Peak District MTB has submitted a call for reform to the UK Government’s inquiry on outdoor access.
Peak District MTB are calling for:
- A legal right to ride suitable footpaths already in informal use.
- A national target for all National Parks and Local Authorities to open a minimum 22% of rights of way to cyclists.
- A legal duty on the National Trust, water companies, and other landowners to publish Rights of Way Improvement Plans.
- A review of HMRC tax relief schemes to ensure access agreements with landowners are legally enforceable, include cyclists, are developed with local user input, and are transparently monitored to guarantee the public benefit promised in exchange for taxpayer subsidy.
- Recognition of mountain biking’s value to health, rural economies, conservation, and land stewardship.
- Support for MTB volunteers who maintain and repair trails.
Peak District MTB statement:
As proud supporters of theBritish Mountaineering Council’scampaign to the APPG Inquiry on Access to Nature, Peak District MTB is demanding urgent action to address the unfair and outdated restrictions on cycling access to the countryside.“
From defending Rushup Edge to building partnerships around the Hope Valley, the Roaches, and beyond, the group has shown how responsible cycling access can benefitwalkers, riders, landowners, and nature alike.
“The Peak District is a national park in name—but not in access. Just 11% of trails here are legally open to cyclists, compared to 22% across England. We need legislation that reflects how people actually enjoy the outdoors today. That’s why we launched our #22PercentCampaign: to challenge outdated rights of way law and give responsible mountain bikers the access they deserve.” – Greville Kelly, Chair of Peak District MTB.
Singletrackworld’s story The Duke, the bike ban and the taxman story formed part of Peak Ditrict MTB’s submission.
This is my whole point though, you ARE allowed to ride on footpaths, you just don’t have a legal right.Â
Reframing no legal right as being illegal has now stuck in the minds of the general public and we need to undo that.Â
I know most of the vocal opponents to cycling probably won’t listen but we shouldn’t be self limiting ourselves or others.Â
Whilst I find PDMTB’s tenacity compelling, it’s not something I can get particularly excited about.
Â
20-25 years and I think the roll call of success is:
Â
Elmin Pit climb.
Allowed to dig some drains along Derwent Edge.
Some consideration given to MTB on Whinstone Lee Tor to Cutthroat Bridge.
Moving some mud and stones around at The Roaches.
Â
In that time we’ve seen Lockerbrook flattened, Rushup Edge half flattened, Chapel Gate sanitised, Screaming Mile flattened. Etc.
Â
Whilst I do admire these groups, they are investing a hell of a lot of their time and effort for a few crumbs from the table. That’s great if lobbying and campaigning is what gets you excited. But, ultimately, they have zero clout and a particularly militant landowner will always do what they want and get away with it 99% of the time.
Â
🤷♂️
Not enjoying the £74,000 raised for helicopters lifting slabs on to cut gate then? Not relieved Cavedale didn’t follow Pindale? Not ridden the conduit at the west of ladybower, which avoids the A57?
Â
Benny Goodman was at the end of around a century of campaigning and lobbying. And even then it took many more years for a change to happen.Â
Don’t forget we’ve had – in your 25 year estimate – 14 years of a government truly uninterested. Â
And its nearer 15 years anyway – Rushup is what galvanised it. And it’s not just the same people.Â
Â
Â
This is becoming a massive problem as landowners and developers work out the loopholes. Trees and historic buildings especially, public rights of way is the next easy target.
Landowner / developer asks to chop down some trees or demolish a listed but derelict building. Permission denied. Developer does it anyway then claims some incredible coincidence in miscommunication. It’s astonishing how many buildings spontaneously combust only a week or so after permission has been denied.
Oh well, now that the trees have all gone, we may as well pay the £50,000 fine, then develop the site anyway – the development that’ll make millions in profit and a £50,000 fine is basically just collateral.
Same applies in trail access / maintenance. By the time the council gets around to inspecting something the landowner has done, it becomes so expensive to resolve it that the landowner is holding all the cards. Gosh, did I accidentally block a public right of way? Oh well, it’s been like it for a year now and I’ve built a lovely extension right over it so best just leave it as is.
^^+1
Â
See also “gosh did we accidentally put 20 tonnes of industrial aggregate on a SSSI? Thanks for letting us know before we did it to another"
Cavedale was, literally, a couple of days from being done until we got involved.Â
And they only responded due to the (apparent lack of) clout we were able to pull on to get the media involved and rally troops very quickly.
You guys are awesome.
I know.
Great to see the debate above, just to expand on the first point that has been picked up in a few comments ‘A legal right to ride suitable footpaths already in informal use.’
At PDMTB we recognise the challenges and complications that exist with this objective, its an ambitious call and would need work to define the specifics. We have been informed that the Scottish system is off the table, however Labour have committed to improve access to Nature, and the call for evidence is seeking opinion on how new legislation and policy could enable more people to make use of existing access opportunities and public rights of way. We await the all party parliamentary group’s deliberations, in the mean time we are continuing to push for increased access in the Peak District where we can.
We also encourage anyone reading this to contact your local MP to raise the issue.