To continue:
I draw attention to opening paragraph of the template letter quote: “I am responding to the Welsh Government Consultation Document WG31811, in particular to support its call for extending public rights for non-motorised recreation in the countryside, or on the coast.”
The WG has a policy of encouraging recreational access to the countryside as a promotion of a healthier lifestyle. This has already proven itself to our advantage as it was in part the springboard for negotiation that lead to the formation of Cave Access Ltd and subsequently for a permitted access to places such as Parc Lead Mine, something which in truth most of us thought we would never see.
There are some mines in the hands of third party mineral owners who are not bothered about recreational access, however the soil landowner could be hostile to people crossing his land for the purpose of entry which in the absence of direct authorisation by the mineral owner would be a trespass. I know personally of a bizarre situation whereby such a mine has an open entrance immediately onto a public right of way, however anyone attempting to leave the mine by a different entrance is likely to be accosted.
A mine can belong to a third party who owns the mine only, not the minerals. This is possible as property conveyance has complete freedom of contract. Such a party would not enjoy the ancillary rights that go with mineral ownership.
Now Peter was actually correct to raise his point (I am just not a fan of rhetoric questions) as some people may well feel that they wish to support WG policy but for different reasons to those outlined in the template letter. However I feel that not only is the WGs initiative deserving of our support, but that CCCs submission can only benefit the mine exploration community were its arguments to be adopted.
As such the CCC submission is well worth studying in its entirety, its not all about CROW.
As I said before (or meant to say), possible wider interpretations of CROW would never extend to abandoned mines, however, I do find it difficult to see a position whereby one can be against the CROW argument without being against improved access in general, which is bound to be of some benefit to us.
I am sorry if this appears to contradict what I said earlier, I was in a bit of a hurry.
My avatar is a poor likeness.