Drws Cefn- the next instalment?

Brains

Brains

Well-known member
http://darknessbelow.co.uk/?p=1256

The Brocklebank/Mullen/Burgess editorial team have posted the above on their website and linked to various FB groups.
Essentially it appears from the info given that Rogers and France, individually or together, have issued further legal notices to NRW regarding the ongoing saga, seeking judicial review.
Please read the original article as my notes are just that and may not reflect the original as posted or others interpretations of it...

We brought you news last year about the threat of legal action from cavers Stuart France and Nigel Rogers and on the responses from both Natural Resources Wales and Drws Cefn landowner Pwlldu Conservation Limited.

We understand in the latest development in this long running saga Stuart France has now issued a pre-action letter via his solicitors to Natural Resources Wales advising of a proposed application to apply for Judicial Review in respect of their claim to rights of access to the Ogof Draenen cave system, despite fears this could result in loss of all access to Ogof Draenen.

In the meantime DEFRA have recently again repeated their position that ?open access rights under that Act do not include any rights to use cave systems beneath or within the mapped land? and that all opinions such as the one given by Dinah Rose QC remain just that until the matter is considered and ruled upon by the courts. They have also commented that the other option is to resolve the position by a change in the legislation but they have confirmed that the Government has no plans to make any changes to the Act.

In his report last month to the BCA Council Tim Allen, the BCA CRoW Liaison Officer, considered the Drws Cefn situation and stated ?In my view a decision has yet to be made which can be challenged by Judicial Review? ?  a view obviously not shared by the Cambrian Caving Council?s Access Officer ? Stuart France. It?s difficult to decide whether the report suggests the BCA support this legal action, or are opposed to it.

We have not so far received a response to our requests for comment from the BCA.
Click to expand...

My personal position is pro access, but here I am trying just to report this development. Others have suggested a petition, but to what end I am not clear
 
[aside]
Following input from FB I have just had a quick look on the members list and it seems "Graham" and "Bottlebank" are no longer listed, but "Peter Burgess" still is.
I hope that Peter at least feels he can reply within this debate. Although I have disagreed with Graham in the past that doesnt mean I want him silenced - he has valuble input in many areas. Likewise Brocklebank - I hope this isnt directly linked to the "Darkness Below" website formation as a news resource [/aside]
 
Peter Burgess said:
What do you want me to say? It's a news item, not a debate. News is important. There's my opinion.
Click to expand...
In the past any mention of this location has lead to pages of debate, as has the prospect of recourse to the law. Debate can be healthy and the picking apart of motives and reasoning can be enlightning. As you say tho, a matter of news, of import to some
 
ChrisJC said:
No need for further debate. It can only be resolved by the courts. Chris.
Click to expand...

But what can only be resolved in court?

Access to Draenan?
Access to Drws Cefn?
Right to underground access on CROW land?
 
Well if this is to start yet another debate, i wish you all the very best with it!

In the meantime myself and some others will continue to do what we enjoy doing most.....caving!

Today I intend heading up to Northern Lights, This will yet again be another attempt (one of many) to find the playground that Pete constructed in this particular part of OFD!

Fingers crossed that today will be the day that I finally succeed as I am a huge fan of the seesaw! Although, if this is not amongst the delights of the said playground; the swings will suffice!  :spank: 8) :bounce:
 
ChrisJC said:
No need for further debate. It can only be resolved by the courts.

Chris.
Click to expand...

Should the wider implications of this action on the caving community not be discussed? eg. public image of caving, caver/landowner relations in this specific case and in general, impact on the campaign for changes in CROW as applied to cavers, etc.
If it's deemed to be a "bad thing" for caving in general, is there anything that can be done about it at this stage?
 
cavermark said:
Should the wider implications of this action on the caving community not be discussed? eg. public image of caving, caver/landowner relations in this specific case and in general, impact on the campaign for changes in CROW as applied to cavers, etc.
If it's deemed to be a "bad thing" for caving in general, is there anything that can be done about it at this stage?
Click to expand...

I suppose that you could apply to a court for a restraining order, preventing Stewart from going to court to apply for a judicial review.  :-\
 
Drws Cefn, like most of the Draenen system, is on CROW land. If CROW applies to caving, then any attempt to block access to it would be unlawful. It seems that Nig and Stuart are prepared to test this in court. If so, considerations about the "image" of caving are utterly irrelevant. If they do go ahead with a court case, all they will be doing is seeking to clarify the law. How can that not be welcomed?

No doubt they and their lawyers will consider NRW's response to their pre-action protocol letter carefully. But if this then leads to a court case, then it seems to me that cavers who agree that CROW should apply to caving should support them wholeheartedly, and wish them success.
 
David said: "all they will be doing is seeking to clarify the law"

I have given a lot of consideration to this matter and feel that David's above comment hits the nail on the head. If this is not done the argument is gong to go on and on for ever to the detriment of every caver, whatever their opinion on whether or not CROW should apply to caving or not. The thing to remember here, and this applies to everyone, what you would like and the correct interpretation of the law may well be two different things.

This is where I have been coming from all along.
 
Even if the law is clarified that CROW covers caving, it's not anticipated that it will cover digging.  Will there be a question about Drws Cfn having been dug out with landowner permission? 
Thus if the landowner is "forced" to open it by the legal action, he (and others) still won't be obliged to give permission for new digging activities on their land....
I'm keen on CROW being applied to caving, but cautious that if it's done heavy handedly it could have detrimental side effects...
 
As I understand it, the digging was not on the surface but underground, in order to connect Drws to the main Draenen system. Digging already takes place underground in many caves without the permission of the landowner who happens to own the entrance, on both CROW and non-CROW land.

Another comment on this image point. What would supporting a court case do? It would show people that cavers are not afraid to insist on the same rights as walkers, canyoners and climbers, and that we have a little backbone. I don't really see how that could be seen negatively.
 
Oh, FFS, dredging up the silt again--!!, if they want to fork out their cash on this, so be it, I only hope that the relevant BCA officers are 'kept in the loop'.
Although if NRW follow through with their plan to adopt the 'Scottish model' for open access, the outcome will be academic.
 
David Rose said:
As I understand it, the digging was not on the surface but underground, in order to connect Drws to the main Draenen system. Digging already takes place underground in many caves without the permission of the landowner who happens to own the entrance, on both CROW and non-CROW land.
Click to expand...

Ok, I hadn't realized that it wasn't a surface dig.  My point about needing landowner permission (and therefore goodwill) for surface digs still has some relevance I feel.

David Rose said:
Another comment on this image point. What would supporting a court case do? It would show people that cavers are not afraid to insist on the same rights as walkers, canyoners and climbers, and that we have a little backbone. I don't really see how that could be seen negatively.
Click to expand...

I'm sure some journalist could put a different spin on it, which wasn't favourable to cavers  ;) and what if the judicial review didn't go our way?
 
cavermark said:
and what if the judicial review didn't go our way?
Click to expand...

:-\ Then you find a bigger, more important, senior judge to overturn the first ruling.
Then the law lords.
Possibly the European court of justice (if we are still playing with them.)
Or get parliament to change the law.
 
For the sake of repeating myself, Drws Cefn was dug open when the land was owned by the Coal Authority, back in the late 1990's. It was much later that it was connected to Ogof Draenen. This important distinction was not clear in the recent Descent article.

Personally I don't think Drws Cefn is the right place for a legal challenge, as we risk jeopardizing access to one of our longest and best caves if the judgement goes against us. There are plenty of other sites on access land where the legal status could be challenged. This whole sorry saga appears to me to be far more about individual egos than the best interests of cavers.
 
Andy Farrant said:
This whole sorry saga appears to me to be far more about individual egos than the best interests of cavers.
Click to expand...

The whole CRoW debate stinks of this: people establishing a 'position' and being utterly incapable of seeing any other solution.
 
Andy Farrant said:
For the sake of repeating myself, Drws Cefn was dug open when the land was owned by the Coal Authority, back in the late 1990's. It was much later that it was connected to Ogof Draenen. This important distinction was not clear in the recent Descent article.

Personally I don't think Drws Cefn is the right place for a legal challenge, as we risk jeopardizing access to one of our longest and best caves if the judgement goes against us. There are plenty of other sites on access land where the legal status could be challenged. This whole sorry saga appears to me to be far more about individual egos than the best interests of cavers.
Click to expand...

Given the shenanigans going on here, do you really think a clarification that goes against access will not be "enforced" here? If you don't, I have a bridge you should look at buying...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Pitlamp
Darnbrook Pot; anyone heading there in the next few weeks?
Replies
8
Views
932
Pitlamp
Pitlamp
BCA Membership
Reminder of the importance of reporting incidents to the BCA
Replies
0
Views
347
BCA Membership
BCA Membership
BCA Membership
BCA - Meet the employees
Replies
2
Views
646
BCA Membership
BCA Membership
M
New SSSI Notification
Replies
13
Views
1K
Stuart France
S
JAA
Lune Valley project survey input requested
Replies
0
Views
256
JAA
JAA
Back
Top