A quick shout out for all the local Cranham woods riders on here.
Was up for a spin round in the mud with my usual riding buddy this morning,
we’d just ridden from the carpark (with the mini rubbish tip in) up the rooty climb and towards the red (former white?) house.
As we got to the gravel lane we met a middle age couple and elderly woman,
my mate stopped because he thought that the woman was going to ask for directions but she told him that-
“we are the new land owners and that you are riding on a footpath which is against the law”.
We asked were are the signs then?
to which she replied “there soon will be some” and added the law breaking line again.
I’m not too sure which section of the woods they said they’d bought, but it was definately from the house back down towards the (tip) carpark.
I’ve gotta say that she was very stuffy and not too friendly at all,
of course we were all smiles.
Anyway guy’s keep ’em peeled 😉
Hello to all the bigfoot guys we saw too!

i though the bit that was for sale was by the saw mill?

ho hum, like it is going to make any difference!

Good point mrmo

mmmmm thats a pain i wonder how much of the woodland they have got. isnt there common law access over all that land??

the nnr boundaries

for sale notice
notice

will edit for access rules

and from paage one of the catalogue

Lot 1: Cranham and Buckle Woods
The woodlands are predominantly broadleaf species, being mainly Beech and Ash, but also include Sycamore, Yew, Birch, Oak and White Beam. In the wetter areas (for example near the Painswick Stream) the main species are Alder and Willow. Some interplanting of conifers has also taken place on the valley sides of Cranham Wood and Buckle Wood contains a small area of Larch. There are a few areas of coppice (mainly Hazel) in the understory.
The woodland has the following designations:
– The majority of the site is registered Common Land. Interested parties are advised to take their own independent legal advice on the implications of this.
– The majority of the site is classified as Ancient and Semi- Natural Woodland.
– Special Areas of Conservation, with the exception of an area in the south west corner.
– Environmentally Sensitive Area. – Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. – Site of Special Scientific Interest. – Nitrate Vulnerable Zone. – A small part of the site is a National Nature Reserve.
– There is a Scheduled Ancient Monument known as West Tump Long Barrow in the north western corner of Buckle Wood.

Quote majority of land is common land. now what does that mean?

She said that most of the woods were owned by English heritage,
So hopefully that’s safe!

She said that most of the woods were owned by English heritage,
So hopefully that’s safe!

Safe from what? Mountainbikers?

read the particulars i quoted, english nature have a lease on the woods that have been sold. English Nature effectively sitting tennants

Looks like Buckle and Cranham Woods are the woods the Shrine runs are in and up to both the carparks the other side of the White / Red house. If we did lose them I’d be gutted but you could still do quite a good loop omitting those sections if the worst happens

But…

What are they hoping to achieve by restricting access to bikes?

How are they going to enforce it after years of use?

Maybe all the bikers should pull together, put a petition under their door and perhaps make it public via the local media. Shame them into seeing it isn’t just one of two riders but more like a large number of their local community.

Hopefully they’ll be a bit more open minded and relent a little once they see the amount of bikers that use the woods.

once they see the amount of bikers that use the woods

that’s probably part of the reason why the landowners are annoyed

given the sensitive nature of the shrine, and the fact that the track gets majorly cut up in the wet, you’d think the local MTBers would avoid the area in the wet.

there is plenty else to ride in the area.
i know!

Did she give a reason why she wanted to stop riders in the area?

Dialogue would be the best way to come to some sort of compromise. She sounds quite set in achieving what she wants to so maybe the petition / media option might be the way to progress if she is not willing to see the light.

She didn’t give any reason from what I remember bushwacked.
She seemed set on her idea too, the delivery was very iron fist in a velvet glove!

Nimby comes to mind. Can’t see how they’d enforce it without stopping all access.

But it should be more trying to get her to see reason than just ignoring her.

did a bit of reading, CROW section 2 which i think is applicable only gives rights to walkers, not cyclists or horses.

But tresspass which is the most they could go for is a civil matter and not a criminal matter, they can use reasonable force to ask you to leave, they could ask for compensation for damage caused. But as the trails are already there and well bedded in what damage will be caused.

I really really hate this English idea of “my property”, if this was a garden or a field then maybe i could understand not wanting people to have access, but it is not it is ancient beech woodland, it has been used for decades, i have ridden there for over 15years in total, and it was in use before i started riding. If they want to raise a fence around the Tump fine, it is a scheduled ancient monument afterall.

How do they intend to keep bikes out? i may get annoyed by the County going through with a group of 15-20 riders, but it does happen. i see plenty of smaller groups, 5ish. plus solo riders. A sign saying keep out isn’t going to work.

They would be better off putting up honesty boxes and asking for donations.

Having some form of group to give the local riders a voice would be a good approach – allow for a discussion to take place. I think the new owners would be surprised if they knew who was riding (not just some scrotes) and how many

An honesty box where most put in a quid would generate perhaps more income than they would expect. I’d be happy to drop a quid in for each ride. Would help with the general upkeep.

They can’t blame bikers for damage.
There were hoards of ramblers up there tramping around yesterday.

They can’t blame bikers for damage.
There were hoards of ramblers up there tramping around yesterday.

but ramblers don’t create new paths in the way the cyclists have.

I’d be more than happy to meet with the landowners. I work for larger landowners and can talk the tweed and green talk.

Next the “KEEP OUT” signs, then the razor wire..
Mind how do they feel towards the local horse riders?

Hopefully As mrmo said earlier it won’t make any difference.
If all the local bikers quietly keep to the current trails things might stay as they are.
(fingers crossed, some of the best sections of trail have got a footpath sign nearby imo)

And not discuss it to much on here!

And if you do bump into them be polite to them, show them that we are a nice bunch of people and we may be ok.

Na stuff the being nice bit, I think we should organize a lynch mob and drive them back to where they came from! Goz you got some old bombers kicking round at work? We can take them on! 😀

Seriously though, keep the group ride numbers down, always be polite, no digging and I think we will be ok. If not I think enforcement would be nearly impossible.

I would go for a more niche approach!

Oh and i’ll bring the cheese ! 😀

As there are no bridleways and it is well used by horse riders have the ‘new owners’ told any horse rider to ‘get out’?
If they have no objection to people rideing horses though ‘their woods’, why do they have an objection to people ride bikes through their woods??

now now, that’s not nice, not his fault.

i have never bothered to look in detail, but there are a number of permissive bridleways in those woods, just not sure which churned up bit of mud.

😯

can you not claim as a bridleway – 20 years use. see open spaces society web site

can you not claim as a bridleway – 20 years use. see open spaces society web site

Not that simple, the trails in question are manmade singletrack that are maybe 5 years old? They were created by cyclists for cyclists, I believe the previous owner was aware but wasn’t bothered. English Nature, i guess, put up some signs saying no digging but that was as far as they went.

I can’t see the new owners trying to raise pheasants, you are never going to be able to use those woods for shooting. It is common land so they can’t keep walkers out, there are a number of permissive bridleways and i don’t see the riders being to amused if they are banned, I really don’t now what hope the new owners have if they believe they can ban any user group. There is simply to much history now.

think i might have a pic of me on my bmx circa 1985 in cranham woods/common somewhere. ridden through the woods since 1989 on an mtb.

Word is the new owners are banning SS bikes only and the eating of cheese is prohibited….

LOL Goz – Any particular wheel size not going to be permitted?

😀

MrB, def no 29ers!

Just big and small wheels banned….26’s are ok!

Was riding up there yesterday morning and saw a note nailed to the signpost to the access to the Cotswold way from the bird lip road, on the way to the wall run…it was warning that an mtb’er was fined 400 quid for riding on a footpath up there, not sure I believe it…not noticed it before but may have been there awhile…but it will be a real shame if there is a clampdown/aggro toward bikers up there…particularly if we are denied access to trails we have been riding harmlessly for years…

Can’t see how they can fine £400, simply because the fine has to match the damage caused. riding a bike doesn’t cause £400 pounds worth of damage to woodland. Also Cheltenham isn’t a big place if a rider had been fined that i am certain it would have been round the community quite quickly.