Forum menu
A
Made the (very) local (free) paper
[url= http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r90/dezb99/Mobile%20Uploads/2015-05/CEA46975-065A-4CC4-BC56-6C10436513FD_zpshgwhow1p.jp g" target="_blank">
http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r90/dezb99/Mobile%20Uploads/2015-05/CEA46975-065A-4CC4-BC56-6C10436513FD_zpshgwhow1p.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
(rotated on photobucket!)
With the recent introduction of
Phytophthora ramorum (Sudden Oak Death) & Hymenoscyphus pseudoalbidus (Ash Die Back) etc etc
We are going to have to get used to the idea that, landowners are going to have to clear-fell all trees overhanging (or close to) roads, railways and public rights of way, or face crippling insurance premiums.
The Railways have stated this work already and local councils are now catching up.
On the bright side, this should only last for the next hundred years or so, whilst resistant species can be identified ( or bio-engineered ) and matured
For anyone still following this saga, an FOI request has revealed the report outlining and justifying the proposed works, and the consultation that the anti's claim never happened/wasn't wide enough
Thanks ninfan and it was interesting reading. I wonder if any progress will be made.
It's messy isn't it - if anything I thought that the rexport really undermined the arguments of the 'anti' crowd, but I'm aware that might be by own bias, reading their Facebook pages they seem to have really jumped on several comments that support their claims, but overall I thought it read very much against the claims they have been making, especially the claim that there was inadequate consultation or that their opinions were ignored.
I thought the clinchers were:
The report really did list some fairly big issues with the state of repair that needed tackling
The consultation did reveal general dissatisfaction with the mud etc. by a number of users
The consultation showed pretty overwhelming support for the proposals
The comment from the author that: "[i]A minority of responses expressed a sense that the MVT belongs to the riders, and that increased use by other users would be detrimental to their enjoyment."[/i]
Bearing in mind that was written a good two years ago, I think it was remarkably prescient...
Very much agree with your comments especially with regard to ownership by the geegee riders. To be fair there is a lack of bridleways leading off the MVT, can only see Old Winchester Hill although West Walk (FC owned) only has footpaths. Some people don't like change though.
I've not cycled there for around 20 years and I remember it being in a bad way then. Also, as has been mentioned in the report, it feels enclosed and some trees need removing to allow views.
I would imagine that the new housing will add weight to a solution that meets the needs of many different users although it seems that it won't be easy to put in practice.
Not read any recent stuff on this but noticed it high in stw threads.
Ridden this section twice in last couple of weeks, having not ridden it since before resurfacing. It's an excellent job, aggregate and some course sand in places makes this a year round path that was in places a quagmire during rainy season. Especially, thank god, the bottom of old winch hill, which was Fkn terrible!
They've obviously spent a lot on the path as not only the resurfacing, but cleared a lot of the sides and walkways to access.
Great job
superfli - are the horses now staying away? 🙂
The pic above looks a bit like the Tissington/ High Peak trails up here in Derbyshire, they're ace with the kids
I have nothing else to add ..... 🙂
Didn't see no horses cg. Hopefully staying away from OWH, cause they make a right old mess 🙂
You still see horses, I mean why wouldn't you. At least during the week when it's quiet.
it's still a great hack and great to see more people using it.