Eh? That says nothing new at all.

They can ‘hope’ to preserve access all they want, but irrelevant if it’s not their land! Exclusion isn’t the issue anyway, we get that, being restricted to the official rights of way would be a PITA.

Anyone know if the friends of hurtwood have enquired with the Brey estate to find out if they’d consider using Section 16 of he Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to relax the restriction on biking and horseriding from schedule 2?

The way I understand it, the landowner can apply for section 16 to relax the restriction on horse riding and biking, either permenatly or for a specific period. This would then mean that even if the land changes owner (as it will in this case) the new owner would not be able to remove the right for people to ride bikes / horses on it.

Obviously I assume that this will reduce the value of the land a little, but given the Brey estate are quite open access inclined might be worth a shot? Is anyone from friends of hurtwood on here?

Edit: just to say that as I understand it the schedule 2 relaxation via section 16 would essentially give the same rights that walkers have on CROW land to bikers and horse riders (i.e. go anywhere).

Hopefully people will behave in a sensible manner in the meantime. The more radical “fu@@ em I can ride, build where I like” mentality might not be that helpful

yeahhhhh, I’d not rely on that.

See the moron on here who talks about building jumps, IME these people genuinely think they’re doing good things.

> Eh? That says nothing new at all.

Sure I realise. Linking to keep the thread current.

> Is anyone from friends of hurtwood on here

They were due to have a meeting a couple of days ago, I’ve not seen a write up though.

Email from Friends of the Hurtwood regarding the sale of land in the Surrey Hills.

The Friends of the Hurtwood (FotH) currently manages public access to the Hurtwood, including the land to be sold, under a Management Agreement with SME. On completion of the sale, the Management Agreement for the land concerned will terminate.

The Trustees of FotH met on 14th May to discuss the potential consequences for the Charity of the proposed sale. Mindful of the fact that the Charity was established to manage public access to the Hurtwood, the Trustees do not believe that it is appropriate for the Charity to contemplate buying the land that SME intend to sell.

However the Trustees decided that, should the local community come together to investigate the possibility of making a bid for all or part of the land to be sold, it would be appropriate for FotH to make a financial contribution towards a community purchase, were such a bid to be successful.

Enquiries regarding this statement should be directed to chairman@friendsofthehurtwood.co.uk

The charity number in the email is wrong, it’s 200053 not 500053 (have mailed them).

The most recent accounts are here: http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends53/0000200053_AC_20131031_E_C.pdf

I was just thinking – if a new owner was to keep the land as it is, why would they buy it in the first place? It can’t be a big money-maker in itself, can it? They must be wanting to DO something with it, surely?

In any event, even though statutory rights of way must remain, I can’t see BKB surviving the change. Ride now while you still can… 🙁

if a new owner was to keep the land as it is, why would they buy it in the first place? It can’t be a big money-maker in itself, can it? They must be wanting to DO something with it, surely?

Depends. If it was bought by a ‘charitable type’ organisation, such as a consortium of locals, walkers, and IT middle manager Audi driving cyclists, maybe they would want to largely keep it as it is.

Your point is right but sort of assumes the purchaser would want it as an investment with a monetary type return. IF they could do that (eg: put a luxury golf course on it?) then the value of the land is surely much higher.

The question to me is whether the family want / need to maximise the money they get for the sale. If they are prepared to get by with a smaller amount as long as it sorts the tax bill, then maybe there’s a case for selling it with various stipulations about use (or privately to a group with the same intent) which might put it in reach. Conversely, if they need to maximise the amount they get, then a free for all auction would seem the best solution.

I still think that’s hopelessly optimistic (although it’d be great if you’re right). They’re selling off a proportion of their land, not all of it, which makes me think they’ve calculated a value of the acreage at a ‘market rate’ or whatever.

If I had a massive debt to settle and was selling off my estate screw the current users, she doesn’t owe us anything, quite the opposite.

You’re right that we aren’t owed anything, it’s a huge privilege to have had the use all this time, and hopefully for much longer. I guess it’s the optimist in me coming out. The hope is that if the family were greedy, then why keep it in ‘public’ ownership for so long, could have sold it years ago.

Because they didn’t need to?

If they were selling it on a whim then perhaps you’d be right.

I certainly admire your optimism!

There’s presumably some intrinsic value in the forestry rights.

A speculator would probably see some value against possible future permission to build housing.

Presumably the owners want the best possible price as if they sell it at less than market value they’ll end up selling more of it.

That’s sort of the point – it’s not on a whim, their hand is forced but they still don’t need to sell the land for the maximum price now either; as long as there’s enough to cover the bill. If the intent is to cover the bill, maybe they can do a deal privately to cover it and leave it basically as it is.

If they want to maximise the amount they can get for it – and they have every right to, as i say it’s been a hugely generous position up till now – it kind of makes me wonder why they haven’t wanted to do that previously.

That’s maybe where the optimism comes from, that the amount needed to clear the tax bill is within the reach of a public access consortium, and that clearing the bill and continuing the legacy is overall more attractive than a tonne of cash.

I can’t see how anyone would buy it assuming they could put it to another, more profitable use – well certainly not golf or housing as the chances of that being allowed are far too remote. So it’ll be left as it is but possibly with access restricted to rights of way – but what reason would they have to restrict in this way? Could it become a private place for shoots? They may not want the risk of mtbers clumsily injuring themselves and getting sued though.

The land for sale is not a good area for shoots IMO. There are some in the area already and some clays. I assume someone will buy it for the forestry value.

I suspect they are hoping that either the national trust will buy it off them, or the treasury accept it being handed to the NT in lieu of the tax owed

the point is made above that the landowner has been remarkably generous in their attitude to the publics use of the land for a great many years (class war, tax avoiding super rich, what have the toffs ever done for us etc.)

I am given to understand that most of the land was subject to a s193 revokable deed of dedication under 1925 law of property act, and access agreements under 1949 access to the countryside act – much of that would now be irrelevant to pedestrian access as that would be assured in perpetuity over most of the land under under CROW, this of itself would very much limit any potential use for conventional game shooting (lovely bit of deerstalking mind) however rights for horseriders, and tolerated use by cyclists, could potentially be under considerable threat (particuarly under NT ownership)

Apparently there was a meeting in Peaslake earlier this week for local residents and other concerned parties. It’s not sounding great, from what a friend who went along was saying. Lots of doom ‘n gloom. Has anyone else heard anything a bit more positive-sounding?

😐 and no.

(class war, tax avoiding super rich, what have the toffs ever done for us etc.)

They granted us the use of “their land”. I suppose we should bow down and be grateful for what we’ve been given eh?

This land will be snapped up, as it is a way of avoiding taxation.

This land will be snapped up, as it is a way of avoiding taxation.

Explain more. Forestry was granted tax breaks in order to encourage the planting of more trees. Farmland has a tax exemption as asking the farmers son/daughter to pay 40% of the value of the farm on their fathers death is not workable.

I heard a rumour that one of the main interested parties is the guy that tried to develop housing at Dunsfold Aerodrome.

Jim McAllister?

That’s about the worst imaginable outcome for us!

I can’t see how anyone would buy it assuming they could put it to another, more profitable use – well certainly not golf or housing as the chances of that being allowed are far too remote.

You’d be surprised. Investment companies can take a VERY long view on these things. As an example, the ‘land’ our sailing club is on is owned by Prudential investments. It’s a flooded gravel pit in the greenbelt!

But someone did the maths and if you could get planning permission then it’s value was higher than the cost of filling it in. So in 50years+ it may well be houses and it’ll make them a tidy sum of money.

I imagine a big chunk of land in Surrey could well be bought on a similar basis.

They granted us the use of “their land”. I suppose we should bow down and be grateful for what we’ve been given eh?

I get the impression that Handa would probably be quite embarrassed if anybody did that.

Explain more. Forestry was granted tax breaks in order to encourage the planting of more trees. Farmland has a tax exemption as asking the farmers son/daughter to pay 40% of the value of the farm on their fathers death is not workable.

Here you go.

And you are right about farmland. Which is why more and more farms are no longer owned by farmers…in the traditional sense.

I get the impression that Handa would probably be quite embarrassed if anybody did that.

I presume Handa is the owner of this land or something?

They granted us the use of “their land”. I suppose we should bow down and be grateful for what we’ve been given eh?

whose land is it then?

when can I come round and ride round your garden for a few hours – I am sure you won’t mind – it is not as if it is “your land”.

whose land is it then?

Theirs…for the moment.

when can I come round and ride round your garden for a few hours – I am sure you won’t mind – it is not as if it is “your land”.

But I won’t give you permission. So you won’t have to feel grateful to me. Which was the point I was making…that you missed.

There’s a good write up here about the whole situation and where it is currently…

http://www.surreyhillsmtber.co.uk/1999/hurtwood-sale/

also if you want some history on the Hurtwood…

http://friendsofthehurtwood.co.uk/about-us/history-of-the-hurtwood

You know what… I don’t car who ‘owns’ the land – temporary custodian. A meaningless blip in 4 billion years of existence – I’ll ride any where in holmbury, Pitch or Winterfold that takes my fancy. Oh and I might even build some jumps as well.

If Jim buys it though, he’ll be constantly blocking it off, and rumour goes his mob have chased people off with shotguns.

Never mind, we’ve got progressive people like WaywardRider doing their bit 🙄

Just been looking through the plans on the realtors website – they are/were selling the land in lots – Pitch Hill is about 1.1 M in total.

Though the closing date was 29th June.

Was trying to see if anybody knew of a crowd funding etc effort? Though perhaps too late.

Anyone aware of any developments on this? I haven’t seen any updates anywhere and there have been no changes to the trails as far as I can see.

Pretty sure I rode past a sign with SOLD on it a a few weeks ago. Was on the road above Supernova.

I’ve heard things unofficially so don’t want to state facts that may not be right, but general consensus seems to be we shouldn’t have anything to worry about in terms of access, and as I understand it it’s all been or being bought by a variety of local land owners with the intention to keep the Hurtwood access going.

we had better behave ourselves then !!

deadkenny – Member

I’ve heard things unofficially so don’t want to state facts that may not be right, but general consensus seems to be we shouldn’t have anything to worry about in terms of access, and as I understand it it’s all been or being bought by a variety of local land owners with the intention to keep the Hurtwood access going.

Thanks, let’s hope so.

Update from Facebook…

IMPORTANT NEWS – Must Read.
We’re grateful to Ben Bray for the following update on the sale.

Lot number 3 (the lower tranche of land land that runs between Radnor Road and Ewhurst Road and includes the Barry Knows Best Mountain bike run) has been retained by Shere Manor Estate with a view to putting it back on the market early next year.

In case you missed it in the Parish Magazine, here is a reproduction of the statement provided by Shere Manor Estates on the sale of the other lots.

‘Update on Shere Manor Estate’s sale of the Hurtwood
It is some months since any news of the sale of the Hurtwood has been reported in the parish mag, and Shere Manor Estate are aware that many readers will be keen to know what the future is for this beautiful woodland.

The reason for the silence is because the sales process takes an extremely long time and during that process, while all the minute details are being sorted out between the various buyers and their solicitors and the Estate’s solicitors, anything can change. So until the sales are actually confirmed, and legal contracts are exchanged, I’m afraid it is not possible to give any actual news. However, I hope we can reassure readers that the potential buyers of the different lots of the Hurtwood for sale are all local people who care about the Hurtwood and the local community. Additionally, as explained in the parish mag in an earlier article, public access to the Hurtwood is protected by law whomsoever the landowner is. Shere Manor Estate very much hope that this will reassure readers. As soon as the various sales are confirmed, we will of course let the parish mag readers know, and no doubt the new owners will want to explain their position themselves.’