“Sensationalist” headlines on MBR…….

The revised version is one from the Daily Mail “tell the whole story in the headline” school of journalism, eh?

Seems to be the only way to get eyeballs now. Used to be headline and intro par, now it’s just headline.

MTB Wales posted this on FB:

Re: volunteer maintenance.

While they’re are overheads and commitments to coordinate from the organisations side. Lots of charities carry out significant works using volunteer workforce. National trust, canal and river trust being 2 major national ones, but all the local canals rail preservation societies undertake some quite significant civil engineering works using volunteers.

I’ve often thought that government departments could use these kinds of models for the delivery of services that aren’t the core statutory stuff. Maybe even by setting up dedicated charitable bodies to do it on their behalf.

But I guess that goes against the approach of many govt depts instinct to simply cut services when money is reduced, rather than plan for alternative delivery methods.  No time for planning or creative thinking when your back is against the wall

I think what’s confusing most folks is that there is a group of local businesses and volunteers who’ve asked to help and are willing to step in almost straight away, and come up with a plan, but have been ignored (it looks like on purpose) so that NRW can basically say “There’s nothing to be done, and no-one who can help, we’ll just have to close the lot” for probably internal reasons that we’re not aware of.

If NRW had engaged with them on the basis that the staff were going to be made redundant before that had been announced then they would have opened themselves up to a lawsuit on the basis of not following correct procedures and predetermining the outcome of the consultation process. Now that the process has reached it’s conclusion it is possible for them to do something but that will then be bound by public procurement regulations, they can’t just hand an asset across to someone willy nilly.

the notion that services should pay for themselves is some of the worst of neoliberal thinking. I’m most annoyed at this aspect of the problem, that what should be provided to us is being eroded,

I think that’s true in a broad sense, but I’m not overly convinced that subsidising facilities for a niche sport like mountain biking is the best use of public funds.You can think it’s a shame that visitor centres may cease to be supported, but at the same time I find it hard to argue that public money should be invested in making sure mountain bikers have easy access to coffee, cake and bike-washing facilities.

The ‘self-financing’ bit, fwiw, stems from the birth of trail centres – and particularly CyB – when the argument was regularly used that they would bring money into the local economy.

Eg: somewhat ironically, this article about Dafydd Davies from MBR:

‘Coed-y-Brenin wasn’t given the green light because it would get more people into riding or because it would give more great trails to the UK, but because it would draw money into an area starved of investment. It would regenerate businesses and provide employment for local people and rebuild the social scene. On the back of the success here, it’s a model that’s been taken up by local politicians, land management organisations and councils across the country to boost tourism. ‘

Feature: Coed-y-Brenin with Dafydd Davis

Is that still the case? What’s the coherent argument otherwise for spending public money on supporting a niche sport, based on people driving across the country to ride expensive bicycles in a forest, when you could arguably do far more good spending that money elsewhere.

NRW can’t just ‘let’ volunteers maintain trails etc – training, time, resources, H&S, regulations are all blocking people turning up and ‘just helping out’ – it’s not that simple

Sure, I get that, Then engage with the local businesses on that basis, If NRW is starved of cash and is reluctant to fund training, then all they need do is set the standard and force people to meet it.

If NRW had engaged with them on the basis that the staff were going to be made redundant

This is what TUPE is for, and TBH if NRW haven’t made every possible attempt to ensure that folks are re-employed, then they could face accusations of ignoring the groups of charities and local businesses trying to step in, and going ahead with a plan to make redundancies all along.

What’s the coherent argument otherwise for spending public money on supporting a niche sport, based on people driving across the country to ride expensive bicycles in a forest, when you could arguably do far more good spending that money elsewhere.

Back when it all started it was a fairly minimal outlay? Essentially, some basic trails scraped into the ground which washed away fairly quickly when CyB got popular, and a portacabin with some basic food and inner tubes. Afan, when it opened shortly after, already had a visitor centre and cafe – beans on toast were about the culinary limit there in the late 90s. But. because it was novel, we’d charge up to north Wales a few weekends a year, spend some money on camping or a bunkhouse, a takeaway or two and some pub time with friends. We didn’t spend a fortune, but we still spent money in a place that otherwise wouldn’t have got it, even if that was just Mars bars and pop from a shonky local store, and the numbers riding there weren’t massive but it all added up and outweighed that minimal outlay.

The problem possibly came a little later when people started thinking that they needed barista coffee and ‘proper’ meals, and the numbers got too big for the muddy trails, and the price of camping and accommodation ramped up to cost the same as a weekend in Benidorm. Also, supply and demand – in 1999 the only TCs in Wales iirc were CyB and Afan. Now we have miles of unofficial trails, loads of TCs and Bike Parks. I don’t need to go to CyB with my mates 4 times a year any more, we have more local riding than we can cope with anyway.

What’s the coherent argument otherwise for spending public money on supporting a niche sport, based on people driving across the country to ride expensive bicycles in a forest, when you could arguably do far more good spending that money elsewhere.

We’re going to drive to some forest, moor, or mountain to ride our expensive bikes anyway. Various factors contribute to deciding where.

The problem possibly came a little later when people started thinking that they needed barista coffee and ‘proper’ meals…

I don’t doubt there’s an element of that but there’s also the fact that a cramped portacabin with ingrained mud and sweat over all the furniture is not exactly the welcome mat to many people. When you’re queuing out the door in the rain for a jacket potato, there’s nowhere to sit, and there’s a layer of mud over everything, it needs something more. Something like a proper building with some vague nod towards health and safety, food hygiene standards and general customer comfort.

MBR have run another story, and they’ve actually spoken to ‘real people’ this time…..

Coed y Brenin visitor centre closure: “We need people to get angry about this”

Probably like a lot of people here, I started visiting that part of North Wales to ride CyB, and realised how lovely the wider area was as well.

I still visit the area every year and ride various at spots, including CyB – which is still brilliant fun on a short-travel bike and one of the best wet weather trails in the UK, IMO.

Good to see MBR do a proper follow-up on the story there. Really hope NRW show some flexibility and let the community take the reins.

Well that’s a better article! I also chatted with someone who works there, and clearly there’s a lot of NRW mismanagement going on (and over a longer period). Key point again, is the misunderstanding around the commercial side, with the commercial arm of NRW having a blinkered bean-counters attitude. Sounds like they don’t account from direct income, let alone consider wider economic benefits to the community. But the main point that we should all be more angry is true. All of this should have been handled a lot better, and these trails shouldn’t be lost. The continuation of public benefits, recreation and access is the priority that has been forgotten by NRW in its cold focus on commercial ends.

Also, there’s been a lot of focus on CyB, but Nant Yr Arian is also a great place that needs saving too.

Who decides how NRW spends their (our!) money? It is a political choice after all, what to cut and what to save.

I believe it’s the Welsh Assembly via business plans signed off ultimately by a minister or the Senedd? Don’t know if annual or longer.

In a further update on the strange approach taken by NRW, it seems like a closure date for the cafes and VC has been announced, 31st March 2025. But the ridiculous thing, is they will not start a tender process until after it has shut!? Just, why? 4 months is a good period of time to get a new provider in place so that they could almost have continuity of service. But no, they seem to be insisting on a period of closure and further uncertainty…

https://www.mbr.co.uk/news/coed-y-brenin-cafe-will-close-on-march-31-2025-with-nrw-accused-of-dragging-its-heels-on-finding-a-new-lease-443964

(mbr have upped their game on this issue, thankfully)

But the ridiculous thing, is they will not start a tender process until after it has shut!? Just, why?

IANAL but is that to do with public sector procurement and tendering law?

NRW are essentially a part of Welsh Government, even if it’s an arm’s length organisation. They’re certainly public sector so they must be bound by requirements to go through an open tender process which doesn’t allow much leeway.

That’d be my guess anyway.

What really needs to happen now is for that closure date to be widely published with a note to MTBers, families etc to make the most of it while it’s there. Now that I know it’ll be open, I’ll visit between now and March.

In a further update on the strange approach taken by NRW, it seems like a closure date for the cafes and VC has been announced, 31st March 2025. But the ridiculous thing, is they will not start a tender process until after it has shut!? Just, why?

A combination of the time it takes to get procurement documents ready and budgets I would imagine. I doubt they have the money to go through a tender process for this at this time so they can’t throw money at developing docs. It’s not particularly quick, easy or cheap to do a procurement like this, made more complicated by the bidders not being experienced at it either in most cases.

4 months is a good period of time to get a new provider in place so that they could almost have continuity of service.

It is not for a government organisation bound by public procurement regulations that will need to provide an asset, the evidence based to demonstrate value will mean it’s a non standard tender that involves them making SLAs to bidders for the buildings, etc. They will also need to develop the specifications for the service they expect back in return. Government department will then require approvals of all bid documents which also takes time.

Once you launch the procurement then it will then be a 2 stage process, minimum (SQ and bid submission) as this won’t be something that can be done through an existing framework. Then there is the issue of each stage having both practical and statutory guidance over durations, and in those 4 months you’ve got Christmas period.