Jump to content

Getting permission


RHOS ROBIN
Followers 5

Recommended Posts

I want to hide a cache on top of a mountain in Wales but have been told it is a SSSI site and i need permission,anybody out there who how to go about this,who do i contact etc.?

Has anybody been in this situation and received said permission,hope somebody can help.Thanks.

 

You might try asking whom ever it was who told you that, where they obtained their info?

 

Also, what ever agency in Britain that manages wildlife habitat or national parks.

 

The United Kingdom group in these forums.

Link to comment

Google "SSSI Wales" for quite a lot of information about Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) land.

 

This .pdf file, especially sections 5 and 6, gives a good overview of land use.

 

www.ccw.gov.uk/PDF/SSSIs_Report%20SMALL.pdf

 

I am sure that the Blorenges can tell you all you need to know as well... I think the Mr. is your Reviewer in Wales, though I could be wrong.

 

Good luck!

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment

Have a look at my resource website. It contains links to various mapping services and organisations (including the Geocaching Association of Great Britain) who may have information. In this case being in Wales the best place to start is with the Countryside Council for Wales. You can find their details and interactive map on the resource site. Here is the link.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Link to comment

Graculus' site is very useful and will give you all sorts of helpful links. In England, the Natural England site is good for finding out info for Earthcaches, by the way!

 

AFAIUI if you can identify the landowner and they give you permission, then you wouldn't need additional permission from Natural England or Welsh equivalent. If you ask them, they will point out that you still need permission from the landowner, so probably best to start with the landowner.

 

As an aside:

Personally, I think all this SSSI permission stuff is over-the-top and before the MAGIC Map came to light, no one really knew where they were, and surprisingly enough, few problems have arisen from hiding caches on tops of mountains. Now we know where SSSIs are, it turns out they are huge and vast swathes of upland areas are SSSIs and hundreds of caches are active within them, without any problems.

 

The nature of SSSIs is, I believe, misunderstood. They are often/generally/frequently not delicate environments, like Nature Reserves. Far from it, certainly in much of upland UK where ramblers, climbers, mountain bikers regularly enjoy the areas. Many of the SSSIs are also CROW access land and are frequently visited. Most of the SSSIs are designated as such so that the landowner doesn't do anything radical to change the way the land is managed, rocks aren't quarried, large quantities of fertilizer are used, or such like. Quite different to Nature Reserves where introducing people to infrequently visited areas, set aside for rare plants and animals, is potentially risky, and consequently, worth checking out with the Wildlife Trust or whoever manages it.

 

I support the GAGB guidelines which state caches shouldn't be placed where they might cause damage, but generally, for most SSSIs, a geocache will have no affect - certainly much less than the thousands of walkers treking up the paths. The hundreds (thousands?) of caches already in SSSIs don't create problems and if an individual cache does, then it can be removed or sorted out. Natural England must be wondering why they are suddenly getting contacted by loads of geocachers! :D

 

I think the situation with SSSIs should be reviewed as I think it's rather disproportionate.

And, no, this isn't a criticism of our hard working reviewers, it's just raising the topic after the changes in practice this summer. ;)

 

( Just my thoughts, and yes, a cache with specific permission is better than one without, but in the middle of a fell surrounded by boulders and bog it's a) hard to know who owns what, and ;) it has no impact so if you're allowed to walk there i don't see a problem. I assume that most caches out in the wilds don't have specific permission - maybe I'm wrong but I wouldn't like to bet on it Assessing the site yourself and ensuring it's a good placement is 'adequate' IMHO. )

Link to comment

Graculus' site is very useful and will give you all sorts of helpful links. In England, the Natural England site is good for finding out info for Earthcaches, by the way!

 

AFAIUI if you can identify the landowner and they give you permission, then you wouldn't need additional permission from Natural England or Welsh equivalent. If you ask them, they will point out that you still need permission from the landowner, so probably best to start with the landowner.

 

As an aside:

Personally, I think all this SSSI permission stuff is over-the-top and before the MAGIC Map came to light, no one really knew where they were, and surprisingly enough, few problems have arisen from hiding caches on tops of mountains. Now we know where SSSIs are, it turns out they are huge and vast swathes of upland areas are SSSIs and hundreds of caches are active within them, without any problems.

 

The nature of SSSIs is, I believe, misunderstood. They are often/generally/frequently not delicate environments, like Nature Reserves. Far from it, certainly in much of upland UK where ramblers, climbers, mountain bikers regularly enjoy the areas. Many of the SSSIs are also CROW access land and are frequently visited. Most of the SSSIs are designated as such so that the landowner doesn't do anything radical to change the way the land is managed, rocks aren't quarried, large quantities of fertilizer are used, or such like. Quite different to Nature Reserves where introducing people to infrequently visited areas, set aside for rare plants and animals, is potentially risky, and consequently, worth checking out with the Wildlife Trust or whoever manages it.

 

I support the GAGB guidelines which state caches shouldn't be placed where they might cause damage, but generally, for most SSSIs, a geocache will have no affect - certainly much less than the thousands of walkers treking up the paths. The hundreds (thousands?) of caches already in SSSIs don't create problems and if an individual cache does, then it can be removed or sorted out. Natural England must be wondering why they are suddenly getting contacted by loads of geocachers! :D

 

I think the situation with SSSIs should be reviewed as I think it's rather disproportionate.

And, no, this isn't a criticism of our hard working reviewers, it's just raising the topic after the changes in practice this summer. ;)

 

( Just my thoughts, and yes, a cache with specific permission is better than one without, but in the middle of a fell surrounded by boulders and bog it's a) hard to know who owns what, and :P it has no impact so if you're allowed to walk there i don't see a problem. I assume that most caches out in the wilds don't have specific permission - maybe I'm wrong but I wouldn't like to bet on it Assessing the site yourself and ensuring it's a good placement is 'adequate' IMHO. )

 

The problem is that how do the reviewers tell the difference between the cache placed in a completely safe not harmfull location on a SSSI or one that involved disturbing a very rare plant that's tiny and not known about by the placer?

 

So at the GAGB we do try and get people to get specific permission to get caches onto SSSI's. The local warden's are usually very supportive and open to geocaching. The method I've then used is to get the warden to come out with me when placing. Then they can be happy that the location is not going to cause any problems. Which means that people get to enjoy the cache and location without damage. Just because ignorant walkers or cyclists accidently cause damage does not mean we should as well when just a little effort can prevent it. ;)

Link to comment

We reviewers are not experts in the management of SSSI's. In England that is done by Natural England, in Wales by the Countryside Council for Wales. I'm sure some SSSI's appear to be just windswept moorland. Others may be quite small and have some very rare plant growing in them. But they are all under legal protection. This is from a Natural England document about SSSI management and is one example of what constitutes an offence by a person under the law controlling SSSI's:

Any person - Intentionally or recklessly damaging or destroying any of the features of special interest of an SSSI, or disturbing wildlife for which the site was notified.. You can view the whole document here (pdf).

 

So for this reason we ask that the land manager/owner who knows the particular site gives their permission for a cache to be placed there.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Link to comment

I think Martlakes does have a point about SSSIs. Vast areas of the country are designated SSSI, but huge industrial-scale operations take place within them, and millions of people tramp the footpaths and roam the moors.

 

Here's a map of SSSIs near Sheffield, for instance (I only pick that area because I'm very familiar with it);

ae2dc779-78af-46b6-8b78-ac516ef4eea3.jpg

 

A close up shows more detail;

de021c5f-37ed-4857-bc5b-502753fa5b22.jpg

 

There are several caches in the area within the designated SSSIs on this lower map. I'm sure that plenty are there without written proof of permission as it wasn't required until recently. But we have to keep a perspective on this; I know that some days there are thousands of visitors walking and climbing in the designated zones within this (small) map. Even at this time of year there are hundreds of visitors every day; yet on any given day I'd be surprised if more than one or two are heading for a geocache. Also, there are "caches" of items all over. Either plain litter, abandoned stuff or items stashed for later recovery (from cars to food to climbing gear). Climbers wear out the rock faces, clear the natural vegetation from them in a big way, and trample the land below the cliffs (which is generally not on any sort of footpath). Walkers clear large swathes of the natural vegetation by widening footpaths (at the same time creating mini-environments along the path edge for unusual vegetation to take hold).

But perfectly tolerable, even in an SSSI. All this makes geocaches insignificant in the extreme if you're worried about the impact of the container itself (as well as the minimal impact of cachers wearing out the footpaths).

 

To my mind, we'd be better off educating landowners and official bodies on the real impact of geocaching (i.e. hardly any), and focussing on areas such as SAC (Special Areas of Conservation) when it comes to requiring proof of permission. Investigating a cache on a Welsh summit which is only an SSSI, seems a waste of public money and brings the permission system into disrepute.

 

I imagine having to meet representatives of Natural England on Froggatt Edge, to show them the site of my proposed new cache.

 

Me: "Here's the cache then. I took the liberty of placing it before you arrived so you can see the impact of it as you approach".

NE: "Uh...where is it exactly"?

"Tucked behind that stone over there, at the side of the path".

"Oh...all I can find is a beer can, two bottles and a stick".

"No, the smaller stone".

"There's just a few small pebbles in the grass".

"One of them is the cache. It's a modified thimble painted to look like a pebble. Cool, eh?".

"OK, well I've brought a photographer along, so we'll get a set of photos ready for the presentation to the committee. Then, after ratification (which should only take a few weeks), we'll send you a form so we can have the details on file. After that we'll have an annual review of your, erm, thimble, to see what effect it's been having on the county's wildlife and botany. You say you're expecting three visitors a month? We'll profile the footpath to see whether it can cope. We may suggest some rebuilding to some of those steps behind that group of ramblers. Can you let us have details of the people in Seattle, so we can check that they're aware of this, ahem, thimble, and that it meets guidelines? Thanks very much".

Me: "Actually, I've gone off the idea.". (Picks up thimble, pockets it and wanders away).

 

I do understand Graculus's concern that it's hard to tell a sensitive area from others, but as 7% of the country is designated SSSI it looks like a "rod for your own back" to try and keep permission details up-to-date for what potentially could be thousands of caches.

 

As SSSI is merely an area of particular interest, rather than somewhere that requires unusual precautions when visiting (how many people walking along Froggatt Edge this weekend will even be aware that they're in an SSSI?), it seems rather disproportionate to be so cautious with permission.

Unless there have some difficulties with SSSI caches that I'm unaware of?

Link to comment
<snip>.... and focussing on areas such as SAC (Special Areas of Conservation) when it comes to requiring proof of permission.

From the Natural England website - All terrestrial SACs in England are also Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) (link)

So SAC's are covered by the current guidelines for SSSI's so are protected in that sense.

 

We (reviewers) do not make the guidelines, we only apply them as required. An SSSI is an SSSI irrespective of whether there is a rare plant in it or a power station so the guideline must be applied equally.

 

Chris

Graculus - Volunteer UK Reviewer

Resource website - www.follow-the-arow.co.uk

Link to comment
<snip>.... and focussing on areas such as SAC (Special Areas of Conservation) when it comes to requiring proof of permission.

From the Natural England website - All terrestrial SACs in England are also Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) (link)

So SAC's are covered by the current guidelines for SSSI's so are protected in that sense.

 

We (reviewers) do not make the guidelines, we only apply them as required. An SSSI is an SSSI irrespective of whether there is a rare plant in it or a power station so the guideline must be applied equally.

 

Chris

Graculus - Volunteer UK Reviewer

Resource website - www.follow-the-arow.co.uk

 

ah, but not all SSSIs are SACs, which I think is HH's point :):P I believe he means pay most attention to the SACs, as they are the ones that are really important.

 

Not taking sides - just making a point!

Link to comment

 

We (reviewers) do not make the guidelines, we only apply them as required. An SSSI is an SSSI irrespective of whether there is a rare plant in it or a power station so the guideline must be applied equally.

 

 

It's not you the reviewers I have a problem with, it's the guidelines and I think they should be changed or interpreted differently.

 

Any SSSI that has a warden involved sounds like it's special and needs permission, also sounds more like a Nature Reserve. Apart from Nature Reserves, I don't know of any SSSIs up here that have a warden - they are just 'normal' fell.

 

In the past, I along with most folk, thought SSSIs were small and specific areas, like ancient monuments which they are mentioned with in the guidelines. Now with the MAGIC Map it turns out half the South Lakes is an SSSI! Nearly all of them are not about rare plants as Nature Reserves are - they are about preserving the ecosystem as a whole from changes in land management, and some are about rock formations or tree mixes. Access isn't an issue so why is geocaching?

 

"Any person - Intentionally or recklessly damaging or destroying any of the features of special interest of an SSSI, or disturbing wildlife for which the site was notified.. "

 

Indeed, absolutely, I agree. But where access is regular and common place, geocaching doesn't cause any damage or destroy features. If it does, what about the hundreds/thousands of caches already in them?

 

I bet whoever drew up the GAGB guidelines didn't know how extensive SSSIs were. I think that, now we know how widespread SSSIs are, it would be useful to review the guidelines and change them in the light of this new information.

Link to comment

I bet whoever drew up the GAGB guidelines didn't know how extensive SSSIs were. I think that, now we know how widespread SSSIs are, it would be useful to review the guidelines and change them in the light of this new information.

 

The GAGB guidelines don't mention permission for SSSIs...

 

No cache should be placed in such a way as to risk damage or disturbance to any Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM)
Link to comment

. All this makes geocaches insignificant in the extreme if you're worried about the impact of the container itself (as well as the minimal impact of cachers wearing out the footpaths).

 

 

To my mind, we'd be better off educating landowners and official bodies on the real impact of geocaching (i.e. hardly any), and focussing on areas such as SAC (Special Areas of Conservation) when it comes to requiring proof of permission. Investigating a cache on a Welsh summit which is only an SSSI, seems a waste of public money and brings the permission system into disrepute.

 

 

 

"One of them is the cache. It's a modified thimble painted to look like a pebble. Cool, eh?".

 

2nd point first. To educate them you need to show them the effect of caching on an area, The best way of doing this is to get them onboard and let them see a cache being placed with care and attention to protecting the area.

How is this any different than asking permission?

Just because everyone else causes damage and litter shouldn't mean that we can go ahead and do what we want, lead by example.

 

first and third point together. Yes I hope that they will see that a couple of cachers a month would have so little impact as to be insignificant. But if the container is a cunningly disguised small pebble I bet they don't get that impression. I can draw from several memories of going to spots, that turned out to be protected areas without permission, where someone had hidden a small container really well.

I arrived a day or two after the published date. In an area of about 40ft by 40ft of woodland ever piece of dead wood, every piece of moss, stone, leaf litter, basically everything that was mobile, had been picked up turned over and dropped back down. It looked like someone had ploughed it.

It was archived the following day due to damage and lack of permission but not before the damage had been done to the land as well as the trust of the owner.

Edited by nobby.nobbs
Link to comment

I got permission for an SSSI without any trouble at all. I just emailed the head office (in Scotland, this is the SNH) who replied with the local contact details, and the local warden sent me a very helpful email within a couple of days, the details of which I posted here.

 

Surely the existance of an SSSI doesn't mean that someone else can give permission on behalf of the landowner?

Edited by uktim
Link to comment

Surely the existance of an SSSI doesn't mean that someone else can give permission on behalf of the landowner?

Good point. As has frequently been said before, in this country ALL land is owned by somebody. If a farmer or whoever owns a plot of land that is designated as a SSSI then that landowner must have the right to make the decision whether or not they want a geocache on THEIR land. It is not for some bureaucrat to make that decision for them.

 

By extension, this would mean that the same assumption that adequate permisiion has been obtained should apply to SSSI's as applies to any other cache placed on land NOT belonging to a "Statutory Body" such as the Forestry Commission etc.

Link to comment

2nd point first. To educate them you need to show them the effect of caching on an area, The best way of doing this is to get them onboard and let them see a cache being placed with care and attention to protecting the area.

How is this any different than asking permission?

That's fine in an ideal world, but in practice it's no different in an SSSI than anywhere else so you'd have to apply the "proof of permission" rule to the other 93% of the country. Also, would it really be proportionate and desirable to take local landowners out to each and every cache placement? If they get the impression that it's something that's worth taking so much time and effort over, they'll lose sight of the fact that it pretty much the same as a couple of people occasionally walking to the same spot along the same footpath and having a quick look round. They'll start to think that it's some sort of sporting event, and alarm bells will ring (insurance issues, parking problems, environmental impact etc etc).

Just because everyone else causes damage and litter shouldn't mean that we can go ahead and do what we want, lead by example.

The point is that everyone, including geocachers, will continue to cause damage and litter. There'll be no leading by example as no-one knows about us (nor cares), the majority of the damage is unavoidable anyway (footprints, tyre tracks and so on), and the tiny amount of extra damage caused by the most reckless cacher is as nothing compared to the inevitable and unavoidable impact of all the other visitors to the SSSI.

first and third point together. Yes I hope that they will see that a couple of cachers a month would have so little impact as to be insignificant. But if the container is a cunningly disguised small pebble I bet they don't get that impression. I can draw from several memories of going to spots, that turned out to be protected areas without permission, where someone had hidden a small container really well.

I arrived a day or two after the published date. In an area of about 40ft by 40ft of woodland ever piece of dead wood, every piece of moss, stone, leaf litter, basically everything that was mobile, had been picked up turned over and dropped back down. It looked like someone had ploughed it.

It was archived the following day due to damage and lack of permission but not before the damage had been done to the land as well as the trust of the owner.

That's a very good point. If I was in charge (and I'm never going to be, you'll be relieved to know), I'd have a hard review of the current landowner-permission strategy. But on top of that, I'd want to bring in some pressure on cache placers to take extreme care on placement and cache descriptions. I'd strongly encourage visitors to a cache to report back if they find themselves tempted to cause damage, due to poor cache placement. One of the things that annoys me is where someone places a cache in a fairly fragile area and then thinks that it would be amusing to keep the exact position secret so that you have to search everywhere within 15m of the box. Just a line in the description would cut this down so you don't have to move every stone, pull apart every shrub and unstick all the ivy.

 

But again, keep it in proportion. In your example, the cache was quickly archived when it appeared that damage was being caused; the key thing is that it was reported before damage got out of hand. It's not like we built permanent caching sites that can't be removed.

Edited by Happy Humphrey
Link to comment
As has frequently been said before, in this country ALL land is owned by somebody. If a farmer or whoever owns a plot of land that is designated as a SSSI then that landowner must have the right to make the decision whether or not they want a geocache on THEIR land. It is not for some bureaucrat to make that decision for them.

 

By extension, this would mean that the same assumption that adequate permisiion has been obtained should apply to SSSI's as applies to any other cache placed on land NOT belonging to a "Statutory Body" such as the Forestry Commission etc.

 

In the vast majority of cases 'adequate permission' means 'no permission at all'. That's more than likely the case with any open moorland, and it's quite definitely the case in Scotland.

Link to comment

Here's a counter argument to the position that we should drop the requirement for Proof of Permission for SSSI's. This is a genuine cache example I had to deal with.

 

Snowdon is a designated SSSI, being a Mountain Range with thousands of visitors every year. Those arguing that we should drop the requirement, would have the Reviewers not query permission. A cacher placed cache within the designated area, and as usual I requested Proof of Permission. The cache owner contacted the Landowner, in this case CCW who are also the Designating Authority. But who have been extremely supportive of Geocaching within Snowdon even within the Designated area.

 

Now please remember that several in who have posted to this topic would have had me just Publish the cache. In this case CCW refused Permission for the cache, due to the location being one of a few places in Wales where a very rare plant grows. A plant which is protected under law. They did not wish to encourage visitors to the area.

 

If we didn't have the Proof of Permission to Publish for all SSSI's, I'd have Published that cache.

 

So sorry I personally can see No Justification to change the Policy. It is up to the Landowner to make a informed decision about a location. Not the Reviewers who know nothing about the location, nor the Cache owner who might not be aware of the fact that that particular area within a Designated area Open to All is a extremely sensitive location!

 

Deci

Link to comment

By extension, this would mean that the same assumption that adequate permisiion has been obtained should apply to SSSI's as applies to any other cache placed on land NOT belonging to a "Statutory Body" such as the Forestry Commission etc.

Deci makes a very valid point which I respect. But I would emphasise what I wrote earlier, in this case CCW are a Statutory Body (I believe) so my point still stands.

Link to comment

Now please remember that several in who have posted to this topic would have had me just Publish the cache. In this case CCW refused Permission for the cache, due to the location being one of a few places in Wales where a very rare plant grows. A plant which is protected under law. They did not wish to encourage visitors to the area.

Bad example. The Yr Wyddfa (Snowdon) SSSI is also an SAC, and I was proposing that these SHOULD be subject to the written-permission requirement. So this rare plant would have been protected; although I doubt that it would be necessary considering the tiny number of cachers compared with other visitors.

 

Presumably it's in a fenced-off area or is designated a Nature Reserve anyway so the cache was going to get reported pretty soon and would have been archived. If it wasn't fenced off, then I guess the plant wasn't so rare and fragile as to be under threat from a couple of visitors a month.

 

I know that some of the cliffs around Cwm Idwal contain very rare plants yet I've been up there many times (not geocaching) and seen plenty of other people there. Yet it's a Nature Reserve and has been for a long time; not incompatible with visitors, however (although the sheep have been banned!).

Link to comment

But again, keep it in proportion. In your example, the cache was quickly archived when it appeared that damage was being caused; the key thing is that it was reported before damage got out of hand. It's not like we built permanent caching sites that can't be removed.

 

Wish I could keep it in proportion. The damage was extensive with just one day's worth of over eager First To Find Teams. It's very possible to cause an excessive level of damage in a very short period of time before any cache is archived, this damage can then take many years if ever to repair.

It's also much more severe than the damage caused by normal walkers due to the turning over and moving.

 

At the end of the day unless we're botanists the safest route is to ask. Most wardens of reserves are keen to encourage proper use. They are on the sites anyway so arranging to meet them isn't too much of a hardship. We may not be able to influence the whole world but we can make a difference within our community to try and improve. Cache in trash out and so on.

 

:laughing:

Link to comment

Now please remember that several in who have posted to this topic would have had me just Publish the cache. In this case CCW refused Permission for the cache, due to the location being one of a few places in Wales where a very rare plant grows. A plant which is protected under law. They did not wish to encourage visitors to the area.

Bad example. The Yr Wyddfa (Snowdon) SSSI is also an SAC, and I was proposing that these SHOULD be subject to the written-permission requirement. So this rare plant would have been protected; although I doubt that it would be necessary considering the tiny number of cachers compared with other visitors.

 

Presumably it's in a fenced-off area or is designated a Nature Reserve anyway so the cache was going to get reported pretty soon and would have been archived. If it wasn't fenced off, then I guess the plant wasn't so rare and fragile as to be under threat from a couple of visitors a month.

 

 

We know a wood in the New Forest where the rare Wild Gladiolus grows .We would love to see them growing.

We have ,more than several times , looked for it when we have been in the area but have never been able to find any .

But we might have if the plants were fenced off for their protection to draw attention to their exact location

:laughing:

Link to comment

Now please remember that several in who have posted to this topic would have had me just Publish the cache. In this case CCW refused Permission for the cache, due to the location being one of a few places in Wales where a very rare plant grows. A plant which is protected under law. They did not wish to encourage visitors to the area.

Bad example. The Yr Wyddfa (Snowdon) SSSI is also an SAC, and I was proposing that these SHOULD be subject to the written-permission requirement. So this rare plant would have been protected; although I doubt that it would be necessary considering the tiny number of cachers compared with other visitors.

 

Presumably it's in a fenced-off area or is designated a Nature Reserve anyway so the cache was going to get reported pretty soon and would have been archived. If it wasn't fenced off, then I guess the plant wasn't so rare and fragile as to be under threat from a couple of visitors a month.

 

I know that some of the cliffs around Cwm Idwal contain very rare plants yet I've been up there many times (not geocaching) and seen plenty of other people there. Yet it's a Nature Reserve and has been for a long time; not incompatible with visitors, however (although the sheep have been banned!).

 

Sorry but No it was not a designated Nature reserve, and your putting yourself forward as a expert with the comment

 

If it wasn't fenced off, then I guess the plant wasn't so rare and fragile as to be under threat from a couple of visitors a month.

 

Something neither I nor my colleagues are prepared to do. And as stated CCW who are the Designating Authority for the area as well as the Landowners are Generally happy for Geocaching within the Designated area. Whether a SAC or a SSSI. Just not at this specific location. But once again it has to be a Informed Decision by the Landowner, and not a Geocacher who does not have all the information about the location.

 

And lets make another thing clear. SSSI's are a UK Designation SAC's are areas designated under European Union's Habitats Directive. Just because a area has only been Designated under UK law, does no make it any less special or important.

 

And please explain why you so vigorously object to being required to provide proof of permission? Something which you agree you have when submitting the cache!

 

And on a personal note, I'm curious as to why you are so vocal about having the Proof of Permission dropped for SSSI's. Especially as all your caches are located on the Isle of Man, unless you have plans for a cache on the UK Mainland within a SSSI? Because if you do not, the requirement as a finder of those caches does not affect you in any way.

 

a foot note. I personally do own a cache in a SSSI, one which took over 6 months working with the Land Manager [who is a contractor] to get permission off the Landowner and approval off CCW after a Site Inspection. That location is Open to All [in fact it's surrounded on 2 sides by Holiday camps] yet it has Ground Birds nesting during the year and is the breeding ground for the Naterjack Toad, which is a Protected species. CCW wanted the Site Inspection to insure that these locations were not affected in any way. I wonder how many of the thousands of visitors are even aware of those 2 points? As someone who is not a expert, I would not dream of telling the Land Manager, Landowner or CCW. That because the area is open to all, that the cache located there was fine! I let those with responsibility for the location make that decision on a informed basis.

 

Which is what the Reviewer Team do by requiring Proof of Permission for SSSI's!

 

Deci

Link to comment

Would a reviewer consider a hypothetical question please?

 

I place a cache on a tract of land which is owned by Farmer Giles. This location is designated as a SSSI and is in an area "managed" by, say, a National Park authority.

 

I approach the National Park authority and they say "No".

 

I mention this to Farmer Giles and he says, "It's my land and I'm happy for the cache to be where it is".

 

Does the cache get published?

 

I pose the question in this way so as to clarify who has the right to give or withold permission. Thanks.

Link to comment

Would a reviewer consider a hypothetical question please?

 

I place a cache on a tract of land which is owned by Farmer Giles. This location is designated as a SSSI and is in an area "managed" by, say, a National Park authority.

 

I approach the National Park authority and they say "No".

 

I mention this to Farmer Giles and he says, "It's my land and I'm happy for the cache to be where it is".

 

Does the cache get published?

 

I pose the question in this way so as to clarify who has the right to give or withold permission. Thanks.

Reading what happens when a parcel of land is notified as being an SSSI the 'owner' or 'manager' of the land is responsible under the law for maintaining the SSSI in the condition for which it was originally notified. He/she is responsible to the notifying authority (Natural England in England for example) for maintaining it, notifying them of any changes etc. etc... I would therefore say that the owner or manager can provide permission for a cache. After all, if the land becomes damaged as a result of dozens of people trampling over it looking for the cache then the owner is responsible to the notifying authority and must repair the damage. There are large tracts of land designated as SSSI's for which finding the actual land owner could be difficult. In this case I would say the notifying authority or 'manager' would provide adequate permission.

 

The specific case of dear Farmer Giles you mention. In your note to reviewer you tell me that Farmer Giles has given permission. You don't mention that the National Park have said no. I would probably publish it as there is adequate permission from the owner of the land who is also the 'manager' of the SSSI. If in the note to reviewer you say that Farmer Giles has given permission but the National Park have said No then I wouldn't publish it initially because there is now a conflict as one person says no and the other says yes. I do not know who should have the final say so I would ask for clarification and suggest you, Farmer Giles and the National Park talk to each other about it.

 

Please note I've not said in your hypothetical example that I would or would not publish the cache. It is impossible to give a precise answer as all caches are different and other factors may affect my decision.

 

Does that help?

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Link to comment

I had a cache turned down as it was in an SSSI - but I've struggled to find anyone who wants to claim to be the landowner. It's on a beach at the base of a cliff, only reachable from the sea. The farmer who owns the land at the top of the cliff claims not to own either the cliff or the beach and I'm pretty much stumped as to who else to ask.

 

Looking at the SSSI Citation would suggest it's two species of rare plant that warrants protection - though I wonder if the sheep grazing the upper part of the cliff are aware they mustn't munch on the Trifolium glomeratum.

 

Anyway I've pretty much given up on this one and will collect the box back in when the weathers up to it.

 

I've noticed that hugeish chunks of Cornwall have SSSI status - The Northern Half of Bodmin Moor being one - and the Tamar from the sea to Gunnislake being another.

Link to comment

This has come up on some of my caches.... there are different levels of sssi's At Eccup resevoir the water is the SSSI and the surrounding trees are level two... they are covered at a lesser level as they are there to protect the water(screening). Again there are several caches in the trees doing no harm to the protected water and the land owner is happy for this to continue.... I agree tat no caches should be in the water but why restrict the screening trees.... Just a thought? :D:D

Edited by maxkim
Link to comment

This has come up on some of my caches.... there are different levels of sssi's At Eccup resevoir the water is the SSSI and the surrounding trees are level two... they are covered at a lesser level as they are there to protect the water(screening). Again there are several caches in the trees doing no harm to the protected water and the land owner is happy for this to continue.... I agree tat no caches should be in the water but why restrict the screening trees.... Just a thought? :D:D

 

I've made Bold the most important part in the above quote. The Landowner made the informed choice, not a Reviewer who had no information about the status of the land around the water being lower than the water it's self. We are not experts, nor do we have the needed knowledge to make a informed opinion.

 

In regards to the cache on the beach, try contacting The Crown Estate as to quote from their website

 

extensive marine assets throughout the UK, including 55% of the foreshore and all the seabed out to the 12 nautical miles limit

 

Deci

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 5
×
×
  • Create New...