Statement from the Trustees of Pwll Du Cave Management Group

[NameOfTheDragon]

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.

Apologies for the delay in replying to this. I may not have been clear enough before when I was expressing my personal opinion and when I was stating the position of Cadw. Partly, this is because I had only partial information at that moment in time and wasn't certain enough to attribute a direct quote to anyone. However, since then Darkness Below has published information received from Cadw's Dr. Amelia Pannett which I think confirms what I have said. The original article is online at http://darknessbelow.co.uk/news-ogof-draenen-update/ and contains links to various information sources, but the text of the article says:

The forge and tramway is a nationally protected monument, protected under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act, 1979, as amended by the Historic Environment (Wales) Act, 2016. It is an offence under the legislation 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. Full details of the extent of the scheduled area can be found on Cadw?s online mapping portal, Cof Cymru or on the Welsh Government?s Lle portal.

The scheduling of the tramway covers much of the route from Pwll Du Quarry (also a scheduled monument) to the forge at Garnddyrys, and includes the tramway surface, the retaining wall on the outer edge of the tramway and the rock wall, created through terracing, on the inner side of the tramway. The newly excavated hole has disturbed archaeological deposits, with the spoil spread around the hole comprising a mix of soil and the clinker/stone/coal hardcore that would have been used in the construction of the tramway.

The scheduled monument lies within the Blaenavon Industrial Landscape World Heritage Site, and is one of the key early 19th century industrial features on the northern side of the Blorenge. It was built around 1815-1817 to transport pig iron from the furnaces at Blaenavon to the forge at Garnddyrys and then on to the canal at Llanfoist. The section of tramway included within the scheduling is of particular significance due to the high level of preservation (many sleeper stones remain in situ) and because it represents an exceptional feat of engineering ? it was terraced into the steep hillside and then a substantial retaining wall was built to contain the tramway surface.

The tramway itself was then built up using clinker, crushed rock and coal waste that probably derived from the ironworks in Blaenavon. Limestone sleeper stones were embedded into the hardcore surface, and then iron rails set onto these. All of this was achieved entirely by hand, which is quite astonishing given the topography of that hillside! Unfortunately, the location of the tramway, together with its exposure to the elements and its age, means that it is vulnerable and there have been a number of collapses of the retaining wall over the last few decades which have had a detrimental impact on the stability of the structure. Any disturbance to the structure of the monument will further destabilise it and could, potentially, lead to the loss of sections of it.

In view of the importance of the site, Cadw?s priority is that the hole is securely sealed and stabilised as soon as possible to ensure that no further damage occurs to the fragile tramway remains. If the hole continues to be used as an entrance into the caving system it is likely that more damage will be done to the protected monument through erosion to the tramway surface around the hole, and potentially further digging.

The Darkness Below article goes on to say:

A statement from the Cambrian Caving Council also posted on the British Caving Association website calls on cavers not to use this entrance and further asks cavers to refrain from ?making any remarks in any place which might encourage anyone to use or seek out this cave entrance.? They go on to say: ?Important lessons need to be learned in the light of these developments? and that they ?look forward to working constructively and collectively with Cadw, and with all the other interested parties, to resolve this and have a positive future relationship.?

I hope that clears up any doubt as to whether or not the entrance is within the scheduled monument.

 

[NameOfTheDragon]

An account of the concreting of the Nunnery entrance back in 1999 can be found online on OUCC's own website in their weekly newsletter Depth Through Thought 9.14 (16/6/99) under the heading "Chelsea Flower Show" (the entrance was discovered by members of CSS) written by Chris 'tropical fruit all round' Densham. There is no mention here of any vehicles being used but the people to ask would be the "select handful of landscape gardening enthusiasts" who did the concreting. These were Chris himself, Ali Garman, Ben Lovett and Ian Wilton-Jones, members of Oxford University and Morgannwg caving clubs.

Even after all this time I am amazed and appalled that cavers can take such obvious delight in concreting a cave, thereby totally negating the many hours of hard work and effort put in by all the other cavers who helped discover it. Is it any wonder that we are where we are today?

I wonder if the land owner felt bad about all the wasted effort when he caught you trespassing on his land, NigR? Did you ask him at that point for permission to carry on? What was his response? I'd be interested to know.

 

[NigR]

I can only assume you are referring to the occasion back in Spring 2009 (already well documented on this very forum and elsewhere) when the landowner (and his wife) encountered me (and my wife) on the hillside at the Nunnery entrance to Ogof Draenen. At the time I was unaware of the precise open access boundary and hence asked him if he would like us to leave his land. He said he would and we readily complied with his request. He also told me that any permission to reopen the second entrance would have to come directly from the PDCMG and not himself.

My own club, Grwp Ogofeydd Garimpeiros, were still members of the PDCMG at the time and hence put in a written request to the next meeting (June 2009) asking that the Nunnery entrance be reopened (possibly even on a selective basis) in order to enable exploration (which had totally stalled) to continue in the further reaches of the cave. Not unexpectedly, we were turned down flat.

One point I would like to stress here is that the Nunnery entrance is indeed on open access land, although I did not know this for certain at the time. In fact, I was very surprised to note in the statement from the trustees that they themselves clearly believe (or are maybe trying to make other people believe?) otherwise. I have double checked with the Registrar of Cambrian Caving Council just this afternoon and he has confirmed that I am correct. Hence people are free to walk to this entrance without any fear of being accused of trespassing. If anyone doubts this, I would suggest they consult the online maps provided by the CCC Registry to see for themselves.

Which brings me to a single question for NameOfTheDragon:

Do the three trustees really not know how many of the entrances to Ogof Draenen (out of those which have already been made public) are actually on open access land? I find this hard to believe but, if true, it is absolutely incredible.

 

[droid]

Perfectly understandable if you consider the cave to be your own personal fiefdom, I suppose.....

This is an unfortunate comment.

Those who do what they damn well like on other people's land without any reference to the owner or their representatives are surely those who deserve comments such as this.

I think it was an unbiased comment, waged at both sides. Or perhaps at those who are getting het up about "sides". We're all cavers. Stop raging.

Bang on the button Alastair. 

 

[rich]

The representative body for cavers in Wales is Cambrian Caving Council.  Perhaps the answer is to have them more closely involved.  Why not establish a structure where Cambrian CC acts as the trustees (license holders) rather than three individuals and delegate the management of the cave to the group very similar to what PDCMG is now.

The problem with this is that several of the current Cambrian Caving Council committee make up a lot of one "side" of the factions here. People like the CCC's access officer are already quite closely involved, to the point of threatening legal action against other cavers. I don't see how anyone could expect the CCC to represent a cross-section of cavers' views under those circumstances.

The only way I can see CCC being involved in arbitration of this issue is sometime in the future when we have had a further turnover of personnel in both CCC and PDCMG.

 

[Madness]

Going off on a slight tangent. Has anyone asked the local Cave Rescue Organisation for their views on sealing entrances? Surely rather than seal an entrance with concrete, it would be better to stabilise it and fit a bat friendly vandal proof gate? What would be the legal position of the trustees if it could be proven that their actions (in sealing an entrance) became a contributing factor in the death of a caver who could not be rescued in time via the original entrance?

 

[NigR]

Regarding turnover of personnel within the PDCMG (as mentioned by Rich), it should be noted that elections of Officers have only recently taken place (15 Oct) and the next are not scheduled for a further two years.

However, it appears that the machinery exists within the constitution to replace the trustees if so desired. This can be done with a two thirds majority of those present at any General Meeting. The next planned meeting will not take place until June 2018 but an EGM could easily be called earlier (this can be done at the behest of either the Executive - Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer - or six member clubs).

So, if the PDCMG would seriously like to attempt to put their own house in order it is certainly not beyond the bounds of possibilty for them to do so. On the contrary, if nothing is done then it is reasonable to assume that the PDCMG are perfectly happy with the action taken by their trustees and are in full agreement with the views expressed in their statement.

 

[andrewmcleod]

The representative body for cavers in Wales is Cambrian Caving Council.  Perhaps the answer is to have them more closely involved.  Why not establish a structure where Cambrian CC acts as the trustees (license holders) rather than three individuals and delegate the management of the cave to the group very similar to what PDCMG is now.

The problem with this is that several of the current Cambrian Caving Council committee make up a lot of one "side" of the factions here. People like the CCC's access officer are already quite closely involved, to the point of threatening legal action against other cavers. I don't see how anyone could expect the CCC to represent a cross-section of cavers' views under those circumstances.

The only way I can see CCC being involved in arbitration of this issue is sometime in the future when we have had a further turnover of personnel in both CCC and PDCMG.

Indeed. Direct rule from the BCA!

 

[BradW]

I bet the work to site the footbridge a 100m away did more damage to the tramway in making its footings level.

I have checked this out. The bridge appears to have been deliberately sited a reasonable distance from the original line of the tramway. The stream would once have flowed through a culvert, which has been washed away. This clearly exposed the tramway approaches on either side. Walkers going from one section of the tramroad to the other would naturally climb down over the exposed formation, cross the stream, and up the other side, inevitably eroding the tramway remains, slowly but surely.

So I conclude that siting the bridge upstream from the route of the tramway has provided a degree of protection to the remains, except from sheep and lazy people who can't be arsed to walk the short distance to the bridge.

 

[Graigwen]

I bet the work to site the footbridge a 100m away did more damage to the tramway in making its footings level.

I have checked this out. The bridge appears to have been deliberately sited a reasonable distance from the original line of the tramway. The stream would once have flowed through a culvert, which has been washed away. This clearly exposed the tramway approaches on either side. Walkers going from one section of the tramroad to the other would naturally climb down over the exposed formation, cross the stream, and up the other side, inevitably eroding the tramway remains, slowly but surely.

So I conclude that siting the bridge upstream from the route of the tramway has provided a degree of protection to the remains, except from sheep and lazy people who can't be arsed to walk the short distance to the bridge.

For those not familiar with the footbridge, here it is:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/11409438@N06/28520064744/in/album-72157669690391110/The tramroad can be seen to the right of the photo approaching the bridge on the level. I have been across the bridge many times and while I accept it may not be exactly where the tramroad originally crossed the Tumble stream, I think it somewhat misleading to say it is a "reasonable Distance" and "upstream".


.

 

[John S]

I bet the work to site the footbridge a 100m away did more damage to the tramway in making its footings level.

I have checked this out. The bridge appears to have been deliberately sited a reasonable distance from the original line of the tramway. The stream would once have flowed through a culvert, which has been washed away. This clearly exposed the tramway approaches on either side. Walkers going from one section of the tramroad to the other would naturally climb down over the exposed formation, cross the stream, and up the other side, inevitably eroding the tramway remains, slowly but surely.

So I conclude that siting the bridge upstream from the route of the tramway has provided a degree of protection to the remains, except from sheep and lazy people who can't be arsed to walk the short distance to the bridge.

Unfortunately you have failed to see the larger picture. To the west the tramroad splits into two levels. An older level heads slightly down. The tramroad was widened by creating a vertical cliff and a flat area over 9m wide. So probably at least two lines ran along this section. A good area for several tracks and sidings. To the East are the ruins of a couple of buildings. (I have heard them described as a brewhouse or blacksmiths but that may have been a secondary use.) If a slight incline was on the lower tramroad then some sort of winding may have been required. Obviously they would not create a flat area on the side of the hill if they didn?t need or use it. Archaeology undoubtedly exists all over this terraced area and is all included in the protected area.

BradW, you still saying the bridge didn?t disturb anything?

 

[BradW]

I am not sure as I am not as familiar with the area as you seem to be. However, the bridge as far as I can see, is off the route of the tramroad itself as it takes that sharp bend in the hillside.

 

[Graigwen]

I am not sure as I am not as familiar with the area as you seem to be. However, the bridge as far as I can see, is off the route of the tramroad itself as it takes that sharp bend in the hillside.

OK, I accept that you don't know what you are talking about.

.

 

[braveduck]

Best reply all day Graigwen