I used to be very opposed to cheeky digging but my views have mellowed somewhat, esp after speaking to some lads digging in the woods adjacent to the local golf course in lockdown 1. They were really dedicated, very polite and made a really good job of it. They had tried to speak to the clerk of the course, and he’d basically said ‘keep your heads down and don’t damage the course and we’ll look the other way’. They had a great time, but of course not long after the course reopened (briefly) it was all destroyed.
I do have some sympathy with the landowners, esp on the liability issues, but really the law just needs to be challenged in this respect. My problem with the police is they should have better things to do, catching bike thieves for a start off. Once they start doing the job they should be doing, then they can start looking for other things to do...
I too am conflicted on this.
However that FB Post is a massive PR disaster for the local police in Waverley. For a community police page it shows a complete lack of judgement in knowing your crowd and zero effort in actual community policing which should always be about engaging with your community to prevent crime.
I believe its the Occupiers Liability Act. Someone gets hurt on your land, even if they are trespassing, and you can be liable.
That's for the case where you've set booby traps or made the site actively dangerous (dug a mine shaft or something). The liability act is there to protect someone who innocently ends up on the land by mistake and is hurt through no fault of their own.
Re Occupiers' Liability: The following cites a number of cases that just go to show it isn't straightforward. Have a look at the section on 'Allurement' especially (jumps would presumably be attractive to kids).
(There may well also be workplace related laws that would apply to agricultural land & commercial forestry.)
How did all the land become private in the first place?
You'll have to blame Mrs Windsor and her predecessors for that, a lot of the land was granted to lords for their services. I ride through Sandringham and there's a lot of land I can't ride on because apparently it belongs to them, their poor racehorses need miles and miles of land as they need peace and quiet. ****s!
I believe its the Occupiers Liability Act. Someone gets hurt on your land, even if they are trespassing, and you can be liable. Seem to recall the legislation Links to cases of trespassers on railway lines.
Someone who did the insurance exams this century may be more up to date and show this has changed.
There’s a happy medium with access and responsibility. I have sympathy with both sides, but you can’t build all the fun and then not take responsibility for any injury or possible environmental damage you may cause. Not if you’re an adult with a brain.
That’s for the case where you’ve set booby traps or made the site actively dangerous (dug a mine shaft or something). The liability act is there to protect someone who innocently ends up on the land by mistake and is hurt through no fault of their own.
But what happens if the jumps becomes known about by other members of the public who had no part in the digging and the diggers are unknown? If an accident happens and the land owner was previously aware of a potentially dangerous jump and did nothing about it - are they then the person most likely to be looked to for damages? Is it any different to finding an old uncovered well on your land and doing nothing about it?
edit - thanks Tillydog.
That Jolley v Sutton case is arguably very similar to a jumps situation. A boat abandoned by someone else not the land owner. But the allurement to a child considered foreseeable and after a couple of appeals upheld by the house of lords. So a child comes across jumps you knew were there and did nothing about looks like it could give you as a land owner a significant headache.
You should have access to all land SO LONG AS YOU DO NOT DAMAGE same as in scotland.
Damage or improvement....
TBF building like that is probably a bit too much without any permission, but the FB post by the rozzers is bloody stupid "....well guess what, they're going too..." may as well just be going "...ner, ner, na, ner, ner, we've spoilt someones fun..."
Damage!
there are several issues being conflated here
1) land access - does England need updated land access laws to allow greater access - obviously yes. Its archeaic and elitists as it stands
2) Trail digging - not acceptable without proper permissions. Ok I have mellowed a bit on this so if its plantation and the trail digging is minimal it has little harm attached but thats not what this is
Right to roam is not right to dig trails
3) community engagement - this works both ways. a local example to me - a bit of urban woodland. The rangers tried to get engagement with the MTBers - including giving permission to build in two locations. the MTBers continued to build inappropriately including jumps on badger setts and using concrete to anchor boulders.
Engagement works both ways. Did these builders try to engage?
I live local to this area and the Car park at Rodborough (for S4P) is rammed almost every day at the moment from about 10am. Particularly busy over half term and now during the afternoons once the online schooling finishes. This will have been built by a bunch of local lads who want some fun in the woods nearby without having to ride jump bikes 3 miles to S4P to share it with hoardes of others during lockdown.
In my view Waverley police have shown a poor lack of judgement - no need to post on social media which is only going to provoke (as it has). The woods around Hambledon are criss-crossed with bridlepaths and footpaths and it isn't always clear what is public access and what is not as the fencing is sometimes poorly maintained or non-existent. They probably didn't even realise they were trespassing. Although from a legal perspective (like it or not) the landowner has no obligation to allow this, I think they could have been a bit more sensitive to the circumstances. It's not quite the same as saying "I'll pop over to your garden with a spade and see how you like it". Those jumps look pretty well developed (quite impressive actually) so it has taken a while for them to be spotted. Seems a real shame to be so heavy handed on kids showing some initiative, getting outside and doing something healthy.
But who gives the landowner the right to refuse me access to land they ‘own’ but quite obviously don’t need/use? And don’t give me the ‘back garden’ argument because that’s BS and suggests you might be part of this ‘Waverley beat’ or whatever these knuckles call themselves
(and many similar comments from others)
Because it's theirs. Since when has "using" or "needing" been a requirement for owning things in this country? Plenty have people have a spare bedroom sitting empty or a car that they only use to pop to the shops once a fortnight. Shall we help ourselves to those too? If the "back garden argument is BS" then how would you define when a 'garden' becomes 'land'?
Sure, land access rights here are antiquated and rubbish, a throwback to the class system which needs revising. No doubt a lot of land should really be returned to the public or at least made open access. But that doesn't justify rocking up with a mini excavator. We can argue whether land ownership is fair until the cows come home but "he's got a lot of land so he should give us some" is little more than jealousy, that's how burglars justify theft to themselves. Why not lobby the councils to buy some of it back? A small hike in council tax to pay for new facilities sounds worthwhile to me.
If the “back garden argument is BS” then how would you define when a ‘garden’ becomes ‘land’?
Do you really need a definition?
I've been told I wasn't allowed to ride across an open mountain side up near the Brecon Beacons because I might disturb the sheep. (From a bloke in a 4x4, on a 3m wide gravelled access track.) Maybe there should have been a sign up saying 'BEWARE - GARDEN'
I too am cautious and err on the 'it is private land, show some respect'.
Both sides need to show some Rule No.1 awareness.
So many trailbuilders seem to move on from a sliver of dirt quietly behind a row of trees in a quiet corner.
We had a trail locally totally hidden with a line of jumps. Never bothered about for years and years - until lockdown this spring when the entrances were widened and signposted off the main walking trail, the jumps were added to in height and number, a suitable 'den' was built and littered with rubbish and a number of trees (dead and live) chopped down to do all this. The landowner called the police, rightly.
We have another area now dug up for a jump park - the diggers without permission put them in, ripping through roots (dead trees time), digging up swathes of bluebells (the protected ones), clearing one of the most fungal rich areas I have seen of all the mycorrhizae and leaving a scar of imported crates and pallets too - all in a SSI. The main digger would not reason, had plans for all sorts - but has now abandoned the dig after a few months and moved onto another, even more public and sensitive area.
I am *totally* for trails, riding etc. But I feel the art of trail creation has become a near cult, with the focus on the digging of the most awesomz trail possible, with hoofing big jumps Red Bull Rampage stylee, and a total disregard for land ownership, environmental or social concerns.
In this case the police are right in my view - and yet we (that is the royal We of mountainbiking, particularly local trail builders) should work with land owners and managers, not just go ahead and build.
Because it’s theirs
That massively over simplifies a complex issue
Since when has “using” or “needing” been a requirement for owning things in this country?
Quite a while. There is plenty of history of it well within UK law. Prescriptive easement, adverse possession, compulsory purchase
The bootlicking is so strong in this thread.
I say round up the land owners and drop them in the sea.
I say round up the land owners and drop them in the sea.
With a fence around them to show which bits of the sea floor they own.
I love a good landowner me. Who's lucky emough to have this fine specimen representing them in the famously egalitarian House
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Drax
That massively over simplifies a complex issue
So does this.....
The bootlicking is so strong in this thread.
I say round up the land owners and drop them in the sea.
Not all landowners would fit within the 'landed gentry' qualification. Not all are quaffing port while the serfs do the grunt work. And of course unless you propose some sort of free for all right to purchase from one individual to another it would end up in state hands for our general benefit. That would still not end up with the individual doing what the hell they liked on it with the added benefit of our collective taxes having to pay for it's potential liability and upkeep. Sometimes I think you need to be careful what you wish for.
"it would end up in state hands for our general benefit. That would still not end up with the individual doing what the hell they liked on it with the added benefit of our collective taxes having to pay for it’s potential liability and upkeep. Sometimes I think you need to be careful what you wish for."
I wish for this.
However I think you will find the taxpayer already pays millions to these landowners in the form of various subsidies and other ex gratia payments without any benefit at all to local communities
Not all landowners would fit within the ‘landed gentry’ qualification
They literally do...
I get the "get orf moi laaand" bit I really do, and recently stuck my nose into a local bit of woodland where trails that had been there for years had been suddenly fenced off, Now, the landowner wasn't really interested in discussion, and wanted it stopped, but...he'd done nothing about the trails for years and years and had allowed the situation to mature to the point where just sticking some fencing up and expecting folk to just go away was the worst sort of head in the sand type of behavior, and obviously did nothing to stop it, which in turn made him more bitter...Added to the fact that it was in reality a scrubby bit of unmanaged derelict woodland on a 45 deg slope that was infested with squirrel, that it was obvious he was doing it out of spite.
These folk sometimes don't help themselves.
Going back to the OP, the bit that rankles is the police crowing about chasing some kids off private land at the behest of the landowner. Most folk live on urban estates rather than country estates and may have experienced a rather less enthusiastic response to theft or property damage.
I love a good landowner me. Who’s lucky emough to have this fine specimen representing them in the famously egalitarian House
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Drax/blockquote >
Blimey. worth a spin through to the last para. 15,000+ acres in the UK, plus the sugar plantation in Barbados. Earnt through the deaths of 30,000 slaves over 200 years. He claims he doesn't have any responsibility for "something that happened 300 or 400 years ago", which may be true, but he still owns all of the proceeds.
Certainly puts some lads digging in the woods in perspective. Wouldn't be surprised if some of the anger is fueled by a year of being told to follow rules by people who don't follow them, who are also shoveling billions of public money into Tory (landing owning) mates' pockets, while the same people stuff up brexit to the detriment of most of the country, on the back of 10 years of austerity.
That^ might seem OTT, but there's more behind the vitriol than whether or not some jumps should get knocked down.
They literally do…
They literally don't and it's pretty ignorant to think so.
I am looking out of my temporary wfh office across to a small holding. Sandy, my neighbour, owns it after buying the land about 15 years ago and ploughing his savings into building a house. He's in his 70's now as is his wife. He's worked on the land all his life and his wife worked as a classroom assistant. They supplement their pensions by using part of the house as a small guest house and Sandy works the land - partly for income and partly because it is what makes him happy. A supersized veg garden and some sheep. Probably about 5 acres of usable land. Behind the fields is about the same again of scrubby natural woodland. Steep ground full of silver birch and scots pine. He manages it gently, pulling out the odd tree for the stove but otherwise leaving it be for nature to do it's thing and act as a weather break for the house and fields.
I know how much the whole setup cost him. Down south he'd have struggled to buy the semi most folk here take for granted. They are far from penniless but they are certainly are not wealthy. Just honest hard working folk.
So - 10 acres. That makes him a land owner in my book. But you think they deserve the 'gentry' suffix too apparently? They would be very amused you think so.
With a fence around them to show which bits of the sea floor they own
The queen owns all of it. You couldn't make this stuff up.
Very sad that England probably won't see access like Scotland in my lifetime, if ever. Far too many people obsessed with partitioning off bits of land for themselves and keeping others out. Never been to any other country where there are so many fences, walls, hedges and rules on access.
Same thing happened here in the summer (although no police involved) Link
To be fair they only took out the dirt jumps that had grown lasty year and there's still plenty of unofficial tracks around, but still upset plenty of people
They literally don’t and it’s pretty ignorant to think so.
splitting hairs. Landowners are landowners, whether they're bare-arsed hill-famers scratching a living or Red Be-trousered ex of Eton (or the other place). They lump everyone who strays onto their property into the same category, so I shall return the favour...
splitting hairs. Landowners are landowners, whether they’re bare-arsed hill-famers scratching a living or Red Be-trousered ex of Eton (or the other place). They lump everyone who strays onto their property into the same category, so I shall return the favour…
What an utterly massive and ridiculous generalisation.
edit: and as my mum used to say, two wrongs don't make a right. Rule No.1 time.
Just some figures which may be useful for this thread:
Using our much higher assumptions, 5.9% of the UK is built on and 2.5% is what might be called green urban - parks and gardens, golf courses and sports pitches. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41901297#:~:text=Using%20our%20much%20higher%20assumptions,landscape%20anywhere%20in%20the%20UK.
Overall, British golf courses are calculated to cover 1,256 sq km, an area roughly equivalent to the whole of Greater Manchester and, according to some estimates, just a little smaller than all the land covered by housing.
The % of the UK golf covers is a little vague, but seems to vary from 2-6% depending on who wants to make a point. Golf courses actually cover more land than the total built up area.
And in terms of landed toffs quaffing their port...
For the 8 per cent of British land that grouse moors use, they contribute one job for every 6.5 square kilometres. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-scourge-of-the-grouse-moor
1.4%
He calculates that the land under the ownership of the royal family amounts to 1.4% of England. This includes the Crown Estate, the Queen's personal estate at Sandringham, Norfolk, and the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, which provide income to members of the family.
splitting hairs
No, just calling you out as a fool.
Sweeping statements is where the problem is here and you appear to be as guilty of it as anyone.
Don't get me wrong, there is plenty wrong with the way some land found it's ownership, is managed and is used. I look the opposite direction and see a large grouse moor owned by a local estate. Untold unpleasantness both to those who stray on to the land and to wildlife. But anyone who lumps Sandy and the Laird into one 'they' and thinks they can pre-empt the response they might receive from one because they have a vouge awareness of the reputation of the other just doesn't know what they are talking about.
Has any landowner ever been successfully prosecuted for an injury that happened to a cyclist on their land? (None on the link to legal precedents posted above.) If it hasn't happened I'm inclined to think it won't, and that notional liability is just an excuse to keep folks out.
What an utterly massive and ridiculous generalisation.
Yes, I've often found that most Landowners assume the worst of people...
No, just calling you out as a fool.
Given that you don' know me, and this is just a chat forum aren't you guilty of doing exactly the same thing?
My experience of landowners is overwhelmingly that they shout first and shout second and threaten third...whether they own 2 acres of large garden or 2000 acres of Scottish Highland. I shall continue to treat as I find I'm afraid.
Sandy, my neighbour, owns it after buying the land about 15 years ago and ploughing his savings into building a house. He’s in his 70’s .......................................
So – 10 acres. That makes him a land owner in my book. But you think they deserve the ‘gentry’ suffix too apparently? They would be very amused you think so.
All of this is completely irrelevant because you haven't told us what Sandy thinks about people who walk through his scrubby few acres.
The problem with having big chips on both shoulders is that sometimes they end up acting as blinkers.
We're not talking about Scottish style access rights here, which I fully support. We're talking about people wanting to build potentially dangerous trail features on someone else's property and leaving the someone else to deal with the costs and liabilities.
I also bitterly resent that at several points since 1066 my ancestors made some incorrect choices about dynastic wars, breeding partners, education, inventions and sheer hard work, but just because I don't own a few hundred acres to build my own ramps and jumps doesn't mean I should just go and build my own wherever I like.
often found that most Landowners
Source?
I also bitterly resent that at several points since 1066 my ancestors made some incorrect choices about dynastic wars
Mine too the bastards...what can you do
Source?
me, just now
Copied and pasted my comments from this in the mag:
"Unfortunately, birds, animals, and other flora and fauna don’t just exist in SSSIs and nature reserves. There is a good reason why most developments have to undertake an extensive survey by professionals and experts before being allowed to go ahead. The aborted Radmires trails are a good example – nesting nightjars (secretive rare birds) would have been unlikely to be noticed by stealth trail builders. And as the chap in the article himself notes, it’s social media and the associated numbers of riders that exacerbate the issue greatly – a couple of kids messing about in their local woods really isn’t much of an issue and has been going on forever, but Audis full of Strava-wielding stormtroopers on 160mm bikes can have a very negative impact, both on the environment, the wider locale and the reputation of mountain bikers as a whole."
This particular area just looks like an area of scrubby clearfell, with no indication of its biodiversity. I'm sure I wouldn't have given it a second thought if trail building had been allowed here. UK and worldwide wildlife is in catastrophic decline, pushing any of it any closer to the brink for the sake of a few folk playing on bikes seems to be the wrong priority to me.
nick - Treating as you find is the exact opposite of tarring everyone with the same brush.
And if lots of different people behave in a similar way to you, maybe think about other common factors?
Owning a cat is more damaging to birdlife than kids building trails.
Very sad that England probably won’t see access like Scotland in my lifetime, if ever. Far too many people obsessed with partitioning off bits of land for themselves and keeping others out. Never been to any other country where there are so many fences, walls, hedges and rules on access.
Even in 'public' parts of the countryside you know you have arrived when you see the unsightly mass of signs stating what you AREN'T allowed to do there.
Well that escalated quickly… (Surrey Police get an online hoofing content)
Misses one crucial point. Even if 80% of the general population is pro-hoofing, the other 20% won't be. And that 20% will contain nearly all the chaps who get to decide which retired coppers get into the golf club.
Numbers have never been proportionate to influence in this country.
[img] 
?w=691[/img]
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/apr/17/who-owns-england-thousand-secret-landowners-author
Not saying that digging those jumps is sensible. More that it is an inevitable outcome of us all being squeezed into a small portion of the land. Another is the ridiculous price of housing!
Personally - We need to be encouraging 1. Increased access / National ownership 2. Rewilding (to mitigate Climate Control / biodiversity) 3. Increased recreational facilities (for the benefits we all know and love)
I think that we are going to see more pressure to change but with the current power structure.... who knows!
I think that we are going to see more pressure to change but with the current power structure…. who knows!
The trouble with applying the wrong kind of pressure - like building potentially dangerous illegal trail features - is that you are far less likely to encourage change to allow building of secure, safer, properly managed trail centres.
As ever, finding the sensible middle ground is difficult, and made harder by both sides ignoring Rule 1
While that sounds like the sensible action, it never works. Rights have been won by protest and action, not by asking politely for the minority with power to release their grip on it. From suffrage to the mass trespass and onto the 60's rights movement sitting at home waiting politely for change just hasn't worked.
All of this is completely irrelevant because you haven’t told us what Sandy thinks about people who walk through his scrubby few acres.
But completely relevant as to if he should be swept up and tarred with the 'gentry' brush because he owns a few acres which was the accusation.
What would he think. Don't know to be certain. Given his affability and the fact I often see him with his dogs ambling about other folks land (this is Scotland after all) I can't imagine he'd have issue. He'd be a hypocrite if he did. He has a fearsome reputation.....for getting you drunk if you stand still long enough to have a glass put in your hand. It would keep most of the riff raff away if nothing else!
im sorry but this;
There is a good reason why most developments have to undertake an extensive survey by professionals and experts before being allowed to go ahead
is about as relevant as me drinking a cup of tea to the thread. Developers are tearing up trees, disturbing huge amounts of soil etc - even 100 bikers every couple of days is nowhere near this level disturbance to wildlife.
If there are going to be arguments of why you cant do something, make it credible and relevant to waht's going on, otherwise people just say "what evs" and carry on un-educated. As i sated earlier, the way land is now managed around the surrey hills, the argument of "protecting the wildlife" no longer holds up - 30tonne monster forestry equipment everywhere makes a mockery of it - it never used to be this extensive and most people half agreed - not anymore..
MSP
Free Member
Owning a cat is more damaging to birdlife than kids building trails.
So your saying trailbuilding/riding causes no damage? Afterall RSPB says domesticated cat's make no difference to birdlife "No scientific evidence: Despite the large numbers of birds killed by cats in gardens, there is no clear scientific evidence that such mortality is causing bird populations to decline."
Cat ain't killers
