Update on Twll Du

[John S]

it is quite likely that Twll Ddu is a natural shaft which had been blocked, possibly during construction of the tramway?. The top of this has been excavated, so there is a debate to be had as to what extent is the entrance a natural feature.

When i first saw the entrance before all the damage (presumably by the anti-entrance fraternity), It was though what looked like boulder clay to within 2 to 3 cm of the surface, then topsoil and grass. I failed to see any chippings or clinker. My photos don't show any either.
So it seems natural all the way to the surface. I wonder if the pile of clay and debris at the base of the shaft hides any bones etc, if it was ever an open shaft. Andy maybe able to postulate so some scenarios. It should have an excavation done on it before its sealed. What body would be responsible for doing that I wonder ?

 

[Ship-badger]

I have received a response from PC John, pointing out that he has a duty to respond to a report of a crime.

Do we know who, if anyone did the dobbing in?

I would assume that it is CADW who actually contacted the Police, but it may have been members of the PDCMG. However, I am quite sure that the PDCMG knew full well that when they reported the "damage" to CADW the Police would be informed.

 

[mattwire]

One of those activities is for the caving community to be informed that Ogof Draenen must not be entered by this entrance and to do so is a criminal act. 

Without taking any sides what concerns me is that this statement is factually incorrect and I urge PDCMG to retract and correct it.

Entering via that entrance is NOT a criminal act. It is on open access land, trespass is not a criminal act and does not apply anyway.

 

[David Rose]

According to CADW's website, "Stop notices" are an order to stop works for up to 28 days if CADW considers that the works breach the Historic Monuments legislation, as amended. No work is presently being carried out at Twll Du, and I fail to see how entering the cave would constitute "works" as defined by the legislation.  Therefore it does on the face of it appear that the prosecution threat is an empty one, and the statement misleading. It would be nice if someone from PDCMG would comment here to clarify the position.

 

[martinr]

One of those activities is for the caving community to be informed that Ogof Draenen must not be entered by this entrance and to do so is a criminal act. 

Without taking any sides what concerns me is that this statement is factually incorrect and I urge PDCMG to retract and correct it.

Entering via that entrance is NOT a criminal act. It is on open access land, trespass is not a criminal act and does not apply anyway.

Thanks for sorting that. Have you told CADW? Have they withdrawn the Stop Notice? ( "Stop notices" are an order to stop works if CADW considers that the works breach the Historic Monuments legislation)

 

[Martin Laverty]

As I understand it, this is an unoficial treat based on CADW saying they will consider further access to be an offense as it will damage their monument, which appears to constitute not just the tramroad but an arbitrary area around it. How on earth they could prove any new damage, I don't know. But I also think they have to post a formal notification of this first...

Has anyone else noticed something odd about this statement?:

At this meeting there were representatives from CADW, National Park, Police, Natural Resources Wales, BCA, CCC (Secretary and Conservation/ Access Officer), and PDCMG (secretary (me) and a trustee) and couple of interested local cavers.

Why wasn't the landowner there - or are PDCMG being treated as a surrogate? The landowner is - like it or not - responsible for monuments on his land.

 

[martinr]

According to CADW's website, "Stop notices" are an order to stop works for up to 28 days if CADW considers that the works breach the Historic Monuments legislation, as amended. No work is presently being carried out at Twll Du, and I fail to see how entering the cave would constitute "works" as defined by the legislation.  Therefore it does on the face of it appear that the prosecution threat is an empty one, and the statement misleading. It would be nice if someone from PDCMG would comment here to clarify the position.

Jon Berry (CADW), outlining the legal requirements to request changes to scheduled monuments and the current legislation which protects scheduled monuments. ........If anyone wants further information on scheduled monuments in Wales and the legislation in place to protect them please contact Amelia, her e-mail is Amelia.Pannett@gov.wales

 

[royfellows]

Has anyone else noticed something odd about this statement?:

At this meeting there were representatives from CADW, National Park, Police, Natural Resources Wales, BCA, CCC (Secretary and Conservation/ Access Officer), and PDCMG (secretary (me) and a trustee) and couple of interested local cavers.

Why wasn't the landowner there - or are PDCMG being treated as a surrogate? The landowner is - like it or not - responsible for monuments on his land.

Very well spotted Martin, and good points. It most certainly is very odd.

 

[Scrappycaver]

Has anyone else noticed something odd about this statement?:

At this meeting there were representatives from CADW, National Park, Police, Natural Resources Wales, BCA, CCC (Secretary and Conservation/ Access Officer), and PDCMG (secretary (me) and a trustee) and couple of interested local cavers.

Why wasn't the landowner there - or are PDCMG being treated as a surrogate? The landowner is - like it or not - responsible for monuments on his land.

Very well spotted Martin, and good points. It most certainly is very odd.

In the unfortunate situation of an accident in draenen with three out of four entrances sealed will this not pose a threat for rescue with time being an important factor ?


Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[andrewmcleod]

According to CADW's website, "Stop notices" are an order to stop works for up to 28 days if CADW considers that the works breach the Historic Monuments legislation, as amended. No work is presently being carried out at Twll Du, and I fail to see how entering the cave would constitute "works" as defined by the legislation.  Therefore it does on the face of it appear that the prosecution threat is an empty one, and the statement misleading. It would be nice if someone from PDCMG would comment here to clarify the position.

Much as I'd love there to be an uncontroversial entrance to Draenen, if a caver did get caught by the police going to this entrance past a posted 'stop' notice, then I can imagine words like 'reckless' and 'wilful' being thrown around the court. They might not be able to prove any exact damage but I imagine the court would take an extremely dim view given the apparent lack of justification for using the entrance (to non-cavers at least). I'm still pretty sure it would be a bad, bad, bad thing for a caver to end up fighting that case - bad for the caver and bad for caving in general, regardless of the outcome.

We are not onto a winner on this one, sadly.

 

[NigR]

We are not onto a winner on this one, sadly.

We shall see.

 

[manrabbit]

I suppose it should have been opened with the aid of a bulldozer! 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10875703/Offas-Dyke-Never-heard-of-it-says-traveller-who-bulldozed-landmark.html

 

[rhychydwr1]

I would respectfully suggest that as trespassing is a civil offence, so long as you do not do any damage the Mochen cannot prosecute.

 

[Rhys]

The issue is damaging a protected monunent, not trespass.

 

[Rhys]

In the unfortunate situation of an accident in draenen with three out of four entrances sealed will this not pose a threat for rescue with time being an important factor ?

No.

 

[David Rose]

The point is: as I read it, a Stop notice applies to work, and going into a cave does not constitute work. Therefore how could it be a criminal offence to do so? Had a Stop notice been issued while the cave was still being dug, and the diggers then continued, it would have been a different matter. But we are where we are, and I can't quite see how it would be a crime to enter Twll Du is a notice were issued - which, please correct me if I'm wrong, so far has not happened.

I emailed Sue Mabbett of the PDCMG drawing her attention to my question on this thread yesterday. So far she hasn't posted or replied. I hope she will. It does seem to me that whatever stance one takes on Draenen, Twll Du and cave access restrictions, bringing the threat of the criminal law into this is a serious matter, and requires precision.

 

[NigR]

In the unfortunate situation of an accident in draenen with three out of four entrances sealed will this not pose a threat for rescue with time being an important factor ?

No.

Sorry, Rhys but the extraction of an injured caver from, for example, Big Country is bound to take considerably longer than if Twll Du were to be used and how you can so emphatically say otherwise is completely beyond me. Are you totally unfamiliar with the character and layout of the cave?

 

[Scrappycaver]

In the unfortunate situation of an accident in draenen with three out of four entrances sealed will this not pose a threat for rescue with time being an important factor ?

No.

Sorry, Rhys but the extraction of an injured caver from, for example, Big Country is bound to take considerably longer than if Twll Du were to be used and how you can so emphatically say otherwise is completely beyond me. Are you totally unfamiliar with the character and layout of the cave?

FACT

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[Fulk]

I?m making this post in a genuine spirit of enquiry, and not to stir up yet more trouble.
When I first read about the tramway being damaged, I had visions of people ripping up an old err . . . tramway and, maybe, making off with the tracks for their scrap value. But I?ve just seen a picture of the tramway in the latest Descent, and it appears to be a pleasant green track, at the side of which there is a small pile of stones / gravel that appears to be on top of the new entrance. There are no obvious signs of damage in the picture, other than a bit of gravel spilt onto the tramway. Is the picture misleading in some way, or is the above a reasonable account of the situation? If so, then ? leaving aside any legal questions or questions of landowner wishes ? what is the problem with regard to ?damage? ? it looks as though the damage is so trivial that it could very easily be put right?

andrewmc says:

but I imagine the court would take an extremely dim view given the apparent lack of justification for using the entrance (to non-cavers at least).

That strikes me as odd; on the two occasions that I?ve been to the cave, we used the original entrance, which involved a lot of wriggling and squirming, much of it in pretty wet conditions, so we were wet through within minutes of entering the cave. According to one account of the new entrance ? I think it was written by David Rose ? the new entrance is easy, safe and dry. I would expect any non-caver to be perfectly capable of grasping that a ?safe easy dry? way in might be preferable to a wriggly, squirmy wet way in!

So am I missing the point(s) here?

 

[Ship-badger]

Yes Fulk, you are missing the point. The point being that some people think the cave should only have one entrance; that one being the one that they control. You're being naughty.

The original entrance is a great entrance, apart from when that water pours down your neck.