Tag Archives: byelaws

DIO Public Safety Announcement; Single Track Is Dangerous (Spoiler Alert: No It Isn’t)

Posted on by admin
Reply

3rd April 2024 – Update. TAG have gathered more evidence to demonstrate how DIO’s ideas around safety are misplaced. Section added below.

Whenever we hear DIO pass comment on matters related to MTB and cycling, it’s difficult to see a connection between the abstract ideas, and the reality. The basic theory is fine but the nuanced detail and most importantly, hard facts and real insight, are absent.

If you are a regular reader of the TAG blogs and don’t need to watch a series of videos picking DIO’s “policy” apart, feel free to scroll to the end and write to your MP asking them to start pressing the case for DIO to stop treating cyclists with contempt, recognise the reality of how we use the lands and to treat cyclists with respect.

If not, do please read on.

Faced with new byelaws* DIO will need to be seen to do something to accommodate cyclists. So far the mood music TAG has picked up on suggests cycling on some fire/vehicle roads will be permitted, but the single track we use and love will be strictly off-limits.

How a legal definition is going to read and be interpreted will be very interesting. But it will be even more entertaining to sit back and watch DIO actually try enforce the unenforceable.

The experience driving around the fire roads in a pickup cannot be considered the same as riding a bike along the 400 miles or so of informal routes.

Why is single track off limits? Apparently it’s not suitable because the speeds cyclists can reach are dangerous.

Yes, according to DIO single track is inherently more dangerous than a fire road so we must never use them for the safety of all. Even if no one else is there.

“There are risks and costs to action. But they are far less than the long range risks of comfortable inaction.“

John. F. Kennedy

TAG have a few observations on this mindset.

Firstly, we must suspend the reality of vehicles are using the fire roads because, obviously, there is some magic force field that prevents cyclists ever coming close to one.

TAG would like to see the risk assessment for this one. How do cyclists and vehicles avoid each other if they are compelled to share the space? The evidence base to support this policy would be appreciated as well.

Then we must also forget that sometimes single track goes uphill.

Some of if doesn’t and gravity is a great asset, but DIO are ignoring the simple laws of physics here. Some objective evidence would be required (Civil Service contract of employment and Standards in Public Life) for us to be convinced, but TAG concludes the evidence won’t exist. Or DIO have deleted it for “business purposes”.

If DIO can ignore ministers, then ignoring the laws of physics is simple. Hands up who can cycle uphill at 20mph? Anyone?

Next we must ignore the flat bits. With the heart rate running close to 180bpm a pace close to 10 mph is a good effort on a dry day. Just check the Strava stats of a few of the single track segments. Then try sustaining that level for a full ride. Anyone who can hold that pace should be in the olympics or racing professionally and at this point we are deep into edge cases. Most mere mortals want a nice day out and that includes a bit of single track.

And last but not least we need to suspend reality and forget there are fire roads that end in a dead end with tracks leading off in all directions. Or terminate in a locked gate.

None of it makes any sense or reason, but just as the locking of gates on a vacant Long Valley has taught TAG…never, ever expect logic or good reason to apply when DIO set their hearts on achieving a bonkers agenda.

“He who is not courageous enough to take risks will accomplish nothing in life.“

Muhammad Ali

If DIO would like to get in touch and share evidence, then please use info@trailactiongroup.co.uk to drop us a line.

It’s also galling to watch other user groups, typically organised events, runners, orienteering groups or the Pony Club, seeing no such restrictions. The drag hunt didn’t stick to the fire roads…why should we?

Hypocrisy? Double standards? Bias and prejudice? TAG certainly think so. But before we seek some help with accountability, lets have a look at some evidence.

A Beginners Guide to Single Track Use

As part of our service and in spirit (if not in practice) of postive collaboration and cooperation, we have pulled together some short explainer videos. These will give DIO staff a deeper insight into how MTB use the lands, and what measured speeds we can actually achieve when using single track.

Is this data perfect? No, not at all. But its a lot better than nothing, or basing policy on thoughts and feelings.

But first we need to highlight a DIO spoiler alert; MTB is not as fast as you want to think it is.

First up, a short video on what DIO may think is acceptable and safe to use a bicycle:

Just like sticking to the fire roads, watching a video is dull as dishwater and unnecessary. So we won’t be wasting too much time and keep the video short. Just enought to bore the viewer into getting why fire roads are not where the pleasure really is.

Next up, some single track with a spot of downhill:

We are not saying speeds can peak, but to set policy that all single track is dangerous when only part may (stress may) carry higher risk is neither rational or reasonable.

Nevertheless, that video is likely to give DIO kittens.

It’s got tree roots. And off camber slopes. And it’s downhill. Some sections have a rooty, camber and slope combo. Its loaded with more perceived risk than Russian roulette with 5 live chambers…but feel free to fast forward to the end and see every MTB rider arrive alive and well at the next fire road.

Next up we have a little track that runs downhill, but again the speeds are kept low by the nature of the trail and terrain. It twists and carries natural features that slow riders:

Check the speed. It’s all single track and some downhill but there is a good line of sight.

Plenty of natural, twisting track here to keep a downhill speed low.

Risks where speeds can be higher can be mitigated by design. But this would need a) DIO to accept cycling was welcomed and b) cooperation with folks like TAG who understand more about than MTB that someone who drives around the lands in a pickup or sits behind a desk. This should be something your MP can help with and by writing to them (read on) it helps press for DIO to change.

Now we have a section of single track/multi-use in a part of the Aldershot lands where military training is not permitted thanks to the rules in the Aldershot Standing Orders:

Section of multi use track that DIO maintain is not safe for cyclists. Even if it’s flat and no troops present. TAG have given up hoping DIO will apply logic to anything.

And here we have the classic dilemma DIO are unlikely to be able to reason away and another example of where DIO logic meets reality. And the “logic” falls over. The fire road ends and three single track routes carry on:

Are DIO really expecting us to just turn around because the fire road ends? When decades of use has established the trails? Honestly?

Here’s another great example. The fire road runs into a locked gate:

These gates block a long-standing access point. Local MP Ranil Jayawardena reassured residents some new gates were coming to Long Valley 3 years ago, but DIO have yet to deliver.

This section of single track is in Long Valley. It’s an undulating, twisting route and speeds are hardly peaking. The finish is uphill and it’s a short and steep one. Check out the heart rate at the end to see the effort expended:

The rider is 56 years old and has maintained fitness over the decades by riding on the lands. A heart rate peak of 193bpm is high for some but normal in this instance.

The best kind of single track is one that demands 100% concentration. Thinking about the ride and nothing else becomes so immersive the worries carried onto the lands slip away as both mind and body are exercised, reset and refreshed. The rider, whose heart rate peaked at 193bpm is 56 and remains fit thanks in part to these lands and trails.

The ethos and heart of the matter for MTB is living in the now and engaging mind, body and spirit with the ride and what is going on. In military speak it’s called situation awareness and this moment is not available to anyone stuck inside a pickup cab.

“I am always doing that which I cannot do, in order that I may learn how to do it.”

Pablo Picasso

This is why we ride single track. It goes to the core of what it is to be a cyclist and a mountain biker. DIO must realise and accept the fire roads are just not going to cut it.

If anyone knows of other completely bonkers examples of where fire roads terminate and leave the cyclists with nowhere to go, do please send us a location. Or better still, video it!

No prizes for the best example, but a really warm glow is assured knowing you are holding DIO to account for their policy and actions.

Updated section

TAG have found a place where MTB can pick up the kind of speeds DIO find troubling. Just ride any downhill fire road and watch the pace climb as gravity takes over. Fire roads are where vehicles must be used. The Aldershot Standing Orders (Page 13, 37.d) says so and this narrow space is what DIO expect cyclists to share “for safety”.

Here’s a run down from the top of Caesars Camp:

DIO worry about speed. Yet the fire roads are where MTB can really pick up and maintain pace. TAG have given up expecting rational, evidence lead policy from DIO…picking apart their daft and emotive thinking is straightforward.

In all cases evidence must be used to set policy. The videos TAG produce count. So does the GPS data everyone gathers. Strava Heatmaps…open source or paid for detail…they are all robust evidence that informs what really goes on. We fully expect DIO to engage and seek to understand exactly what the real issues are, and we will listen to any valid and evidence-based concerns. We will alway seek cooperation and if necessary compromise.

But remember, as taxpayers we are paying for this “service” and TAG firmly believe DIO can and must go a lot further to make sure the local community receives value for every penny.

Some of the videos were shot in Long Valley on the single track (blue dashed line) and has avoided the DIO made up tracks (brown dashed) and uses just a little of the test track routes (not shown for clarity). A GPX file of the blue route is available.

If any MTB rider wants to live right on the edge and check out the dangerous single track in Long Valley that featured in some of these videos, we have a GPX file that will guide. WordPress does not like us uploading these file types so just drop us an email to info@trailactiongroup.co.uk and we will send a copy.

Cyclists To Blame

TAG are firmly of the view that any permissive routes will be respected as much as Section 4.2 no cycling ban of the current byelaws. There is plenty of evidence to suggest cyclists have ignored the laws since 1976 when they first came out, and there is no indication this will change.

The outcome will continue to see recreational cyclists ignoring what amy daft law drafted out outlaw single track says, and what DIO think is a good idea. Its all unworkable.

Thus DIO will continue to blame (in their opinion) irresponsible cyclists for ignoring the laws, continue to treat the cycling section of society with a mix of prejudice, distain, contempt and arrogance. DIO will continue to use to blame MTB to excuse more fences and locked gates.

The mountain bikers are irresponsible and dangerous, and refuse to follow the law…so we have to block access for all. Mountain bikers will be a handy scapegoat.

It’s all our fault. Even if it isn’t.

But that will suit DIO’s broad agenda and hostility towards all recreational users. Except of course those who pay (carrying a firearm, riding a horse, killing animals, drag hunts, commercial dog walkers…the right sort) or those considered favourable (Ramblers, equestrians) even if their numbers are dwarfed by cyclists.

Never let the facts get in the way of egocentric policy. Based on current behaviour this is likely to be DIO’s reasoning and justification.

What Can You Do?

The truth is more likely DIO are unable or unwilling to accept casual access of any kind, but are unlikely to go up against the walkers or Ramblers. The former are vocal and numerous, and the latter legally prepared and have challenged DIO in the past. Instead they focus on what they think they can control and target what they see is a minority, even when there is zero evidence to suggest they actually need to do anything.

Waste of taxpayer money? TAG certainly believe so.

Any and all letters to the local MPs help raise and maintain the profile of how important recreational use is.

Write to your MP, asking that DIO be compelled to use a firm evidence base to set policy, and that cyclists be given equal status as what those on foot enjoy today. Remind MPs that DIO are ignoring ministers and ask why this is permissible and what do they intend to do about it?

Anything less will see DIO remain openly hostile to a section of society. 4200 people identified as cyclists in the byelaws recreational survey, so it’s hardly a minority view or an edge case pleading here is it?

If you would like to read or remind yourself of the survey, here’s the NE Hants constituency copy:

Community_use_of_military_lands_NE_Hants_FinalDownload

In this election year remind your MP your vote counts. If it’s true, tell them the lack of support for recreational access to the lands will lose your vote.

The easy way is to use the ever-helpful Write to Them website.

*Latest update on the byelaws. They are due to be published as a stream of radiation pulsing from the heart of our sun after it has consumed its fuel and collapsed under its own weight. Thats in roughly 6.4 billions years from now…but DIO are likely to consider this timeline achievable.

Did You Know – Bird Benefits

Posted on by admin
3

Mention ground nesting birds to most mountain bikers and the likely response will be to roll their eyes. Shy and secretive GNBs (as they are known) are a poster species for the area and its wildlife. For a few their presence may be resented, but this view is very much misplaced as the presence of GNBs is one of the area’s greatest asset.

The birds nest here for a simple reason; the terrain is ideal. The open heather fringed with woodland is GNB heaven for nesting and raising chicks and there is one thing the army land has is lots of heather and open space.

Why are they so important? Why bother protecting them? And if they are worthy of protection, what can we do to help?

The short answer is “take care” and it does not mean the end of recreational access…

But first, let’s take a look at the bird in question.

The Nightjar

In the 50 years of living around and using the military lands a TAG fellow has seen a Nightjar just once (Ash Ranges) and heard their distinctive churring call twice (Long Valley). These are memories burned in and never to be forgotten for such is their rarity and thrill.

Nightjars are migrants and arrive early spring and hang around until early autumn before heading back to Africa so we can’t expect to see them year-round.

Thanks to an amazing camouflage pattern the birds blend in perfectly to their surroundings and to see one at all is exceptionally lucky.

GNB habitat. Good for birds and good for the soul. Spaces like this heal mental and physical health.
GNB habitat. Good for birds and good for the soul. Spaces like this heal mental and physical health.

They also fly at dusk and dawn hunting for moths. This is a bird that goes out of its way to avoid being seen, which if you nest on the ground is a good strategy. They eat moths – gardeners and farmers bordering the lands will benefit – and their presence and habitat adds a second benefit; protection of the land. You can read more about them here on the RSBP website.

For us, protection means two things; firstly it makes it difficult, but not impossible to sell off the land for housing and secondly it means we all need to stop and consider what we need to do to help (spoiler alert – it’s not a big ask – read on).

Where Are They Hiding?

There are two pieces of legislation that protects the Nightjar:

  • Wildlife and Countryside Act
  • Special Protected Area under Article 4 of the EC Birds Directive

The latter protects the habitat – known as SPA – the space the birds, and we, love, and its been mapped:

On the left we have the Aldershot lands (shown in green) and on the right the Bordon training areas plus Hankley Common. In both sets the SPA is shown in orange cross hatch.

Note how much of the military lands are also SPA? These areas have been mapped and the dataset downloaded from the DEFRA website so we can easily visualise them.

These are the areas deemed favourable for Nightjars.

What Can We Do?

There are a few things we can all do to help the Nightjars.

Firstly, keeping dogs on the path – particularly between March and September – is vital. Everyone knows your dog won’t hurt a thing and is just a big soppy pet but the birds are programmed to flee from predators and dogs fit right into this category.

Dogs won’t directly cause harm but they do force the parents off the nest. At that point other more brutal predators – and in particular crows – will come along and help themselves to unguarded eggs or young.

The Thames Basin Heaths Partnership have a campaign called #pawsonpathsplease and have put reminders up at entrances to the lands:

Thames Basin Heaths signs asking to keep dogs on the path

TAG are backing this campaign and hope everyone will join in supporting it.

The terrain the Nightjars nest in isn’t the kind of place the two legged humans choose to walk or cycle. No one in their right mind is going to choose to slog through deep heather when a nearby path or track is far easier. If we can all take a moment to use the existing trails the birds can nest in peace.

Some work has been done in Long Valley to keep the vehicles to the main tracks too:

Boundary and sign intended to keep vehicles out of GNB nesting areas in Long Valley

Marked with heavy stakes these areas in Long Valley have been recognised as GNB prime territory. Everyone, including dogs and cyclists, should stay out of these areas too. It’s a shame the signs don’t explain why the areas have been fenced off in Long Valley, but it’s a step in the right direction.

Loss Of Protection

Being a European Union law the SPA designation may well end up on the planned bonfire of legislation in the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) bill that is currently going through Parliament. This could see the end of protection and is extremely concerning. Wildlife groups are rightly calling the loss of protection out for what it clearly is – an act of self harm against our own environment.

TAG would add their name to the list of concerned and call for the application of a hefty dose of common sense. By all means review laws, but a blanket bulldozer approach cannot end well.

If this loss of protection for wildlife is worrying – and we think it is – please take a moment to write to your MP and raise your concerns.

Loss of Access – DIO Space Claim

DIO are on record back in 2020 stating that the new byelaws are needed to restrict or permanently remove recreational access:

“…explaining the problems involved with balancing wider public access with the legislative requirement to protect SSSI, SPA and other ecological areas across the estate.”

Note the actual “problems” are not outlined – there are some problems – but knowing DIO’s aversion to evidence based policy we should not be surprised if policy is being set without it. DIO solve problems with fences so we can predict where this train of thought is heading. The statement predates the existence of the Retained EU Law bill by 3 years and sets out byelaws intent way ahead of potential SPA loss.

Here’s another map of all the designated areas – SSSI and SPA – shown in context of the military lands:

Areas of land protected or of significance for wildlife – DEFRA dataset and TAG map

There isn’t a great deal of space that is designation-free. These maps show just how little space is left once protected areas are removed:

On the left, the lands around Aldershot (hatched red) that lack designation and to the right the Bordon and Hankley Lands. Hankley is 100% designated hence it does not appear.

From our mapping exercises we know the military lands account for 15,300 acres or so of recreational space. Highly fragmented and unevenly distributed the areas without designation account for a mere 3,945 acres.

DIO must be rubbing their hands with glee at the idea of kicking the public off 11,000 acres with new byelaws. The thought of leaving us with tiny sections of little practical use sees their appetite for risk aversion satisfied by making sure we all just go away.

However, TAG are reminded of what our politicians and DIO’s masters have put in writing:

From the Rt Hon Tobias Ellwood in 2017:

“Please be assured that the MoD fully understands how essential it is for local communities to have access to open land to carry out recreational and leisure activities, and the Department remains committed to fostering positive relationships with our neighbours.” 

And Jeremy Quin MP in 2019:

“I can however assure you that officials have been directed to ensure that existing gates are open for public access to Long Valley when it’s not in use for military training.” 

No politician has committed to remove, limit or restrict recreational access but nor have they done anything to control DIO behaviour which has delivered exactly that outcome.

The difference between political commitments and DIO pursuit of their own agenda regards removal of recreational access is apparent to anyone, yet it persists.

Summary

The simple act of keeping dogs, bikes and people on the existing tracks and trails will reap rewards for the Nightjar. TAG recognise the value of wild open spaces and are supportive of the wildlife groups who work to keep the spaces special.

Keeping the lands special helps keep them concrete free. The current laws and legislation are a very long-term benefit that keeps us recreational users all just a little more mentally and physically healthy than otherwise. For TAG, Nightjars are part of the solution and in no way seen as a problem.

But recreation is not a responsibility-free place and the freedoms we enjoy are rightly balanced by the needs of the natural space. Respect it, do the right thing and value what we have.

There are plenty of civil servants who would gladly see the end of casual access to the military lands so let’s not hand more excuses to that echo chamber mindset.

#pawsonpathplease

References:

Minutes of MOD – HCAF Liaison Meeting – 9th December 2020:

MOD-LiaisonMinutes-December2020Download

Natural England Priority Habitats – Inventory: https://www.data.gov.uk/dataset/4b6ddab7-6c0f-4407-946e-d6499f19fcde/priority-habitats-inventory-england

Background maps: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=6/54.910/-3.432

Did You Know – How Much Land?

Posted on by admin
4

Over the summer TAG set out to answer a few burning questions:

  • How much casual recreational access space (on MOD land) we have on our doorsteps?
  • Where are the informal tracks and trails?
  • How far do they extend?
  • To what extent do footpaths and bridleways cover the military lands?

Just like the recreational user survey Byelaws Review did in 2020, when the results revealed a minimum of 59,000 hours of recreation per week just from those who bothered to complete the survey, the answers blew TAG away.

The short answers to the questions above could be summarised as massive, everywhere, a huge distance, and not much.

The longer answers, those that actually measure and quantify with some accuracy exactly what we enjoy and is up for review, reveals far more.

“My Lords, you will recollect that last Session I ventured to raise the question of the Surrey commons which the War Office was at that date anxious to acquire and about which there was a great deal of public anxiety both in Surrey and in London.”

Earl Russell – Hansard 22nd February 1928

Working out what our communities have and enjoy today has drawn on a variety of sources including Ordnance Survey supplied data files, open national and local government data, FOI responses, Strava stats, individually gathered GPS data and local knowledge. Its been brought together in professional geospatial mapping software. TAG won’t claim absolute accuracy but the answers are close enough to stand by. Having said that if anyone notices an error then please let us know as corrections, amendments or additions are welcome. TAG see this as a living, breathing and ongoing project.

The Ordnance Survey data arrived after TAG sought answers to explain why the areas around Bordon have lost their “Managed Access” markings on the map. The reason(s) for removal remain a mystery for now.

Love it or hate it, Strava has provided a wealth of visual information and revealing in some detail exactly where the community use the lands for walking, cycling or jogging. TAG are looking to use this data further but for now we rely on the heat maps.

If you want to skip the analysis and jump straight to the numbers then its all here:

SummaryOfMODLandsDownload

TAG have created some PDF maps showing the areas, the trails identified so far, and the off-road feeder and link routes:

AldershotAndBordonOverviewDownload
AldershotSurroundsTrailsDownload
BordonAndSurroundsTrailsDownload

“The public shall have free access to the commons in accordance with their legal rights, and free access, subject to appropriate regulations, to the unenclosed lands adjoining the commons which are acquired or are being acquired by the War Department.”


Lord Onslow Under-Secretary of State for War – Hansard 22nd February 1928

Statistics are important but numbers alone don’t tell the whole story.

So just how much, where and what do we have today under the current byelaws?

How much casual access potential is out there?

Lots of Space – How Much?

“Space is big. You just won’t believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it’s a long way down the road to the chemist’s, but that’s just peanuts to space.”

Douglas Adams

TAG reckon there are approximately 15,300 acres of open space available on the military lands for casual recreation when not in use by the army.

That’s 5 times the size of Heathrow Airport (3032 acres) with the added bonus of being far less noisy and busy. Swinley Forest, home of the blue and red route formal mountain bike trails, is not even close at a mere 2,600 acres and most of which remains (officially) off-limits to bikes.

Put simply, there is a lot of open MOD space and its neatly distributed to give everyone a convenient spot of wild nature within a short walk or bike ride.

Here’s a map showing the areas covered by the Aldershot and District Military Beylaws and for completeness Hankley Common. Hankley does not come under the Aldershot byelaws but nevertheless it maintains casual access and is local.

Areas in green are dry training (no live fire) and red areas are controlled by red flags and accessible when not in use.

As we will see the cluster of open access lands is critical for the longer distance off-road rides. Here’s a closer look at the Aldershot area:

MOD land stretches from Bracknell in the north to Farnham in the south.

The lands to the south are not so extensive but still important:

The lands around Bordon and Hankley Common

Two areas fall inside the South Downs National Park; Longmoor and Weavers Down:

Shown in green the South Downs National Park boundaries enclose Longmoor and Weavers Down

There is a legal framework in which certain areas of land are designated to permit casual access. It is called the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (aka CROW). In areas designated under the Act the public is granted a right to roam – something very closely aligned with Section 2 of the Aldershot Byelaws – but there are some issues:

  • The designated areas are typically small and fragmented
  • At 12,788 acres they are less than the area of local MOD lands
  • They are poorly located to serve the majority of the community

This map highlights the issue. Green and red areas are MOD casual access and pink areas are designated CROW:

CROW land in pink. Fragmented, small and in the wrong place. Otherwise perfect.

The quality of open space is also worth questioning; one of the CROW areas is Hankley Golf Club course. Try wandering around that space and a few things become apparent; golf balls are hazardous and golfers object to their play being disturbed, and with neatly clipped grass the wild experience is a bit lacking. The golfers have paid for their membership – disturbing their play isn’t really going to help community relations.

However, the bigger problem is location. The major centres of community – Aldershot, Fleet, Farnborough, Camberley and surrounds – are poorly served by CROW yet the sparsely populated area around Frensham and Alice Holt are richly served. The supply isn’t where the demand is.

Do we all want to get into the car and drive to get our wild open space fix? What would the loss of casual access to the MOD lands look like if CROW was the only alternative?

These are questions worth asking and seeking political answers to ahead of the much delayed byelaw review and certainly way before fear-based messaging and locked gates on MOD land becomes normalised and deemed acceptable by the local community.

And let’s be clear; putting up fencing, locking gates and putting up danger signs on a mostly empty piece of land isn’t a prime example of normal behaviour, is it? And there are always better ways to educate than using fear based imagery devoid of supporting evidence.

Rights Of Way

After establishing how much space we have access to TAG then asked how far? How do the lands link up? Where do existing rights of way run and how do long distance routes join in?

The first check was a look at where the bridleways and foot paths – the rights-of-way – run. Using the mapping tool we can hide the map layer to highlight and visualise the question:

Foot paths and bridleways with the towns and roads removed. Zoomed out it looks great…zoom in and its fragmented and lacks logic. Orange lines are footpaths, green are bridleways. Source; Surrey and Hants rights of way

Zoomed in to each area we can take a closer look:

Very few right of way
Hanlkley is well served. The rest, less than ideal.
On the left the Aldershot area. On the right Bordon area. Orange lines are footpaths, green are bridleways.

Measuring exactly how much rights-of-way exist on MOD land revealed:

AreaRight-of-Way (Miles)

Long Valley/Velmead/Caesars Camp
0

Fleet Pond/Norris Hill/Minley South		1.81

Minley Manor		1.37

Hawley Common		6.39

Barrossa Common		2.38

Bagshot Heath North and South		1.48

Porridge Pots and Frith Hill		0.98

Tunnel Hill		1.25

Ash Ranges		5.26

Hankley Common		7.85


Bramshot		5.08

Longmoor		3.79


Weavers Down		0
Total37.65

We have not broken the analysis down further and split bridleways (foot, bike and horse) from footpaths (foot only) but do not expect much better than 50% to be legally usable by bike or pony. Nor does it factor in that there are no restraints on where you can walk.

Which sounds like quite a lot, right? As we will see the short answer is no, not at all.

“Please be assured that the MOD fully understands how essential it is for local communities to have access to open land to carry out recreational and leisure activities, and the Department remains committed to fostering positive relationships with our neighbours.”

The Rt Hon Tobias Ellwood MP – Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and Minister for Defence Peoples and Veterans – letter to constituent November 2017

With the exception of Hankley Common none of the rights of way really go anywhere useful. Thats not to say they are unused for just for a cycle or walk but it’s all a bit linear and that’s not how folks use the lands, and all require the use of a long distance trail or road to gain access.

Some of the larger areas such as Velmead, Long Valley and Caesars Camp, have no right of way whatsoever and recreation is 100% dependent on Section 2 – casual recreational access when not in use for military training – to enable the space.

Nor are they in the right place. The distribution again favours the lesser populated parts of the counties and isn’t clustered around where they are needed.

There is however some good news. Off-road feeder and link routes exist:

Long distance routes, permissive paths and Sustrans national cycle network

The MOD lands are linked by an extensive and mostly off-road set of permissive or right-of-way routes:

  • Sustrans – National Cycling Network
  • Cycling UK – King Alfred’s Way
  • Basingstoke Canal
  • Blackwater Valley Path
  • Shipwrights Way
  • Greensands Way

All enable safe off-road routes into and through some of some truly stunning, wild countryside and most of that is MOD land. Cycling UK’s King Alfred’s Way is notable and creditworthy as it helped establish a very short (approx 1km) but significant length of permissive path through Caesars Camp/Beacon Hill joining up two bridleways that otherwise required a diversion along busy A roads.

Miles and Miles of Lovely Trails

The next step was to figure out how we all use the lands. Riding the routes and gathering GPS was a sheer pleasure but Strava provided a rich source of where we walk, run and ride.

“I can however assure you that officials have been directed to ensure that existing gates are open for public access to Long Valley when it’s not in use for military training.”

Jeremy Quin MP – Secretary of State for Defence Procurement – letter to constituent July 2019

It was clear from early on the distance was going to be massive. And so it proved with the latest count of 414.4 miles of informal tracks, trails and routes though the MOD lands.

This included rights of way and literally everything else. Yes, it really is 414.4 miles and here’s a breakdown:

AreaTracks and Trails (Miles)

Long Valley/Velmead/Caesars Camp
84.26

Fleet Pond/Norris Hill/Minley South		11.75

Minley Manor		18.35

Hawley Common		31.9

Barrossa Common		21.89

Bagshot Heath North and South		12.04

Porridge Pots and Frith Hill		27.73

Tunnel Hill		21.85

Ash Ranges		66.66

Hankley Common		38.52


Bramshot		8.18

Longmoor		30.65


Weavers Down		31.05
Total414.4

We are not sure if we got ’em all but are confident the total distance is at least 414.4 miles.

The maps reveal the true extent:

Dashed blue lines represent informal tracks and trails in active and current use – Aldershot surrounds with long distance trails included as solid lines

The decision was taken to include the currently closed part of Ash Ranges. All the evidence suggests its still very much in use in spite of its recent closure.

Bordon and surrounds areas with informal tracks and trails in dashed blue. Long distance trails included as solid lines

TAG understand there is some enthusiasm for permissive and linear routes. To put it bluntly there is no appetite or desire to see a concession that compels riders and walkers to stick to a designated path or route. To think behaviour will change with a few signs is likely to end in wasted money, disappointment and alienating the locals. Attempting to measure every transgression off a designated track in the Aldershot area as an incursion will be impossible and won’t create or maintain positive community relations.

Measured and Valued – At Risk

So now we know, or at least have a very good idea of what is at stake. The area open for casual recreational access is massive and the distances open to ride, walk or jog are mind boggling.

And the risks?

Regrettably Long Valley has provided a view of what might happen in the future with putting in fences and locked gates open for high days and holidays. It also draws into sharp focus what happens when politicians engage and set out how things will be. Each incumbent Secretary of State says one thing and the reality served up on the ground is something unrecognisable.

“Additionally, I have been told its the MOD’s intention to include foot gates at various access points and work has been commissioned to address this issue…”

Ranil Jayawardena MP – letter to constituent dated April 2021

A reasonable summary would conclude that the reality of access has fallen very far short of the expectations set.

Politicians and MOD alike patiently explain and recognise the need to maintain these spaces for recreation when not in use – and the government publishes guidelines for healthy lifestyle and policy setters to follow. But the gulf between the stated political assurances to maintain recreational access when not in use and the reality of locked gates and barbed wire topped deterrent fences is more of a Grand Canyon sized chasm than a gap.

TAG could go on and provide more political statements but repetition gets tiring. Eroded trust marks them all down as well-meaning-but-useless. Adding more just burns meaningless words into irrelevant pixels on the screen.

Reinforced by the access issues at Long Valley and Deepcut and loss of 340 acres at Ash Ranges, the deep concerns with the pending byelaws review has been and will remain twofold:

  • Loss of Section 2 and casual recreational access when not in use
  • Loss of access via more fencing and locked gates in other areas

Miracles aside there is no alternative space available and certainly not in the crowded urban regions. The MOD area is extensive and for those who like to ramble on foot, by horse or bike the choice of routes is as close to infinite. No one ever need ride the same route twice in a decade, perhaps a life time if they choose. Fancy an off road ride from Yateley to Weavers Down? A 60 mile off-road ride is there for the taking and there is plenty of choice for the route even if the army are using part of the lands for military training.

What we have is priceless. We humans are part of nature and we are meant to be right there in the wild. The value is immeasurable and whilst the statistics of 15,000 acres and 59,000 hours of use a week are almost mind blowingly high the benefit to the locals in the form of mental and physical health to wider society should firmly and robustly outweigh and silence dissenters.

The lands must remain open for casual access. The normalisation and acceptance of locked gates and barbed wire cannot be permitted or left unchallenged.

The physical and mental health of our local community is depending on it.

Nothing To See Part III

Posted on by admin
4

“I can arrest you now”

The loss of liberty and freedoms should never be taken lightly. There are very good reasons why public officials cannot go around arresting people and detaining them without good reason.

At the comedic end Not The Nine O’Clock News and Constable Savage’s made-up charges like “walking in a loud shirt in a built up area…” poke fun but in reality the experience is something entirely different.

Arrest and loss of liberty – when the state removes freedom of its citizens – is no laughing matter. For this reason powers are limited to those with recognised authority. The Human Rights Act recognises this and protects the right to liberty. Article five makes it clear in the second sentence:

“No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law“

And before we sit back, relax and think the state will apply the law correctly and with diligence we should consider a few salient points:

  • Successive governments have cut back legal aid so a tiny minority qualify
  • The courts service has been underfunded for a very long time
  • Criminal barristers have either left the profession or are (at time of writing) on strike

The bottom line; anyone thinking the system and the state will magically function in their favour and work hard to avoid committing a miscarriage of justice is deluded and needs to sit up and smell the coffee. Anyone sucked into this system must be prepared to pay out of their own pocket for a legal defence and wait years for justice to be served.

And don’t think for one moment your legal costs if acquitted will be met in full. The government has capped them and you will be out of pocket for any mistake made.

Enter this system at your peril and expect to spend your own money even if the state screws up.

Not convinced? Have a read of the Secret Barrister’s work at exposing just how well [sic] the legal system is running.

Don’t think it will apply to you?

It won’t…until it does when a Training Area Safety Marshall (TSM) decides “riding a bicycle off the main track” fits the profile of a criminal. Without legal certainty who knows what stunt DIO will pull next?

We should expect anyone using the words “I can arrest you now” is using a procedure prescribed by law.

Which, as we will see, is not how Defence Infrastructure Omnishambles choose to operate or bother to educate their TSMs.

Background

Way back in May 2021 a TSM – we are not obliged to anonymise public facing officials but for now lets call him Mr A – made the threat of arrest.

A smartly dressed Mr A thought anyone in uniform can enforce the Aldershot Byelaws. Section 7 of the Aldershot byelaws makes it clear who is empowered (and wearing a uniform isn’t listed) but compared to a threat of arrest it’s a minor faux pas.

When pressed Mr A confirmed no one – certainly no one legally qualified – had offered him any guidance on exactly what powers a TSM might hold. Like us, he “…had just read the byelaws. Since no one has told me.”.

Nevertheless Mr A felt empowered to assert he held powers beyond a mere civilian.

Let’s pause for a moment and consider; DIO are sending TSMs into the community without legal advice.

Really? No training? No legal advice?

Mr A was confident in his interpretation to threaten arrest. You can read the entire transcript of the conversation in the link below.

20220305transcriptanalysisredacted-1Download

Our favourite part is where Mr A thinks it reasonable to close 340 acres of access because illiterate people are unable to read a sign warning of a steep drop. Even when the sign has a picture visually indicating what would happen to those who cannot read – falling in a hole. A big hole that is difficult to miss. On account of it being…obvious. We digress…

Ash Ranges. Lethal when the flags are up. Death trap even when empty according to DIO.

So the burning questions:

Does a TSM hold the powers of arrest?

Is Section 7 of the Aldershot byelaws still valid?

You would expect senior DIO staff are aware of current legislation relating to powers of arrest so that TSMs would receive appropriate training on their legal powers before letting them loose to threaten arrest.

Instead it took public fundraising to pay for qualified legal advice to spell out exactly what the law says. But before we dig deeper into the powers (or not) of arrest a TSM holds, lets pause for a moment and see how DIO treat another part of the laws of the land – copyright.

Photos? Help Yourself!

The skill and diligent approach by DIO when considering “public engagement and community relations” [sic] is fully expressed at their decision to close an area of Ash Ranges. Shambolic would be a fair summary.

We won’t dwell on how DIO decided to pull off a stunt, blaming everything from, in succession, COVID to vandalism (only those with corporate knowledge could understand costs) or those pesky holes in the ground ready to trap the illiterate, but we will dip briefly into how DIO staff treat the local community photographers.

DIO published a Powerpoint presentation “explaining” why the ranges really must be closed.

Included were some really nice photos showing vandalism. Damaged fences and a broken gates are serious but it was a shame the damage was about a mile away from the closed area and the gate had been hit by an army truck but never mind, the locals had to be excluded and why let facts get in the way of the narrative.

Also included was a photo taken by a member of the public. It had been shared on social medial and DIO had helped themselves to it. DIO published the photo to suit their agenda.

The photographer is vehemently opposed to the closure of the ranges. To see their photo being exploited by DIO bolstering their lies was galling to put it mildly.

Just like R.E.M, The Rolling Stones, Adele and Elton John object to Donald Trump using their music at his rallies.

The Long Valley signs…rarely telling the truth. DIO expect us to follow the byelaws but are unable or unwilling to do likewise.

Now it may come as a shocker, but copyright law means the photographer is the sole individual who can decide what their photo is used for and it’s an exclusive right. But that didn’t stop DIO.

They helped themselves and published it anyway.

So, DIO staff had don’t think the laws of the land apply to them, went ahead anyway and breached the rights of the photographer.

Such is the contempt and lack of basic knowledge of how the laws work.

Legal Advice

Friends and fellow campaigners Save Our Spaces wanted to know how the laws of the land applied to DIO and if the powers of arrest were valid. The local community backed a fundraiser and sought legal advice – which is not cheap.

With respect to the powers of arrest held by a TSM as empowered by the Aldershot byelaws the legal counsel’s view was crystal clear:

Schedule 7 para 38 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 removed the powers of arrest [For a TSM].

MoD police and serving officers or NCOs remain empowered to arrest – but not the TSMs.

So a TSM threatening arrest under the Aldershot byelaws is – and we will not labour the point – working beyond their powers:

Mr A – a holder of public office – was asserting powers that have removed from the Aldershot and District Byelaws.

Instead of sourcing qualified legal advice DIO let the TSM read and interpret the laws how they saw fit.

Far better to continue to threaten arrest and scare the recreational users off the lands – it suits DIO narrative- even if the powers were defunct in 2005.

The Ombudsman Speaks

You may think a public office holder claiming to hold powers that don’t exist is ripe for a complaint. It hardly fits into the Standards in Public Life and even better Mr A was in full agreement. From the transcript:

“Yeah, I agree that we should be held to account, whatever because we are a public office.”

There was an overlap between the Ombudsman starting to look at the case and the arrival of legal advice. Initially the Ombudsman found nothing wrong. Then, when we started to challenge this the Ombudsman pressed for the legal reasoning before reconsidering:

“…if you can explain exactly what part of the 2005 Act revoked these powers, we will be happy to look again.”

Note how at every turn it’s down to the community or individuals to prove the state is wrong?

So we shared legal counsel’s view.

Even though it was 30 days beyond the Ombudsman’s time limit they pressed for it – double standards when compared to other evidence we turned up in other complaints.

In the end we were going absolutely nowhere and were given this reason:

“I am afraid this has been declined. This is because the related injustice does not meet our threshold for review, which requires far more serious injustice.”

Yes folks, you read it correctly. A holder of public office can go around claiming to hold powers that no longer exist.

Compliance with Article 5 of the HRA is set aside. The Ombudsman goes on to explain:

“While I am sure you experienced annoyance at the conversation, this would not meet our threshold for review.”

TAG really have no more to add, apart from a reminder how a false arrest and entry into the criminal justice system will be more than just “annoyance”.

Clearly the Ombudsman has a different set of values but being threatened with arrest by someone who has no such power should have no place in a civil, liberal and open democracy. Maybe TSM really stands for Training Stazi Marshal?

TAG are left wondering what TSM behaviour or indeed how low DIO standards have to drop before anyone really cares?

Summary

We do have some sympathy with Mr A. Trying to sidestep responsibility and blaming others further up the chain with I’m just doing my job won’t work as it fails to meet Principles of Public Life (1.7 – Leadership). Anyone trying the blame game and pinning it on the boss isn’t really hitting the standards.

But in this case TAG see the incident as a symptom of ineffective leadership. The broad failure to train staff reveals the shambolic nature of higher management and casuality towards a responsibility to deliver an effective, legally compliant minimum level of service.

In the profit and loss world of commercial survival the directors of a company would be failing to discharge their duties…shareholders see profits slip. DIO are under no such pressure – when money arrives, budgets are allocated and DIO spend cash like sailors on shore leave and the matter of trained and qualified staff is of little concern. Except it’s our money being spent and DIO are wasting it whilst simultaneously failing to deliver a service we should expect. TAG firmly believe the buck stops firmly on the desks of Lt Col Bishop and Mark Ludlow.

Between TAG and Save Our Spaces we have compiled a DIO statement fact checking sheet. Its running at 56 statements – not including the absolute gem “I can arrest you now”. There are quotes from a wide range of DIO staff all guilty of making things up and it’s a target rich environment when it comes to demonstrating a wide range of mendacious attitudes, opinions and ego based “policy”.

We will be dipping into it over the next few months, revealing what was said by whom and picking it apart for validity.

The contempt for legal compliance takes things to an unbelievable level of omnishambles as DIO staff have demonstrated a less than compliant attitude to the laws of the land. From helping themselves to copyright protected material and publishing it to suit their own agenda to letting unqualified or trained staff interpret and threaten the law.

Never mind the Human Rights Act works to prevent wrongful arrest, or showing contempt to the local community and publishing an image to suit a decision taken without good grounding or evidence. If it assists Disruptive Intransigent Omnishambles to achieve the goal of restricting access and disrupting causal recreational access then its all fair game.

But it gets worse. Consider this;

DIO are charged with authoring the replacement byelaws. If DIO cannot follow the basics and get the current laws right what level of competence can we expect with the new set?

When DIO refuses to respect the local community and steal an image, or threaten arrest when there is no procedure prescribed by law, should we really expect anything less than draconian recreational restrictions?

TAG firmly believe DIO should cease publishing intellectually insulting adverts, stop deleting records and drop the idea of trying bad faith engagement. Training their staff in the law would be another positive step and installing the gates at Long Valley as promised by MP Ranil Jayawardena would undo some of the damage DIO have inflicted in community relations.

What is well overdue and absolutely required is a move towards rational, evidence based policy that has both a sense of purpose and – above all – proportionality.

TAG can and will support that.

Nothing To See Part II

Posted on by admin
5

There is a scene in the classic film Apocalypse Now TAG feel drawn to.

The lead character, Captain Willard, has met his nemesis Colonel Kurtz. Kurtz was out of control running a renegade army deep in the jungles of Cambodia and conducting a war on his own terms. The conversation goes like this:

Kurtz: “Are my methods unsound?”

Willard: “I don’t see any method at all, sir”

A rather bloated and rambling Marlon Brando played Kurtz. TAG wonder if DIO are using the film and character as a guide to public engagement with cyclists? The Standards of Public Office are clearly defined yet when it comes to cyclists DIO appear to pay them only lip service and the Ombudsman finds no fault despite the evidence TAG has supplied.

TAG see a selective and discriminatory approach to recreational user groups with some are given the red carpet treatment and VIP access whilst cyclists are at best treated as a social leper. Here’s a good example from the government website covering access to the training estate:

We welcome external groups such as ramblers and horse societies to contact our access forum and make agreed arrangements about access in advance of any activity taking place. More information can be found on our Access Forum.

Here’s a list of the known user groups DIO recognise in some form or other, and how their otherwise illegal activities prohibited under the byelaws are permitted:

Group or PracticeForbidden ByEnabled By
EquestriansSection 4(2) – ride a horseSection 8(3) DIO authorised permit
Commercial Dog WalkersSection 4(3) – engage in trade or businessSection 8(3) DIO authorised permit
Ramblers Section 4(5) – Assemble and walk as a groupSection 8(3) written permission

The first two – horse riding and walking dogs for money – operate on a commercial basis. This is not something TAG would wish to see applied to casual recreation. TAG firmly believes the beneficial mental and physical health benefits for individuals and society at large far outweigh any fee DIO might earn.

But the Ramblers are a different kettle of fish as there is no commercial agreement and there is very good reasons to think DIO are applying discrimination and have as yet been unable to provide TAG with their justification.

But first, lets have a look at how the Ramblers got where they are and what service they receive today from DIO.

Red Carpet for Ramblers

The earliest record of the Ramblers engagement with DIO is the Ramblers own website. Back in 2014, at the same time as the now infamous Crookham Parish Hall meeting (where DIO announced cycling bans were in force) the Ramblers were also seen as troublemakers and were being stopped by DIO staff for walking in a group.

Yes, thats right. For the crime of walking in a group.

The Ramblers – just like cyclists – pushed back and didn’t back down. The outcome was written authorisation signed by Mark Ludlow agreeing that Ramblers could indeed walk en masse and not be bothered by DIO staff unless there was military training going on.

You can read the document for yourself here:

modagreementDownload

Contrast this to how cyclists were graded just one step above dog mess with the mantra “cycling is against the byelaws” repeated at every opportunity.

A proper DIO welcome for cyclists – there is a belief within DIO this is acceptable

Why didn’t cyclists get the same treatment?

We think there are two primary reasons.

Firstly, the Ramblers are better organised and their national body is not only vocal but is prepared to challenge and are able to draw upon legal advice to pressure DIO. Note how the liability for any deviation from the planned route is gently pushed onto DIO – the legal implications are clear and it’s a smart move, moving the risk of DIO instructions back onto DIO.

Secondly, TAG firmly believes there is a negative bias against cycling and cyclists at work in DIO.

Lacking any evidence to suggest cycling must be banned, whilst granting the Ramblers rights under Section 8(3) (written permission) suggests individual and collective bias is setting public policy.

Otherwise, cyclists would be treated equally or presented with compelling evidence to justify DIO’s actions. The absence of evidence and bias towards others sends a clear signal.

Or does it?

When you consider the results from the TAG 2020 Byelaws survey we know 42% of the 11,000 respondents identified cycling as an activity yet only 160 equestrian permits were issued over a two year period.

The alternative explanation for DIO’s lack of engagement might be more straightforward;

Cycling and cyclists cause statistically irrelevant levels of harm or risk. As such DIO have no need to spend time trying to manage the activity.

But this does not fully explain or justify why a Section 8(3) authorisation for cyclists remains elusive.

Either way it’s difficult to see how DIO’s behaviour is compatible with the Seven Principles in Public Life.

But as we shall see neither local politicians nor the Parliamentary Ombudsman really cares too much so DIO are free to carry on.

The application of bias starts to take us into the Human Rights Act. Article 14 is a right to not be discriminated against yet DIO are doing just that and importantly without good reason supported by any evidence TAG are aware of.

The Human Rights angle is interesting – look beyond the tabloid outrage of how the HRA prevents the deportation of mass murderers because they had a pet dog or how it means prisoners can demand hardcore porn in their cells and none are true but are great examples of how to gaslight a society. Nor does it mean we are being run by Europe. Dig deeper and and you find the Act helps wronged citizens hold the powerful to account.

Until you are snagged into it the HRA really doesn’t seem important but when you are, it is of course.

TAG would wager organisations like DIO do not appreciate the HRA. It’s a tool to hold the State and its operatives to account so why would they?

We will return to the HRA in later posts as we think DIO are now playing a waiting game but that’s for a later post.

The cosy relationship with Ramblers doesn’t stop with Mark Ludlow (Security and Access) writing a nice letter and delivering up Section 8(3) authorisation. The Ramblers now have a personal contact within DIO to liaise with and a link from the introductory web page takes anyone clicking it to a form that sends a message directly to Dean Howard (Security and Access) to inform him directly of any planned walk.

Red carpet for Ramblers…fences and discouragement for the rest of us

And before we go down the rabbit hole of “cyclists are hostile to DIO so who can blame them?” let’s remember both groups started from the same position – a ban – but the group with a strong national body representation found a supportive attitude within DIO and is likely how the Ramblers end up in a different place.

If there was ever good evidence of bias and discrimination against one group, then it’s right here. TAG don’t begrudge or object to how DIO have chosen to engage with the Ramblers – its a sound idea – but we do strongly object to discrimination.

TAG thought a clear example of bias combined with a deliberate policy to deny legal clarity would have been enough for the Ombudsman to find fault in DIO’s behaviour.

How wrong we were.

The Complaint

In 2019 TAG raised two complaints against DIO.

One was centred around the locked gates at Long Valley (yes, that old chestnut) and one challenged the behaviour of DIO representatives. DIO staff had considered it acceptable to tell children riding their bikes at Beacon Hill to “f**k off”.

Both complaints were accepted and a meeting between TAG and DIO was held. Assurances were given Long Valley would be opened (it wasn’t – until more pressure was applied) and the staff were given guidance on what is not acceptable. TAG were assured swearing a minors was treated as unacceptable.

As the meeting broke up TAG Chair was guided into Mark Ludlow’s office. What followed was a chat that made it clear cycling was allowed and cyclists were not to be hounded and harassed. The meeting was verbal and no minutes were being taken – this rang an alarm bell. However, this was a game changer and shift in policy, one to be applauded and publicised so TAG did just that and the result was the 2019 agreement.

Prior to publication an email chain was established to provide a written record for both TAG and DIO documenting the agreement with the intent to publish and what the content was to say.

Since publication DIO have raised no concerns, objections or complaints. Nor have changes, amendments or removal been sought.

TAG are very confident the content and intent of what DIO said with respect to cyclists and cycling on the lands has been faithfully reproduced in the published agreement.

Everyone was happy. TAG were delighted with the announcement and the local community were free to use the lands responsibly and ride a bicycle.

Then we started to get reports from cyclists that TSMs (Training Safety Marshalls) had been stopping them and insisting they stick to the main tracks or fire roads.

Main track terminating in a permanently locked gate – there are three tracks that split from this path and if you are on foot you may walk to a gate at the end of one of them. Cyclists are expected to turn around.

This wasn’t mentioned during the conversation in Mark Ludlow’s office. Nor had it been part of the email exchange and final published agreement. Nor have DIO sought changes or amendments. Naturally we would have given any evidence-based and backed change or amendment a fair hearing but no contact was made and no changes were asked for.

The byelaws are silent on the matter of recreational users sticking to main track so DIO bias is kicking off again and the main tracks are the one place where vehicles are regularly driven so compelling cyclists to ride this space makes little sense.

This started to raise concerns. Where would DIO stop? Over time would the TSMs revert and start repeating ad nauseam “Cycling is banned under the byelaws“? (The answer to that is “yes” but we will save that one for another post). When challenged the TSMs simply responded “Don’t know anything about that”.

Which says a lot about internal comms within DIO.

The best engagement. TSM driving past without bothering a cyclist.

A FOI request revealed DIO SE had no written policy with regards to cycling on the military lands. By now DIO had already wasted volunteer time soliciting reports that have been ignored and the relationship had, from an initial hope of a more collaborative approach, reverted back to deep suspicion and mistrust.

So we thought it was worth involving the Ombudsman. After all, if civil servants go back on an agreement or policy then is beyond compliance to standards in public life.

The Ombudsman’s View

The Ombudsman’s opening response was:

Under section 4(2) of the Byelaws cycling is prohibited except for on the main roads. 

Which isn’t strictly true as the byelaws actually say something different. But it set the scene and what followed focussed on how DIO had issued clear communication and guidance.

The Ombudsman considered the email chain and concluded there was no agreement to permit cycling, and that:

The advice from DIO was clear, accurate and relevant and therefore in line with our Principles of Good Administration. 

The issues of discrimination was raised and Article 14 of the HRA cited but the Ombudsman declined to consider these points as they were “new”.

When dealing with new evidence the Ombudsman was less than consistent. As we shall see in the next post qualified legal advice was needed to consider one complaint and this disclosed after the original submission – but before anyone gets too excited the Ombudsman then ignored it even when it shows a TSM stepped deep into legally questionable territory.

Further evidence was refused including the video as created for and published by DIO. The one where the mountain biker is seen cycling on everything but a fire road.

Yes, that is right. A mountain biker in a DIO video cycling on single track.

The video itself features Challenger II tanks firing on the move, Warrior armoured vehicles rumbling around and mortar rounds being fired – none of which are relevant here in Aldershot. The claim that training can occur “24 hours a day 7 days a week” is now impossible to prove or disprove since DIO delete the records after 48 hours. There is the usual statement claiming DIO welcome recreational access “when it is safe” but as proved at Long Valley it really means when they can be bothered to unlock the gates.

The only real surprise is a that a TSM does not appear in the video and tell them off. You can watch it here:

DIO Video Showing Where MTB Can Ride

So, we have a PR video showing cyclists off road, on single track, when in reality the TSMs tell cyclists to stick to the fire roads with the Ombudsman declining to review the evidence and insisting TAG have clear comms.

As communication with the Ombudsman drew to a close TAG were contacted and were pointed to the link on the Farnham Ramblers website. A second one was found on Portsmouth Ramblers and a third on the main Ramblers website.

There seemed little point in sharing this with the Ombudsman…as there really is nothing to see.

Summary

To a policy writer the idea of sticking to fire roads and main tracks might seem sound.

However, there is no definition of what a main track is and so can be anything DIO want it to be to suit the conversation. There are instances where a track terminates in a locked gate or fence. Fire roads terminate and split into a series of smaller trails. Sometimes main tracks just get smaller and smaller or disappear and lose definition. Do cyclists shrug and turn around?

Where do we go from here? The main track ends so sticking to it becomes impossible. Practical implications are not really within DIO’s remit.

Then there is a question of how much track there is. Long Valley and Caesars Camp/Beacon Hill have just 26kms of stone road (as defined on DIO’s own internal maps) yet there is over 120kms of tracks & trails ready to ride. Do cyclists really ignore the best bits just because DIO don’t like us?

If you are stopped by a TSM our advice on what to do remains unchanged but TAG would add, if possible record the encounter. Important; Make it clear you are making a recording. There may be objection but there are no powers to compel anyone to cease recording or filming an interaction with a public official or representative.

On more than one occasion DIO staff have been found to make false or misleading statements and a recording removes any doubt around what was said. This should help hold them to account, particularly if there are examples telling folk to f**k off again.

Remember, not even the police are exempt from being filmed by the public as they go about their work. The TSMs probably won’t like it and may object. But there is nothing in the byelaws and TAG are unaware of any law that prevents the recording of a public office holder in the execution of their duties.

Just as the Ramblers do, make sure you get a name and make a note of of the request. If anything goes amiss on the DIO diverted route then liability for any incident may well lie at their feet.

If it’s good for Ramblers, it’s good for cyclists too.

So sticking to the main tracks sounds great on paper. In practice its unworkable and those on foot are under no obligation to stick to a main track. But the problem goes further than just being told to ride a specific route.

Consider this; All other Section 8(3) user groups – the equestrians, commercial dog walkers and the Ramblers – have one thing in common; legal certainty.

Cyclists have no such thing and riding with friends makes matters worse. Yes, organising a group ride really does break two byelaws and not just one. As the TSM berates you and your fellow cyclists, just remember the Ramblers can point to Mark Ludlow’s letter as you listen to the tired insistence about sticking to the main tracks.

Legal uncertainty may suit DIO but the lack of clarity is not the basis for a liberal, open and functioning democracy.

If it’s good for Ramblers, it’s good for cyclists too.

Combined with DIO’s approach of “it’s whatever we say is” fire road interpretation, and limited and mixed message, ineffective communication skills, we have all the elements of a public policy that is both shambolic and not based on sound practice, irrespective of the decisions – egocentric or zero impact – applied to decline positive engagement and legal certainty.

In Apocalypse Now Willard didn’t see any methods and neither does TAG. DIO appear free to make it up as they go along using prejudice as a guide with discrimination the inevitable outcome.

TAG hoped for a more firm and sound legal basis securing Section 8(3) authorisation for cyclists and the local community. For now it has eluded us.

For now TAG will continue to maintain our code of conduct and publication of the statement on cycling.

Unless and until DIO seek changes we will stand by the record. TAG will also take every opportunity to remind them the Respect the Range video is a persistent and visual record covering where cycling is deemed acceptable…and that includes the tracks and trails that wind though the lands.

A gate would restore long-standing access marked on the 1888 Ordnance Survey map. Local MP Ranil Jayawardena is on record saying more were coming. DIO have ignored that and now Mr Jayawardena is ignoring constituents asking “where are the gates?”.

Legal certainty is needed yet no one in leadership is prepared to grasp the DIO nettle. The Ombudsman can set aside their own policy documents. Local MPs are unable to get simple things like a few gates installed and have all the appearances of taking everything DIO says without question or challenge.

If it’s good for Ramblers, it’s good for us too.

This mess is likely to continue as long as the public collectively and individually permit it.

In the next instalment we will see how DIO CEO spends their time, how leadership standards ripple down so DIO staff can really overstep the mark and ignore the laws of the land, why recording a TSM encounter is priceless, and how the Ombudsman refused to consider the complaint until qualified legal advice was shared. And then completely disregard it and the logical outcome.

A Nice Little Earner

Posted on by admin
1

Last year we reported how the byelaws would be used to create Controlled Areas where no-one would be permitted to go unless DIO said so. These restrictions were deemed necessary by DIO and we quote them directly:

“…the need to balance the sometime conflicting requirements of enhanced public access with the conservation piece.“

Its unclear what is really meant by enhanced when the current byelaws make it clear access is permitted at all times when not in use? It is also unclear why such draconian restrictions are really needed when the 2600 acres of Pirbright Ranges – a 24/7 no-go area – is already off limits.

We have also seen a recent spate of trail building at Tunnel Hill. This has reportedly been assessed as “criminal damage”.

But TAG see the issues as less clear-cut and the summary might read financial benefits beat principles hands down.. The following post picks into each and examines how DIO themselves treat the lands.

The Conservation Piece

Firstly, we set out what this piece isn’t about. We are not examining how the army use the lands as military training is the primary reason to exist as open space. The army are pretty good custodians and those chemical toilets we see are there to reduce the nutrient load (poo and wee if you are under 7) on the heathland.

The heathland is a rare and important habitat. Well drained sandy soils with low nutrients are what make up most of the military training estate. The underlying geology is very poor agricultural land which is why the army found a huge open space to train at Aldershot in 1854. The area is so special it has an organisation devoted to caring for it – The Thames Basin Partnership – and DIO are listed as a partner.

Three designations protect the lands:

  • Site of Specific Scientific Interest – SSSI
  • Special Protected Area – SPA
  • Priority Habitat – Lowland Heath

The SPA designation is important at this time of year. Ground nesting birds (GNBs in MTB-speak) use the open spaces of the heath to nurture and raise their young. We can all do our bit to help by following the guidance. TAG certainly recognise the value GNBs bring for their presence helps prevent development.

We were surprised to find a filmset plonked on top of the heather at Tunnel Hill. Checking the wildlife designation maps the set is set in an area covered by SSSI, SPA and Priority Habitat.

Worse still, the set is being constructed right at the start of GNB season.

A filmset on top of the dry heathland right at the start of GNB nesting season. Just what conservation needs.

Filming and filmsets earn hard cash. Everyone needs to earn a crust but it’s galling to read DIO wish to block recreational access for conservation reasons whilst allowing commercial activity to do the opposite of what conservation really needs.

Rumour has it George Clooney is directing a film and I bet the birds will appreciate the star studded presence on the common. Or maybe not.

Hypocrisy? We certainly think so. But it gets worse…lets have a look at the trail digging issue.

Shift the Dirt

Before we go into this one…we need to stress the issues of digging trail features cause:

Taking a shovel onto the land with the idea of digging a new jump or building a berm without the landowners permission is going put the sport we love in a very bad light.

A little light trail maintenance that reduces harm and reduces landowner risk isn’t going to trigger a visit by the trail flattening crew but a new gulley jump or step up does not fit into TAG’s code of conduct.

Some recent digging at Tunnel Hill. Reports of MOD police attending the scene (not to session the trail with bikes) have been received

The recent trail building at Tunnel Hill have stepped over the line and deep into creating a problem for the wider MTB community. We hear MOD police taped off the area whilst muttering “criminal damage” and the flattening crew have already paid a visit removing the trail.

But hold on a minute. Are MTB the only users of the lands who shift a bit of dirt?

Setting aside the army again (training primacy rules) we are aware of land users who shift a lot of dirt.

And before anyone thinks we are bashing another user group…rest assured we are not…

Every year the Natterjack Enduro is run in one of the local areas. Last year it was Weavers Down near Bordon and for a couple of years it was run in Long Valley.

When it comes to moving soil these boys and girls can shift more dirt in one lap than the local digging community can move in a year.

A berm (left) and a trail (right) cut by the enduro at Weavers Down

The course of the enduro will persist for a long time. The route of the 2018 enduro can still be seen and ridden in Long Valley but watching some of the UK and European champions on our own doorstep comes highly recommended.

But hang on…isn’t there a difference between random trail building and authorised and paid for events?

Yes, very much so.

But seeing the issue of trail building labelled “criminal damage” is particularly galling for TAG volunteers who worked on the DIO-solicited digging area proposals…please read on…

In 2019 Mark Ludlow (Security and Access) and Lt Cdr Bishop (Commanding Officer) both expressed an interest in seeing digging conducted in a managed way…TAG were tasked with pulling together a proposal for two potential areas…research was done…digger community fellows approached for their views…areas scoped and a report written and delivered.

And then silence.

Not even an acknowledgement of receipt or the report’s existence. The cost to TAG was volunteer time and we remain at a loss to understand how civil servants could treat taxpayers with such contempt.

Had the report been enacted we are confident the lands and our community would be in a different place.

And before anyone runs around repeating the oft heard “cycling is against the byelaws” as a defence for DIO’s behaviour please remember the 2019 agreement between TAG and DIO legitimising cycling on the lands is a very real thing no matter what DIO might be asserting in private.

There is a Parliamentary Ombudsman complaint on DIO’s failures to engage in good faith with the local community working its way through the process. We will report back once we hear its findings.

Back to the issue of enduros and trail diggers shifting the soil…

To reiterate the point…in no way are we opposed to the land being used for an enduro. TAG believes the lands should be accessible to all, including organised motorsport.

But we do not appreciate hypocrisy… double standards are deeply objectionable and TAG firmly believes the Seven Principles of Public Life are considered optional by DIO staff.

Follow the Money

In TAG’s view it seems DIO will give a green light to landscape the grounds or build a film set on top of an SSSI/SPA as long as their palms are crossed with silver.

Recreational access is generally very low impact in these areas but because no one pays then the working presumption is DIO sees the local community as a financial and legal liability?

So to help DIO show there is a financial return on recreational access TAG have a simple proposal.

TAG will pay for everyone’s access and hand over the cash to make everything right and proper.

The cost?

TAG are suggesting the rate be fixed in perpetuity at just £1 per year.

This token gesture covers the entire community and helps everyone fit into the money talks model of access DIO seem to be endorsing.

TAG will see if the lands can be booked for 12 months on that basis, but we won’t hold our breath.

However, we will be raising the issue of double standards and DIO’s behaviour with our local MPs. We would urge you to do likewise and the usual WriteToThem link makes the process simple and straightforward.

Taken for Fools

Posted on by admin
3

Back in April many in the local community received a letter – ironically dated April 1st – from local MP Ranil Jayawardena.

The letter contained two highly relevant assurances regarding access and use of Long Valley:

  • More access gates and work had been commissioned to address this
  • Officials have been directed to ensure gates are open for public access when not in use.

You can read a copy of the letter here:

longvalleyextragatecommitmenthighlightedDownload

DIO have not met either political commitment.

The gates remain wishful thinking and the concept of “in use” is broadly ignored.

We believe now is the time to call the DIO to account and would encourage you to write to your local MP and ask:

  • Why are DIO are permitted to act as if the local community does not exist?
  • Why political accountability with respect to DIO SE staff decisions and (in)actions appears to be weak or non-existent?
  • Why are direct instructions such as “install gates” and “keep it open when not in use” are casually ignored?
  • Where are the promised gates?
  • Why is Long Valley shut when not in use?

If this has piqued your interest, please read on.

Where are the gates?

Currently there are just six pedestrian gates permitting access and they are poorly distributed with three on the eastern side, two along the southern boundary and just one in the west. The north west and north sides have zero access and there is a 5km off-road detour from one gate to the next.

When Ranil’s letter arrived, we wanted to believe the commitments but going on past DIO performance of ignoring anything they didn’t want to do we held off starting the celebrations.

The red arrows indicate where we think the extra gates are required. Please get in touch if we have missed any – we can add them to the list.

All points where gates are needed are popular. They have become subject to “restorative access measures” (we refuse to call it vandalism) as the community assert the promised access. Fitting gates would reduce long-term maintenance and repair and restore access.

After 4 months and no sign of activity we decided it was time to close the loop and find out what planning work had been done so we submitted a Freedom of Information Request – you can read it and the response here.

A gate is needed here. Even when not in use locals resort to climbing the locked vehicle gate. This track is marked on the 1888 Ordnance Survey map and has been in use for decades.

The short answer is no statement of need, no contractor engagement or indeed any sign of work on gates has commenced – DIO hold no information on the matter. Contrary to assurances nothing has happened and the gates remain elusive.

This has all the hallmarks of DIO ignoring a direct political commitment again. Their track record on this behaviour is thoroughly disappointing.

Where is the Access?

Dating back to 2018 the local community has sought and received assurances Long Valley will remain open for recreation when not in use.

Since then DIO have consistently ignored political commitments, including a direct instruction from the Minister for Defence Procurement himself (letter dated July 2020), and have carried on blocking access irrespective of use.

All of the access issues are documented here and here. The persistent closure is not supported by the intent and purpose of Section 2 of the Byelaws and DIO remain unaccountable for their actions.

The warning signs continue to convey worthless information for most of the time and from the booking on/off records between September 2020 and January 2021 we know the lands remained empty for extended periods, or just a tiny fraction of the 960 acres was occupied for part of the time. Of the 320 hours of locked gates during February just 34 hours were booked out and in use.

The signs do not convey accurate information for the majority of the time and have failed the basic standards we should expect.

With the Long Valley signs now demonstrated to lie more than tell the truth the local community have elected to express their frustration with some plain speaking stickers

Who are the Instructed Officials?

DIO is an official body, but it is individuals who represent it take the decisions – and ignore the instructions – that impacts all of us.

So we think it’s time those who spent £250,000 of taxpayer money preventing access at Long Valley are named. Of all the DIO staff involved there are two whom we believe to be directly responsible;

  • Mark Ludlow – Training and Safety Officer (Security and Access)
  • Lt Col Dickie Bishop – Commander, South East Training Estate

These two individuals have track record of seeking to exclude recreation – closing car parks, removing access at Ash Ranges, installing deterrent fences – we firmly believe both Mark and Dickie find the idea of recreational access very difficult to accept in practice or principle, despite what the Byelaws say. Their actions suggest their intent is to make access (the “Access” part Mr Ludlow’s job title) or as difficult as possible, even when the lands are empty.

If you have read this far, we would encourage you to write to your local MP and ask the questions we posed at the top of this article.

Who are the Fools?

What is regrettable is how a local community – one that cares passionately about the lands – is held at arm’s length at best and ignored at worst. How DIO have behaved over the closure of Ash Ranges is a perfect example of how not to “engage” with the community yet accountability remains absent.

Based on sound evidence this sign at Long Valley can be accepted as telling the truth. Contrast this with the DANGER signs, which for most of the time display misleading or irrelevant information and are perpetuating lies.

DIO prevent access without good reason whilst failing to balance the positive outcomes recreational use brings with a minimal risk. Mental and physical health is improved with recreational access, with a positive reduction in demand for NHS & GP appointments coupled with the simple joy of living in a happier, healthier community.

This is not something TAG are making up – the government acknowledge, and numerous scientific reports agree recreation in open space is a very good thing with positive impact on high demand health issues such as obesity, diabetes, depression. These very issues that impact all of us fail to register in DIO for we know Ash Ranges was closed without any consideration or care.

So whilst the date of Ranil’s letter is likely to be coincidental its very clear who the fools are in this game. Unless and until DIO are held to account the local community will remain ignored and treated as fools.

Setting the Record Straight

Posted on by admin
3

At times DIO can appear benign and at times charming, acting as if we are welcome to use the lands. The recent “Respect the Ranges” video even goes as far to spell it out:

“We very much welcome the public coming to use the estate but at the right time and when it’s safe for them.”

As we will see, the tricky bits for DIO are twofold. Firstly, accepting Aldershot Byelaws and Section 2 exists and is (nearly) unique with the wide ranging casual recreational access it grants appears difficult. Secondly, figuring out a rational and objective definition of “safe” does appear to be a challenge.

Yet even with a broad statement here in the South East the concept of “welcome” remains elusive. TAG have now raised and escalated a complaint regarding the approach and attitude of the Training Area Safety Marshals (TSM).

We have recent reports from dog walkers and mountain bikers documenting an overtly hostile attitude that ignores the cycling agreement, does not respect the byelaws and is making it clear DIO would rather see recreation removed. One TSM went as far as expressing a desire to fence the entire area and ban recreation at all times.

Just how welcome are we?

A DIO “Welcome” to the estate – making it as difficult as possible irrespective of use. DIO are on the record as saying this gate at Long Valley is acceptable for cyclists and horse riders. On this we disagree and its not hard to see why.

Isolated Incidents? Or Pattern of Behaviour?

Regrettably its not the first time TAG have raised concerns.

Many will be unaware of an incident back in 2019 at Beacon Hill when a DIO representative decided it was appropriate and acceptable to shout foul and abusive language at children. To their credit DIO acted upon that complaint and one of the positive outcomes was the 2019 agreement that cyclist were to be welcomed (see the Facebook post).

However, since early 2020 a steady stream of complaints has been reported into TAG, each telling riders they can only use the fire roads and a dog walker was advised the area was dangerous because there were trip hazards. At no time was military training underway…its very much a “get off our land” approach that really does ignore the principles of Section 2 of the Byelaws.

The gates and 5kms of barbed wire topped deterrent fence are a welcome sight – if you happen to be DIO and want to see recreation blocked at all times irrespective of use. We now know from analysis of booking on/off records Long Valley was used just 10% of the time it was closed.

We see all of this as a softening up of the public ahead of the byelaws consultation, encouraging all of us to accept restrictions before the new laws actually apply. But without hard evidence things remain a they-said-I-said argument and the issues triggered remain unresolved.

What was needed was some hard and verifiable evidence.

Hard Evidence

We now have a 14 minute recording of an exchange between a mountain biker and a TSM.

You can have a read of the conversation highlights and analysis here:

20220305transcriptanalysisredacted-1Download

There were so many misguided, inaccurate and just plain wrong assertions – up to and including threatening arrest – that its clear to us that DIO and their staff are relying on ignorance and bluster to encourage compliance to non-existent sections of existing or yet-to-be consulted on byelaws.

TAG have an in-progress complaint intending to address this but in the meantime we have put together a little guide to help.

A Guide to Reality

What follows is a layman’s guide to help anyone who is stopped to help counter the TSM & DIO view of reality. The comments are all based on quotes or feedback.

Anyone in uniform can enforce the byelaws.

This really depends on who is wearing the uniform. Lets look at who can:

  • A serving officer or NCO.
  • MOD or civil police.
  • Anyone authorised in writing General Officer Commanding, Army District or Officer in Charge of Military Lands.

So a TSM (who is a civilian) must possess and be able to produce written authority. Anyone lacking authority is unable to enforce the byelaws.

However, there is some doubt over the existence of the roles mentioned in the byelaws, and a later piece of law (Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984) may have removed the powers of arrest from individuals such as a TSM entirely (Update: we have two contradictory FOI responses, one saying both roles are defunct and a later one saying one is active…we are checking…).

February 6th 2022 – Update added following legal advice:

The Serious and Organised Crime Act of 2007 has likely removed the power of arrest from TSMs or indeed anyone else authorised in writing by the Commanding Officer.

It has not been tested in court, but legal counsel’s view is that it would be a very, very brave individual who is not MOD police or a serving officer or NCO to attempt an arrest under the current byelaws.

Either way, if you are stopped the TSM should be able to produce written authority to let the conversation proceed and asking to see copy is a perfectly reasonable request.

If you are stopped by the army then it will be for good reason(s). Military training takes priority and following their instruction is part of being a responsible user of the lands and everyone should follow the code of conduct. This includes making sure troops have priority and space to train.

Cycling is only permitted on the fire roads.

This contradicts the 2019 agreement between TAG and DIO that makes it clear cycling is permitted on the military lands when they are not in use. There was and remains no mention of any requirement to stick to the fire roads. TAG have never been requested to remove or alter the agreed and published statement and our challenge to DIO over this remains unanswered.

Until TAG are advised otherwise (and we will need an evidence-backed reason(s) to support such a change) we very much see the agreement to cycle as written authority under Section 8(3) of the byelaws and in effect granting cyclists access parity with walkers.

If presented with the “fire roads only” assertion then politely remind the TSM of the 2019 agreement and ask them if they have been informed of its existence. From a limited sample of people who have pointed out the agreement with cyclists it seems unlikely the TSMs have been updated by the leadership.

Perhaps the strongest evidence refuting DIO’s assertion we all need to stick to made up tracks is highlighted in the Respect the Range video – the mountain biker is seen enjoying the space but at no time is seen riding on a fire road.

This area is closed for your safety.

On the face of it this sounds very benevolent and almost caring.

The reality is more about DIO running scared of being sued (spoiler alert – no evidence of it happening here) rather than caring about safety.

If there is genuine risk triggered by military training then the statement is valid. But when the lands are empty the space is about as benign as possible. The the risk of harm – even falling down holes – is near zero and for the likes of MTB accepting the risk is part of the reason we ride…the mental and physical challenges posed deliver benefits far in excess of any downside.

It may seem unbelievable but falling down a hole has been given as good reason to close access to 340 acres at Ash Ranges. The holes in question are a) tiny and b) marked with a warning signs. The risks are mitigated but DIO reality means they remain a concern, particularly those who “cannot read”. For those who genuinely cannot read the text is accompanied with a graphic…no, we are not making this claim up.

February 6th 2022 – Update added following a Freedom of Information Request:

In five years just one member of the public has launched a civil claim for damages whilst using the Aldershot lands. The individual in question did indeed fall down a hole when a manhole cover collapsed. Set against 59,000 hours of recreation per week we maintain the area is as safe as practically possible and any DIO claim to the contrary is not based on sound evidence.

Its not just holes that trigger concern for our well being. Trip hazards – tree roots – have been cited as why DIO don’t like people taking recreation on the lands. Ash residents were quick to point out the canal lacks any warning sign…and people are encouraged to walk alongside it…

Should a TSM claim “Heath and Safety” then remind them that only applies to those at work and not to anyone using the lands for recreation, and there is no provision in the byelaws to prevent access on the grounds of public safety – only the presence of military training can justify closure.

If you are stopped and told to leave due to military training nearby then comply but please make a note of the date, time and precise location. We can verify any TSM claim by checking the booking on/off records for the area – just like we have done for Long Valley.

When in use this place is lethal as its looking at the pointy end of loaded guns. When not in use the risk of harm drops to near zero yet DIO maintain its closed for “safety” reasons – such as falling down holes. The nearest hole to fall into from this point is about 500m away.

My boss said “appetite to risk” has changed. Its above my level. I’m just doing my job.

From a TSM perspective the statement is factually correct and feels like a get-out-of-jail-free card, blaming someone else who isn’t there for the situation.

However, we have yet to see evidence of any waiver available to a TSM (or indeed anyone at DIO) that excuses them from adhering to the Seven Principles of Public Life.

Or in other words, it does not really matter if the boss asks you to work outside what the the byelaws say or to ignore things such as the 2019 cycling agreement. Failing to uphold standards is an individual matter as much a corporate responsibility.

Col Cook is on record of saying DIO’s “appetite to risk” had changed but to date the statement has not been backed up with evidence and to this day remains outside of standards of accountability, objectivity, transparency, trust and ultimately, leadership.

Blaming the chain of command does not absolve anyone and TSMs must uphold the minimum expected standards of public life.

The MOD/DIO grants permissive access.

We can deal with this one really quickly. The MOD/DIO does not grant permissive access.

Section 2 of the byelaws – a law that is ultimately enabled by Parliament – grants recreational access to all areas the Aldershot lands and at all times unless it’s in use for military training.

The anti-social elements who [leave dog mess/ride bikes/start fires etc] will mean MOD will permanently remove access.

With 59,000 hours of successful recreation per week* the vast majority of visits leave zero trace, whilst at the same time the byelaws (plus others) contain the means to punish the guilty.

Closing access on the actions of an absolute tiny minority would fail any rational test of objectivity – one of the principles of public life and office – and applying collective punishment would be considered unacceptable.

Whilst the threat sounds very real, in reality a more balanced, objective and rational view would be expected and required.

*See the Community use survey reports:

Community_use_of_military_lands_Surrey Heath_finalDownload

This area is closed off. We told you its closed off.

Currently three areas are closed off, either permanently or part time; Ash Ranges complex (permanent but widely ignored by locals), Long Valley (part time but restrictions widely ignored) and Porridge Pots/Deepcut (as per Long Valley).

If stopped in these areas the TSM may start to assert the area is closed and no one can be there. We are now dealing with the most contentious issue; what powers do DIO possess to close access even when the lands are empty and not in use?

Can DIO close areas because they want to? For health and safety? To stop vandalism?

The short answer we think is “None whatsoever” and only the persistent presence of military – like Gibraltar or Keogh Barracks – dictates and permits public exclusion on a 24/7 basis.

However, DIO maintain they can close an area off whenever they like and for whatever reason.

We believe none of this meets the purpose and intent of Section 2 of the byelaws, nor meets minimum public standards for objectivity, transparency, accountability or truth.

When pressed not even the Minister for Procurement (Jeremy Quin MP) could offer sound legal opinion that clearly demonstrated DIO had the powers to restrict access at all times irrespective of use.

If military training is genuinely underway (again, note date/time/location – we can validate any claim) then you must leave the soldiers alone. If the lands are empty then there remains a big question mark over the TSM’s powers and DIO’s interpretation.

Our friends at Save Our Spaces are fundraising with the intent getting legally qualified advice on this point – please chip in and support their fundraiser if you can as any view will apply beyond the boundaries of Ash Ranges.

It’s MOD land and we can do what we want with it.

We can only give half marks for this statement.

Yes, its MOD land but the space comes under an Act of Parliament (1892 Military Lands Act) and a set of Byelaws. MOD are beholden to the law as much as we are and Section 2 exists as much to permit recreational access as to preserve it. Therefore DIO are expected to uphold and respect access at all times when not in use and they cannot do what they want with it.

Gather The Evidence

If there is a genuine need to intervene no one will ever object to a TSM doing their job. They are there to help troops train and if that means stopping recreational users from interfering in an exercise then we can and must do we can to support that.

So we fully respect TSMs have a job to do and we ask that everyone affords them the utmost courtesy as they go about their work on the lands.

However we cannot support intervention when none is necessary, particularly when accompanied by any low level hostility towards recreational users. Nor can we support TSMs – or indeed anyone at DIO – who is unable to meet the basic principles of standards in public life. Nor can we accept a draconian “hostile environment” interpretation of Section 2 of the byelaws and DIO’s attempts at preventing us accessing the lands even when empty.

The recording has proved a rich source of evidence and enabled us to directly challenge the belief system that perpetuates within DIO. The more examples of these we have the better as we think it will demonstrate the issues go beyond the individual level and deeper into a culture that refuses to respect Section 2 of the byelaws, or is acting on a desire to bring the Aldershot areas into line with the rest of the MOD estate.

It may come as a surprise but Section 2 of the Aldershot byelaws is just one of two examples from the hundred or so military byelaws and its presence is perhaps seen as a massive inconvenience and loss of control for an organisation used to dealing in and very much preferring…control.

To be clear; we believe bringing Aldershot in to line with the rest of the MOD estate will prevent casual recreation at all times irrespective of being in use. The lands could be closed at a whim or when the risk appetite changes and access will be prevented at all times and the current approach is risk adverse in the extreme whilst lacking any balance that recognises the physical and mental health benefits access delivers to the community.

Back in May last year TAG called for protection of access to feature in the new byelaws for this very reason.

So, if you can and are comfortable with recording please preserve any encounters with TSMs.

Important; Make it clear you are making a recording. There may be objection but there are no powers to compel anyone to cease recording or filming an interaction with a public official or representative

Easily identified, they will typically be dressed in combat fatigues, wear a high-vis jacket and drive a distinctive white pickup with red bonnet and doors. They should not be confused with Landmarc staff, who are an altogether more engaging and friendly bunch.

It is highly unlikely TSMs will appreciate being recorded and may start to raise objections.

To counter any insistence the recording stops, the following guidelines should apply:

  • You do not have to tell anyone you are recording
  • We believe there is a very strong defence of “public interest” for recording and subsequent publication
  • TSMs carry body cameras – their actual use appears to be infrequent – and filming is not their exclusive right
  • If a TSM records you then the material can be requested under a Subject Access Request
  • There is no provision in the byelaws to prevent filming or recording
  • The evidence gathered is irrefutable – no one can argue over what was said

If you do happen to record an encounter we would love to hear from you – do please get in touch using our Facebook page.

And Finally…

We would rather see a community working in collaboration with DIO, working together to achieve the common goals of making sure the military lands can support the training needs of a modern army whilst at the same time enabling casual recreational access at all times when not in use.

There is much we could do…and should do. The “Be like Pete” litter pick on Caesars Camp shifted 10 bags of rubbish off the lands and is just one example where we can all do our bit. There is a lot we could do with education on everything from why the wildlife is special to making sure everyone knows its a minimum distance of 100m between soldiers using pyrotechnics and a civilian.

The potential is there and remains both untapped and massive. The passion the community feels for the space is a latent force – a causal read of the Recreational Users Survey should make that clear – but remains formally unrecognised.

For now collaboration remains elusive and our political leaders seem unwilling or unable to issue enabling direction to DIO. When direction is clear DIO remain at liberty to ignore it.

It can be difficult to remain optimistic at times.

Signs And Lies

Posted on by admin
5

Since 2018 three areas of the Aldershot lands have been permanently fenced. In the extreme access to Ash Ranges was removed entirely, alienating the local community who continue to press for access to be restored.

The other areas subject to fencing are Long Valley (known as B4) and Porridge Pots (G2). From the initial Freedom of Information Request (FOIA) in 2018 that exposed the plans to fence the complaints stacked up. Political assurances were duly issued making it clear recreational access would continue when not in use.

Except that didn’t happen.

DIO shut the area off and then kept it closed 24/7 contrary to the intent of Section 2 of the byelaws and ignoring political assurances. DIO have now spent close to £250,000 of taxpayer cash at Long Valley alone trying their utmost to make recreation as difficult as possible.

It took 18 months of regular audit, political pressure and creative thinking by TAG to compel DIO to meet bare minimum standards.

In 2020 access problems deteriorated with more fencing – extending to 5kms of barbed wire topped deterrent fence with no gates – triggering more complaints.

In the end the Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin MP) issued a ministerial directive in July 2020 instructing DIO to maintain recreational access when not in use.

This statement has been repeated as recently as March 2021 in letters sent by the local MP Ranil Jayawardena.

Yet still problems persist, and whilst we say “DIO” a lot the root of the issues boils down to people who make decisions that impact the community.

We believe the individual responsible for making sure the gates are locked even if there is nothing or very little going on is Mark Ludlow (Training Safety Officer – Security and Access) and his boss, Lt Col Dickie Bishop (Commander, South East Training Estate). From the closure at Ash Ranges we know impact to the local community does not factor into their decision making and are maintaining a hostile environment towards recreation.

Persistent Lockout

Since late last year TAG have been aware of extended periods of zero or very minimal use at Long Valley with the gates remaining locked. We are also aware of similar issues at Porridge Pots with gates left locked and zero training underway…not for an odd hour but for days at a time.

So we raised another Freedom of Information request asking for the booking on/off records for several areas for the month of February; Porridge Pots, Long Valley, Caesars Camp and Beacon Hill.

If you are not into stats then we can summarise it right now:

  • Long Valley was closed for 326 hours but in use for just 34hrs 20mins.
  • On one day Long Valley was used for 2hrs 19mins but the gates remained locked for 24hrs
  • Porridge Pots saw 5 days of locked gates and no activity
  • Caesars Camp and Beacon Hill saw more booking on/off activity than Long Valley

Before we go any further, a quick reminder;

No one is objecting to military training. The army get absolute priority and the need to train is recognised. It remains our collective and individual responsibility to give troops space to train.

Equally, no one is objecting to flexibility of training and recognise things change and often at short notice. But we also recognise locked gates and empty spaces prevent recreational users from being flexible and “going the other way” when training is underway in unfenced areas.

We can all follow signs and instructions if there is trust in what we are being told…we really wanted a system of safety to work for all but in reality the notices regularly cry wolf and trust is now zero…no one likes being lied to and thats exactly what the signs are doing.

We also have some deeper concerns seeing an organisation such as DIO wilfully ignoring not only a ministerial directive but actively working against the principles and intent of the byelaws. How can civil servants such as Mark Ludlow ignore a clear instruction? Remember, this isn’t a one-off event but a pattern of behaviour lasting nearly 3 years. It’s a persistent problem.

A Deeper Look

If you want to know more and see for yourself, you can download and review our analysis of Long Valley use in February here:

20210429b4longvalleyfebanalysisDownload

The fenced area at Long Valley covers close to 1000 acres and has roughly 48kms of trails running through it, not counting the main vehicle test tracks. Yet we see only a fraction of the area in use – typically the Eelmoor road loop – triggering gate closure.

Eelmoor accounts for just 4% of the total area and is over a mile from the gates on the western side. Only a few trails exit onto the tarmac and the space is easy to avoid. On that basis the closure of the entire area based on a tiny fraction of usage is hardly proportionate.

The reference to “Chainsaw Training” is – we believe – not correct but if it were the risk assessment insisting on 1000 acres of space must be a massive overkill. We have our suspicions about what “Chainsaw Training” actually means, but if you happen to have seen any on the dates in question…do please get in touch and let us know..

We do know DIO are risk-adverse in extremis and the basic risks such as falling down holes* are a real concern for them. But is 1000 acres really needed for chainsaw training – who are they trying to fool?

Ignorance is Bliss

At Porridge Pots DIO have installed a sign:

Problem is, only 50% of the lines of text are telling the truth.

The “MILITARY BYELAWS APPLY” bit is correct and true. The lands do indeed come under the Aldershot Military Lands Byelaws.

The “NO ENTRY” statement is encouraging everyone to stay away, but this sign is trying to stop people using Porridge Pots – an area that comes under Section 2 of the byelaws and has received repeated political assurances that recreation will be permitted at all times when not in use.

It’s a very crude attempt to try and deny legitimate recreation by trying it on with a little bit of fear and intimidation thrown in to make the sign look scary.

DIO up the ante at Long Valley with this:

Proclaiming “DANGER” and “MILITARY TRAINING IN PROGRESS” sounds very official and serious.

Except we now know the signs are not always telling the truth – far from it – and have been guilty of lying since the very first day they were used.

Again the reference to the byelaws is printed on the notice.

But what part of Section 2 and recreational access at all times when not in use – does DIO struggle to understand?

DIO very much remain dependent on our ignorance to impose changes and apply false interpretation. We have a sneaking suspicion they are either a) exceptionally ignorant of what the current byelaws actually say (More on this soon…much more…) and simply make things up that suits their own agenda, or b) are simply expressing what powers the new byelaws will grant them in the hope no one will notice and if they do zero accountability will follow.

Yet at the same time DIO will go to great lengths to paint a positive picture and are on record to claim that access to Long Valley in particular is a cyclist and equestrian utopia. In realit gates are scarce and none meet the minimum standards for horse riders.

The recent Respect the Ranges video goes as far to say:

“We very much welcome the public coming to use the estate but at the right time and when it’s safe for them.”

But let’s be honest; a 5km stretch of barbed wire topped deterrent fence with exceptionally limited and locked gates cannot in any way be described as “welcome”. DIO’s intent with the fenced areas is clear…Maybe Mark Ludlow didn’t get the multiple memos?

Summary

In absence of any rational explanation we are at a loss to understand why a department of the Ministry of Defence can disregard the intent of the byelaws and – perhaps more important – why Ministers such as Jeremy Quin are comfortable with civil servants ignoring clear instructions?

TAG have raised a series of complaints regarding access issues with both DIO and the Minister.

To date no acknowledgement or response has been received. The process of accountability is painfully slow and has been escalated to the Ministerial Correspondence Unit.

Currently our hopes for accountability measured against The Seven Principles of Public Life are not high as we remain witness to MOD marking its own homework, but rest assured TAG will remain on the case. Our local MP Ranil Jayawardena has already given his support for escalation if necessary.

Adding your voice to the complaints would be appreciated. Please feel free to quote this post and write to your MP using this link.

*We are not making this up. Being unable to read a warning sign and falling down a hole is on record as an unacceptable risk. Literacy rates in the UK are exceptionally high and the warning sign in question carried a graphic to add further explanation.

Revealed – Byelaws Intent

Posted on by simonmtbbrown
3

Finally, after many delays the new Aldershot byelaws may be revealed and the review to commence. They have been “imminent” for a long time and twice start dates have been suggested…only to consultation to fail to start.

But back in December DIO let slip their intent and their plans for the byelaws and recreational access was revealed.  You can read the minutes here in section 2.

It does not make comfortable reading and directly contradicts the repeated Ministerial assurances…it is not the MOD’s intention to limit lawful use… asserted again only last week in a letter to local residents.  

Protection? Or Problem?

From what we know, DIO are intending to define two distinct designations:

Protected Areas that are closed to unauthorised persons and;

Controlled Areas where access is only permitted when the area is not being used for military training.

Our reading is that today (setting aside for one moment DIO’s apparent disregard for Section 2 of the current byelaws) all the areas we enjoy now are likely to fit into the Controlled Areas definition. 

The greatest concern is Protected Areas.

DIO go on to explain why these areas are deemed necessary:

ML provided background information, explaining the problems involved with balancing wider public access and the legislative requirement to protect SSSI, SPA and other ecological areas across the estate.

Without sight of the proposed bylaws we do not have a clear picture, but with DIO’s “hostile environment” approach towards recreational access (closed car parks, ignoring the 2019 agreement on cycling as two examples) coupled with an unwillingness to respect Ministerial commitments, we feel that a reasonable summary is that the presence of wildlife-protecting designations will be used to prevent the recreational access at all times when not in use. 

The presence of wildlife-protecting designations will be used (abused) to prevent the recreational access at all times when not in use. Protected Areas will be imposed under the banner of protecting wildlife to permanently remove our access to the lands irrespective of actual use for military training.

Protected Areas could be imposed under the banner of protecting wildlife to permanently remove public access to the lands irrespective of actual use for military training. 

This raises the question “How much of the lands enjoy current protection?” Let us consider the current situation. 

Access in 2018

Until the fencing went in at Long Valley and Porridge Pots, and Ash Ranges was open when not in use recreational access can be illustrated by this map:

The areas in dark red are zero access areas; ranges or Rushmoor Arena. The light red areas were, as of 2018, open for recreation when not in use for military training

The spaces in light red represent approximately 12,500 acres of open space that, under the stated intent of Section 2 of the Aldershot Byelaws, are open for recreation at all times when not in use.

Access Today

Fast forward to 2021 and we can see some changes:

Same map as previous with overlay – the purple areas represent lands lost to casual recreation, either permanently or for extended duration

Based on the experience at Ash Ranges DIO will close access with impunityand then refuse to engage with the public leaving the local community reduced toresorting to a potential legal challengeand demonstrates DIO’s attitude and example as a good neighbour. 

Long Valley is a case in point; It took 18 months of audit and political lobbying to see DIO partially meet Ministerial assurances of the land being available for recreation when not in use for military training. This is an ongoing issue and TAG have an open complaint with examples of extended periods of closure being applied when the lands are empty. 

The locations of closed car parks are not marked but the intention is clear; DIO do not want recreational users on the lands and are prepared to ignore Section 2 of the byelaws and Ministerial directives to achieve that aim. 

SSSI Protected Areas

If the stated intent of Protected Areas is the creation of authorised access only nature reserves, just how much space is at stake?

Using the DEFRA Magic Map Application online tool allows anyone to view all sorts of information about the natural world with an Ordnance Survey map as a background – you can check it out yourself here.

We were interested in two things; Aldershot Military Lands and wildlife designations, such as Sites of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSI).

Here’s what it revealed:

Aldershot training areas with SSSI overlaid as green hatching

Therefore the short answer to “how much” is “pretty much all of it. To the north the military lands butt up against the trails of Swinley Forest, which like its military neighbour is designated SSSI. 

If DIO are permitted to close recreational access to the lands to “protect SSSI, SPA and other ecological areas across the estate” then will the Crown Estate follow suit?

Probably not, but not shown on the map are other areas that benefit from SSSI protection AND freely allow public access:

  • Fleet Pond
  • Eversley Wood
  • Yateley Heath Wood
  • Yateley Common
  • Bagshot Heath
  • Wildmoor Heath
  • Blackwater Valley SSSI
  • Heath Lake SSSI

There are plenty of cases and spaces where people and wildlife can and do mix,

Based on the experience at Ash Ranges DIO will close access with impunityand then refuse to engage with the public leaving the local community reduced to resorting to a potential legal challenge and clearly demonstrates DIO’s attitude and example as a good neighbour. 

Potential Losses

A worst case view, with current and potential losses combined:

The combined view of already lost plus designated areas with potential to be Protected Areas.

The concerns is that over a period of time DIO would have the potential and firm legal basis to remove massive areas that today are free to enjoy with responsible recreation when not in use for military training.

Even when constrained by existing byelaws and political instruction DIO cannot be trusted as shown with spending £36,000 on 820m of fence at Long Valley to protect a “high value training area” but what protection does Long Valley need when faced with nothing more than recreational use? Just how can public funds be spent when the impact is a loss of access at all times irrespective of use and there is zero consideration for public access in the plan? 

The Data. The Facts.

IIt is disappointing to conclude public exclusion is DIO’s intent. From the Byelaws Review Recreational Surveys  (You can read them here: Surrey Heath, Aldershot and North East Hampshire) we know very few are a “single activity” user of the lands…dog walking one day, cycling the next…and 30% of respondents listed “wildlife watching” as part of theirenjoyment of the lands. On this basis it feels wrong to exclude people from the landscape, but the experience from Ash Ranges is indicative of an uncaring DIO.

But then again, should we really be surprised? Towards the latter half of last year DIO went to great lengths to explain to TAG why cyclists must stick to the fire roads – the quoted reason was it was “driven by the requirements of wildlife legislation” backed up with them supplying a copy of Natural England’s document   Scientific research into the effects of access on nature conservation: Part 2: access on bicycle and horseback  tto support their arguments.

For those who care about the lands its an interesting read, if a little light on relevant evidence. TAG do not understand why DIO forwarded such a document with so much positive to say about cycling. 

TAG were left wondering why DIO forwarded such a document as there was as much positive to say about cycling. The report acknowledged damage to ground nesting bird nests by cyclists is rare and other recreational users likely responsible for harming sand lizard eggs, to name but two relevant points.

TAG found the document encouraging but when we shared our enthusiasm with DIO they denied that the document would form or guide policy.

If the damage to SSSI is so great then why not prosecute those responsible today? DIO have acknowledged such laws and powers exist, yet cannot or will not see them applied to protect the space – something we would all support. To claim the lands require greater protectionwhilst not taking action under the currently available laws is disingenuous. 

The truth is no one bothers to ride on the really sensitive areas. They are physically hard work and when faced with literally hundreds of alternative tracks and trails there is no point when its easy to get from A to B on any number of established and often narrow (less harm) routes.

Summary and Action

The devil of the new byelaws will very much lie in the details of what they say and what power(s) it gifts to DIO. We have only seen a hint of what is possible, but clearly it flies directly in the face of every political and Ministerial assurance to otherwise limit or restrict recreational access.

The minutes of the meeting may be an expression of what powers they think are needed…or it is already in the draft byelaw. 

We do not know for sure but we do know that DIO is unwilling to engage with TAG. It requires constant political attention and this is both tedious and expensive in everyone’s time. TAG has resorted to maintaininga “DIO Statement Fact Checking Sheet” whereby every utterance is subject to close examination for evidence of the truth. Currently the list stands at 58 entries and it makes disappointing reading both from a taxpayer and public user perspective. Collated by TAG and the Ash Ranges residents behind Save our Spaces the document will be published shortly and allow the public to reach their own conclusions. 

Based on this we are very hesitant to believe DIO meet all of the seven principles for public bodies, as set out in the Nolan Report – more on this very soon.

We are also keenly aware of just how hostile DIO are towards recreation today. A byelaw that enhances and enables the loss of recreational space will see the takeover and loss of space complete.

What can we do? DIO do seem to ignore politicians but we know they do not like being held to scrutiny

Please write to your MP and make it absolutely clear you do not support any attempt to remove casual recreational access when the lands are not in use for military training.

As ever you can use the following link:

Write to your MP – Raise your concerns