LNCP Public Planning Meeting

Rob, is this tonight or on August 18th as mentioned in the other post?

Cheers

How would i be able to show some support if i am unable to make it to this?
is there some online form i can fill out.
cheers

FYI I just got this from the meeting organisers

Thank you for your registration, or apologies if you are not able to attend the Lane Cove Plan of Management public meeting being held next Tuesday 18th August.

We are a bit concerned that some of those who have registered are under the impression that the meeting is to be only on future mountain bike riding within Lane Cove National Park going on the emails that we have received. So I would just like to confirm that the public meeting will not cover any specific Park issue in great detail and that it will primarily focus on a revisit of the old plan of management, the review process for the new Plan of management, briefly cover any new issues being considered and most importantly how to make an effective submission on the draft when it is publicly exhibited.

If this is your expectation of the meeting then great but I just wanted to clarify so there is no confusion as to the purpose of the evening by those wishing to attend.

Regards.

what do you guys think?

im still keen to go, i think we must show our support at each step of the way, so that when they draw up the draft POM, our views are included.

got this rsvp today

Hi Ben

I am just clarifying with you, the meeting is not about mountain bike riders, it is about the plan of management for the Lane Cove National Park. The plan of management is a legally binding document which sets out the operations for the park.

Thank you

Michele Cooper
Senior Ranger, Neighbour and Community Relations

This is my response

Respectfully,

We all understand that there are many varied aspects that go into the POM. And understand that the meeting was not set up for mountain biking, We are attending to discuss the mountain bike side of things, as we like everyone else are legitimate members of the community with a legitimate, sustainable recreational pastime with very little access currently and we would like to discuss options for sustainable use of the park in the future.

I’m sure you will get many horse riders, walkers, canoeists etc with requests as well, don’t forget that national parks are trying to increase sustainable visits to our parks. So with mountain biking being sustainable if managed properly, you should be encouraging us to come, from the emails I’ve heard that are being sent out to mountain bikers, it seams we are being discouraged.

Please try and work with the community as we are large user group in national parks, many mountain bikers are also walkers and walkers mountain bikers.

Thanks so much for your time.

If this has come across at all harsh it was not my intention.

Kind Regards,

Ben

Her response

Ben,

Thanks for your email and no harshness noted.

Please note – we are advertising a community meeting, all are invited and no-one will not be invited. I never suggested that so please don’t infer.

The correspondence has been mere clarification; someone is telling people out there it is a ‘mountain bike meeting’, how do we know this? from the written emails (from mountain bikers) stating this. We don’t want people to turn up expecting to talk specifically about one issue only and be disappointed and leave angry with NPWS.

I am sure you would agree, it is not appropriate to advertise on behalf of someone else incorrect information – I fail to see how this action would help develop good relations for anyone.

See you next week.

Regards,

Michele Cooper
Senior Ranger, Neighbour and Community Relations

My response:

Hi Michele

Thanks for your email

Yeah I don’t think anyone is advertising anything of that nature its just Chinese whispers

I gathered from your clarification email that there was no place for mountain bikers at the meeting, or very little.

Maybe in the clarification email it could be written like”

“Although there no doubt will be discussion about mountain biking in the lane cove NP, the meeting is not just about mountain biking, it is about the entire LCNP POM”

When I received this:

“The meeting is not about mountain bike riders”

I got the impression we where being left out of the picture a little.
Sorry if I reacted a little in the previous email, but it may be a little frustration at the lack of riding areas coming through

Have a great day

Kind Regards,

Ben

Her Response

Ben,

Thank you for the communication, appreciated.

I take into account what you have said.

See you next week.

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for considering mountain bike access as part of your LCNP plan of management. There is no reason why walkers should have thousands of tracks granted to them across the state while the number of dedicated mountain bike trails is zero or can be counted on one hand. If you consider how popular mountain biking is compared to bush walking the current situation becomes even more peculiar.

I would like to be at the North Ryde meeting tonight to show my support for mountain biking but I have an obligation to an indoor cricket team. I cannot attend but please count this as a show of support for MTB access.

I love National Parks for the beautiful nature reserve they provide and I will always support their protection. I don’t think that mountain bikes on designated trails (existing walking trails I suggest) would present a threat.

Kind regards,

I doubt there will be a lock out. It's a public meeting don't forget, on the LCNP PoM process. I'm sure anyone could sneak in.

Anything to report?

Thanks Colt - I was being quiet to allow a new voice to tell the story, so everyone doesn't get bored of my blather

I'm sure a few of us thought of saying something in reply to Noel (the environmentalist you speak of) but the meeting wasn't organised for debate and getting drawn into that wouldn't have been very productive. What was much more productive afterwards was having a chance to speak to him in a smaller group, and the rangers and other opponents so we can show them riders are human too

We also had a bit of a 'debate' with an anti-MTB person in front of the journalist from the North Shore Times. The other party wouldn't give a name (which he said was needed to print their views) so not sure how that will come out though.

The best message to remember is that submissions have to be relevant to the park and the NPWS Act. A few gems from the Act are:

2A Objects of Act:
(1) The objects of this Act are as follows:
(c) fostering public appreciation, understanding and enjoyment of nature and cultural heritage and their conservation,

72AA Objectives and content of plans of management:
(1) The following matters are to be taken into consideration in the preparation of a plan of management for land reserved under this Act:
(l) the provision of opportunities for public understanding, enjoyment and appreciation of natural and cultural heritage values, including opportunities for sustainable visitor use,
(t) benefits to local communities,

Which to me means that if riders ask for sustainable single tracks (community maintained of course) on which to partake their chosen recreational pursuit in the park that is completely indeed in-keeping with the Act as per the above.

Another interesting point I noted was that they (the NPWS) already had a couple of points about riding in the park that had been voiced during the earlier Stakeholders meetings. Thus we can be reasonably assured that some consideration for MTB riding will be included in the POM. I can't remember the exact wording but there were at least two points displayed one of which mentioned having both dedicated riding and mixed tracks in the park. By that I took it as meaning singletrack. I'll assume it was the Hornsby MTB group that put that in, as i believe they were the only MTB group listed among the park stakeholders?

Anyone remember the exact wording of those two points I refer to?

Also I must admit I had a good chuckle at the poor lady that got confused between mountain bikes and motor bikes, ("we stopped the train bridge cause of the noise pollution it would bring so what place do mountain bikes have in our tranquil suburb" !?! ) until someone got up and pointed out there was a confusion in definition and mountain bikes aren't the one with the motors.

But yes, it was a decent evening and I for one learnt a lot about how the NPWS POM process works.

Colt

Clearly some people had gone to the meeting with a very anti-MTB attitude. But I think we need to acknowledge that Noel (the environmentalist) has a legitimate complaint, that some riders go too fast and too close to walkers. I spend 6-8 hours a week riding in LCNP, and I know I'm typical of most riders in that I slow down and give way to all walkers. But I've been out walking with my children and have had bikes come dangerously close on fast downhills. Unfortunately they are the riders who give the rest of us a bad name, and put us at risk of losing access. So if we put in a submission, I think it's important that we put forward solutions to the problems. For example, why not have "code of conduct" sign boards at trail entrances, a bit like the one at the start of the Oaks? The signs could explain that the trails are shared use, and remind bikers to slow down and ride safely. If we put forward suggestions like this as part of our submission, we will show that we are not just thinking about ourselves. Is anyone coordinating a NobMob submission? I'd be happy to help in any way I can.

Slightly off topic

Me and a mate ran into two mature ladies walking on the Towler's Bay track, one of them had been walking up the fire road the previous week and had been 'nearly overrun' (her words) by four or five mtbers descending abreast.

She had no problems with mtbers per se, but thought we preferred great big wide tracks as opposed to skinny little tracks. To which end we set her straight saying the big wide tracks were the only ones we were allowed on.

Despite the above experience both thought it wonderful everyone was enjoying the bush albeit they would much prefer to see walkers and riders on different paths - which i think is a good and valid point to make.