at the argument and perhaps it will eventually solve the underlying problems - or not.
Distraction again, Badlad. Perhaps the way forward is for those responsible for the idiotic actions should simply fess up, make reparations, demonstrating a degree of maturity, and stop making excuses. It reminds me of a 6-year old proclaiming "he made me do it" after being caught being naughty. Adults should know better. And those that provide excuses, and in a position of some authority, should make a statement via CCC or BCA to the effect that any illegal actions are not condoned and never will be.
alastairgott
Well-known member
Come together.
1) find out what the legal issues are
2) work out a way to rectify any problems with legality if possible
3) stop the tittle tattle (ie History, "excusing Criminality", Kitchen Sink, the list goes on)
Revise, Rectify, Renew.
Both sides are guilty of something. In one case a Targeted additional entrance by the access committee may have been better than the outright warfare that has ensued. In the other, there are the "create an entrance cos we can gang", who again would have been better creating a targeted additional Entrance with the access committee.
1) find out what the legal issues are
2) work out a way to rectify any problems with legality if possible
3) stop the tittle tattle (ie History, "excusing Criminality", Kitchen Sink, the list goes on)
Revise, Rectify, Renew.
Both sides are guilty of something. In one case a Targeted additional entrance by the access committee may have been better than the outright warfare that has ensued. In the other, there are the "create an entrance cos we can gang", who again would have been better creating a targeted additional Entrance with the access committee.
And where does the landowner fit in with this "compromise"? The "two sides" ultimately are the owners, and cavers. and NOT PDCMG versus advocates of multiple freely accessible entrances.
Would you "compromise" with idiots who caused illegal damage to your property, in their pursuit of "fun"? I wouldn't!
Would you "compromise" with idiots who caused illegal damage to your property, in their pursuit of "fun"? I wouldn't!
alastairgott
Well-known member
see points 1 and 2.
The rage you are displaying is not helping your thought processes.
The rage you are displaying is not helping your thought processes.
Badlad said:
BCA, CCC, NRW have all been shown to be incompetent in sorting caving disputes. All need a reform with new blood with some interest in caving and common sense.
CCC especially, starting from the chairman down.
I?m an advocate for multiple entrances to Dreanen, but this new entrance is in a stupid place. The diggers should man up, own up and assist in putting it right. In cooperation with PDCMG. The ideal option would be a concrete base, or concrete rings with locked manhole or gate and a key issued to each key holding club.
All others have failed to find a resolution to caving disputes (Dreanen and otherwise), hopefully Cadw will have some clout.
RobinGriffiths
Well-known member
Dave Tyson said:I think a better statement might be:BradW said:
"find yourself a hole outside the Pwlldu Conservation land boundary and keep digging till you reach Ogof Draenen"
Dave
That really is the Holy Grail. Is there any online resource showing the boundary ?
Wayland Smith
Active member
If the story that the discovery was made from underneath, by climbing an aven is correct.
(At the top they saw grass roots and moved them aside to expose the entry.)
Two things seem clear to me,
They have done the landowner a favour by discovering a potentially dangerous fall hazard.
What constitutes digging or disturbance if there was an existing opening just covered with grass?
(At the top they saw grass roots and moved them aside to expose the entry.)
Two things seem clear to me,
They have done the landowner a favour by discovering a potentially dangerous fall hazard.
What constitutes digging or disturbance if there was an existing opening just covered with grass?
