External Affairs / Policy / Consultations Consultations
Section 42 of the CROW Act
18th April 2004
Countryside (Recreation & Landscape) Division 2
DEFRA, Zone 1/02, 2 The Square
Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6EB
access@defra.gsi.gov.uk
Dear Sir
re: CONSULTATION RELATING TO REGULATIONS ABOUT PUBLIC PLACES UNDER
SECTION 42 OF THE C.R.O.W. ACT.
The Institute for Outdoor Learning, as a registered charity, was formed three years ago as the result of the convergence of six outdoor organisations. We represent the broadest spectrum across the outdoor learning industry of any existing organisation. Our 800+ members include employers and employees involved in education and training in the outdoors, who use activities such as walking, mountaineering, climbing, caving, watersports and field studies. They work in outdoor centres, formal educational establishments and informal community groups. They may work for charities, local authorities, commercial enterprises or for themselves.
In response to your request for comments on the above consultation document, we have the following observations. Comments are numbered in line with the questions in the document.
Comment 1
You may like to include the implications, for a landowner or occupier,
for civil liability arising from an accident or incident.
Comment 2
We believe that regulations should not be made under section 42
of the Act and for the purposes of section 151(2)(b) and (c) of
the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, and that land which becomes accessible
to the public should be regarded as a "public place."
The new usage of Access Land should not be putting anybody's life
at more risk because there is greater access to any areas of lands.
If there is a real risk for the unsuspecting walker coming upon
an unrealised quarry, pit or mine system then there should be adequate
measures taken to give them adequate warning and some physical deterrence.
Whilst on the one hand we do not want to "mollycoddle" the public,
including young people, when using access land, we must consider
that accidents, including fatalities have occurred in recent years
within places subject to the Mines & Quarries Act. This is of course
with people using "wild" areas who in the main do have navigation
skills and awareness of the dangers from such places. We do not
know what additional usage will occur on Access Land, when it is
opened to the public but presume that there will be large increases
in numbers and many of these may be quite uninitiated to the dangers
that are present.
Therefore, steps should be taken by landowners or occupiers to make
the public aware of life threatening dangers that cannot be readily
recognised. We appreciate the financial implications upon them of
having to take measures to ensure "public awareness" of the hazards
and dangers from abandoned mines and quarries but they or their
predecessors did profit from such undertakings! However, we would
agree with you (para 4.5) that all that may be necessary would be
a standard.
Warning sign and either vegetation management or say an inexpensive
double row of barbed wire in respect of dangers that cannot be readily
recognised. However, in the upper Nent Valley of Cumbria there is
a system where mine entrances have warning signs and are gated but
not locked. Locking was found to be counter productive requiring
continual repairs caused by people forcing locks to gain access.
Such requirements have to be regulated but we do not believe that
local authorities should be required to make inspections, as the
resources required would be enormous. We would suggest that you
consider that action should only be taken after a report to a Local
Access Forum by either a member of the public or the local branch
of an outdoor organisation. The Local Access Forum could then write
to the landowner or occupier. If this did not result in the necessary
compliance, then the relevant local authority could consider action
as for a statutory nuisance.
Under para 19, annex B, there are no costings for death or serious
accidents that might occur if regulations are made under section
42 whereas you have put in estimated costs of work by landowners
and occupiers if they carried out considerable works to such danger
areas, which we do not contemplate.
Regarding your request for practical experience. We would mention
the fatal accident in 1993, in North Wales when a teacher fell down
a mineshaft in the Llyn Stwlan area, Map Ref 661443, Bala & Harlech
Map No 18.
Also near Llyn Geirionydd about 7 years ago a party of school children
were sheltering in valley of small stream when two of the students
discovered a mine entrance which they went to explore and one of
them fell 15 feet down a vertical shaft into water. Fortunately,
an immediate rescue prevented a fatality. We also understand that
there have been fatalities in the Coniston (Lake District) copper
mines. The Mountain Rescue Council holds information on mine accidents
and the British Cave Rescue Group and all accidents are a matter
of National Record. As the Police control all callouts, they will
also have records as will the Charities Commission, being the subject
of annual reports by the first two named organisations.
Comment 3
Our comments in 2 above equally apply but a local authority may
welcome the opportunity to fill with inert, non-toxic rubble.
Comment 4
We cannot consider any rationale for making regulations exempting
the carrying of alcohol by young people, or allowing the possession
of tobacco by children under 16 years. Access land will still allow
landowners and occupiers to have their private grounds. Consider
the present position of a public footpath that passes through a
farmyard where it is a Public Place.
Comment 5
The appropriate sections of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 must be
applied to all access land, public highways and land that is already
accessible to the public. Fighting animals are kept to kill and
there are already sufficient fatalities from such beasts in urban
areas where police control can be exercised. In rural areas, police
officers are rare, and imagine the situation with a family walking
group coming across such animals, unmuzzled and not under restraint!
Certain unscrupulous occupiers would quickly take the opportunity
to keep such dangerous dogs and ensure that access provisions in
practice would not apply to their land. They would probably put
up dangerous dog signs too!
Comment 6
There is an obvious requirement to ensure that "so-called" stray
dogs are not seized on access land that is still private land without
either the consent or knowledge of the owner or occupier of the
land. It would be better to retain access land as public place under
two acts quoted and introduce a requirement that police and dog
wardens must notify land owners of dog seizures on their land.
Comments 7, 8 & 9
Agreed
Comment 10
We agree with your presumption with regards to the enactments on
pages 14 to 17. However, not having detailed knowledge of the law
we are not sure whether there are any implications under section
14 of the Crime & Disorder Act 1998. This applies a ban on children
being in public spaces during specified nocturnal hours unless under
the effective control of a parent or responsible person. In Outdoor
Learning, we help young people to gain the skills and confidence
to trek, camp and do other activities without immediate adult supervision.
The Duke of Edinburgh's Award expeditions are a classic example,
where a trainer or moderator may only see the group once a day.
There are many other examples and we would not want these to be
subject to this legislation by default!
Yours faithfully
Steve Lenartowicz
Chair Institute for Outdoor Learning
N.B. Please note that this response has been dealt with by IOL Executive
member, Brian Lamb, Greystone Cottage, Bere Ferrrers, Devon PL20
7JX, telephone 01822 841309, email Briankay1@talk21.com, to whom
all correspondence should be addressed.