Update on Twll Du

[Scrappycaver]

Interesting - two quite different versions of the latest developments.

This has apparently been erected but by all accounts cavers just walk behind it and enter as normal

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[braveduck]

Well that makes it not hard to find then .

 

[Jenny P]

Don't forget that BCA isn't involved in this because it's a regional matter so, quite properly, it's down to Cambrian C.C. to sort out but they can request help from BCA if they need it.

It's really sad that the legal situation in Wales means that it is a criminal offence to "damage" a Scheduled Monument, even if it was done accidentally.  (It seems in England and Scotland it's only a criminal offence if you do it deliberately.)  It also seems unlikely that those who found this entrance from the inside would have realised it came out within the area of a Scheduled Monument, so making them liable to prosecution.

Cambrian's offer to stabilise the entrance and help to manage access seems pretty reasonable and it's a great pity that Cadw can't accept this - probably for legal reasons.  Guess we just have to hope that common sense and goodwill prevail in the end.

 

[Ship-badger]

By whose "accounts" are cavers walking behind the fence and entering the cave? I was given to believe that cavers were staying away from Twll Ddu while attempts were being made to sort the mess out.

 

[Scrappycaver]

By whose "accounts" are cavers walking behind the fence and entering the cave? I was given to believe that cavers were staying away from Twll Ddu while attempts were being made to sort the mess out.

It's had so much publicity..curiosity killed the cat..or caver in this case !

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[Jopo]

Don't forget that BCA isn't involved in this because it's a regional matter so, quite properly, it's down to Cambrian C.C. to sort out but they can request help from BCA if they need it.

It's really sad that the legal situation in Wales means that it is a criminal offence to "damage" a Scheduled Monument, even if it was done accidentally.  (It seems in England and Scotland it's only a criminal offence if you do it deliberately.)  It also seems unlikely that those who found this entrance from the inside would have realised it came out within the area of a Scheduled Monument, so making them liable to prosecution.

Cambrian's offer to stabilise the entrance and help to manage access seems pretty reasonable and it's a great pity that Cadw can't accept this - probably for legal reasons.  Guess we just have to hope that common sense and goodwill prevail in the end.

I find it a bit depressing that ignorance can be offered as a defence. It was damage to a considerable part of Offas Dyke that led to amending the law on damage to SAM in Wales. I think the Welsh sites are better protected with the change.
It is even sadder that someone should post such a flagrant thumbing of the nose to CADW, who do read this forum,  given the current situation. Cavers can really be their own worst enemy.

Jopo

 

[Rhys]

I'm not sure an ignorance defence would be successful in this case anyway. The underground dig site and location of the surface tramway are shown on the survey. Also, had the diggers discussed the location of the intended dig with the land owner (as a digger ought to do), they would've been warned about the tramway status.

 

[Scrappycaver]

I'm not sure an ignorance defence would be successful in this case anyway. The underground dig site and location if the surface tramway are shown on the survey. Also, had the diggers discussed the location of the intended dig with the land owner (as a digger ought to do), they would've been warned about the tramway status.

If the tramway was so precious to cadw and the landowner a gate should have been installed at the entrance . No one has been bothered about quads and motocross bike churning it up for years . The entrance lays to the side of the path which won't affect anyone once a caver friendly gate is made. The impact of cavers using this and entering by the tramway is no more impact than the dog walkers..ramblers and scramblers using this daily.
Today's meeting will show more groups in favour of this entrance to remain open.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[The Old Ruminator]

Now that the survey can be accurately placed can another entrance be located further from the tramway ? I still find it odd that a recent industrial " blot on the landscape " has more importance than a natural feature many thousands of years old. The dramway ( to be correct ) is hardly Offa's Dyke is it ?

 

[The Old Ruminator]

An after though whilst cutting the grass and before I get called an unhelpful reactionary. The entrance thing I am in favour neither one way or the other. I am an entrance agnostic. I am struck more by the absurdity of the whole thing.

What a wonderful irony if the " entrance " got blocked up when they built the dramway. ( Maybe the diggers found one or two navvy relics there . Hint )

I also wonder if any planning application up there for a new dramway would be passed or would it be rebuffed as " a blot on the landscape ". Particularly as it went near to an        " entrance " to one of Britain's most important caves. 

 

[Graigwen]

Now that the survey can be accurately placed can another entrance be located further from the tramway ? I still find it odd that a recent industrial " blot on the landscape " has more importance than a natural feature many thousands of years old. The dramway ( to be correct ) is hardly Offa's Dyke is it ?

I don't think there is any difficulty finding sites fairly close, but away from the tramway, that could be made into entrances to Ogof Draenen with just a little work. All of those that spring to mind are either on land in the same ownership or on land owned by one of the joint owners of the land on which existing known entrances to Ogof Draenen are situated. Any attempts to make entrances on such land would be opposed by PDCMG in accordance with its stated policies.


.

 

[Ian Adams]

?It's really sad that the legal situation in Wales means that it is a criminal offence to "damage" a Scheduled Monument, even if it was done accidentally. 

This appears to demonstrate the iniquitous existence of arbitrary bodies.

Using the entrance ?damages? the ancient schedule monument?  Are we to believe that, the passing of a human being through a hole, is damage?  How is it damaged?  Did a blade of grass become bent?

Odd then, that walkers can traipse all over the place (especially around the ?hole?) causing the ?same? damage and are apparently immune from prosecution.

Hum.

:chair:

Ian

 

[droid]

I think statutory protection of archaeology (including industrial archaeology) is important. It is a finite resource subject to continual attrition. This requires  an 'arbitrary' (I presume you mean 'statutory') body.


However I do think that these bodies should use a modicum of common sense, which appears conspicuously absent in this situation.


It's a pretty unique situation. Not as if someone wants to bulldoze the archaeology to make a car park or similar.

 

[Rhys]

This appears to demonstrate the iniquitous existence of arbitrary bodies.

Using the entrance ?damages? the ancient schedule monument?  Are we to believe that, the passing of a human being through a hole, is damage?  How is it damaged?  Did a blade of grass become bent?

Odd then, that walkers can traipse all over the place (especially around the ?hole?) causing the ?same? damage and are apparently immune from prosecution.

Hum.

:chair:

Ian

I guess most of the damage was done in the process if diggjng. Perhaps more damage will occur if the hole is not stabilised

 

[Scrappycaver]

This appears to demonstrate the iniquitous existence of arbitrary bodies.

Using the entrance ?damages? the ancient schedule monument?  Are we to believe that, the passing of a human being through a hole, is damage?  How is it damaged?  Did a blade of grass become bent?

Odd then, that walkers can traipse all over the place (especially around the ?hole?) causing the ?same? damage and are apparently immune from prosecution.

Hum.

:chair:

Ian

I guess most of the damage was done in the process if diggjng. Perhaps more damage will occur if the hole is not stabilised

Hopefully we will get a more positive response after today's meeting rather than a control method..in dyo as an example..It states that no bolting is permitted as it's a triple ssi..yet on the other hand it ok to drill hundreds of holes to hang x mas decorations in the showcave and no one is prosecuted !

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[Ian Adams]

I think statutory protection of archaeology (including industrial archaeology) is important. It is a finite resource subject to continual attrition.

Agreed in principle and we probably ?all? agree in principle.
(There are always occasions where the ?value? of such conservation is (significantly) out-weighed by other factors ? common sense being an obvious one (see your comment below))

This requires  an 'arbitrary' (I presume you mean 'statutory') body.

Not quite. The government created subsidiary bodies (take CCW/NRW for example) which, in turn, decided ?arbitrarily? what they would police. In the case of CCW/NRW (quoted because I have experience of it) they decide off their own volition what to schedule. They decide off their own mandate what can or cannot then occur. They decide off their own volition whether or not to prosecute because someone fell foul of one of their ?rules? (no statutory instrument).

In the case of CADW, it has been stated that they can prosecute for ?accidental? damage. Who made that decision?  CADW or the House of Commons?  (I won?t accept an argument that parliament gave CADW its mandate because that is exactly what I mean about ?arbitrary?).

The point I was making is that such ?power? can be mis-used (I could use other words and phrases here). There is also (seemingly) no recourse for ?you and me? should we feel that we have been treated unjustly (like this scenario right now at Twll Du ? walkers can tread on the grass but cavers cannot).

However I do think that these bodies should use a modicum of common sense, which appears conspicuously absent in this situation.

Quite so. Thank you 

I guess most of the damage was done in the process if diggjng.

Interesting use of the word ?damage?. Arguably, the tramway (and the ancient monument) was not actually ?damaged? at all. Of course there is a man sized hole at the side but, within the grand scheme of the monument, it is (quite literally) virtually nothing. In fact, it is very self-evident that both ?time? and ?nature? have disturbed the ancient monument far more significantly than even the folk that walk upon it.

Perhaps more damage will occur if the hole is not stabilised

Logic suggests you are probably right. Seems counter-productive for CADW to reject an offer to stabilise it. Another example of what is wrong with arbitrary bodies perhaps?


Ian

 

[Scrappycaver]

I think statutory protection of archaeology (including industrial archaeology) is important. It is a finite resource subject to continual attrition.

Agreed in principle and we probably ?all? agree in principle.
(There are always occasions where the ?value? of such conservation is (significantly) out-weighed by other factors ? common sense being an obvious one (see your comment below))

This requires  an 'arbitrary' (I presume you mean 'statutory') body.

Not quite. The government created subsidiary bodies (take CCW/NRW for example) which, in turn, decided ?arbitrarily? what they would police. In the case of CCW/NRW (quoted because I have experience of it) they decide off their own volition what to schedule. They decide off their own mandate what can or cannot then occur. They decide off their own volition whether or not to prosecute because someone fell foul of one of their ?rules? (no statutory instrument).

In the case of CADW, it has been stated that they can prosecute for ?accidental? damage. Who made that decision?  CADW or the House of Commons?  (I won?t accept an argument that parliament gave CADW its mandate because that is exactly what I mean about ?arbitrary?).

The point I was making is that such ?power? can be mis-used (I could use other words and phrases here). There is also (seemingly) no recourse for ?you and me? should we feel that we have been treated unjustly (like this scenario right now at Twll Du ? walkers can tread on the grass but cavers cannot).

However I do think that these bodies should use a modicum of common sense, which appears conspicuously absent in this situation.

Quite so. Thank you 

I guess most of the damage was done in the process if diggjng.

Interesting use of the word ?damage?. Arguably, the tramway (and the ancient monument) was not actually ?damaged? at all. Of course there is a man sized hole at the side but, within the grand scheme of the monument, it is (quite literally) virtually nothing. In fact, it is very self-evident that both ?time? and ?nature? have disturbed the ancient monument far more significantly than even the folk that walk upon it.

Perhaps more damage will occur if the hole is not stabilised

Logic suggests you are probably right. Seems counter-productive for CADW to reject an offer to stabilise it. Another example of what is wrong with arbitrary bodies perhaps?


Ian

Like a showcave owner can use bolts to attach his x mas decorations to line his pockets but a caver can't bolt for safety or exploration..

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[Martin Laverty]

Ian Adams asks :

In the case of CADW, it has been stated that they can prosecute for ?accidental? damage. Who made that decision?  CADW or the House of Commons?

- the Welsh Assembly Government via the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2016 - http://cadw.gov.wales/historicenvironment/policy/historicenvironmentbill/provisions/?lang=en

Scrappycaver - what is the meeting you refer to?
- My guess is that it was of PDCMG, but it is noticeable that, since the change of Secretary last year, they have not published either the approved minutes of the penultimate meeting, the draft minutes of the last meeting, nor a date or agenda for the next, on their website - or anywhere else?

Rhys -

I guess most of the damage was done in the process if diggjng. Perhaps more damage will occur if the hole is not stabilised

- I would say your guesses are both wrong. The hole was invisible (securely closed and camouflaged) last August which I believe was about about a year after being opened. Most damage seems to have occurred subsequently to the original digger(/s?) involvement and after September when I last saw it: certainly the photos show that a lot of vegetation has been removed, which may well have made surrounding soil less stable than it was. I suspect that the possible damage that you and Cadw envisage is about as realistic as the danger diagnosed by the mine rescue teams who used to be involved in cave rescues who were appalled at the inherent danger of passages without pit-props...

Cadw - was the defensive eyesore erected beside Twll Du your work? Is the fence really (as it appears) secured in place by invasive attachments forced into the tramway itself rather than by the use of the non-invasive blocks  more commonly employed?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

 

[Scrappycaver]

Ian Adams asks :

In the case of CADW, it has been stated that they can prosecute for ?accidental? damage. Who made that decision?  CADW or the House of Commons?

- the Welsh Assembly Government via the Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2016 - http://cadw.gov.wales/historicenvironment/policy/historicenvironmentbill/provisions/?lang=en

Scrappycaver - what is the meeting you refer to?
- My guess is that it was of PDCMG, but it is noticeable that, since the change of Secretary last year, they have not published either the approved minutes of the penultimate meeting, the draft minutes of the last meeting, nor a date or agenda for the next, on their website - or anywhere else?

Rhys -

I guess most of the damage was done in the process if diggjng. Perhaps more damage will occur if the hole is not stabilised

- I would say your guesses are both wrong. The hole was invisible (securely closed and camouflaged) last August which I believe was about about a year after being opened. Most damage seems to have occurred subsequently to the original digger(/s?) involvement and after September when I last saw it: certainly the photos show that a lot of vegetation has been removed, which may well have made surrounding soil less stable than it was. I suspect that the possible damage that you and Cadw envisage is about as realistic as the danger diagnosed by the mine rescue teams who used to be involved in cave rescues who were appalled at the inherent danger of passages without pit-props...

Cadw - was the defensive eyesore erected beside Twll Du your work? Is the fence really (as it appears) secured in place by invasive attachments forced into the tramway itself rather than by the use of the non-invasive blocks  more commonly employed?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

I was referring to the pdcmg meeting today

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[AR]

This requires  an 'arbitrary' (I presume you mean 'statutory') body.

Not quite. The government created subsidiary bodies (take CCW/NRW for example) which, in turn, decided ?arbitrarily? what they would police. In the case of CCW/NRW (quoted because I have experience of it) they decide off their own volition what to schedule. They decide off their own mandate what can or cannot then occur. They decide off their own volition whether or not to prosecute because someone fell foul of one of their ?rules? (no statutory instrument).

In the case of CADW, it has been stated that they can prosecute for ?accidental? damage. Who made that decision?  CADW or the House of Commons?  (I won?t accept an argument that parliament gave CADW its mandate because that is exactly what I mean about ?arbitrary?).

The point I was making is that such ?power? can be mis-used (I could use other words and phrases here). There is also (seemingly) no recourse for ?you and me? should we feel that we have been treated unjustly (like this scenario right now at Twll Du ? walkers can tread on the grass but cavers cannot).

I guess most of the damage was done in the process if diggjng.

Interesting use of the word ?damage?. Arguably, the tramway (and the ancient monument) was not actually ?damaged? at all. Of course there is a man sized hole at the side but, within the grand scheme of the monument, it is (quite literally) virtually nothing. In fact, it is very self-evident that both ?time? and ?nature? have disturbed the ancient monument far more significantly than even the folk that walk upon it.

The 1979 Ancient Monuments Act states that it is a criminal offence to wilfully or recklessly cause damage to a Scheduled site; one of the problems with enforcing this over the years has been where the person(s) causing the damage have claimed ignorance of the scheduled status and HE/Cadw have tended to not bring prosecutions in such cases. While I've not been paying close attention to changes , it seems from what's been said that the Assembly have instructed Cadw to pursue prosecution when damage has been done even if the person(s) who have done the damage were unaware that they were committing an offence. Like it or not, digging a hole in a scheduled site without the requisite permission for works is an offence under the 1979 act; if CCC want to put a permanent entrance in then that needs an application for scheduled monument consent and as part of that, you need the landowner's permission - is this likely to be forthcoming? If not, then it ain't going to happen, and even then, if Cadw oppose it then it's unlikely that consent will be granted.