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.
