Stoke Lane Slocker

[martinr]

An application for "DEVELOPMENT OF A HOLIDAY RETREAT AT COOKSWOOD QUARRY, STOKE ST MICHAEL, SOMERSET" has been made to Mendip DC. This appears to be adjacent to Stoke Lane Slocker. The "retreat" would seem to be 143 lodges, a reataurant, swimming pool etc....

Quote from the application: "2.3.2. The western part of the site measures approximately 15.4 hectares and is relatively flat. There are large areas of established vegetation and a cave which, although not open to the public, is still used by cavers." (http://mendippods.web-labs.co.uk/documents/067818_010/forms/067818_010%20planning%20statement.DOC)


Much more at http://www.mendip.gov.uk/pods/AppInfo.asp?AppNo=067818%2F010

 

[martinr]

Para 6.2.27 states "closure of Brown’s Hole cave to people to protect bats’ habitat"

6.4.27 Parts of the site are covered by three Sites of Special Scientific Interest (St Dunstan’s Well, Edford Woods & Meadows, and Cook’s Wood Quarry SSSIs). The site also lies within a candidate Special Area of Conservation (Mells Valley cSAC).

7.1.6 The main elements of the scheme are as follows:
• 143 timber holiday lodges
• Swimming pool and spa
• Sports facilities including a gymnasium and mountain biking
• Restaurant
• Activity lake (including snorkelling, angling, kayaking, boating)
• Car park for 175 vehicles
• Land train
• Biodiversity Centre with web cam facilities
• Nature conservation trails
• New hides, boxes and protected ecological areas
• New landscaping to enlarge existing areas of ecological interest
• Introduction of new habitats to encourage new wildlife species

More documents including maps are at http://mendippods.web-labs.co.uk/planningdocuments.aspx?AppRef=067818_010&cat=all

 

[cap n chris]

Sounds fantastic! I know where I'm going on my holidays. 

 

[Tree Monkey]

Would that be the new camp one, in Upperflood!! :tease:

 

[tony from suffolk]

Cor! Better than staying at the SMCC!

 

[mrodoc]

Shouldn't the views of BCA via CSCC be represented or are we going to supinely permit the closure of another cave for the spurious reason of bat protection? I like bats but there is little evidence that they are bothered by cavers.

 

[Peter Burgess]

That master diplomat cap 'n chris should weave his magic and urge whoever needs to be urged to keep some access to the cave. I thought I would get in first before the regulars start to tell us what "they" should do.

 

[whitelackington]

Do Not Worry Peter.

I have been through Stoke Lane Sloker Sump & like Treemonkey sumps is not my thing.
So I personally will not be clamoring to keep it open,
by the way, I thought I had been told in the recent past that if Stoke Lane Slocker was closed,
another entrance on land of a different ownership could easily engineered.
Also you can get leptospirosis in this cave.

 

[cap n chris]

Ahem, it's a bit difficult to negotiate maintaining access to caves for which there is historically no authorised access. Also, with whom do you negotiate access when nothing has been done yet? - surely you talk to the owner of a site once it actually exists or am I missing something? Oh, and another thing, have you read the application? - if you have then you'll realise that you probably need a degree in law or decades of experience with planning legislation plus a team of highly paid/experienced lawyers in order to delve through the intricacies of the (superb) application they're put in and with which, personally, I see no problems whatsoever. In fact, being honest, I think it's a brilliant project so I'm not really impartial on this one! 

 

[Peter Burgess]

The fact that I or anyone else might not find it easy or desirable to visit a cave is no reason not to fight for preserving access to it. I doubt I will ever go to the far reaches of Wookey Hole, but I would be sad if access was denied to those who are capable of getting there.

 

[graham]

As Chris notes, we can hardly fight to preserve access to a cave where access is apparently not officially allowed anyway.  :blink:

However, it would seem that the application has been well thought out and will probably not cause new problems to either caves or cavers.

 

[cap n chris]

The fact that I or anyone else might not find it easy or desirable to visit a cave is no reason not to fight for preserving access to it. I doubt I will ever go to the far reaches of Wookey Hole, but I would be sad if access was denied to those who are capable of getting there.

As has been pointed out, Peter, you can't fight to preserve access when there hasn't been any. My belief is that supporting landowners may result in goodwill.

 

[Les W]

Whilst trying to keep out of the public debate on this issue, I should state that CSCC are very aware of this proposal, several people have carefully read the Environmental Impact Assessment and any nessicary action will (is) be(ing) taken. I will concur with Cap'n Chris and Graham on this - you cannot negotiate access with a land owner who does not want to negotiate.
It is also not entirely clear whether the owner of the land around Brownes Hole is the same owner as the owner of the proposed development.
It is also possible that the EIA has got the wrong name and actualy refers to Brownes Grotto.

Stoke Lane Slocker is under NO threat, it is not under or within the area of the proposed development and the drainage area is all external to the development area.

I do believe it is likely that planning consent will be given and to be fair I see no reason for it to be denied. We can either wish the developer well and once  constructed we can perhaps negotiate some form of access or we can try to fight the development on some very spurious grounds, all of which have already been answered in the EIA to the satisfaction of the statutory bodies (EN, Environment Agency, Water Authority, etc.). If we do this we will defiantly alienate the land owner, we will ensure that there will be no access in future and this may well have a knock on effect on other sites (even completely unconnected to this, this has happened before).

 

[Hughie]

I have been through Stoke Lane Sloker Sump & like Treemonkey sumps is not my thing.

Wimps

 

[Tree Monkey]

Theres more too caving than doing sumps!!             Finding large, highly decorated passage is a good place to start! :tease:

How's the deepest swimming pool on mendip then? 

 

[cap n chris]

Theres more too caving than doing sumps!!             Finding large, highly decorated passage is a good place to start! :tease:

Oh dear! Be careful!.... you might invoke the wrath of the caving pixies who will thwart you by placing a sump between you and miles more monster passage, just to make you eat your words...... 

 

[Tree Monkey]

We've found a few perched sumps already!   But we have a few cave divers in the Mcg, so it shouldn't be a problem!