mrbelowski – it’s not meant to be threatening. It’s just the legal bottom line. As I say, the prosecution leading to a £20,000 fine would be taken by Natural England as the guardians of Sites of Special Scientific Interest and we could be just as liable as bikers if they felt we had permitted activities that cause damage.

My challenge to you is how could I go to my Trustees and the local community with a proposal to allow greater access for mountain bikers to Bradgate Park without getting laughed out of the room? Believe me, my mindset is to allow activities rather than ban them wherever possible. However, I enjoy this job and would like to hang onto it 🙂

Peter,

What, in general, are the Trustee’s objections to Mountain Biking in the park?

Hi Peter, welcome to the forum.

It is an offence under the Wildlife & Countryside Act to damage an interest feature of a SSSI. The maximum fine is £20,000

Glad there won’t be a fine coming my way then as all I am doing is riding my bike. Your tone isn’t one that seems to welcome cooperation, however I will happily cooperate by riding only in the dry and being overly polite to other park users and wardens. (Not that I ever see anyone as I’m usually riding at 4am).
Can I ride there now please?

My gut tells me that if you provided a way marked route between the 3 car parks around the perimeter of Park using the existing narrow singletrack trails, the vast majority of Mountain Bikers would be happy.

Lastly keep in mind that Mountain Bikers as a rule of thumb have high disposable income and like to spend money on parking , tea, coffee, beer and cake! Get the trails to go past the Cafe in the middle of the park and I’m sure the trails would increase Turnover.

+1000

Peter – You might find this useful:
http://imba.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/GuidelinesForLandManagers.pdf

IMBA = International Mountain Bike Association

The park allows walkers, dogs, horses, and you and your team use off road vehicles. Did you have to go to the Trustees and community with a proposal to allow each of these activities? Wouldn’t it make more sense to approach it the other way round and consider what (if any) impact mountain bikers have over and above existing users and whether these impacts are acceptable?

I live very locally an do most of my riding around beacon hill, as it the only place round here which allows biking (albeit in a very limited fashion). I don’t really see any damage from biking on beacon hill and I’ve never caused or been at the receiving end of any aggro. The issue to me seems to be one of entitlement. If people see no cycling signs and know that people are not allowed to cycle, they will resist any change in favour of cyclists.
What bothers me more is all the visitors to the local parks who park all over the grass verges (which, at the crest of beacon hill or corner of Cropston reservoir, is bloody dangerous) to avoid paying £2.50, let their dogs shit everywhere then give cyclists shit just for existing.
I understand the difficult position you are in Peter and do not envy you one bit, but surely money talks, and most cyclists are not afraid of spending a bit of it…the bottom line is that these parks take a lot of money to maintain, surely a couple of fairly unobtrusive mountain bike trails could offer a not insignificant revenue stream. If walkers don’t like it, I don’t really care, they tend not to like anything…

Hi Peter, welcome to the forums, I like most of the other people here would like to work constructively to improve access to mountain bikers wherever possible and in whatever form that may come in.

My gut tells me that if you provided a way marked route between the 3 car parks around the perimeter of Park using the existing narrow singletrack trails, the vast majority of Mountain Bikers would be happy.
Lastly keep in mind that Mountain Bikers as a rule of thumb have high disposable income and like to spend money on parking , tea, coffee, beer and cake! Get the trails to go past the Cafe in the middle of the park and I’m sure the trails would increase Turnover.

Can’t agree more with both parts of this;
-with of wear/tear/damage to the land, I may be wrong but having marked routes will greatly reduce the amount people ride “off piste” or through areas that are particularly fragile, as long as the paths don’t end up being overly sanitised.
-Everyone loves cake rides – even us poor students have money for cake.

Peter, I have ridden through the park on many occasions using the main road to visit the cafe on my way to another destination. I have always wanted to venture off road a little but haven’t as yet due to the restrictions.

I’ve had a look at the satellite image of the area and there is a nice network of well worn trails that follow the perimeter of the park that I’m sure could be put to good use.

As a keen rider I can assure you that only a very small percentage of riders, i.e. not serious ones, can be pains, but then again there are always a few in every group, no matter what the social circle, who are like this.

The cafe at the centre of the park serves great food and it would be frequented by riders who always spend good money on good cake.

Dan

So the net effect of all this is “as you were, but now the tension has just be ratcheted up a bit by sticking ‘our’ heads up”. Note that I didn’t want ‘my’ head to be pushed above the parapet.

I hate to say I told you so, but……………….

🙄

My gut tells me that if you provided a way marked route between the 3 car parks around the perimeter of Park using the existing narrow singletrack trails, the vast majority of Mountain Bikers would be happy.

This was also my gut instinct when I started here. How do I demonstrate to other users of the Park that this will benefit them i.e. that there will be a reduction in off-piste riding. This can’t be a zero-sum game with bikers winning and everyone else losing.

What, in general, are the Trustee’s objections to Mountain Biking in the park?

Trustees will generally reflect the views of the local community, particularly the two-thirds of them who are local councillors. We could do all sorts of mitigation work on the environmental impact and demonstrate that we had the biking community on board but, if the community are not happy, the Trustees won’t be happy.

So the net effect of all this is “as you were, but now the tension has just be ratcheted up a bit by sticking ‘our’ heads up”. Note that I didn’t want ‘my’ head to be pushed above the parapet.

I hate to say I told you so, but……………….

With respect you can wallow in feeling like an oppressed minority that nobody loves or you can come up with some positive ideas. I am quite willing to be persuaded that there is a constructive way forward but I think I have given you an idea of what hurdles need to be overcome.

Peter, as you might have guessed I ride in the Park. I’m probably reasonably representative of those who do, 30something professional and otherwise law abiding. If the choice is interesting legal trail vs interesting illegal trail, I will always opt for the legal one.

However note the word interesting… If you put down wide flat trails that are not in the least bit challenging, you’ll find almost no change in illegal trail use.

I would go as far as saying you don’t actually need to build any trails but just sign post those that are already there.

I would be more than happy to talk this through via email. My email address is in my profile.

Dan

Hi Peter,
I’m local, to within 5 miles, and work for LCC. I don’t ride illegally at Bradgate/Swithland but i do ‘poach’ trails in the mw leics/charnwood area. The simple reason for that is a lack of good trails.

if bradgate park were to have a trail between the 3 entrances of a decent nature i believe there would be less illegal riding.

the fact that mtbers will bring money in to the park is widely acknowledged. Many mtbers like myself are outdoor users of all descriptions. We have no desire to wreck the trails, there’s no benefit to riding or behaving recklessly.

Hhicks lodge seems to be a success, why not (if you’ve not already done so) make contact with them.

I’m sure many riders on here would be happy to be involved in trail building days.

in many ways you have nothing to lose. If legitimate trails of good quality are provided people will ride there. If they aren’t, peoples gonna ride there anyway.

Clearly there is going to be a hard core faction who are anti bike. Maybe they need to meet some riders who just want to enjoy and preserve the park and who can demonstrate that.

It would be easy to say that there must be an awful lot of people who use the park as a place to let their dogs shit and aren’t as appreciative of the park as many of us riders. But i wont. 😆

Peter – reading through this you can see there are a lot of bikers around this area. I have on occasion gone ‘off-piste’ in the park but choose my times carefully ie not at 2pm on a hot Sunday afternoon. I do not skid or go out out my way to scare deer or indeed walkers when I come across them…I’m quite a polite law-abiding citizen generally as are most bikers I know – at the moment we have little choice when it comes to any form of engaging legal riding – hence the whole point to this thread. Interesting trails within the park (and woods) will lead to less illegal off-piste riding – simple.
If they are constructed or current thoroughfares ‘tweaked’ or developed and a group set up to maintain them occasionally then I’m putting my name on that list now. As mentioned it will bring a lot of disposal income to the park cafe too. It’s ridiculous that every user group bar cyclists is catered for – let’s not even talk about the dog owners who forget to take plastic bags out with them who get away scot free…

Does that sound like a remotely viable option?
If not then I’m afraid bikers will still go in and chance it whether you like it or not – we live in a lovely part of the country (for the Easy Midlands) and yet there’s virtually nowhere for us to ride…you’d be a hero if something could be sorted 😉

I just don’t get it, how can a community that accepts people clogging up their roads every weekend for 6 months of the year, dogs and horses relieving themselves everywhere (and associated litter problems) possibly be so disagreeable about a few people riding mountain bikes about?

be so disagreeable about a few people riding mountain bikes about?

Because we are the spawn of the devil!

If there were some leniency about us being allowed to ride the perimeter (or wherever) not only would I be up for helping maintain and repair trails, I would also be up for helping the rest of the park by volunteering some weekends of my time.

I don’t think many of us would have a problem with riding according to set times or days (evenings after 7 or alternate weekends?).

If there were some leniency about us being allowed to ride the perimeter (or wherever) not only would I be up for helping maintain and repair trails, I would also be up for helping the rest of the park by volunteering some weekends of my time.

Agreed, I wonder what % of the wonderful walker community would offer the same.

Or issue permitted riders with passes. Also prepared to help out if needed.

Hi,
I’d like to the opportunity to ride the park legally- here are my suggestions.

Some sort of mountain bike group should be set up first to discuss with the trust.

I suggest looking at Ilkley Moor, Yorkshire, where riders have the same rights as walkers and there is an open access policy around the moor. It might sound crazy, but I suggest giving mountain bikers the run of the whole park for a set time (say a month or two) and then review how it went in terms of erosion and conflicts with other users. Then, decide what to do to make it work for everyone, perhaps an mtb no-go area, perhaps a voluntary bike ban at peak walker times, perhaps marked mtb trails.

This would solve Peter’s worry of ‘will mountain bikers stick to any fixed trails we make or will they go off-piste (looking for more interesting stuff)?’. At the end of the month, have a look at the tyre tracks in the park of talk to the riders to find out which areas or trails are most popular. The challenge then would be to make these areas or trails sustainable. If there’ talk of building trails, it would at least do to find out which bits riders want ride, otherwise the’re a risk bikers won’t be interested in the official trails, and will head straight for the more interesting, off-piste stuff.

I realise this is hard to sell to the trust. If that’s too out the box, then I think what others have suggested- having two or three trails connecting the car parks would be good. I don’t even think we need to build any trails- there’s already stuff there that I would be excited to ride!

If all else fails, how about hosting an Enduro race? It would bring a lot of riders into the area, and might get the local community more supportive of mountain biking in the park when they see how much income we bring in through cake sales and the like. It would also be a one-off, one day event to see how well the geology stands up in terms of erosion. You could use the current paths and cut some winding singletrack into the bracken, then replant the bracken after the event was finished.

Some very interesting thoughts here.

I just don’t get it, how can a community that accepts people clogging up their roads every weekend for 6 months of the year, dogs and horses relieving themselves everywhere (and associated litter problems) possibly be so disagreeable about a few people riding mountain bikes about?

Because it’s new and different and therefore scary. You wouldn’t believe some of the flak I have had from some sections of the community for changing the most minor things.

When I worked in the Beacons we were making some headway with the off-road 4×4 drivers – volunteer work parties and the like – until the government banned pretty much all of it with the NERC Act and all that was left were the illegals. I have never had a volunteer work party of ramblers…

I am going away tomorrow for a couple of days and will be offline so please don’t think I have lost interest.

fro45 – if there is one thing I will never, ever do it is plant bracken 🙂

Purely out of interest (and from bitter experience) do you find most aggro comes from long time members of the community who feel ownership of the area, or recently moved in residents with a touch of NIMBYism?

All of the above sounds exciting and productive! I’m a previous longterm member and chairperson of TROG (Tunstall and Rendlesham Off-road Group), who were able to (over the course of several years) build and maintain a mountain bike trail in the forests of Suffolk.

That started the same way, by the ranger being pro-MTB and approaching the club. I’m sure a similar approach could be used here, and I’d be very happy to become a member of a similar organisation if it meant being able to ride legally in Bradgate.

My tuppence worth – a lot won’t like this, but here goes.

To claim that mountain bikes would damage a SSSI that is so classified because of its geology is piffle. Whenever my ‘mate’ has ridden in the park he never rides through shoulder-height bracken (not surprisingly). My ‘mate’ rides down the mown paths that exist. Now, unless these paths have been gently cut by the wingbeats of passing warblers or benevolent pixies, they have been done by driving some kind of mechanised mower up them. I will wager that this single act would cause more geological ‘damage’ than a year of mountain bikers.

But this is irrelevant, and I’ll tell you why. The answer to this has always been ‘no’, it remains ‘no’ and it always will be ‘no’. There is no amount of good intentions that is going to change this. You have to get thoughts like “if only they’d consider it” and “it is so unreasonable” out of your mind. It will not happen. Full stop. End of.

Please, please, please stop posting on this thread as it is just going to end in tears. The road to hell is paved with good intentions as a far wiser person than me once said.

The fact of the matter is that the mere idea that things could be changed by going ‘public’ was touchingly naïve, but it was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the attitudes of people in the area.

I am willing to eat humble pie if I am proved wrong, but I’d be willing to wager £20 with anyone who is interested that there will not be legitimate mountain biking in Bradgate in the next five years. It ain’t going to happen folks, so please stop stirring the pot and just do what you have been doing for years anyway. Please.

Hi

But this is irrelevant, and I’ll tell you why. The answer to this has always been ‘no’, it remains ‘no’ and it always will be ‘no’. There is no amount of good intentions that is going to change this. You have to get thoughts like “if only they’d consider it” and “it is so unreasonable” out of your mind. It will not happen. Full stop. End of.

I would have to disagree with your comment dannyh the fact that Peter has replied to the thread and would like to hear what we could suggest is a step forward I do agree that the answer might be still be No for a long long time but the fact that someone is listening to what we have to say with lots of positive comments is certainly a form of progress.

As with all the comments I also agree that opening up the park for MTB riders would certainly help boost trade at the cafe and clearly marked trials for dual use or separate interesting ones would be good, I would even go as far as willing to only ride in the park at set times when its not so busy.

I would also be up for helping maintain and repair trails, or helping the park in anyway if it meant we could legally ride somewhere in the park.

Aaron

Danny, whilst Peter is willing to listen surely it’s worth us trying everything? Imagine how good it would be if we were allowed in the park. An end to forced early morning or late night bombing raids, If it comes to nothing I’m fairly sure like myself you will just carry on riding there anyway?

Do you two want to just give me the £20 now and we can call it quits?

I’ll take cheques.

In general I take the point about it not doing ‘any harm’. But what I think will happen is that if anyone pushes it enough it will make it onto some meeting agenda. It will inevitably get thrown out and this will embolden our ‘opponents’ to give out more grief, more ‘tellings off’ and probably (and this is what worries me) more enforcement by the people who actually can enforce it.

The bet stands.

Whilst Peter’s comments are interesting and (broadly) positive, by his own admission access is all down to the decision of the Trustees and community.

Perhaps I’ve been riding my road bike too much, but the level of general hostility towards cyclists (as measured by the number of incidents I’ve had of late) staggers and disgusts me. I see no reason why mountain bikers would be exempt from this, so the suggestion that the Bradgate trust would suddenly embrace us because we put forward reasonable and sound arguments is (IMO) just silly.

They’ll tell us to bugger off in polite (but firm) terms, and include some arguments of their own (the deer / erosion / children / liability / wild flowers / whatever). Then they’ll have little choice but to say “and after considering these issues, we think it’s essential to increase out policing efforts around the park because these issues are really important”. Otherwise why would they have told us to bugger off in the first place?

So we’ll end up worse off than we are now.

I’d love to see proper access and legal trails up there and would also be happy to offer my time and (feeble) muscle to help it happen. I’ll even be nice if necessary. But it just seems impossibly remote to me 🙁

Can we be worse off than we are now? I hear you Danny and I know this will end how you know it will, but hope dies last and all 😉

Mrbelowski has already written my next post for me.

Credit to Peter for ‘engaging’ with us. But as he has already admitted:

a) His hands are tied to a major extent by the higher body (I can’t remember the full name)

b) He has to answer to trustees and existing legit park users who….

c) Have given him loads of grief over changing minor things

d) He likes his job and wants to keep it (which is not a criticism)

So, given all the above, we are being ‘engaged with’. That ticks a box. That means that when we are told (again), politely yet firmly, to bugger off, the powers that be can also point to having ‘engaged with’ the group in question. No doubt also citing the ‘process’ they have gone through to reach the decision.

The decision, in reality, is a foregone conclusion. But hey, at least we have ‘engaged’.

This is going to be my last post on this thread because I really regret starting it and I want it to disappear as quickly as possible.

You can call me cynical and jaded if you wish – I would counter that with ‘experienced’ and ‘realistic’.

Time to leave it alone.

Fair play dannyh, can’t argue with you at all…

Imo there’s nothing to be lost in engaging with peter and the trustees.
with my local authority hat on….if there’s a rejection of the mtb community we need to find out why. A forum will help that. Find out who the trustees are, who the councillors are. Engage with them, teach them about the positives that can come out of allowing it. If they’re saying ‘no’ out of ignorance teach them otherwise. If its a no because of some nimbyism, well, there’s not a lot you can do about that.

i personally don’t think your attitude, Danny, is constructive. If i were a trustee reading this id be thinking that with that attitude you’re definitely not coming in.

if the park is just paying lip service and has no real intention of engaging, you’re not at a loss because you can still pick your times to poach.

I’m gonna chuck my hat in the ring and say peter is sincere.

Hi. firstly I should like to apologize as in my post before last I only said ‘please don’t ride the park’ without offering any real alternative. It may have seemed like I was anti- mtb in the park. That is not the stance I take, I’d just like to be able to get involved in something more constructive than off-piste riding and so I’m glad there’s now talk of trails repair parties and the like- that’s something I would be willing to get involved with.

As dannyh has said, Peter does have other people to answer to but I think the fact that he has bothered to come and engage on this forum speaks highly of his intentions

It’ll all end up like a mini midlands New Forest, engagement will be futile I fear

Rather disappointed by all the pessimism.

Just to clear up one point from dannyh – the SSSI is designated for both its biological and geological interest and for being a rare surviving example of a medieval deer park. Hence the concerns about damage – the rocks can, to a large extent, look after themselves.

I had my regular monthly meeting with the Chairman of Trustees this morning and briefed him on the situation. He has a certain degree of sympathy with the argument that we are discriminating against one user group and that MTBs are banned simply because they have always been banned rather than because we have made an objective assessment of the situation.

I therefore propose that we establish a small group to consider the ways in which we might be able to introduce some legitimate MTB opportunities to the Park and to Swithland Wood.

If anyone here is prepared to devote a small amount of time to this then please email me at: surveyor@bradgatepark.org

I think that 5 or 6 people will be enough. Please only volunteer if you are prepared to be positive.

I can’t promise anything but if you don’t try…

Thanks for getting back to us Peter, I have sent you an email.

I have also mailed.

Emailed.

Lets try and make it work.