Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

No bikes allowed: Longleat confirms restricted access for cyclists after security unhappy with rider near stately home

UPDATE: Longleat says all non-National Cycle Network areas of the estate are off limits to cyclists "for the safety and enjoyment of staff and guests"...

*UPDATE: Longleat Estate provided a statement (below) to road.cc on 21/03/2022 commenting on the incident and outlining the Estate's cycling policy*

Longleat welcomes cyclists who want to use the official National Cycle Network routes across the estate. The multiple routes allow users incredible free access to designated private roads, providing unique views of the landscaped grounds and estate countryside.

Whilst we are happy to continue to allow this access, we have taken the decision to restrict cyclists in areas of the park which sit outside of this, including the front of Longleat House. These areas are designated for ticket holders and emergency vehicles only. This is a decision which was taken after careful consideration and review, after a number incidents over the past few years. We therefore have decided to have a consistent approach when it comes to all cyclists.

We understand the vast majority of cyclists respect the estate, however for the safety and enjoyment of staff and guests who have purchased tickets to see the attractions, we have sadly had to limit access only to the agreed National Cycle Network Routes.

A road.cc reader got in touch to share their experience of over-zealous security at Longleat stately home, complaining of an "outdated and frankly pathetic attitude" towards cyclists.

Two National Cycle Routes (24 and 25) pass through Longleat, access Sustrans has previously successfully fought to uphold following a short-lived ban in 2012.

road.cc reader Matt accused staff of treating him with no respect after he was told to move on from the Lion statue, at the front of the mansion dating back to the 16th century, despite obeying 'no cycling' signs by wheeling his bike.

As he left, the rider was approached by a "huge security vehicle" with a security guard responding to a report of a cyclist in front of the mansion.

"I explained that I had just wanted to take a photo of the lion, so I had got off my bike and pushed. Then came the killer line: 'You have a cycle. Therefore you are a cyclist. And cyclists aren’t allowed in there.' 

"I pointed out to him that as I wasn’t on the bike I was technically (and legally) a pedestrian, and the poor man looked a bit embarrassed about the whole thing. I completely understand that Longleat is private property and that cyclists are only allowed there by permission, but this outdated and frankly pathetic attitude speaks volumes about the people who own and run the place."

Matt's story was backed up by a road.cc contributor who was moved on from the front of the house (but not before snapping the picture above next to the lion statue) while thinking about using the cafe for coffee, another part of the Estate cyclists are seemingly unwelcome.

Having contacted Longleat Estate for comment, road.cc received the following statement outlining the Estate's cycling policy.

Matt added that prior to his security encounter he was enjoying the "truly breathtaking" scenery, and suggested that if the Estate took a more welcoming approach to cyclists they could "probably make a fortune".

"If they were more welcoming to cyclists and opened a cycling-friendly cafe they could probably make a fortune," he said. "It’s a wonderful place to ride through. If you and your family are staying at Center Parcs and rediscovering or indulging the joy of cycling, please think carefully about whether you want to visit Longleat.

"Take your kids for a bike ride around Shearwater instead; it’s just as nice and you won’t be funding aggressive, regressive hatred towards a group of people who are simply doing something they love."

road.cc has contacted Longleat for a comment, and will update this story when we have it.

In 2012, Longleat briefly barred cyclists from two Sustrans routes which pass through the estate home to the UK's oldest safari park.

Staff at the Estate removed blue signs that pointed out certain 'private' roads as part of the National Cycle Network (NCN) Routes 24 and 25.

A few days later, Longleat Estate confirmed that cyclists would continue to be allowed to use sections of National Cycle Route 24 and 25, with signage to be reinstated.

Last May, Bolton Abbey in North Yorkshire was at the heart of an access row after the Duke of Devonshire employed security guards to keep cyclists off his estate.

The Abbey then denied using security guards to keep pesky cyclists off their property, saying restrictions were due to coronavirus, before a guard told a cyclist he was in fact there to stop people riding bikes through the estate.

One rider reported the "chap would be more suitable at a nightclub on a Friday night."

Dan joined road.cc in 2020, and spent most of his first year (hopefully) keeping you entertained on the live blog. At the start of 2022 he took on the role of news editor. Before joining road.cc, Dan wrote about various sports, including football and boxing for the Daily Express, and covered the weird and wonderful world of non-league football for The Non-League Paper. Part of the generation inspired by the 2012 Olympics, Dan has been 'enjoying' life on two wheels ever since and spends his weekends making bonk-induced trips to the petrol stations of the south of England.

Add new comment

98 comments

Avatar
OldRidgeback | 2 years ago
5 likes

Just don't go to Longleat. If they don't want cyclists there that's up to them. There are so many other amazing places in the UK to visit instead.

I'd be curious what incidents they're referring to though.

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to OldRidgeback | 2 years ago
6 likes

OldRidgeback wrote:

I'd be curious what incidents they're referring to though.

Yes...I'm currently engaged in a months-long dialogue with a major central London development (ongoing so I won't name them) that promised cycle through routes as a condition of planning permission but has for months had security guards trying to make cyclists dismount. When asked why, the management said there had been "a number of incidents." When I asked how many, had anybody been hurt etc they said "We don't keep records of that sort." In my experience "incidents" often boil down to "someone complained about an allegedly dangerous cyclist and we took them at their word."

Avatar
brooksby replied to Rendel Harris | 2 years ago
3 likes

"There's been a number of incidents"

"What incidents? How many?"

"We don't keep records of that sort"

"Then how do you know you had any incidents?"

Avatar
Rendel Harris | 2 years ago
8 likes

Still not totally clear (well done for getting a response though): is it just non-paying cyclists who are banned, or would one not be allowed to ride, or even push, one's bike around the grounds if one bought a ticket?

Avatar
TriTaxMan replied to Rendel Harris | 2 years ago
3 likes

Indeed that is an ambiguous answer that they have provided.

I would assume that they expect cyclists who have bought a ticket to lock up their bikes and walk.... but could be wrong.

Avatar
HoarseMann replied to Rendel Harris | 2 years ago
4 likes

Rendel Harris wrote:

Still not totally clear (well done for getting a response though): is it just non-paying cyclists who are banned, or would one not be allowed to ride, or even push, one's bike around the grounds if one bought a ticket?

I think you can take your bike into the grounds, the FAQ's only forbid you from cycling through the safari drive, which I don't think you can really argue with!

"Most vehicles are accepted for entry into our Safari Drive Through except for soft top cars, motorbikes and bicycles."

They sound a lot more accommodating than Whipsnade Zoo, which despite being so large you can take your car in and drive about, they class bikes in the same list of banned items as weapons (see below).

They do allow kids to take a kick scooter. So when I had a broken toe, I got my son to push the scooter in through the main gate whilst I hobbled along behind him, then when we got round the corner, I grabbed it off him and zoomed off!

Avatar
CanAmSteve | 2 years ago
1 like

I suppose many are familiar with Longleat's location, but despite living in West Berkshire for ten years, I had to Google it. For others who wish journalists still ticked off the 5Ws and How, it's in Wiltshire, but just barely. Think Foome/Westbury (the Far West of Wiltshire)

Avatar
TriTaxMan | 2 years ago
3 likes

I stand corrected it is about cyclists.

I mean it could be entirely feasible that a cyclist could be the holder of a Longleat annual ticket which would have meant they were entitled to be where they were as a paying ticket holder.

Avatar
IanMSpencer | 2 years ago
1 like

My question now is, are there pedestrian permissive ways through Longleat (what about right to roam?) and if not, if I have a puncture and am no longer a cyclist, do I have the right to my walk of shame having run out of patches?

Avatar
HoarseMann replied to IanMSpencer | 2 years ago
3 likes

IanMSpencer wrote:

My question now is, are there pedestrian permissive ways through Longleat (what about right to roam?) and if not, if I have a puncture and am no longer a cyclist, do I have the right to my walk of shame having run out of patches?

I've had a quick look at the OS maps and no public rights of way exist through the park. No right-to-roam either, the nearest open access land is Cley Hill, just outside the park to the north eastern side.

You can walk the NCN route. To be fair to Longleat, it is good of them to allow permissive access through their estate and reasonable to ask people to stick to the route. I think they could improve the signage to make that clearer to users though.

Avatar
Secret_squirrel | 2 years ago
6 likes

Im surprised Longleat dignified this non-story with a reply.

Avatar
grOg | 2 years ago
7 likes

Related comment; my government workplace has a pedestrian entry that pedestrians walking with a bicycle are not allowed to use; this rule was put in place by the local manager who thinks bikes are toys for children and makes life as difficult as possible for any employee that commutes to work by bike.

Avatar
Crippledbiker replied to grOg | 2 years ago
4 likes

Crank v Brooks - The moment you step off the 'cycle, you're a pedestrian and can go anywhere a pedestrian can.

Avatar
OnYerBike replied to Crippledbiker | 2 years ago
3 likes

It's a workplace so it will be private property (even if owned by the Government) and so they would be within their rights to say you can't bring in a bike through certain entrances - being a pedestrian in the eyes of the law is moot. Just like you might not be allowed to bring a dog into a restaurant.

Avatar
Crippledbiker replied to OnYerBike | 2 years ago
3 likes

True, unless you can demonstrate that the other entrance presents a danger, or disadvantage on the basis of disability (EA2010 S.20, S.21, S.149 if Government or acting as a public service).

I mean, it's somewhat moot to me - I can and do just ignore cycling restrictions, but I'm a bit of an edge case.

There are circumstances in which you can bring a dog into a restaurant, and in which the proprietors do not get a say - in fact, if they then refuse to serve you, it'll cost them a minimum of £1300 - but that is an edge case as well.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Crippledbiker | 2 years ago
3 likes

Crippledbiker wrote:

True, unless you can demonstrate that the other entrance presents a danger, or disadvantage on the basis of disability (EA2010 S.20, S.21, S.149 if Government or acting as a public service). I mean, it's somewhat moot to me - I can and do just ignore cycling restrictions, but I'm a bit of an edge case. There are circumstances in which you can bring a dog into a restaurant, and in which the proprietors do not get a say - in fact, if they then refuse to serve you, it'll cost them a minimum of £1300 - but that is an edge case as well.

...and yet they always refuse my emotional support squirrels

Avatar
Crippledbiker replied to hawkinspeter | 2 years ago
2 likes

Intentionally taking you far too seriously As A Bit;

That's because Emotional Support animals have no bearing in law - they're not considered to be service animals, so you'd need to evidence it as a breach on another basis.

Avatar
brooksby replied to OnYerBike | 2 years ago
1 like

But does Grog have to walk their bike through the motor vehicle entrance instead?  I wonder what the health & safety risk assessment made of that...

Avatar
Crippledbiker replied to brooksby | 2 years ago
0 likes

If vehicles are allowed to drive through, there's no requirement to walk a bike - just cycle through.

Also, safer.

Avatar
OnYerBike replied to brooksby | 2 years ago
0 likes

To be clear, I'm not suggesting it's a sensible policy, nor that there might not be other legal avenues to challenge the policy (such as H&S and/or Equalities Act, as have already been mentioned). My point was merely that Crank v Brooks and the finding that a person pushing a bike is a pedestrian in the context of the Highways Act is not especially relevant.

Avatar
Crippledbiker replied to OnYerBike | 2 years ago
2 likes

I take your point - I'm being somewhat overly serious and pedantic.

It's not just in the context of the Highways Act, mind, but in all matters - A PSPO forbidding cycling through a town centre, for example, cannot ban walking through with a cycle, because that isn't cycling.

But again, I'm being pedantic.

Avatar
JustTryingToGet... replied to Crippledbiker | 2 years ago
0 likes
Crippledbiker wrote:

Crank v Brooks - The moment you step off the 'cycle, you're a pedestrian and can go anywhere a pedestrian can.

Genuine question. If you are still on the saddle but feet on the ground, walking it forward, which do you get classed. For the record, if I need to walk it I normally get off.

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to JustTryingToGetFromAtoB | 2 years ago
3 likes

In Crank vs Brooks, as I recall, the judge remarked that it was the fact that the defendant (complainant? Can't remember) had the bike "in her hand" (odd phrase but one can see what they meant) classed her as a pedestrian and that had she had one foot on a pedal and been "scooting" judgement might have been different. In the light of that it seem fairly certain that sitting on the saddle and pushing with the feet would be seen as scooting - in fact given the determination of certain prosecutors to get cyclists wouldn't be surprised if they found some unrepealed anti-dandy-horse legislation...

Avatar
Crippledbiker replied to Rendel Harris | 2 years ago
8 likes

Your recollection is correct; You must be walking, not scooting, and I would agree with your inference - Stood over the frame could be argued to still be mounted.

I, of course, get to ignore all of this and just do basically whatever I like  3

Avatar
Accessibility f... | 2 years ago
8 likes

I'm sure whichever dim and distant lord first enclosed and declared Longleat private property worked hard and saved up for the privilege.  He certainly wasn't given it for sucking up to the next lord up the chain, or chopping some other lord's head off.  And he certainly deserved it more than the indentured servants he had working the land for a pittance.

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to Accessibility for all | 2 years ago
6 likes

'The first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, took it into his head to say this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society. What crimes, wars, murders, what miseries and horrors would the human race have been spared, had someone pulled up the stakes or filled in the ditch and cried out to his fellow men: “Do not listen to this imposter. You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all and the earth to no one!”' - Rousseau

As for Longleat, it was nicked off the church by Henry VIII and given to a nephew of Jane Seymour, who flogged it to an ancestor of the Marquess of Bath for £53.

Avatar
pockstone replied to Rendel Harris | 2 years ago
3 likes

 '...this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him,.. '

For 'simple' read 'scared' in most cases.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Rendel Harris | 2 years ago
2 likes

The poor had no lawyers... (can't find the whole quote but it and a couple of other goodies are found in the excellent - if sometimes papery - The Poor Had No Lawyers dealing with Scottish land ownership.   Spoiler - the rich and powerful just take stuff they want and since they're normally in control of the law "but it's illegal!" generally won't help you).

Avatar
Ride On replied to chrisonabike | 2 years ago
0 likes

In Scottish law if there is a dispute over land ownership that isnt satisfactorily proven the court awards the land to the majority land owner in the area on the basis that it is most likely to be theirs. Talk about dice loaded against the poor.

Avatar
Sniffer replied to Ride On | 2 years ago
0 likes

On a more positive note for Scottish Law, the 'Right to Roam' introduced in 2005 means that we can access the 'land' regardless of who owns it.

Pages

Latest Comments