You are hereForums / By Discipline / Mountain (off road) / By Location / Australia / NSW / NSW Trail Advocacy / Save the Aerodrome jumps
Save the Aerodrome jumps
NB: Originally posted elsewhere on the Global Riders Network and appears via syndication.
- Login to post comments
- Bookmark & share
Tags
Are they being moved to make way for the new housing stuff at the airstrip?
I'm doubting they can be saved. The area was passed for development back in the 90's and every council has supported it since. It is also noted in the BMCC Adopted BMX DJ Strategy 2002 that the area is interim and this site may need to be replaced in future because this land is Operational. I think they are lucky that the council is giving them land to build on just a hundred or so Metres down the road. The smarter option would be to lobby the council to help build an awesome Dirt Jump site.
Yeah, new housing is going up at the Airstrip.
http://www.bmcc.nsw.gov.au/yourcouncil/publicnot...
Funny part to me is the NIMBY's are supporting the existing Dirt Jump site as it benefits them to prevent the development.
Yes they are being moved to a site further out and far less suitable.
Kncking down a dirt jump area just to build a new one at a different spot that is less convenient to the kids who ride there makes no sense (except as a cash grab for council)
The NIMBYs you speak of are parents of past and current site users or former riders them self
Saying the kids should forget about Hat Hill rd and be thankful council are giving them another area is akin to suggesting you guys should have not bothered with Knapsack and just have been thankful Mt York was approved....
Actually I'm saying they are lucky because they won't have to go through 2 years of battles just to get another site approved.
With council endorsing the new site I believe it would be strategically better to push for funding to use building equipment and create a sustainable site. Have alot more jumps built quicker and better. Have a real dirt jump site built with pump track and more.
I believe if they take on council to prevent the bulldozing and building of homes they will loose and have a real set back with minimal council support to build the new site.
Fighting for OBR was always going to be an uphill battle and you could say focusing on saving that set back Knapsack for a time but without a doubt fighting for OBR resulted in a much better out come for Knapsack allowing us to explain to council why the then approved Knapsack DH was unsuitable.
It also galvanized riders. Would BMORC exist without the fight for old bat?
Last thing the kids want is to have all their hard work undone and for council to supply them with a sanitised version of Dirt Jumping, similar to what happened at the Groove.
At least by trying to save the Aerodrome we show council how much it means to its riders and can start a dialogue to convince council that 50% of dirt jump culture is hands on building and on going maintenance and that being given a over grown pump track they are not allowed to work on or modify ,like what happened to at the Groove, will only alienate the current riders.
and as I said the new site is further out and less suitable.
At the moment most of the young kids who ride at the aerodrome live close by. Parents watch from kitchen windows. Having a site that is isolated and out of view either means those young riders are not allowed to go or they go unsupervised
I do see your point, it's just in my eyes I see them fighting the wrong fight.
A site 100 metres down the road is far better than being told there is 4 other legal sites located at Wentworth Falls, Hazelbrook, Winmalee & Glenbrook. Go use them instead.
All the pre-work is already done.
The BMCC Adopted Dirt Jump Strategy is their Bible and it works to their favour.
Under The strategy they can push for a;
Permanent site.
Visibility from a publicly-used area to ensure a safe environment for riders.
Adequate car parking on site or nearby.
Toilet facilities on-site or within 5 minutes bicycle riding distance.
On-site water supply or an easily accessible nearby public water supply.
Adequate shade.
Garbage disposal facilities.
It is a requirement that council supply the fill and excavation is not allowed.
It will not become another Groove as under the strategy "Council will not design or build dirt jump sites. The site lessee, manager or the riders will be responsible for the design and development of the jump trails."
I understand the work they have put in and the time the site has existed but I see so much more potential.
I hope you can see the point I'm trying to make.
I think the current Council opinion of the Dirt Jump strategy is that it is old and would need to be updated because of issues they have had with it at Hazelbrook. It really isn't a document that holds much water.. anything new to do with it will take some fighting for and boundries to be determined. Its a start but is a bit like Chamberlain and the Munich document.
I think its worth fighting for whats there... I guess the big question is has that spot been directly earmarked out for something else already specificly, in which case the chances aren't good, or is it jsut broadly part of an area that is yet to be determined how it will be subdivided... in which case.. worth fighting for. Location is a big thing for something like this... its pre-driving age people primarily so access is important.
I'll see what alese I can learn about it from the council staff I talk to.
So is BMORC as a group going to help or is it just a knapsack thing?
If so I think a lot of people will look at there support of BMORC the next set of trails BMORC wants to formalise.
We will support them one way or another.
at the moment they are just after sigs on the anti-development petition.
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/petition-for...
If they do get moved to a new site, I'm keen to give a hand with a build day.
I think support.... but we need to get some facts together.
We have discussed with council already about issues with two other designated jump sites, we just haven't had the chance to act upon it. So its not like BMORC haven't been entirely involved with DJ.
Flynny, is the main guy working on this the guy from the video... do you have any contact information?
The Guy in the Vid is Mike C. He lives near by the DJs. I haven't got a current contact for him but I can dig one out
Chopstir I understand what you are saying but the way it's being said will only lead to riders feeling like what Wes has expressed, ie that they are being ignored by advocate efforts.
Now thats not be the case and I know the effort you guys go to but when a kid is having his DJ knocked down and all he sees on the advocates webpage is "I think they are lucky that the council is giving them land to build" that is how they are going to feel
I might put a note up on youtube for contact....
...but if you can find one well and good too.
Just saw your you tube reply Flynny
I just made a new apology comment plus made an invite for them to look us up.
Mog, would be good if you made a you tube comment for contact also. You have a better way with words than I do.
Just wanted to thank you guys for your support, interest and comments on the Blackheath jump track. It is great to see what an active forum you have got.
The central issue is the development of the airstrip along Hat Hill Rd, into 42 double lots for the purposes of housing. Locals are upset for a number of reasons: Blue Mountains City Council [BMCC] refusal to consult with the community, environmental impact , and the speculative nature of the development.
While I do live close to the proposed development [so you can call me a nimby] I didn't have much to do with the opposition and was relatively neutral on the matter.
The group who had the least amount of say in the whole issue were the kids who ride in the jump park. Thats why we wanted to make the video and let, council in particular, know that this was a really important place for kids to ride. The video was just giving them a voice, thats where I decided to help. Lets face it , if you are a 12 yr old you just want somewhere to ride with your mates, not spend your time lobbying council - this is where we would ask for the help of BMORC,
What we want is two things: -New BMCC counselors to commit to a Master plan of development of the sub-division, including consultation with riders.
If the development goes ahead, 3 of the 42 lots to be made into a permanent reserve [the existing site] for kids to continue riding building jumps and dogs to take their owners for walks.
Council have suggested an alternative site 1km down the road, but it is another interim site that is exposed, completely flat, with no facilities close by. The kids dont like it and there has been no funding put aside nor has council mad any attempt to talk with riders.
As a cross country rider I am terrified of nearly all of the jumps the kids do but would love to show anyone who was interested the track and the jumps tomorrow {sunday 15th] and combine this with a 1-2 hour single track /fire trail ride from the jump track. PM me or give me a ring on 0450476615 if you are keen.
Well said Wes.
I understand BMORC was set up for a particular reason, but having turned into a group that has a large support base and some pretty good relationships with other groups and organisations, I feel it is our responsibility to support any worthy community movement, especially when it is bicycle related.
My 2 cents.
Thanks for Joining up and posting Mike. I'm keen for a ride, I've sent you a PM
Mike, the income our cash strapped council would get from the sale of this land, plus rates, DA's etc etc, over-ride the need of any particular user group. It's sad but it's the way things are. Money talks my friend.
Even if the jumps aren't saved, it's worth the fight.
I met with Mike and Nigel today.
Even had a small jump on my xc bike. It really is a great spot to progress from beginner, unlike some other jump spots which take a fair bit of commitment to hit any thing.
Yes, the jumps look good, but the fundamental issue here is land zoning, and the jumps are on "operational" land. A campaign should have been running for years to get land the zoning changed, it's simply not going to happen on the eve of a development proposal.
The big difference with Knapsack is that is has always been "community" land, so the debate has always been about "how" the land should be managed to start including mountain biking.
Council is not lightly going to approve dirt bike jumps. There are massive liability issues associated with them, not to mention broader community back lash related to the litter and traffic they generate. Additionally they rarely stick to any formal boundaries or guidelines, as a big part of the culture is the DIY construction element of the jumps themselves.
I guess I agree with ChopStir, trying to preserve this set of jumps looks like its a pawn in the bigger issue of the aerodrome development. I'm not sure I'd like to see BMORC mixed up in all that!
Bmcc has a dirt jump strategy that covers the self build issues you mention. This has been an approved site since 2002
The alternative site is exposed to wind and sun and has a very sandy soil base, completely unsuitable. + it will only be another intrim site
There has never been any community consultation re this development plan
As for being used as a pawn... Several user groups are trying to work together, i can't see how that can posibily be a bad thing
As for rubbish and noise it has never been an issue at this site.
There is a great culture of looking after "their" area
As I said it has been approved since 2002 and in use for far longer (the original mini bike takes date back 50 years)
Be interested to see if a single complaint has been aired in that time to support your claims of a "broader community back lash" associated with such sites
My understanding of the BMCC web page in regards to the Hathill development was that full consultation was taken place back in 1991 but development could not proceed until the sewer line was extended. (which it now has). Each council since 1991 has approved the future development of Hathill Rd so the consultation held back in 1991 remains current. According to the BMCC web page, this is legal. My interpretation may be wrong, I do believe that a 21yo consultation is a bit far fetched. What is the expiry date of a consultation? Can you approach the commonwealth to question this? If a second(new) consultation was to take place, would Council vote differently?
Just to make my position clear I'm not supporting the council development nor am I against it. I've been accused of playing Devils Advocate before and I guess it's kind of the same here. I tend to look at all angles and see all perspective and then try to look at the big picture of how we can best support off road cyclists. I will put my thoughts and opinions forward, but will always support the groups decisions. I hope this makes sense.
Apparently by full consultation they mean they consulted on the general Land Use Plan for the mountains. Residents are saying that no consultation took place for this specific project at all.
Apart from the Petition, is there anything else that can be done?
Just wait till the new planning law reforms are put through by the current NSW government. There will be NO consultation with Councillors, let alone the community on any specific development applications. The doors on community involvement in decision making are closing all over the place.
This may sound obvious, but have you contacted the Blue Mountains Conservation Society and Environmental Defenders Office? They will advise you on the legal status of the development proposal. If it is illegal on any significant grounds (like improper public consultation) you may have standing to bring a case to the Land and Environment Court, even if it gets approved by Council.
As Waratah says it may be worthwhile discussing with the BMCS whether they have anything in the pipeline with this.
I agree its probably a major uphill battle in isolation but I also don't think the selloff is a good idea and it probably can be piggybacked on that issue. That would take some catchup and research on what is going on there. Have to see what tactics the other vested intrests have.
Also where are the jumps in reference to the proposed land sellfoff? Are they in a position that isn't central or critical to the planned design, if so there is a greater opportunity to have their position reassessed.
....and at the very least if there is no hope a new jump site should be a good one, agreed on by all parties, in a good location with dirt provided and with a permanent position.. no interim site. Being palmed off with something inferior is not a good option for anyone. A poorly sited one is bad for the jumpers but also its a bad solution because it won't be used and council will then have to deal with a few new ones popping up where they don't want them. Better for them to get it right in the first place.
A jump site is a cheap resource, there is $168K being spent on the new skate park in katoomba which is terrific, a jump site can be done for probably a 50th of that and still have money left over.
Just looked through this... new site looks a crappy location.. be fine for serious jumpers with cars, but not as a community resource for kids. I guess the question is where would the kids start building on their own then. I see council has an opening for community consultation on this at least.
Just looked at the minutes for that council meeting and it was completely supported by all councillors except Gibbs. So no councillors are fighting this plan except her. Funny how clearing bush is idealogically fine when you can get money back for it! REF report is all clear too.
I assume this is being pushed through before september's elections too so new councillors can't get rid of the decision.
Crikey this is looking really steamrolled through and looks pretty wrapped up and tidy. I really wonder where there is any room to move or any allies to find?
Just got this off nigel
The alternate site is very crap. Even if you do import dirt with a decent clay base it is exposed to Sun and wind so they will dry out and crack very quickly. Kids will need to spend more time putting jumps m\back together than jumping. Not to mention the issues of jumping in a windy location
I guess so few of these councillors are going to return that they just don't care the ramifications? And the ones who are going to return I think believe in the decision and are prepared to make it. This looks like it is definately being made to be a certainty to go through.
Council staff do pretty much understand that a poor quality site will result in multiple new jump sites popping where they don't want them as no one will use a crappy one. The best option in that case would be to find a few suitable sites they would choose and then lobby for them and try for quality treatment rather than being palmed off. Its a sad option for riders, but maybe something better can be pulled from the embers.
Looking through the local maps quickly, finding another area looks tricky however.
The option of council not selling off three or so blocks to keep some dirt jumps doesn't seem realistic either.. that's a lot of money not earned and its obviosuly some of the more distressed land in the proposed selloff.
Back in 2007 when I was at school in Wentworth Falls there was a great resource in the dirt jumps of Pauline st. I housing development went in and within a week the jumps were gone. Gone. Twenty years of building was gone. At the time I can remember a lot of upset and outspoken people. Most people at the time understood that unapproved jumps and a lack of rider organization meant that there was little that could be done.
Personally I do not think BMORC would have been able to stop this happening, jumps approved or otherwise and yes it's very sad and upsetting for those involved but they have at least offered you an alternative.
Perhaps you would have more luck asking for provisions such as suitable jump building substrate and shelter at the revised location?
Read more council info on this sell off and listened to the Blackheath meeting and really Council have this wrapped up, unless someone comes along with some real legal issue which I doubt they will. This is pretty much unanimously supported by councillors so there is no one to get to champion resistance. That issue is much too big for a bunch of riders to fight for a peripheral issue of some jumps.
Council don't really know what is needed for a DJ site (and neither do I) so having a list of these requirments and a list of suitable alternative locations, we can start talking to them and then push for permanence, resources, funding etc.
Hey Username2. The Pauline st Jumps were an approved intrim site too. Probably the best on in the mountains. The fact they keep destroying the good one with no conciliation or communication says a lot.
Yeah Moggio all the councilors suport the development but you know how the fold like wet paper at residential back lashes. Remember they were all in support of formalising old bathurst rd until a last minute hooo ha by residents. Hopefully we can do the reverse that this time around
OBR was important to riders and the lcoal residents but to everyone else it was a small issue. That was just a little political fun for them at the time. A chance to play politics without any real ramifications while nailing the bad guys and looking good for the vocal majority. Also it was at decision time, this is already decided.
So a major big problem is that its I think its only four or five who are returning for re-election so they don't have to care about any voter backlash. The ones who are returning are also lower mountains councillors, no Ward 4 local councillors for Blackheath.
It also isn't like its Labor or Liberal such that Greens could take advantage... its all of them (except for independant ex-green E.Gibbs)... so you can't use party lines.
They have also snuck this through as a done deal... there hasn't been the approval stage. Interestingly this was voted on at the same meeting Knapsack was approved and there weren't any people there speaking against it because I guess no one knew about it! Sneaky.
From their perspective I'm sure it looks a good way to get the cash to get the $9.4million grant for the project. I'm sure they are only really considering the possible gamble with it giving the monetary returns, beyond that just do it and move on.
Its been lurking since 1991 and in this case they are keeping to that because it suits their purposes. Its leaves a bad taste even when one is unaffected, but legally they seem in the clear, morally as far as the council being there for the residents it shows they can be ruthless.
The numbers required to stop this would have to be huge (a mountains revolution)... Blackheath locals wouldn't be enough because this also a full mountains issue as the sale is closely tied with the whole Springwood development of which a lot of other people support. How many others would get behind from elsewhere?
I don't know what BMCS's opinion is on all of this, I haven't seen any comments from them in the press or their website. Quite a large area of bush is being wiped out, (maybe if DHers were putting in a bike track there would be environmental opposition!) I am surprised there isn't a large environmental opposition.
Really as far as fighting it, where does one start? Besides getting as many people as you can to sign in objection? Once the ammenities are put in council aren't going to go back either. To me it seems they have played a game and its checkmate.
Moggio
TrailCare is developing a DJ Guideline document for councils and insurance companies which covers site selection.
This will be public once it has gone through industry and IMBA review/endorsement and also been reviewed by insurance companies.
We forwarded the draft document to Warringah Council yesterday to help them review sites for DJ.
Message me and see what we can send you to help out.
Has a BMORC email been sent out to the email list ? with link to petitions ?
I had hoped the full mtb community would have gotten behind it. We all added our support to campaign to reopen bits of manly dam even though some of us seldom, or had never riden it.....
Damn Al, I didn't think of that because I am too busy or an idiot. Any chance you could get that together Al, or do you want me to write it up?
Just to be a wowser ... I understand the motivations to save the Dirt Jumps, but surely, the main focus should be the save the bushland environment and encourage council to seek more creative ways to raise funds, post their shite investment decisions.
This will merge your efforts with other interest groups like BMCS, other Residents concerned with amenities etc etc. Sure we like riding dirt jumps and its nice the kids are rad, but its that Bushland setting that is important isn't it ??
Hopefully Council have learnt from their GFC related investments that you can't get something for nothing. A fundamental business acumen is that you have to invest to enhance assets in order to raise value and or derive solid and dependable revenue streams. Given their Land Sale history, enhancing these land parcels will likely be a waste of capital.
Similarly the NZ experience highlights that enhancing natural resources like pine forest and building recreational opportunities can derive revenue with strong and robust grow potential from tourism.
Councillor Mays, given her imminent move to NZ stated that she was intimate with NZ ... well if they can derive income out of pine forest which she called "Weeds". Surely we can derive revenue and increased land values from Bushlands adjacent and attached to World Heritage listed National Parks.
http://bmorc.com/node/34834
Although I understand Councillor motivations and that they need funding for their other projects, I think residents should highlight alternative funding opportunities like the examples in Rotorua, Queenstown etc. Surely adventure, eco tourism is a better use and can lead to higher conservation rates then allowing expanded residential opportunities when you have Lithgow, Bathurst and Western Sydney pretty much round the corner.
So, I'd encourage those leading this campaign to think bigger and work with other interest groups that ultimately have the same goal, to save the natural bushland environment, even if its for different reasons.
Al there is a collaborative effort by all the groups that use the area, This includes walkers and dog walkers, day dreamers and flower snifers.
Hard to put forward a conservation/green argument. The area is basically an old over grown airstrip.
Had to laugh the other day when I spotted a council/ tourism sign near by which had been modified to read "BMCC, bull dozing bush land and community.: "Roads to Ruin"
I can see that council need the money and that the springwood project they are raising money for is worth while but it's hard for the Blackheath locals to accept that "their" playground, refuge, parkland is being sold out from under them all all the money raised directed at Springwood.
The alternative site proposed is not up to scratch. Locals are asking to save 3 of the 90(?) lots (this is the jump park and recreactional area)or at the very least put some of the money raised from the sell off into creating a permanent alternative site that is at very least as good as the current site.
Sorry to hear about the lack of support from the wider mtb community but it does seem the locals are getting a go with it.I will get to meetings and that stuff if I get a few days notice.I think the thing I would be pissed with apart from no notice is the money going to Springwood why dont they sell something in springwood only seems fare.
Thanks for the correction ... good to know its coordinated. Soz, Outsider looking in
I had thought the primary fall back was to allow all the other blocks to be developed and keep one block where the existing jumps are ?
Maybe I'm just old, but need a longer term view with conservation ... won't be an overgrown airstrip by the time my grand kids are looking for green space ... They could be living in Lithgow or Bathurst and commuting by hover train* to Sydney in 45mins
* By "Hover train" I really mean a bunch of Marty McFly hover boards being towed by a Delorean (the flying version)
We appreciate your help, weighing in with your support. Same with the rest of the Blue Mountains crew. We owe you guys a debt of gratitude. There's so much happening though sometimes you get a little tired, as I'm sure you're familiar with, so apologies if we've dropped the ball.
So...
An example email that we could butcher to make our own would be helpful, as would a list of councillors', the general manager's and relevant parks and sports facilities manager's email addresses.
Us folks from further afield are not across the local issues and concerns influencing councillors' views like you are, so anything you can do to make it easier for us to hit their hot buttons with our correspondence will help us help you.
At this stage all they are asking is for people to sign the petition that chopstir gave the direct link to
Don't want to rain on anyone's parade (or track), but petitions are ineffective. To decision-makers they look like one special interest group or revved-up individual going around and drumming up support.
Individually-crafted emails that talk to a common theme are many times more effective. I think the maths they work off is that for every letter received, there are about 20 people similarly revved-up and a lot of emails start to look like a grass-roots movement.
Compare that with a petition, which for every 20 people who sign, count as one person with a real concern on the issue. So doing the arithmetic, that makes emails 400 times more effective.
Don't shoot the messenger, this is the feedback I have received from both state and local council people who track such things. If you want to be effective, this is what needs to be done.
I've already signed the petition.
Following on from the above, when Warringah Council general manage Rik Hart was wanting to privatise Council-run daycare centres, they got 20 emails and that was enough to ensure they backed off at a rate of knots with Councillors telling Hart his plan would never get approved
So when they got 420-odd emails on the closure of Manly Dam, it was like "holy shit... what have we done?" They had - by their calculations - 8,400 people pissed off at them for an action that Council staff had taken behind their backs. That's a lot of people telling them Council was out of order.
(It also opened their eyes to the fact that mtb is mainstream.)
Does this make sense?
Understood but may be not when the councilors have said they are not afraid of angry emails.
http://youtu.be/STrL6kTrqYs
The guys decided the first step they want to take is the petition to demonstrate support. Next is their facebook group to keep people up to date with nws and organise meetings
http://www.facebook.com/groups/BACGD/48138453187...
local council elections in Sept.
If emails won't work, then petitions definitely won't.
Listening to the first couple of minutes tells me they are feeling a bit bruised by the whole Springwood thing, which indicates to me they are *talking* tough but are in fact feeling a bit of pain.
Some (not angry) emails may just be what they need.
My response would be to call their bluff... but give them an out that gets you what you want, which would include telling them how preserving the current jump site helps meet their mandate for providing facilities for unstructured recreation, is a win for the community, and how moving them will yield a similar result to The Grove in Manly Council's LGA - failure to meet the comunity's needs (dumbing down in thsi case) means the failure of the project.
But, as we did with the Manly Dam thing, keep it polite and not aggressive, and for heaven's sake leave the whole "you're coming up for re-election" thing unsaid. They know that, but will not respond well at all to something that feels like a threat. Don;t be a ratbag.
Keeping the moral high ground in your emails is so much more effective it's not funny: if a lot of reasonable people disagree with what they're doing, maybe what they're doing is not reasonable.