After the rainfall over the last couple of days, apparently the Forestry Commission are concerned about the stability of Parc and other mines in the Gwydir Forest.

There is a suggestion that some works may have to be undertaken to drain sections of some mines with the belief that there may be up to 80' of water ponded up in one set of workings.

It may thus be sensible for people to keep away from Parc and the other mines in the Gwydir forest for the next couple of weeks, until things have dried out a bit.

It's also worth mentioning that the FC are currently cracking down on access to mines in the Gwydir and are watching adits more closely than usual. Most adits have been re-secured and fitted with new padlocks.

I understand that there are the early stirrings of some form of access agreement being negotiated, so it might be prudent for anyone thinking of visiting to leave the gas axe behind and use a bit of research and ingenuity to get in - most mines do have ways in that do not involve the removal of locks and bars with thermite... ;)


EDIT: this pic from the BBC news website shows the flooding between Betws-y-Coed and Capel Curig - it's not surprising that Parc is a bit on the damp side!

[img]http://www.aditnow.co.uk/showimage?f=/community/Personal-Album-2-Image-036/[/img]

---

Rob Vernon spent years talking to the FC about access and promises were always made on condition NAMHO / NCA (now BCA) encouraged their members to stay away until this was agreed - forgive me being a cynic but I detect the same hymn Sheet from the FC

Mike

Why should F.C.Wales be concerned about the stability of mines in Gwydyr?
Why should they be considering remedial/drainage works to mines that, presumably, have been flooded for some time?
When and with whom was Mr. Vernon in talks?
What were the nature of the promises made?

The Forestry Commission own the land the mines is under in the Gwydir Forest hence if a tsunami from one of their mines flattens Llanrwst, they'd be liable.

Similarly their current re-securing operation to ensure nobody comes to grief in the mines and sues them for not preventing them from getting in in the first place.

With regard to the flooding, I believe they have been aware for a while, but after the recent rains the problem is believed to have escalated.

---

Rob, held the talks over a long period in the 90's when he tried to negotiate access for NAMHO clubs and reported regularly to meetings at his frustrations at the time - unfortunately I don't have specific names.

Rob's interest and time was spent researching for his books "Mines of the Gwydyr Forest". He wanted access to confirm accuracy but it was never forthcoming

Most of the Mines and entrances in the Gwydyr Forest are located on forestry Commission land. I guess their interest / concern is owner’s liability.

I suspect that part of the problem is that there is no one club in the area who could negotiate access and provide evidence of BCA insurance (which does placate owners and FC in other areas) and as we have recently found in Shropshire where the FC want to see our Risk Assessments for underground access. We could argue that it is Health and Safety gone mad but equally their insurers will be leaning on them to keep their liabilities to a minimum. I personally wouldn't like to be a Landowner with a mine and access with today’s litigious society.

Thanks for the rapid reply!
I didn't appreciate that there is that volume of water! It puts a whole new spin on the F.C. water quality policies!
Echoes of Dolgarrog! This sounds as if it could be expensive and quite a demand on an already very tight budget. It will be very interesting to see where the money comes from! It may require a one off payment from the W.A.G./W.E.F.O... or selling alot of timber!
On the question of access, I refer you to the F.C. Policy Statements on their web site. There, is also to be found the email contacts to whom representation should be made.
The joys of inclusive, multi-purpose forestry management!!

Owners and their insurers running scared of liability can be a complete pain - Enthovens, who own Yatestoop Sough, have been told by their insurers not to allow access to explorers on "pleasure" trips in case someone has an accident and sues them etc, etc. I belive the DCA have tried to get them to shift on this stance to allow those with 3rd party liability in but to no avail. Unfortunately, unless we get a shift in the law to strictly define what liability is reasonable against a landowner/occupier from those undertaking activities with inherent risks, sites like these are going to remain inaccessible to the legitimate explorer. :curse:

---

To the best of my knowledge civil liability in this country is covered by the Torts Acts of I believe 1888 or thereabouts and there is an underlying principle of there being no liability without negligence. I person who enters a disused mine while equipped for underground exploration would very likely be viewed by a court as a 'potholer' and everyone knows that potholing is dangerous. A casual passer by who enters an unguarded entrance and suffers an injury could well be regarded quite differently. An open shaft near to a public path would constitute a Statutory Nuisance as well as posing a civil liability risk for the landowner.
There have been 2 recent cases that could well set a precedent for anything going before the courts.
The first concerned an off road cyclist using a Forestry Commission track who came of his bicycle and injured himself. The court rejected his claim for damages.
The second is much more to the point as the judge gave a very explicit reason for his judgement.
A person was using a pool owned by the local authority for diving and as a result injured himself. Rejecting his claim for damages the judge described "those who indulge in adventurous activities should be aware that they do so at their own risk" or similar words.
I participate in the Ceredigion Mines Group who has regular meetings with representatives of interested parties and stakeholders such as the Ceredigion County Council. The County Council take the reasonable view that they have duty of care to prevent persons from accidentally falling into shafts or entering workings, but not to prevent anyone doing so deliberately.
I rather fear that it will take more test cases to define the position clearly, however in view of previous bruising in the courts its unlikely that any ‘no win, no fee’ outfit will want to touch it, which basically is a double edged weapon from our point of view.

---

It's good to know that common sense is still alive and kicking within the judiciary There was also a case I remember some years ago where a judge rejected a claim from a scout who fell into a pothole against the landowner - we probably would have seen a lot more mine and cave entrances sealed or otherwise off-limits if this claim had been successful! CROW didn't help matters though, that act really could have done with a "leave the beaten track at your own risk" clause in it....

---

I think the FC might be more concerned about the environmental aspects of sudden releases. Even silt pollution (never mind metal loadings) can cause a problem in high grade waters, as the FC are aware from their harvesting operations.

There are specific aspects of one particular act that could have implications for us all, which I don't particularly want to highlight on a public forum.

Feel free to remove this post.

Cheers for the PM, Wyn - it all makes sense now! I've pruned a bit so that this makes sense to anyone else reading it.

Yes, there is a significant problem facing the FC with regard to access and more recently caused by the heavy rains: the forecast here is for 4" of rain over the next 48 hours and it'll be interesting to see if that causes any problems.

---

Instructive reading on torts:general principles, specific torts, essential case law and comment, may be found in:-
Smith Keenan's, English Law. Keenan. ISBN 0 273 63149 7
I refer to the twelfth edition, it may by now be running to the fourteenth edition, the principles remain the same.
In order for a plaintiff to establish the tort of negligence within the Civil law they must show:-
1. That a duty of care existed.
2. That there was a breach of that duty.
3. That damage resulted from that breach.
Case law pre-dates 1888. I also draw attention to the defence of volenti non fit injuria (to one who is willing no harm is done) and its application in case law.

I would like to add that Smith Keenan is available at local reference libraries.
And Gwyn, thank you for the input.
If you have some legal training, (if your a barrister, please accept my apologies), would you please like to expand on "non fit injuria"?

---

From t'interweb (Wikipedia)"

Volenti non fit injuria (Latin: "to a willing person, no injury is done") is a common law doctrine which means that if someone willingly places themselves in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they cannot then sue if harm does in fact happen. The 'volenti' only applies to the risk which a reasonable person would consider them as having assumed by their actions; thus a boxer consents to being hit, and to the injuries that might be expected from being hit, but is not a 'volenti' if (for example) his opponent should swing an iron bar at him, or punch him outside the usual terms of boxing.

This isn't utterly foolproof though: if you hit someone who asks you to in the street, you'll still end up in trouble.

---

I have sufficient training to know that it is not that simple!
How much time and money have you got 😉 !
I can do no better than Denis Keenan and would urge you to peruse the above mentioned book.
Knowledge is not assent. Is the volenti implied or express?
Sorry if these seems a bit obtuse but it is a complicated subject with a vast range of case law.
Happy reading! 😉