You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
This was covered awhile back on the front page. There’s slight progress, the bouncers on the bridge have gone! But overall it should be a lot better.
I just struggle to understand how we still live by the principle that so much of this country is owned by so few individuals due to historical battles, influence, etc, they had and continue to have. With the way it's set up these days that they get grants and assistance from NT and so on, they still tend to have their cake and eat it.
This. It makes the Russian oligarchs look like honest businessmen compared to how our land and resources ended up in private hands
It makes the Russian oligarchs look like honest businessmen
Nah they are just the same. Oligarchs who did their thievery long enough ago and got themselves so embedded into the system that it isnt questioned and instead we are supposed to respect them.
Just take the Duke of Devonshire. Minor family until Henry VIII where when one of them got into a position of power at the exchequer and suddenly got rather rich.
Very true. The rest of the dukes we still have all have got their wealth by dubious means
It is the forelock-tugging gammons I can't understand.
Bowing and scraping to someone just because they plopped out of a certain vulva.
🤷♂️
Gammon is as gammon does.
This is where the French got it right 200 years ago with the help of Madame Guilotine.
Vive la Revolution.
Re Devonshire estate, I just ride the tracks, with a few of my remaining koms. Come and get them... it's mainly gravel but nice open country (albeit grouse eco-desert, funny the red kites so plentiful elsewhere don't fly over that way). Had one discussion with a gamekeeper but waddya gonna do?
Indeed. Locals will just get on with it, as I do. Shame for the visitors though, they're missing out.
There have been campaigns since at least the early 1990s to create a public register of these arrangements. Unfortunately many hereditary peers who still have voting rights and other major landowners in the House of Lords. The Commons don’t seem to be willing to go up against them, I would say because they went to school with them but the Labour government did no more.
Mark Thomas fronted a campaign in the late 1990s but got no further than anyone else.
Are there similar issues on their Chatsworth estate? I'm not aware of any.
Vive la Revolution.
Do we get to start with the Conservative government?
Locals will just get on with it, as I do. Shame for the visitors though, they’re missing out.
Not all locals. I know a few who'd love to ride those tracks but don't like breaking rules, daft as those rules may be. Which is why I'm all for normalising it (amongst those likely to look on here), like riding high footpaths in the lakes.
Are there similar issues on their Chatsworth estate? I’m not aware of any
Oh yes. But the focus there is on the River Derwent. Try kayaking the Derwent in the Chatsworth (and surrounding) land, and a 'Ranger' will be there sharpish to try to stop you.
Once someone on the river has been spotted, there is a general alert to the Estates Workers, who can turn up mob handed to stop you going any further.
I've spoken to the Chairman of British Canoeing about this, he knows the Duke personally, and says they cannot do anything about it.
Meaning they dont want a confrontation. I'd advocate a mass 'paddle' down the river, he really isnt going to stop 100+ people in their boats, but, BC say it will be detrimental, and their negotiations should take precedence. but, have so far got nowhere.
Not all locals. I know a few who’d love to ride those tracks but don’t like breaking rules
Yeah that's me. I don't like the worry of conflict on my rides, and as a woman often riding on her own, I am not going to try and put myself in an argument with a gamekeeper! Plus, I am organising a ride over that way in a week or so with a group, but because it's put out on social media, certainly wouldn't look to ride footpaths.
I really dont get the moaning. its private land, just like any of the farm land around there.
The bridge across the river at the pavilion has never been open access and always allowed bikes to cross on foot. I bet there have been idiots ride across it.
Its been opened up over the years to walkers, holiday makers etc just not to bikes, I dont see that being different to any other area. Maybe he should just close off all access to his land ?
He should try coming and living in Shropshire where there is lovely tracks/farmland that no farmer will let you on, but it appears its ok just because Bolton Abbey is owned by someone rich.
Stop moaning about the land owner and lobby for open access to footpaths for bikes?
I really dont get the moaning. its private land
For which the Duke gets a tax break for supposedly "opening up to provide greater access" We're paying for the right to use the tracks on that land, but because "rich people" that's not happening. That's why there's moaning.
For which the Duke gets a tax break for supposedly “opening up to provide greater access”
The estate has massively opened up access over the last few years, putting on many events for families, holding many running races etc. It just doesnt include mountain bike access on areas where mountain bike access isnt currently legal.
Roadies go their in huge numbers
It just doesnt include mountain bike access on areas where mountain bike access isnt currently legal.
Guy's video seems to suggest that the Landy tracks (for instance) across the moor which are more useable and link to more areas sustainably rather than the current BW, aren't available to MTBer's to use? Why shouldn't a particular group of users that up to this point haven't been well catered for, make representations to get that access?
I just struggle to understand how we still live by the principle that so much of this country is owned by so few individuals due to historical battles, influence, etc, they had and continue to have. With the way it’s set up these days that they get grants and assistance from NT and so on, they still tend to have their cake and eat it.
The Normans have a lot to answer for.
And the Duke of Devonshire should maybe move to where is title actually is.... 😉
However, on a more serious note I can't see it ever changing; we have very little access compared to other countries. Maybe we need to start on Rights of Way first before land access. Bridleways/ BOATs, etc that suddenly become a footpath... but that too is a legal minefield....And those in power aren't keen to change it.
Stop moaning about the land owner and lobby for open access to footpaths for bikes?
That wouldn't make any difference in this case as there aren't any footpaths at all on Barden Moor.
Why shouldn’t a particular group of users that up to this point haven’t been well catered for, make representations to get that access?
Correct they can ask, but doesnt mean they should get. There is an inference that because the land owner is rich he shouldnt say no.
If someone asked if they could ride their bike on my garden I would tell them to do one. Whats different ?
I used to live near Bolton Abbey and the riding around there is far more accessible than where I live now in Shropshire where BW appear to just go nowhere and all the farmers appear to be anti walkers let alone bikers
That wouldn’t make any difference in this case as there aren’t any footpaths at all on Barden Moor.
Just checked the OS map and I think it shows permissive footpaths. Certainly there are signs for walking up to Simons Seat etc
If someone asked if they could ride their bike on my garden I would tell them to do one. Whats different?
If you got a tax break because you said you'd allow them to ride their bike in your garden, and you still said do one?
I’ve spoken to the Chairman of British Canoeing about this, he knows the Duke personally, and says they cannot do anything about it.
Meaning they dont want a confrontation. I’d advocate a mass ‘paddle’ down the river, he really isnt going to stop 100+ people in their boats, but, BC say it will be detrimental, and their negotiations should take precedence. but, have so far got nowhere.
Now you know why they are the Chairman of BC and have no intention of doing anything about access onto chums land/rivers. It why I left BC and just paddle what I want to when conditions allow and completely ignore access agreements
And the Duke of Devonshire should maybe move to where is title actually is…. 😉
Nah we're good thanks, with the National Park, Woodland Trust and National Trust all anti-mtb in this area, along with ineptitude of the Forestry commission locally i'm not sure we'd cope!
I really dont get the moaning. its private land
Keep on tugging that forelock.
The estate has massively opened up access over the last few years, putting on many events for families, holding many running races etc
All for free or are these charged events? Since it doesnt really count in the latter case.
It just doesnt include mountain bike access on areas where mountain bike access isnt currently legal.
Well, yes thats the problem really. He seems to have got a rather large tax rebate for providing additional access when all that is being provided is the normal legal requirement.
Roadies go their in huge numbers
A general feature of roadies is they stick to the public roads.
And for us that live in Scotland, it's not a problem we've to really deal with 🙂
Just been out for my lunch ride, rode any track I fancied including a lap of this chaps main house:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Egerton,_7th_Duke_of_Sutherland
One of their estate roads goes with 50m of the house, we can use it, just like we can pretty much any other path, track, lane etc.
Anyone who thinks that land (not industrial, commercial, houses & gardens) ought to have restricted access needs to read about the Enclosures Act and other equivalent land grabs.
If you got a tax break because you said you’d allow them to ride their bike in your garden, and you still said do one?
The register shows that the Bolton Abbey Estate in Yorkshire (the Estate) has a conditional tax exemption subject to an undertaking that public access is available all year on the permissive footpaths and bridleways shown on a map
The guy in the video was riding his mtb within the estate on a BW so it ticks the box. Again in England you are not allowed to ride a bike on a footpath.
The bridge was only ever a permissive footpath so in theory within his rights to ban bikes crossing it (if ridden)
The owners have created many jobs in the area and done a lot to support the local economy and tourist industry in the area.
A general feature of roadies is they stick to the public roads.
No access is via a private road. MTB's are just as entitled to use this road. They dont charge cyclist for access, but they do charge cars.
And the Duke of Devonshire should maybe move to where is title actually is…. 😉
He's quite happy at the ancestral seat in (checks map) central Derbyshire...
I've got to the point where I think rights of way, and access agreements, and concessionary paths are all part of the problem, not something to be built on. Scotland have it right. I thought we mountain bikers had it bad... but when you start looking at access to water courses it gets even crazier. Just take it back.
the Labour government did no more
Well, they did. But that should have been the start, not the end, of opening up the countryside. It's not just stalled in England and Wales... it's going backwards. Just take it back.
The guy in the video was riding his mtb within the estate on a BW so it ticks the box. Again in England you are not allowed to ride a bike on a footpath.
On the vid the guy rides the bridleway down from storiths on this map:
https://www.streetmap.co.uk/map?x=407099&y=454167&z=120&sv=bolton+abbey&st=3&tl=Map+of+Bolton+Abbey+Estate+Country+Park,+North+Yorkshire+ [Place+of+Interest]&searchp=ids&mapp=map
...which you can see actually goes over the wooden bridge by the stepping stones, and stops when it gets to the west bank, ie the estate. So he has to turn round and ride back up again. As a winter night ride we'd just head up where it's marked "dales way" which is easy as you like but gets pretty atmospheric in the dark as you hear the strid roaring in the gorge underneath.
The bridge was only ever a permissive footpath so in theory within his rights to ban bikes crossing it (if ridden)
Not true - check the map.
The owners have created many jobs in the area
Including for bouncers to stop road bikers pushing over the bridge, and gamekeepers driving round with guns in the back of their quad trolleys .
Actually I should edit to say that you do now see a far more diverse range (meaning less white) of folks enjoying the countryside round the abbey than you do anywhere else in the dales, so for sure something must have been done right. Even more so post lockdown.
Though maybe it's the accessibility that does it. It was pretty much the only bit of the dales I can recall my leeds working class upbringing dad felt took us to back in the day, possibly because of the laid out paths, paid for parking 'attraction' feel to a part of the estate. Whatever, it's a shame they're so anti bike.
I'd recommend anyone interested in access rights in any way shape or form read this book
https://www.waterstones.com/book/the-book-of-trespass/nick-hayes/9781526604729
More info here https://www.righttoroam.org.uk/
Read it last week, really interesting.
Edit: As someone above mentioned, Scotland have got the correct attitude to access rights.
It’s not just stalled in England and Wales… it’s going backwards. Just take it back.
Wales is still pending, to be fair. Potential massive gain there.
England - just nah in the current climate.
Potential massive gain there.
It's completely stalled. Going nowhere.
Do you have any inside info Kelvin?
What progress have you seen in the last three years?
Not true – check the map.
Curiously, the definitive map shows that the bridge is a BW to its midpoint, then changes to a FP. So the locked gate at the eastern end is actually blocking a bridleway, as horse riders would have no chance of using the step stile. Anyone want to report them? 🙂
https://maps.northyorks.gov.uk/connect/analyst/mobile/#/main?mapcfg=Out_and_About
As for the financial incentives, the estate is holding up its end of the bargain, as described, the issue is that the bargain it has been allowed to strike is heavily weighted in favour of the estate, rather than the taxpaying public which is subsidising one of the richest landlords in the world. They have got away with the bare minimum of access for cycling, and the authorities which supposedly negotiate on our behalf to get value for money should be doing more to open up their lands. Hence the campaign.
The Bolton Abbey estate is a particular standout in terms of being allowed to get away with virtually no PROWs on its land - several presumably centuries-old BW tracks simply cease to exist when they reach the estate boundary, and presumably the local authorities were too deferential to pursue them back in the 60s. Most of those BWs are still mapped running right up to the edge, just to rub salt in the wound and highlight the ability of the estate back then to click its fingers and extinguish them without a murmur of opposition.
Grassington Moor and the shooting estates across in Nidderdale are another prime example. Clear and obvious routes which have been downgraded or just vanished where they meet the moor edge or parish boundary. Mossdale to Middlesmoor should be one of the best watershed routes in the county, but it has ceased to exist even on the ground because the BW stops dead.
Just take it back.
Couldn't agree more. All of these sorts of agreements appear to be a way of just making it difficult to gain access to paths or tracks. Just ride them.
Just checked the OS map and I think it shows permissive footpaths. Certainly there are signs for walking up to Simons Seat etc
The moor is currently open access land to those on foot but has no permissive footpaths. This allows them to effectively ban dogs from the moor. The only permanent access is one bridleway which has in parts been ruined by cattle, but obviously only in bits which don't impact the use for shooting. Considering how well the rest of the paths and tracks in the estate are maintained it's very noticeable.
As for the financial incentives, the estate is holding up its end of the bargain, as described, the issue is that the bargain it has been allowed to strike is heavily weighted in favour of the estate, rather than the taxpaying public which is subsidising one of the richest landlords in the world.
Thats hardly much of a surprise is it. Our whole tax system is built around that premis. The richer you are the less tax you pay to the point where it becomes optional
I think I’m the video they mention that they ask for the plans, but they don’t have to disclose as it’s tax related?
Not all locals. I know a few who’d love to ride those tracks but don’t like breaking rules
Yeah that’s me. I don’t like the worry of conflict on my rides, and as a woman often riding on her own, I am not going to try and put myself in an argument with a gamekeeper!
...which is entirely very reasonable. It's not about argument or confrontation (on the few occasions I've had a chat with a gamekeeper it's not been heated or anything). But I've friends who just would rather not be in a position where they might get told they're doing something they shouldn't. My tolerance for this is probably higher than average and i don't like it.
Whatever, the options are keep off the hills or ride the tracks and normalise it as far as possible whilst being reasonable and not winding up estate staff (much as I think there are better ways for folks to spend their time than killing small animals/telling people not to ride bikes).
I think I’m the video they mention that they ask for the plans, but they don’t have to disclose as it’s tax related?
Correct you can find the letters on the internet quite easily. And the only bit of response to the FOI below
The register shows that the Bolton Abbey Estate in Yorkshire (the Estate) has a conditional tax exemption subject to an undertaking that public access is available all year on the permissive footpaths and bridleways shown on a map
So as long as they let walkers use the permissive footpaths, and bikers use the permissive bridleways, which they do, they are meeting the conditions of the tax break.
Where I live now in Shropshire there a farmers who positively block access to legal footpaths let alone permissive ones. Of course they are not perceived as rich land owners so thats ok ?
There are some lovely footpaths that would be good to ride up there, but they are that footpaths, so you shouldnt ride them. The ones especially that are nearer the river and the Abbey are very well maintained, look great to ride but are there for families to use and more often than not full of young families with pushchairs etc. Yes the moorland is fairly vast, but christ those paths are a bit dull to ride on unless I guess you like gravel bike riding.
So as long as they let walkers use the permissive footpaths, and bikers use the permissive bridleways, which they do, they are meeting the conditions of the tax break.
Which is what is being challenged. The public footpaths are redundant with the access laws and the bridleways are shite. So what has that cost the taxpayer?
Where I live now in Shropshire there a farmers who positively block access to legal footpaths let alone permissive ones.
You need to speak with the local right of way officer and also the ramblers assocation. I am sure they would be willing to take action (at least the ramblers, the row officer is highly likely to be deliberately overworked and underresourced to limit their usefulness).
I am somewhat baffled though as to what you think the relevance is here. Are you thinking Cycling UK should be advocating about footpath access for walkers? Or are you just trying for some tedious diversion?
Of course they are not perceived as rich land owners so thats ok ?
No its not but keep strawmanning away. In reality the samething applies to both groups. Lots of tax payers money goes to those guardians of the countryside so where is the return on investment.
There are some lovely footpaths that would be good to ride up there, but they are that footpaths, so you shouldnt ride them
Well thank you for that deep insight.
So as long as they let walkers use the permissive footpaths, and bikers use the permissive bridleways, which they do, they are meeting the conditions of the tax break.
That's not the case though as they shut some of the BW's when they want to shoot animals. Barden Moor is not freely accessible all year round.
So as long as they let walkers use the permissive footpaths, and bikers use the permissive bridleways, which they do, they are meeting the conditions of the tax break.
Part of the problem is that we don’t know the conditions of the tax break. Without knowing what the conditions are the agreement is always going to seem to be weighted pretty heavily in favour of the estate (I’m not saying it isn’t). The main point is that these arrangements should be public to ensure that the Treasury, or whoever they delegate to make the arrangement is getting value for what in effect is public money.
So as long as they let walkers use the permissive footpaths, and bikers use the permissive bridleways, which they do
There's not a single metre of permissive bridleway.
All there is is the Hare Head bridleway described at the top of this page, which is an actual right of way and used to ride nicely, now turned into a real toothrattler in the middle section by cows.
There’s not a single metre of permissive bridleway.
Well there is your answer then.
There are not many BW created any where in England are there, so why should they be created on private land?
That’s not the case though as they shut some of the BW’s when they want to shoot animals. Barden Moor is not freely accessible all year round.
The buggers do the same in the quarry opposite my house when they want to do a Motorbike Enduro event. The only BW in the area and they close it off, and thats not even on the private land bit, just to ride motor bikes !
I am going to jump to conclusions now, and make assumptions not based on the facts that have been proved.
I bet the tax income that HMRC get from the estate, and from its employees/local economy far outstrips the tax that would be saved from removing the allowance. plus the positive impact that the estate has on the impact of health of people in the local communinty.
Maybe the owner should remove the tax break and then shut off the estate to us commoners?
100's of jobs would be lost, the estates wouldnt be kept in such good condition, history would disappear, the economy of the local area would suffer massively.
There are not many BW created any where in England are there, so why should they be created on private land?
You did notice the reference to "permissive" didnt you? The obvious reason for it being the case here is because of the tax exemption. What is the public actually getting for this?
Maybe the owner should remove the tax break and then shut off the estate to us commoners?
Aside from he couldnt do that could he with the open access agreement.
Now he could stop running those running and other events which people pay for but then he would lose all the cash.
You seem to be confusing what the tax break is for vs commercial activities.
100’s of jobs would be lost,
Evidence for this?
the estates wouldnt be kept in such good condition
Ha aha aha hahah hahah.
A large portion of it is a typical grouse moor desert.
dissonance - +1. Good condition for what? 100s of jobs? Bollocks.
I bet the tax income that HMRC get from the estate, and from its employees/local economy far outstrips the tax that would be saved from removing the allowance.
Well, providing he pays the tax he should, which I imagine he doesn't there would be plenty of tax taken due to the eye watering prices they charge.
plus the positive impact that the estate has on the impact of health of people in the local communinty.
Used to be the case when it was free to park off peak, and even when they started charging for more of the time for a fiver but since they put the price up to £10 and now £15 for the pleasure of parking, most of the locals keep away.
That’s not the case though as they shut some of the BW’s when they want to shoot animals.
They don't bother closing them (it) officially, they just try (unsuccessfully in my case) to turn you back when you're halfway across and approaching their shoot.
The actual official closures are CROW exemptions/restrictions, so don't cover PROWs.
Yes the moorland is fairly vast, but christ those paths are a bit dull to ride on unless I guess you like gravel bike riding.
Deathly dull, can't see why anyone would go up there.
I’m reading the book of trespass at the moment. It’s equally enlightening and frustrating. I keep putting it down wanting to start a mass trespass as the whole situation in England and Wales beggars belief. Even ignoring the fundamentals in the book, the cycle access issue is just not really fit for purpose in England and Wales. The footpath/ bridleway thing is a mess.
It is possible still to log old tracks with the county definitive maps people. The issue is that these departments are woefully, under resourced and there is a backlog of years. There’s no appetite to do anything about it it seems.
There has been some positive news this yr with the proposed 2026 deadline for registering unrecorded rights of way now withdrawn - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/feb/17/deadline-to-register-englands-footpaths-cancelled-after-public-access-campaign
Yes the moorland is fairly vast, but christ those paths are a bit dull to ride on unless I guess you like gravel bike riding.
shite pic but this starva segment is not entirely gravel bike friendly. There is some okay riding up there and could be a lot more.