Hack writer

The downskeepers have recently reopened the hack ride through the heart of the Warren Woods. It runs from opposite Grosvenor Road in Langley Vale, crosses Walton Road at a slight stagger, and emerges on the Old London Road bridleway about 80 metres south-west beyond the racecourse crossing.

This is one of the hack rides which was marked on the signed map in 1984, but it’s thought to have become overgrown and fallen out of use by the early 1990s. Just east of Walton Road, the reopened path crosses the site of a former schooling area, which can still be identified by the dense growth of spindly trees.

A big thank you to the downskeepers for their work over the winter in reopening the hack ride: it’s clearly been a big job, with a good number of small trees felled. The reopened ride should also be good for wildlife, with new glades in the former dense woodland.

Ebbisham Lane: the clerk reiterated that, following a meeting, the county council were adamant that maintenance would be only as a bridleway, notwithstanding the current status. Apologies from the clerk for failing to follow up the undertaking to look into the possibility of a notice of repair, which would therefore be discussed at the next meeting of the board.

Horse margin, Langley Vale Road: we suggested that the horse margin could be subject to a traffic regulation order restricting cycling, perhaps only during the training hours in the morning. The CTC put the case for allowing continuing use by cyclists, and suggested signing the top end of the margin of the need to look out for horses when descending. The preference was for new signage to warn of the danger, and to follow up with further measures if that was unsuccessful.

Hack ride through Warren Woodland: work is now programmed to begin this winter, to open up the lost hack ride from Old London Road through the Warren woodland to terminate near Grosvenor Road.

Epsom Live! concerts: further discussion about the disruption arising from some of the post-racing concerts.

Hack sand track: three quotes were to be obtained to upgrade the sand track, of which one had been received in the order of £15-20k: this was to relay sand and add four additional areas of drainage. Alex noted that the current situation was being managed, which was welcome, and looked forward to developments.

Hatched area: the board had merely noted a report on the origin of the hatched area designation, agreeing continuing maintenance in accordance with the management plan, which would never achieve a return to favourable condition suitable for hack riding (which, of course, was the point). We asked why hack riders could not use that part of the area currently in use for winter training, since conditions obviously permitted, and what changes would be required to the management of the remainder of the hatched area to secure favourable conditions: the racecourse representative didn’t have an answer to this, and we agreed to write with these questions to be put (again) to the TGMB.

Cycling byelaw: we adopted the trainers’ representative’s suggestion that a further byelaw should provide that: “Any person who rides a cycle on the Downs shall give way to persons on horseback and pedestrians.” The cyclists representative thought this would be unsatisfactory and downs users should be trusted. It was suggested that the rules should be consistent between public bridleways (where this was already a requirement, under the Countryside Act 1968) and the authorised routes. The chairman was concerned about delay to the new byelaw, but agreed to put the proposal to the next meeting.

Noticeboards: we suggested the need for further debate on the style and content of the maps which will be displayed on the downs to replace the existing byelaw noticeboards. A proposal was made that the boards should also be double-sided. It was agreed there would be further consultation before a decision was taken.

Date of next meeting: 4 July 2011.

A bumper agenda which meant the meeting lasted two and three quarter hours.

TGMB: Andrew Cooper was not present, but it was reported that ground conditions did not permit the hatched area to be opened up. Increased income from horses in training allowed investment in some of the horse walks and railings.

Dog control: nothing further was reported.

Downskeepers’ hut: the council’s in-house surveyor was looking at options to make the hut more environmentally sustainable, as there is no money to replace it, and the heating costs are excessive.

Funding: at mid-year, the budget is heading for a modest £40k overspend, apparently owing to overtime incurred during race meetings, which the board hopes to recover from the racecourse. The chairman asked whether the Tattenham Corner Road toilets were disability-compliant, which they aren’t, though no particular action was contemplated. Discussion moved on to the budget for 2011-12, in the context of the Spending Review. The racecourse said that funds raised by the Horserace Betting Levy had fallen by half, and there had been a substantial reduction in income from sponsorship and media: the racecourse could not sustain an increase in its contribution to the board, any more than the council. It was suggested that staff could be employed by the board (rather than the council) which could achieve VAT savings, or be integrated with the council’s grounds maintenance service. Support from council officers could be reduced either nominally or in real terms (currently, all work done by officers is recharged), and work done during race meetings and other events could be recharged to the racecourse. It was noted that the downs were a specialist environment, where downskeepers were expected to have knowledge and training to look after horses in training. The treasurer was asked to look at all the possibilities and provide a more detailed report to the January meeting. [Editor’s note: I’d guess that the treasurer was looking to pare down the options for study, so that he could concentrate on those which were likely to be favoured, but no such luck.] In response to a question, Bob Harding said that he had two staff on work duties and four on patrol. [Editor’s note: demonstrating that two-thirds of the staff resource, and much else besides, are primarily deployed to look after horses in training.] A suggestion was made to introduce pay-and-display parking, and it was agreed this should be looked at too.

Race for life: there was continuing concern about litter left after the event. The racecourse will manage the race for life next year, and was keen to ensure that the costs of the clean-up were covered. Conditions can now be imposed to require a bond for reinstatement.

Sand track: concern was expressed that stone-picking and harrowing was having little effect: it was agreed that it did improve the surface, but it needed a more comprehensive solution. A quote had been received for work to upgrade the sand track, costed at £15-£23k, and two further quotes would be sought. Discussions continued with the Horserace Levy Board to further understand the history of the sand track, and how its initial provision was funded. There would then be a further discussion between officers on how to take forward. The quote was described by the chairman as ‘not very good news’. One member asked whether the hack riders could make a contribution, while another member asked if the non-contributory principle for hack riding on the downs could be reviewed, or whether it might be possible not to provide the sand track at all? Another member pointed out that it would be difficult to collect contributions from a large number of yards and riders. It was suggested that the issue be considered at the forthcoming consultative committee meeting.

Damaged downs furniture: the racecourse suggested that, if asked, its maintenance team could be ready to carry out repairs to furniture damaged during race meetings.

Warning signs on Walton Road: some of the several signs at the foot of Six Mile Hill will be removed, it being acknowledged that there are too many.

Training incident: on Saturday, a local athletics club started to train alongside one of the main tracks. One of the coaches, informed that this was undesirable, declined to respond to advice given, and demonstrated an intention to continue regardless, leading to lengthy and Ugandan on-site discussions. The Leisure Developments Manager has since spoken to the chairman of the club, and been assured that it won’t happen again: an alternative suitable site will be suggested for morning training. The next edition of Borough Insight will contain an article about the downs, addressing questions of potential conflict.

Epsom Live! concerts: this year’s concerts had led to various incidents, including damage, rowdy behaviour, barbecues etc. A written complaint had been received from a local resident. Neighbouring property had been damaged. Officers had met with the racecourse to discuss the problem, with a meeting planned with the police on 3 November to explore potential mitigation of the impact of the concerts: it was suggested that it might be desired to reduce the number of people on the Hill. The racecourse said that the race meetings were not viable without the concerts: it did not wish to encourage people onto the Hill, but could not restrict people from using the downs, although it could (for example) restrict the view. It was taking a number of initiatives to discourage use of the downs at such times (though further examples were not given). The racecourse suggested it might want to review the 1984 Act to give it greater flexibility to control access. Litter pickers were sent out on the following day to deal with litter. One member criticised Chinese lanterns being released, and suggested that stewards should have taken action: the racecourse said legal clarification was needed as it wasn’t necessarily open to the racecourse stewards to put a stop to it. Bins had been put out, but they had been knocked over. There had been large numbers of young teenagers attending, who lacked responsibility. There was no police presence at any of the events. It was noted that a report would follow to the next board meeting following officers’ meeting with the police and racecourse.

Cycle routes on the downs: Two potential routes to be designated for cycling (under the proposed new byelaw) were discussed, as we had not been able to agree their exclusion with the cyclists’ representative (although there had been a broad measure of agreement on most of the routes). The trainers’ representative supported exclusion of the route past Downs House, criticised unofficial use of routes by cyclists across Six Mile Hill, which was scarring the grassland, and said that a policy for enforcement was needed to make clear what would be tolerated: the new byelaw would officially authorise horses encountering cyclists, and how would it deal with situations where cyclists might be expected to wait rather than push on? Another member asked whether the exclusion of the Downs House route and the route to the south of the Downs House enclosure would make abuse more likely? It should be stated on maps and signs that cycling on grassland was illegal (under the proposed byelaw). One route, between Longdown Road North golf club house and Burgh Heath Road (Wendover Stables), was agreed for designation as recommended, and another, descending Downs House Road to the valley path, was agreed not to be designated, but it was suggested that the foliage should be cut back on the first route. The map of authorised cycle routes was therefore approved.

Byelaws: it was agreed not to proceed with the model car byelaw, as there had been no recent complaints about nuisance (and there was a general byelaw to address nuisances), but to proceed with the cycling byelaw subject to the agreement of the consultative committee. There was a question over whether to wait until new legislation might remove the requirement to submit byelaws to the Secretary of State for confirmation, but it was agreed to proceed immediately.

Hatched area: a report was noted explaining the origin of the provision for hack use of the hatched area, and how maintenance responsibility might be attributed. The report said that there was no specific allocation of responsibility, although the Habitat Management Plan commended a cut of the grass once each year in thirds. The recommendation, that this existing maintenance regime be continued, was agreed without substantive debate. The racecourse said that part of the hatched area was used each winter from January to March for training use.

Events on the downs: a late paper was circulated. Some events were imminent, and there was concern that there was inadequate notice if the board wished to reject a proposal. The trainers’ representative said that many tracks were unable to support intensive use without causing damage, and it was important that events adhered to the designated routes; there had been agreement to impose a ceiling on the number of events. One member said none of the events contributed to the upkeep of the downs, and suggested that none of the proposals should be allowed (this notwithstanding that the board had already agreed limits). Amid much confusion over what was being decided, the Epsom College cross-country events, which were close to the winter gallops (which would just have opened), just slipped through on the basis that the applications had been pending since the spring. The 26.2 Road Running Club proposal for 165 runners, and the Epsom Oddballs Club for 600 runners, were refused (no particular reason given, although the trainer’s representative noted the oddity of the road running club wanting to run on the downs, and some account was taken of for how long each event had taken place on the downs). The Sponsored Poppy Walk (October 2011) was criticised as having a disproportionate impact with 2,500 walkers, and it was suggested that the Race for Life (June 2010) and the Poppy Walk were too big to both be allowed to take place (even though they are four months apart): how should such a decision be taken? The Race for Life was agreed in principle (with two members voting against), and the Poppy Walk was approved, with vague talk of a more discerning approach to be taken next year.

Gypsy site: a report had been prepared by the clerk about the provision of a gypsy site during the Derby festival, amid concerns about the site’s management and impact. It was suggested that the board should take account of the likelihood of incursions elsewhere in the borough, if no site were provided, and the costs this would impose. Advice was to continue to provide a site but with tighter management through the imposition of conditions and better liaison with the temporary site manager. This was agreed, with the outcome to be reviewed the following year. A question was asked about whether the site charge of £80 covered the costs of the subsequent clear-up, but it was noted that the charge was reviewed each year, and could be increased if justified.

Ebbisham Lane: a report of issues arising from the meeting of the consultative committee was noted, but the discussion as to the possibility of a repair notice for the maintenance of Ebbisham Lane was not reported.

Extension of Derby fencing period: the extension granted last year had been questioned by the Epsom Protection Society, which had asked for a legal view on the powers, and the clerk asked what line the board would like her to take? It was agreed she would not give advice on past decisions, and that each decision was considered on its merits, but that future decisions should be related to the relevant part of the 1984 Act.

Cycling on bridleway 146: (bridleway alongside Langley Vale Road), signs restricting cycling had been removed as inconsistent with its status. The clerk would write to the council to clarify the status.

Comprehensive map of the downs: an updated version was circulated in A0 format. It was questioned whether the map should be adopted for the notice boards, or whether a more legalistic map was necessary to accord with the requirements of the 1984 Act. The board agreed that this map was preferred, but the Leisure Development Manager said she would seek further legal advice on its use for this purpose.

Use of motorised trolleys on golf course: the golf club had asked for the current limit of five to be abolished. The golf club has volunteered that no requests had been refused because of the ceiling, and so it was agreed to raise the ceiling to a maximum of ten.

Disabled parking facility: this had been requested by the model aircraft club, for the junction of Walton Road and Downs House Road. It was asked how use would be restricted, and what enforcement was envisaged? The arrangement would be monitored by the downskeepers.

Date of next meeting: 27 January 2011.

Ebbisham Lane: in the face of continuing unwillingness by Surrey CC to do any meaningful repairs, I suggested the conservators consider service of a repair notice.

Dog control: Epsom and Ewell borough council is exploring introducing dog control orders, but is concerned about enforcement.

Post-Derby clean-up: plea for contractors to have planned arrangements for clearing up glass after the event, which is problematic every year (noted by Rupert Trevelyan). It was agreed to clarify the downskeepers’ powers to enforce byelaws on racing evenings.

Race for Life: complaints about the organisers not ensuring a full clean-up after the event, nor arranging for recycling. It’s planned that a deposit will be taken from organisers of future major events, so that all or part can be withheld in similar circumstances.

Additional horse route across Warren Woods: asked why this new path, apparently for the trainers’ benefit, was being cleared by the downskeepers, rather than the training grounds team. Was told that it was also a matter of public safety. But really, the point had not been raised, and the downskeepers just ended up getting the short straw because no-one thought to ask.

Calendar of events: agreed to put this on the council’s website, in order to minimise conflict between users.

Map of the downs: a planned comprehensive map of the downs was circulated for comment. This is intended to replace those currently shown on the byelaw boards. Unfortunately, the map is intended both to provide legal information and to be informative, but at present, it doesn’t quite do either. We agreed to provide further comments subsequently, within the next three weeks. It was suggested that each display should have a ‘you are here’ marker.

Cycle routes: cyclists’ representative John Bird offered to meet with horse riders’ representatives to agree a plan of cycling routes on the downs.

Habitat Management Plan: we asked about the extension of the plan to cover the golf course. Surrey Wildlife Trust had conducted surveys of invertebrates, flora and fauna, which were likely to be repeated later in the year, with a report due in October.

Closure of subway: Rupert Trevelyan confirmed that the subway would be closed only in response to a police direction, and not simply in response to vague concerns about ‘health & safety’.

Lonsdale enclosure: comments were made about the appearance of the fencing, which must be approved by the conservators, but Rupert Trevelyan said that the fencing was owned by the racecourse, had been approved for many years, and would be very costly to replace. Since the conservators’ consent cannot be ‘unreasonably withheld’, that probably means that we’ll have to put up with it for the forseeable future.

Marking hack rides: it was thought that afternoon rides (marked with yellow) were being confused with public footpaths (also yellow), and the aim was to adopt a new colour for the former, although no decision had yet been taken.

Sand track: a report had been commissioned on the cost of full reinstatement of the sand track at the foot of Six Mile Hill, upon which the conservators would be able to make a decision. Maintenance had fallen behind recently, which Bob Harding attributed to the demands of the Derby and other racing days, but Alex Stewart said that after reinstatement, the sand track would need regular maintenance if any investment was not to be wasted.

Hatched area: the TGMB does not consider that it has responsibility to deliver the conditions necessary to enable hack riders’ use (whatever those conditions may be: no-one has ever said). Alex suggested that the conservators needed to decide who had responsibility, and what actions should be taken.

Date of next meeting: 1st November 2010

Date of consultative committee downs tour: 23rd August 2010, meeting in racecourse car park

Chairman: Jean Smith was elected chairman and Andrew Cooper vice-chairman (I say ‘elected’, but oddly, there was no vote, show of hands or otherwise, only a nomination).

New downs manager: Samantha Beak was introduced as the new downs manager, replacing Sam Whitehead.

Byelaws: legal concerns were reported from Department for Communities over the wording of the proposed new byelaws, which would be considered at the next meeting.

Tattenham Corner Road crossing of the racecourse: more discussion about improving provision for pedestrians crossing the end straight of the racecourse, where there is no pavement. There were ideas for improvement (some photographs would have helped). The chairman lamented the absence of a representative from Surrey Highways (presumably, they don’t have time to attend any more). Someone commented that the board had been here before, and that it should have been dealt with previously. The chairman asked whether everyone was happy with what the board had to do (though it was far from clear what that was), The vice-chairman was concerned about liability, and thought that the racecourse wouldn’t be liable for any accidents. It was agreed that a small group of members would meet on site with Surrey Highways.

Dog control: the clerk had looked at dog control byelaws, and doubted that they could be enforced (which raises the question why the board is bothering with new byelaws at all?). Whereas a dog control order would very likely be uniform throughout the borough, and there would be greater familiarity with enforcement. It was asked whether there were still plans to accredit the downskeepers to enforce byelaws, and this was reported as under active discussion.

Maintenance of hack sand track: the agenda’s suggestion that the clerk was going to give an oral update was declined by the clerk. The vice-chairman said he had forgotten the historic arrangement for maintenance between the conservators and the racecourse: he acknowledged that the hack sand track was ‘hugely’ lacking in material, and that perhaps the downskeepers were responsible for harrowing. He acknowledged that there would be a significant outlay. The chairman said it was getting worse and worse, and suggested that there should be an agreement as suggested by the vice-chairman. The clerk suggested the work should be costed, which would be done in conjunction with the racecourse, and reported to the next meeting.

Information leaflets: it was acknowledged that final versions of the information leaflets had not been circulated (as stated in the agenda), and that these would be sent to the board members and consultative committee members.

Final accounts: the board agreed to adopt a model publication scheme and guide to information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The head downskeeper had procured road-planings from Surrey County Council, at no cost, to improve the surfacing of the car parks. Bizarrely, the revenue account and balance sheet for 2009–10 were blank (and headed as at “31 March 2009”), but no-one said anything or even appeared to notice.

Derby 2010: no comments were invited nor passed on the head downskeeper’s description of the post-Derby clean-up as having gone ‘well’ (personally, I’d disagree, having regard to the usual evidence of broken glass, spent barbecue sites, and generally a significant covering of small bits of litter on the Hill). The chestnut paling contractor had tried to start no fewer than four weeks before the event, and had been asked to return at the right time. In his oral report to the board, the chief executive of the racecourse said it was a ‘fantastic day’ in racing terms. He acknowledged impact on the local community, and said there was much to learn, and things that could be done as regards, for example, traffic management. The police had made only three arrests. He wanted to have an earlier meeting with local councillors next year. The head downskeeper mentioned ‘tons and tons’ of broken glass: another said it had been raised before. It was difficult to ban glass from the downs, but no-one drew the corollary that the racecourse needed better arrangements to clear it up.

Derby gypsy site: The vice-chairman said (unsolicited) that the regulating Act merely permitted use of the downs for a temporary gypsy site, and that the board should look at the options available to it, as it was not obliged to make provision. But others suggested that the impact on the borough would be much greater if no provision were made: there had been greater numbers and more trouble in past times: indeed, the clerk noted that the Act enabled provision for not less than 200 caravans (whereas only 55 or so sought accommodation this year). The clerk was asked by the chairman to produce “a balanced report which would hopefully come down on the side of no longer having a camp”, and board members were asked to provide any relevant evidence. Editor’s note: it was difficult to see that there were any new issues raised at the meeting, and as it was pointed out, the gypsy community has always been part of the Derby. So, first the funfair, next the gypsies?

Temporary closure of pedestrian subway: the racecourse said they had been asked to seek powers to close the subway by health and safety and the police, but would not necessarily act on them. One board member thought that discouraging racegoers from the downs would be seen in a very negative light by the local community. But it was approved just the same. Editor’s note: even though the subway provides the substitute means of access to the Hill to the public footpath crossing which has long been obstructed.

Downskeepers’ hut: a late paper was circulated, which appeared to amount to further delay in doing anything to improve or replace the present inadequate accommodation. It was agreed that any replacement should be on the present site, and not involve a move to the toilet block.

Date of next meeting: 4th October 2010

Date of conservators’ downs tour: date yet to be adopted.

Friends of Epsom Downs: meet next on 14th August.

TGMB: met in early March, with “little to report” to the Board, and no “fresh information” to change its view on use of the hatched area. A letter from Pat Phelan was circulated, trainer at Ermyn Lodge (time was given for members to read this). It is proposed to use a new return route to the London Road crossing for horses in training on Six Mile Hill through the woodland at the top of the Hill: some clearance would be needed. It was suggested that a decision should be deferred to seek the hack riders’ views, but Simon Dow said that a decision was needed urgently because it was a safety issue: there would be no impact on hack riders’ rights, and hack riders would be allowed to use the route at other times (presumably, as a de facto afternoon route). Bob Harding, the head downskeeper, noted that there might be a problem with dogs exercised in the woods. It was decided to allow the chairman to make a decision after consultation with the consultative committee members, because the “conservators didn’t want a complaint that they had done something without consulting the [hack riders].”

Access from Tattenham Corner Station to the Downs: Andrew Cooper for the racecourse was firmly opposed to improvements to the crossing of the racecourse at Tattenham Corner Road, because this would mean sacrificing about a metre of the turf. Walking on the grass was not the answer. Safety concerns were acknowledged, but the conservators “had to accept that the racecourse said it couldn’t be doneâ€. It was suggested that part of the carriageway should be taken instead, but the highway authority did not consider it as an accident blackspot, although the suggestion would be put to it.

Dog control: nothing to report, as the lead officer, Sam Whitehead, was away ill. Simon Dow said there was a serious incident the previous day, with a horse chased and brought down by a small white terrier (the rider was OK, but the horse was injured). The clerk would discuss with Sam on her return. There was mention of a new byelaw (which rather ignores the previous advice about dog control orders). The chairman said that:”the principle thing is to avoid accidents to the horses.” Simon Dow thought it was important to put something in place, even if it did not take effect for some years: e.g. no dog off a lead during training hours; the racecourse thought a new byelaw would show intent. But the head downskeeper warned that new rules would be hard to enforce, and routine enforcement could distract downskeepers from dealing with more imminent hazards, and create confrontation with some dog keepers. One conservator suggested designating part of the downs dog-free, and others contributed their concerns about the situation (although the focus was entirely on the threat to horses in training and the training industry). Leaflets and signs were preaching to the converted: education would be better. But there was strong support for better signage, and comparison was made to Richmond Park. Comment was made that breaches of the byelaws were never prosecuted. It was noted that there was a power to make byelaws, and the board decided that it wished to proceed with seeking a new byelaw (though there was no discussion of what that byelaw might say, or how it would improve on the current byelaw, or whether a new byelaw would be approved in view of the move towards dog control orders).

Onward rides from the downs: agreed to remove from the action list, since there was no prospect of action by the highway authority.

Downskeepers’ hut: still no developments, which was generally agreed to be unsatisfactory.

Maintenance of hack sand track: again, no news, because the clerk had been on holiday. Andrew noted that there was an agreement at the time the sand track was put in relating to its maintenance, but it had not been found. He said it was in extremely poor condition, and unuseable in parts. It would take significant work and money to put right. A proposal was sought for the next meeting.

Ebbisham Lane: removed from the action list, as highway authority unwilling to act.

Jogger affects rider: a jogger unsettled a horse and rider in training near the downskeeper’s hut, which has been reported in the local Guardian. The rider was dismounted shortly afterwards, and was taken to hospital. It was agreed that the downskeepers should be able to attend further horse awareness training to help in attending such incidents.

Friends of Epsom and Walton Downs: a smaller turnout, but a successful day, shortly before Easter.

The Warren Wood track between Walton Road and Grosvenor Road, and the track between Wendover Stables and the golf club house, have both been cleared of vegetation, following “recent events”, which were described as simply the winter routine.

Damage to bridleway 65/66: contractors have been hired to restore damage caused by farm traffic (but it hasn’t been done yet).

Old London Road: was shut temporarily the previous day (“with the trainers’ agreement”) for some resurfacing funded by the racecourse. The highway authority disclaim responsibility for maintenance, but the racecourse says that the borough council is liable to repair. Confirmation is being sought.

Events on the downs: Two charitable events were proposed for approval. Simon Dow complained that the routes were in practice sometimes set out on the downland, and in any case the impact of, say, 800 people running down these routes would inevitably cause spread onto the grass. A conservator suggested that an event of this kind would attract a similar number of cars. The board decided to refuse the Fix event on the grounds of adverse impact, but accepted that the Tadworth Athletic Club event was well established, and suggested that there should be further discussion with the organisers as to the route to keep it away from the gallops. Simon Dow also asked that the Race for Life should be made aware that the set-up time conflicted with the times during which horses would be in training (the racecourse said that the scale of promotion suggested that there would be a very large turn-out this year, although it was said that the number of participants had been firmly limited to 5,000).
[Editor’s note: are these the same downs which host the Epsom Derby, with a crowd of over 100,000, and with another 13 race meetings this year? Is this the same board which approved plans for a commercial two day concert in the middle of the downs in 2009, attracting an audience of 50,000 over the weekend? To be fair, the Fix event would be in October, when the ground is less able to recover, but it was far from clear that this consideration drove the decision: it wasn’t even mentioned.]

Applications for extension of racing period: Covered in the report, but no mention was made of the approval issued since the last meeting.

Date of next meeting: 21 June.

Policing of the Derby: Supt Bristow attended the meeting to give an account of concern about policing of the 2009 Derby. The post-Derby report to the conservators was described as ‘bland’. Supt Bristow was not responsible for the Derby, but said he had spoken to those who were. He had had no feedback to suggest the event was worse than usual. Policing during the evening was unchanged from previous years. The relocation of the fair to the Hill changed the crowd dynamics which will be noted for the plan for 2010. There was some sporadic disorder in the vicinity of the fairground during the afternoon and officers attempted to deal with it: some bottles or cans were thrown, and appropriately trained officers responded, not dressed in riot gear, but wearing ‘code 2 dress’. This means that some elements of riot gear were worn, but they were not fully kitted out. He could not explain the use of sirens, but presumed that they were being used in relation to the disruption on the Hill. Arrests were very low. Questioned whether the racecourse’s primary responsibility for stewarding within the racecourse had had an impact, Supt Bristow said that the police had not relinquished responsibility for policing within the racecourse, and the stewards had no responsibility for criminal law enforcement: there was no ‘imaginary line’ beyond which the police did not go. There was criticism that the police presence in Langley Vale evaporated in the evening (although there were traffic wardens patrolling at 20:00!), and was needed until late. Andrew Cooper from the racecourse said there were no plans to move the fair back to its previous position: its decision was criticised by another conservator (but no-one thought to press a discussion on the subject, just as there was none at all when the racecourse announced its decision to the board last year).

Training Grounds Management Board: met on 9 December. It concluded that the hatched area remained unfit for use (no surprise again). Mark Berry, head of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council addressed the Board on planning and the racing industry. The trainers had reported a very successful year: the best in a decade, with 170 winners.

Rubbing House car parking extension: the proprietors have still not responded to a request from planners for further information.

Byelaw boards: the replacement boards will be ‘basic’ in design, similar to the present ones (so presumably just as user-unfriendly). Expected to be installed sometime during 2010-11.

Making use of the Tattenham Corner equestrian crossing: the highway authority has declined to take an interest, and the conservators weren’t going to either. Discussion sort of petered out.

Hack sand track: the clerk reported that she needed to meet with Andrew Cooper from the racecourse to discuss management of the sand track. Pity that the meeting hadn’t taken place before.

Hack rides: Bob Harding reported that work had been done to clear overgrowth in Beech Wood (see blog report 14 November 2009) and Top Wood (not sure where that is, possibly east of Burgh Heath Road), and to maintain the openness of the rides on Juniper Hill.

Ebbisham Lane: Surrey highways continues to refuse to properly maintain the road, and pleads lack of funds.

Downs strategy: the clerk has reviewed the downs strategy to seek to bring it up to date, and a work plan will be prepared of actions (as has been done for Nonsuch Park).

New byelaws: the proposed byelaws for prohibiting the use of model cars on the downs and to prohibit cycling except on authorised routes was approved for consultation; in discussion of authorised routes for cycling, Simon Dow asked about use of Walton Road across Six Mile Hill, which he said was risky (but agreed could not be excluded, although alternative routes could be signposted by way of encouragement). There was no debate at all about authorising cycling on a considerable number of hack rides on the downs where use at the moment is simply tolerated or little known, despite detailed comments from the hack riders setting out our objections, and despite a board member later pointing out that the downs were unsuitable for cycling. This came about 20 minutes after the conservators had agreed that policy decisions should take account of impact on all users of the downs!

Downs leaflets: draft leaflets were presented for approval prior to publication. Despite endless comments, the leaflet for hack riders is still unsatisfactory, being presented on A5 paper, and with colouring which makes it very difficult to distinguish afternoon hack rides from all-day rides, but we’re assured that there will be further revisions.

Closure of Old London Road: was authorised on 27 June 2010 for the Cancer Research UK Race for Life (this refers to New Road Work No 2, which runs round the inside of the racecourse). Some uncertainty whether this is actually within the gift of the conservators, or whether it’s a public road.

Date of next meeting: fixed for 15 April 2010.

Downskeepers have cleared and reopened the hack ride through Beech Wood, just east of the Langley Vale Road valley. It runs through the woods below the ‘racehorses only’ ride which runs south-west to feed into the start of the fibresand track.
To find it, head south-west along the valley track from Walton Road, running parallel to Langley Vale Road. At the junction where the ‘racehorses only’ track bears left, and the main track continues down the valley, go slightly left between the two, and pick up a well-defined track through the woods, which emerges opposite the start of the fibresand track.

This track can be used all day, but if you want to stay on the downs and it’s before noon, you can either go along the south side of the fibresand track, turn right by the old police horse crossing, down to Roseberry Road (opposite Harding Road), and continue along Roseberry Road (the continuation beyond the police horse crossing is an afternoon ride). Or you can bear right opposite the start of the fibresand track, and bear right again to pick up the valley track back up to Walton Road.

Our thanks to the downskeepers for restoring to use this rather quiet and pleasant path through the woods.

Ebbisham Lane: Steve Williamson, Surrey area highways manager, reports that the county does not recognise this road as a route open to vehicles and aims to reclassify it as a bridleway (for which purpose, it would need to apply to the magistrates’ court). He says that a small programme of tree management has been carried out, and the worst potholes are repaired, that a continuing breakdown of the asphalt can be expected, and that it is maintained as passable for cyclists, horse riders and walkers. The committee agreed that this policy amounted to neglect, that the surface was convenient neither for cyclists nor riders, and asked the conservators to take a view and raise the matter with the highway authority.

Hack sand track: officers are still in discussion with Andrew Cooper, secretary of the Training Grounds Management Board, about responsibility for maintenance.

Byelaw boards: £7,500 has been approved to be spent on 27 byelaw boards, the money coming from “section 106” funds arising out of the new hotel on the downs. Designs for the boards will be presented to the consultative committee next year.

Onwards rides from the downs: there had been a misunderstanding about what was sought, and it was agreed that there should be further discussion about opportunities for hack riders to use the equestrian crossing at Tattenham Corner, particularly since one option is entirely within the control of the conservators.

Dog control: officers are working with Elmbridge Borough Council, which has introduced dog control orders, and are exploring this possibility further. Strong emphasis on education of dog walkers, since legal measures tend to be ineffective on their own.

Metal detecting: the designated areas for metal detecting are essentially coincident with the hack rides and areas: we expressed concern that the decision was made on areas open to metal detecting without consideration of effect on particular downs users (i.e. hack riders). Agreed (I think) that impact on downs users needs to be considered when making policy decisions.

Byelaws: a byelaw is proposed to control cycling, but would allow cycling on ‘designated routes’. It was agreed to consider further what routes should be designated for cycling, since the new byelaw would be unenforceable if it’s not clear where cyclists can legitimately go. Designated routes would certainly include public bridleways and roads, but what about the cycle route from Rifle Butts Alley to the tea hut roundabout?

Event management strategy: asked for the impact of events on particular downs users, and whether event will exclude access for other users, to be considered in the screening report.

Habitat Management Plan for golf course: plans are definitely in hand for the long-awaited update to cover management of the golf course lands, but it won’t start until April 2010 when funds are available, and should be concluded by October.

Downs strategy: agreed to review action plan, and consider strategy when providing advice to the conservators.

Date of next meeting: 26th July 2010 at 1800.

New Managing Director of racecourse: Rupert Trevelyan has been appointed to the Conservators, to replace Nick Blofeld, as the new managing director of the racecourse. Rupert has an events management background, rather than racing: something of a novelty for the racecourse, suggesting a shift of focus for the future.

Training Grounds Management Board met on 21 September. Reconsidered the use of the hatched area, and found that conditions did not permit it to be opened to public use. No surprise there. 170 horses now using training areas, enabling TGMB to pay off outstanding debts, primarily the Mac Track investment (the one at the bottom of Six Mile Hill).

Dog control: all Surrey authorities are trying to take a co-ordinated and uniform approach. New controls may emerge at a later date. Agreed that publicity for the downs needs to focus on control of dogs in vicinity of horses.

Friends of Epsom and Walton Downs: a group of volunteers is being established. The first meeting will be on Saturday 7 November at 1300, at the Rosebery Road entrance to the Downs, and is likely to include opening up one of the overgrown bridleways. There will also be an Epsom and Walton Downs newsletter, a draft of which was circulated.

Tractors: the downskeepers are to receive two new tractors on lease. Apparently, no funds have been set aside to replace the ageing existing vehicles, so a lease was the only option.

Cycling byelaw: a byelaw was approved by the conservators, which will make it an offence to cycle on the downs except on ‘designated routes’. However, the byelaw will now go to the consultative committee for consideration, and will need to be confirmed by the Secretary of State.

Event management strategy: the strategy categorises events by their expected impact, and sets nominal thresholds for events in each category. There will be a cycle of applications culminating in the Conservators’ meetings in April and October, which will decide whether to grant or refuse them.

Downs information leaflets: a raft of these have been prepared, targeted at different users, including the hack riders’ leaflet (which has been years in gestation). So many comments had been generated that it was decided to defer consideration to a later meeting, with a new deadline for comment of end-December.

Hack sand track: the agenda suggested “discussions between Borough Council officers and the secretary of the TGMB are underway with regard to resolving the uncertainty over responsibility for maintenance of the sand track”. However, Andrew Cooper, TGMB secretary, said it was nothing to do with him, and business moved briskly on to the next item.