read in the local rag that the funding is being scrapped, what does this mean? are we still going to get the link between cragg and lee quarry?

That's very sad news indeed – have you got a link or name and date of the paper?

Hopefully Tony Lund will be able to shed some light for us – fingers crossed for a happy outcome.

little bit of google digging found this:

http://www.burnleycitizen.co.uk/news/burnley/8269974.Massive_blow_to_East_Lancs_regeneration_projects/

so it's not definite, but looks likely there'll be no more funding for the foreseeable future.
and who thought that this government would be better for us all?

Remember, we're all in this together. 😐

Hope TonyL still has a job!

Also that there will be enough cash to maintain the existing trails at Lee and Cragg..!

🙁

Its only going to get worse. These types of projects are a quick easy cut.

the link between Lee Quarry and Cragg may be contracted, I know some work has been done on it (ecology and planning application)and the funding IIRC is not from NWRDA but from the aggregates levy. Lancs CC are reorganising which again may/ may not affect the link trail. It's also a "multiuser" trail, horse riders created the Mary Townley Loop so all may not be lost if the current plans fall away.

the development most probably at risk is Facit Quarry and the links to Lee Quarry, these will be a bigger loss than the link trail Lee to Cragg. The other plans for a further 3 quarry trails are probably in the long grass

The £2.5m quoted in the article would have been for the planned climbing wall/ ice climbing centre/ bike shop/ cafe which may well have been a white elephant.

According to my information has never been an "opex" budget for trail repair within the quarry and any volunteer trail building group has to overcome CDM issues as well as the reluctance of Lancs CC to having a lot of "gifted" amateurs creating trail obsticles fo people to fall off on.

I suggest that local mtber's need get more organised, start engaging key stakeholders and learn how to play the funding game. I also suggest supporting the local events such as the Weekender and http://www.brownbacksracing.co.uk these get noticed and support the area

Turning up, parking with no regard to others, leaving litter, peeing in the bushes next to the houses, telling the locals where to get off won't help get future investment. But this is what a number of mtb quarry users do.

The thin end of the wedge. Natural England would be the people who deal with recreation in the countryside as well as conservation. Dont think this is just going to be the odd person here or there maybe some natural wastage. What countryside type projects are looking at is a scorched earth policy.

i don't think Natural England even know where Rossendale is never mind the quarry 😉

I know there is/ was some funding to buy some climbing boulders to put in the bottom area Futures Park, personnally I think junking that idea (as the £2.5-3.5m climbing wall isn't going to get built) and building a BMX/ big pump track in the sunken area next to the river would be a good investment and would attract locals and quarry visitors alike.

The country is brassic so this is no suprise. Looking after the trails will surely have to fall to a dedicated band of enthusistic locals?

Lets look at the positives, 2 great venues, all the major work in place and just maintainence to keep up with..This is where you find out how much riders are willing to put back?

Presumably Lancs CC will have to find a way to work with those 'gifted amateurs' or the trails will fall apart.

Oh they do its where the flagstones come from.

Presumably Lancs CC will have to find a way to work with those 'gifted amateurs' or the trails will fall apart.

the "gifted" amateurs will need to demonstrate "competance" as required by CDM, the only group that does it is SingletrAction who also admit they have an insurance policy that no-one else will be able to get. (I am happy to be corrected if I misrepresent them)

anything is possible, but it's a dangerous site with multiple user groups and a cautious landowner. Whoever comes forward will need to be organised, competant and insured. Additionally some work will require machinery due to the large weight of some of the items that make up the trail.

IMHO the key is to demonstrate value for the area so that they want to maintain the facility hence the comments above

i blame the conservatives .if any of you on here voted for the biggest sham in history i alos blame you .

yes you fools like turkeys voting for Xmas

i blame the conservatives .if any of you on here voted for the biggest sham in history i alos blame you .

That's fine. I personally blame our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and the loss of human life there on labour and also anyone who voted for them. Blood on your hands?

I think it's fair to say, a mountain bike quarry may be low on the list for Councils when they're contemplating shutting leisure centres, libraries, community centres and firing entire teams.
Problem is, place needs more publicity. Unfortunately, more publicity may bring more of the wrong sort of idiots. So instead Lee and Cragg are only publicised by word of mouth and in mountain biking magazines, and unless local Councilors and Chief Exective Boards read those publications, they're not going to know the great work going on.

Hmmm, maybe we should all write to the Execs at LCC explaining about Lee & Cragg, you know, the usual: fighting obesity cheaply, needs no montoring from LCC, policed internally for idiots, urban playgrounds, enabling young people in urban areas to exercise somewhere outdoors easily and in a contained environment, citing accident statistics if there are any (I assume they're relatively low), providing a place for local businesses to train and mentor young and old thus injecting cash into the local economy and encouraging entrepeneurs, positive image to the rest of the country in the mountain biking scene, potential for more races and events and more cash coming in, mountain bikers bringing their family thus encouraging the 'family unit', it being right on peoples doorstep and has a close web community around so the embodiment of the governments latest buzzword when it comes to exercise – nudging people….

That's fine. I personally blame our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and the loss of human life there on labour and also anyone who voted for them. Blood on your hands?

As if the Tories would have done anything different. Also not relevant to the topic at all. 🙄

the "gifted" amateurs will need to demonstrate "competance" as required by CDM, the only group that does it is SingletrAction who also admit they have an insurance policy that no-one else will be able to get. (I am happy to be corrected if I misrepresent them)

I'm sure one of the SingleTraction crew will be along in a second to clarify, but my understanding is that unless you're using chainsaws or really heavy machinery, volunteer trail maintenance groups can be insured relatively cheaply through BTCV.

The real question is whether it's right that, at a time when it really seems to be making a positive difference to the area, the job of keeping the trails going will revert back to people willing to give up their time for free.

Anyone remember Cameron's "everyone should be a volunteer" speech from their election campaign? This is what it means in reality. 😐

Problem is, place needs more publicity. Unfortunately, more publicity may bring more of the wrong sort of idiots. So instead Lee and Cragg are only publicised by word of mouth and in mountain biking magazines, and unless local Councilors and Chief Exective Boards read those publications, they're not going to know the great work going on.

our events and the Weekender get into local printed press (free sheets and bought), a councillor/s has turned up at the Weekender twice

Unfortunately, more publicity may bring more of the wrong sort of idiots.

a variety of people use the site, as expressed above there are a number who think they can do what they want and nobody is going to stop them. Losing local support is the fastest way to close the place.

Hmmm, maybe we should all write to the Execs at LCC explaining about Lee & Cragg, you know, the usual: fighting obesity cheaply, needs no montoring from LCC, policed internally for idiots, urban playgrounds, enabling young people in urban areas to exercise somewhere outdoors easily and in a contained environment, citing accident statistics if there are any (I assume they're relatively low), providing a place for local businesses to train and mentor young and old thus injecting cash into the local economy and encouraging entrepeneurs, positive image to the rest of the country in the mountain biking scene, potential for more races and events and more cash coming in, mountain bikers bringing their family thus encouraging the 'family unit', it being right on peoples doorstep and has a close web community around so the embodiment of the governments latest buzzword when it comes to exercise – nudging people….

they already have the expensive consultants reports justifying the spend in that context

the main investment at Lee and Cragg is over except for the link trail. The loss of Facit (if true) will be important in the longterm as it provided a second accessible venue and adds to the number of things to do turning the area into a weekend rather than a daytrip. That's important for the area which is trying to improve quality of life and the local economy

we will continue running our events http://www.brownbacksracing.co.uk and hope to see you all there on the 25th July 🙂

not everything gets handed to you on a plate, sometimes you have to DIY, the people who kindly volunteer to help us put on the races want to make things happen. What do you do?

surely the place need to become self-sustaining in some way? how that is done, i'm not sure – paying for parking is the usual deal, but with so many places to access the quarries from it becomes a bit more difficult. perhaps some sort of voluntary donation where regular users become members for £15 a year which goes back into the maintenance and future-proofing. there are options available to keep things moving, we all plough tons of money into our hobby so there is plenty of scope for some of this cash to be invested in the places we do it.

for the doom mongers, european money and LA's

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north+east+wales-10632332

as stated above get smarter at playing the funding game

Couple of things, the money for Lee Quarry primarily came from the aggregates levy fund set up to help areas blighted by quarrying, a little ironic considering there would be no trails without the quarry. We did consider this as funding source for Gisburn as there is a live quarry in the middle of the forest. The only downside is that it was reopenned to provide materials for trail contruction 😆 .I don't think it had a lot to do with the Northwest developement agency, they'r emore interrested in building white elephants like Futures Park itself. Only high tech companies allowed on the site. Who's the main tenant now, Rossendale council. Hmmmm.

As f9or the volunteer situation. CDM can come into it, at Gisburn that side of things is dealt with by the FC. We build, Martin effectively gets an FC civil engineer to sign off on the construction techinques. Mainly applies to bridges or other constructions rather than trail.

Singletraction do have insurance which i think is sourced through the FC but might be wrong on that.

DOn't think there has ever been any funding sourced for maintenance in the quarries. This is not unusually, it's way easy to get funding for new stuff rather than maintain exisitng stuff, one of the reasons this country looks dogeared most of the time. Those in power don't find maintenance very sexy, we've repaired the leisure centre which we shouldd have been maintaining anyway doesn't grab the headlines in the same way as new leisure centre to replace neglected one.

Tony was hoping to create a volunteer group to maintain the trails. As long as we're not using major plant and not building massive new constructions CDM shouldn't be a problem. As noted above like most public bodies Lancs CC is undergoing a major shake up. Speaking to Tony at the weekender he didn't want to setup a volunteer group to find a couple of months later he's no longer around.

Finally, insurance, I know when I used to volunteer for the National Trust we consider as emplyees and were covered by their insurance. not sure how it works at Gisburn at the monment, haven't asked (deliberately). SIngletraction have said they are quite happy to act as an umbrella organisation so if necessary maintenance at the quarries could become another of their projects or possibly the Lee Quarry group could be affiliated.

The fundign for the link between Lee and Cragg is secure it's from Natural Englands Aggregates Levy pot It went to the planning committee yesterday still waiting to hear the outcome though! Funding for link to Facit etc is also secure so no imediate problems for our scheme although thinks are going to be very tight in the future.

Natural England are well aware of where Lee Quarry is and have been extreemly suportive of the project they even wrote it up as an example of good practice in a recent publication.

Volunteer group for the ongoing maintenance of the sites is still on the cards if it's attached to LCC liability and insurance issues can all be got around in a similar way to how we deal with conservation groups etc. main hold up with this has been me not pulling my finger out and organising it yet! We have tried to build the trails to a high spec and to be honest

Letters of support etc for the project would always go down well you would be suprised at how much these are valued by management and members.

I'm not sure about my job at the moment, my actual post is disapearing and I will have a job just not sure doing what or where. I'm hoping I'll be able to carry on with the mountain bike trails stuff I think we have made some good progress in Lancashire over the past three or four years.

as stated above get smarter at playing the funding game

It depends so much on which way the wind's blowing, and even in the good times there really aren't a lot of options out there.

"European money"? Comes through Rural Development Agencies – like the one that's being abolished in the North West.

Pay to ride, or financially self-supporting – does this actually work for any XC trail, let alone one in a deprived area?

Running projects through volunteers can be great – it's certainly kept our local trails ticking over for a few extra years – but doing things with a proper budget is much easier and quicker, and removes the "Forth Bridge" aspect of it, where by the time you've finished a project it's already starting to need maintenance.

On a lighter note, good choice of picture to accompany that BBC story. 🙂

does lee quarry need much maintenance? i've been riding them since they opened and the old stuff has worn really well.

big-n-daft, Why would the CDM regs be relevant on trail maintenance?

big-n-daft, Why would the CDM regs be relvant on trail maintenance?

because digging etc is a construction activity

CDM is not there to stop you, it's there to prevent people/ organisations who aren't competant doing things

volunteers cannot occupy a responsible position so as a volunteer it does not directly impact you, however it's the duty of the site owner as the "client" to ensure competant people/ organisations are in responsible positions.

it can be done and if followed prevents death trap trail obsticles being built

I'm hoping I'll be able to carry on with the mountain bike trails stuff I think we have made some good progress in Lancashire over the past three or four years.

I hope so too, the progress has been incredible, with most of the credit being down to you.

"European money"? Comes through Rural Development Agencies – like the one that's being abolished in the North West.

did they abolish the European money as well?

another entity can bid for it,

you have a choice, put your hands up and say all is lost or work out how to make things happen in the new reality….. too many people on here too keen to do the former

I don't think you read my question correctly.

I can see them applying to building a new trail, but I don't see how they apply to maintenance, in the same way they don't apply to a contractor repairing a patch of defective render.

My reason for questioning you mentioning CDM is this. If the sites just need to be maintained through the next few years until funds are more forthcoming then, as long as the land owner stipulates that no new features are built or the trails altered to change their current character; that there are prescribed repair 'details' and they monitor this then the CDM regs don't apply. Indeed the regs are written to exclude them from small works.

I'm not suggesting trying to avoid responsibilities and liabilities but the CDM regs aren't approriate or intended for small maintenance works.

Presumably Lancs CC will have to find a way to work with those 'gifted amateurs' or the trails will fall apart.

the "gifted" amateurs will need to demonstrate "competance" as required by CDM, the only group that does it is SingletrAction who also admit they have an insurance policy that no-one else will be able to get. (I am happy to be corrected if I misrepresent them)

We have a third party insurance policy that FE insist we have for working on their sites. We are extremely fortunate that FE support us (in one of several ways) by arranging and paying for this policy. IIRC (I don't have docs in front of me) it is through / underwritten by Zurich. AFAIK the policy is no longer available and we still have it by virtue of the renewal premium being paid every year, so the policy continues to roll on. Result 😎

I hope I have not said no one else will be able to get insurance as I have no way of knowing. I will admit I concentrate on many other things and am (possibly a little blithely) happy to just know it is there. I have little / no real knowledge of insurance policies for this sort of thing.

Plus, it only covers for injury of people as a result of our works / during them. It doesn't cover members injuring themselves and it doesn't cover ultimate users of the trails we build.

I'm a register CDM Co-ordinator. I think the "competence" issues is a red herring. The Regulations clearly allow for someone doing a job and developing competence, rahter than having to be completely competent before attempting it. This is appropriate otherwise it would be a ridiculous chicken and egg situation.

I hate to let this slip but trail building isn't rocket science 😉 With enough planning, care and effort volunteers are absolutely fine to build most stuff (within reasonable limits). I wish more riders would try it and help develop trails that don't need big budgets etc. We could deliver an awful lot more ourselves for much less money IMO.

There are obvious, practical limits and I'm not sleighting anyone for using contractors etc. It's all "tools for the job in hand".

anything is possible, but it's a dangerous site with multiple user groups and a cautious landowner. Whoever comes forward will need to be organised, competant and insured.

Without wanting to sound arrogant but I reckon we tick all three boxes there. I've talked to Tony a bit. I think it'd be great if somehow we could team up at Lee Quarry etc. I think it could benefit us both. We're already talking to Jon at Gisburn and Ed O / Tim (D&P) re the skills area. I hope we can provide a framework (website, forum, experience, occassionally bodies etc) to help these sorts of projects.

We are just an umbrella organisation for local people to make things happen. However, MTBers are / can be very parochial and single minded (to the point of bloody obsession 😉 You mention our name sometimes and people virtually spit, saying stuff like "we don't want a bloody Stainburn or Dalby here". I think that just shows they don't understand the group. I / we just want to help people achieve it through their own steam and efforts.

Additionally some work will require machinery due to the large weight of some of the items that make up the trail.[/qoute]

Fair point but, TBH, how much more "big stuff" needs shifting? Besides, use a conbined approach where machines do the bits they have to and let a team of volunteers do all the bits in between.

IMHO the key is to demonstrate value for the area so that they want to maintain the facility hence the comments above

Sounds good and others have made positive suggestions. It's a bit contrary to the Brit' psyche though to write congratulatory letters to "faceless" madarins in authority 😉

Then again TOny's lovely and I'm sure he'd forward it on 😎

I'm always up for helping: Chairman@SingletrAction.org.uk

Tim 😎

you have a choice, put your hands up and say all is lost or work out how to make things happen in the new reality….. too many people on here too keen to do the former

Don't get me wrong, I'm not foreseeing a future where mountain biking stops entirely, it's just I'm finding it hard to believe that less investment will be good thing.

I'm not suggesting trying to avoid responsibilities and liabilities but the CDM regs aren't approriate or intended for small maintenance works.

I dissagree (obviously)

IIRC the regs include painting and decorating, so your rendering job probably is within scope as well

but it's not the point

Whoever comes forward will need to be organised, competant and insured.

Without wanting to sound arrogant but I reckon we tick all three boxes there.

I think you do as well, hopefully a similar arrangement can be put in place to help keep on top the trails at Lee and Cragg if it cannot be maintained any other way 🙂

CDM Regulations apply to all "construction" projects. Maintenance is construction under the Regs (see Regulation 2). There are some exemptions but they don't exclude vounteer projects, volunteers themselves or maintenance activities. I'm not aware of any exclusions base don the size of the project. I'm always up for learning more though.

The main differentiation between projects in the Regs is when they are either notifiable or non-notifiable. I'm still not sure how you'd treat a long running volunteer project in this case. Whatever, the basic principles of CDM regs still apply.

it's there to prevent people/ organisations who aren't competent doing things

Sort of, but you can be appointed without being competent in the specific thing, but so long as you have the structure to develop the competency in a planned and controlled (therefore safe) manner. Sorry, it just bugs me when people say "you can't do it because CDM says you have to be competent".

Besides, there's also different competencies required for a designer or a builder. I reckon most anyone can be easily be shown to be competent at swinging a shovel and /or pushing a barrow.

volunteers cannot occupy a responsible position

Really? I'm honestly interested, can you tell me where it is in the Regs?

T 😎

Very consice CM but CDM regs apply to MOST construction projects not ALL. Effectively, the regs only apply if the works are notifiable.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/contact/faqs/cdm.htm

If a person is to only undertake a simple render patch repair then the CDM regs don't cover it. If that repair forms part of a larger project being undertaken ie: the complete refurbishment of a 15-storey office block, then it would come under the regs as it forms part of a single larger scheme.

On going, reactive maintenance does not come under the regs.

Three guys heading out to fix 2m of track on a Sunday morning would not come under the CDM regs. You may aswell as them to undertake a fire risk assessment too as well as surveying for asbestoes.

Removed

ETA: can't be bothered as, due to geography, I'm not going to get involved with the area.

Letters of support etc for the project would always go down well you would be suprised at how much these are valued by management and members.

Any chance of an email address to send 'em to? Cragg and Lee Quarries are both bloody great, imho. Anyone who had ridden or raced there should do their bit and state their support.

I've never been called "concise" before. I just go on and on and on and on …….

To trade links:

http://www.hse.gov.uk/construction/cdm/acop.htm

This is the Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) i.e. the layman's handbook. Apologies if you already know it. It also includes a copy of the Regulations themselves at the back.

See pp2, para.6 "The regulations apply to all construction work in Great Britain …..". A definition of "Construction Work" (and the pretty narrow exemptions) are provided later in para.13.

Not trying to be subjective in my quotes but I can only be arsed to type so much.

I honestly can't see how you draw the conclusion that just because a job is simple or small scale they don't apply. Not looking to be argumentative, just honestly disagree on professional experience (no, I am not using the "but I'm an engineer" line 😉

If you look in the ACoP at page 5, para.23 there's a table summarising duties under the regs with two columns headed "all construction projects …." and "additional duties for notifiable projects …". There are differences between the two and it's a simple test, last longer than 30 working days or involve more than 500 person days (basically just setting a "size" threshold for when you have to tell the HSE in advance, appoint a CDM-C, etc etc then it's notifiable.

But that's very different. As I say, my understanding / interpretation is that the Regs apply to all construction projects. I'm not arguing that's appropriate although (TBH) I think it is.

Don't think it matters whether it's reactive work either. Maintenance is very specifically covered:

Regulation 2:

"Construction Work" means the carrying out of building, civil engineering or engineering construction work and includes –

a) the construction, alteration, conversion, fitting out, commissioning, renovation, repair, upkeep, redecoration or other maintenance ….., decommissioning, demolition or dismantling of a structure.

To me that includes all trail building whether it be creation or maintenance work.

You may as well ask them to undertake a fire risk assessment too as well as surveying for asbestoes.

That's a pretty common misconception (like it is about most H&S). No offence. RA and MS only need to be undertaken appropriate to the task in hand and in a manner proportionally responsive to the signficant risks. If a bloke's just going up a ladder and slapping render on then all he needs to be competent for is working up a ladder with the right tools. You don't have to write everything down but if asked you need to be able to demonstrate you knew he was OK for the job.

Hey, I'm off on an uber-geek H&S fest here aren't I 😉

unsurprisingly I'm with cheeky monkey

I would also argue that although competance can be learned on the job, the assumption is that if successful you have then demonstrated competance and if not the reverse?

the client holds the main responsibility, but all are implicated in ensuring CDM applied

volunteers cannot occupy a responsible position

thats what I was told when I asked the expert about voluntary trail building groups, only three positions to fill, (non-notifiable)

Demonstrated competence or the ability to develop it? Like I said, it only bugs me when certain people tell me we can't do things because we're not competent. I'm not being all p1ssy about it, just don't like something perfectly sensible (the Regs) being used as a cloak to achieve an alterior purpose 😉

From the ACOP (and yes, I'm being selective ;-):

Remember the assesments [competence] should focus on the needs of the particular job and should be proportionate to the risks arising form the work. Unnecessary bureaucracy associated with competency assessment obscures the real issues and diverts effort away from them.

On a non-notifiable you've got Client, Designer and Principle Contractor. I don't see why a volunteer or group couldn't occupy any of those positions. We can commission a contractor to do a build (i.e. Client), design a trail (Designer) and build it (Principal Contractor).

The designations relate to function, not type of organisation.

Domestic clients are exempt from the Regs but don't think this would apply.

I'd be interested to know who your expert is and on what he based his advice. In an honest, curious way.

I'm a registered CDM-C but not an "expert". Like I said, always looking to learn. If it's better direct then timsellors@googlemail.com

Cheers 😎