Forum menu
I'm struggling to see anyone being prepared to give you permission to build a trail that close to the road. Cycle path maybe, jump line, no chance.
I also think you're onto a loser if you're planning anything on a site with byelaws against cycling, immediately moves you out of civil law into criminal (although you'd already have crossed from trespass to criminal damage if there was any significant building).
Good luck but don't hold your breath.
PS given any thought to long term maintenance, construction methods etc.? If by some fluke they do engage they will have lots of questions, you need to be prepared.
the parks patrol came down and started telling people to stop riding or risk a 60 pound fine.
...
I don’t want to risk a fine or even getting my name taken down.
How's that going to work? "That'll be £60." Sorry squire, no money on me. "Right, I'm taking your name and address." B Johnson, 10 Downing Street, London. "Got any ID?" No. Tatty bye!
Sounds to me an awful lot like they made up the fine idea to try and discourage you. Who do they work for, the council?
of course they have if you are doing something against the law.
The police don't have the authority to randomly take your details unless they're detaining you, let alone a glorified gardener.
@tjagain were talking about park patrol not the police. The police can take your details if you are under caution. If your not under caution you can just walk away and they can't do anything.
Sorry I missed it was park patrol
As regards the police - then they simply caution you.
I very much doubt with the amount the police budget has been cut in the last 10 years that the police will be on patrol with the overzealous park patrol (council). I'd imagine with the serious amount of knife/gang crime in London the police will be focusing their time on these criminals opposed to some kids building jumps on private land.
Not really holding my breath on anything at the moment unfortunately.
given any thought to long term maintenance, construction methods etc.? If by some fluke they do engage they will have lots of questions, you need to be prepared.
In quite a naive way, no I haven't thought of that. Really I'm just seeing if there is a chance and if there is then I will have to go away and create a really good plan.
I’m struggling to see anyone being prepared to give you permission to build a trail that close to the road. Cycle path maybe, jump line, no chance.
It's hard to see in the photos but there is atlease 15m between the road and the wall, and a large line of trees seperating it. It gets thinner the lower you go down the road so the features would have to stop sooner.
Looking at starting a petition and I am wondering where to do it - maybe change.org or gov.uk? Really looking for the one that would be noticed the most by the council.
There has been a nextdoor post posted by a mother of one of the children who rides on the common:
Seems to be quite a lot of support.
Went there today and conditions where very good, even learnt how to whip finally. Unfortunately most jumps have been taken down so I had to make do.
Seems to be quite a lot of support.
There always is when somebody else needs to do something
Unless you find a few adults to take a lead and bridge between riders and the council it's going nowhere
Signing a petition asking for others to do something, fill your boots, they'll still flatten the jumps
Obvioulsy the petition is not even going to be close to resolving the issue. I just want it to be a gauge to measure the support for the legitimisation of building trails in the area. Also a way to mark the start of a campaign to change rules in the area.
Some well written letters and planning will give us the best chance I think. Richmond council doesn't really care about the interests of children as that is not who is voting for them so we need to show there is support from all ages.
Some well written letters and planning will give us the best chance I think.
Well written letters saying something must be done by someone else will give you give you two hopes, unfortunately Bob is dead
Unless you can find someone the council can work with who the diggers will listen to how on earth do you expect the council with their duty of care responsibilities to sign off on anything?
Article just came out on LBC:
The council say they are clamping down on any digging in the park, however Diana says her son was not doing this and only used what was there in the park already.
Similarly, James said he and his daughter were just cycling, adding: “We are not shovelers - it is too much like hard work.”
Richmond Council response
A spokesperson for the Richmond Council Parks Service told LBC: “Responsible cycling on designated paths is not only allowed but is a great form of exercise, however there has been a recent issue with some users digging in the woodland area of Sheen Common to create off-road trails with ramps and dips."This activity is damaging to this important habitat and presents a risk to other users and is therefore not permitted. Anyone causing damage to the common could be fined as a result.
"Parkguard patrol are responsible for making sure park users, including children, know that cycling is only allowed on designated paths and ensuring that the public are aware of any fines that could be enforced under the council’s PSPO.”
belgianwaffle1
Free Member
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.
No, it doesn't. Your gang of kids with shovels has zero chance of getting permission now. They have put themselves in the position of being outlaws with nobody willing to publicly support them.
Reasonably positive LBC article. The council come off pretty badly. Sounds like they'd be more amenable if they had a few more complaints about dog walkers to even up the numbers
Reasonably positive LBC article.
Not really. The council has said that cycling on the main paths isn't a problem, but that they are concerned about unauthorized digging. The cyclists quoted denied having anything to do with digging. Nobody is willing to come out and publicly support the kids who were doing the digging. The OP wanted to know how to get permission for digging. Having nobody willing to publicly advocate for digging means that there is zero chance of getting permission for it.
Reasonably positive LBC article. The council come off pretty badly. Sounds like they’d be more amenable if they had a few more complaints about dog walkers to even up the numbers
Unfortunately dog walkers vote and tend to get very ranty when they can't take Fenton wherever they want. Kids who don't vote and can't find an adult to talk to the council are going to struggle
Just how is this any issue what so ever? If the owner wishes something to happen then thats that. Unless there is legislation to say otherwise. Anything else is pure selfish greed.
Not really.
You've obviously not read many other articles about cycling in the local press. That really does count as reasonably positive
Yeah I must say this is a bit dissapointing that no adult is coming out in full support (as @big_n_daft predicted).
The council say they are clamping down on any digging in the park, however Diana says her son was not doing this and only used what was there in the park already.
This is untrue as I know the guy. Don't know why she didn't have the balls to just admit it and move forwards.
Seems like a bit of a dead end at the moment.
Just how is this any issue what so ever? If the owner wishes something to happen then thats that. Unless there is legislation to say otherwise. Anything else is pure selfish greed.
To be fair it's probably kids being kids and it's gone to far, there is lots to be said for encouraging healthy outdoor activities as a diversion from other more problematic things to occupy their time. The question is whether this is the right place, can be brought under a semblance of control and can stakeholders be appeased. All it takes is one person 18+ who is prepared to step up and enter a dialogue. It may not work but it's worth trying
pure selfish greed.
There are vast areas of the UK that are completely out of bounds to the general public as they are privately owned, a lot of the time by extremely rich people who rarely set foot on said land. Perfect example is a lot of the moors on the eastern Pennines, lots of it is owned by Arab royals who turn up in their chauffeur driven Range Rovers to shoot grouse for a few weeks a year and because of this no one else is allowed to ride bikes or horses at any time, this is 'pure selfish greed' by my definition, kids building dirt jumps is definitely NOT, its kids being kids. As far as building jumps in South London goes I can't offer any helpful advice but wish op the best of luck, you would think anything that helps steer kids away from gangs/crime would be a no brainer these days
Who is actually threatening fines? A private security firm? I'm not sure of the relevant law, but might it actually be an offence of some kind, to demand money, especially from children, for something I'm not sure even the park's owners are legally allowed to do?
Good LBC article. More power to the kidz!
There are vast areas of the UK that are completely out of bounds to the general public as they are privately owned, a lot of the time by extremely rich people who rarely set foot on said land. Perfect example is a lot of the moors on the eastern Pennines, lots of it is owned by ....s who turn up in their chauffeur driven Range Rovers to shoot grouse for a few weeks a year and because of this no one else is allowed to ride bikes or horses at any time, this is ‘pure selfish greed’ by my definition
Their nationality/ethnic origin/whatever is irrelevant, plenty of home-grown *s who 'own' land, but I agree with that 100%. It's not farmland, responsible and careful use harms nobody, and restricting it's access is just privileged selfish *ishness.
It looks like Richmond Council are paying a private firm 'Parkguard' to enforce rules.
I don't know what they can or cannot enforce really, so I can't comment on that.
Their nationality/ethnic origin/whatever is irrelevant, plenty of home-grown ****s who ‘own’ land
Agreed
I don’t know what they can or cannot enforce really, so I can’t comment on that.
The council has the power to levy fines, they devolve that to their agents who may or may not be directly employees
This is untrue as I know the guy. Don’t know why she didn’t have the balls to just admit it and move forwards.
Because that "moving forwards" would involve paying the fine for the offence that she just admitted to. I think you'll find other parents will do exactly the same thing - tell their kids to shut up and say it wasn't them.
There are vast areas of the UK that are completely out of bounds to the general public as they are privately owned, a lot of the time by extremely rich people who rarely set foot on said land.
So it's OK to help yourself to someone else's property so long as they're rich then? Guy down the road has half a dozen cars, he can't possibly use them all at once so it's OK if I take one of them?
My back yard is privately owned and I rarely set foot in it other than to cross it to put the bins out. Reckon it's fair game to kick my back gate down and build a skate park in there cos I'm not using it?
"They rarely set foot on it" - well tough shit, it's still theirs and not yours. Go buy some land yourself or negotiate renting it from the owner. Like many people, I live in a leasehold property and I have to pay a nominal fee per year for rental of the land upon which this house has stood for nearly 130 years. The property developer didn't just go "well **** it, they've got a lot of land they aren't using" and rock up with several barrowloads of bricks and a trowel.
You can argue the injustice and inequality of UK land ownership all you like and I'd absolutely agree with you, it's shit that we don't have access to this land and in many cases we surely should. But that doesn't give you carte blanche to steal it.
Who is actually threatening fines? A private security firm?
Private security firms cannot issue fines, this is why parking infractions are now 'charges'. The only people who can issue fines are councils (or companies acting at their direction) and courts.
In this case if someone is threatening a spot fine then it's either a) on behalf of the council, b) unlawful or c) a lie.
You can argue the injustice and inequality of UK land ownership all you like and I’d absolutely agree with you, it’s shit that we don’t have access to this land and in many cases we surely should. But that doesn’t give you carte blanche to steal it.
Its not stealing it to walk or cycle across it and remember the Kinder trespass. At some points civil disobedience is morally correct
However that only app;lies if yo are doing no damage not if you are digging trails
My back yard is privately owned and I rarely set foot in it other than to cross it to put the bins out. Reckon it’s fair game to kick my back gate down and build a skate park in there cos I’m not using it?
No, the example I used was following a 'conversation' with a gamekeeper who'd chased me about half a mile on a 4wd quad bike because I was riding a bike on a rarely used footpath across a grouse moor miles from civilisation (and caused far more damage and disturbance than I had in the process). Perfectly ok to walk down it but not ride a bike. I am well aware that riding on a footpath over a grouse moor and digging dirt jumps in South London are totally different circumstances and wasn't commenting on the op's ideas/plans/digging, more about kids being called selfish and greedy for trying to have fun
So it’s OK to help yourself to someone else’s property so long as they’re rich then? Guy down the road has half a dozen cars, he can’t possibly use them all at once so it’s OK if I take one of them?
You can argue the injustice and inequality of UK land ownership all you like and I’d absolutely agree with you, it’s shit that we don’t have access to this land and in many cases we surely should. But that doesn’t give you carte blanche to steal it.
The difference here, is that one example is actually stealing, theft as defined in law; the other isn't. Because you're not depriving the 'owner' of their property, or preventing them from accessing and enjoying, it. It is well worth looking at how private land was first obtained; invariably through force and extortion. So let's look at it like this:
Imagine your bike gets nicked. Many years later, you spot your bike again; it's changed hands many times, and the current owner had nothing to do with the original crime, and may well be oblivious to it, believing that they now 'own' the bike. The bike is still, technically, yours though. Translate this to much of the 'ownership' of land in the UK at least, and probably the world over, and we see that the land was originally obtained by means which we would now consider illegal. Definitely immoral. So whilst this is still little more than a philosophical argument, it does make a case for public access to 'private' land; in Norway, private landowners are in the minority, and most land is owned by the state, government institutions, and local authorities. 'Allmenningsrett' or 'Everyman's Right' dictates that people have the legal right to access all land which is not cultivated or has animals grazing, that isn't part of a military restricted area, or closed off for safety reasons etc. And obviously not that which is part of someone's private garden, although if you have a couple of unfenced acres out of the back of your house, you might see someone take a shortcut. An attitude to land 'ownership', that is enviable.
My back yard is privately owned and I rarely set foot in it other than to cross it to put the bins out. Reckon it’s fair game to kick my back gate down and build a skate park in there cos I’m not using it?
That's just silly, and you know it is. 😉
Private security firms cannot issue fines, this is why parking infractions are now ‘charges’. The only people who can issue fines are councils (or companies acting at their direction) and courts.
In this case if someone is threatening a spot fine then it’s either a) on behalf of the council, b) unlawful or c) a lie.
I'm generally of that mind when it comes to 'fines'. Again, I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think that a private security firm has any power really to impose a fine on someone; I thought only a court can really do that? IE; if you are issued a fine and don't pay it, it's down to the issuer to take you to court (and then prove loss, damage/disturbance caused etc). Which might be a tad difficult, seeing as how you have to actually obtain someone's details in order to be able to do so, and not even the police have the power to force you to give these up. So I'm really not sure what Rentacop can do, to be honest.
I’m really not sure what Rentacop can do, to be honest.
They won't be rentacop, councils have powers that let them fine people and can subcontract the activities to a company. It's the way that they fine people for littering for example. Or enforce no cycling areas in town centres
With kids who you can't fine they'll go down the criminal damage route and involve police and social services if they are minded to get tough.
Sounds like the area has a PSPO so powers are there to take action if the council feels the need.
I would suggest more effort is made in trying to find an adult to talk to the council and the kids rather than worrying about fines. One will stop the other.
'There are vast areas of the UK that are completely out of bounds to the general public as they are privately owned, a lot of the time by extremely rich people who rarely set foot on said land.'
That's very, very different to East Shene Common though, which has total access and potentially millions of peoploe who can go on it, so rambling on about that's only a useless distraction to the real discussion
trying to find an adult to talk to the council and the kids rather than worrying about fines.
Yep, that's the plan anyway. The author of the article is in contact with the council (she also happens to be an adult).
They won’t be rentacop, councils have powers that let them fine people and can subcontract the activities to a company. It’s the way that they fine people for littering for example. Or enforce no cycling areas in town centres
But in order to fine someone, you first have to ascertain their details. Which, as I've said, even the police can't force you to give. Contracted security personnel have no more powers to demand such details, as any other Tom, Dick or Harry. They also have no powers to detain you, other than via a citizen's arrest, which they can only legally justify if a person was committing an actual crime, or posing a threat of harm to themselves or others. So you can just tell them to **** off, and leave, and there isn't a damn thing they can do about it. That's the bottom line.
But in order to fine someone, you first have to ascertain their details. Which, as I’ve said, even the police can’t force you to give.
The relevant legislation gives them the powers to ask for legit ID and if you refuse or give false ID you are committing an offence under that legislation
Contracted security personnel have no more powers to demand such details, as any other Tom, Dick or Harry.
They do, you commit an offence if you don't tell them your details. It's not an admission of guilt, you don't need to pay the notice if you haven't committed the offence and can see them in court
They also have no powers to detain you, other than via a citizen’s arrest, which they can only legally justify if a person was committing an actual crime, or posing a threat of harm to themselves or others.
They'll be told to follow you, they'll take car regs or address of any property you enter. Obviously they'll not follow for miles. They may try and get the police to attend or pretend to.
So you can just tell them to **** off, and leave,
Why swear? You could leave or ignore.
and there isn’t a damn thing they can do about it. That’s the bottom line.
They could ask police to attend although it's unlikely they will if you walk away, however there maybe a coordinated antisocial behaviour push and the PC maybe around. You'll most likely not get a FPN but rather be charged for the original offence and for not providing ID by the council
The details are for a FPN which you pay to absolve of liability for the offence , it's not a fine as such. If you don't accept you have committed the offence you could simply not pay and see them in court for the offence they allege you committed. It's advisable to have witnesses as they tend to double up and so it's two against one.
If you are digging they could seek to ID you for a charge of criminal damage, English bluebells in the woods you are digging in? That's another offence with a significant fine.
Under 18, they'll be down the school boring everyone with don't do whatever messages.
Because you’re not depriving the ‘owner’ of their property, or preventing them from accessing and enjoying, it.
Of course you are, you're digging bloody great holes in it. You can still "access and enjoy" your front garden if I dig up your petunias and install a roller disco.
It is well worth looking at how private land was first obtained
No it isn't. It's not the middle ages any more.
Eat the rich
Eat the rich
Excellent idea. On a global scale, anyone who has 2K to spend on a toy is pretty high on the wealth list (we just don't realize it because all our friends are of similar wealth and we see even wealthier people quite often). So, let's start with anyone who has an expensive bike, they're much easier to catch than people who drive cars. Also, pet dogs and cats are a sign of excess wealth (working animals are an exception), so let's BBQ them too.
anyone who has 2K to spend on a toy is pretty high on the wealth list
Meh, I don't really agree with this. There are plenty of working class people who will spend that much on a project car or dirtbike or a nice trip somewhere. Just depends where your priorities are.
The property developer didn’t just go “well **** it, they’ve got a lot of land they aren’t using” and rock up with several barrowloads of bricks and a trowel.
Someone did at some point... 😆
2 month update on this:
Richmond Council won basically. Digging has all but stopped, only a few jumps are left and most of the trail have been blocked off by rather aggressive looking log barriers. We are allowed to ride there, but only on the stuff which is left, which is all a bit shit.
Bit of a sorry sight compared to its former glory really.
I've personally moved on to more promising projects elsewhere with a bit more elevation 😉
Hopefully in a few months time digging will restart and the cycle will go on again. By then though I will be well into uni so no time for localised silliness.