Speaking as a Scotland resident, I don’t need to become involved. We already have a working access framework. But I wish this group success in getting something similar for England and Wales.

I’m sure John won’t mind that i’ve stolen this from the Ride Sheffield website:

Simple pleasure mountain biking. Take a couple of wheels, a frame, brakes, add some great landscape and, in the words of the late, lamented George Cole, the world is your lobster Terence. No matter how hard the manufacturers try to complicate matters with different wheel sizes, wireless seat posts, fancy materials and lurid colours, it’s still just a bike, a transport of delight.

Unfortunately, the world of mountain bike advocacy works the other way round. It might begin with riders trying to convince a local council not to knock down some shonky dirt jumps or flatten a favourite trail but it usually becomes much more complicated. Land managers zero in on any sign of engagement from user groups like sharks scenting blood in the water. Before you know it, you’re up to your neck in stakeholder groups, Local Access Forums and management plans.

And you very quickly realise that you’re surrounded by people with significant political clout. The Ramblers, British Horse Society and the British Mountaineering Council have spent years building influence and establishing themselves as valued partners for everyone from the National Trust through the RSPB to the national parks. Which is why Ride Sheffield thought that a formal national group to speak on behalf of mountain bikers would be a good idea. Our original idea was for a northern alliance encompassing well established groups such as Peak District MTB, Singletraction, Pennine Mountain Bike Action and the Lake District Mountain Bike Association but it quickly became apparent that those same groups felt that we should aim higher.

Which is how Ride Sheffield ended up being a founder member of OpenMTB. Replicating the grass roots model that has served the British Mountaineering Council so well is the aim. Groups from all over the country like Chase Trails, Bristol Trails Group, and Tyne Valley Mountain Biking have already joined the group and the hope is we’ll eventually pull in groups large and small from all over the country.

What we’ve ended up with is an entirely volunteer group who genuinely want to speak on behalf of MBers countrywide. Because it’s made up of local groups, what it says should be decided by MBers who ally themselves with those groups. Being a volunteer group, most of whose members have day jobs, we’re not going to build an all-singing-all-dancing advocacy group overnight, it’s going to take time. Identifying issues that concern mountain bikers isn’t a problem, addressing all of them immediately is. We’ve already received support from CTC and British Cycling and tentative moves towards a recognisable structure are under way. We’re all active mountain bikers, we think we want what you want, more enlightened rights of way legislation, good relations with land managers of every stripe all over the country, good practice advice for MBers, an understanding of how economically crucial MBing is and a united voice for this ever-growing community. If you like the sound of that, tell everyone you know. If you don’t, tell OpenMTB!

Open MTB Facebook

Open MTB Twitter

Who are the ‘notable Welsh activists’? Is there anyone from Wales in the sub-group. This is all very hush hush.

Bear with us, it’s not hush, hush, it’s just that we’re ordinary, busy people trying to make a difference.

I’m in the Wales subgroup, and I live and work in Wales. I also represent mountain bikers on the Snowdonia NP’s Snowdon Cycling Agreement Group, and often act as an advisor to the NP. 2 other members of the subgroup also sit on the Snowdon Agreement group, both of whom have done more for mtbing Wales than just about anyone. It’s up to them if they want to their names out there or not. Ultimately, we would prefer to be judged by our actions and what we achieve, rather than who we are.

Thanks to all those offering support – it’s appreciated!

OpenMTB response to the Welsh access consultation is out. I’d recommend starting with the summary, the full version is quite a meaty read. http://www.ctc.org.uk/campaign/trails-wales

The Open MTB response to WG is probably the most ill informed and generally ignorant document I’ve read in a long time. As a Mid Wales solicitor with a largly farming client base, mostly hill farms, and as secretary to two commoners assosiations (covering thousands of acres of common land)this document is what I thought and feared it would be – farmer bashing.

This is not the way your going to achieve anything – just going to make people, FUW, NFU Cymru CLA etc. dig their heals in. FWIW I couldn’t give a whatsit for the landed estates who are absentee landowners but the impact this could have on those family farming businesses is something else that is just not needed at present.

We ride our bikes around in the mud for a bit of a giggle, it not any more important than that. I am ashamed to be associated, by implication at the very least as a mtber, with the document put forward by Open MTB. It little wonder they are maintaining their anonymity.

@Nipper99, I fail to see where the “farmer bashing” occurs in the consultation response?
The purpose of the group is to give MTB a voice in the access and rights of way network across the UK. Somethng that we (as rights of way users), have not had before. If you look at other user groups, horse/ramblers, they have had representation for a good while now. The legislation regarding ROW is complex and sometimes “blurred”. By having a voice in the consultation process we can put forward our needs, whilst taking into account the needs of other users.
This can only be a good thing.
We at NWMBA have an experienced, well informed individual in our corner. (someone who has championed the use of the rights of way for MTB’s on Snowdon for a number of years). If you go onto the FB page and join the group you will learn more. If you have any concerns they can be raised there.

Steve

The document throughout referes to compulsion, via Glastir etc, a scheme incidentally which it is obvious you know little or nothing about. There is a Welsh Commons Forum, a Wales & the Marches Common Land Working Group, even the Meithrin Mynydd Liaison Group in the Western Brecon Beacons – can’t recall anybody from open mtb or nwmba getting in touch to discuss matters or issues with any of those bodies??

You are right, I know nothing about Compulsion. I am an expert in Criminal Law, however. 😉
You obviously feel very strongly about this, so why not join the group and contribute something towards the topic.

probably the most ill informed and generally ignorant document I’ve read in a long time

Don’t hold back – say what you really think.

I can’t imagine it playing well with your clients when it suggests, for example, that landowners persistently obstructing RoWs should be liable for on-the-spot fines. On the other hand, the ability to quickly and easily create diversion orders around working farmyards is something that a lot of landowners would jump at.

We ride our bikes around in the mud for a bit of a giggle, it not any more important than that.

I beg to differ I’m afraid. There are massive gains to be made or lost over the next few years for tourism, active travel, reconnecting people with nature and more.

It little wonder they are maintaining their anonymity.

There’s a list of the groups involved up there ^^^. HTH.

Well I’ve had a thorough skim through that and could see any sign of farmer bashing, nor of anything which might result in ruin for farmers. On the contrary I found several places where it’s openly supportive of landowners. The references to Glastir appear on a couple of pages rather than throughout. The vast majority of that document would appear to refer to stuff which has little or no impact on landowners.

Maybe you could point out which specific parts you have such a big issue with?

i can see why farmers may be interested in these bits:

Section two of the Cycle Tracks Act 1984 contains a limitation which prevents the creation of cycle tracks without the permission of any person having a legal interest over agricultural land – we suggest that this provision should be revised to bring it in line with public path creation powers under S26 Highways act, whereby due regard is given to both public convenience and the effect on landowners.

(page 6)

and

There is an anomaly in the current legislation whereby motor vehicles can use public rights of way for events (through relevant permissions), but the same does not apply for cycling events (DfT also recognise this is an anomaly)

(page 7)

(and there’s the bit about fining landowners who persist in blocking ROW’s, as mentioned above, top of page 9)

and

Once designated an Active Access Area we would suggest the local authority, in conjunction with
stakeholders, has to prepare an access improvement plan. This would lead to the identification of
priority areas for access improvement funding, for example landowners in the area would receive
access funding under Glastir and will thus be rewarded for access improvements.

(page 18)

the only ‘bashing’ i’ve found so far is also on page 18:

We feel that this criticism should weigh heavily towards local authorities and quasi-public landowners such as the National Trust, all of whom have been wholly ineffective in increasing access for cyclists, horse riders and other groups despite adequate chances over many years,

What an odd reaction?

Do you not think that where Glastir Advanced funding is given to landowners in return for providing permissive access (not just farmers) it should carry a presumption of multi-user access rather than just for walkers?

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me!

As common land was mentioned – what would be your objection to allowing cycles the same rights of access that walkers and horse riders currently enjoy on S193 commons?

There is a Welsh Commons Forum, a Wales & the Marches Common Land Working Group, even the Meithrin Mynydd Liaison Group in the Western Brecon Beacons – can’t recall anybody from open mtb or nwmba getting in touch to discuss matters or issues with any of those bodies??

Re-reading this bit – are you serious? The consultation period was 3 months (and only has another month to run). The position of organisations like the CLA is “current access laws work fine”, which is frankly rubbish. What they really mean is “reform to access laws is unlikely to go our way”. With time so short, why waste it talking to people who won’t listen?

There is no way that the majority of MTBers would support this if it didn’t have some teeth. And we’re under no illusions that the reforms we want to see will be vigorously opposed by well-resourced interest groups – it was exactly the same in Scotland.

Me too. Though I can’t see how any of that will result in ruin for honest farmers. I’m sure some of Nipper’s clients would rather not have to do sensible stuff like that, or be fined when they deliberately obstruct ROWs, but I’m struggling to have much sympathy. Given he highlights “compulsion” I presume he objects to anything which isn’t voluntary – because voluntary arrangements would enable the farmers to continue doing nothing to improve access.

I haven’t kept up very well with the debate over MTB access in Wales, but a bit more with debate over access to rivers – where similar entrenched views exist and the landowners are unhappy with anything which threatens the status quo. They like to suggest that the way forward is voluntary access agreements, despite copious evidence that they provide little to no extra access (there was a pilot of such things in England which was hailed a success and evidence that this was the way forward despite not actually providing a single km of new access).

In fairness to Nipper, his clients are probably a minority. We have run some great events in the past (anyone remember the Cyffyliog Challenge) as well as some local NWMBA XCPoints series. Never had any issues with landowners provided we offer good communication.
This is what is needed, an open honest discussion about what we would like with regards to our sport.

Maybe, Nipper, you could do some ambassadorial work with your client base? You clearly have a foot in both camps so would make a good bridge between the two

We would comment, that whilst we would cautiously and reasonably support moves to simplify the diversion rights of way away from, for example, working farmyards for health and safety reasons; we would be careful to ensure that homeowners seeking greater privacy, in a manner which damaged the historical context of the right of way, or overall user experience, did not abuse this.

On reflection, we would propose a process which allowed movement of the definitive line of a right of way within a short distance, for example 50 metres from the existing definitive line, as an executive function of the Rights of Way department. This could be done without a need for a longwinded public path diversion process, subject to a consideration of expediency and convenience of use for the public, balanced against the benefits of the landowner of the proposed revision.

Regards cattle and livestock, we feel that the existing rules reflect a reasonable balance, and would not support further general restrictions on grazing. We feel that such isolated incidents as there have been regarding cattle and walkers, generally involving dogs, reveal a requirement for better education of path users, rather than further restrictions on either users or farmers. We would suggest that a general code of responsible access, which could carry attendant advice for both dog owners and landowners too, would be the best way to achieve this balance.

Anti farmer?

Sign up

http://e-activist.com/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=1689&ea.campaign.id=41461

So I finally got around to reading the OpenMTB response, some comments on it

It’s good, but with its response being directly to the questions asked by the Welsh Government, there are a few issues it doesn’t cover.

There is a lot of emphasis on wide farm tracks etc, and less on the sort of trails most of us here would prefer to ride. In mentioning the (lack of) maintenance burden that comes with opening up tracks for mtb, it seems to me an opportunity is missed to educate local authorities on trail sanitization issues. Admittedly this is minor compared to the issue of access, but would be good to point out.

A second item I missed, if it was there, is how wider access rights allow people to ride more close to home; thus reducing barriers to recreation (hence health inequalities) and environmental impacts of travel.

In my opinion cyclists and horses don’t make the best trailfellows: bikes spook horses and horses churn up trails worse than any other unmotorized transport. One of the problems with the current system is that both classes of user are restricted to the same limited set of bridleways. This is a good argument for reform, but is it a political choice not to make this argument as the aim is open access for all and to do so emphasizes a form of conflict? (In any case I believe that wider access reduces conflict due to impacts being more thinly spread).

The issue of digitizing rights of way – the WG have made some progress on this though access to the data is problematic as ownership of the digitized data rests with each respective local authority. Still this would be a great resource for research and I would love to see it as open data.

And finally I’m not sure if comment on dogs is within the remit of OpenMTB?

Still it’s generally a great move, it’s about time mountain biking had our own version of the BMC, and I plan to respond to the consultation with approval of what OpenMTB are doing though maybe adding my own caveats as above.

If anyone behing OpenMTB wants to comment on that I’m all ears?

Some good points there Sideshow.

I didn’t help write the report but I’m an OpenMTB member (not that we’re a formally constituted organisation, yet). As such I got a preview of the report before it went public and raised the same reservations about the dogs section with one of the authors. His response was that uncontrolled dogs, particularly around farmyards, are a problem for mountain bikers so the response needed to include something on this – which is fair enough.

I can’t really comment on the other bits but I’m guessing that as it’s quite a weighty document already, some of the points you raise probably had to go in the edit.

So I finally got around to reading the OpenMTB response, some comments on it

It’s good, but with its response being directly to the questions asked by the Welsh Government, there are a few issues it doesn’t cover.

Yes, I think you answer your own point there, will always be tough with a set of preset questions to respond to.

for information, I was the main author, though the response was formed by a working group, then circulated to a number of other sources for inclusion of their views. Its very much a work of consensus opinion. I don’t recognise the comments further above about being anti farmer – in fact I think very much the opposite, and I don’t think the poster has understood our comments about Glastir Advanced access payments, and why they should encourage multi user access rather than just walkers.

There is a lot of emphasis on wide farm tracks etc, and less on the sort of trails most of us here would prefer to ride. In mentioning the (lack of) maintenance burden that comes with opening up tracks for mtb, it seems to me an opportunity is missed to educate local authorities on trail sanitization issues. Admittedly this is minor compared to the issue of access, but would be good to point out.

Two issues there – “most of us here” i.e.. STW is far from the entirety of the mountain bike community, so yes, you have your ‘enthusiast’ level riders but also a much broader riding community that also needs catered for. of course ‘mountain biking’ is arguably a poor term, perhaps the french have it better in their use of ‘VTT’. Its a broad church and I think we have to represent more than just the ‘top echelon’.
I don’t think we really pushed towards ‘wide’ paths in the response – I think the ‘reasonable’ test is fairly self explanatory. I suspect that pushing the response further in the direction you suggest would have seen us dismissed as saying ‘you just want to ride on footpaths’ rather than seen to be also discussing the wider unjustified lack of cycle access on routes where commonly rehearsed arguments like erosion and conflict do not come into the equation (for example on established tracks over access land)

I don’t feel that sanitisation was particularly within the remit of the response, As you said at the start, we were responding to a list of questions. I believe that future consultation would be the area for that conversation.

A second item I missed, if it was there, is how wider access rights allow people to ride more close to home; thus reducing barriers to recreation (hence health inequalities) and environmental impacts of travel.

Difficult balance to strike there – Yes, I agree in some ways, however at the same time there needed to be an emphasis on the benefits for rural tourism, so what you give with one hand may weaken the economic arguments for increasing access on the other, a balance had to be struck. I think there was a reasonable discussion of the importance of healthy lifestyles, however there are also established and well rehearsed arguments there that led out of the active travel act, and as such I suggest we didn’t need to repeat, so the emphasis needed to be on tackling arguments that were commonly rehearsed against increasing access for bikes.

In my opinion cyclists and horses don’t make the best trailfellows: bikes spook horses and horses churn up trails worse than any other unmotorized transport. One of the problems with the current system is that both classes of user are restricted to the same limited set of bridleways. This is a good argument for reform, but is it a political choice not to make this argument as the aim is open access for all and to do so emphasizes a form of conflict? (In any case I believe that wider access reduces conflict due to impacts being more thinly spread).

I think thats covered by the ‘reasonable and responsible” argument – whats reasonable on a bike, may not be reasonable on a horse. I agree fully that spreading the load is a vital part of this, and I believe that once wider access is guaranteed, a lot of these problems sort themselves out as people gravitate to trails that are enjoyable to ride.

The issue of digitizing rights of way – the WG have made some progress on this though access to the data is problematic as ownership of the digitized data rests with each respective local authority. Still this would be a great resource for research and I would love to see it as open data.

Agree, yes, I am aware that there are moves behind the scenes, I believe that ongoing open data standards from government will solve much of the ‘ownership’ concern (for example, the FC roads database is now published in full on their open data site)

And finally I’m not sure if comment on dogs is within the remit of OpenMTB?

Answered above – The current rules are complex (for example, on access land your dog has to be on a 2 metre lead in summer months, but if you are on a right of way, the rule is ‘close control, which to some people seems to mean ‘out of control’) and I don’t think our proposal for a clearer single message was unreasonable. We don’t have national figures but there is certainly a significant historical problem regards dog attacks on cyclists and the consensus was that this brought it into our remit.

Still it’s generally a great move, it’s about time mountain biking had our own version of the BMC, and I plan to respond to the consultation with approval of what OpenMTB are doing though maybe adding my own caveats as above.

Appreciated, but better still, get involved – come and talk to us via facebook.com/openmtb and help us make things better.

The point I was making in relation to Glastir / Glastir Advanced is that you don’t understand those schemes.

As WG states:

‘Glastir Advanced is intended to deliver environmental improvements for a range of objectives including habitats, species, soil and water and is available to farmers and land managers in Wales.’

I actively manage several Glastir Contracts under the common land element of the scheme.

The scheme is not mandatory and for the on farm scheme is selective by WG and targeted to various environmental objectives of which mtb’ing is not one although replacing stiles and gates can be accommodated, it is not a generally popular scheme. Permissive access under the old Tir Gofal scheme is not replicated but maintaining existing access is – we are required to do that under our commons contracts.

As the scheme is not mandatory is not going to deliver improved access as nobody is compelled to sign up to the scheme (and improved access is not what the scheme is targeted at.

Talk of capping compensation payments for HA Orders in line with Glastir payments is also therefore nonsensical.

I have never been motivated to respond directly to a WG consultation before so at least you have got me to do that.

Payment for permissive access still exist under Glastir Advanced though,

no doubt WG have taken a more restrictive approach than under TG or Glastir TE, but payments are still available (subject to the scoring procedure) where permissive access was previously provided under TG and the contract manager continues it, and in a number of other areas such as close to national trails or within communities first areas.

So, where it exists, it should encourage multi-user access rather than just walkers

As pointed out above, the suggestion was also made, quite clearly I thought, for the identification of Active Access areas

Once designated an Active Access Area we would suggest the local authority, in conjunction with
stakeholders, has to prepare an access improvement plan. This would lead to the identification of
priority areas for access improvement funding, for example landowners in the area would receive
access funding under Glastir and will thus be rewarded for access improvements.

which I hope you would agree is a positive suggestion, and again, where done this should be for multi user access.

So you acknowledge it is not of general applicability as your consultation reply seems to indicate. I don’t know of any current Glastir access arrangements and even those that are there will only subsist for the 5 year term of the contract.

You would have to change the whole Glastir emphasis as improving access per se is not what the scheme is aimed at as indicated above – Tir Gofal etc were dropped because they failed to deliver any positive environmental outcomes.

I don’t want to get into an argument with you nipper, but It seems clear to me that the principle that ‘payments for access should carry a presumption of multi user access’ as we suggested, is of general applicability wherever payments for permissive access may exist, now and in the future, under Glastir.

I believe such a presumption is perfectly reasonable, and certainly don’t see it as ‘farmer bashing’

You talk as if Glastir is a single scheme with only one set of objectives, for example Glastir Advanced and Glastir Woodland management both carry very different objectives and responsibilities.

Not arguing – just suggesting you should have made your response clearer, if a landowner wants to agree to whatever access they want, voluntarily, absolutely fine. The core purpose of any Glastir scheme is, however, to deliver environmental outcomes. I believe both the FUW and NSA have picked up on the same points.

if a landowner wants to agree to whatever access they want, voluntarily, absolutely fine. The core purpose of any Glastir scheme is, however, to deliver environmental outcomes.

I think we are getting into the area of you trying to split hairs here nipper

There is a recognised system within the Glastir scheme that awards points on a Glastir application, in certain circumstances, in return for permissive access – where a landowner voluntarily chooses to utilise this in order to qualify for a higher level of Glastir payment than he would otherwise receive, it should involve a presumption of multi user access, rather than just offering access for walkers, as would fulfil the requirement at the moment.

Its a quite simple and very fair proposal – and a long way from the original accusation you made of farmer bashing, nor the accusation that we have suggested “compulsion, via Glastir etc” – there are two uses of the Word Compulsion in the nine and a bit thousand words we put forward, none related to Glastir, both in fact referring to the failure to utilise existing powers which permit landowners to relax CROW Sch 2 restrictions.

You’ve stated above that you are secretary to two commons associations – so, over to you now, can you suggest any legitimate reason why the right to air and exercise on S193 Commons should not extend to cyclists as well as walkers and horse riders?

I hate to break up the party fellas, but while you’re arguing about technicalities, the consultation is slipping by.

There will only be changes in our favour if these changes are deemed to be popular and arguing on a forum won’t do anything to show that. What we all need to do is respond by Oct 2.

Sure make your own response, that will hold more sway anyway, but respond. And rather than criticising an awful lot of hard work that has been done, voluntarily, for the common good, why don’t you just encourage others to respond too?

The Welsh Government has received over 1600 responses from mountain bikers through the OpenMTB/CTC/BC page – that’s 1600 more than they would have done without this effort. But 50,000 odd mtbers read the print magazines alone, so it’s a drop in the ocean really.

Why don’t we try working together for improved access for mountain bikers and keep our ‘I know better than you’ for private discussions 🙂

It would be very disappointing if anybody on this forum didn’t respond and also get all their mates to as well.

@mtbguiding Agreed, and I am certainly encouraging others to respond!

@openmtbkie thank you for replying to the points I raised. I do think you’ve done a great job on the response, better than I could have managed. The few months the WG allocated to consultation was not enough time to form a representative body for the whole mtb community, and then gather a list of signatures, so I appreciate that you weren’t able to consult everybody. I guess having this discussion is a form of getting involved – anyway I have also joined your facebook group and hope to see you in Cardiff Bay on 23rd.

Thanks Sideshow, seriously, there’s a lot more to OpenMTB than this Wales Consultation, if you would like to be involved, and are able to put in some energy/experience/skill, please email me (on profile). We need hands on deck. Thanks…