Council to vote on WSN Site (Belrose Tip) future on Tuesday

Is that they are trying to cater for the greater MTB community and not just the XC/family/lycra clad community.

Like a miniature version of stomlo with XC + DH/FR + 4X + DJ.

There is a broader community on the Northern beaches screaming out for facilities locally other than XC.

Besides, internal roads would be key to safety in the event of an accident, even on a XC circuit.

We don't need to go XC only to keep costs down.

For short DH runs a shuttle road isn't essential.

The area is only about 630m by 630m. About twice area of DH at OF. Perhaps enough for DJ and some FR, DH etc.

Better locations elsewhere for XC.

I've registered to speak to Council.

The financial analysis is flawed and will be easy to discredit.

However, we need to bear in mind these recommendations are being driven by a focus on limiting liability. WSN don't give a fetid dingo's kidney about much of anything else. We need to mitigate their concerns to get this across the line.

I'm planning on sendng a letter to Councillors sometime Monday so they've got a day or so to digest it.

Your informed input would be very helpful. My background: Certified Practising Accountant, business and financial modelling, budgeting and business analytics. Would appreciate hearing from people with information to contribute from risk management and environmental management backgrounds.

If you don't have this, don't worry - I don't have a monopoly on insight and the key idea could come from anywhere.

Put my 2 cents worth in and have had e mail responses already from Vincent De Luca and Virginia Laugesen (who was interested in my reference to Ku-ring-gai councils plans for the St Ives showground precinct - have sent her some links) and a phone call from Conny Harris. The latter two were very appreciative of the input - it gives them something to work with. De Luca's response was more "thanks I'll keep it in mind".

No, if there was only scope for 800m of course there would be no point. However, that estimate is completely inaccurate. As I said, the area is small, but it's not that small.

On the other hand.... even if you take that figure and try and make some sense of it, for 4X, dirt jumps or trails obstacles, 800m would be a good amount.

Why should they limit the use to picnic tables is the point, when clearly the area could make up part of the cycling facilities the area needs?

Dear all,

At the council meeting on Tuesday 27th April, next Tuesday, council staff have brought forward their report and recommendations for the future use of the Belrose Landfill site.

It is quite unfortunate that council staff are recommending against option 3 (Dedicated Mountain Bike Riding tracks), despite the events earlier this year that clearly showed the need for dedicated mountain bike facilities, and despite the fact that local MPs and several councillors, including myself, have clearly stated their support for the mountain bike facility.

I would encourage all you cyclists who are interested in mountain biking to help us trying to get this amended – please send letters in support of option 3 to all councillors ([email protected],gov.au) and send letters to the editor ([email protected]).
You can also address the council meeting on the 27th April, which will be held at Narraweena Community Centre on Oceana street in Narraweena. If you’d like to address council, please contact the coordinator before 9:30 am on Tuesday. Please phone 9942 2737 or email [email protected] to register.

Regards

Christina

"Your informed input would be very helpful. My background: Certified Practising Accountant, business and financial modelling, budgeting and business analytics. Would appreciate hearing from people with information to contribute from risk management and environmental management backgrounds.

If you don't have this, don't worry - I don't have a monopoly on insight and the key idea could come from anywhere."

One angle worth examining:

Young people need "stuff to do".

When the council spends a bit of money providing challenging and interesting recreational facilities for young people, there's a huge social and economic dividend for the council and community.

More recreational facilities = far less of a problem with graffiti (which council has to fix) and fewer young drunken males rampaging through the corso every saturday night (vandalism, litter, general mess council currently deals with).

Not very coherent I'm afraid, but beter than nothing:

Dear Councillors

I would like to take this opportunity to write to you regarding the Belrose Waste and Recycling Centre – Draft Future Use Concept Plan.

As a local resident and keen mountain biker, I would like to register my strong support for Option 3 ( or a variation thereof).

While the area in question is not extensive, it could undoubtedly serve a significant part in a coherent mtb strategy in the area. The area in question could serve XC mountain biking needs when combined with currently well used fire trails in Garigal NP ( and with a little cooperation and forethought, could be linked with other trails all the way to Manly Dam ).

It would also appear to be an area which would lend itself well to the types of mountain biking which have even less facilities than XC: dirt jumps, trials and 4X ( it should be noted that the current men's and women's 4X World Champions are both young Australians....) These disciplines are highly popular with the younger members of the mountain biking community and providing facilities for them would be a wonderful opportunity to help promote healthy lifestyle choices among the Xbox generation.

The report seems to be suggesting that there is significant cost in the provision of on site supervision for a mountain bike facility. This supposed need would run contrary to the experience of most mountain bikers. In 23 years of mountain biking, I have never ridden anywhere with on site supervision. The facility could be built ( largely using volunteer labour) and then periodically maintained as required ( again by volunteer labour) It doesn’t need anything else.... The topography of the site also means that tracks would be accessible ( including a DH track with ‘shuttle capability) without the need for a new road. As such, I feel the costs related to Option 3 are significantly overstated.

Concern has been raised about the possible instability of the ground conditions at the site. I would suggest that this presents less of an obstruction to mountain bikers than most other groups. To also suggest that there are concerns that riders might be put of by residual smells and then proposing to install picnic tables instead is difficult to understand.

I am somewhat surprised and very disappointed that the current recommendation from council management is to provide a facility which no one appears to have asked for and which I believe hardly anyone will use. If Option 1 is supported, the only winner will be WSN.

As with the recent Manly dam fiasco, it appears that strategic decisions are determined not by our elected councillors but by bureaucrats who’s main interest seems to be limiting liability rather than providing meaningful services to the local community.

Yours respectfully

Craig Burns
Address provided

I'll try to make it to the meeting but can't promise anything....

CB

Thanks for your input guys. Here's what I sent.

Dear Councillors,

Despite the enormous amount of goodwill generated by the resolution of the recent Manly Dam trail closure fiasco, and the promise with which the WSN site was viewed, it appears that staff haven't got the message. They are essentially proposing a "do nothing" strategy. There are a number of flaws with the analysis and the proposed strategy which mean taking the suggested option has major problems.

Overall:
It is unacceptable that arbitrary and overstated maintenance estimates are used to justify option 1 in the view of overwhelming community demand for option 3.
The analysis does not take account of the fact that mountain bikers historically self-maintain their tracks at no cost to the land manager when they are empowered to do so. It is nothing more than lazy modelling, and the staff report to council admits as much.

Option 1 Passive Recreation Proposal:
To summarise the key features:
• No car park for passive recreation proposal
• No toilets, no cover during the heat of the day.
• Exposed to the elements
• Unfriendly site due to steep slopes off the edge of the plateaus
• No demand expressed by the community

This sounds a lot like Red Hill Reserve. I visited there shortly after completion of the access road and car park, looking somewhere to take my family for a picnic. I left unimpressed. I returned a year or so later to see if the lack of toilets had been addressed. Instead I found large sections covered in broken glass, spray paint, two burnt out cars, a syringe, and the car park access blocked presumably because of antisocial behaviour.
Option 1 sets up a repeat of this scenario very effectively in Belrose.

Other issues with Option 1:
• Walking trails cost the same as or more than mountain bike tracks when built to a sustainable standard, given that water flow is the primary driver of erosion damage. Costs are understated compared to Option 3.
• Methane outgassing and odours will be a deterrent to picnickers
• Significant walking distances from entrances to proposed picnic sites present a further deterrent.
• Planting trees for cover will not permitted to issues with the landfill cap.
• Pent up demand will ensure mountain bike trails are going to spring up on the site regardless of whether they are approved.
• Attempts at prohibition will fail. The attributes of the site such as steep but rideable slopes, which mountain bikers find highly attractive, guarantee it.
• Due to the absence of an interest group to take responsibility, it is reasonable to expect a number of the unapproved trails will run directly down slope.
• This is the worst possible direction for erosion control and ensures water driven erosion will then run out of control, dramatically increasing the risk of breach of the landfill cap.
• The costs of addressing these risks have been ignored in the analysis of Option 1.

Significantly, an opportunity to provide challenging activities for youth will have been wasted. Young people need "stuff to do".
• When the council provides challenging and interesting recreational facilities for young people, there's a huge social and economic dividend for the council and community.
• More recreational facilities equal far fewer problems with graffiti (which council has to fix) and fewer young drunken males rampaging through Warringah’s districts every Saturday night, causing vandalism, litter, and general mess that Council is currently forced to deal with.

Giving it to a dedicated user group who would actively contribute to upkeep would be a far better option. Simply converting the site to public parkland is setting up to fail.

Option 3:
It is evident that WSN has not seriously considered nor attempted to properly understand the behaviour and impacts of mountain bikes in compiling their proposal.
• They have proceeded on flawed assumptions of increased "erosion" that take no account of sustainable trail building practices.
• WSN have apparently assumed a sealed road is required to the trailhead area. My WSMTB contacts state that existing roads will be ample for their needs.
• While soils are required to be imported to build the tracks to avoid cap breach, WSN is required to import thousands of metres cubed of soil to complete the capping and bringing in an extra amount and stockpiling on-site for track construction would be a cost effective solution.
• Experience elsewhere suggests that WSN's cost estimates are grossly overstated.
• In contrast to prohibition policies that will fail, attractive and enjoyable singletrack trails are demonstrated to corral riders, who follow them like sheep.
• By combining fun trails with sustainable routing and volunteer construction and maintenance labour, erosion impacts are mitigated completely.
• Unapproved trails will probably still spring up. By empowering the responsible club to control the site and shut down unapproved trails the instant they spring up, this risk is almost entirely mitigated by leveraging the club’s self-interest in managing the facility. An approach of education, training and audit by WSN of the club's work will contain costs.

This approach has worked with notable success in NZ's Rotorua Mountain Bike Park, which is now a major tourist destination. Please refer to http://www.riderotorua.com/trailbuilding.php for more information.
• Most trails there are built with volunteer labour.
• All are maintained with volunteer labour.
• Trail sections are each “owned” by a separate group of local users, who eagerly take responsibility for shutting down unauthorised track changes and maintaining the track according to the agreed standards.

The 411 emails you each received demanding reopening of Manly Dam and the expansion of legal singletrack facilities shows you it will be used.

You know that there is enormous over usage pressure on existing facilities and new facilities are urgently needed to spread the load.

Conclusion:
The case for an amendment in favour of Option 3 is compelling. Option 1 has nothing to commend it.

Council staff must be charged with responsibility for finding how to make mountain bike access to the site work in a way that addresses WSNs valid concerns about site safety. This must be done with a firm deadline, and they must be held accountable for its delivery.

Regards,

John H CPA
Contact details supplied