Forum menu
I do wonder what he meant by success of Cut Gate ?
Well, if I recall correctly Cut Gate just had some flags laid on a really manky boggy/rutted bit, and the rest of it was left well alone. I'd call that a success if the alternative was the usual five billion tonnes of aggregate and planings along the length of the thing (plus a stannah stairlift up the hairpins), which is presumably what DCC would have done.
Nice to see that someone is willing to actually reply, even if they're not from DCC, well done dan1980.
Mike Rhodes is a good guy, he worked with us to form the "Ride The Peak" group which later migrated to Ride Sheffield. He knows what he's talking about and I can guarantee will not be happy with the work done by DCC
Sadly the responses from Mike and Jim Dixon both sound like they intend for work to continue once they have seen it- there is no mention of stopping the work or getting them to rip it all out.
Also intrigued by what "success" occurred on the Long Causeway.
Just a heads up, dcc are starting to respond to Facebook comments. Let's keep the pressure on and keep the comments coming.
Dan1980 for Prime Minister!
Well done, fella. I don't want to jinx it, but that sounds like it could actually stop some of the worst damage being done (crosses fingers).
If nothing else it will cause an awkward moment for whatever bright spark at DCC thought the "sod em, let's just do it anyway". Hopefully awkward enough that they get a bollocking and think twice before just calling in the diggers.
A chink of light, perhaps?
@crazy-legs thanks for that link to the no car cafe, very interesting
Point being that I rode up Rushup on Sunday (as I mentioned a few pages ago) and the state that bits of the trail were in you would not have got a horse up it with those loose rocks there.
So I'd be interested to know if the local stables were aware of what was going on before it was actually done. I'm not blaming them at all, it's just a (very) local user group who's interest in the subject would be very close to their hearts.
It'll be next weekend before I can get up there so maybe there's someone on here free during the week?
Dan1980, good work mate. Has anyone reminded Mr Rhodes of the pdnpa guidance on trail repairs that was cited a couple of pages back? The big about not denying people access to adventure?
Work is currently planned on a section of the route stretching around three-quarters of a mile. This work is expected to cost around £30,000. Additional maintenance may also be carried out to improve the lower section of the route.
A £40k saving in a couple of days! Amazing
Edit, from here:> http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/leisure/countryside/access/latest-work/chapel-gate/default.asp
Nothing DCC have stated really answers the question - does it?
Why does increasing accessibility have to involve just flattening everything? Can't there be a smooth side and a rough side - the path is wide enough? Can't there be a meandering smooth line that the mountain bike interest line cuts across a few times?
I just don't get why it has to be all-out destruction.
Unless it is something to do with this horse-drawn carriage stuff (in which case all is lost as we are dealing with a mad man).
What are they going to do when it snows? If this 'access for all' stuff is carried to its logical conclusion they will have to snow plough it and probably provide patio heaters every 400 yards to combat hypothermia.
Why can't they just accept that the outdoors is sometimes a harsh and physical place. That's what attracts many people to it. At some point you just have accept that an element of difficulty (and dare I say it risk) is perfectly acceptable and if you are an adult you should be trusted to choose whether or not you accept this risk.
Nanny state bullshit and one man's pet project masquerading as 'Access for All'.
Let's hope the intervention from Mr Rhodes has some effect.
It is rather a pathetic response for DCC to claim it is in a "difficult position". As I said on the FB page any difficulty is entirely of their own making due to their cack handed approach to this type of work.
I wonder if anyone passing that Horsey cafe could pop in for a brew and have a chat with them to find out if they are aware of what is going on up the road.
If DCC are correct in their response then this raises the question why are there no mtb representatives on the LAF? Following the CROW Act these LAFs were established for this very purpose to give users of the countryside the opportunity to input into such issues...
It seems to me to be all well and good to have your little local interest groups but if they are not tied into the larger umbrella through which consultation and access information is dispersed then what actual purpose do you serve? All other user groups appear to be represented and I guarantee they will be feeding information back to their members. To think you should be treated any differently is quite naieve.
If indeed there is a representative from Ride Sheffield or Peakmtb then surely the failure is yours if you failed to adequately share this information with your members you represent at the time.
Alternatively of course DCC could be lying through their teeth that such consultantion has taken place....
There is a mountain-biker on the LAF, apparently - someone called Adge Last.
Just had a promising email from Friends Of The Peak District.....
Heard about this yesterday via our FB page and now from Cy from Cotic and other sources. Mike Rhodes at PDNPA has just got back to me and said the following:
"We understand the concerns that mountain-bikers have about the recent works carried out by DCC to maintain the bridleways and byways in the National Park and we also understand that DCC has a duty to carry out maintenance to the route network.
The National Park Authority clearly has a role here in relation to its management of recreation in the Park, and it is also keen to ensure that repairs and maintenance are carried out in a way which recognises the sensitivities of the site, in accord with National Park conservation purposes.
We are therefore very keen to take every opportunity to engage with DCC on its plans for work on these tracks, and to ensure that their works take our values into account. We will also seek to ensure that all relevant interests and user groups are kept informed and understand actions on these sites. We have had some success in relation to Cut Gate, the Roych and more recently on Long Causeway and are keen to maintain this involvement.
Following the unexpected commencement of works at Rushup Edge, we have contacted DCC and asked them to arrange an urgent site visit to look in detail at what work they are planning there before work progresses any further, to ensure that they understand our requirements as outlined above."
Underneath the official speak, I think the NPA officers must be seething. FPD will be adding weight to everyone's concerns and I would suggest that instead of dealing with officers at DCC (who have Teflon skin), it's best to take it upstairs to local councillors plus Andy Botham and Joan Dixon, the dep. and cabinet member for transport issues, which includes green lanes and RoW.
Hope this helps. Please post on our FB thread too!
Does anyone know when the Rushup Edge sunken track became "Chapel-en-le-Frith BOAT 144"? It's on my OS map as a bridleway. The distinction may be significant.
I've never even ridden a mountain bike in the Peak, though I've spent many days walking there and this has made me so furious I've had to email DCC.
I think what's most frustrating is that I've just come back from a holiday riding a horse across mid-Wales - often up and down very similar rocky tracks. Those rocky steps that are claimed to be a problem for horses are absolutely fine - but loose gravel and scalpings would be horrible. It's the same on foot, rock steps good, so-called improvements bad. It's actually quite technical and challenging on a mountain bike but as we all well know, bridleways aren't really meant for us, we're just 'kindly' allowed to share them with the feet and hooves.
FOTPD facebook page
https://m.facebook.com/friendsofthepeakdistrict?_rdr
There is a mountain-biker on the LAF, apparently - someone called Adge Last.
So who is he and what is his purpose for being there then? Does he represent his own interests or a group?
Why aren't you in communication with him...
You don't know..... That's my point exactly....
You should be asking yourselves why have you not made yourself part of the process as they exist for a purpose rather than expecting the process to come to you...
So why aren't you on the LAF?
There is a mountain-biker on the LAF, apparently - someone called Adge Last.
I think we definitely need to hear from this person. If they're the sole representative of MTBers in the Peak who actually has any clout with DCC we need to know how did they got this position, what they aim to achieve in the LAF, how they have engaged with PDMTB or RS and why not if they haven't, what their view on 650b wheels is, etc. etc.
So why aren't you on the LAF?
Heh, or you could blame PDMTB for not getting in touch with someone they didn't know existed, true.
I think we definitely need to hear from this person.
He's on twitter and ukc. And has retweeted something from PeakMTB on this...
https://twitter.com/onarockatlast
Mintimperial anyone (member of public etc) can apply to sit on a LAF a simple application process which will ask about your experience, interests and what you can bring to the forum hence asking his motivations... They could be purely personal...Obviously a LAF works much more effectively if this person represens recognized groups and so is able to expand the umbrella which is how such forums should work
Si, sorry my last post came out a bit confrontational. I agree entirely with you. All I really mean to say here is that PDMTB and this Adge chap really, really need to get in touch with each other! As martinhutch points out he clearly knows they exist now and I'd hope that he's dropped them a line to help out with their work. But if not then PDMTB need to get on his case.
And yes, PDMTB need to get on the LAF too by the looks of it.
Not at all!! I wouldn't blame Peakmtb for not knowing they existed, but follow the web links and the information is freely available... Member profiles etc.... Reading the above though it would appear peakmtb did know of a representative but probably didn't understand the processes.... Tough way to learn though hey!!
A quick google seems to suggest that he is Annie Last's father and is more than likely a fairly keen mountain biker. Still, he is the only one out quite a large group of people which doesn't seem in proportion with the different user groups that visit the Peaks.
Anyone else get this response:
Thank you for your interest in the work we are currently carrying out to repair erosion at Chapel Gate.
We realise the Peak District National Park is an area which is close to many people’s hearts and they feel very passionately, as we do, about its protection and maintenance.
Up to 16 million people visit the park every year. We want as many of them as possible to have an enjoyable experience, whether they’re out for a drive, walking, running, or cycling, and to encourage them to return to boost the local economy.
However, the very nature of the park’s varied uses mean we’re never going to be able to please everyone with the work we do to maintain and repair its rights of way.
Mountain bikers prefer challenging, rockier routes, whereas these might not be suitable for horse riders or walkers.
We carry out maintenance on paths in the greatest need of repair or with potential to benefit the greatest number of users.
The work at Chapel Gate was approved in November last year, as part of our Green Lane Action Plan, and has been discussed at the Peak District Local Access Forum, which includes representatives from many different interest groups and comments on planned improvement works. It is expected to take around six weeks to complete.
Many areas of the path are in a serious state of deterioration. Work is needed to combat erosion, prevent further deterioration and make the route safe. Currently, many people are unable to use Chapel Gate because of the rocky ‘steps’ which have evolved due to damage over time.
We’re not killjoys and don’t want to stop people having fun, but we have a legal obligation to maintain our routes. Unfortunately, this means we have to carry out some maintenance work which won’t be popular with everyone.
We understand that you may not agree with the work we’re doing but hope you can appreciate the difficult position we find ourselves in.
Regards
Councillor Andy Botham
Deputy Cabinet Member for Jobs Economy and Transport
Yep, I just got a reply from DCC, from a councillor Andy Botham, as above. I'll reply politely telling him that I think he's talking bobbins.
I just got that exact response, as did my girlfriend.
They didn't even manage to copy and paste my name in the same colour as the rest of the text...
It doesn't actually reply to any of my questions and is essentially just fobbing me off.
I've replied starting with 'Thanks for taking the time to read about my concerns and for sending such a lovely generic reply.'
Keep hassling them!
Yup, I go the same letter from Andy Botham - basically we wanted to do it, so tough
Friends of the Peak District just put this up after I asked them about it yesterday.
[i]Here's the NPA response: "We understand the concerns that mountain-bikers have about the recent works carried out by DCC to maintain the bridleways and byways in the National Park and we also understand that DCC has a duty to carry out maintenance to the route network.
The National Park Authority clearly has a role here in relation to its management of recreation in the Park, and it is also keen to ensure that repairs and maintenance are carried out in a way which recognises the sensitivities of the site, in accord with National Park conservation purposes.
We are therefore very keen to take every opportunity to engage with DCC on its plans for work on these tracks, and to ensure that their works take our values into account. We will also seek to ensure that all relevant interests and user groups are kept informed and understand actions on these sites. We have had some success in relation to Cut Gate, the Roych and more recently on Long Causeway and are keen to maintain this involvement.
Following the unexpected commencement of works at Rushup Edge, we have contacted DCC and asked them to arrange an urgent site visit to look in detail at what work they are planning there before work progresses any further, to ensure that they understand our requirements as outlined above." Hopefully DCC might take on board their concerns, but we're not holding our breath. Our advice is to lobby DCC politicians (i.e. councillors) as the officers (staff) currently seem completely unresponsive[/i]
Rather than telling the councillor he's "talking bobbins", could you give him photos of an acceptable trail? With smooth bits and bumpy bits? Because otherwise he simply will not understand.
Of interested to mainly walkers- those diggers at the top of WLT? They are now going to complete the path sanitisation by filling in the gaps of derwent rocks from the top- where it leads down to the start of the Cut throat bridge descent.
Of course- that IS a footpath so of interest to ramblers/walkers.
Rather than telling the councillor he's "talking bobbins", could you give him photos of an acceptable trail? With smooth bits and bumpy bits? Because otherwise he simply will not understand.
Yes, don't worry, I'm trying to put something together that will convey my points adequately. It's rather hard responding to something that's so obviously just designed to fob people off, though.
Si- I was at a PDMTB meeting with Adge Last just earlier this year. PDMTB has spoken to him before and no doubt will speak to him again. He's not a mountain biker, though. He does ride bikes, and his daughter is a very keen MTB'er.
It's rather hard responding to something that's so obviously just designed to fob people off, though.
We been sent copies of a press release that's on their website.
Any chance of getting Annie's and her father’s comments on this out in public?
I'm sure the word of one of our top athletes will carry some weight?
It's rather hard responding to something that's so obviously just designed to fob people off, though.
This is my effort. The main point of my initial e-mail was why are you wasting my council tax and I never said I was a mountain biker so it was very easy to pick apart their response.
Dear Andrew/AndreaThanks for fobbing me off, your standard response is greatly appreciated. However, it does not answer the most pertinent question I asked when I first e-mailed (and possibly the most important one), and raises many more.
Firstly, the question from my original e-mail that was most pressing was why the money that I pay in council taxes has been diverted from social care, hospitals, road maintenance and so on to fund something so menial? The council magazine I received last week stated that you need to save £157 million, I recall back in January my council taxes were raised and there are news articles relating to the cutting of jobs and reduction in number of mobile libraries. How on earth do you propose to save money if you fritter it away on projects like this?
The cost of these works is more than my wife and I will ever pay in council tax to DCC if we continued to pay our current rate, unless we lived to be 96. Is two people's contribution to the council so unimportant that it can be blown like this?
Secondly, there are several new questions raised by your response. You state that mountain bikers prefer rockier routes. This is true, but I have not stated that I am a mountain biker. There is significant disgruntlement amongst the hiking community about the smoothing of trails into little more than urban paths. This is not interesting to walk on. Also walkers have the option to avoid this route if they find the small steps too difficult- the area is mostly open access land and they can go there.
Mountain bikers and horse riders do not have the same luxury. They MUST use Rushup Edge and Chapel Gate. If they want a smooth route there is the option of taking Sheffield Road. But as the majority of people using Rushup Edge are hoping for a day in nature they are happy to take on the small risk of navigating a natural route. No one heads into the Peak District to walk, horse ride or cycle on a smooth man-made surface. Also you are surely aware that the road planing surface that DCC have previously used is exceptionally dangerous for horses, more so than the eroded surface that you are replacing. The horse riding group Seaba are currently fighting Stockport Council's bitmaccing programme as the surface is very slippy under the hooves of horses.
Further to this why do you think that the majority of users will want to head out for a day in the countryside to look at the awful view of an inconsiderate man-made road? I note that the current underlying aggregate is limestone, which does not fit in with this gritstone area of the park. I also assume, given that it has been stated there is an intention to cover this with a top dressing, that tarmac planing will be put on top of the non-local sub-base as has taken place on Chapel Gate. This was perhaps the biggest mistake in the work undertaken on Chapel Gate- this surface has spoiled the view. While the path used to be of a colour and texture that blended in to the surrounding hillside, being of the same material, the new surface contrasts sharply. Its harsh colour and straight lines have spoilt the view of the surrounding area.
So you are, in fact, benefitting the smallest number of users- the minority of walkers and cyclists who head out to the countryside to have a very easy day out suitable for all abilities. Regardless of the fact that the majority of these will actually head to places such as Ladybower, Tissington and Monsal where proper facilities for these users already exist. I would be amazed if any of these users are aware of the work to Chapel Gate and Rushup Edge, nor have any interest in climbing the steep hill out of Edale. Also, none of these users will want to look at a man-made feature which is totally at odds with the surrounding landscape and built with such a lack of consideration for its environment.
Please send me a proper response as soon as possible, addressing the issues I have raised rather than a generic response. I pay my council taxes for you to do your job responsibly, not take the path of least resistance by producing cut and paste e-mails and to invest in what is important to the community which you are currently failing to do.
"We're not killjoys" - well, actually, you are!
Anyway, it seems that this was "approved" at the same stage as the Chapel Gate works several years ago? Was anyone aware that it included this section of trail? I recall speaking to thew PDNPA ranger (after descending Chapel Gate in tears....) who assured me that no new work was planned as they didn't have any budget. Now, I could accept that this was some time ago and new budget has become available, but they can't have it both ways! Although it does seem that the PDNPA are about as out of the loop as we are!
Fair enough Luke but doesn't answer the questions I asked... As you know us you'll know my opinion of the work but that's not my point.... No-one it would appear has engaged in the established processes to facilitate consultation so on what basis can we object when we think we haven't been consulted.
If you had engaged with the bike representative then why was information not passed on... If you felt he didn't represent your interests sufficiently then why hasn't some from peakmtb applied to join the forum. Nothing states there can be only one member per user group.
Access forums are actually great... You'd have this regular contact with other user groups, you'd build up relationships and respond as a collective. For something such as this you could gave requested site visits, plans and no doubt a small working group would have been set up to inform the forums response.
This is all positive engagement with other user groups through recognised channels... It gives structure and credibility to such a process not dispirate and fragmented individual meetings and wondering why you are only being fed lip service.
Cllr Botham doesn't know what he's talking about, he definitely hiding behind the safety, access, maintainence words. Likewise his comments that "many people" cannot access the trail as a result or erosion, nonsense. Walkers can access far rockier trails than can a biker, likewise horses can deal with the rocky steps but not so much lots of smaller rocks which are like marbles to them.
Right off to email him ...
Me'n'her have both received the same reply as^^. Nice, given we both asked different questions.
Fairly shirty response sent back, CC'd to all the usual addresses.
Just received the cut n paste response below, they didn't even bother to keep the same colour font for my name! Call about lazy!!
Thank you for your interest in the work we are currently carrying out to repair erosion at Chapel Gate.
We realise the Peak District National Park is an area which is close to many people’s hearts and they feel very passionately, as we do, about its protection and maintenance.
Up to 16 million people visit the park every year. We want as many of them as possible to have an enjoyable experience, whether they’re out for a drive, walking, running, or cycling, and to encourage them to return to boost the local economy.
However, the very nature of the park’s varied uses mean we’re never going to be able to please everyone with the work we do to maintain and repair its rights of way.
Mountain bikers prefer challenging, rockier routes, whereas these might not be suitable for horse riders or walkers.
We carry out maintenance on paths in the greatest need of repair or with potential to benefit the greatest number of users.
The work at Chapel Gate was approved in November last year, as part of our Green Lane Action Plan, and has been discussed at the Peak District Local Access Forum, which includes representatives from many different interest groups and comments on planned improvement works. It is expected to take around six weeks to complete.
Many areas of the path are in a serious state of deterioration. Work is needed to combat erosion, prevent further deterioration and make the route safe. Currently, many people are unable to use Chapel Gate because of the rocky ‘steps’ which have evolved due to damage over time.
We’re not killjoys and don’t want to stop people having fun, but we have a legal obligation to maintain our routes. Unfortunately, this means we have to carry out some maintenance work which won’t be popular with everyone.
We understand that you may not agree with the work we’re doing but hope you can appreciate the difficult position we find ourselves in.
Regards
Councillor Andy Botham
Deputy Cabinet Member for Jobs Economy and Transport
SHOCKING!
An idea for someone with access to photo libraries or other records.
Could we find some images of before and after for dry stone wall repairs ? We can show this to DCC and Cllr Botham as to what a repair looks like. We can then show a picture of a breeze block wall to highlight what the current maintainence on Rushup Edge is in comparison.
[img] 
[/img]
Like that?
I like that comparison. I really think we should be pushing at the angle why isn't this maintenance being carried out sensitively like on the Roych.