The Duke of Devonshire, who claims tax exemptions in return for allowing public access to his estate, has banned cyclists from most of the 30,000-acre Bolton Abbey estate, Cycling UK say.
The Duke of Devonshire has an estimated net worth of £800 million and in addition to owning the Bolton Abbey estate, the family are also custodians of Chatsworth House.
This Bank Holiday weekend, visitors will flock to the grounds of stately homes but those on bikes won't be welcomed at the sprawling estate on the western edge of the Yorkshire Dales.
That's because attempts have been stepped up to prevent cyclists using the Wooden Bridge on the estate leading to a popular cycling café, despite the landowner receiving generous tax relief for supposedly welcoming visitors onto the land.
Under terms of the tax relief the Duke of Devonshire receives, the estate must provide access to public roads and permissive footpaths and bridleways.
Duncan Dollimore, Cycling UK head of campaigns said: “Cycling UK looked into this matter a little closer, we found we were really only scratching the surface and that the Devonshire Estate had been failing to provide access to cyclists to estate land for years.
“This is one of the most beautiful landscapes in Yorkshire and it’s easy to see why the estate attracts some 400,000 visitors a year.
"Cyclists should be able to enjoy the special qualities of our National Parks, instead they are being faced by security guards more appropriately employed outside of nightclubs.”
Cycling UK has written to HMRC (Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs) urging them to investigate the Devonshire Estate’s failure to deliver reasonable public access for cyclists and horse riders - predating the recent closure of the bridge on the Bolton Abbey Estate.
In March the estate made the decision to close access to the Wooden Bridge which Cycling UK say has been used 'for decades' to cross the river from the minor road from Storiths to visit the Cavendish Pavilion tea-room.
The path has been blocked and security guards are reportedly patrolling the area to stop riders - even those pushing their bikes over the bridge - from getting cups of tea.
Mr Dollimore continued: “The estate includes around 80 miles of open moorland, crossed with paths and bridleways suitable for horse riding and cycling, over which there is already an extensive right of access on foot under the Countryside Right of Way Act.
"We’re not asking for complete unrestricted access to thousands of acres of moorlands - despite the fact that this is exactly what CROW access offers for walkers - but at the moment the Estate is claiming a tax exemption by undertaking to allow additional public access, when in reality the access it’s allowing is largely that which walkers are already legally entitled to anyway, which brings into question the justification for the tax exemption.”
Alistair Preston, a company director from Leeds was one rider caught out by the recent change to access.
He said: "As a result of this closure we missed Bolton Abbey from our recent ride itinerary.
"Our group of four people did not get a coffee and a cake at the Cavendish Pavilion, and they lost out on £20-£30 from us alone..
"We would not mind walking with the bikes from the gate to the cafe - it’s only 50 yards."
Landowners of heritage property and other assets such as works of art can receive what is known as a conditional exemption from inheritance tax on that property or assets if they make it available and if it is judged to meet certain criteria.
As part of their own conditionally exempt agreement, the Estate has agreed to provide: “Public access available all year on the public roads and permissive footpaths and bridleways.”
Cycling UK said it received a response from the Estate, saying that it planned to continue the tradition of 'allowing public access wherever possible provided this does not conflict with the conservation objectives and reasonable agricultural, forestry and game management requirements'.
In the letter to HMRC, Cycling UK asks the Revenue to investigate whether the Estate is in breach of the conditional exemption by closing the path over the Wooden Bridge.
The group also asked if HMRC believe the Estate had failed to deliver reasonable access for the public or give sufficient regard to 'the duty to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the National Park by the public'.
Add new comment
29 comments
I have been using this route for many years (as I suspect many others have) without any suggestion that the route is permissive rather than by right. Despite request the Estate has so far failed to confirm the registration of a permissive route. The signs I have seen suggest temporary closure for COVID which I am prepared to respect, but not if the pandemic is used as an excuse to try to limit public or private rights.
As the "permisive" right of way concerned is open to pedestrians I cannot see how it can in any way be related to COVID unless there is some evidence that bicyles rather than humans are vectors of the virus. I actually rode this route last May and the sign was in place and the gate locked. We simply lifted our bikes over the gate and walked over the bridge along with all the other pedestrians. Like you I'm happy to respect any restrictions with regard to COVID if that is what they are. This clearly isn't.
I believe the BBC were filming there today talking to cyclists about the ban. Hopefully it'll be on Look North. If so I'll post a link.
Had a shit week so might go down there today for an argument.
Haha!! Go get 'em Fursty!!
Clearly the Duke is an avid reader of road.cc, and this is merely a measure to prevent the spread of covid:
"Office visitor told his bike must be wrapped in plastic "to protect against COVID"
https://road.cc/content/news/cycling-live-blog-29-april-2021-282921
What happens to the cyclists using this?:
https://boltonabbey.com/whats-on/family-cycle-zone/
"Situated adjacent to the Bolton Abbey Car Park, this space offers a safe area for children to learn and practice their cycling skills." But as soon as they've mastered the art of cycling they can f-off.
Bouncers v kids...that'll look good.
Here's the official explanation as given to the Dales Way Association which uses that particular bridge as it's part of the Dales Way.
http://www.dalesway.org
Having looked at a map now I've got a bit more time, I now see that this is the only entrance on the east side of the Wharf without a long detour so I'm deleting my previous comment.
Looking at that, along with the admission charges published by the estate, even more questions are raised. As Muhasib says above, there is an exemption to the access agreements up to July, presumably because of Covid. Fair enough... pandemic, so close attractions.
Yet the estate is charging people (pedestrians)to use previously free to use permissive paths within the Abbey environs. ( £10.00 for up to eight people, ostensibly to limit numbers), still getting the tax exemption and choosing to ban certain users (cyclists) from those permissive paths. We don't even get the option to pay to use the sometimes useful short cut through from the Cavendish fountain and over the Wooden Bridge.
Bizarre, and starting to look like a Covid cash-in.
Would I be descriminated against if I walked along the route?
Is it cycling or cyclists they have an issue with?
Anything to stop me dismounting and shouldering my bike to walk to the cafe as a pedestrian?
Seems a foolish rule as the cafe used to do very well out of the large number of cyclists enjoying the area.
The security guards, I think.
I could understand if it said "No access to cyclists or motorists", but it doesn't, it says "No access to cyclists or vehicles". I presume I couldn't push a pram along that path whether I was wearing lycra or not.
So even if you leave the bike (your vehicle) behind, you're still not allowed through, by virtue of being a cyclist?
Are you still a cyclist if you are pushing your bike?
(and what does a crossed out no cycling sign mean?)
it means no No Cycling obviously
also I believe case law has proven a person pushing a bicycle is classed as a pedestrian
I've removed this, thanks for the info wtjs
How did the cars in the background get in?
By the main entrance on the W side- not through this gate
The car drivers no doubt had to pay a fee from a separate entrance.
Its 135yds from gate to cafe over wooden bridge. The old gate had a open side access not any more by the look of photo
Old photos attached
There is a valid exemption in law until July 2021 against public access of anything registered in the 'Conditional Exemption Tax Incentive Scheme'. Note it doesn't allow any proportional clawback of the tax exemptions granted to the asset owner, it's a one way bet.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/capital-taxation-and-tax-exem...
Always worth seeing what should be available to view on the database, whether you can arrange an access visit may be another matter.
If you want to see the database this is the entry for Bolton Abbey:
http://www.visitukheritage.gov.uk/servlet/com.eds.ir.cto.servlet.CtoLand...
Note that they say 'game management' is one thing that overrides public access, they don't meant Jurgen Klopp visiting but this instead:
https://boltonabbey.com/the-estate/sporting/
Thanks for those links Muhasib, the map is interesting (particularly given my user name). I wonder if all the permissive paths on the estate (including the one forming the red -lined northern border across Pockstones Moor) are closed to access. I've long avoided using the Cavendish Pavilion and other cafes on the estate. His Dukeness has got plenty of money without me adding to his stash. (I confess to some lapses of resolve.)
It's not just the Cav Pav. The estate has a monopoly on cafes in the area, including the Abbey tea house,Tea on the green, The Strid cafe, along with pubs and restaurants, ( Devonshire Arms and the Fell Hotel at Burnsall) Not sure if Buffers at Storiths belongs to the Duke but it is mentioned on the Estate website. All worth boycotting if this ban continues. (Or alternatively a mass ride to the pavilion and much dawdling over the toasters and tea machines.)
I can understand asking cyclists not to ride across the Wooden Bridge. It gets very busy with walkers and their dogs, but are they preventing cyclists from walking across? (Notwithstanding the oft made point that a walked bike is more than twice the width of a ridden one.) And are they really stopping cyclists buying a cup of tea??
One questions why the change in Policy. Covid, anti-cyclist idiocy, pedestrian safety(?) And does the same policy pertain at Chatsworth?
Sadly Buffers has ceased trading.
http://www.bufferscoffeeshop.co.uk/
Shame, only visited a few times, I preferred not to do the wagon-ridden pull up from Beamsley. Although it's on the Estate I always assumed it was independent, so preferable to the Pavilion.
As shown in your link, "game management" comprises burning the heather to provide habitat for grouse so that gits can come and shoot said grouse.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/may/01/its-become-them-and...
I was about to say "I don't believe it" - But I do
I'm sure our Government is aware of this and taking appropriate action
Edit
The current incumbent is Peregrine the 12th Duke - worth checking out on Wikipedia
Pehaps Boris will invite the old boy over to his new flat to discuss the matter. After all they both went to the same school
Rich person dodging tax?!?! Never!!