Forum menu
A small request for help. Surrey Hills AONB has a committee called the Working group on Mountain biking. The overall aim is to assist in the mangement of the massive growth in Mountain Biking in the Surrey Hills. Bikers, Landowners, local businesses, the FC, British Wildlife etc are all represented. Some fantastic progress has all ready been made and the benefits to the MTB community are many and growing all the time. Grants have been allocated, new potential trail corridors identified and much more besides. One issue is however proving a real stumbling block in getting the buy in of one of the major landowners. The contiued use of two particular footpaths on his land by riders is continually sited as a reasen not to engage more fully. In particular it is regular night rides that seem to be the most visible users. PLEASE help by choosing a different route and keeping off these footpaths,(and footpaths in general). The landonwer rightly feels if bikers can's self regulate themselves then why should he do anything for them. There are litterally hundereds of miles of sweet sigle track to use and just avioding footpaths will ensure that the quality and variety is improved. The two foot paths that are a particular bone of contention are - Footpath 18 which runs from Abinger Common by the school near the Abinger Hatch to Hollow Lane by Chandlers Farm. The other one mentioned isn't on the definitive Map but is shown on the OS linking Sheephouse Green with Footpath 120 behind the Wotton Hatch. Please help to ensure that the actions of a few don't stand in the way of progress for the vast majority. Thank you in advance and please spread the word. If you see people riding it please let them know that they are affecting things up for the rest of us.
I'm intrigued by this and keen to know more of the background. Ordinarily I'm very supportive of requests to restrict usage because as a long-term user of the area I recongise the long-term benefits (note to self - must renew membership of Hurtwood Friends).
I've never used these particular footpaths but regularly ride other footpaths in the area, using my judgement as to what time of day I'm willing to ride them, and at what speed, based on the likelyhood of coming into conflict with walkers. Whenever I do meet them, I make sure I am polite and give way. There are some footpaths which I wouldn't ride, however, or restrict to nightrides, based on their narrowness which could result in some problems with walkers if met.
Looking at these footpaths on the map, I'm interested in why the landowner is so concerned / agrieved. It looks to me like they are pretty wide, do not run through ecologically sensitive areas, and are not on particularly steep ground, therefore ruling out the usual issues of risk of accident with walkers, damage to wildlife, and excessive errosion.
Also from the map, I'm assuming the landowner is the Wotton Estate - an estate which makes very clear that it doesn't want outdoors users anywhere on it's estate judging by it's keen use of "Private" signs.
Based on this, it would seem this is more a case of "Get orrf my land" - something that's backed up by the observation that it's mainly night-riders that are the issue.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not an advocate of riding stuff just to upset the landowner, but I'm not convinced that a few nightriders stopping using some broad footpaths will result in the Wotton Estate welcoming bikers with open arms onto it's land and allow us to create stunning bits of singletrack!
As I say - am keen to know more of the background.
If not using these two paths means the Wotton Estate are going to build us some sweet singletrack then I am all for it but I tend to agree with heihei.
I can't believe that the second path you mention sees much traffic at all. there are other footpaths on the estate that I would say see higher volumes of bike traffic.
These are the two that get mentioned at every meeting. Residents, users or others raise the point to the landowner and he then uses it in his defense of his current stance. The fact that you feel it's wide enough or doesn't get the volume of traffic is irrelevant. a) It's a footpath b)It's causing issues. Whetehr you meet someone on it or not riders still get seen on it. In particular the lights at night get noticed, then reported to the landowner adding fuel to his fire that MTBers generally have no respect for where they ride. Yes there are many other FP's that you might ride that go unnoticed but that doesn't make it right to do so or add any weight to a discussion about the two in partuicular. I am sure that the landowbner would be much happier that no fp's were ridden.
I was hoping for some slighty more helpful positive & productive responses so that I could go to the meeting tomorrow and say 'yup, the issue has been raised and people now aware that they are causing an issue will avoid it'.
Not an unreasonable request - there might be many reasons for singling these two out. The one that runs to Hollow Lane is nicely downhill and any cyclist will tend to go fairly fast there. Also, if you live in Hollow Lane there are only two places where you can walk out (the other being down the other end and very very muddy).
The other path (if I guess correctly) is the one that goes down to Damphurst and has always been a point of contention. Again, it is downhill, and again there aren't many alternative paths. Also, if you're riding on that one you are almost certain to have ridden the footpath right past the land owners front door!
So why not take the request at face value? You don't need to nit-pick - just keep off these and let's see if we can move forward. It will certainly be a long haul, but without compromising a little bit it will never go anywhere.
Oh yes - night riding. Both those paths have houses at the end and I'm sure that the residents don't much appreciate being lit up and disturbed every time a group of night riders come rolling down.
Oh yes - night riding. Both those paths have houses at the end and I'm sure that the residents don't much appreciate being lit up and disturbed every time a group of night riders come rolling down.
Unlike cars driving past......
As I said above, I'm genuinely interested in the background to this. I get the point that there is significant value in having bikers complying with a request to stay off a certain path and in a sensitive area like the Surrey Hills is justification enough to comply. I was simply making a point that this would seem to be a landowner that clearly objects to outdoors users being on their land and is unlikely to change this position based on whether or not a few nightriders stop using the footpaths.
Above and beyond that, we end up in a discussion about whether or not footpaths are fair game for bikers, which has been done to death so I don't intend to reopen. However, for the sake of disclosure, I assume neither of you use footpaths as part of your guiding?
Never used the second one mentioned and rarely the first. Happy to oblige though and will point out to riding buddies. might be worth asking at HFTH and Nirvana and seeing if they will put notice up?
pretty nit picking of the guy TBH. I don't know the area your talking about but I have enjoyed riding around Surrey Hills. I dont ride footpaths but with land for leisure becoming ever smaller I think it all needs a big rethink. I support the right to roam not the right of a small minority of well off landowners to moan about people using small bits of the land for recreation.
Of course we don't guide on footpaths - why would we do that? We are lucky enough to be right on the Hurtwood, with the progressive-thinking land owner there, so we use fireroads to go up and the legacy network of singletrack to descend, in the main.
Car headlights do come along Hollow Lane, but they don't shine in the back of Chandlers Farm, and neither do car headlights coming down "Slippery Sam" shine into the windows of Damphurst.
Getting better access to more of the land (particularly Leith Hill) is what this is all about. I tend to agree that this is all a bit of long shot, but I can't see any reason to give back more of the very attitude that the anti-biking crowd think we are full of in the first place.
Cheers for the cooperation.
Cheers for the cooperation.
Did any part of my email suggest I wouldn't co-operate? In fact...
I get the point that there is significant value in having bikers complying with a request to stay off a certain path and in a sensitive area like the Surrey Hills is justification enough to comply.
I was simply stating the other side of the debate, without which I suspect this thread would have died long ago. I would also respectfully observe that as two people who make a living out of introducing yet more bikers to the area, you have more of a vested interest in this than the rest of us.
I'll be watching this, as it seems us Woburn riders will need to do some work to keep access open.
See my Woburn Trails under threat post.
Please help to ensure that the actions of a few don't stand in the way of progress for the vast majority.
in fact the landowner is using this as an excuse if the "vast majority" are behaving themselves. His supposed reason doesn't stand up.
I was hoping for some slighty more helpful positive & productive responses
it's simple, if you predicate your plan on everyone conforming then you are bound to fail, as there are always some who will go their own way
Did any part of my email suggest I wouldn't co-operate? In fact...
You misread - I wasn't being sarcastic! I meant [i]genuine[/i] thanks!
AllBikedUp do attract bikers, true. We also ride to a strict code. And contribute widely to the positive initiatives.
My vested interest in smoothing any potential path for cyclists' rights of way is way more ingrained than you appreciate. I have always lived here (actually in the middle of the Wotton Estate), have always cycled for enjoyment and for transport, and I want my kids to have the same opportunity.
Which is why he wrote [b]some[/b] more positive responses. No-one expects total unanimity, especially among mountain bikers - which is a bit like herding cats!it's simple, if you predicate your plan on everyone conforming then you are bound to fail, as there are always some who will go their own way
You misread - I wasn't being sarcastic! I meant genuine thanks!
Oops! Sorry I took it the wrong way!
I also recognise that, based on what I've read on this forum, you put a lot back into the area for both bikers and the broader users.
On a related subject, I noted with interest that the Hurtwood Estate are selling some land (approx 120 acres) over on Winterfold. To my knowledge there is only one trail there (the 3 bombholes), but will be interesting to see who buys it and any impact on access.