Update on Twll Du

[Joe Duxbury]

in the middle of a scheduled monument...

It's not in the middle of a scheduled monument. It's not on the tramroad at all. It's off to one side of it. Just look at the various photographs that have been published. Do CADW have carte blanche to decide how wide the boundaries (the curtilage?) of their monuments are? 1 m? 5? Why not 10?

 

[Bob Mehew]

I don't have the time to research it, but has someone checked on what the original scheduling of the Tramway site said, together with the various acts?  For example, I do know CADW's scheduling of the Great Orme does provide detail on features below the "surface".  If as I suspect the schedule and the acts make no mention of 'under the surface', then one positive of CADW current position is to reduce NRW's ability to claim CRoW's use of the word "land" does not apply to 'under the surface'.

PS - the schedule will have a map showing the surface boundaries as it is a legal requirement.

 

[AR]

Scheduled sites in Wales can be located from this interactive map and their boundaries and scheduling information viewed: http://cadw.gov.wales/historicenvironment/recordsv1/cof-cymru/?lang=en

Regarding anything below the surface, legally scheduling covers this too, theoretically to the centre of the earth unless there is a specific exclusion written into the list entry.

 

[Bob Mehew]

Scheduled sites in Wales can be located from this interactive map and their boundaries and scheduling information viewed: http://cadw.gov.wales/historicenvironment/recordsv1/cof-cymru/?lang=en

That is a copy - is it accurate?

Regarding anything below the surface, legally scheduling covers this too, theoretically to the centre of the earth unless there is a specific exclusion written into the list entry.

NRW disagrees with that interpretation, hence my comment.  But let's not get too far into CRoW on this thread.

 

[NigR]

in the middle of a scheduled monument...

It's not in the middle of a scheduled monument. It's not on the tramroad at all. It's off to one side of it. Just look at the various photographs that have been published. Do CADW have carte blanche to decide how wide the boundaries (the curtilage?) of their monuments are? 1 m? 5? Why not 10?

Joe is quite correct: Twll Du is slightly to one side of the tramroad and a little way above it. However, it would appear that Cadw do indeed have the power to decide how wide the boundaries of their monuments extend: in this case there seems to be a buffer zone above the tramroad but not below it.

But let's not get too far into CRoW on this thread.

Two points are worthy of mention here:

Firstly, apart from being just within the scheduled monument boundary, Twll Du is on CRoW land, and (as has been noted earlier) had it emerged only a matter of metres further away it would have been totally outside of this boundary.

Secondly, the CRoW aspect is indeed of paramount importance due to the fact that the PDCMG are continuing to completely disregard it so far as the brutal enforcement of their single entrance policy is concerned. As I have already stated, one less than palatable fact to emerge from last week's meeting is that they are absolutely determined to push ahead with their plans to close Drws Cefn to cavers, despite it being situated on CRoW land and having been open for almost nine years. In addition to being in direct contravention of BCA's recent statement that CRoW already applies to caving, this is an act of utmost folly and will do nothing other than to exacerbate the entire Ogof Draenen situation rather than calm it down. I did not attend this latest meeting but was present at the previous one when Chris Densham proudly passed around diagrams of his latest plan to seal Drws and glibly stated "Oh, we fully expect it to be vandalised!". This is an absolutely appalling attitude in my opinion and demonstrates perfectly that those pulling the strings of the PDCMG will do anything and everything they can in pursuit of their goal. Also, as mentioned by Scrappycaver earlier, the original second entrance at the Nunnery (concreted shut by the PDCMG almost twenty years ago) has now been open for a couple of years as well. This too is situated on CRoW land and although I am unaware of any firm plans on the part of the PDCMG for its closure, I am sure they will be in the offing.

 

[nobrotson]

Secondly, the CRoW aspect is indeed of paramount importance due to the fact that the PDCMG are continuing to completely disregard it so far as the brutal enforcement of their single entrance policy is concerned. As I have already stated, one less than palatable fact to emerge from last week's meeting is that they are absolutely determined to push ahead with their plans to close Drws Cefn to cavers, despite it being situated on CRoW land and having been open for almost nine years. In addition to being in direct contravention of BCA's recent statement that CRoW already applies to caving, this is an act of utmost folly and will do nothing other than to exacerbate the entire Ogof Draenen situation rather than calm it down. I did not attend this latest meeting but was present at the previous one when Chris Densham proudly passed around diagrams of his latest plan to seal Drws and glibly stated "Oh, we fully expect it to be vandalised!". This is an absolutely appalling attitude in my opinion and demonstrates perfectly that those pulling the strings of the PDCMG will do anything and everything they can in pursuit of their goal. Also, as mentioned by Scrappycaver earlier, the original second entrance at the Nunnery (concreted shut by the PDCMG almost twenty years ago) has now been open for a couple of years as well. This too is situated on CRoW land and although I am unaware of any firm plans on the part of the PDCMG for its closure, I am sure they will be in the offing.

Who gets to attend these meetings and where and when are they? I would quite like to go to one.

Do you know Chris Densham well? From the (admittedly limited) part of this debate that I have witnessed, it seems to me that a lot of the points of view being held on both sides are often not solely motivated by a matter of principle, but also largely by opinions and assumptions about others of a personal nature. This has to stop. It is ridiculously immature, it presents a brick wall in the way of meaningful progress and it creates a very negative and hostile attitude that really discourages some people from speaking out on the issue.

Fleur, former PDCMG secretary who I consider a good friend, has been on the receiving end of some quite awful vitriol from some people and this is not on. She is a person who I consider to have a lot of integrity and who I have a lot of respect for. Likewise, Chris is a good friend of mine who I have a lot of respect for. I am starting to think that he is wrong about Draenen and the entrances from what I read and what I believe about access to caves, but that doesn't mean I have lost any of my respect for him as a cave explorer.

I would genuinely like to know whether you have tried to get to know Chris as a person. A lack of empathy and understanding seems to be pretty absent from both sides of this debate. Maybe you can change my perspective of this.

 

[nobrotson]

I am constantly looking to the future, there is always new cave passage to discover and entrances to be found! My statement above is one of fact and should be taken at face value. Other entrances are already open and are serving their purpose of facilitating the ongoing exploration of Ogof Draenen. I do not believe the PDCMG will be able to close them, although it is clear that they would dearly love to do so and are determined to maintain their efforts in that sole direction. As you say, once they finally see the error of their ways we can all move on.

Do you need these other entrances to be open to explore the far reaches of Draenen? The way from the PDCMG's preferred entrance to, for example, the Into The Black streamway and tyhe Rock'n'Roll Choke is not especially arduous caving and does not take very long at all compared to some caves (took us around 3 hours in last time carrying kit).

With regards to the future of conservation of the cave, I would like to understand your stance. Is this something you care about? I don't know you, so I am just trying to work out what your motives are with regard to finding other entrances. Doubtless it makes exploration easier to have The Nunnery etc open as these entrances are closer to leads in the Dollimore Series, War of the Worlds etc. But it is still very possible from the current PDCMG preferred entrance. I know a number of student cavers from OUCC who have repeatedly proved this.

And with regard to conservation of formations, there is in my mind no argument that the PDCMG stance has protected the far reaches of the cave. The formations in War of the Worlds, MS&D and Luck of the Draw are extremely fragile and benefit hugely from their isolation with respect to the PDCMG preferred entrance. What is your stance on this?

Can you also answer these earlier questions?

 

[NigR]

Nobrotson,

To answer your latest questions first:

The meetings referred to are those of the PDCMG which take place twice a year. The fact that you are unaware of this is somewhat surprising to me as you are friends with Chris and Fleur. It also perfectly emphasises the point made recently by Martin Laverty in this very thread concerning the lack of publicity given by the PDCMG concerning their own meetings.

If you had known about and been able to attend the previous PDCMG meeting in November last year, you would have heard me say to Chris (in front of everyone else who was there) that I thought he was a good caver: just ask anyone who attended that meeting if you do not believe me. Like yourself, I have the utmost respect for his ability as a cave explorer: of that there is no doubt. I caved with him (and several other prominent members of OUCC) when Draenen was first discovered, so I know what I am talking about from first hand experience. I enjoyed these trips and, on a personal level, it does indeed sadden me greatly that things have developed the way they have in the years since.

However, (also like it would appear you yourself are starting to believe) I am convinced that Chris (and the PDCMG) have got it totally wrong when it comes to a single entrance policy for Ogof Draenen. Now, this should be no great problem as such: after all the world is full of people holding different opinions, isn't it? The problem arises when those holding one view force theirs upon others by forcibly applying a solution to secure an outcome in their favour: in this particular case it being the concreting shut of caves. Sadly, Chris has been the chief exponent of this from the very outset, going back to the days of the Nunnery and continuing right up until the present time. Sorry, but I have absolutely zero respect on this score for any caver (be it Chris or anybody else) who wants to deny other cavers access to caves by concreting their entrances. Do you?

I do agree it is unfortunate (from the point of view of both sides) that the situation has become so polarised (and personalised) over the years. If any newcomers to the debate (such as yourself) would like to become more involved to help try to bring about some sensible means of resolution, I am sure that would be appreciated by all concerned.

I hope this helps answer some of your queries, anything else feel free to ask.

Apologies for not answering your earlier questions back in March. Virtually all the points you raised had already been covered in endless debate on this very forum and, after careful deliberation, I thought it would achieve nothing to do so again. However, I was perhaps being a little hasty and should maybe have realised that someone new to the Draenen saga was, quite simply, unaware of this. Why not check back over some of the previous threads and see what you can find? All the answers you require will be there, I am sure. I will then come back and give you any answers you are still unsure of once you have a greater grasp of what has been said previously. Is this OK?

 

[Badlad]

[gmod]Dear all Draenen watchers. I am very pleased to read a more civilised discussion on this topic and long may it continue. Please for the sake of everybody can we maintain it. The mods will take action on threads which degenerate to unacceptable levels. Thank you.[/gmod]

 

[David Rose]

It would be interesting to know what percentage of all the millions of words on the forum have concerned Ogof Draenen. I second Tim's comment. Great to have polite debate on this vexatious topic.

 

[nobrotson]

The meetings referred to are those of the PDCMG which take place twice a year. The fact that you are unaware of this is somewhat surprising to me as you are friends with Chris and Fleur. It also perfectly emphasises the point made recently by Martin Laverty in this very thread concerning the lack of publicity given by the PDCMG concerning their own meetings.

Chris did tell me about the existence of the meetings, but not when and why. I don't think he was trying to actively avoid telling me, but probably thought the details of the meetings of no relevance to me because I don't live in Britain at present. I last saw him a while ago when we last went to yellow van and have become a lot more interested in this debate since then. I do agree that the meetings are not well advertised publically.

If you had known about and been able to attend the previous PDCMG meeting in November last year, you would have heard me say to Chris (in front of everyone else who was there) that I thought he was a good caver: just ask anyone who attended that meeting if you do not believe me. Like yourself, I have the utmost respect for his ability as a cave explorer: of that there is no doubt. I caved with him (and several other prominent members of OUCC) when Draenen was first discovered, so I know what I am talking about from first hand experience. I enjoyed these trips and, on a personal level, it does indeed sadden me greatly that things have developed the way they have in the years since.

However, (also like it would appear you yourself are starting to believe) I am convinced that Chris (and the PDCMG) have got it totally wrong when it comes to a single entrance policy for Ogof Draenen. Now, this should be no great problem as such: after all the world is full of people holding different opinions, isn't it? The problem arises when those holding one view force theirs upon others by forcibly applying a solution to secure an outcome in their favour: in this particular case it being the concreting shut of caves. Sadly, Chris has been the chief exponent of this from the very outset, going back to the days of the Nunnery and continuing right up until the present time. Sorry, but I have absolutely zero respect on this score for any caver (be it Chris or anybody else) who wants to deny other cavers access to caves by concreting their entrances. Do you?

I do agree it is unfortunate (from the point of view of both sides) that the situation has become so polarised (and personalised) over the years. If any newcomers to the debate (such as yourself) would like to become more involved to help try to bring about some sensible means of resolution, I am sure that would be appreciated by all concerned.

I hope this helps answer some of your queries, anything else feel free to ask.

Apologies for not answering your earlier questions back in March. Virtually all the points you raised had already been covered in endless debate on this very forum and, after careful deliberation, I thought it would achieve nothing to do so again. However, I was perhaps being a little hasty and should maybe have realised that someone new to the Draenen saga was, quite simply, unaware of this. Why not check back over some of the previous threads and see what you can find? All the answers you require will be there, I am sure. I will then come back and give you any answers you are still unsure of once you have a greater grasp of what has been said previously. Is this OK?

I will do more reading up on the issue in the coming months, I'm sure the points have been covered. I would like to see the debate resolved and once I know more I will start to become more active in it. Thanks for taking the time.

 

[Stuart France]

The next 6-monthly PDCMG meeting should take place in June 2019.  I'm trying to find out when and where and get the draft minutes of the last one.  The problem is the PDCMG website no longer exists in a functional form.  It has been defaced.

http://pdcmg.org.uk/

PDCMG said (Ali Garman said) at their November meeting that a new modern website would be published within, er, a week but that didn't happen.  Neither was their promise honoured to call an EGM early this year to revisit their single entrance policy, the cause of a lot of needless strife over the past 20+ years.  When asked at the Cambrian Caving Council AGM in March 2019, Sue Mabbett, the PDCMG Secretary, who came along to moan about Cambrian taking an interest when it wasn't welcome, blamed the lack of progress with holding an EGM on Chris Seal whose role in all this is being merely the rep for Chelsea Speleological Society.  Yes, I think that's it.

Will somebody please tell me what is going on and when the next PDCMG meeting will be and where etc etc.

 

[JohnMCooper]

I believe the Chairman is due back in the UK tomorrow.

 

[Stuart France]

Your faith in Les Williams to sort out the PDCMG is truly touching.  Have PDCMG got anybody left besides Sue Mabbett and Chris Densham?  They lost their geology officer; it looks like the webmaster has gone perhaps leaving them a little gift; and the fixed aids officer has left to "spend more time with his family".  Have I forgotten any others?

I'd have thought Les would be fully occupied right now with the upcoming BCA AGM (see separate thread) on 9th June and the BCA's latest survival ploy of not accepting BCA Council Officer nominations and AGM motions unless written on parchment with wet ink and delivered on horseback.

For those who collect being on committees and delight in attending them even if just to occupy a chair and then say nothing, also in June on the 2nd, is the OFD cave management committee at Penwyllt at the uncivilised hour of 9am on a Sunday.  Everyone welcome.  Could be fun as NRW is washing its hands of running cave access committees, and they didn't attend the last OFDCMC in November either.

I hope the PDCMG one doesn't clash with either of these other two June offerings.

 

[Andy Farrant]

Yes the PDCMG lost their geology officer, partly because of the farce that was Twll Ddu, but also issues with regard to the various entrances. None of these were helped by the actions of a certain S. France. There is a compromise to be had on all of the issues with Draenen, just no-one is interested in finding it. Rather the opposite, with people bent on inflaming things when the opposite needs to happen. That is also one of the reasons I haven't been to Whitewalls much in the past couple of years. What is it with certain older male cavers?? No wonder some caving clubs are finding it hard to recruit younger cavers.

 

[Martin Laverty]

Defaced? Just modified to help stop people wasting their time, I'ld say, but someone should tell Tim Long as he supposedly took over the site in March 2018.

The site is archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20181107065955/http://pdcmg.org.uk/ and links to specific pages are still live (albeit comatose), so http://pdcmg.org.uk/minsmenu.htm is the link you want Stuart, but it is only of interest to historians until the PDCMG get it updated...

 

[Graigwen]

I have no knowledge of the functioning of the shady body that is PDCMG beyond attending the autumn 2017 meeting as an observer. However I did notice that at some time in 2017/18 their web site was amended to withdraw the claim that their writ extended to Jackdaw's Quarry on the west bank of the Llwyd.

.

 

[NewStuff]

just no-one is interested in finding it.

You mean the group that singlemindedly pursue a single entrance, despite being told by almost everybody else in the country with an interest in the place, that it's backwards & stupid.

 

[Martin Laverty]

I have no knowledge of the functioning of the shady body that is PDCMG beyond attending the autumn 2017 meeting as an observer. However I did notice that at some time in 2017/18 their web site was amended to withdraw the claim that their writ extended to Jackdaw's Quarry on the west bank of the Llwyd.

Where did you note that? It's not what is said at http://pdcmg.org.uk/plancons2003.htm

 

[Graigwen]

I have no knowledge of the functioning of the shady body that is PDCMG beyond attending the autumn 2017 meeting as an observer. However I did notice that at some time in 2017/18 their web site was amended to withdraw the claim that their writ extended to Jackdaw's Quarry on the west bank of the Llwyd.

Where did you note that? It's not what is said at http://pdcmg.org.uk/plancons2003.htm

Martin, from the link you give:

"This Document is principally concerned with Ogof Draenen but also relates to other caves and sites of speleological interest that fall with in the Ogof Draenen hydrological area. This area can be defined as being bounded by the following features; the Principal amongst these are:

    Siambri Ddu
    Ogof Ddwy Sir
    Jackdaw Quarry Cave
    Cwmavon Quarry Caves."

and the linked document goes on to describe the area of interest of PDCMG:

"The Area

The area we are concerned with is bounded by the following features:

To the NE the limit is the quarries of Gilwern hill,

To the N the limit is the Pwll Ddu embayment and the scarp face of the Blorenge,

The Easterly boundary is the eastern side of the Blorenge and the ridge running South from it. The extent to the south is the resurgences at Snatchwood. "

This area going as far south as Snatchwood will include not only Graig Quarry (alias Ginger's Quarry), the Nant Maelor caves in Cwm Lasgarn and Jackdaw's Quarry.

A different description of "the area" appears on the Wayback machine in what is described as the November 2013 constitution:

"2  The Area
2.1  The Area involved relates to Ogof Draenen. This includes Pwll Du, Gilwern Hill and the Blorenge, together with land overlying the cave and including associated sites and its catchment area, collectively hereinafter referred to as The Area"

I thought I had seen in 2016 a reference to a western boundary, but I don't see it now and could be mistaken although it is odd that the other boundaries are specified. Anyway, it is not a matter of great import having been overtaken by the passage of time. I don't know the truth about reports of people being dissuaded from digging at Graig Quarry by PDCMG .

Of course PDCMG can amend its constitution how it likes, it is just a bit odd that it seems somewhat shrouded in secrecy bearing in mind that it affects third parties as it states one of its aims is "To control access".