Statement from the Trustees of Pwll Du Cave Management Group

[BradW]

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.

I suspect Cadw will want no less than a full restoration to original status, or as close as possible, given that the ground has been irreversibly disturbed. Anything less would give the perpetrators, and others, an excuse to do the same sort of thing again if they think they can "get away with it". There are procedures in place for gaining consent. Ignore them, as was done, at your peril.

 

[mikem]

Looking at this application to put an information board up in that area, you can get an idea of the complexities involved:
http://www.llanellycc.org.uk/documents/16-13147-ADVGarnDderysForgeOfficersReport.pdf

Before doing any work near a scheduled monument, you are legally obliged to find out the rules:
http://cadw.gov.wales/historicenvironment/policy/heritage-crime/?lang=en

Although, as mentioned before, not all of the tramroad is scheduled:
http://www.ggat.org.uk/cadw/historic_landscape/blaenavon/english/Blaenavon_011.htm

Mike

 

[Minion]

Let me be clear, I don?t propose any work until Cadw are satisfied and all the relevant paperwork from all parties has been completed.

Cooperation from the diggers would be a massive help, if only a promise not to vandalise it at the first instance.

New blood on the PDCMG, let?s see if we can end this single entrance nonsense once and for all.

 

[cseal]

That really is the Holy Grail. Is there any online resource showing the boundary ?

The land originally bought by Pwlldu Conservation Limited can be in the seen in the map included in Section 2.8 of

http://www.visitblaenavon.co.uk/en/Publications/WorldHeritageSite/ForgottenLandscapes/FL-Landscape-Character-Study.pdf

Neighbouring land (in 2008) was owned by various parties including Duke of Beaufort, Forestry Commission, Hand Gliding Club, BBNP.  If anyone still has the original prospectus issued by the Coal Board when they sold the land, I expect it may provide a better more detailed map.

 

[Martin Laverty]

Within the first document cited by mikem is this passage from the National Park Planning Ecologist:

The site lies within a Regionally Important Geodiversity Site (RIGS) - Ogof Draenen (RIGS ID No.564); the applicants may wish to consider adding information regarding this to the interpretation board as the geological features are relevant to the industrial heritage

What a great opportunity Twll Du provides to do this and expand on the mention that Draenen gets in many of the publications about the area.

Incidentally, the SE Wales RIGS group [ https://sewrigs.wordpress.com/rigs/ ] have never actually divulged the identities of the majority of the sites, as far as I know (although one local authority had a draft list in its public documents some time ago). I doubt that even the PDCMG knows that Draenen has such a designation - I'm pretty sure it has never been mentioned (although an ex-officer drew up, at least, the draft list)

 

[rich]

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.

I think a lot of the problems come from this forum. I've had some vigorous discussions on this issue over beers but haven't seen them degrade to the kind of abuse that most of these threads descend into. It's a lot easier to appreciate someone else's point of view face-to-face.

As forum admin, I would like to propose to you that there should be stricter rules in place for Draenen threads to avoid descending into the usual shitstorm. E.g.:

• Basic politeness - no name calling against people or individuals
• Assume truthfulness - assume people are telling the truth (appreciating that sometimes people are misinformed or misremember details)
• Assume good faith - assume fellow cavers believe in conservation, bat welfare, and not deliberately antagonising other cavers
• Basic empathy - appreciate that whilst you may disagree with the argument of the other side, enough cavers do agree with it that it is a reasonable position (so try not to e.g. call arguments ridiculous or indefensible)

Otherwise we'll just have the usual 42 pages of the PDCMG / CCC are EVIL, and how come you took 3.5 weeks to respond to a letter back in May 2015, and why can't you all just be reasonable and compromise as long as it's on my point of view, and this is all ridiculous and you should all stop name calling, you bunch of dicks.

Group hug?

 

[rhychydwr1]

Rich

You are a spoil sport.  I think this is the most amusing topic to date 

 

[Moonrat]

I received this email this evening and was asked to circulate it to all my Club members...

Dear PDCMG members, PDCMG trustees, and PDCMG meeting attendees,

PDCMG meeting in mid Oct, you know, news was just breaking on social media about a new entrance to Ogof Draenen, at the time the location and details were not known to those present at meeting so was not discussed further at that meeting.
A few days after that meeting this new entrance was identified as being within the land owned by Pwlldu Conservation Ltd (PCL), therefore in accordance with PDCMG agreement with the landowner (PCL), as secretary of PDCMG, I informed the landowner of the presence of this new entrance and its location.  It was quickly determined this entrance was on site of historic scheduled monument,  a nationally protected Scheduled Monument  Garnddyrys (site of) and adjacent tramway (reference MM189). The relevant regulatory authorities were informed, including CADW , with reference to publications on the new site. A site visit occurred by the CADW representative and discussions took place, of which I was asked to keep confidential initially. This has finally cumulated in CADW representative issuing the following statement:-

CADW have issued a statement confirming that this new entrance was dug through, and therefore caused damage to, the Garnddyrus Forge and Hills Tramroad, a nationally protected Scheduled Monument. CADW have stated that it is an offence to cause damage or disturbance to a Scheduled Monument without Scheduled Monument Consent from CADW. No consent was sought, or granted, for the hole to be opened, and it was therefore an illegal act. CADW are seeking a community resolution to securely seal the hole and stabilise the tramway. Cavers are advised that any damage caused to the scheduled monument through the use of the hole to access Ogof Draenen would also be considered in breach of the law.

Please could the PDCMG club representatives please pass this information on to their caving club members.
I believe an equivalent statement will be issued by other UK caving organizations, from correspondence I have been copied in on very recently.

But the wording of the statement from CADW appears to be in the third person? "CADW have stated" (twice) and "CADW are seeking" ??

If this statement is directly from CADW why does it refer to themselves in the third person? I did ask Sue Mabbett if she could send me a copy of the "statement", but I was then informed that the text above was it .....?? Has anyone out there seen an email/PDF/Word doc. with the statement in it?

 

[andrewmcleod]

I actually feel quite bad for the PDCMG. They are working hard, against opposition, to do what they think is right for the cave; they have taken a defensible position with potentially the law on their side; they feel they have the authority and the responsibility to act as they previously agreed with the landowner.

And yet they will never succeed because caving in general will never accept the conditions they have accepted supposedly on caving's behalf. 

That's not a defense of people breaking rules, digging illicitly, potentially damaging scheduled monuments (or just, as it seems people on both sides have, being really bad at reasonable debate although I think that seems to be a weakness of cavers in general). It's just a reflection of reality. If even the BCA aren't supporting an access agreement it's probably time to walk away... Better to lose licit access than to start (continue?) a civil war in caving?

 

[Graigwen]

That really is the Holy Grail. Is there any online resource showing the boundary ?

The land originally bought by Pwlldu Conservation Limited can be in the seen in the map included in Section 2.8 of

http://www.visitblaenavon.co.uk/en/Publications/WorldHeritageSite/ForgottenLandscapes/FL-Landscape-Character-Study.pdf

Neighbouring land (in 2008) was owned by various parties including Duke of Beaufort, Forestry Commission, Hand Gliding Club, BBNP.  If anyone still has the original prospectus issued by the Coal Board when they sold the land, I expect it may provide a better more detailed map.

The map referred to is neither wholly accurate nor detailed, although it does (as far as I know) show the Pwll Du Conservation Ltd land well. (I brought a copy along to the PDCMG meeting and a few of us discussed it in the pub afterwards.)

A copy of the Coal Board prospectus would indeed be most useful. I would have thought clubs interested in Ogof Draenen at the time of the sale would have acquired a copy?

.

 

[glyders]

If this statement is directly from CADW why does it refer to themselves in the third person?

I don't want to get into the Draenen debate, but am commenting to note that it is common for formal statements from organisations to refer to themselves in the third person. This distinguishes it from the individual issuing it's personal point of view.
Eg. The BBC wishes to apologise...

 

[ChrisJC]

One day I'd like to visit Draenen, as it sounds like an excellent cave.

But I'll wait until this has blown over and hope that I am still alive.

Chris.

P.S. It's bureaucracy gone mad. SSSI's, Protected Landscapes, AONB's, what a load of balls. It's a post industrial landscape. What bloody difference does an extra hole in the ground make. I doubt if the original builders of the tramway bothered with any of that tripe.

 

[MarkS]

I think rich makes some excellent points. Everyone would do well to read that post before writing a reply. In the context of what has just been asked, these points:

...

• Assume truthfulness - assume people are telling the truth (appreciating that sometimes people are misinformed or misremember details)
• Assume good faith - assume fellow cavers believe in conservation, bat welfare, and not deliberately antagonising other cavers

...

I think the questions below need not have been asked if some level of good faith is assumed. I fully agree with glyders above. It is normal for an organisation to release a statement in the 3rd person, and it would seem odd to me if it was written in the 1st person.

...
But the wording of the statement from CADW appears to be in the third person? "CADW have stated" (twice) and "CADW are seeking" ??

If this statement is directly from CADW why does it refer to themselves in the third person? I did ask Sue Mabbett if she could send me a copy of the "statement", but I was then informed that the text above was it .....?? Has anyone out there seen an email/PDF/Word doc. with the statement in it?
...

 

[cap n chris]

It's bureaucracy gone mad. SSSI's, Protected Landscapes, AONB's, what a load of balls. It's a post industrial landscape. What bloody difference does an extra hole in the ground make. I doubt if the original builders of the tramway bothered with any of that tripe.

Having a 20th Century attitude in the C21st Century is no longer a defensive position.

 

[Fulk]

andrewmc:

And yet they will never succeed because caving in general will never accept the conditions they have accepted supposedly on caving's behalf. 

Well, speaking as a 'Northern Caver' who from time to time gets out elsewhere, I do not know where that quote comes from. I've had a couple of really good trips down Draenen and am quite happy with the status quo as I understand it.

Why can't you guys stop bickering and sort it out?

 

[Ship-badger]

I am proud to be a renegade. Trustees? Management Groups? Stuff them.

Strange statement from a member of this club.

http://www.zen159313.zen.co.uk/rfdcc/sites/caves/otter_hole/otter_hole.htm

Jopo

You might like get your facts straight Jopo. I have not been a member of RFDCC for a number of years. But, that said, the RFDCC has not, nor ever will have, a stated aim of Otter Hole being a single entrance cave. In fact, as I'm sure you are very well aware, diggers from RFDCC have for many years beavered away on various digs that they dreamed might give us access to the cave without having to pass through the tidal sump; because it is only the tidal sump that necessitates the Warden system.

But you knew all that already, didn't you?

 

[Jopo]

The RFDCC website explains exactly why access is controlled to Otter. I am sure that the rules are not onerous even though my early trips, indeed all of them thinking about it, were without a warden. I am also aware that after rubbish and damage started to appear in Otter the warden system was instigated to help preserve the cave'. I, and many others I believe, applaud the efforts by RFDCC. Just be thankful it is not on Crow land.

I said nothing about the RFDCC having a single entrance policy;
Those words are out of your mouth and are sadly just another example of how things get distorted on this forum.

You said I am proud to be a renegade. Trustees? Management Groups? Stuff them.

I merely thought it strange that the 'apparent' member of a club which controlled access to a cave should make such a statement .

I apologise for thinking you are a RFDCC member. If you have not been a member of RFDCC for some time why not change your forum description?

Jopo'

Proud member of SWCC - another club which controls access on behalf of landowners (including itself of course)

 

[Moonrat]

I think the questions below need not have been asked if some level of good faith is assumed.

And they wonder why this forum has a reputation amongst cavers as a place where trolls live....     (My first post in years and this is the reaction, and probably this will be my last).

At the end of post I asked if "Has anyone out there seen an email/PDF/Word doc. with the statement in it?"

I had been asked by PDCMG to forward on a short text to all our Club members with what appears to be a cut/paste email text about a subject you will agree is highly contentious. Asking for an email/PDF/Word document with said CADW statement I think is not unreasonable, as I will be the one to which said members are more than likely come to if they agree/disagree with it. I came to this forum with a simple question and have been slighted... shame on you.

 

[BradW]

If you have not been a member of RFDCC for some time why not change your forum description?

Quite.

 

[maxf]

Ditto

One day I'd like to visit Draenen, as it sounds like an excellent cave.

But I'll wait until this has blown over and hope that I am still alive.

Chris.

P.S. It's bureaucracy gone mad. SSSI's, Protected Landscapes, AONB's, what a load of balls. It's a post industrial landscape. What bloody difference does an extra hole in the ground make. I doubt if the original builders of the tramway bothered with any of that tripe.