I am really only interested in groups who work closely with the FC, "informal" groups need not apply! 🙂

I am trying to establish whether our experiences post OGB37 are atypical or if there is a trend across the UK.

Up to about 18 months ago we were working closely with the FC in Thetford Forest, building trails and planning great things for the now knackered trail network. Then, one day, at a regular meet with our FC contact we were told that the advent of OGB37 meant that no further work could be carried out until our two main trail leaders went on a familiarisation course, after which we could get back to work.

In due course, attendance completed, our two bods came back raring to go only to be hit with a series of increasing obstacles. The FC were keen for us to become a trail maintenance group, filling holes, picking litter etc and some of our merry band duly complied. Meanwhile, the group who wanted to do things such as build berms, low boardwalks over boggy areas etc were getting frustrated. After months of negotiation we were give a timetable, submit an Ops 1 and it will be passed or rejected within (I think it was) 6 weeks. Once this is in place you can get going.

Feathers smoothed, our now unruffled trail builders got to work, jumped through interminable hoops to get Ops1 completed and prepared for work. A week or so ago, a preliminary build day was agreed with the FC and preparations were made for this Saturday only for us to be told that there were yet another set of hoops (previously unmentioned) to jump through and as I heard it, we weren't going to be doing any work any time soon, at least not until this set of papers was filled in, passed round the office etc. Meanwhile, if we wanted to clear twigs etc off the trails we were very welcome, as long as we had method statements, risk assessments filled in etc etc.

Net result, one of our main men has had enough and threw in the towel yesterday and others feel it has now gone too far. We are a group of volunteers, not professional contractors and all we seem to be doing is chasing paper, having discussions about discussions, discussions about paper and anything but getting out there building.

We have built nothing in 18 months and although the FC feel they are bending over backwards to help us, all we see is obstacle after obstacle being put in front of us and diminishing interest from our group.

Have other groups had to put up with this level of obstruction or are we alone in this?

Exactly the same experiences we are currently having (SingletrAction – Dalby) They have basically turned round and bluntly told us that we are not allowed to “build” any more trails, however they are keen for use to work as a maintenance crew.

We are only a small group of what was "enthusiastic" trail builders and have worked closely with FE for over 8 years, however I begin to wonder if we will still be there off the back of this

Interested to see they offered you a “familiarisation course” we were basically stopped in our tracks…

Sorry to hear about that John. Here in Bristol we've been working the same way for quite some time, and it's very hands-off. We are pretty much left to get on with it, and then any issues are flagged up in subsequent safety inspections.

However from the point we started digging we have had to operate under our own insurance which involves making a risk assessment, ensuring that everyone who comes out digging for the first time reads and signs a safety briefing, etc. It's not quite OGB37 but is it a bit more formal than just rocking up and digging.

The trail we're working on has historically been quite old and shabby, and although it's part of a publicised trail centre it's not exactly an FC showpiece. There is major redevelopment planned and I wonder if things are goign to get a bit more formal once that's underway.

One other thing about working with the FC is that although our lot's heart tends to be in the right place, communication is pretty sporadic and it seems to take a long time for anything to get done. If we can just get on with it, that's not too much of a problem, if things became more formal it might start to become rather annoying.

I don't know how you even managed to perservere 18 months with these jobsworths.

The authorities wonder why people start using footpaths and 'illegal' trails.

Send them a copy of your post and subsequent thread

The amount of paperwork we have to go through is quite phenomenal. Risk assessments yes, Risk assessments and method statements for every tool we could possibly use. Trail inspections the day before any build day. Ops 1 if we want to do anything apart from breathe gently on a trail, we have to apply for permission to re route the red trail, inform Uncle Tom Cobbly and all if we want to even think about doing anything, post warning signs and advance notice warnings everywhere in short, to do everything a professional contractor would need to and more. We have monthly meetings at Cycle Trail Development Meetings, we have a Cycle Ranger (who doesn't ride!) and a well established communications network so talking isn't the problem.

Maybe we should stop this thread right now in case your FC bods get to hear of it! 🙂

I think people from the FC need to see this thread. We're been working with them successfully for a shade under 5 years now, with no drama, using a hands-off approach. It sounds like the places where they're trying to implement the new uber-formal system are scaring enthusiastic volunteers away in droves. 😐

This is all about liability.

If anything goes wrong they will be held accountable.

Being a volunteer group makes no odds, since the FC will be viewed as having overall control (their land), its therefore their responsibility to ensure that you are operating in a safe and responsible standard.

Its not unreasonable, but their mode of communication is spectacularly poor. It would be better if they gave you and idea of the size of the task prior to your undertakings.

Plenty of the big boys in industry run systems that you can view as being completely over the top, but once you start looking at the individual reasons for the stuff, it all seems very reasonable and justified. Its just that the sum of it all is, shall we say, a bit onerous. A good PM can often streamline the process though.

What more do you expect from Civil servants?
😀

The liability issue is understood.

You are right about communications though… ideally they should have a standard pack of documents which they can issue to trail groups detailing every piece of paper to be completed, standards met etc before you can build so you can embark on a project, get all your ducks in a row and get going. As it is, we have to draw all these documents up from scratch, have them submitted for approval, amended, submitted again etc etc and in the end it sort of wears you out. The road to 2010 is littered with the bodies of once enthusiastic Timber volunteers who have had enough, called it a day and moved on. I wonder if this is the same with other trail groups?

Yes its the same everywhere.

The more enlightened organisations out there run training courses for their H&S systems – My last one for BP was two days solid. Just on how to use the system.

The forms and procedures alone comprised two lever arch files.
😥

You begin to ask if this will be the death of the "trail building" groups, maybe to be re-named "Maintenance Crews"

I've always been afraid that the recongnition we've been chasing would bring power of the kind easily rendered impotent by it's accompanying responsibilities.

And while I'm eternally grateful for the sentiment of those willing to give up their time attempting to advance the trail networks, I've always been quietly rather terrified of the consequences their actions would bring.

We're a nation legislating ourselves into irrelevance. It feels like an unstoppable force. And the fact that such ridiculous paper pushing is clearly and easily justifiable makes it so much worse.

Many hands make light work, too many hands make paperwork.

Interesting stuff.

I've been involved with Redlands Trails for a long time now (I think seven or eight years) and we've gone from working specifically with FC to working with a wide variety of landowners. In part this has been because of the patchwork of land ownership in the area we ride in. As a result, we've always insured with BTCV, and involvement with FC on the five trails we've built on FC land, has been fairly minimal in terms of paperwork, and very strong on Just Getting Things Done. Admittedly, most of the building was done a long time ago, when the beat forester for the area was a keen mountain biker and a veteran of the Welsh trail centre building spree. Pretty much everything done since Rory moved on has been maintanence, with new build stuff on other landowners' property.

We were asked a few months ago to re-route part of a trail – Summer Lightning – to allow for replanting, and at no point was anything other than the pracitcalities of altering the route discussed.

At the moment we're not exactly building the M25 on FC land – it's tiny bits of work and mostly maintenance, so probably not on the scale of you chaps at Dalby or Brizzle.

OGB37 was intended to impose a set of national trail building standards on all FC land across the UK. There is a certain irony that implementation is far from consistent!

Weird. I've never heard of it from FC. We've used the IMBA book and adapted it to local conditions with experience. For the most part, it's worked a treat.

This isn't actually the same everywhere and from our experience (Chase Trails) comes down very much to the individual teams, their managers and the local attitude.

We have been lucky enough from the start of our work (almost 7 years and counting now) to have a very pro-active team supporting us and going the extra mile to sort out official matters that make our life easier from a volunteers persepctive.

Sadly I think that if you find yourself in the position of being faced with a tem that is either lacking the knowledge or willingness to deal with aspects of the official process then you are stuck.

If you do have someone who is preapred to look into things and perhaps contact some of their colleagues elsewhere in the country that could be a start. I'd be happy to discuss this further off the forum.

Slowjo, i may be able to help a little here. Ride Thetford alot and race in the winter and the summer series. If it's paperwork and the such that is dragging i'm currently sat twiddling my thumbs on the dole line – my line of work is basicly dealing with this sort of thing in the building trade – O & M manuals, project documentation that sort of thing. and after dealing with Tech 12 at the base up the road anything the FC make would be a doddle. E-mail is in my profile if you want to drop me a line.

It sounds like trailbuilding groups are suffering the same sort of paperwork that FC trailbuilders themselves have been exposed to recently. At Glentress projects carried out by both professional trailbuilders and volunteers have been delayed because of the amount of paperwork now required to get them to fly. I seriously doubt that any of your local FC MTB rangers or other FC contacts are any happier about it than you are!

As for trailbuilding vs trail maintenance, well it's generally more fun to be making something new than repairing something old. 🙂 This has caused the FC some problems, I gather. It's traditionally been easier to find funds for new trails than to get money for keeping existing trails in good condition. If the FC are asking for volunteer trail maintenance it's possibly because that's what they feel the area needs most, or possibly because they hope it'll keep people involved while the paperwork for new builds passes through the bureaucracy.

I volunteer with the Glentress Trailfairies but we're a group that's run by the forest's FC MTB rangers so that puts us in a different situation to some other volunteer groups. We've done a good mix of new trails and maintenance work, though this year it's been noticeable that the paperwork required for new trails has resulted in delays in things getting started or finished. Hopefully as FC staff get more used to what's required it'll get easier and more generally around the country they'll be able to give clearer guidance to other volunteer trailbuilding groups as to what's required.

Whoa, we've had completely the opposite experience at Gisburn. I've had no paperwork to fill in. We dig supervised and more recently on our own. We've been given access to the fireroads, tools have been left trailside in a locked box and we've been given use of an FC trailer. They're quite happy for us to use the power barrows on our own too, only issue is access to were they are stored. We get some say in where the trail is going and quite a lot of say on trail features. We've offered to help with existing trail repairs but have been encouraged to concentrate on laying new trail.

Maybe the big difference is our FC contact rides and enjoys digging, he started the digging before the volunteers got involved. He's also had support from the land owner (Unitied Utilities), their local man on the ground is also a keen rider and digger.

Either we're all going to get into all sorts of trouble at some point or other parts of the FC aren't interrested and are hiding behind the paperwork. I guess (and hope) the latter.

John, I understand your frustration,Myself, Paul (Bike Art) are always banging our head against the wall with the FC, they just go from one meeting to another and another but dont actually get any progress with the trails, Paul (Bike Art) we spent 2 hrs yesterday out in the frost looking at the damage and attempts at repair the RED TRAIL after felling, and we were not happy when we were told the BLACK TRAIL was going to be closed last weekend due to a 4 metre track were the forestry machinery had been running in the week, we managed to get them to put caution signs up and keep the trail open.
As you know I have been dealing with the forestry in Thetford for over 15 years with racing and Frank, Slumpy and I were trying to do the same thing you guys are trying so hard to do But decided we were flogging a dead horse, so we just went out and rode our bikes.I think you guys would be far happier if you did the same.
The one things that I cannot get my head around in TROG at Tunstall do not have the problems you guys do, Maybe we need a few more rangers like Tunstall who lives in the the real world.

As other people have said, a key point seems to be the need for standardised syatems of doing things. I know some people slag them but IMBA have been a godsend in this respect, they have all the risk assessments, procedures and construction standards drawn up already, and for groups that come into it with little to no construction industry or H&S experience they have been a godsend. I wonder why with more IMBA people starting to join the FC this pre-exisitng resource hasn't been drawn on – it sounds like it would remove a lot of the faff that people like TIMBER are experiencing.

In relation to the inconsistent application of the new standards, I think the FC are highly regional in their approach (see the hoo-haa about different trail gradings round the country for an example) and I'm not sure how quickly this is changing.

Gil's experience is also fairly typical of mine at Stainburn, which in turn is typical of (I'm sad to say) the more negative experiences of many of the posters.

FE/C seem to be keen to (pretty much) stop trail construction by volunteers in many places. They also seem to only want established trail builders to become maintenance crews (at the moment no ta). I think this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of volunteers.

They seem to be running sh1t scared of liability and CDM regulations. This gets on tits as I don't think they know what they're talking about in terms of the Reg's. But hey ho, what would I know?

I talked about the hurdles facing volunteers to the IMBA conference / AGM in the Lakes this year. If I had the write up hosted on net I'd link to it. Whatever, one of the two biggest blocks to volunteer work is (IMO) FE (and before anyone gets too aerated, the second was MTBers themselves 😉

All our work is to IMBA (or higher)) standards, so that isn't an issue for us. TBH it seems to be purely down to FE's lack of enthusiasm. The reason for us not being allowed to do anything in Norwood (other than the aforementioned stick-clearing) was due to a "lack of time, money and resources" within FE. In my cynical moments I think that is just convenient logic, rather than the "real" reason. IMO there's a whole heap can be achieved without any real input or expenditure but hey ho, what do I know, I'm just a grunt 😉

I could go on and on. If someone wants to organise something (with or without IMBA) I'd be up for it.

timsellors[at]googlemail[dot]com

Delay and bureaucracy is part of the FC MO. They know full well that if you delay volunteer groups for long enough then enough people will walk away for group to fall apart.

If a group shows any sign of tenacity, then just bung another hurdle in their way. Easy to do when you're being paid for it and the volunteers are giving up their own time and money.

Bitter? Hell yeah!

Bitter? Hell yeah!

I used to think that this sort of comment only came from the unreasonable side of volunteer trailbuilders. The ones who thought it was a god given right and wouldn't follow OPS1 or build to a good standard or take any notice of FE.

After many years of experience in voluntary trail building I think it's a tragedy that it is now (IMO) the standard sort of response from dedicated, hard working, skilled and experienced volunteers. The sort of people who, with only a limited level of "official" support, could achieve a spectacular amount to the benefit of many people.

Just seen this thread and would like to add a couple of points.

1) Knowing a little of what you guys have been going through I'm really sad to hear of the ongoing crapfest John. Nobody deserves to be treated that way. For all I can see of it the FC have managed to take Thetford from an MTB rich environment to a virtually MTB free zone in just over 4 years. Outstanding for an organisation which professes to welcome the sport IMHO.

2) Regarding the point about Tunstall made by JD-boy above, the situation there is no different, except in that we have a whole raft of other things that we get up to in the woods, besides trail building, therefore the frustration and angst is not at the same level. Not sure where its at at the moment, but I suspect that sometime soon they will be putting in their 4th application for OPS 1 permission on a loop since 2007. All of which to date whilst demanded by the FC have just been ignored entirely.

The simple fact is that the FC hierarchy live in a rarifyed atmosphere which does not seem to have any contact with reality. They haemorrhage money like its going out of fashion and seem to have the market for jobsworths entirely sewn up.

In the short time I've had dealings with trail groups, I've found an enormous pool of committed, articulate, skilled and genuine people who have been willing to go way beyond any reasonable requirements to make improvements in facilities for their sport, often at their own personal expense. Only then to be abused and misused by the FC, presumably because they show the majority of FC personnel up for the sad incompetent idiots that they are. (PLEASE NOTE THERE ARE ADMITTEDLY NOTABLE EXCEPTIONS, BUT SADLY THEY ARE WAY TOO FEW AND FAR BETWEEN!)

There is nothing in this thread that dissuades me from that opinion, so how about some collective pressure being brought to bear???

I used to think that this sort of comment only came from the unreasonable side of volunteer trailbuilders.
Exactly. Unfortunately, the FC spin machine is adept at spinning against volunteer groups and labelling them as "activists" and other such loaded phrases. Quite happy to use their online "friends" to spread their garbage (you know who you are and you should think deeply about how you're being used)…

IME, many volunteer groups too scared that their project will be disadvantaged by expressing support for others.

FC has loads of good people on the ground. higher ups=?

I opened this thread hoping to hear about opportunities to get involved in trail building/maintenance but am shocked at what I hear. Those of you that are involved should be congratulated on your efforts and patience. Whilst I understand FC's concern re:health and safety, it should not be followed in such a way and manner that committed volunteers are giving up and walking away. I'm based in Wales and if I can help in any way please email me at the address in profile.

>The simple fact is that the FC hierarchy live in a rarifyed atmosphere which does not seem to have any contact with reality.<

Yup, and whilst the FC do have some great ops guys 'on the ground' the simple fact is that much of the FC heirarchy / senior managers have been promoted into (or serially across)jobs for which they are either not properly trained and or which they are incompetent at.

Summed up here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle

Whilst not part of the group I understand a similar situation led to the original volunteer trail designers at Haldon giving it up. This has lead to an increasingly 'tame' approach to trails as they've struggled increasingly to get volunteers to do any maintenance recently which means they must be all-weather featureless and safe.

My comments on the current 'all-weather' nature of Haldons trails don't need to be made as plenty of others on here have recited the litany of issues following heavy rain in Devon.

A friend who rides and works for a government agency which has a lot to do with the FC has said they are one of the most traditional, conservative and timid agencies there is.

hitman – Member

I opened this thread hoping to hear about opportunities to get involved in trail building/maintenance but am shocked at what I hear.

I would say that while the experiences Slowjo outlines are unfortunate, they aren't the norm by any means. If you give it a try and find it unworkable, at least you gave it a try. When we started working with the FC in Bristol we were really uncertain what to expect and I have to say we didn't come away from our initial meetings with a very positive impression. However things did start to rumble into life after a few months and we have now been happily working with them for over four years, and have rebuilt an initally substandard trail into a well-loved and used one with a higher level of technical challenge.

We need to remember that legitimised MTBing on FC land is still a relatively new thing and they're not always sure how to deal with it. However in terms of pushing MTBing and welcoming MTBers into their forests they are one of the better agencies out there. Try asking your local council if you can build a downhill track on their land, they'll probably look at you horror then ring for security. 🙂

But the FC have a remit to a.) encourage rural development and b.)support the Governments health and well being agenda. The latter isnt very clearly defined unfortunately.

They spend our money on our land – is it unreasonable to expect consistency, transparency and value for money?

Wrong thread!

is it unreasonable to expect consistency, transparency and value for money?

No way, and if the FC was a private organisation I very much doubt they would work the same way. From a pragmatic point of view though, IME it's worth taking the good with the bad. This might change if I was in the same boat as the CVDG – you can't avoid your experiences colouring your judgment, it just happens that ours have been (mostly) positive.

>No way, and if the FC was a private organisation I very much doubt they would work the same way.<

It simply wouldnt be possible…

>This might change if I was in the same boat as the CVDG<

Aye, that evidence is rather compelling imo. No excuses for not playing with a straight hand:

http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/about/values/cscode/index.aspx

They spend our money on our land

Very little of our money, only about £ 10 million per year subsidy, most of their revenue is generated through comercial activities. They don't own the land in every case either. Gisburn forest is on United Utilities land, the FC are merely tenants.

Not defending the inaction in certain places but it is worth understand that they are not there strictly as public servants like for example your council is. Actually that's probably jsut as well or all the money and resource would end up used in pointless meeting.

Has a reason for the treacherous behaviour at CVDG ever been given, or established by anyone?

This document (consultation, now closed) is a convenient and (relatively) brief overview of the Public Forest Estate in England:

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/eng-pfe-consultationdocument.pdf/$FILE/eng-pfe-consultationdocument.pdf

You need to read the intro and then informatives at the start of each section.

Oh, and lifted from the website:

Our mission and values
Our mission is to protect and expand Britain's forests and woodlands and increase their value to society and the environment.

We take the lead, on behalf of all three administrations, in the development and promotion of sustainable forest management. We deliver the distinct forestry policies of England, Scotland and Wales through specific objectives drawn from the country forestry strategies so our mission and values may be different in each.

But throughout, we aim to be an organisation that values:

teamwork – working as teams with colleagues and others to ensure that trees, woods and forests meet the needs of people in each part of Britain

professionalism – enjoying and taking pride in our work, achieving high standards of quality, efficiency and sustainability

respect – treating one another with consideration and trust, recognising each person's contribution

communication – being open, honest and straightforward with colleagues and others, as willing to listen as to tell

learning – always learning, from outside the Forestry Commission as well as from within

creativity – not being afraid to try new ways of doing things

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/forestry.nsf/byunique/infd-6val65

Given IMBA have a Memoranda of Understanding with FC it could be hoped that some active discussion could be had to either clarify or resolve the situation. Still, it must be difficult for them as both Karl (Chairman) Paddy (Treasurer) are FC staff.

And from FC's homepage:

We are the government department responsible for the protection and expansion of Britain's forests and woodlands.

Just like your local authority is responsible for the protection and improvement of your area. Not lookingto be argumentative, just that I've heard similar arguments about FE before. I agree they're not beholden to every rag-tag punter who pipes up wanting a trail but when organised groups with track records and dedicated volunteers get treated the way many have described it makes you wonder (frustrated, angry, dissapointed etc etc).

😎

Cheeky Monkey – are you talking about FC or FE? My understanding is FE is the money making part of FC and are definitely different to FC…

Seems to me they're turning away from genuine partnering with groups – It seems that they're less interested in taking account of groups views than they are in using them for free labour. That'd be a bit too one-way for my taste.

Dick

I always struggle a little on the difference between FC / FE. TBH I treat the acronyms as interchangeable. Cold be my bad 🙁 AFAIK FC are the body / quango set up by Government and tasked with overall management of the Public Forest Estate (GB) and meeting Government's objectives. FE is a quasi-commercial operating arm of FC. They are both, ultimately Government bodies, IMO.

In short FC = policy, FE = operation.

I'm sure I deal with people from both but they seem interchangeable. Can't tell the little green buggers apart 😉

I would happily hear / see some clarification or be corrected by someone who knows better (I looked it all up on the website once … snore!).

Seems to me they're turning away from genuine partnering with groups – It seems that they're less interested in taking account of groups views than they are in using them for free labour. That'd be a bit too one-way for my taste.

There's always been this imbalance, it's just a case of whether you are prepared to work within the system and feel you can achieve your aims by doing this. Some people would argue that the FC has a duty to provide facilities for mountain bikers without making them do the donkey work. In practice that's unlikely to happen unless people try and meet them half way.