 |
 |
I cannot comment on the question asked, but the consultation does give an opportunity to ask for a change in the CRoW regime fro Occupier's liability. The full wording of the exception for 'natural features' is for "a risk resulting from the existence of any natural feature of the landscape, or any river, stream, ditch or pond whether or not a natural feature". The term 'natural feature is not defined, but the implication of the next phrase is that an archaeological feature would not be one. Thus if some one fell off a quarry face or from the top of an old building, there might be a liability. I would suggest that we should campaign for an extension to the exemption to include historical and archaeological remains, not less than (say) 50 years old. There must clearly be an obligation on landowners to take reasonable care that they do not have dangerous open mine shafts on accessible land (for example by fencing them), as these are potentially a latent hazard, but to encourage them not to destroy or damage other remains. The consultation speaks of primary legislation. Such could make the necessary amendment. Peter King 49, Stourbridge Road, Hagley, Stourbridge West Midlands DY9 0QS 01562-720368 [log in to unmask] -----Original Message----- From: mining-history [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Peter Claughton Sent: 23 July 2007 19:58 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: DEFRA - Consultation on Proposals to improve access to the English coast - effect on mining features? I have recently been sent a DEFRA (the UK's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) document outlining the issues for 'Consultation on Proposals to improve access to the English coast' - a web copy can be found at http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/ In assessing the impact of mining features found on the coast I make the following comment - "The proposals under Sections 6.3 and 8.4 for a reduced level of occupier's liability for CRoW access land only removes liability in respect of natural features and walls, fences and gates through which visitors might pass other by use of a stile or gate assigned for the purpose. Liability for other man-made features is unchanged. There is therefore a strong possibility that land owners / occupiers will seek to reduce there liability by destroying such features with consequent damage to the archaeology and the historic landscape as a whole." Is this a perceived or actual threat? Can members in the UK provide examples where the application of the CRoW Act (Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 ), allowing increased access to the uplands, has resulted in the destruction of mining or quarrying features? Peter ______________________________________________ Dr Peter Claughton, Blaenpant Morfil, nr. Rosebush, Clynderwen, Pembrokeshire, Wales SA66 7RE. Tel. +44 (0)1437 532578; Fax. +44 (0)1437 532921; Mobile +44 (0)7831 427599 Research Fellow - School of Geography, Archaeology and Earth Resources Hon. University Fellow - School of Humanities and Social Sciences Office address - Department of Archaeology, University of Exeter, Laver Building, North Park Road, EXETER, EX4 4QE Tel. +44 (0) 1392 263709 E-mail: [log in to unmask] Co-owner - mining-history e-mail discussion list. See http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/files/mining-history/ for details. Mining History Pages - http://www.people.exeter.ac.uk/pfclaugh/mhinf/ _____________________________________________