To all CNCC member clubs - a suggested way forward for the CNCC.

[Simon Wilson]

Droid and Graham,
You still don't seem to have grasped what I am saying.

The CRoW Act is not something that we might use in the future; it has been in operation for nine years and the result has been less conflict with landowners.

 

[graham]

Droid and Graham,
You still don't seem to have grasped what I am saying.

The CRoW Act is not something that we might use in the future; it has been in operation for nine years and the result has been less conflict with landowners.

I'm sorry, Simon, you miss the point. Kevin has given a clear account of Natural England's view of the matter as far as caving is concerned. There can be many reasons why there has been less conflict with some landowners (NB the world does not just consist of Leck & Casterton fells) this may be one of them, on the other hand it may not be. To quote a well-known truism Correlation is not causation.

 

[Bottlebank]

Simon,

I'll ask you the questions again, you want to discuss CRoW and are upset when other people won't talk to you about it so give us a straight answer:

Why are you willing to risk alienating local farmers over something that doesn't bring any real benefit to us?

Are you really willing to jeopardise digging access in say parts of Kingsdale or elsewhere simply to further your crusade or your belief in your "right" to go anywhere regardless of the wishes of the landowners?

Where specifically do you expect to see any benefit? "Sport" cavers rights winning out over diggers and new exploration suffering as a result, is that your aim?

Tony

 

[Bob Mehew]

It simply isn?t possible to use the CRoW Act as a ?blunt instrument? because the CRoW Act is now in place and there is no conflict. You can now walk freely all over the fell in caving gear. If the landowner was to do or say anything which might be intended to deter you from being there he would be breaking the law and he knows that. He could ask you if you are intending to go caving and he could ask you if you have a permit but you wouldn?t have to answer him ? and he knows that too. What the CRoW Act has done is render it impractical to enforce the access agreement and in effect the permit system has become voluntary. There is now no heavy-handedness from the landowner and it appears that the only heavy-handedness is coming from the CNCC. It seems to me that the people who are most in fear of the effects of the CRoW Act are the CNCC.

Simon I accept that CROW Schedule 2 states:

(q) in relation to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in or are about to engage in on that or adjoining land, does anything which is intended by him to have the effect?
(i) of intimidating those persons so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity,
(ii) of obstructing that activity, or
(iii) of disrupting that activity,

so yes the land owner is somewhat limited in what he can do to those persons who are legally on his land using the rights granted under CROW.  The problem for your argument is whether you have a right under CROW.  I realise you may disagree with my starting assumption but please hear me out.  If a person does not have a right because the person does not comply with Section 2 (1) which states:

2 Rights of public in relation to access land.
(1) Any person is entitled by virtue of this subsection to enter and remain on any access land for the purposes of open-air recreation, if and so long as?
(a) he does so without breaking or damaging any wall, fence, hedge, stile or gate,and
(b) he observes the general restrictions in Schedule 2 and any other restrictions imposed in relation to the land under Chapter II.

then the person is a trespasser.  And the land owner can if he feels sufficient aggrieved take out an injunction against that person.  I would also point out that Section 2 (3) goes onto state:

(3) Subsection (1) does not entitle a person to enter or be on any land, or do anything on any land, in contravention of any prohibition contained in or having effect under any enactment, other than an enactment contained in a local or private Act.

So the right that that person might have had under CROW has been lost.  I can see a scenario where by the land owner does apply this approach and that person finds them self without any right.  What could be worse is that CNCC is pressurised into supplying the resources to acquire the evidence of people going caving.  A witness statement and / or series of photos of the person entering a cave entrance on several occasions would I believe suffice - and that IMO would not contravene Schedule 2(q). 

Some how I doubt if you will be prepared to accept this line of logic.  But on which grounds?  That caving is within Sec 2(1) namely covered by "enter and remain on any access land for the purposes of open-air recreation".  Or that a land owner can't get an injunction for trespass on access land.  If the latter, then please note Sec 2(4) states:

(4) If a person becomes a trespasser on any access land by failing to comply with?
(a) subsection (1)(a),
(b) the general restrictions in Schedule 2, or
(c) any other restrictions imposed in relation to the land under Chapter II,
he may not, within 72 hours after leaving that land, exercise his right under subsection (1) to enter that land again or to enter other land in the same ownership.

so CROW clearly allows for taking action against trespass.  A land owner may not be able to serve many injunctions but they certainly could deal with those who frequently transgress.

I have left the former option (that caving does come within  "enter and remain on any access land for the purposes of open-air recreation") for another exchange since I accept I am getting into a fairly heavy debate.

 

[Simon Wilson]

I'm very sorry. It really appears as though I have failed in explaining my point clearly. All I am saying is that the act has been in place for nine years. Cavers have been entering access land in all parts of the Dales for nine years, as far as I know it has caused no conflict whatsoever and in fact the opposite is true; it appears to have improved relations.

Simon Wilson, EPC CNCC Representative.

 

[droid]

And YOU Simon seem to be missing the point that any improvement in landowner/caver relations may not be entirely due to CRoW, or indeed may be despite CRoW.

 

[Simon Wilson]

Droid,
That's the first time anybody has said that and of course that might be true.

 

[droid]

No it isn't.

Look at Graham's post above.

 

[Bottlebank]

I'm very sorry. It really appears as though I have failed in explaining my point clearly. All I am saying is that the act has been in place for nine years. Cavers have been entering access land in all parts of the Dales for nine years, as far as I know it has caused no conflict whatsoever and in fact the opposite is true; it appears to have improved relations.

Come on Simon, you spent enough time on here insisting people should answer questions, so why ignore mine? Would you like me to repeat them again?

There's a world of difference between the current situation and your idea of using CRoW to force access to caves.

 

[Simon Wilson]

  The problem for your argument is whether you have a right under CROW.

Bob,

Outside the closed season we have the right to walk about freely on access land. We also have the right to dress as we please when we do it. We might happen to be heading straight towards a cave carrying a big bag of rope but at that point nobody can say that we are not perfectly within our rights. Having those rights has changed things radically.

I am very familiar with the CRoW Act but try as a might I could not follow your complicated argument about trespass. Why do you think there is a "problem" with what I am saying?

 

[Bottlebank]

Simple answer, if you are carrying that bag of rope whilst wearing a shiny yellow suit, or anything else, you do not have that right if your intention is to enter a cave.

If your intention is to just walk around the area with a bag of rope whilst wearing caving gear then you do have that right.

 

[Jenny P]

For the record, as Convenor of the BCA Working Party on CRoW, I have just sent in the following report for the BCA Council Meeting on 29th. March.


BCA Council Meeting, 29 March 2014
Item 20.  CRoW Working Party

Work by volunteers on producing the necessary database for English caving regions continues in the North and the Peak District.  I have been told I will receive a report from the North in a few weeks time; the work in the Peak District continues but is not ready yet.  The CSCC Conservation & Access Officer has been kept informed of progress but I have no knowledge of any work done in the South - possibly the newly published ?Mendip Underground? will spark progress.  I have not yet asked DCUC for their help.

It is clear that that the recommendations in the English Nature commissioned report of 2009 (NECR012), that caving should be included, were not followed up.  I have seen a copy of the Q/A considered by Defra and the statement by Natural England on the subject in December 2013 stating why there is no access for cavers on CRoW land.  It is clear from this that there are some misconceptions which, if followed to their logical conclusion, might even have prevented the designation of caves as SSSIs.

Discussions on UKcaving and elsewhere indicate that there are some strong views on the subject of extending CRoW to apply to access to caves:  some cavers being very strongly ?pro?, others being equally ?anti?.  With this in mind I feel it is essential that cavers are fully briefed before any discussion takes place at BCA level because to effect a change in the law or a change in its interpretation will require the full support of BCA in England.
Jenny Potts
21 March 2014


The issue is being investigated at national level but it is very complicated and there are many issues involved, not least that there are very strong views both for and against.  This is not just a matter for CNCC, other English regions will also be affected by any change in the way CRoW legislation is applied to caving (access in Wales comes under different legislation).

It is essential that cavers as a body, i.e. through BCA and with the agreement of the regions, agree on what steps, if any, they want to take in the full knowledge of what this implies.

 

[graham]

Simple answer, if you are carrying that bag of rope whilst wearing a shiny yellow suit, or anything else, you do not have that right if your intention is to enter a cave.

Based on Kevin's report, I'd say that was correct and that intent does count. Don't forget that CRoW does not allow you to carry out exactly the same actions for commercial reasons as it allows for (approved) recreational reasons.

 

[graham]

For the record, as Convenor of the BCA Working Party on CRoW, I have just sent in the following report for the BCA Council Meeting on 29th. March.

[snip]

It is essential that cavers as a body, i.e. through BCA and with the agreement of the regions, agree on what steps, if any, they want to take in the full knowledge of what this implies.

Excellent report, Jenny, it is essential that it is understood that there are caves in other places than Leck & Casterton Fells. It is worth remembering that CSCC was originally set up, back in the Dark Ages, because Mendip cavers were concerned that as far as access and relations with landowners were concerned one size very definitely does not fit all.

 

[martinm]

It is essential that cavers as a body, i.e. through BCA and with the agreement of the regions, agree on what steps, if any, they want to take in the full knowledge of what this implies.

Excellent report, Jenny, it is essential that it is understood that there are caves in other places than Leck & Casterton Fells. It is worth remembering that CSCC was originally set up, back in the Dark Ages, because Mendip cavers were concerned that as far as access and relations with landowners were concerned one size very definitely does not fit all.

Yep agree totally. Jenny knows a lot about these things and it is a national issue, not just a CNCC one, so we should all be contributing our bit to the BCA CRoW working party. This thread should be concentrating on the subject in hand, ie:- 'a suggested way forward for the CNCC', nothing to do with CRoW. Let the people on the working party deal with those complex issues....

 

[Bob Mehew]

I am very familiar with the CRoW Act but try as a might I could not follow your complicated argument about trespass. Why do you think there is a "problem" with what I am saying?

Because simply if caving is not recognised under CROW, then whilst walking up to the entrance may be OK, going down the entrance is not.  And if you are observed going down the entrance you can then be banned from the land for a period of 72 hours.  If you persistently repeat the action, then the land owner could take out an injunction against you banning your access altogether.  I accept it only impacts on you in such a case.  (You not meaning you personally of course.)

 

[Simon Wilson]

Bob and others,

Watch my lips - I have never mentioned entering caves under the CRoW Act.

Whether or not the CRoW Act gives us the right to enter caves is completely irrelevant to the point I am making. It is an indisputable fact that the CRoW Act has given rights to cavers which we did not have before, and that has changed the situation radically. In the last few years cavers have gone onto Leck Fell and carried out very useful surface surveying, radio location and dye tracing which they could not have done before 2005. They might have also walked across the fell wearing yellow plastic suits which the CRoW Act allows them to do. Please take careful note - I have never mentioned entering caves.

I talk about Leck Fell because this thread is about the CNCC and it was the extreme problems on Leck Fell which prompted Lord Shuttleworth to request the formation of the CNCC in 1963, one of the first regional caving bodies in the country. The trouble in 1963 was closely akin to the trouble on another Pennine moor in 1932 and it is pertinent that Leck Fell is now access land. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_trespass_of_Kinder_Scout The EPC was one of the eight founder members of the CNCC and we go to Leck Fell every week. Leck Fell is where the CNCC accused me of caving without a permit whilst they were operating their secret permits system. And it is that which sparked off all the recent trouble with the CNCC.

The CNCC need to wake up and discover that we are not in 1963.

Simon Wilson, EPC CNCC Representative.

 

[martinm]

the formation of the CNCC in 1963, the first regional caving body in the country.
Simon Wilson, EPC CNCC Representative.

No it wasn't!. From the bottom of the DCA constitution:-
"Originally accepted at the inaugural meeting of the Association in 1960. " 
Get yer facts right!

 

[badger]

problem is this was a topic to move forward,
the crow act however one wants to interrupt one way or the other is irrelevant, and is being dealt with the bca working party, at this moment it does not move us forward, all we know for certain it permits anyone to walk around on the fells, and does not mention caving within its framework.
the issuing of permits obviously does not work properly as Simon is not the only person in the Yorkshire area who have caved without one. And I would find it hard to believe anyone telling me they have stuck religiously to the system
there clearly has been a breakdown on a system introduced in 1963, so if does not work and it clearly does not then the committee need to look at it, speak to the member clubs and come up with a system which does, regardless to what might or might not happen with crow. to move forward it might be the case that both sides in the debate have to meet in the middle somehow. it seems pointless keep batting forwards and backwards the same points, people need to leave the issues that have caused the breakdown and work together to get to something which works for everyone. this does mean those for cncc committee and those that have issues with cncc committee meeting and sorting things out, otherwise we going to stay in the 1960's and never move on

 

[Bob Mehew]

Bob and others,

Watch my lips - I have never mentioned entering caves under the CRoW Act.

Whether or not the CRoW Act gives us the right to enter caves is completely irrelevant to the point I am making. It is an indisputable fact that the CRoW Act has given rights to cavers which we did not have before, and that has changed the situation radically. In the last few years cavers have gone onto Leck Fell and carried out very useful surface surveying, radio location and dye tracing which they could not have done before 2005.

Thank you for being so clear.  So you have no interest in talking about access to caves, just doing things on the surface.  (By the way, what makes you think  surface surveying, radio location and dye tracing are "open-air recreation"?)

They might have also walked across the fell wearing yellow plastic suits which the CRoW Act allows them to do. Please take careful note - I have never mentioned entering caves.

So it appears you have no wish to discuss access into caves.  (Or indeed help improve access judging by your previous actions.)  So lets bring this thread back to its title and discuss ways forward for CNCC focusing on improving access to caves.

The CNCC need to wake up and discover that we are not in 1963.

Agreed but it should be focusing on improving access to caves; not access for ponsing around on the surface in yellow suits (with or without bundles of rope).  Which no one is disputing.

But I will observe that

the formation of the CNCC in 1963, the first regional caving body in the country.

Is not what Simon said.  His words were

the formation of the CNCC in 1963, one of the first regional caving bodies in the country.

And

Simon is not the only person in the Yorkshire area who have caved without one.

Sorry Simon has not said that and it would be unwise to suggest it.  What Simon appears to be interested in discussing is surface work so lets ignore him unless he clearly wishes to talk about access into caves.