I’ve been emailing Henry Folkard, BMC access Rep for the Peaks. He’s very concerned with what’s going on in with this case and replied with the following yesterday:

Nothing from DCC yet, but I gather the issue has been raised with Ramblers and Sheffield LAF, as well as by members of the Peak LAF.
It has been put on the agenda of the next Peak LAF’s sub group (I am a member) in a couple of weeks.
In the meantime PDNPA is taking the matter up direct with DCC (ie Peter White) on the grounds that the nature of the repair is inappropriate on landscape grounds. Whether Natural England were consulted, and why they agreed if they did, will also be relevant.
PDNPA has to be concerned on this point because the TRO they imposed was justified on landscape grounds.
In this case I think that the landscape arguement is stronger that the surface arguement. Different user groups have trenchant and very different views on what sort of surface is appropriate.
Legally I fancy the psition will be that a repair has to be ‘appropriate to the nature of the way’, but that probably raises more questions than it answers.

Is anyone from PDMTB planning to attend the LAF meet? If not, I’ll try and find out some more details.

I’ve had a reply from Andy Botham from DCC..

Dear Dan1980,

Thank you for your email regarding Chapel Gate.
There has been a lot of interest in the work we’ve been doing in the area and we’ve updated our website at http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/chapelgate to address the questions and points raised.
As I’ve said previously, we can’t please everyone. We’ve got a legal duty to maintain the routes we look after to make sure they can be used by everyone entitled to do so. We understand that this will ultimately mean that some people will not be happy with the work we’re doing. But I’d like to reassure you that we do consider all user groups when we’re carrying out maintenance work and we do try to keep features favoured by cyclists where it’s possible to do so.
I’d also like to reassure you that we’re always happy to hear from countryside users.
We’ve met with interested groups in the past to discuss various issues and would advise any group, as we have in the past, to get involved through local access forums as these are the best way to raise any issues you might have. Details are available at http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/LAF

However, I have asked officers to make contact with user groups that got in touch with us about Chapel Gate so that we can discuss some of the issues further.

Yours sincerely

Councillor Andy Botham
Deputy Cabinet Member for Jobs, Economy and Transport
Derbyshire County Council

Yes I’ve had the same (2nd) cut and pasted reply
Which we all know is so riddled with b/s it stinks

DCC’s favourite weasel words are the ‘you can’t please everyone’, they said the same thing over Stanage Causeway, it’s a sort of catch-all justification for anything they do, but what it actually means is that they don’t care about pleasing anyone. They’re not a fit body to be involved in managing any part of a national park which they’ve demonstrated repeatedly. If I could pay council tax to someone else, I would.

Interesting quote from DCC’s Chapelgate page:
Why we’re carrying out work at Chapel Gate
Trespass is happening over neighbouring land, which we suspect is partly due to the poor condition of the track. We shouldn’t be encouraging trespass which may lead to difficulties in managing land which it passes through.

According to Google, the paragliders were chucked off Rushup Edge a couple of years ago, by a new land-owner. Co-incidence . . . or not?

Trouble is with the ‘can’t please everyone’ argument is that actually they end up not pleasing anyone. I can’t think that any of the people who use the countryside, who’d be happy with what they are doing.

It seems like that’s just an excuse for not doing their job properly?

Perhaps they didn’t realise that there’d be such an extreme reaction to all of this? Perhaps it’ll make them think twice about doing this sort of thing in the future?

Getting organised with PDMTB and the other user groups can only help?

One can only hope.

I suggest the desire line developed to the south of the main track to avoid meeting 4wd vehicles in the sunken lane section. Another thing to consider is people walk ontop of rather than in a sunken lane as the views are better!

Most of the rest of the track is on land with area access on foot so no tresspass issue there. Using the term tresspass is not really helpful.

I also got the generic response from Andy. The “you can’t please everyone” line is very frustrating, especially when we have found data from DCC that clearly states that most people prefer unrepaired routes.

So the 2nd generic response we’ve all had and the updated info on the DCC website says that the Peak District LAF discussed the work – but minutes of the Nov 2013 meeting say:

They also requested details of the surfacing and also the fencing previously identified for Chapel Gate as they considered this could be intrusive.”

But then the next set of minutes seem to be strangely silent on this…!!! So was it discussed again or not?

Identikit response from Andy Botham here as well. To be expected, really. If I was as spiffing a chap as him, I wouldn’t bother to deal with the proles either. In a way it would be better if he’d told us all to **** off individually, at least that would have shown some regard.

To these people we are just an ‘issue’. So, how do you deal with an ‘issue’ if you work in a cushy job at a council? In the way that (you hope) makes it go away with as little effort and come-back as possible. I.e. generic responses that seem to tick boxes, but actually say nothing.

Well, we just have to refuse to be tossed off. There’ll be another email heading back to Mr Botham from me. And another, and another. Until he can persuade me otherwise. Of course, he’ll have to actually converse with me for that to happen.

On a more useful note, I don’t think anyone should try to be ‘there’ when the site visit happens. I think we should trust Mr Rhodes to be a sensible fellow. Barging in on this might mean alienating people who are willing to be sensible, not on our side, just sensible.

Danny, take care with the email replies as it is quite possible that Mr White will try to take advantage of the harassment rules to make you stop under pain of prosecution.

deleted

Whilst I dont agree with their statement its quite naive that everyone thinks they should receive individual responses to their issues. Fairly common practice and not just in LA to deal with a situation this way… hastily retreat agree a PR statement… release…

A better attitude in their reply would definitely have helped their causes…You can’t deny its rather defensive…. A simple Q&A with said statement addressing the most common issues would have helped their cause immensely.

Just to add to the point made earlier… You would do yourselves a lot of favours now if there was an agreement to not continue the individual correspondence / harassment of DCC…

Instead some sort of collective statement / formal letter by PeakMTB to DCC stating they represented all these individual views, have asked member to avoid individual correspondence which is now counter productive to the situation in return for DCC to clarify the following points which are common amongst all concerns, which then PeakMTB would circulate this amongst their members.

That way your showing that 1. You may get a reply to specific concerns, 2. You show want to move forward from the current situation and 3. Prove you are a serious user group that needs to be included in the consultation process (a few facts and figures of membership etc would help force that message home…)

DCC have undoubtedly heard the individual voice, but unless you operate as a collective in correspondence as well as action, you remain the disparate user group that is hard to engage with and I’m not sure how you expect future progress to be made.

I’m in now way surprised you had the response from DCC you did. How else would you expect them to engage with a few hundred individual complaints?

Point taken Si.

Yes, I got a bit hot under the collar at being tugged off by Mr Botham. The dismissive attitude just pisses me off.

Right, so the good news is that the work has been halted. If PeakdistrictMtb are interested, I can contribute to any communication with DCC etc if they like. I am an ‘outsider’ who travels 70 odd miles to the Peaks every couple of months or so for a day out. I can have a tot-up of what I spend and where each time I come to the Peaks, the number of people who travel with me and suchlike. Don’t know if this is what they will want, but I’ll stick a post on their site or FB page so they can take me up on it, should they want to.

Esme. Seeing as you seem to have an issue with me, can you please let me know what you would like me to do? I’m not being confrontational, I actually want to know what the party line is at this point. If you think I am doing something counter-productive, then please say so.

We all want the same thing, I think.

One other thing. Does anyone have any photos of this track from ‘back in the day’? Is there any mileage in showing a photo from the seventies or eighties (or earlier) that shows the rock steps then? Maybe an argument could be advanced down the ‘if it was alright then, it was alright now’ kind of thing?

DannyH my point was a general observation rather than at anyone specific. Your right tho Peakmtb need to step up to the plate, calm the situation and propose a way forward to deliver a collective response. I see it very much in their court now as to how the relationship with DCC is defined going forward.

As part of that they need to recognise the significant mobilization of voices they have geneterated and manage accordingly…. If it was me my first point if call would be to add some clarity with a post here and on their FB page and propose some actions and timescales so we can all see where we are headed…. Together

Si. No worries. The second paragraph is spot on, except for one detail. Peak District MTB didn’t generate all these voices, opinions and actions. They merely reported it first. The iconic status of that section of track and the sheer crapness of the works is what has mobilized opinion. You are correct that the likes of Peak District MTB now need to be explicit about what they think should come next. We are at crossroads now that the initial fire and brimstone stage has got this noticed and a cessation of work.

In a sense the Peak District MTB now have the ball, so I agree there ought to be some kind of advice from them. What they mustn’t forget, though, is that they are where they are on this issue because of the anger of lots of individuals. I would be more happy with some guidance. All ‘advice’ I have seen so far seems to be of the “don’t do that” kind, rather than “it would be better if you did this”. If people are going to go around telling people what not to do, they ought to be able to suggest what they should do. I hope this is not going down the route of individuals trying to carve out some kind of position for themselves in the post-Rushup scene.

I am pretty non-confrontational at heart, if someone keeps slapping me down or having a pop, then I’ll just ask what I am doing wrong. And I will listen, so long as they can suggest something better.

I’m awaiting orders. (Well, advice really).

Danny I think Rogerthe cat has some input to PeakMTB or knows a man that does. Maybe contact him direct.

Roger anything this East Anglian can do to help?

Esme, I’m a bit confused about the trespass comment there, because I thought that nearly all the chapel gate route was bordered on both sides by CROW access land?

Who owns the land that the track goes across – have they had any input?

ninfan, I’m also confused by the trespass comment (from the DCC Chapelgate page). The CRoW legislation (aka “Right to Roam”) only applies to walkers, not mountain bikers, but the comment still doesn’t make much sense (to me).

I don’t know anything about the land-owner(s) in the area, only that paragliding was recently “banned” by a new land-owner.

Incidentally, land-owners (and farmers) are generally well-represented on LAFs. That’s fair enough, as LAFs were specifically set up to implement CRoW (seen as ramblers wandering over private land . . . )

It’s an extra push that’s needed next week. A one voice approach maybe? PeakMTB have a good base audience on the Web now to utilise.

Web petition maybe. Or even a survey on how much we all spend when we go the peaks. You don’t have to win with councils you just have to make it a grind for them operate. But you need to be local or they will just ignore.

Good look and I’m sure there will be plenty of support.

And what a telling phrase on this page :
Chapel Gate (sometimes mistaken for Rushup Edge) 😯
If only we’d known where they were actually talking about, their “consultation” might have been very different

One of the Ride Sheffield guys put together a survey just a few months ago, some detail and highlights here.

Not sure if it’s ever been shared with DCC/PDNPA though, might be time to blow the dust off it, if not.

Some good points on the last couple of pages about the need now for a single point of contact with DCC on behalf of the masses. The day before yesterday PDMTB together with Ride Sheffield and Keeper of The Peak (if memory serves me correctly) put a post up on Facebook of their draft open letter to DCC. It’s looking good, but they took it down to do some corrections.

Scroll down to the post on October 30 @ 1:19pm if you want to read the comments people made …

https://www.facebook.com/groups/PeakDistrictMTB/

Back to the point about the LAF minutes. I’ve also reread them and the Nov 2013 meeting of the Green Lanes sub-committee of the LAF does indeed request details of the surfacing and fencing* for the remaining work on Chapel Gate, with an action to report to the December 2013 full LAF meeting. As has been pointed out, this action point does not seem to have been followed up at the December 2013 LAF meeting. This seems a key point to argue against “proper consultation” being carried out.

Adge Last is on that sub committee but was absent from the Nov 2013 meeting. However, at the Dec 2013 meeting, Adge Last was at that and gives a lovely presentations about the benefits of trail centres…..

No criticism of Adge intended – it should have been the chair’s responsibility and DCC’s moral duty to follow up on the actions of the meeting.

* Surely good fencing could have solved the “trespass” issues anyway, like at the top of the Roman Road?

Evening all. Just about caught up with the mass of posts on here and FB plus a pile if emails. PDMTB was set up to be a voice for MTB riders in the Peak Park. The nature of the current works seem to have become a track too far for many and the lack of re consultation has stirred a lot of people into action.

I’m sure the rest of the team (3 people) at PDMTB would be happy to focus efforts through PDMTB and for it to be the point of contact with DCC & PDNPA, we would certainly want to do this alongside Ride Sheffield as the other MTB group operating in the area – we all have full time jobs and families so anyone who can offer some time and energy would be appreciated.

Unfortunately, all of this blew up over half term whilst some of us have been away on holiday. I am typing this from a Swansea hotel room after my son’s Uni visit, and I will not be back home until tomorrow evening.

I agree with Si & Pook, we need a plan and a co-ordinated approach but I suspect we may have to be fleet of foot if we want to effectively challenge DCC

Things that caught my attention:

– Contradictions in their own strategy. Let’s highlight these.
– Lack of adequate consultation when a specific request was raised in the LAF.
– the survey results.

What have they legally/bureaucratically done wrong?

Who on earth do we go to though?

This is the DCC complaints policy – you would need to adhere to this before going to the Local Government Ombusman

Has anyone contacted the CEO

http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/council/council_works/management_structure/

I’ve been watching the developments on Rushup Edge over the past week and like everyone else am horrified at the ‘improvements that have been proposed and started.

I first rode the route in the late 80’s when I first started Mountain Biking with my brothers. It’s always been one of my favourite routes: providing a really technical but rideable descent on a great natural surface (summer and winter). In the early days you didn’t see any bikes up there but I don’t recall a dramatic deterioration of the surface since then. I could understand DCC wanting to do some work on the grassy rutted sections of the Edale loop where erosion must be more of a problem. Some of those sections can be pretty unrideable in winter mud and the deep ruts can cause issues with inexperienced cyclists. The stone sections in my view manage themselves to a great extent.

As walker and mountain biker, I know more routes are walkable than rideable. Not only will a sanitised surface increase speeds as riders will have fewer technical areas to slow them down, but surely it will encourage poorly equipped leisure walkers to head up to an area where the weather can change quickly and be quite inhospitable in the winter.

My limited experience of dealing with local government is that unfortunately, even with a strong united voice talking common sense,the council will nod and ‘listen’ to everyone and the eventually do what they planned to do all along- interpreting the opinions and data in a way which uniquely suits their requirements.

Keep up the good work everyone. I really hope this can be stopped before it’s too late…

Hi all

I’ll echo the comments from rogerthecat above. It’s been incredible how the Rushup situation has stirred up the mountain bike community and beyond.

Peak District MTB will be looking for more help so appreciate the offers. We want it to be structured, focused and with specific objectives in mind to manage this momentum so will be getting our heads together this week to work out what the priorities are and what you can do to assist.

We will keep our heads in this thread but do please also visit the website and Facebook Group for the latest info.

Thanks
Dan

How far can you go with a FOI request? Could you all for all email dialogue concerning an issue?

Pook – this may be of interest

http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/global/publication_scheme/

Or this
http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/council/default.asp

Or this

http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/council/performance/open_data/default.asp

I think that FOI requests must / should be responded in 20 days. They can charge for copies etc

If you’re keen to help Peak District MTB directly, we’d appreciate assistance with building up a database of the recent trail works across the Peak District. Go to the website for more info.

Thanks

I think you can ask for emails, I would also ask for minutes of all meetings / site meetings / schemes of work, impact assessments on the environment / competence of workforce

Rushup Edge – update now updated

That’s the latest replies we’ve had…

Hmm, if I’m reading that update correctly they think they have a mandate to make all tracks they are responsible completely smooth as otherwise there will be some users unable to use them. Because I struggle to see that it is impossible, or even all that difficult to use that track on foot, a bike or a horse for anybody reasonably competent.

I’m surprised they don’t feel obliged to install a chair lift for those unable to walk up hills.

I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s an EU law saying they have to make it suitable for everyone, including the disabled. Not saying anyone disabled shouldn’t be given the chance to walk/ride such a place, but it doesn’t mean making it smooth enough for a wheel chair that’s only designed for tarmac. There are adaptive mountain bikes after all which are perfect for the job!