Quote from: graham on October 28, 2014, 07:09:08 am]Edit: Yup just checked again. Assuming the grid reference SK 16508 65982 is correct then Garden Path is on access land. I got that NGR from this page.So, in this instance at least, NE consider an excavated entrance on SSSI and CRoW to be a natural feature? We have a precedent.
]Edit: Yup just checked again. Assuming the grid reference SK 16508 65982 is correct then Garden Path is on access land. I got that NGR from this page.
Not sure what Garden Path has to do with this discussion at all. Yes it was excavated, but it doesn't constitute a danger to the public as it is locked.Mind you, I'm surprised where the brown Crow access line is drawn here, as Garden Path is obviously in pasture - I suppose it's to do with the walls and other boundaries.
Bob, here's a thing. Instead of giving us yet more of your opinions, why not ask a proper lawyer?
Mind you, I'm surprised where the brown Crow access line is drawn here, as Garden Path is obviously in pasture - I suppose it's to do with the walls and other boundaries.
Just imaging the reaction in a court of law if someone was suggesting a shaft dug using explosives and supported with scaffolding and pipes was a natural feature.The legal position needs to be clarified !!
Stepping back from the detail, is not liability simply related to something a person has done or built, which differentiates "natural" from "not natural". So any alteration to anything that would otherwise be considered "undisturbed" involves a degree of liability.
Quote from: Peter Burgess on October 29, 2014, 02:20:10 pmStepping back from the detail, is not liability simply related to something a person has done or built, which differentiates "natural" from "not natural". So any alteration to anything that would otherwise be considered "undisturbed" involves a degree of liability.Yes, exactly so - the landowner would be liable for any cave opened by digging and not covered by the CROW legislation.
Re CRoW applying to dug entrances, I claim dug entrances are a means of access, see http://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=17137.msg225933#msg225933 but I fear only the courts will resolve this question which will depend upon the specific case.
I do wish people would stop comparing our situation to that of the anglers/canoeists, that controversy is between two bodies vying for the same resource and has no comparison with our case.
All of this to get slightly easier access to a few areas and possible access to a handful of caves currently closed.
The area is designated NNR SSSI on two counts ; 'Earth Heritage' i.e. the caves, and 'Calcerous Grassland' i.e. the plantlife. When drawing up the CRoW map, they used the NNR boundary.
Quote from: Bottlebank on October 29, 2014, 04:35:08 pmAll of this to get slightly easier access to a few areas and possible access to a handful of caves currently closed.Fixed that for you.
[Fair enough, at the same if we're unlucky we'll beginning a long, heavily contested campaign
Quote from: bograt on October 29, 2014, 03:46:42 pmI do wish people would stop comparing our situation to that of the anglers/canoeists, that controversy is between two bodies vying for the same resource and has no comparison with our case.Fair enough, at the same if we're unlucky we'll beginning a long, heavily contested campaign which may last many years and lead to loss of access, do huge damage to landowner/caver relations and everything will be a right mess!All of this to get easier access to a few areas and access to a handful of caves currently closed.
Quote from: bograt on October 29, 2014, 12:30:19 pmThe area is designated NNR SSSI on two counts ; 'Earth Heritage' i.e. the caves, and 'Calcerous Grassland' i.e. the plantlife. When drawing up the CRoW map, they used the NNR boundary.None of which indicates that the entrance itself is indicated as a natural feature.
Quote from: graham on October 29, 2014, 05:10:07 pmQuote from: bograt on October 29, 2014, 12:30:19 pmThe area is designated NNR SSSI on two counts ; 'Earth Heritage' i.e. the caves, and 'Calcerous Grassland' i.e. the plantlife. When drawing up the CRoW map, they used the NNR boundary.None of which indicates that the entrance itself is indicated as a natural feature.These facts were intended as an explanation to the reason for the boundary, you have turned it into a political issue, maybe you should provide us with some FACTS?????
Should the BCA be getting legal advice on this sort of thing - in my view probably yes, and it should be published prior to the referendum.
Quote from: Bottlebank on October 29, 2014, 04:35:08 pm[Fair enough, at the same if we're unlucky we'll beginning a long, heavily contested campaign Err, Excuse me, But as I understand it the vote is whether to continue with this approach, if the vote is no, then BCA will look for alternatives, they will not 'contest heavily', cavers are not like that!!!!
Quote from: Bottlebank on October 29, 2014, 04:35:08 pmQuote from: bograt on October 29, 2014, 03:46:42 pmI do wish people would stop comparing our situation to that of the anglers/canoeists, that controversy is between two bodies vying for the same resource and has no comparison with our case.Fair enough, at the same if we're unlucky we'll beginning a long, heavily contested campaign which may last many years and lead to loss of access, do huge damage to landowner/caver relations and everything will be a right mess!All of this to get easier access to a few areas and access to a handful of caves currently closed.With all due respect Tony, that is is ridiculous. Nobody will be doing any 'heavily contested campaigns'.. It will be done (negotiated) with respect and in consultation with the landowners through the regional councils and their officers.There may be the odd 'loose cannon' if you know what I mean, but the vast majoriity of landowners / tenants / estates will only now deal with with officially recognised people from bodies such as the regional councils or BCA, the national caving organisation, representing us and which includes some very experienced and respected cavers.
Mel,See above, I think you've missed the point.You seem to be detailing what would happen if Defra change their view. Actually you're describing the largely sensible process that goes on now. Telling a landowner his access agreement is toast and no longer applies isn't really negotiation at all.
Quote from: Bottlebank on October 30, 2014, 09:40:57 amMel,See above, I think you've missed the point.You seem to be detailing what would happen if Defra change their view. Actually you're describing the largely sensible process that goes on now. Telling a landowner his access agreement is toast and no longer applies isn't really negotiation at all.No, I think u r missing the point. No-one who is involved in C&A in any of the regional councils or BCA will go to a landowner and say your "access agreement is toast and no longer applies". They will continue to do what they do now and negotiate amicably and sensibly with said landowner!
Main Menu