I'm liking your signature line! :lol:

Thought you might!
And I am liking your:

"I think people trying to get holes included in the CRoW are sectionable. I've heard some pretty bloody stupid ideas, but that one takes the biscuit. "

Bottom line though is; they wont.

Mr Roger, if you follow the thinking of Mr V and me you can see the conclusions. Some of the rants on UK caving have more to do with certain individuals wet dreams and politics, the reality is that it is just a dream or fantasy, nothing more.

The reality is in this thread on good old AN.

The Internet is full of 'pseudo law', beware!

---

Sadly (happily?), I have been away and missed this thread until now.

I think I can answer the original question Peter asked about where “mines” slipped into the CRoW debate.

The Welsh Assembly petitioned outdoor recreation clubs/groups/Bodies (Hiking, Climbing, canoeing etc.) for their opinion on CRoW and what they would like to see/gain from it. They likewise petitioned the landowners (and their associations). The idea was to draught a “Welsh Bill”. In that original mandate, the person(s) describing the outdoor recreations included mine-exploring.

As a “pro-access” campaigner, I believe this inclusion is an error and may have been added by someone responsible for the mandate who did not entirely understand the meaning of CRoW.

Certainly, Manicminer is right that the act only covers certain types of land and some activities are specifically prohibited (swimming for instance). This was not made clear in the mandate either.

I don’t believe (imo) that CRoW either does or was ever intended to cover mine exploration and as a pro-access campaigner, I won’t be pressing for it either. I am quite sure the Mines & Quarries act will supercede CRoW and equally sure (imo) landowners cannot use CRoW as an indemnity for people entering mines on their land.

I also agree with Drillbilly’s first and second post. ;)

Ian

---

Rather amusingly I'm going to agree with Ian on this one: CRoW was never intended to cover disused mines (whatever the staus of caves) and the various Statutes covering mines would supercede anyway.

Yes, Ian, this IS the same 'droid'.....:lol::lol::lol:

A brief read of CRoW suggests it does not apply to mine access. Schedule 2 relates to restrictions and quite simply I noted it references 'on' or 'in or on' land.

Section 15 describes rights of access under other enactments as 'a right of access to any land for the purposes of open-air recreation (however described)'.

I would say that neither term relates to underground mines, this indicates that as with much of UK legislation its application stops at ground level.

If it did apply to matters below ground the term used would be 'on, in or under'.

Whilst there are obviously going to be some issues around different legislation that currently applies to abandoned mines with CRoW - Its hardly going to be straightforward in everycase -But if some Mines and Mining area's are included and it gives greater access to those...where's the harm?

Freer more democratic access regardless of controlling clubs and/or recalcitrant Landowners can only benefit everyone...

I find it amusing that the Original Poster has come here for moral support 😉 I'd question his motives deeply...he's not here because he feels application of CRoW to Caves and Mines might cause difficulties for explorers and limit their access...quite the opposite...he's concerned about the implications of clubs being unable to restrict and/or control access for their own purposes...exactly the opposite of what most here believe...

Whilst there are obviously differences between the Caving and the Mine Exploring Community...they're not as pronounced as many would have you believe...and many (if not a majority) of explorers straddle both sides...enjoying Caves AND Mines...at the end of the day, anything that gives explorers greater access and freedom can only be a good thing for everyone...:thumbsup:

I don't believe that having the CRoW widened to include abandoned mine workings would necessarily increase access.

Primarily, mines are created by the landowner so presumably they (or their successors in title have the right to continue working them); or to undertake works which might - "unwittingly" - remove the ability to access them, for example allowing the adit to collapse.

Fine, it may no longer be possible for a landowner to deny access with a gate or other barrier, but were that option closed off to landowners, then I suspect we'd see a lot of adits strangely falling down.

Anyway, why do we need to have a right of access to abandoned mines? The CRoW has gained the right to get to a lot of adits and in the vast majority of cases, access is not a problem.

The risk of losing access would be a lot greater than the potential gains.

---

Exactly Vanoord, let sleeping dogs lie! I think anything that draws attention to such things will only end up with less access, no matter how well intentioned the idea is.

In fact, I would go as far as to say, this entire thread should be deleted, or at the very least locked.

Exactly Vanoord, let sleeping dogs lie! I think anything that draws attention to such things will only end up with less access, no matter how well intentioned the idea is.

In fact, I would go as far as to say, this entire thread should be deleted, or at the very least locked.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Exactly Vanoord, let sleeping dogs lie! I think anything that draws attention to such things will only end up with less access, no matter how well intentioned the idea is.

In fact, I would go as far as to say, this entire thread should be deleted, or at the very least locked.

I don't think we tend to lock threads unless they descend into un-recoverable bickering - and that's no encouragement to start some!

---

I don't think we tend to lock threads unless they descend into un-recoverable bickering - and that's no encouragement to start some!

Spoilsport! ;):lol:

---

Exactly Vanoord, let sleeping dogs lie! I think anything that draws attention to such things will only end up with less access, no matter how well intentioned the idea is.

In fact, I would go as far as to say, this entire thread should be deleted, or at the very least locked.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

This is the exact essence of how I feel, without the silliness or hyperbole! :thumbup:

Jason - sorry old chap - you are totally wrong about any "motive" I may have had posting this. In fact I can't understand how you could come to such a conclusion - we have never met, we have never discussed anything relating to mines access face to face or online. In fact, I know you are simply wrong. My approach to CRoW is one of making sure the matter is discussed intelligently and unemotionally. I could have sent the WCMS submission to CCC on our attitude to CRoW and made out that we were all for or against, or slanted it in some way. However if you read what I submitted (it's at the end of the BCA document) you will see what I actually wrote. Please don't try to paint me as having some kind of ulterior motive. When I see the subject of mine access being mentioned, I think it is only right to raise it here for other mine explorers to comment or not as they see fit.

Thank God for AditNow, where proper discussion is actively encouraged. Thank you Vanoord and SimonRL. Keep up the good work and don't let the spoilers in. :thumbsup:

I think that for mines there is no debate required.
This is the LAW.
Mines and Quarries Act 1954
You are here: 1954 c. 70 (Regnal. 2_and_3_Eliz.2)
Part XIII Section 151
It shall be the duty of the owner of every abandoned mine and of every mine which, notwithstanding that it has not been abandoned, has not been worked for a period of twelve months to secure that the surface entrance to every shaft or outlet thereof is provided with an efficient enclosure, barrier, plug or other device so designed and constructed as to prevent any person from accidentally falling down the shaft or from accidentally entering the outlet and that every device so provided is properly maintained: :smartass:
So the Mine Owner (who may not be the land owner) Has a duty in law to make a mine safe.
(If this is not happening at some mines, it does not change the law!)
CROW can not overide this without the mining regulations being repealed or changed.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/2-3/70/section/151 

http://www.hse.gov.uk/mining/mlr-guidance-draft-regs-2014.pdf  ) despite the extensive contemplated repeal of other sections.

For completeness when quoting law the second paragraph of M&Q section 151 needs to be included as it gives a 'get out' for owners of earlier mine workings, thus: -

Provided that this subsection (meaning 151) shall not apply to mines which have not been worked for the purpose of getting minerals or products thereof since the ninth day of August, eighteen hundred and seventy-two, being mines other than of coal, stratified ironstone, shale or fireclay.

I suspect that workings which have laid dormant for 142 years and are still accessible are probably not going to be that commonly found!

---

So to conclude. Non issue. Mines governed by HSE regulations. Nothing to do with CROW. Let the cavers pursue their access dreams in peace.

I suspect that workings which have laid dormant for 142 years and are still accessible are probably not going to be that commonly found!

Well, they do exist, but the ones I am familiar with are not on Access Land.

CROW can not overide this without the mining regulations being repealed or changed.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/2-3/70/section/151 

Is that necessarily true? (the point about legislation overriding without a repeal)

I draw a parallel with the Freeminers in the Forest of Dean having their ancient laws overridden by a modern Coal Act without repeal.

Chris.

Is that necessarily true? (the point about legislation overriding without a repeal)
I draw a parallel with the Freeminers in the Forest of Dean having their ancient laws overridden by a modern Coal Act without repeal. Chris.

You have said it yourself.
A National governance on safety overiding a local ruling.
(All be it dated back hundreds of years.)