[Closed] Sam pilgrim garden build taken down

and?

Un ****ing believable.
You can’t ride a push bike in your back garden.

.

You can’t ride a push bike run a business in your back garden without planning .

The main business of Sam Pilgrim limited is riding bikes so hard to argue other wise.....

Obviously upset someone local.

From what I gather. Dickhead no.1 rides his pit bike and electric motorbikes in Dickhead no.2’s bike park. Dickhead No.2 retaliates to Dickhead No1’s behaviour with more Dickhead like behaviour.

Anyone know what grounds there would be under planning permission to take the jumps down and / or stop him riding push bikes there?

I can understand him being told to take the scaff tower down (which was massive and looked bloody awful!) And also to stop riding pit bikes etc.

But from what he says in the video neighbors were all ok.

I presume it us down to riding bikes being his job so he has created a workplace. Possibly change of use too if it is agricultural land.

Obviously rubbish for him,

However a bit uneasy about publicly calling someone out on such a massive platform. Can only end badly

However a bit uneasy about publicly calling someone out on such a massive platform. Can only end badly

Very much this. Just gave out the guys name and email to 1.5 Million People.

I presume it us down to riding bikes being his job so he has created a workplace. Possibly change of use too if it is agricultural land.

This must form part of it, otherwise retrospective planning would be a possibility?

As someone above mentioned, if this bloke gets doxxed then this could get uglier...

A 12 year old boy in a mans body?

@scotroutes, which one? The mouthbreather who wrote that websters letter/email, or the gap-toothed belter?

If it's true then it does seem to be a bit OTT, i know he's a proper marmite character, but he does play the character a bit more for youtube and everything else, from what i've seen and heard he's a decent enough guy who loves biking, any type of biking and always has time to chat and so on when he's out and about at the usual places.

It would be good to read more about what the actual reasoning was behind the enforcement notice and how the appeal failed though, seems a bit quick and painless for this type of thing to go from initial assessment to end of the enforcement period?

Anyone know what grounds there would be under planning permission to take the jumps down and / or stop him riding push bikes there?

Interested in this too. Couldn't riding bikes be equally for his leisure as his profession? How can they say he can't ride bikes there? Or is it just not ride bikes in a professional capacity? If the latter could he still keep those skinnies - for trials practice - he's not a professional trials rider?

It would be good to read more about what the actual reasoning was behind the enforcement notice and how the appeal failed though,

This kind of permanent structure above a certain height requires planning permission, which presumably he didn't apply for, and has been retrospectively refused it as well after it was drawn to the attention of the local planners. I'm sure there will be some paperwork out there on the internet - planning documents are publically available.

Setting his youtube followers on whoever he's blaming for it is a colossal dick move.

As you lot so often say with headcam/traffic/ ranty cyclist videos....

Nobody comes out of this looking anything other than a complete bell end

Interested in this too. Couldn’t riding bikes be equally for his leisure as his profession? How can they say he can’t ride bikes there? Or is it just not ride bikes in a professional capacity? If the latter could he still keep those skinnies – for trials practice – he’s not a professional trials rider?

I doubt we have heard the full story...

Next door to me wanted to build a tree house , which was in reality a shed on stilts.
It was going to be tall enough to easily see into our garden. A check with planning said it could only be a certain height if it had an external ladder . If the ladder went up the middle there was no restriction on how tall it could be.
Monty Don is a professional gardener and he built a big mound in his garden a few years back.

Does it also mean he can't Zwift 🤣

for planning to insist its removed means there is a lot more going on than we have been told

So how does Matt Jones get away with it at his place ?

Just lucky he doesn’t have neighbours?

When Sam first bought that place I thought it would pee the neighbours off but in the vid he reckons the neighbours are ok with what he does

That place must have cost him a bob or two and probably wouldn’t have bought it if it wasn’t for all the land to build jumps. Still maybe should have done his research?

Oh and looked after the swimming pool.

It’s not just him there too. Tom Cardy lives there as well

So how does Matt Jones get away with it at his place ?

One assumes he has done it within the law unlike pilgrim

enforcement at that level is very rare - there must be more to the tale

Whatever you think about the situation, the email the guy sent to council is very funny.

deleted for wibbling..

enforcement at that level is very rare – there must be more to the tale

You can find the appeal decision notice on the planning inspectorate website. It seems to come down to the size and scale of the work that'd been done that means that riding a bike isn't 'incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse'. That doesn't explain the motivation for the original complaint though.

So how does Matt Jones get away with it at his place ?

Its pretty well hidden at matt's compound - you can't see it on three sides and the farmer / landowner he rents from is the only person who can see it. Either he's got planning, pretty easy to find out in the relevant council web site, or he hasn't and it's under the radar.

Having been involved in planning in the past my first thoughts when seeing Pilgrims plans for his back garden were, I hope he's checked with planning. What he had built, clearly was against planning laws - and was in good view of a number of residential properties. Only takes one person to contact planning etc etc etc. There's a reason most pro's have hidden compounds or secret spots.

Appeal probably would be rejected as it's in a residential property and would give president for others to build structures over 2m. If it were a bit of brownfield site, hidden from view, not in a residential setting (like Matt Jones) I'd have thought he'd have been ok.

As for the guy that actually dished the dirt - what a ****er. Wouldn't have shocked me if it were a neighbor, but some one actively involved in the sport is propper shocking.

If he flogged the land for 20 boxy houses to be thrown up on it I bet the he'd get it through planning in less than six months.

Fun is not allowed in the UK any more unless it can be neatly packaged and monetised.

If he flogged the land for 20 boxy houses to be thrown up on it I bet the he’d get it through planning in less than six months.

Yep - something we need at the moment, and def a better use of the land from a planning point of view.

^^^^

Yeah, right-o.

I'm just going to play amateur sleuth for a second and posite that your employment is connected to the building/property sector in some way.

🕵‍♂️

Quite apart from whatever is going on between him and the other guy that he’s doing his best to make worse, I’m really not sure what you expect when you build an eyesore of a structure about 3 stories high in your back garden without planning, and then effectively use it to help earn your living. Only one ending to that.

Whatever you think about the situation, the email the guy sent to council is very funny.

I would have returned it to him with feedback along the lines of "can you please find an adult to help you write your letter sonny".

I too am not comfortable with him calling someone out. The comments section below video is worrying with many threats being made. Not good.

I too also wonder what the reason for enforcement it - and much as he is a nice enough chap, he has videos which show a somewhat uncaring or unawareness of environmental and social issues that riding bikes can cause. Enforcement is surely quite a big step after much communication and opportunity to react / adjust / move house...

from the comments

You can find the appeal online but the council felt that the riding in the garden went beyond incedental use and constituted a change of use to mixed use. The appeal upheld that view but some of the required remedies were scrubbed as unnecessary.

Irrespective of the infants school politics between pilgrim and 'Mark the illiterate' I'd say the council judged it right tbh.

There's clearly more to this than the way its been portrayed.

That YT clip is clearly intended to wound the other party. Pilgrim, never high in my estimations as a human being, (other than his uh, 'mad skillz') has just shown some genuine nastiness.

employment is connected to the building/property sector in some way.

Nope - own/run a village shop. Use to work in retail/shop design though. Just aware of planning process and also the need for housing at the moment.

To be fair to Pilgrim, although I don't agree with calling out the guy, it's all within the public domain it'll only take one (of the millions) subscriber to look it up and work out the in and outs themselves.

it’ll only take one (of the millions) subscriber to look it up and work out the in and outs themselves.

Except it won't. The online witch hunt has started, and vast majority won't return to check facts. The injury is done, and will fester under ill-informed and prejudiced fans who think he can do no wrong. See his trail building in SSSI, carving up public parks, rudeness to other land users that's only 'banter'.

Isn't doxxing like this now illegal?

It is - which is why pilgrim didn't use surnames etc  - however the email of the mark guy will be on the letter within the public domain of the planning appeal process. Like I said above, it'll only take one to Google search, find the email, stick it in the comments or on another forum etc. Exactly how Pilgrim found the email address.

People who contact planning often sent aware it's a public process and that works both ways. It's quite interesting to see who spends their time disputing planning applications - many of my local disputes have nothing to do with planning law, rather personal grievances, which also seems to be the case for pilgrim.

There’s clearly more to this than the way its been portrayed

I thought that too, council wouldn't go to the trouble of enforcement if it was 1 complaint from a local business owner.

Lets be honest, even as mountain bikers, how many of us would want somebody buying a place next door, building a scaffold tower and jumps and then ragging a pitbike around the garden?

which is why pilgrim didn’t use surnames etc

I mean..he used a very thin strikethrough!!!!

DrP

Lets be honest, even as mountain bikers, how many of us would want somebody buying a place next door, building a scaffold tower and jumps and then ragging a pitbike around the garden?

I'd love it as long as I was invited. Do they also have a van so I can tag along on trips? I can't afford to do any of this stuff so I'd love to have mates who could.

I was a little confused by him saying he doesn’t make any noise, then proceeding to razz around on a motorbike.

Always comes across as a total plonker, maybe this will be a wake up call for him to be a little less selfish.

And, as some say, he’s nicer in real life, why? Why portray an absolute donger online? Yeah I know - “views = money” - but I wouldn’t want to associate with him as a sponsor.

I thought that too, council wouldn’t go to the trouble of enforcement if it was 1 complaint from a local business owner

I don't know - my experience of enforcement officers in the past is that they go out of their way to justify their jobs when there is a potential case.

I was a little confused by him saying he doesn’t make any noise, then proceeding to razz around on a motorbike.

Demonstrating a spectacular lack of awareness.

Based purely on his email, that Mark guy doesn't seem like the sharpest spoon in the drawer. I wonder if his thinking was along the lines of "I'm not allowed to extend my bike park - how come Sam Pilgrim can build all that stuff in his? I know, I'll write to the council." Who knows, but it does seem unnecessarily mean to report it.

Why portray an absolute donger online? Yeah I know – “views = money” – but I wouldn’t want to associate with him as a sponsor.

He's sort of edgy though, isn't he? Has strong opinions, behaves in an extreme way. Good for attention/views/sponsors etc. It's always been the way. Sure, he might put off some of the more straight-laced companies, but they probably weren't sponsoring him in the first place.

This guy Mark of Colchester bike park, appears to always write like that see:

http://www.essexhertsmtb.co.uk/mountain-bike-downhill/halstead-woods-colchester-t2275.html

Calling him "illiterate" is a bit harsh. My mum ran a learning difficulties services for many years in the 90s, teaching 15 year olds how to read and write because the system had so far let them down.

If this man is 40-50 as Sam says, its not a big stretch to see how he was failed by the school system. He obviously really struggles to communicate in writing, taking the piss is not constructive.

From the thread above it seems Mark has done a lot to secure public land with permissions to build a little bike park, and probably struggled with planning and neighbours and insurance.

Then Sam Pilgrim takes his pit bike there and gets a million youtube hits, encouraging others to do the same and trash the hard work.

Of course he is gonna be pissed off.

Not a big stretch to imagine him drop Sam in it for flouting legitimate planning laws in a bit of tit for tat.

Anyway I'm glad our planning laws are enforced. If you don't like the law then lobby / vote for a change. I'd wager Sam and his dad knew exactly what they were risking when he started building that lot and making vids for his channel.

If he flogged the land for 20 boxy houses to be thrown up on it I bet the he’d get it through planning in less than six months.

And when they do they generally build the homes backwards in Colchester

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-58926310

To be fair to Mark he has done an awful lot of work building the trails and dealing with the council etc

I don't know the whole back story between him and Sam but what Sam did in the video by outing him was a pretty sh*tty thing to do.

I thought that too, council wouldn’t go to the trouble of enforcement if it was 1 complaint from a local business owner

I don’t know – my experience of enforcement officers in the past is that they go out of their way to justify their jobs when there is a potential case.

In my experience Planning Enforcement Officers go out of their way to avoid to get to that stage; a retrospective planning application is usually what happens unless there is a good reason why PP couldn't be given rather than removing the development.

There’s some sort of irony in saying “He’s not illiterate, he just can’t read and write.” But yeah, we shouldn’t use that to demean him.

There’s clearly more to this than the way its been portrayed

Seems pretty simple to me.

No likey, no bikey.

Sam didn't appeal under grounds (a) which means that retrospective planning permission should be granted. He appealed under grounds (c) which was destined to fail partly because large engineering works involving a digger require planning permission, end-of. Theoretically Sam could still apply for planning permission, trouble is I don't think planning laws are flexible enough to allow for this kind of mixed use in residential areas.

In my experience Planning Enforcement Officers go out of their way to avoid to get to that stage; a retrospective planning application is usually what happens unless there is a good reason why PP couldn’t be given rather than removing the development.

It would be bad practice and a waste of time to serve an enforcement notice against a development which the enforcement officers thought was acceptable in principle. If it's finely balanced a retrospective planning application can be preferable because it's a public process and residents get consulted. Colchester may have thought that a retrospective planning application would have only served to frustrate the whole process and if they are wrong, Sam has the option to appeal under grounds (a) which he chose not to do.

I don't necessarily agree with the motives of the complainant and it may be that the development was not causing anyone any harm, trouble is Sam was in the wrong from a planning law standpoint.

From the thread above it seems Mark has done a lot to secure public land with permissions to build a little bike park, and probably struggled with planning and neighbours and insurance.

Then Sam Pilgrim takes his pit bike there and gets a million youtube hits, encouraging others to do the same and trash the hard work.

He took his pit bike around Colchester Bike Park*?

I mean, that puts a different spin on it but I'm not sure going to the council is how I would go about sorting it out.

*Does Colchester Bike Park still exist? All I can find is a deleted FB page.

In terms of that venture, 'park' is doing a fair bit of heavy lifting.

‘park’ is doing a fair bit of heavy lifting.

Is it the bit of woodland next to the train tracks sort of inbetween Bergholt/Lexden and Eight Ash green?

Is it the bit of woodland next to the train tracks sort of inbetween Bergholt/Lexden and Eight Ash green?

Yep, down the bottom of Iron Latch Lane

No likey, no bikey.

I see what you did there.

I don't really see that the actions of the complainant would have swayed the council one way or another. Seems a red herring.

He didn't have planning for something that needed planning, especially as change of use.

The complainants letter is just dirty laundry being aired

many of my local disputes have nothing to do with planning law, rather personal grievances, which also seems to be the case for pilgrim.

Possibly the start of them, if they don’t have any basis in planning law they are ignored, if they clearly do, as in this case, they are acted on.

Half the problem with planning departments is that they have been cut back to the absolute minimum. The idea of planning officers making work for themselves on something that is not clear cut (and risks ending up in court) is a joke.

[Just read no planning app :-(]

Where I live the developers do what they like (Bristol).... just remember householders are small fry with no say 🙁 and captive with the council 🙁

We lost 42 Acres woodland, just because the developers interprets the planning in his favour. The council will not fight it (if they are they are not telling us),,,, pockets are not deep enough.

Dry bummed 🙁

Irrespective of 'who did what', the way that Sam has reacted is really low. Using his platform to influence his followers by only providing one side of the story is damn right nasty and will land him in hot water. Its almost incitement to begin a witch hunt against someone who Sam believes influenced the decision, but in all likelihood, had little bearing. Some of the youtube comments are outing Marks address ffs.

Sam ruined his owned MTB dream yard by not doing things properly and going through the right channels - plain and simple.

For someone with an "image" and sponsors laying for that, he's playing a self-destructive game.

I read a load of replies (didn't watch the video, just paused it) and there were a lot of posters also with no restraint. Eventually the government is going to clamp down on online abuse in ways no one likes, but too many caused it.

Half the problem with planning departments is that they have been cut back to the absolute minimum. The idea of planning officers making work for themselves on something that is not clear cut (and risks ending up in court) is a joke.

in my experience of planning, 'small' things like this are precisely what planning depts focus on, as they know they don't stand a chance against the developers with deep pockets.

*Does Colchester Bike Park still exist? All I can find is a deleted FB page.

Can't imagine why the Facebook page has been made in-active. Did anything happen recently that would get people flooding to it to mouth off?

Pilgrim is a bellend, no question, after he tore up Landseer park and the bmx track in Ipswich Magura dropped him, at the start of one of his later vids he had a little sulky moan about loosing them and not knowing why.

Can’t imagine why the Facebook page has been made in-active. Did anything happen recently that would get people flooding to it to mouth off?

Sure, that could be it. On the other hand, if you look at the cached page, the last post is from June 2020 and simply says 'All gone now.'

It's just all a bit strange. I was trying to clarify what someone said earlier where, from the way I read it, Sam was riding his pit bike around Colchester Bike Park and encouraging others to do so on his YT channel.

Does anyone know if that actually happened?

I was trying to clarify what someone said earlier where, from the way I read it, Sam was riding his pit bike around Colchester Bike Park and encouraging others to do so on his YT channel.

He has but I can't say if he encouraged others.

Pilgrim is a bellend, no question, after he tore up Landseer park and the bmx track in Ipswich Magura dropped him, at the start of one of his later vids he had a little sulky moan about loosing them and not knowing why.

Is that the reason?

Pilgrim can be entertaining to watch and his skill on anything with two wheels is undeniable, but I do sometimes wonder whether his eternal search for 'epicness' makes him think he is somehow exempt from the tedious rules of society.

I kinda knew of him but had never watched any of his videos but watched this one. Doesn't seem to come across too badly IMHO initially but:
a) building a 20ft scaffold tower in your garden I doubt goes unnoticed
b) "I don't ride motorbikes in my garden" but I have a pitbike track there? Which he then razzes around on.

Isn't think type of thing typical now, yootoobers calling each other out instead of doing things face to face etc. Wasn't there some car guys (the ones who usually dress in black trackies, carry a purse and "review" other peoples performance cars by hammering the living daylights out of them) who had a bit of an online feud and then met at a car meet and then had a mass brawl?

Regardless of all the above, for the Mark guy to complain about it all and then say he was interested in sponsorship for his business from the person he fkd over is off. Thats just snide... if I was Sam I'd be publishing what happened all over social media so my 400 followers on Instagram could see 😀

It is slightly interesting reading the comments on the various social media outlets...I don't follow him, but this seems to have spilled over to other social media bits that I use. This seems to be the only place that has clocked he didn't have planning permission and this was largely his own doing as a result of no permission - the spat with the other guy seems almost like fallout from the situation.
The rest are all defending him and really laying it on thick that this was all done due to the other person, none of them seem to have clocked a lack of planning permission.

I think its because theres some actual adults contribute to this forum.

This seems to be the only place that has clocked he didn’t have planning permission and this was largely his own doing as a result of no permission

Yeah.

You don't have to stray from STW far, or for a long period of time to realise that the proportion of grown-ups is significantly higher than other sites.

I guess the question is, would the council have taken any notice if no one had complained?

I know in Norway the councils take aerial photos each year and then check them to see if any new structures have appeared but does that happen in the UK as well?

If not, and assuming he was being truthful when he said his neighbours never complained, then this could all have happened because this Mark chap was a clipe.

I know in Norway the councils take aerial photos each year and then check them to see if any new structures have appeared but does that happen in the UK as well?

😂

I guess the question is, would the council have taken any notice if no one had complained?

Probably not.

I know in Norway the councils take aerial photos each year and then check them to see if any new structures have appeared but does that happen in the UK as well?

Not necessarily aerial photos specifically for that reason, but I know if a case that was caught using Google maps.... Even it his jumps did show up, I doubt the council would have done anything without a specific complaint in Sam's case.

I know in Norway the councils take aerial photos each year and then check them to see if any new structures have appeared but does that happen in the UK as well?

why go to that effort when in the UK in a rural or suburban environment you are never more than a quartre mile from some bored busybody who will do this for you for free, and then report it to the relevent body?

I guess the question is, would the council have taken any notice if no one had complained?

It's pretty unlikely. Councils don't usually have the resources to proactively look for unlawful development and Planning Officers may turn a blind eye themselves if there isn't substantial harm being caused.

Plenty of unlawful development does slip through the cracks and relying on public complaints is an imperfect system. It takes 4/10 years for unlawful development to become immune and that happens much more regularly than you may think. It's not usually as flagrant as this though.

Spot on Hooli