No offence taken, but it is a fact that if some remark is not likely to be constructive then it is probably best left unspoken.
It is also a fact that if you serve in a national level organisation that deals with government departments, and organisations akin to your own, then you are operating in a political world. The government here has asked the people for feedback on some questions and proposals of theirs in a formal consultation on, amongst other things, recreational access in the countryside. It is not wrong morally, or from any other perspective, therefore to send one's own thoughtful response to them, or to write briefly to them supporting such as the CCC?s detailed response.
There are five large caves on CRoW Access Land in Wales that have gates. Those gates have been there a long time for good reasons. CCC is suggesting that one of these five can be retired because it was installed while the cave entrance in question was at the ?digging? stage, but since then it has been stabilised, and the other entrance into the same cave does not have any gate. We?ve given reasons why the other four cave gates should be retained and put onto a more formal footing by the application of statutory conservation measures to them. The regulatory impact of implementing all the above is thus minimal, practical and affordable.
There are approaching forty other caves on Access Land here significant enough to have guide book descriptions which have been ?de facto? open for decades and have never been gated. CCC has said that these should remain open and that public access into them should be put on the same ?de jure? basis as applies to the landscapes that surround these caves.
I really cannot see why these simple and logical propositions should raise such a storm.
