You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Went out for a gentle spin on local trails last night. Cutting through Buckle Wood (towards the caravan field if you know the area) on a trail that is now just ridable after weeks of dry weather and is probably 2 metres wide at least, I met an older lady walking an aged border collie. I slowed to allow her to pass at a covid-safe distance but she stepped across in front of me and quite mildly said that riding bikes in the woods was not permitted as it was an SSSI and an AONB. (It is interesting that for an SSSI/AONB they really go to town when they're felling trees!)
She said that there were no footpaths or bridleways in the woods, but that I could ride on the trails lower down towards Buckholt Woods. I nodded in a non-confrontational way and pointed out that I thought this trail was ok because it was used by horse riders, gesturing to the profusion of horsey footprints all around us. "Oh" she said "it's ok to ride horses here"... Really I thought to myself.
Anyway, we parted on good terms, she having done her duty and me sure that I'll be riding that trail again before long. Strava shows me that I've ridden it 116 times since we moved to Cranham 9 years ago.
Chatting with Sheila at Slam 69 today, she confirmed that I had run in to Mrs Tyson, of reasonable notoriety amongst the local MTB community.
If anyone can shed light on whether it is or isn't permitted to ride on this trail that would be great. I don't want to jeopardise any access agreements or stuff. However as far as I can see there is zero harm in riding it, I'm not building any trails, or causing any more damage than the somewhat brutal forestry works that have happened there in the last few years. When you see the mess that the local equine community make of the trail stopping bikes does seem a little petty!
What does the OS map show the track as? I'd start there and then go digging for a bit more clarity.
I think the bottom line is it's her land and she doesn't want MTBs using it, Bigfoot MBC did a great bit of negotiating and secured an agreed route.
Ah yes, did hear about this, there is some info on the net about it, last thing i read was regarding the rejection of a bridleway through that area, with Mr Tyson stating:
On 21 February, Mr Tyson, Cranham Woods Ltd, responded;-
“My wife and I, through Cranham Woods Ltd, own the 200 acres or so of Cranham &
Buckle Woods that surround the area where the proposed new path submitted by Liz
Hayden of the Cranham Common Management Committee is situated
We would like to make it clear that we have no objection to a footpath being created,
as that path would lead naturally to our s.193 LPA and s.15 Crow Act land, and there
is already a continuance of the proposed path into our woods.
We would however strongly object to a bridleway being created, not least as there
are no bridleways in our woods, horses, dog walkers etc. are already welcome, but
we are bedevilled by mountain bikers are doing damage to our SSSI status….”
Not quite sure how we're damaging the SSSI status, there's a large percentage of the Cotswolds that are SSSI, AONB and so on, reality is it's just more NIMBY and olden days landowners.
Whenever i ride up there i've just never had any thought of riding through that bit, always wonder if there's stuff there, but i just head through Witcombe Woods towards Buckholt and do that route back to Pope's, but guessing you're heading back to Cranham.
‘Bedevilled’. Not sure you’ll get anywhere with people like that until ‘the rules’ are properly changed. Me - I’m going all 2026 DMMO and anywhere with COVID whingers goes straight to the top of my list.
I had SSSI waved in my face a while back. All 78000 acres of the Dark Peak SSSI as opposed to a rare newt pond between a canal and a railway line. Foxtrot-Oscar.
To be fair, they sure have a nice house, this is seriously nice, i can see why they want peace!
http://batterhamsmitharchitects.co.uk/cranham-lodge/
You are in the difficult position that the landowner has granted access into the woods and kept some user groups apart. Local MTB groups have gone along with this.
You have been asked by the landowner not to use trails that they haven't given permission for.
Bearing in mind the good work of the locals I'd defer to rule 1 and ride the agreed routes and probably even tell the owner if I met her in future. It's one thing not knowing what the local agreement is and another ignoring it and undoing their work.
I know the usual suspects will come out with the usual arguments to ride anywhere but that makes mtbers look to be the issue rather than the landowner who won't agree reasonable access.
Thanks for the input peeps.
To be fair, I can understand part of their point of view. If I owned 200 acres of attractive woodland I wouldn't want people building new trails or modifying old ones with no consultation. Particularly when it's people just ripping in new downhill tracks in the loam with no thought of the environmental damage they're causing. Then everyone gets tarred with the same brush ("bedevilled")
It does feel a bit off when the track I was riding is (1) hacked to hell and back by horses and (2) goes through an area that has had what appears to be real hack and slash forestry perpetrated on it.
Anyway, I can bypass it by riding either through Climperwell woods (fine at this time of year, less so when it's been raining) or down the B4070 (not a busy road but a fast one, so that'll be nice).
SSSI status is a well known way for landowners to up the ante in a quest to exclude as many people as possible from their land.
It is a system that is coming close to crossing (or has crossed) from being 'used' correctly to being 'abused' to stymie access. Expect a lot more SSSIs to appear now landowners have had 'their' view 'bedevilled' by hoardes of lockdown walkers, bikers etc.
It does feel a bit off when the track I was riding is (1) hacked to hell and back by horses and (2) goes through an area that has had what appears to be real hack and slash forestry perpetrated on it.
I think they have deliberately separated horse riders from mtbers in the woods. There are good arguments that the approach is reasonable.
As above, I think they have stables or the likes nearby or neighbouring, so let that traffic through, to be fair it is just a through road that has alternate routes, I just avoid it as it doesn’t have anything interesting on it from what I’ve seen, so I just go down that route across the road, cross over and go down that track by the big house and head that way, seems easier and more riding?
To be fair, I can understand part of their point of view. If I owned 200 acres of attractive woodland I wouldn’t want people building new trails or modifying old ones with no consultation. Particularly when it’s people just ripping in new downhill tracks in the loam with no thought of the environmental damage they’re causing. Then everyone gets tarred with the same brush (“bedevilled”)
This is the case at Cranham, and there's also some protected archaeological stuff that people were riding over.
And you're absolutely right, it only takes one or two folks to forget Rule 1, to make those on the receiving end (who have a legal duty to look after this stuff if it's on their land) feel 'bedevilled'.
Howdy, I was one of the three people (plus Graham from Slam69 & Roger from CC-CC) who negotiated the access agreement with Natural England for the Buckholt Wood area, getting on for 10 years ago. I never want to do it again.
As I recall, there is no MTB access agreement whatsoever with the Tysons for any of their land (broadly Cranham Wood and Buckle Wood I think). They did not want bikes on their land, horses are OK. As I recall, any bridleways in their woods are permissive, not public rights of way. You'll see old painted horseshoe signs on trees, not the usual metal public rights of way markers. The OS map shows the bit I think you are talking about (starting about here https://what3words.com/alleges.theory.dove) as a public footpath, but I don't recall seeing any clear markers. As you say, it is 'heavily used' by the equine community.
There is a singletrack we knew as One Who Waits which starts near the horse track / camping field you mention - that's fairly low key as it doesn't go anywhere near their house. There's another called The Shrine which came out right by their front gate, which is a bit more obvious.
The OS map shows the bit I think you are talking about (starting about here https://what3words.com/alleges.theory.dove ) as a public footpath, but I don’t recall seeing any clear markers. As you say, it is ‘heavily used’ by the equine community.
Your local council will hold a map called the Definitive map that shows the legal status of rights of way. Certainly in Cheshire it's available online, I've used it a couple of times to check when walkers have told me I'm "not allowed to ride on the footpath".
A few weeks ago I was explaining about the definitive map and how it demonstrated I was OK to ride there to a grumpy old lady, she just got bored and wandered off, so it worked for me! 😁
I am of the opinion that the track is misclassified, look at the OS map, start at the B4070 and note the kink and the alignment of the track in question. The modern road to Stroud is not the original, it used to follow that track through to Sheepcombe, some is bridleway, some is footpath and some is nothing.
As the landowner isn't interested in correcting the misclassification it isn't going to change.
So i will be nice and avoid the shrine, if i feel like it. However i have no interest discussing with someone who has come into the area to play lord of the manor. I have been using that track for almost 30 years and have no intention of changing.
I just avoid it as it doesn’t have anything interesting on it from what I’ve seen, so I just go down that route across the road, cross over and go down that track by the big house and head that way, seems easier and more riding?
Depends on the type of riding you do, if you want to play in Cranham fine, but the track is very useful as a way out into and out of the stroud valleys.
...look at the OS map...
No, as I said, look at the definitive map, that'll tell you what the legal status of the track is. There's a few new bridlepaths in the area around Delamere Forest to make a long distance horse trail, they aren't necessarily on OS maps, especially ones that are old editions.
tthew, nothing to do with legal status, the status us known. The status is, IMO, wrong and that the track is misclassified. That is the issue. I suspect the track is old, very old, it leads from the roman road at birdlip and across to sheepscombe/painswick. The classification is a mess, some is tarmaced. some a footpath,, and some a bridleway. The issue is the new landowner decided to ban access to bikes, and only bikes. It's been used by bikes for decades.
It's evident that the last year has (generally-to-MTB-specific) 1) brought more people out 2) brought 'new groups' of people out and 3) has resulted in loads more digging in the woods as people seek to get more out of the the 'same old trails' or their local area.
All of this has legitimately or otherwise antagonised land owners so things are gonna need to get better as I suspect we're at an all time low (my personal experience suggests this and I no longer seek the hassle of going out before 1730 on a weekend).
From a look at the history, it is as many say, NIMBY for that part, when it was brought forward to formally make it a bridleway it was rejected due to the information put in front of the committee, unfortunately the landowner had the loudest voice by the looks of it.
I can see the reason why it's annoying, having read a bit on it, permission for the land was given over a century ago for public use, but has slowly been shut off by new owners coming in and changing the goalposts, it seems such a waste of time and effort for the small change required, but i guess that's what some people are like throughout their lives.
tthew, nothing to do with legal status, the status us known. The status is, IMO, wrong and that the track is misclassified.
Ah OK, fair enough. I'd not continue to ride a footpath or other non-RoW track after I'd been told no to by the owner but if you're OK with it then more power to you. They could start a civil suit against you, but don't suppose it'd come to much.
"They could start a civil suit against you, but don’t suppose it’d come to much"
I imagine it might actually.....considering who her husband is.
https://www.3pb.co.uk/barristers/richard-tyson/
I imagine it might actually…..considering who her husband is.
AFAIK, (i.e. I learned this on Singletrack, (ILTOS 😁)) trespass being a common law, you can only sue for the value of your losses, which in the case of a few tyre tracks in a muddy trail = square root of **** all.
I agree MTB access round there is a delicate balance, so probably worth avoiding that path. Though do remember that Buckle and Cranham Woods are Access Land under CRoW so walking with a bike is fine if it makes for a simpler journey.
I also agree with mrmo that it looks like the path from the caravan field is the old road and should have been all classified as bridleway. There are so many paths like this in Glos it would be good to have some concerted effort to get them reclassified, a bit like what the Ramblers are doing with lost paths.
And the definitive map is sort-of online for Glos, but it's the same as the (online) OS Map and is not legally definitive. I queried a path recently and the guys at County Hall sent me a photo of the paper definitive map with old notes from the sixties extinguishing a path.
There's definitely no legal access in buckle woods, although I also have used that foot path quite regularly - just as a way of keeping off the road by the campsite as I make my way to the rest of the area from Miserden / Foston's Ash direction. I use the bridal way that cust across the Whitaker's field (over town farm) next to the entrance to Ebworth and then back up the footpath.... I'm aware that the trails in that wood are illegal and stopped riding them when they did the felling 3or4 years back.
I think the general consensus is, if we want to keep riding the legal trails In the cranham area, keep away from Buckle Woods as the owners kick up a stink.
I don't think it matters what cyclists do, the Tyson's are going to push at any opportunity. Though i will say the new trails being built off the racetrack are never going to help win any argument.
Was there not a recent change to English law that made trespass a criminal offence now instead of civil?
Asking as I suspect that makes consequences a bit more severe if prosecution does proceed.
Though i will say the new trails being built off the racetrack are never going to help win any argument.
Id agree with you there 💯% - although there aren't that many people using them. Also as long as the trails stay away from the Cotswolds way it may be ok (for now).
I imagine it might actually…..considering who her husband is.
Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth served court papers.
Was there not a recent change to English law that made trespass a criminal offence now instead of civil?
Nope, not yet.
There's a thing going through parliament that makes creating an encampment with your vehicles a criminal matter.
Simple trespass remains a civil matter.
Yeah, new trespass rules are being aimed at dealing with activists and their encampments after all the climate change stuff, was never aimed at people wandering round the countryside, as that would be unmanageable for them.
As for this area, i do tend to go once in a while now, i'm south of Stroud so stick with Dursley and Nibley as it's closer and easier to deal with as quieter and less issues with locals (yes i know Nibley has the issues with the DH stuff), every visit up to Cranham seems to be busy with walkers, and always a few tutters, i do like the stencils on the tree though, does help keep bikers right!
LAND OWNER: How dare you come on my land, sir?
PEASANT MOUNTAIN BIKER: Your land! How do you make that out?
LAND OWNER: Because I inherited it from my father.
PEASANT MOUNTAIN BIKE: And pray, how did he come by it?
LAND OWNER: It descended to him from his ancestors.
PEASANT MOUNTAIN BIKE: But tell me how they came by it?
LAND OWNER: Why, they fought for it and won it, of course.
PEASANT MOUNTAIN BIKE (taking off his coat): Then I’ll fight you for it.
If you dont own the land in our currant abstract of land ownership, you have had it 🙁 Your nothing.
Start a revolution and take back our common land 🙂
Read this:
and this...
https://www.amazon.com/Who-Owns-England-Guy-Shrubsole/dp/0008321671
Can you see the cat ?
Simple trespass remains a civil matter
Yes
However, got a bike with you, grand piano, camera whatever, digging tool etc. Aggrevated Trespass. Criminal.
Just so wrong 🙁
Yeah, new trespass rules are being aimed at dealing with activists and their encampments after all the climate change stuff, was never aimed at people wandering round the countryside, as that would be unmanageable for them.
They would love us to all go away and think that's all it is, never mind, move on. I hope you're right and it's only ever used to deal with er... protesters? Hold on...
Landowners could be all over this one whether the letter of the new law backs them up or not, whether it's enforceable or not.
As always, the law is written to make intentional trespass a criminal act, but as with all, how it is policed is a different thing, i can't see many police being deployed to landowners properties to catch people trespassing, and then having to make a case that it was 'intentionally' done and also tick the second requirement of this law change.
This law has been specifically aimed at kneecapping protests, where police are already deployed and can then have the power to arrest those trespassing, or setting up an encampment more easily, the entire law changes are written around scenarios that occurred recently (protesters shutting down roads and facilities, traveller camps, etc).
As for me, the changes won't cause any real issue, i doubt the police will actually police this at the level landowners think, there has to be trespass, and then there has to be some secondary event, i.e. threatening behaviour, not leaving, etc, so unless you sit there having a shouting match in front of witnesses, i can't see it being effective for simple stuff that we see.
interestingly reading the notes from the meeting, they don't actually know who owns all the land over which the path goes, SO there is no landowner or agent to contemplate civil action anyway. Be interested to see the exact land boundaries on a map.
Unfortunately you are wrong @argee
The whole point of the new legislation is that there now does not have to be any threatening behaviour. As @redthunder posted, if you are caught trespassing whilst carrying something which assumes you are intent on doing some action on the land rather than causing any damage then it is criminal. Hence carrying a camera, trowel or clarinet can be just as problematic as a placard saying down with the toffs. Anyone who thinks the new law is anything but a huge weapon in the arsenal of the landowner to be used at will is deluded.
To be honest the wood is a total mess I only walk in it and shrine mound being sealed off was a load of crap it is there wood so they can do as they like if you look at the roadside in places they put all those wooden pillars to stop people parking let them get on with it Cranham woods is a nice area but the trails are well past there best.
Well they'll be dead soon enough and the problem will go away then we can go back o riding wherever up there as the next owner is less likely to be so bothered
Ah the schoolboy way of thinking...I suspect it'll be very much the same as before - the woods will no doubt be passed down the family line (possibly as some form of Inheritance Tax dodge) and there will no doubt be mention of how they intend them to be managed in the will...
Saying all that doom and gloom, I do like the sound of your idea though, but will require time...
Speeder
Full Member
Well they’ll be dead soon enough and the problem will go away then we can go back o riding wherever up there as the next owner is less likely to be so bothered
Unfortunately the most bothered about their land tend to be newly rich/inherited.
Anyone who thinks the new law is anything but a huge weapon in the arsenal of the landowner to be used at will is deluded.
A million times this. I'll wager way more signs and shit will go up in pretty short order as soon as it becomes law.
Have you got a link to the wording of the proposed law / act that suggests having a camera might be an issue?