Council is wrong: POM misquoted


hawkeye's picture

By hawkeye - Posted on 14 February 2010

I reviewed the full Plan of Management quoted in the press release, and found that they have mis-quoted the source document. The Plan gives council the right to designate particular areas accessible by mountain bikes, and the wording does not exclude singletrack.

In other words, they have used a technicality to close the singletrack, but the technicality is WRONG. So unless there is a document I haven't seen, it suggests to me they are compelled to re-open the closed sections.

What follows below is a technical argument - read or glaze over as you will Sticking out tongue :

Dear Mayor and Councillors,

I have spent some time reviewing the 1998 Plan of Management this afternoon:
http://www.warringah.nsw.gov.au/publications/doc...

I have the following observations to make:

The key references to mountain bikes are covered at:
1: Table 4.6 at page 39 of the PDF download
2: Appendix A1 at page 51 of the PDF download.
The remainder are commentary, indicating survey feedback. Put together they provide context that up until the 1998 PoM, mountain bike use in the park was indiscriminate and included all walking trails and picnic areas.

The first reference in Table 4.6 indicates that it is a goal of the PoM to separate mountain bikes and walkers on the trails. Put in context of the indiscriminate use by mountain bikers of all walking trails occurring at the time of writing the Plan, it is clear that implementation of the circuit trail around the outer region of the Park has achieved this goal: mountain bikers were excluded from the most commonly used pedestrian trails around the lake foreshores and picnic areas, and interactions between walkers and bikers are now minimised. Bikers' safety is preserved by keeping them separate from high speed traffic on Wakehurst Parkway.

The second and prescriptive reference at Appendix A1 clearly states " Bicycles and mountain bikes are restricted to public roads, car parks, fire trails and other designated areas".

Given that the "other designated areas" have been
1: published on Council's own maps for many years to include all the sections marked as closed on Friday night
2: marked on the trail with route direction markers, bicycle symbols, and bicycle give way signs of Council's manufacture and installation for many years,
it is clear that the assertions in the press release of Friday 12 February 2010 citing the 1998 PoM as grounds for closing certain sections of the trail are factually incorrect.

I therefore suggest that Councillors direct Council staff to reverse the announcement immediately.

Kind regards,

Name and professional qualifications supplied

pikey's picture

You are the man Smiling

So in your research was the POM rubber stamped? it could be an escape clause for them!!!!

Pikey

hawkeye's picture

and carries their logo. It appears to be a scanned-in bound hardcopy converted to PDF. No stamp as such that I can see. I have a downloaded copy on my laptop in case there is any shenanigans at their end. Suggest you might like to do the same.

If it's not the final copy, it will raise some even more interesting questions, which I hope should lead to someone being offered the opportunity to find employment elsewhere!

I owe Rob the credit for sourcing the link to the POM, and I've confirmed it's correct by googling "Plan of Management site:warringah.nsw.gov.au"
He's emailed them as well, taking a slightly different angle.

Lach's picture

INAL, but the validity of your view may depend on whether there is a formal requirement to "designate" an area as suitable for mtb's, as opposed to just taking some other form of administrative action that implies that it has been designated. The whole issue the council may be hanging their hat on is that those bits of track have never been formally designated for mtb use.

I agree with the other comments about resolving any use conflict by temporarily banning the minority users. I don't ride Manly Dam all that often, but when I have, mtb riders have outnumbered walkers by a factor of at least 10.

hawkeye's picture

from one of the Councillors is that the option of excluding walkers was considered but rejected as impractical, on what grounds I don't know.

Agree there may be other grounds for banning us that come into play. But given that these were not mentioned in the press release, I'm hoping they'll be embarassed enough to relent, or the real reasons for the ban will be flushed out.

The first outcome would be brilliant, but the second will still allow us to move forward as it gives us a laundry list of objections to deal with to get what we want - and will provide a more solid foundation for long term security of access. It will just take longer.

bear1lit's picture

I like your thinking. Might be an idea to fire a copy of this to Councillor Laugesen as well so she can add it to her argument in support of us ([email protected]).

hawkeye's picture

Done. Smiling

Rob's picture

FWIW, I raised this with the Councillors yesterday and the questions (these, and a few more) have been forwarded to Manager Parks Reserves and Foreshores to be answered.

daveh's picture

I am guessing that this is not going to overly concern the council (all care, no responsibility and all that) but, to me, it appears that the closed sections are going to force bikes onto the Wakehurst Parkway either to cross to get the fire trail and then back over again to get back to Manly Dam or just to ride along the edge to get around the closed section. Of lesser concern this will also force bikes onto Churchill Crescent and Manning Street (will this concern these local residents?). It is forcing riders onto Wakehurst Parkway which is the most likely to end in tears. Considering the number of younger riders that I often see on the trail, is the council not inviting more serious issues by this rash decision and do they even care?

Of major concern to all councils is their liability. The case needs to be built that they are not necessarily liable (as they have now taken the view that they are) as their interpretation is incorrect and, possibly, that this decision gives rise to them being liable in other ways that they should be concerned about more.

Flynny's picture

The perceived issue of user conflict leading to safety concerns is an old argument that has proven time and again to be more beat up than risk. (one such study attached)

As you point out in twenty years of this trail being open to riders there have been no reported injuries that occurred from a collision between bike riders and pedestrian.

In the Blue Mts the Oaks single trail would have to be one of the most popular mountain bike trails in NSW with NP estimates of 700 riders per day over weekends. Despite being a high speed section of narrow trail, again we find no evidence to support the claim that narrow shared trails are dangerous as, again we have no reports of injures.

Other areas where shared use single trails have been successful include Mt York Reserve, Hassans Wall Reserve and Glenrock regional park.

The PoM of Manly Dam Trail needs no changing it clearly states " Bicycles and mountain bikes are restricted to public roads, car parks, fire trails and other designated areas".

Considering the sections of single trail council has now decided to close have been sign posted as OK in the past we can safely assume these could be included under "other designated areas."

If safety is still considered to be an issue why not declare it a cycle only trail. This seems to make more sense than banning riders as a)Cyclists, without a doubt, make up the largest user group for the trail and b)walkers have plenty of other options available to them where as riders don not.

Thanks for your time

Morgan's picture

I put the stupididy of the council's 'safety concerns' shunting people into 80km an hour + traffic on teh Parkway, and one councillor said that it's OK because we can walk our bikes along the sections closed to riding to stay off the road.

I am going to buy a dog lead this weekend and pop up to Sydney specifically so that I can walk my bike around Manly Dam, because that's why I bother to load up the car with bikes, safety kit and lycra shorts.

dumbellina's picture

In terms of interpreting planning instruments, administrative practice and representations can assist in the case of ambiguity but it cannot replace the express terms (or lack of) in the instrument itself.

There has to be an amendment to the Plan of Management that says unambiguously that MTB is permitted on the particular tracks. Anything less will see the same thing happen everytime the question is raised.

daveh's picture

So it is ok to walk our bikes along the single trail but not ride? Isn't this just going to cause no end of hassle for any poor ranger that is attempting to police the trail? The reason that there are no issues with walkers/riders is that, on the two occasions that I have ever come across walkers on the singletrack, I have heard of seen them with more than enough time to slow right down (and while we are at it, let's face it, there is nonly so much speed that you can get up to on that section anyway) so that we may pass safely. Is this not just going to lead to people riding the single track and then just jumping off? No sir, I am just taking my bike for a walk. Sure, and I guess you didn't inhale either.

jedijunglesnow's picture

A dog lead? That's laughable. The only time I've even come close to collisions is with unleashed dogs running around the trail.

There are signs littered all around the Dam staing in bold letters that unleashed dogs are prohibited, yet I as a local resident I see hoards of people every day blatanly ignoring them. For example at the top of Nyrang St there is a bike sign saying in bold red letters that unleashed dogs are prohibited at all times in Manly Dam. Usually this is where most people pause to take the leash off of their dog before they enter the Dam!

Where are the rangers policing this? Unbelievable...

daveh's picture

Whilst, long term, the aim needs to be to have the POM amended so that it specifically allows mtb on particular trails, the wheels move so slowly that there needs to also be a specific short term aim to have the ban removed pending any review. This is where the council needs to be convinced that there is no immediate issue as permission to ride these trails is covered within the existing POM.

At the end of the day, if they are using what is contained within the POM as the basis for their decision, then there is actually very little that should concern the council about mtb as there is no mention of it as being a problem, either perceived or real. Contrast this to the attention paid to water skiing on the dam itself and the concerns raised. Clearly there is a far greater chance of a far worse incident posed by mixing swimmers, kayakers, et. al. and power boats. The council has seen fit to accommodate both groups and thus I think it is reasonable to interpret that the POM also accommodates mtb and walking with the “other designated areas” being just that as evidenced by the existing signage.

Andy Bloot's picture

That I slip while walking on the dismount section of the trail in my 'funny click clack shoes'
I badly break my ankle and both my wrists

I can't work and am forced to sue the council for damages
As the sign says dismount, but wasn't clear regarding the danger of walking the trail in cycle shoes
I am successful

And I retire to the country and build my own single track

Virginia Laugesen's picture

Hi Hawkeye,
As you know, I'm extremely disappointed that public speakers are not permitted at the 23 Feb meeting, except by resolution of council on the night. Your excellent discovery about the wording inconsistency between press release and POM was put through our councillor request system to staff yesterday for explanation by another councillor (ie. not me). Replies are due within 14 days ... so if no answer is supplied by 23/2, perhaps you could be ready to address council with that question (to staff) on 23/2 if I can convince my colleagues to vote to allow you to speak?
If the track's closure proves to have happened by a mistaken reference, then the whole situation is of course a farce. Although there are many complex layers to this problem, I think the wording "change" or "error" or whatever it is, is one of the top three and may be the simplest road to overturning the closure.
Btw, at the councillor briefing of 2 Feb we were clearly told the 1998 POM had never been revised in 12 years. I asked the question myself as I was shocked that a safety "oversight" to a supposedly enforceable guideline could go unnoticed for so long.
Regards,
Virginia
P.S. 222 emails in so far. Forgive me if my pace of response slows as I try to get my life back Smiling

BT's picture

Appreciate your time to reply on this forum and for your efforts in helping to reverse this decision.

kitttheknightrider's picture

I have questions that continue to perplex me though,

If council staff were able to make this decision on their own, within a period of what appears to be no more than 48hrs, why does it take 14 days to have the basis of the decision investigated and why do you have to wait for a meeting to overturn a decision that required no councillor input to make in the first place?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Best Mountain Bike