“To All Bike Permit Holders,

We are holding an open meeting for bikers at Woburn Sands Memorial Hall on Tuesday, 8th March at 19.00. We hope to:

• Give you some background to the Access Agreement between Bedford Estates and Central Beds & Milton Keynes Councils (which allows cyclists to use the permissive bike routes and Jump Area in Aspley Woods):
• Have a two-way dialogue concerning issues/problems/solutions as all parties perceive them:
• Appoint some cycle representatives to sit on the newly-formed Aspley Woods User Group.

All bikers are welcome to attend. If anyone has any questions or comments, please e-mail me back.

Regards,

The Greensand Trust”

I haven’t been to Woburn (at least on my bike) for some time.

What are some of the issues that have been raised out of interest?

I’ve always thought the signage could be better, since it’s used by all manner of foot, bike and horse traffic.

I think it all stems from the issues last year where there was talk about cyclists being banned, then the subsequent reprieve with new access agreements in place.

To be honest there are a number of places where cyclists aren’t doing themselves any favours – ‘cheeky’ trails becoming a bit too obvious and well-used, conflict with other users etc. I think an open dialogue could be a useful thing.

Totally agree.
I think a lot of the issues stem from Woburns compact nature. Trails loop and crisscross and space for all is limited. For that reason I always ride with a mental finger covering the brakes in case I meet a family walking the dog, horses coming the other way or, as on some occasions, the cast of Lord of the Rings engaged in an elven wedding ceremony.

“To All Bike Permit Holders,

This is half of the trouble as most who use Woburn have no permit.
I often wonder if a proposal of a dedicated bike trail..ala Cannock be used? I know its not what the hard core up there would want but if it keeps the undesirables off the general walking trails and allows bikers to continue to use the area then its better than the alternative of closure. This could be a real way to police the riding, and although the cheeky trails always get used it would possibly limit this to just a few riders?

The area has become hugely populated with cyclists since i were a lad riding up there on my old Raleigh, and may be even more heavily used with the new Centre Parcs which is proposed just down the road so for me and my 2 boys sake i hope that a decent agreement is found.

Good luck and Please keep us posted -m-

a bump really

It seemed amazingly busy today. Parkinh had over fload from the top of Sandy lane in both directions

And the slimiest I’ve ever known it. In some places wet plus high bike traffic in others logging lorries

I can’t get to the meeting but is there a way we can contribute to an online discussuion

Hi Ampthill, we were there today, as every sunday, and it was definitely slippery; fun though isn’t it! Not sure all the car traffic was bike related though. Didn’t see a lot of bikers although there were lots of runner types. Not sure every permit holder got the invite email either, I know at least 2 who didn’t.

Any other permit holders not got an invite yet??

I got my invite

I’m sure your right lots of cars were perhaps due to the suns appearance

some blits were a blast to drift but at one point I pushed on the level. I’ve never done that at woburn before

Its a great place to ride, but that plus the internet mean lots more riders find its a great place to ride. In the short time Ive known it , five years, Ive noticed the increase in riders.

I do have a permit, but since buying one Ive never been asked for it. Perhaps enforcing that would help limit the issues. But then that would raise the price and piss other people off.

Any thoughts on the meeting?? Sounded a bit “same old same old” to me. Disconcerting that the 10 year agreement is actually an annual review agreement over 10 years. Massive dichotomy at Woburn in that it CAN’T become a proper venue unless the owner wants it so and it WON’T become a proper venue unless the owner wants it so. Anyone read Joseph Heller, Catch 22. Much respect to the owner for allowing us access though.

Woburns at it’s best early morning 7.0/8.00am hardly see a soul from Stockgrove to Millbrook. Coming back at about 11am the place is packed.

Strangely though I’ve been asked for my permit a few times.

And I must confess -m- that after near on 12 years of talks and meetings I’m now at the what will be will be point.
Also I’m a little shocked at the work that has been done with consent to the trail we cut with permission in Oak Wood, looks awful.

Any thoughts on the meeting?? Sounded a bit “same old same old” to me. Disconcerting that the 10 year agreement is actually an annual review agreement over 10 years. Massive dichotomy at Woburn in that it CAN’T become a proper venue unless the owner wants it so and it WON’T become a proper venue unless the owner wants it so. Anyone read Joseph Heller, Catch 22. Much respect to the owner for allowing us access though

I must admit I didn’t think that the meeting was particularly productive, but then that’s always going to a be a problem with a large open forum. Hopefully things become a bit more focused at the user group meetings.

For those that are interested but weren’t able to attend:

* We were told about the renewal of the access agreement (as Blurboy says the new agreement is for 10 years, but is renewed annually with a break option for the landowner or council!) and a number of issues relating to cycling use highlighted. These included litter, unauthorised trails, jumps outside the jump area etc.

* We were asked for any ideas of how to address some of these problems. There were a number of suggestions made about improving signage and managing litter.

Discussion did have a tendancy to get sidetracked, but other issues that were raised included:

* The pricing of permits (several calls for prices to rise if the money was being reinvested) and some good suggestions on improving the sale of day permits.

* The footpath through the jumpspot that cannot (easily) be diverted. Although the idea of creating a recommended alternative was repeatedly suggested the conclusion seemed to be that the only practical solution would be to shift the boundary of the jumpspot so that the footpath didn’t pass through it.

* Liability (primarily in the jump area) if dogs/children etc were hit by riders.

Finally a call was made for representatives of XC and jumpspot users to volunteer to join a new user group that will include horse riders, runners, walkers etc and seek to drive improvement for all. Apparently contact details for the relevant people will be circulated so that they can act as a conduit.

The Stockgrove country park reps were keen to propagate the idea that they are generally pro-cyclist (both jump spot and XC). In many cases they seem to support many of the ideas put forwards, but indicate that their hands are tied.

As mentioned by Blurboy the issue of becoming an ‘official’ MTB destination appears to be a point on which there is no real solution. The feeling from the cyclist side was that doing so would bring in more revenue that would support investment and management (more rangers etc), however the landowner isn’t keen on promotion of the site, perhaps, in part, due to the problems caused by the lack of management in the current environment.

My personal feeling is that the best way to move towards improving things is by working proactively with Stockgrove on a volunteer basis to bridge the management gap. If it can be demonstrated that MTBing can be developed in a manageable way then there may be a chance of selling the idea to the landowners. However, this would depend on getting sufficient commitment from a central core of users that were prepared to invest their time to support this.

The alternative is for things to continue as they are, in a fairly haphazard way. As was discussed at the meeting given the precedent of access it’s likely to be pretty much impossible for the landowners to enforce a future blanket ban for any user group, so a failure to move things forward wouldn’t necessarily lead to any change in the status quo – as oldgit says, whatever will be will be.

Still, fingers crossed that the user group manages to make some headway where similar attempts may have failed / fallen flat in the past.

Did anyone represent the people that are knocking up these so called ‘cheeky trails’ and north shore stuff? I expect not. As usual those adding to these issues rarely get involved.

I’ve for years belived the best option was to preserve what we had. It’s sad to see a trail get so erroded that a new one pops up next to it.

Well thats not as bad as it could have been.

Its seems a sad inevitability that with things like our forum, other forums and the growth of the sport, more and more use Woburn, all adding to the problems.

Did anyone represent the people that are knocking up these so called ‘cheeky trails’ and north shore stuff? I expect not. As usual those adding to these issues rarely get involved.

I’ve for years belived the best option was to preserve what we had. It’s sad to see a trail get so erroded that a new one pops up next to it.

The Stockgrove guys indicated that some of the alternative routes that have grown up parallel to existing multi-use trails are actually quite a positive thing (for them) as it cuts down on contention and keeps different user groups separate. However, they are concerned about damage to trees (roots etc being undermined/damaged) and ‘cheeky trails’ that are, for example, cutting through the SSSI area.

I suspect that there could be a sensible compromise whereby a (revised) set of routes is agreed. If ‘we’ as a community are prepared to support the maintenance of those routes then all the better – this would probably help to keep them open and keep them the way that ‘we’ want them. The discussion on signage was, in part, centred on making agreed routes clearer so that people knew what they could and couldn’t ride. This may also free up resource to collect permit revenue and police other areas to head off unauthorised developments elsewhere on site.

I agree, we’ve always tried to keep on top of Oak Wood, but I’m surprised at the work that’s been carried out recently.
Out of interest, where would I stand if I wanted to cut a path through a tree that had fallen across a well used trail. Not that I have, but that’s the sort of thing if left causes further errosion.
And some trails have dissapeared, when some ‘subtle’ drainage would have preserved them.

Eloquent reporting -M-, many thanks. The only other thing I recall from the Greensand’s guy was the stated intent to generally encourage the use of the area for recreational purposes, which I took to be a very positive thing.