I’m starting this thread to highlight Derbyshire County Council’s strategic documents, which they will (almost certainly) be adhering to. I hope it’s useful to those public-spirited folks who are trying to engage with the powers-that-be.

Please only use this thread if you want to comment on the documents, or the political process. Otherwise it’s best to use the main thread.

(I’m not a local, or connected with DCC in any way – but I have some experience of how councils work, and campaigning for access in another sport)

LTP3

Chapter 6 Well maintained roads and RoW
http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/images/Chapter%206_tcm44-161123.pdf

Appendix A inc RoWIP
http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/images/Appendix%20A_tcm44-161113.pdf

RoWIP
http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/images/Rights%20of%20Way%20Improvement%20Plan%20for%20Derbyshire%202007%20-%202012_tcm44-209135.pdf

Statement of Action
http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/images/Statement%20of%20Action_tcm44-228136.pdf

To get a full understanding of the political situation you’d also need to look at the Local Access Forum minutes.
They recently made some interesting comments on the new Cycle Strategy and Action Plan, which contains a brief mention of MTB:

Action 1.4 Enhancing Peak District mountain biking experience
Mountain biking is not given sufficient attention as a major activity with users subscribing to the Peak District economy, but with challenges and opportunities which need to be addressed strategically and incorporated in this strategy. This really is fundamental and should not be left for a future report as we gather maybe the intention.

There should be discussion and engagement with this substantial user interest with 300 activists in the Peak. We could probably help with that. There is a newly formed Peak Mountain biking group who have been in contact with Peak Officers. They have the 300 members – http://www.peakdistrictmtb.org.uk. A goal to build a Peak District Mountain Bike Group with users would be welcome.

There should be a commitment to develop opportunities in the short term action plan . . . . . . This would contribute significantly to Sport England objectives of retaining young people in sport.

There should in addition be short and medium term aspirations to further meet the need of mountain bikers through proactive engagement with relevant groups.

An aspiration in the short/medium term to look at a mountain bike centre would be welcome and something about which Adge Last and other LAF members could advise further.

The Peak Horse Power website is also interesting, especially the Kinder Loop section

DCC believe they have consulted widely:
Extensive public consultation took place in order to carry out the assessments required. This comprised a series of questions submitted to the Citizens’ Panel, a user survey aimed at the wider public and visitors and a key issues questionnaire sent out to countywide access stakeholders and local councils. A series of focus groups looked at issues relating to nature conservation, the local economy and tourism, along with issues affecting landowners and the needs of disabled people.

It would have been difficult to consult directly with mountain-bikers at that stage – lack of formal clubs, lack of national governing body, etc.

I’m guessing that they believe the main track, with it’s bedrock steps is now too difficult or dangerous for many users. So they are diverting onto the parallel grassy path, up on the bank, which is causing erosion and eventually widening the track.

Well, that’s quite enough from me, and I hope it’s useful to anyone trying to get a better understanding of the situation. I don’t condone what they are doing to Rushup Edge, but I can appreciate how it’s got to this stage.

Good luck to those at Peak District MTB and to Esther, in trying to sort out this sorry mess. Thank you for your efforts!

A statement from DCC, referring to their Green Lane Action Plan and approval of these works by the Cabinet in November 2013
http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/images/2013-11-12%20Management%20Green%20Lanes_tcm44-234176.pdf

I’m guessing that they believe the main track, with it’s bedrock steps is now too difficult or dangerous for many users. So they are diverting onto the parallel grassy path, up on the bank, which is causing erosion and eventually widening the track.

Again- I don’t want to come across as anti-cycling but lots of us would have seen cyclists riding that elevated bit by the drystone wall. Not everyone feels comfortable mountain biking on that section of bridleway.

I can see why sanitation needs to happen however it’ll actively push people who do like abit of a challenge onto the footpath network. I didn’t realise there was sooo many km’s of the stuff.

Hora, I don’t feel comfortable riding the stuff they use for the red bull rampage so guess what, I don’t go there. Why does everywhere need to be accessible? I think this assumption is the root of the problem. I know it’s not exactly the same,I just want to illustrate a point.

These documents/consultations don’t recognise these ancient routes as attractions in their own right.

Double tap.

Double tap.

Could be a solution for those on DCC who’ve committed this crime, that plus a pre-amble from Samuel L a la Pulp Fiction

@Esme – thanks for this info very useful. IMO there is no doubt that DCC will say they have ticked all the consultation boxes.

@hora, there is stuff I don’t feel capable of riding. I get off and walk round it/climb down or whatever I certainly don’t expect it to be buried in several tonnes of hardcore. I expect to make and informed decision.

@jambalaya, DCC may well have ticked all the boxes, it does not make it the right thing to do.

Please, can we keep discussion on the main thread? And reserve this one for the various documents which DCC and others will use to justify their actions. Thank you!

Looking at the documents, it looks very much like dcc have drawn their line and will use whatever self written rubbish they need to plot their points. I’ve seen it done in local authority before.

@Onza of course they will, but with the documents we can push back

Some fascinating PDNPA documents here, relating to Chapel Gate and other RoW PD Priority Routes

Chapel Gate documents (CG includes the Rushup Edge climb/descent)
Action Plan
Management Plan
Monitoring Report
Appendix
Surveys, photos of erosion, geological info, incident reports, and more.

I would suggest that method of construction has not been considered either. To make a path you need more than 100mm angular stone, you also need smaller material to fill the gaps and create some stability.
Anyone asked them from which quarry – that would highlight origin of material and whether it is limestone/ gritstone? that whitish washed out look suggest it is limestone.