Sustrans Supporters.

[wiggydiggy]

That Thirlmere road I was last there in 2022 and it was closed to motorised traffic, it was in 2020 too when I visited. My last visit we were not biking but we did do a complete walk around the lake. As a pedestrian theres large amounts of the lakeside that can be walked on and avoid the road altogether, but its not accessible for anyone with special needs and definately not a cycle route. On the east side there is a forest trail we followed, but its not a suitable alternative to cycle on.

 

[MidnightRider]

How democratic are organisations like Sustrans supposed to be in the first place?

Personally, I think if one pays to join and is considered to be a 'member', one is entitled to the occasional voting opportunity or at least member surveys which are respected/acted on.

For charities and suchlike that just take financial donations (rather than charge for memberships) no problem, do what they like within charity legal rules.

To me its the status of 'membership' that is the deciding factor.
What do Sustrans members actually get in return other than just a label of 'member'? They can for example volunteer without joining, so 'joining in' is not really a membership perk.

didn't Sustrans start in Bristol?

Yes, I think so. I don't know when. They were heavily involved in the Bristol / Bath path I think. Ah, some Wikipedia info...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustrans

In 1983, the charity Sustrans was founded. It had 11 directors (trustees, members and board members of the charity) chosen by the existing board.
The executive board was composed of the chief executive, John Grimshaw, and one of the two company secretaries

2022 info:

Chair	Moray Macdonald
Chief Executive	Xavier Brice
Board of directors	Board of trustees (12 as of 2022)[1]
Budget (2018/2019)	£46.0M
Revenue (2018/2019)	£45.7M
Staff (2018/2019)	489
Volunteers (2018/2019)	4,000

and the predominant person leading Sustrans for 30 years was
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Grimshaw_(cyclist)
It says Mr Grimshaw lived in Clifton, Bristol with a view of the suspension bridge and then (now?) lives in Clifton Wood. Either he came from a well off family or was fortunate in his personal income. Houses in both of those areas are historically some of the most expensive in Bristol.

While looking for the above info I saw an interesting article

AFTER 30 years at the helm, John Grimshaw MBE, founder of Sustrans, the sustainable transport charity based in Bristol, is to step down as chief executive officer. His replacement will be Malcolm Shepherd, currently Sustrans Operations Director, who will take over on June 14...
Grimshaw, meanwhile will take three months leave before returning as President of Sustrans.... [John Grimshaw will then continue,] working more directly on Sustrans latest Connect-2 project which recently won £50 million Big Lottery Funding to further extend the NCN over rivers, roads and other barriers which presently divide communities.

Article quote (historic) from:
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/...hn-grimshaw-to-step-down-after-30-years-96710

They are a charity, stability being important.

Why assume membership being allowed a formal opinion is destabilising?

Financially in 2022 they were extremely stable if Wikipedia is correct, but I am left wondering what they do to require nearly 500 staff to be employed by Sustrans, as is claimed on Widipedia (see above). Do they directly & permanently employ construction and maintenance workers rather than sub-contact?

Look at the National Trust which has an ongoing attempted takeover attempt situation.

I think you may need to look into that a bit more widely.

The NT have been over the last decade selling off properties/land left to them, including some kind of meadow left in a Will, to be preserved for the local inhabitants - which was then sold by the NT for a housing estate to be built on. They have sold off farm houses in the Lake District instead of leasing them to farming families, so no one can rent a farm with land attached to continue traditional farming, as there is no farm house. They have closed properties and the volunteers do not understand why when they were popular with the public. Lots of volunteers are being 'sacked' at short notice, making consistant opening of some properties difficult at times. There are a lot of complaints from long term volunteers. They have got rid of many curators.

When membership started complaining, members not happy with how things were going managed to get 3 representatives on the NT board. The board is large and only 50% of it can be voted into place by membership (the rest appointed by other board members?). Many members voted for new resolutions successfully. They were not extreme resolutions.

The original board stamped on any dissent by bringing in a new voting practice in the last 3 (?) years, since which only board recommended people have been able to successfully stand for the board. Standees are not allowed to campaign or advertise themselves for the role, but the NT board sends out lists of their own 'recommended' candidates to all of the membership, effectively advertising on their behalf, so not 'technically' breaking the new rules.

To clamp down further on any dissent, the NT board also brought in a 'quick vote' system which is basically the first thing voters see when voting, inclining them to select it - but if you do all your voting rights are immediately transferred to the Chair of the Board and you cannot backtrack on that as far as I can see, for that years voting.

Since all of this, not a single 'un-recommended' board member has taken a seat at the board. Not a single recommendation put forward for voting, unless by the original board themselves has gone through - both of these despite VERY large supportive votes by the membership - such alternative votes/veiwpoints being totally swamped by the controlling votes of the Chairperson.

There is a story going around of extreame political views trying to 'take over' the NT board but if you look at the details, Restore Trust have put forward quite reasonable proposals and normal everyday members have often thought such proposals worth voting for in large numbers. Most NT members are not extreamists of any kind.

I am not a member of Restore Trust, I am a member of the NT, so have seen the last few years of voting process. In my view it is undemocratic and manipulative - to make sure the board is made up of people who 'think the right sort of way' and consisits of those who are of 'our sort' rather than a diverse board.

NT have always avoided democratic principles where they can, as with the decades ago stag hunting vote, where they offered members a vote thinking they would all keenly support the hunting of deer by dogs. The members did not and were then shocked to discover the NT announced it was just a sort of survey and the NT would be totally ignoring the massive vote against stag hunting. Huge numbers of members resigned over how they were abruptly ignored and the NT had a lot of terrible publicity over it all and lost loads of income. Even so, it still took the board years to be forced into banning deer hunting by dogs.

Sorry for poor spelling, my spell checker has stopped working for some reason.
- Most errors / miswording now corrected later in the day, spell checker is back.

 

[MidnightRider]

Other interesting links. Am on my way out of the house now, so have not looked at these pages other than to search for them, but yes they say they are still Bristol based.

Charity Commission
Sustrans page
https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?regid=326550&subid=0

Companies House
Sustrans Limited - Private company limited by guarantee without share capital
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/01797726
Sustrans (Trading Limited) - Private limited Company
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/03635468

 

[Slick]

Personally, I think if one pays to join and is considered to be a 'member', one is entitled to the occasional voting opportuity or at least member surveys which are respected/acted on.

For charities and suchlike that just take financial donations (rather than charge for memberships) no problem, do what they like within charity legal rules.

To me its the status of 'membership' that is the deciding factor.
What do Sustrans members actually get in return other than just a label of 'member'? They can for example volunteer without joining, so joining in is not really a membership perk.


Yes, I think so. I dont know when. They were heavily invovled in the Bristol / Bath path I think. Ah, some Wikipedia info...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustrans


2022 info:


and the predominant person leading Sustrans for 30 years was
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Grimshaw_(cyclist)
It says Mr Grimshaw lived in Clifton, Bristol with a view of the suspension bridge and now lives in Clifton Wood. Either he came from a very well off family or was very very fortunate in his personal income. Houses in both of those areas are historically some of the most expensive in Bristol, the lucky lad.

While looking for the above info I saw an interesting article

Article quote (historic) from:
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/...hn-grimshaw-to-step-down-after-30-years-96710


Why assume membership being allowed a formal opinion is destabilising?

Financially in 2022 they were extreamely stable if Wikipedia is correct, but I am left wondering what they do to require nearly 500 staff to be employed by Sustrans. Do they directly and permanently employ building and maintenance workers rather than sub-contact?


I think you may need to look into that a bit more widely.

The NT have been over the last decade selling off properties left to them, including some kind of meadow to be preserved for the inhabitants which was then sold by the NT for a housing estate to be build on. They have sold off farm houses in the Lake District instead of leasing them to farming families, so no one can rent a farm with land attached to continue traditional farming. They have closed properties and the volunteers do not understand why when they were popular with the public. Lots of volunteers are being 'sacked' at short notice, making consistant opening of some properties difficult at times. There are a lot of complaints from long term volunteers. They have got rid of many curators.

When membership started complaining, members not happy with how things were going managed to get 3 representatives on the NT board. The board is large and only 50% of it can be voted into place by membership. Many members voted for new resolutions sucessfully. They were not extreame resolutions.

The original board stamped on any dissent by bringing in a new voting practice in the last 3 (?) years, since which only board recommended people have been able to sucessfuly stand for the board. Standees are not allowed to campaign or advertise themselves for the role, but the NT board sends out lists of thier own 'recommended' candidates to all of the membership, effectively advertising on thier behalf, so not technically breaking the new rules.
To clamp down further on any dissent, the NT board also brought in a 'quick vote' system which is basically the first thing voters see when voting, inclining them to select it - but if you do all your voting rights are imediatly transferred to the Chair of the Board and you cannot backtrack on that as far as I can see, for that years voting.

Since all of this, not a single 'unrecommended' board member has taken a seat at the board, not a single recommendation not put forward by the original board themselves has gone through - both of these despite VERY large supportive votes by the membership - such alternative votes/veiwpoints being totally swamped by the controlling votes of the Chairperson.

There is a story going around of extreame political views trying to 'take over' the NT board but if you look at the details, Restore Trust have put forward quite reasonable proposals and normal everyday members have often thought them worth voting for in large numbers. Most NT members are not extreamists of any kind.

I am not a member of Restore Trust, I am a member of the NT, so have seen the last few years of voting process which is undemocratic and manipulative to make sure the board is made up of people who 'think the right sort of way' and are in my view those of 'our sort' rather than a diverse board.

NT have always avoided democratic principles where they can, as with the decades ago stag hunting vote, where they offered members a vote thinking they would all keenly support the hunting of deer by dogs. The members did not and were then shocked to discover the NT announced it was just a sort of survey and the NT would be totally ignoring the massive vote against stag hunting. Huge numbers of members resigned over how they were abruptly ignored and the NT had a lot of terrible publicity over it all and lost loads of income.

Sorry for poor spelling, my spell checker has stopped working for some reason!

Some good details in that post.

 

[albion]

The 'dissent' came from a far right group with connections to the Telegraph. That would have been a return of the hunt on NT land as well as a long term cash grab.
The only safe way to prevent the coup was to alter the system to prevent a low vote enabling a win for the far right vote winners.
Think Farage and his money for nothing career ticket as an MEP.

 

[MidnightRider]

Re the "far right" plotting to take over the National Trust,

The 'dissent' came from a far right group with connections to the Telegraph. That would have been a return of the hunt on NT land as well as a long term cash grab.

A quick search on the internet for the legal position on deer hunting with dogs:

The Hunting Act 2004 (c. 37) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which bans the hunting of most wild mammals (notably foxes, deer, hares and mink) with dogs in England and Wales, subject to some strictly limited exemptions. The Act came into force on 18 February 2005. The pursuit of foxes with hounds, other than to flush out to be shot, had been banned in Scotland two years earlier by the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002. Such hunting remains permitted by the law in Northern Ireland, where the Act does not apply.

Well, I think they would have needed to wait for some law changes before charging about deer hunting on NT land... probably quite a long wait... so all that plotting seems a bit pointless.

What is the "long term cash grab" ? I ask with genuine interest and if you can quote some reliable sources I would be interested in reading them, given I am one of the many NT membership voters. I am someone who takes voting for things seriously, with the long term in mind.

The only safe way to prevent the coup was to alter the system to prevent a low vote enabling a win for the far right vote winners.
Think Farage and his money for nothing career ticket as an MEP.

Well, I would disagree that a coup could be carried out when less than half of the board would consist of 'new viewpoints' for at least the first 2 years and possibly longer. The board is pretty locked down anyway, I seem to recall it self appoints 50% of itself and these post holders cannot be touched by the membership. Whatever though, how can it be acceptable to subvert a democratic process, just because the outcome is inconvenient to what by default if they loose, is a minority?

The board takes (if I recall correctly) a 3 year long process of voting to appoint rolling members (on the membership appointed half of the board). Which means a takeover would not be easy as it would take 3 years to replace only half of the NT board. Besides, if lots of stuff started coming through as policy which the membership did not like, the long time span of board replacement allows lots of opportunity for the membership to start voting back the other way if unhappy with new developments.

I can't see a major take over or total control of the board would be easy to achieve... unless of course you are part of the established board already and decide democratic procedures are just not available any more to the members... just like that!

One of the problems with democracy and fair practice is that not everyone gets exactly what they personally want all of the time. Thats why there are dictatorships created by those with the power to make them happen.

It is correct that the Telegraph has covered some of this, mostly bringing to light some of the dodgy things the NT have started doing.
If something is presented by someone you do not like, it does not make their statements automatically incorrect.

For alternative views you could try the Guardian (which once was left of centre, I would not call it that now sadly) which does commend the NT for 'outing' people who have been dead for centuries but comments less on the ongoing sale of land and closures of properties which were left to or purchased by the general public via NT or government grants. The NT is supposed to officially preserve things for the UK public, as that was their official remit. It is not supposed to be a private club run as they feel like.

I went last year to Durham Park which has been internally renovated and is nearly empty of objects/art now. When chatting with one of the volunteers they mentioned to achieve the "original look when built" most of the contents had been put up for sale (most had been purchased over the years to compliment the age span of the house, or moved from other properties). I learned of this sale by chance. Who bought them, where did this property in trust for the nation of Britain go? How was the money raised used? Of course the answers may be fair and innocent, I don't know. I do wonder what else may be being sold off from interiors without fanfare? The context of houses once emptied changes, as we loose how society/fashions developed over a long time period. Is this honesty of how things were or is this a form of vandalising history as it developed? Personally I am not sure, but I think it a worthy question.

Back to Sustrans, for there is a link. The gradual removal of democracy by stealth or by not permitting it in the first place is not a good thing. Sustrans, the NT plus many similar bodies are keen to get your membership money and your spare time working for them for free, but your viewpoint... not so much.

I am not very happy being part of the NT but it seems desirable at the moment, to try to stop the dictatorship the long term board is trying to establish. Quite a lot of people are unhappy with the new voting and board recommendation of specific candidates system

2023 Voting:
Members Resolution to remove Quick Vote

• For: 60,327
• Against: 69,715

Members Resolution to remove Council election recommendations

• For: 51,071
• Against: 73,503

​

It seems unlikley to me all the voters who want this new system stopped are ultra right wing, the numbers are just too high for that to be probable. Maybe some of them just have ethics?

Just as Restore Trust uses the Telegraph for dissemination of information, I find myself wondering how much of this 'Right wing plot/Coup' is dissemination of propaganda by the existing board of the NT, via their own favoured routes as they clearly feel threatened on some level to have unilaterally changed all the long standing and previously unproblematic for decades rules of voting.

Where do the board members (of any sort) declare conflicts of interest and can we the public view them? This has only come to my mind while typing now.

Who is buying what had been sold the last decade or so? How will the £65 million fire insurance money be used, that was paid to the National Trust to fully restore Clandon House which it has decided not to restore? Maybe the NT have made a statement on the money use by now and I have missed it - anyone seen it specified? Please link.

There are lots of candidates not recommended by the NT board who are nothing to do with Restore Trust, but they too are pushed out by the boards behaviour. There are usually about 20 - 30 candidates for each year of appointing which voters can choose from, its a very long read to select from them (handy for the 'Quick Vote' system!). Only 6 of those I think were linked to Restore Trust and the same number recommended officially as the desirable 'Board people' by the NT. That leaves an awful lot of people pushed out by the boards behaviour who are not linked to either side of the war. Casualties I guess, of non democratic behaviour.

Please point out any factual errors I have made in this post. I apologise for anything I may have mis-remembered, its 2am. Most of this can be found by internet search anyway if you wish to fact check.

 

[PedallingNowhereSlowly]

They are a charity, stability being important. Look at the National Trust which has an ongoing attempted takeover attempt situation.

Some strange stuff going on at Thirlmere too. That road has been closed a few years, with possibly a short open window before that.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/6174752405981452/user/100000291962639

Yet here a Paul Hatton involved with the campaign claims it has only been closed since January.

They may be a charity, but they have their own idealogy and local authorities consult them - their representatives being people with lots of time on their hands - in lieu of consulting cyclists who use their bikes as regular daily transport, NB shopping/commuting.

The situation where they receive Government grants and responsibility for redistributing that money to local authorities - subject to their own conditions - without involvement of local people is, in my eyes, an affront to democracy.

The consequence of this is that we get cycling infrastructure that does not meet the needs of those would otherwise use it.

 

[albion]

I do not think sustrans are/were responsible for motorbike barriers or the irresponsible white cycle lines on those London suicide routes,

I agree that their disconnect from transport masterplans helped get us where we are today, that being discrimination, and at probably the highest in Europe. Their existence also allowed government to near totally ignore anything the CTC said, or for that matter the now Cycling UK.