Yes - and that bit in bold is not in line with the rest of what you say nor is it in line with what has happened here. Here the landowner has simply closed access indefinitely without having to show it was needed. that cannot happen in Scotland
I say it again . In Scotland this could not happen. That is the truth of the matter. Land owners cannot close off access on a whim, they cannot close of access for indefinite periods.
Its very different when you have to apply to the local authority for the closure and have to justify the closure presumption being that access remains at all times.
Its you that has missed my point completely. But you seem to want to berate me for something I have not said.
I've cut alot of windblown trees from local trails, the big ones have alot of power in them, easily enough to kill you if you're in the wrong place. The top is trying to fall over, the roots trying to pull it all back up.
TJ, what's the point in arguing, it's not in Scotland!
This seems like a classic case of needing to ask yourselves “do I trust this landowner?”
United Utilities own huge tracts of land which have concessionary public access - largely reservoir catchments. I can't see them having any particular desire to cease public access to macc forest in the long term.
I would imagine the perceived hazard are the trees currently teetering on the brink. Those which have already fallen are not the ones most likely to fall on your head. I would imagine UU's legal department are all over this like a rash.
Latest news from Keeper of the Peak (after phone conversation with the Woodland Officer)
https://kofthep.com/2018/03/16/macclesfield-forest-whats-going-on/
Are they just using it as an excuse to close/block trails, put up fences and **** everyone off?
Sorry, I do realise that I sound like a stuck record, but I keep seeing comments like this^, and we seem to established that the trails, by and large, aren't public rights of way, so can someone (anyone?) join the dots for me on this - if this is private land, not in Scotland, and the trails aren't ROWs, why would UU need an "excuse" if they wanted to close them down?
What was stopping them from fencing it all off before the storms, if that was what they wanted?
If some people have a shouty argument in a forest, do they make any sound?
cheers alexsimon, that is reassuring!
I guess panic stations were setting in as we've not experienced this before, glad to hear its going to be restored, I wonder if they mind shifting the trees in all the off piste whilst they are at it 😉
good news, guess its just going to take time (couldn't have happened at the start of winter, could it?! thank you final kick in the teeth of winter you cruel mistress 🙁 )
But money on it there will be a forest holiday village there by the time it reopens
i live east northants we had the snow and wind and lots of trees down in the woods 2 days all the rights of way were cleared
the rest was too wet to get on
Sorry, I do realise that I sound like a stuck record, but I keep seeing comments like this
So sorry. It was, in fact, a genuine question. You will note my use of a question mark to denote this.
Just a tip, if you go around looking to be offended, you will be offended.
Lighten up, buttercup.
if your desperate to do charity, then that’s still accessible anwyays with no trees in sight (just rock hard snow drifts, but hopefully cleared now)
The snow lingers for eternity down Charity. I’ll have to have a walk up and check out the damage from the permissible routes. I live on the road that leads up to the forest, but haven’t ridden there in a while. No MTB and a five month old 😕 sees to that.
I’d be gutted if they stopped access permanently. There is some great riding in and around that area. One of the reasons I agreed to buy the house we’re in. Mrs F loved it and decent riding on the doorstep swing it for me.
UU/FC have to get the machinery in to clear the fallen trees, this is not something they can do overnight. Its not really a working forest, the intensive felling over the last few years was the result of a survey that bought to the attention of UU/FC the poor state of the forest and the problems faced unless they felled trees intensively and relatively quickly.
Some selfish people here.
1. Its there so stop whinging, you have no right to be there except under sufferance or consideration.
Now that's the real answer.
2. A more sociable one is that the could be liable if a tree drops on your head and some lawyer has said so. That is more important than some one who wants a walk to them. I assume that we all know that the law may be an ass at times but a large company cannot negotiate with each individual who wants to play can they?
3. Why complain about 2 weeks? Its nothing. It might take that to get a contractor in. Many are busy now, their contracted one might be tied up and not able to do a big job and putting it out to tender isn't likely at short notice. Also its not in their interest to do so is it. For a start, it could damn well snow again. Better to wait until spring is properly here and do it once.
Maybe try and pretend its coming out of your pocket and be reasonable about it rather than come across as a bunch of selfish types who show no respect. Sadly that's what has to happen.
<div class="bbp-reply-author">
AlexSimon
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Subscriber</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">Latest news from Keeper of the Peak (after phone conversation with the Woodland Officer)
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
Macclesfield Forest – what’s going on?
</div>
Thanks, Alex and KOTP for bringing some sense to this discussion. Macc Forest is major leisure hub for walkers, runners, horseriders as well as Mountain bikers. Apart from one section that's about 1km long and the downhill course, there are no official dedicated mountain bike routes 95% of folks cycle on the shared paths and bridleways. There is no way that UU is going to close those paths and anyone that lives or uses the area would understand that. But i suppose they could be more proactive in taking out the unofficial trails or closing the downhill track, if it is seen that MTB's are ignoring the closures.
The Forest has been decimated and as someone who spends a significant proportion of my leisure time in the forest it's not great, but it's not as if it the rest of the Peak District has nowhere else to mountain bike or run in is it, whilst they sort it out.
Knowing the state the unofficial trails get in in winter, a few months with people not trashing them should leave them in a better state come summer.
The climb up hacked way to Charity lane is ok. Not easy but good training and more interesting than the section that’s closed off.
”There is no way that UU is going to close those paths and anyone that lives or uses the area would understand that”
There is every chance this could happen. I know it’s a consideration and know plenty rangers and people with a idea what’s happening. Anyone with a ear to the ground understands. The deer are a problem and they cannot have a proper deer cull as they cannot be sure the areas are clear to shoot. People are just roaming where they want. It’s private land, most people don’t seem to grasp this.
Update in the local paper today... 6,000 mature trees uprooted and damaged, but they’re starting to reopen parts of the forest.
update for everyone
the footpaths have been closed with the councils permission as dangerous(yes they can close them reading comments above)
12000 trees are down and more ready to fall, Contractors have had to be used as UU dont have their own way to remove trees. progress is slow as langley village restricts lorry sizes moving trees off site.
pine trees are not deep rooted so unstable ground made it dangerous. so mtb track/bridgeways are dangerous due to trees being uprooting, making ground below unstable, so track unstable
parts of forest have been opened. these are mostly foot paths, not the mtb and bridgeways.
they are concentrating on one area at a time.
tracks above leather smithy(below charity lane are closed even though idiots ignore the signs and climb over the gate which rangers and police aware of)
UU control alot of our forests including teh one on Country File on sunday in Cumbria, and although we all benefit from these nice mtb routes, we have to remember its private land, not public and we have no right to be their, unless they allow it(just like them riding in your garden)
they are working hard to sort it, but im told some routes might be shut for months not weeks, as too many trees affected
just like them riding in your garden
No, not really like them riding in my garden at all. My garden closely surrounds my private residence. UU land generally speaking used to belong to the public until the Tories privatised the water boards, and is rarely near any residence.
No, not really like them riding in my garden at all. My garden closely surrounds my private residence. UU land generally speaking used to belong to the public until the Tories privatised the water boards, and is rarely near any residence.
That’s the wrong answer. You’re supposed to doff your cap and accept that private companies own the land and can restrict access ‘for your safety’.
Anyway, 12,000 trees fallen? Even taking into account that it’s a mature plantation that sounds a lot but probably isn’t. (It’s about 5% of my local planted woodland.) If true, why weren’t UU actively managing the place to prevent that amount of damage? Winter storms are hardly an unusual occurrence.
(My thought process here is that if anyone was going to be hurt by a tree it would likely be during the storm, less likely afterwards. Is it cheaper/better to close a forest and manage it later or to realise that many of these trees were reaching a point that they’d fall during any high wind so needed to be managed prior to falling? Or are we getting to the point that UU will close any mature forest in the run up to any winter storm in case someone is hurt.)
