Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Memorial cycle route for 13-year-old boy killed while cycling blocked by local landowner

Adam Mugridge was just 13 years old when he died - ever since then his family have been trying to create a cycle path in his memory.

Adam Mugridge was just 13 years old when he died after falling off his bike into the path of a lorry, while cycling to school in Market Harborough in September 2006. 

Ever since then his family have been working tirelessly to create a cycle path in his memory. 

They want to create AdamSmile– a new cycle path along a disused railway – and last September, after overcoming numerous obstacles, they finally got the mile-long route approved unanimously by Leicester County Council. They have also raised £140,000 to fund the path. 

The family however, now face renewed opposition as one of the local landowners, Peter Thomas, who owns part of the land the path would cross, has appealed against the decision.

Mr Thomas is a former farmer who last year lost the right to keep livestock after a court battle over the mistreatment of his cows.

Speaking to Leicestershire Live, Adam’s father David Mugridge said he couldn’t understand why Mr Thomas was unwilling to give up his land: “He only used it to grow grass for his animals but he now has a lifetime ban from keeping animals.”

Mr Thomas said that he was fine with the cycle path in principal, but he did want some sort of compensation: “Mr Mugridge was offered the route in 2006 as a permissive route rather than a public right of way and I was expecting a lease of £5,000 a year to maintain it, which he could afford to pay.

“But he seems to want to take it for nothing.

“Would he give me his back garden to turn into a memorial to fallen soldiers? Of course, he wouldn’t.” 

Mr Thomas also said that he was concerned about parts of the countryside being re-surfaced for a cycle path. 

Adam’s family has the backing of Neil O’Brien, MP for Harborough, who said that he is supporting the project as it would be a huge benefit to the local community and a fitting tribute to Adam. 

The final decision on the cycle path will now have to be made by Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 

If you want to donate to AdamSmile or express your support then you can do so on their website

 

 

Add new comment

31 comments

Avatar
Htc | 5 years ago
0 likes

His land, his choice, simples. If you want the land then pay for it.

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 5 years ago
2 likes

Not wanting to bring up old issues, but the ex-farmer, Peter Thomas, seems to treat the land with as much care and respect as he treats animals: https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/local-news/owner-bulls-hit-farm-whetstone-843770

Quote:

The owner of a filthy patch of land known as Bulls Hit Farm has been fined for failing to clean it up.

Vehicle parts, car tyres, heaps of rubble and refuse were scattered over the land in Enderby Road, Whetstone, and back in May 2016 Blaby District Council ordered the owner, Peter Thomas, to clear it up.

But after Thomas, of New Bridge Road, Glen Parva, failed to comply with a community protection notice he was taken to court.

The case was heard at Leicester Magistrates’ Court earlier this month and Thomas was found guilty and ordered to pay a total of £4,950 – including a £1,500 fine and £3,300 costs.

Maybe that's where the £5,000 maintenance fee will go?

Avatar
Yorkshie Whippet replied to hawkinspeter | 5 years ago
3 likes

hawkinspeter wrote:

Not wanting to bring up old issues, but the ex-farmer, Peter Thomas, seems to treat the land with as much care and respect as he treats animals: https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/local-news/owner-bulls-hit-farm-whetstone-843770

Quote:

The owner of a filthy patch of land known as Bulls Hit Farm has been fined for failing to clean it up.

Vehicle parts, car tyres, heaps of rubble and refuse were scattered over the land in Enderby Road, Whetstone, and back in May 2016 Blaby District Council ordered the owner, Peter Thomas, to clear it up.

But after Thomas, of New Bridge Road, Glen Parva, failed to comply with a community protection notice he was taken to court.

The case was heard at Leicester Magistrates’ Court earlier this month and Thomas was found guilty and ordered to pay a total of £4,950 – including a £1,500 fine and £3,300 costs.

Maybe that's where the £5,000 maintenance fee will go?

 

Is it my childish sense of humour or does anyone else find it amusing the farm is called Bulls Hit and not Bullshit Farm, especially considering the bull crap the farmer spouted?

Avatar
peted76 | 5 years ago
0 likes

He's ankles!

Lower than a... 

Avatar
ktache | 5 years ago
2 likes

Bourgeois, the maggoty cow arse thing doesn't strike me as particularly bourgeois.

Your defence of this reprehensible individual has now made me wonder what relevance his aquisition of  the former state owned railway line has in this.

By the way, hello, we all look forward to your erudite views on the rim/disk conundrum, which side of the helmet debate you are on and of course the place of our squirrelly friends in everyday life.

Avatar
Ianr1950 | 5 years ago
1 like

All the irrelevant comments about how he came into ownership of the land and the idea that land should be taken from the bourgeois and returned to the state is laughable.  It is his land and ok maybe from reports he might not be the nicest of people but it is his land and if people want to use part of it then they should pay if that his what he wants. What other pepole might do is irrelevant, it is his c house. 

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Ianr1950 | 5 years ago
2 likes

Ianr1950 wrote:

All the irrelevant comments about how he came into ownership of the land and the idea that land should be taken from the bourgeois and returned to the state is laughable.  It is his land and ok maybe from reports he might not be the nicest of people but it is his land and if people want to use part of it then they should pay if that his what he wants. What other pepole might do is irrelevant, it is his c house. 

Well, seems like someone is getting a bit defensive (and almost illegible in their defense of themselves the ex-farmer).

 

Avatar
Ianr1950 | 5 years ago
3 likes

No problem with the farmer wanting to be reimbursed for allowing this to cross his land. Irrelevant comments about his ban on keeping animals, nothing to do with this at all.

Avatar
brooksby replied to Ianr1950 | 5 years ago
3 likes

Ianr1950 wrote:

No problem with the farmer wanting to be reimbursed for allowing this to cross his land. Irrelevant comments about his ban on keeping animals, nothing to do with this at all.

But £5K per year to "maintain" the route, when he's already demonstrated what a fine, upstanding, and *responsible* person he is?

Avatar
atgni | 5 years ago
2 likes

Compulsory Purchase does look the very obvious solution.

Avatar
burtthebike | 5 years ago
2 likes

Pedant on: principal; no, it's principle.

What would happen if this was a road?  The land would probably be compulsory  purchased with minimal compensation, so why isn't that being done here.

Avatar
ktache | 5 years ago
0 likes

I suppose now that he's a former farmer.

Avatar
lllnorrislll | 5 years ago
0 likes

Whoops

Avatar
lllnorrislll | 5 years ago
0 likes

Whoops

Avatar
lllnorrislll | 5 years ago
2 likes

The same Mr Thomas who has left a rusty eyesore of a train in a field in Blaby, in protest of wanting better train links to the village.
He has a habit of irritating people with his odd and often cruel intentions.

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/local-news/blaby-field-rusty-ste...

It would be interesting to know when this land became his. As the assumption is he has bought it off British rail / network rail and not just assumed ownership. As the Beeching recommendations were for it to be used for cycling by local council and other local disused lines are used for this purpose.
The council could just offer him a low ball offer for the land, I know locally that he has had land for sale following his fines.

Avatar
JMcL_Ireland replied to lllnorrislll | 5 years ago
1 like

lllnorrislll wrote:

It would be interesting to know when this land became his. As the assumption is he has bought it off British rail / network rail and not just assumed ownership.

Not sure what the situation is at present in the UK, but as we inherited the bulk of our laws from Britain, I'm pretty sure it's similar to what goes down here in Ireland where there's the notion of adverse possession aka squatters rights. The principle is that if a 3rd party can claim possession if they show they've occupied a piece of land and excluded others for 12 years.

This has indeed caused similar issues here where railways abandoned in the 50s and 60s have had sections absorbed into gardens and fields leading to years of deadlock and hefty payouts (for what was originally publicly owned land) with the rising popularity of greenways over the last decade

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 5 years ago
7 likes

Okay, as a cyclist I should be siding with the family etc., but I think if you're going to accept the principle of land-ownership, then the land owner has every right to object to how it is used.

What we need to do is to take all the private land-ownership and return the land to the peoples (via the state). That would eliminate the bourgeoisie and seize the means of production.

 

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... replied to hawkinspeter | 5 years ago
10 likes

HawkinsPeter wrote:

Okay, as a cyclist I should be siding with the family etc., but I think if you're going to accept the principle of land-ownership, then the land owner has every right to object to how it is used.

What we need to do is to take all the private land-ownership and return the land to the peoples (via the state). That would eliminate the bourgeoisie and seize the means of production.

Well you joke, but land is simply not like other property.  Nobody is making the stuff, and it's where Locke really stumbled in his attempt to justify private-ownership in the first place (its yours if you - or your slave or servant (!) - mix your labour with it, he concluded, unconvincingly).  And there is a very specific history of how land in this country came to be privately owned to begin with.

 

Hence we have public footpaths and rights-of-way, and things like the right-to-roam, and compulsory purchase.  Even the US allows the state to forceably purchase land (as Trump is having to do for his wretched wall, ironically enough).

 

How much did this chap get in state subsidies when he was a farmer, out of interest?  Did he repay them when it turned out he was not farming in accordance with the law? 

 

We pay some people a fortune as a reward for owning land, while taxing others.  Subsidies handed out to large land owners roughly equal the total take from council tax.  I admit this is a general gripe rather than being this specific case, but the whole thing just annoys me.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to FluffyKittenofTindalos | 5 years ago
5 likes

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

HawkinsPeter wrote:

Okay, as a cyclist I should be siding with the family etc., but I think if you're going to accept the principle of land-ownership, then the land owner has every right to object to how it is used.

What we need to do is to take all the private land-ownership and return the land to the peoples (via the state). That would eliminate the bourgeoisie and seize the means of production.

Well you joke, but land is simply not like other property.  Nobody is making the stuff, and it's where Locke really stumbled in his attempt to justify private-ownership in the first place (its yours if you - or your slave or servant (!) - mix your labour with it, he concluded, unconvincingly).  And there is a very specific history of how land in this country came to be privately owned to begin with.

 

Hence we have public footpaths and rights-of-way, and things like the right-to-roam, and compulsory purchase.  Even the US allows the state to forceably purchase land (as Trump is having to do for his wretched wall, ironically enough).

 

How much did this chap get in state subsidies when he was a farmer, out of interest?  Did he repay them when it turned out he was not farming in accordance with the law? 

 

We pay some people a fortune as a reward for owning land, while taxing others.  Subsidies handed out to large land owners roughly equal the total take from council tax.  I admit this is a general gripe rather than being this specific case, but the whole thing just annoys me.

Joking, comrade?

 

 

Avatar
brooksby replied to hawkinspeter | 5 years ago
1 like

HawkinsPeter wrote:

Okay, as a cyclist I should be siding with the family etc., but I think if you're going to accept the principle of land-ownership, then the land owner has every right to object to how it is used.

What we need to do is to take all the private land-ownership and return the land to the peoples (via the state). That would eliminate the bourgeoisie and seize the means of production.

(picture)

Ah, yes, Squirrel Girl.  Not one of my favourite Marvel heroes, tbh.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to brooksby | 5 years ago
2 likes

brooksby wrote:

HawkinsPeter wrote:

Okay, as a cyclist I should be siding with the family etc., but I think if you're going to accept the principle of land-ownership, then the land owner has every right to object to how it is used.

What we need to do is to take all the private land-ownership and return the land to the peoples (via the state). That would eliminate the bourgeoisie and seize the means of production.

(picture)

Ah, yes, Squirrel Girl.  Not one of my favourite Marvel heroes, tbh.

Yeah, but she defeated Thanos single-handed (well, with the assistance of Tippy-Toes)

 

Avatar
FluffyKittenofT... | 5 years ago
3 likes

I wonder how this bit of land came to be privately-owned in the first place?

 

We need some sort of land-reform.

Avatar
ktache | 5 years ago
10 likes

How bad a livestock farmer do you have to be to get a lifetime ban from keeping animals?

Avatar
shishman replied to ktache | 5 years ago
3 likes

ktache wrote:

How bad a livestock farmer do you have to be to get a lifetime ban from keeping animals?

This:

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/cruelty-neglect-c...

Avatar
Grahamd replied to shishman | 5 years ago
3 likes

shishman wrote:

ktache wrote:

How bad a livestock farmer do you have to be to get a lifetime ban from keeping animals?

This:

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/cruelty-neglect-c...

I think we should be charitable with animal gifts to this farmer. After all if the authorities happened upon an animal on his land then his suspended sentence could then be enforced. If this happened enough times I am sure he would want to give the land away.

Avatar
Grahamd replied to shishman | 5 years ago
0 likes

Duplicate post.

 

Avatar
brooksby replied to shishman | 5 years ago
2 likes

shishman wrote:

ktache wrote:

How bad a livestock farmer do you have to be to get a lifetime ban from keeping animals?

This:

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/cruelty-neglect-c...

Wow - now that is some horrible stuff.

Now, remember, boys and girls, farmers are the custodians of the land... 

Avatar
HoarseMann replied to brooksby | 5 years ago
0 likes

brooksby wrote:

shishman wrote:

ktache wrote:

How bad a livestock farmer do you have to be to get a lifetime ban from keeping animals?

This:

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/cruelty-neglect-c...

Wow - now that is some horrible stuff.

Now, remember, boys and girls, farmers are the custodians of the land... 

...and custodians of their maggots??

 

Avatar
burtthebike replied to HoarseMann | 5 years ago
2 likes

HoarseMann wrote:

...and custodians of their maggots??

That is a picture of one of the maggots?

Avatar
Zebulebu | 5 years ago
8 likes

"Would he give me his back garden to turn into a memorial to fallen soldiers? Of course, he wouldn’t.”

I think we know exactly what sort of person we're dealing with here. Gammon's gonna gammon.

Hopefully he'll be shamed into doing the decent thing (though that's probably wishful thinking)

Pages

Latest Comments