Submission from Cambrian Caving Council
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
British Caving Association Draft Minutes of BCA Conservation & Access Committee Meeting held on Saturday 16 August 2014 at My Big Meeting Room, Pinvin Present: Andrew Hinde (AH) BCA Conservation & Access Officer Les Williams (LW) CSCC Conservation & Access Officer Stuart France (SF) Cambrian CC Conservation Officer Johnny Latimer (JL) CNCC Access Officer Melissa Milner (MM) DCA Conservation Officer David Jean (DJe) DCUC David Judson (DJu) BCRA Conservation Officer Stephan Natynczuk (SN) ACI Idris Williams (IW) ASCT John Hine (JH) NAMHO Richard Vooght (RV) WPCST plus the following non-voting observers: Andy Eavis (AE) BCA Chairman Damian Weare (DW) BCA Secretary (& Minute Taker) Robin Weare (RW) FoDCCAG Pete Mellors (PM) DCA Legal & Insurance Officer Bob Mehew (BM) BCA CRoW Working Party Member Tim Allen (TA) BCA CRoW Working Party Member Fleur Loveridge (FL) PDCMG Secretary Dave Warne (DWa) DCUC Frank Tully (FT) CSCC Secretary The meeting commenced at 10:35am. 1.1.1. Convenor’s Welcome AH introduced himself and outlined voting procedures for the meeting. He then explained that non-voting observers were encouraged to contribute, but that this position must not be abused. 2.2.2. Apologies for Absence Apologies were received from: Jenny Potts (CRoW Working Party Convenor) and Emma Porter (BCRC). 3.3.3. Minutes of the last C&A Meeting AH: BCA does not have a copy of the Minutes of the last meeting, which was a joint meeting between C&A and L&I. Does anyone have a copy? MM: Yes. Action 1: MM to send DW and AH a copy of the draft minutes from the joint C&A and L&I meeting in 2009. DW to circulate and upload to website. [Post-meeting note: now received from JH] AH: We will, therefore, postpone discussion of these minutes to the next meeting. - 1 - Regional & Constituent Body Reports Each Region and Constituent Body was then asked to outline its position on CRoW. The order did not follow that of the Agenda. ACI (SN): ACI is pro CRoW and believes caves should be included. ACI is keen on wider access generally. ASCT (IW): Does not have a view, so will go along with whatever BCA decides. Although not a Regional Council or a Constituent Body, FoDCCAG was also given the opportunity to put its case as it is unique to the CRoW debate. FoDCCAG (RW): The main land owner is the Forestry Commission which has dedicated its land as Access Land. Therefore CRoW applies in the FoD. We are very happy with the access that we currently have. CCC (SF): The Forest of Dean is a unique area and should be treated as such. In Wales CCC has conducted a survey of member clubs and individuals. No individuals commented, but Clubs were divided between those clearly pro-CRoW with appropriate provisions for conservation and management, plus those who were unable to form a concrete view because of divided opinions among their membership. There has also been a submission late last night from another club. It has had some responses from its membership and is again overall in favour of CRoW. Cambrian Officers have recently changed and 6 of the new Officers are pro-CRoW. The Cambrian Registry has been recently surveyed and it is clear that CRoW access will have a big effect in the Beacons. We will still, though, always need landowner permission for digs. DCA (MM): DCA is in favour of CRoW and a clarification of the law, provided we do not upset landowners. We have good access arrangements with all our landowners, large and small. Having talked to people from other areas, MM can see a big advantage in achieving access under CRoW. BCRA (DJu): BCRA is unconvinced that the status quo needs changing. CNCC (JL): CNCC arranged an extra meeting specifically do discuss CRoW. It considered BM’s proposal to the AGM and voted unanimously in favour of it. (LW & FT arrived at this point - 10:56) WPCST (RV): Pengelly controls access to 6 caves, and does not believe that these will be affected by the debate over CRoW, as it believes Natural England will allow the caves to continue to be locked. Pengelly is, therefore, neutral on CRoW. DCUC (DJe): The majority of Access Land in Devon & Cornwall is large open spaces with no caves on access land. All caves in Devon & Cornwall have some status of protection (either SSSIs or SAMs). On the other hand most mines are on Access Land, but DCUC understand that CRoW legislation will not apply to these anyway. Most of DCUC are happy with the current status quo because they have good access to most caves. NAMHO (JH): Is concerned about the mention of mines in the QC’s opinion, as they are not relevant at all. NAMHO has no stance on CRoW provided access to mines is excluded. [Post-Meeting Note: it appears that access to mines may well be included in CRoW legislation after all. This is being followed up.] CSCC (LW): CSCC has published its opinion and is in favour of a status quo. There are very few sites on Mendip that are on Access Land. It is assumed that those that are already controlled with gates and/or warden systems will continue to be protected through Section 26 if CroW access is enabled. - 2 - AH reported that BCRC had sent its apologies to today’s meeting, stating that they are neutral on CRoW. The CDG reports it is broadly in favour but has serious concerns about conservation and access. There has been no response from CHECC as yet. Caving as a Permitted Activity under CRoW 18. QC’s Legal Opinion: Should BCA present this to the Statutory Bodies for approval? AH: It is clear the Committee is not overwhelmingly in support of CRoW with 4 neutral bodies and only 1 of the actual Regions seemingly against a change in the status quo. Where there are areas we can all support, it would be very helpful if we could identify these. We are not legally trained and it seems preposterous to try to be so, so we should not take up time today trying to discuss the veracity or otherwise of anyone’s opinions on this matter. It is important that there is a positive outcome from this meeting. Certainly we have been found wanting in the past regarding committees which have not met and we now need a coherent plan. Individuals have asked for a clarification of the law and we need to decide today whether there is any reason why we shouldn’t take the opinion to Natural England and ask that it reviews its advice. Does not believe it will be helpful to go with a fixed BCA policy, but believes an informal meeting between BCA Exec and Natural England is likely to be more useful. RW: Agree. IW: The advice is that the law is unclear and it, therefore, won’t be decided until a test case. We do not want that to happen. AE: The easiest way would be for NE to issue a statement one way or the other. DJu: Does not know Dinah Rose, but her opinion is only as good as the evidence put before her. Believes we should put both opinions, rather than just the QC’s. AH: Some want us to align ourselves with one opinion or another, but does not believe this is a good idea. LW: CSCC believes that BCA should not consider Dinah Rose’s opinion unless they can also see the brief that was associated with it. BM: Agrees that any presentation to NE should include arguments for and against. Would hope that this can include not just the QC’s opinion, but also the instructions given to her. However this will depend on obtaining the QC’s approval. SF: We do need to be inclusive and consider all arguments and angles, but to say that someone with a career in conveyancing, retired and uninsured is at the same level as a practising QC with a reputation is ludicrous. [Secretary’s Note: Linda Wilson has asked that readers’ attention be drawn here to her written submission to the meeting countering Tim Allen’s written submission - p. 56 of this document.] The opinion is potentially the basis of a legal dispute between the individuals who sought it and anyone else. As such the instructions are a privileged document. To ask for them to be put on the table at this stage is inappropriate. In the event of a court case Counsel for the alternative view would be unable to use it anyway, as it is subject to legal privilege. There are two ways to achieve change. One is force and the other is negotiation. It is clear that force, wherever used in the world, results in a mess. Therefore negotiation is the only way to achieve a good outcome. SN: For that reason thinks that all the submissions to this Committee should go to Natural England. That will give them a better idea of the spread of opinion. AH: They may not wish to read it. If we do have a meeting with NE there may be an advantage to having a landowner present, ideally from the Countryside Landowners’ Association. That way it - 3 - will look like less of one side of an argument versus the landowners and in all likelihood NE would be more likely to be willing to reconsider its advice. RW: With that in mind, the FC has said they are very happy to be involved. In the FoD they are also the owners of the mineral rights.