Forum menu
So the council have started cracking down on the massive digging activity at my local.
For context, I live in SW London, and it is a forest owned by the National Trust on loan to Richmond Council. The jumps have been there since 2009 but recently there has been a flurry of activity with lots of peopl building and riding the jumps. These have been great fun and have improved my skills and confidence a lot.
Now, the not so great part.
The council has picked up on this and the environmental board is not happy. Last week, all the jumps were knocked down and berms flattened etc. This made a lot of 11-14 year olds not very happy at all. On came yesterday, and 25 people with shovels came down and rebuilt it all within a matter of hours.
Then a disgruntled older lady who I had never met before but seemed to have a reputation for being unhappy came down to the jumps and started taking pix of all of the jumps and argued that people could fall over them in the dark and that it was very expensive to repair (1000s of pounds).
The issue is that there will always be a demand for more jumps and a ready supply of boys with shovels geared up to make new jumps. I was wondering if anyone has had a similar situation and managed to resolve it? We are drafting a letter to the council at the mo but doesn't look super promising.
TIA.
Its vandalism pure and simple.
Where is that? Never heard of jumps in London.
It’s a very tough balancing act. If it wasn’t for so called activist trail builders there would be very few trails with features to build skills on in the UK. It’s working out where there is genuine danger and concern vs bored people with no hobbies and too much time on their hands.
If you do not have the landowners permission its both illegal and stupid. It will end up with the whole area being fenced off.
they are not "activist trail builders" they are antisocial vandals. Its not just the danger - its the disturbance to wildlife.
I'm not condoning it, just trying to find a solution and save the local
It's east sheen common.
It’s working out where there is genuine danger and concern
Yes unfortunately as with many youths health and safety isn't at the forfront of their minds. If we do manage to come to an agreement I think there would have to be a scaling down of difficulty.
Lots of trail builders out there doing a great job. The pandemic has really shown the huge demand there is on our limited spaces, especially in the high population density areas. I can't help with specifics for dealing with the council but there are plenty of experienced people on here who have done it and can. If you end with a petition stick a link on here and I'll happily sign it.
See my edit above - its not just danger the disturbance to wildlife from tree root damage to bluebells to badgers
the solution is to get landowners permission.
See my edit above – its not just danger the disturbance to wildlife from tree root damage to bluebells to badgers
the solution is to get landowners permission.
Eh. That makes no sense at all. It's either disturbing nature or it's not. Whether the landowner gives permission has no bearing on that.
the landowner will ( should?) Know the land and where is OK to build.
We had this on corstoprhine hill in Edinburgh - there was agreement that two areas could be used for jump building but the builders continued to build in other areas. caused a lot of strife when they built jumps on a badger sett and used concrete to build features. Came close to stopping any trail building
There is a great podcast here on the issue of ownership.
https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/21-03-20/?mc_cid=0b35a11523#Michael-Shermer-Show
National trust/Richmond council, we own it don't we?
It is a sign that the council are not considering the local kids needs, all power to them.
Yea, kinda have to agree with TJ on this one, if there's any sort of protection (SSSI etc or just the T&C's of the lease say it can't be developed) for the land it might be even harder.
Local trails to me were flattened last year after local complaints. The (big) kids were grown up about it, got organized, formed a group, negotiated for use of the land, and produced T-shirts and hoodies which were sold to pay for liability insurance.
Maybe take it as an opportunity to get organized and teach the kids it's not ok to just take what they want?
From this:
To this:
To this:
Is that at Wisley? Looks familiar
Fox Hill (I had the ">" wrong on the t-shirt image which probably made it harder to tell 🤣).
5plusn8
Free Member
Quote
There is a great podcast here on the issue of ownership.
https://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/21-03-20/?mc_cid=0b35a11523#Michael-Shermer-ShowNational trust/Richmond council, we own it don’t we?
It is a sign that the council are not considering the local kids needs, all power to them.
Will they be applying the Freemen defense too?
Yes I didn't really think about liability insurance aswell - seems like a whole new can of worms.
The organisation bit is good if you can make it happen. Gofundme for any planning / liability insurance etc...
To put it into context:
This is basically on of the richest residential areas on the verge of central London. Any kids whose parents can afford to live there have a min £1m house with plenty of spare cash to help their kids out with their new hobby.
There are plenty of other parks and wildlife sanctuaries around for people that want that kind of thing. E.g Richmond, Bushy, London WL centre.
What the area has zero of is anything MTB related for kids to enjoy instead of sitting at home all day on Netflix.
See my edit above – its not just danger the disturbance to wildlife from tree root damage to bluebells to badgers
the solution is to get landowners permission.
How can permission solve disturbance to badgers and damage to vegetable matter? Asking for a stripey-faced friend.
there would be very few trails with features to build skills
What all the FC and private trail center, pump tracks, skate parks and long distance trails across the country, yeah absolutely nowhere to hone skills (do massive jumps count as skills training).
National trust/Richmond council, we own it don’t we?
He'll no, the National Trust is a private organisation independent of government, private land owner like any other, except they have specific bylaws which can make things a criminal offence that would otherwise be civil. Even if the government own the land you only have access rights if they have been granted, same with FC land although the FC are often tenants not the land owner.
I just don't get this belief that its acceptable, even morally right to go and destroy someone else's property. What the 14 year olds want is irrelevant in this context. As for engaging with the council, good luck, the local diggers have already pissed them off and getting something down even when a council is willing is tedious. Are the diggers going to stump up money for insurance, risk assessments etc., thought not. In this case it's not just the council, it's the NT as well, they will set the tenancy agreements for the council and haven't exactly caught the cycling bug.
If all the above seems a bit harsh, tough, that's the way the it works in this country. You need to understand it before you go ploughing in head first and destroy any little goodwill there may have originally been.
PS I'm a long term trail builder, just do it the right way with the FC, our volunteer efforts have significantly increased our local trail centre and resulted in additioanl funding that otherwise wouldnt have been forth coming.
massive digging activity at my local.
This is the bit that seems the biggest problem to me. Someone furtively clearing a trail is one thing, having a huge crew digging up massive mounds of dirt after being told that they do not have permission is just asking for trouble. How do they think it's going to end?
How can permission solve disturbance to badgers and damage to vegetable matter? Asking for a stripey-faced friend.
Me: I would like to punch you in the face
You: I'd rather you didn't, but there's a punchbag over there you could punch instead.
Me: Ok
Net result - I'm happy, and the badger doesn't get punched in the face.
"This is basically on of the richest residential areas on the verge of central London. Any kids whose parents can afford to live there have a min £1m house with plenty of spare cash to help their kids out with their new hobby."
This is making amassive, and ill-informed assumption about ALL kids who might use a facility in a particular area. I know for a fact, many younger riders travel across London to get to popular skate parks, BMX tracks etc, so to suggest it's just the 'rich kids', is actually quite prejudicial. You haven't got a clue about the economics of anyone involved.
All power to the kids, I say. As for those saying 'it's vandalism'; get a life, grandad! Stuff like this has far less environmental impact than many things, including roads for people to drive cars on, so they can access the countryside...
How can permission solve disturbance to badgers and damage to vegetable matter? Asking for a stripey-faced friend.
TJs point (I think) is that by working with the landowners you would be told not to dig where there is a Badger set and (hopefully) pointed towards a location where no stripey faced barstads are in situ.
Fear of litigation.
That’s why illegal jumps get knocked down. I fully hear the arguments for but at the end of the day the landowner will be liable for any accidents on their land. Regardless of whether they gave permission or not. If they give permission & they are built with the landowners involvement then insurance can be sought. Everybody is happy.
But if not? Well, one can hardly blame a landowner for wanting to cover their ass from litigious actions.
It’s not rocket science.
How can permission solve disturbance to badgers and damage to vegetable matter? Asking for a stripey-faced friend.
As in my other post - the landowner will ( should?) know if there are any particularly sensitive areas and thus direct you to OK areas
Go to the area, sit in any of the parks for just 10 mins and then tell me this is ill informed.
This maybe kids travelling from say Chelsea, Richmond, Barnes, it’s certainly not what you are thinking.
I also don’t get how it’s prejudicial to state that the local kids probably have the resources to help them if needs be?
Net net my view is this could be turned into something win win for the community that is seriously lacking this kind of thing. I think the closest outside of this is East London Olympics area and say Swinley.
It’s a difficult one.
Gives people stuff to do, but then it’s woodland so annoys people near by.
Increases the workload for local hospitals significantly.
Even ‘approved’ trail areas significantly increase footfall to hospitals
All power to the kids, I say. As for those saying ‘it’s vandalism’; get a life, grandad!
Can I come round to your house redecorate your house and dig up the garden?
apart from anything else illegal trail building puts peoples backs up
apart from anything else illegal trail building puts peoples backs up
Exactly.
Can I come round to your house redecorate your house and dig up the garden?
Could you do the downstairs loo first please then a couple of berms and a step down in the garden would be ace.
"Can I come round to your house redecorate your house and dig up the garden?"
Ooh yes please! Covid has meant we haven't been able to get anyone in to do the decorating, and it's well overdue. And the garden's a mess too, but please; I wouldn't want you to put your back out, or worse, keel over. That would be awkward explaining to the authorities.
"apart from anything else illegal trail building puts peoples backs up"
Are you aware that we have illegal activity (trespass) to thank for why we can now go riding our bikes in the countryside? Plus; graffiti art, the Civil Rights movement, etc. Back to your pipe and slippers and Daily Mail! 😉
apart from anything else
illegal trail buildingpeople on bicycles puts peoples backs up
FTFY
Forest isn't quite the phrase I'd use for East Sheen common.. couple of hundred of square metres of woods on the north edge of Richmond Park slap bang in residential West London. So a bunch of digging is always going to attract negative attention. Subtlety would be your best approach
Didn't we have exactly this discussion across several pages like a week ago?
The argument is simple, the answer slightly more complicated. Do we go what is good, or what is right?
It's fantastic that people are coming together as a community to build something cool that kids and adults alike can enjoy. Of course it is.
But it's not their land.
So any arguments to the contrary is just whataboutery. As TJ says, if you're not using your garden can I plant some cabbages? I'll park on your driveway of course, you're not using that either.
It's curious how morals go out of the window when it's in people's favour. There were arguments last time about people having massive gardens or owning lots of land and it's 'not fair'. Which is the same justification people use for keying cars. Cheeky trail in the afternoon, borrow a cheeky BMW to get home.
All that work, all that time, and not one person involved thought to seek permission first? Why? Because they knew they'd get told 'no'? There's your answer, if so. Get permission, you can stick it up the old dear's nose next time she comes sniffing around with nothing better to do.
I spent 7 years trying to work with the Forestry Commission to get some legitimate trails built in Lordswood, Southampton. We eventually got the go ahead from the local ranger but then a couple of weeks in we got told to stop as it is leased land and there is a clause to discourage public access.
We tried 'rhododendron clearing' parties and 'erosion prevention work' (Trails and Jumps) but were eventually told to stop everything which is when I went off and created Southampton Bike Park.
A few years later I discovered it was a lady who lived near Lordswood and regularly walked her dog in the woods who had been sending the letters to the FC legal team in Scotland threatening them about breaching the terms of the lease. The same lady whop had been caught red handed putting sticks across trails at neck height just round blind bends on trails 'because the riders should slow down anyway for the corners'.
graffiti art,
But for every Banksy there's a hundred like the local artist where I used to live who specialised in anatomically questionable Cock 'n' Balls. Which is exactly what I want to see out of my back yard on a neighbour's wall.
Best way to resolve? Form a trail association, engage with the stakeholders and put together a proposal for a development.
Once you've got permission, build a risk assessed and risk managed set of jumps that are insurable.
we have illegal activity (trespass)
More uninformed blather, trespass is not illegal (at the moment) and is a country mile away from digging jumps. If I trespass you wouldn't know I'd been there when I'd left (which is why no cyclcist has been sued for trespass).
WCA the lease thing may have some legs even if it was dredged up by some nasty nimby. My local forest has been a bit the same, when the land owner (United Utilities) woke up to the fact the trails had become successful they suddenly started to get awkward with the lease and saw it as an opportunity to make money. It doesn't help the FC is so spread out, were lucky our local beat forester is very pro trail building and tends to ask for forgiveness later.
Collaborate. This document has opened some doors for us.
I’d put my money on this being a single bored NIMBY dog walker from a mile away with too much time on their hands.
To the OP - Try and get one of the local private schools / Unis to get involved and back it. Would go nicely with the local rowing clubs. Make sure one of the jumps is gravel bike friendly, another kid friendly and you will quickly get local support.
Who owns the land with the jumps near Teddington Lock? Wonder if there’s some precedent there..?
I've just got home from visiting a jump site that we built with permission after a long history of build/destroy. Its on council land.
We came up with a plan to build without gaps and to make it beginner friendly but big enough for people to learn. They were cool with that and it hasn't cost them a penny. We have had to remove unwanted building twice but thats part of the deal.
Now they are aware of it, its your only sensible choice.
I also build less legitimate trails and features but I stay subtle, avoid damage and accept that if the landowner doesn't want them then thats that. This has never happened though yet, because I think carefully before I start, and don't move tonnes of dirt...
There is a spot near me that is going through that cycle where they are taking the piss so its now living on borrowed time. Started small but its growing every weekend.
You need to try and find out who at the council manages that bit of the land and get a site meeting with them, get them to explain their concerns - could be liability, environmental, complaints from others etc and then talk to them about what might be possible and what the limitations of that might be.
Many spots have been lost before by folk digging up and adding lots of new trails in areas where trails have been for years. Adding more and more trails in an area seems to be a common thing of late, wanting more and more but it doesn't make things better generally and is a short sighted view.
Looking at some of these responses, have you actuallu looked at where East Sheen common is? You can always go another hundred metres and build in Richmond Park
What SteveH says. Its certainly possible to find a solution. The nearest trail to my house, in the middle of a city is a proper scary jump line. All council approved and above board, but run by volunteers who do the digging and the riding. There's a lockable bar across the start drop in, but other than that it's open access and right next to a busy bridleway. Its always looked after, there's never any rubbish and it doesn't get (ab)used by dicks.
The difference to most places is that it being in Sheffield with its "The Outdoor City" tagline - there's plenty of people on the council who get action sports, can rationalise it to non-believers in economic grounds (tourist trade) and are prepared to listen and figure out a way to make stuff happen. Funny old world, the same guy who allows Monkey Bumps to exist is also behind the Lady Cannings mtb trails...
Wbo, I have a feeling that Richmond park is Crown Estate, whereas the East Sheen trails are on common land.
It's tough and drawn out enough negotiating with the local council, I'm not sure that digging in Richmond park would lead to any form of future agreement between bikers and the royal parks management agency.