Summary
The variety of threats to the condition and existence of the caves is discussed.
The different circumstances and the different needs of this area are discussed
by comparison to other regions. The broad conclusion is that the area is in its
speleological infancy and therefore it is important that attention is drawn to
the caves that have been discovered and to their significance. Problems of
over-use do not tend to occur in this area; it is the caves very existence that
is under the greatest threat.
Introduction
In keeping with the articles on these caves in Newsletters 85, 86, 87 and 88 of
the Derbyshire Caving Association, the areas are referred to under the same
section headings. Although less familiar with Sunderland and Harrogate areas, I
am constantly being informed of the similarities with the other five. Unlike
most other caving regions which tend to fall in, or in close proximity to
National Parks or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, much of this area is
afforded no similar protection. It is a very large area and a rare example of
where more caving interest might help by making non-cavers aware of the caves
presence and significance. The sheer size of the area and the relatively low
number of discoveries makes it difficult anticipating threats to known caves,
let alone those not yet found. Add to this the complication that many of the
caves would not have been discovered had it not been for quarrying, then the
grey politics of the area start to surface.
Quarrying
Some of the best discoveries have been as a direct result of quarrying, and yet
the threat of quarrying still hangs over many. The classic example of this is
Smeaton Pot, which was intersected by quarrying and is currently in the process
of being destroyed. The owners, however, have been more than willing to allow
cavers to visit. They even argue that they may well open up more cave than
currently exists. To antagonise the owner over the destruction of Smeaton Pot
could result in a loss of access to what will remain of this cave, Went Edge
Rift and any other sites opened by the present activities. Outright objections
should possibly be limited to any proposed new and threatening developments.
Existing quarries continuing or reopening need considering on their individual
merits, with consideration not only being being given to potential damage, but
also to future access. monitoring. recording etc..
Landfill Sites
In the past more cave has been lost to landfill than by direct quarrying.
Objections to landfill proposals do not seem too difficult to raise in the area.
Support is generally forthcoming from other interests, although there are
exceptions. High Cave at Conisbrough and associated caves were lost this way,
with a host of others. There may be some future in lodging an interest in these
"lost" sites with the Local Planning Authority so that our interests may be
considered in any future development schemes. The way forward does seem to be in
making these Authorities aware of our interests in both general and specific
terms.
Damage by Over-use
To date I am not aware of any of the sites, particularly south of the M62,having
suffered from over-caving. Over-use of a different kind does manifest itself in
the form of non-cavers, youngsters, the general public etc., as commented on in
the DCA articles. Flat Roof Cave and School Cave are examples of caves being
taken over by gangs of youths, with resultant graffiti, soot damage etc.. I
cannot comment on the effect that the public has had on Marsden Grotto and
Mother Shiptons Cave, as I am not familiar with those particular sites, however,
the comments in the articles give some indication of the modifications. More
use, rather than less, by cavers is more beneficial in the majority of cases. It
would demonstrate speleological interest in the area.
Formations
Some of the caves are particularly well decorated, for example Went Edge Rift
and Smeaton Pot. In Smeaton Pot some formations have to be negotiated and are
potentially at risk, but the majority would still remain inaccessible in the
rifts. This seems minor at the moment, compared to the quarrying threat, but is
at least being monitored and recorded.
Other Interests
Many of the sites are of archaeological interest and digging is a sensitive
subject, particularly in the entrances and twilight zones. Cresswell Caves have
been developed with some of these their interests in mind. Showing a
speleological interest here, and exchanging information, is easing the access
situation for cavers.
Conservation Measures
Very few of the caves, if any, require the taping-off of formations. There may
be cases for taping or restricting access to areas of sedimentary infill. There
may also be a case for the inclusion of these sensitive areas on cave surveys.
Restricting access has been tried in a big way at Cresswell and to a lesser
extent with the gating of Herne Hill Cave 1 at Maltby. There are also the access
procedures in force at Smeaton Pot and Went Edge Rift. In all except the caves
at Cresswell, the restrictions have been as much for the safety of prospective
visitors as for the conservation of the site. The major concerns are all as
described in the Cave Conservation Policy as "External threats". Planning
Authorities need to be notified again of our interest in the area, and of
specific sites. They need to be physically shown some of the sites, if
necessary, and have their importance explained. The least we should be able to
provide them with is a copy of any relevant sections of the Cave Conservation
Policy and details of caves registered in their areas. Conservation Plans may
need to be produced in accordance with the Policy for such caves as Went Edge
Rift, Herne Hill etc.. There also needs to be some liaison between CNCC and DCA
over conservation in the area, particularly in the area overlapping from the M62
south to Maltby. via Conisbrough.
Tony Gibbs