Statement by Natural England about Steetley Downhill

Jun 6, 2009
by Jordan Holmes  
We do not set out to spoil people's fun and we try to balance the needs of the environment and wildlife against the use and enjoyment of the countryside by the public. However digging up a SSSI to construct trails and jumps, creating pits and large areas of compacted soil and holding competitions that leave large amounts of litter is absolutely unacceptable and against the law. I am sure that no rider seeks to destroy the countryside that you all enjoy and Natural England are not out to spoil anyone's enjoyment of downhill riding but this site now needs to be restored and the habitat protected.

Read on for more info...What is a Site of Special Scientific Interest?
Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) represent the very best of the rich variety of wildlife and geology that makes England’s nature special and distinct from any other country in the world. There are over 4,100 SSSIs in England covering over one million hectares, which is about 7% of England’s land area.

What is the law protecting SSSIs?
SSSIs are protected by law under Section 28 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended by Schedule 9 to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and Section 55 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006) in order to conserve and protect these unique areas for the benefit of present and future generations and are a vital part of our natural heritage.

Why are they important?
Nearcliffe Woods, also known as Steetley Woods, are within Sprotbrough Gorge SSSI.
The woodland areas within Sprotbrough Gorge SSSI, which includes Nearcliffe Woods, are important for their calcareous ash-wych elm woodland (southern variant). Collectively the woodland areas on the slopes of the Gorge are among the top three best examples of this type of woodland in the country. Sprotbrough Gorge was declared a SSSI in 1988 to protect the wide diversity of trees, shrubs and wildflowers typical in this type of woodland.

What harm can bikes and vehicles have on this SSSI?
Natural England recognises that there are responsible bikers who are using lawful routes and not damaging SSSIs nor causing concern or disruption to anyone. However, recent construction of bike routes and jumps in this SSSI is causing serious damage to the woodland trees, to the woodland shrub layer, the ground flora and the soil structure. Bird species are possibly being disturbed and large amounts of litter are accumulating.

photo

Is bike & vehicular use allowed on a SSSI?
Generally recreational & vehicular use on a SSSI will be classed as an operation likely to damage. This means that creating bike routes and jumps and using vehicles on a SSSI can only legally be undertaken with Natural England’s permission unless people are using a lawful route.

What is a lawful route?
A lawful route, such as a byway open to all traffic, is one which has been classified by a local authority for use by the public for activities such as walking, horse riding and motor vehicle use. Check with the local authority as to the status of the route.

What happens about activities on a SSSI without permission or on a lawful route?
Unlawful biking, recreational or vehicle activity on this SSSI is a criminal offence which can result in a fine in the Magistrates Court of a fine up to £20,000 or to an unlimited fine in the Crown Court.

It is also a criminal offence under section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1984 (as amended) if a motor vehicle is upon any land other than a road including a footpath, bridleway or restricted byway. This offence will be dealt with by the police by issuing a fixed penalty notice or a prosecution in the Magistrates Court up to £1000.
Equipment & vehicles may also be seized.

Please could the organisers of this event contact me to discuss this ASAP.
Bobp556-neinv@yahoo.co.uk

Posted In:
Press Releases


Author Info:
spoiledgoods avatar

Member since Mar 20, 2000
624 articles

45 Comments
  • 23 0
 i always find it ironic how horses are more allowed than bikers, we take care of the trail every once and a while. we cause way less damage as far as erosion is concerned, and i generally don't shit in the middle of the trail.
  • 5 0
 hahaha so true
  • 3 0
 haha well said my friend
  • 3 0
 I looked into the erosive impact that cyclists have on trails, and most concluded that a mountain bike has no more impact on trail erosion than a walker, and the most damaging erosion was caused by horse riding.
  • 0 0
 The main thing is that most horse people have a good deal of money while mountain bikers tend not to be ass bag rich snobs.
  • 1 0
 "Generally" ? :-P
  • 1 0
 Thats my bad, completely right, the people who live near me who own horses have maybe 1 acre for 4 or 5 horses, and live in a trash bag house.
  • 22 0
 I guess I could understand where all these people get the idea that biking is bad for the environment, but most of the people bitching, have never touched a bike in their lives. What they do see is the 5% or so of us who are dumbasses and skid around and break stuff, who out shine the other 95% who just ride normally and dont leave litter, which brings me to another point. I'm sure I'll get negative props, but those of you ass bags who cant even pick up their trash deserve to get your biking area shut down, but you're ruining it for everyone else.
  • 8 0
 Word, pick your crap up after you, people, these assbag slobs are everywhere [grrr]
  • 22 1
 i stepped on a flower once... IT WAS BY ACCIDENT I PROMISE
  • 0 0
 hahaha
  • 1 0
 Win.
  • 6 0
 Good call on isaacsx...Ive been following trail advocacy since 96 and from what Ive noticed the "well off" horse back rider has alot less blame of trail abuse than the biker, when the reality of things are.....between four hooves at 500 odd pounds and two tires at average 160-200 odd pounds..Id go with the latter of the two.....imo
  • 4 1
 Although the guys who built the trails didn't know it was protected land, it should still be their responsibility to find somewhere else (not Natural Englands) because at the end of the day they are protected for a reason. Those of you who (rightly) say we bikers love the countryside should understand the passion that Natural England have. Its not up to the them to come to us to give us somewhere to build, we should be the proactive ones going out and talking to land owners so we can get our own trials without fear of them coming along later and having a moan.
  • 1 0
 Too true, there are plenty of places to ride and build in the UK, without ripping up SSSIs and nature reserves. The woods next to my house would be great to ride, but they are part of a nature reserve, so I go a couple of miles away to ride the established trails there. Do take your litter with you too, think of the poor little bunnie wunnies and sqwirls...
  • 0 0
 there isnt plenty of places to ride in britain, its all getting protected, as more and more urbanisation happens every lil bit of green gets protected. there are no hills within 10 miles of my house that arent protected or we have been told we cant build or ride on, and we have a lot of woods!
  • 1 0
 well said doughindson
  • 3 0
 Gotta say I read this and thought fair enough, sounds like a bunch of riders building trails without consulting the appropriate land owners or authorities first. This always seems to result in us mountain bikers being categorized as a bunch of irresponsible idiots when the trails eventually get discovered, which they inevitably do. It's pretty simple really, talk to the land owners. Build on sights where you have consent. Avoid problems. Have fun.
  • 4 3
 sorry but if you do that your gonna get shut down staight away!! VERY FEW trails in the uk are actualy legal an if they are,,they suck it realy annoys me that it takes a petition of thousands for the athoritys to realise that kids wanna build trails an ride bikes but, it only takes a few people to complain or care about a little bush or a catipillar to end every ones fun i'd like to know how many people actualy visit the woods to see these rare trees an bushes compared to the amount of riders that keep thier trails tidy, perfectly sculpted an keep a thriving sceene alive then again we could all be on the streets robbin old ladys an joyriding cars an shootin drugs
  • 1 1
 I don't know if you have ever taken the time to go through all of the bureaucratic bs to get trails made, but here in Oregon we have been trying for the last 5years, yes 5 years to get a local district to let us use land that they even set aside for "more technically challenging" mountain bike facilities. We have exactly ONE 1.5mile long glorified XC trail that we were forced to take over from another builder/group. And we are still fighting to get more trails on the ground. In the mean time 3-4 unsanctioned trails pop up and they let them go for the most part. Its what these .gov agencies do. Turn a blind eye to it until it becomes a problem for them or makes them look bad. That way they don't have to accept responsibility or liability.

Granted people need to take care of what they have done and make sure it has little impact as possible. But it will always be a long uphill battle.

But welcome to the future. Were the .gov ownes your ass and you have to ask permission to wipe it. Public lands that the public can't use, even if they go through the proper channels. Gotta love it. Guess we just don;t have the backing to lobby/bribe the right officials to get what we want. $10k for a vote adds up quick.
  • 3 1
 equestrians are usually older, have more political connections, more money and have more organized lobbying groups. Thus, they usually get the run of more trails than the less organized, less wealthy, less connected and relatively young mountain biking populous. Its too bad but time will change this, hopefully the trails are still around by then!
  • 2 0
 yeah, very true, I grew up in Montana USA, and we have a horrible time with rail rights, almost all our trails get trampled by horses, berms get flattened, and jumps(generally stump/dirt mix) get cut down. and the trail simply gets turned into an exclusive equestrian trail. but we still have a few areas that are untouched, they are just much harder for them to get to, and for US! but very true, if there were a rich powerful group of bikers, it would be a different story. i had the same conversation with the mayor not too long ago...
  • 3 1
 Guys, I love riding... and I love my local trails but some of the childish posts on here have made me feel a little ashamed of the community.

I have worked closely with the Forestry commission and Natural England on many occasions and they certainly are not out to ruin anyone's fun. Quite the opposite, in areas where there is no SSSI most regional bodys will encourage it. I know two people who have spoken to natural England and been advised as to how to get seizable grants to help them build trails.

Despite what some people may think there are sites where creating drops, gaps and jumps will have a seriously detrimental effect, and unless you know why that place is an SSSI you cant be certain. It may not matter what you do to the trees, the ground can be just as easily effected.

Changing an ecosystem in anyway can be harmful, the compacting of soil is one sure fire way to damage an eco system that requires high levels of soil aeration.

So why do ecosystems need to be protected? The simple fact is that everything being connected we don't know what knock on effects any succession will have. Look at the situation globally with bees at the moment... I'm not saying that one track in the wrong place will kill off the world, but thousands of activity's in the wrong places globally will have a serious effect so the line needs to be drawn somewhere unfortionatly for us NE has drawn the line here..

We are all outdoor sports men/women, whether we freeride, DH or XC, if we need to sacrifice the occasional trail here and there for the sake of our environment surely that isn't such a bad thing? I personally think that the more we can do as a community to appear as caring thoughtful individuals the better.

As a final point, people drooping litter, trampling around and generally having a huge impact on a fairly fragile system. If anyone ever goes to a competition please use the bins... The organisers usually provide plenty!
  • 2 0
 As another quick point... Do you know what % of our countryside is considered an SSSI? I can promise you it is a tiny proportion of the UK outdoors so why cant we just move on somewhere else? Its not as if we are short of trails or the people to build them....
  • 1 0
 Feel for ya guys...jus keep riding thats what we did, we have bin told (Certain departments) there is nothing they can do to stop you using "The Natural Terrain" I.E puttin small kickers on small hills/mounds, this would destroy more "wildlife" taking them down. 2 years on and were still goin!!!
  • 2 1
 remember bikers, we arent the ones chasing uncaged foxes with packs of dogs to preserve traditions. We also dont club seals while biking to sell sealskins to overpaid executives with overpaid lazy trophy wives that wouldnt give the greedy slobs the time of day if it werent for their money. We are a sincere lot who love trails forests and nature. Lets not lower ouselves to their level. Lets also remember that as the sport gets bigger, so will the population of support we have and our class will show through.
  • 2 0
 I agree. As far as I'm concerned, some single-track bike trails are the least of our environmental worries.
  • 4 0
 So, i take it Natural England will be working with the bikers to find a new spot to ride.
  • 3 0
 if only!
  • 3 1
 as long as there are bycicles an woods people will ride thier bycicles,,,,in the woods as they have done for many years an will do for many years work with us cos your never gonna stop us
  • 1 0
 YAWN. If anyone has read the thread that goes with this, its like a record has got stuck. The same old threats are repeated. If there is a problem with building and riding in these woods, why aren't the authorities giving/ telling the riders somewhere they can build, or talking to the builders about creating a sustainable trail plan for the woods? Making threats doesn't always solve the problem.
  • 3 0
 ok. well, good job england for biking a lot! i guess u shouldnt leave trash tho
  • 4 1
 People who leave their trash suck. Seriously though, bike trails don't damage the environment as much as people say. A two foot wide trail that's a couple of hundred yards long may do damage, but certainly not as much damage as tearing it down does. For example, there was a local slopestyle/freeride trail up in the woods. It wasn't long, and hardly any forest was cleared to make it. Then, the forest rangers see it, and take it down. the cut down about 20 large trees to cover the trail and make it un rideable. They did more damage than bikers.
  • 0 0
 Ecological Succession The species of plants and animals that are found in a community do not remain the same forever. Rather, over long periods of time, they change, mainly because of the activities of the plants and animals themselves. This change is called ecological succession Glaciers once compacted the soil and it turned out to be a productive ecosystem. Its PERSPECTIVE
  • 3 0
 That was a very good point.
  • 0 0
 I think they are more concerned with the hole digging and the compacted soil where nothing will grow due to the compacting. But there are loads of places like in the darkest areas of the forest where nothing grows anyway.
  • 2 0
 just think of how much space there would be to ride if there werent so many golfcourses in the uk... just a thought.
  • 5 2
 Fight for your trails.
  • 3 2
 Just felt like saying; what a load of crap...
  • 1 0
 "Natural England" sounds like part of the bnp!! LOL!!
  • 0 1
 Sweet now with riding being illegal in england usa may finally get a wc win... woot!
  • 2 0
 Ha Ha! No chance lol
  • 0 0
 exactly, if something it makes us dig more trails to piss them off!
Below threshold threads are hidden







Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.064981
Mobile Version of Website