Forum menu
which includes representatives from many different interest groups
NIMBYS who live locally and very vocal? 😀
Question- the lane has been 'leaking' out onto the road that passes the bottom by the gate- are they sealing (what is the correct term) the repairs in properly so when theres heavy rain there wont be a flow of sand/material out onto that fast flowing road bend for cyclists/road users to deal with?
I've replied to the generic email making the point regarding the sympathetic maintenance of Roych and that walking routes, for me, are more interesting when rocky. I don't think it will make the blind bit of difference, but we can't let them stop us having a voice. Keep at it one and all.
And another recipient of the generic email response. Really quite astonishing that they failed to think that it would have been noticed in forums such as this.
I have also made the point on their fb page regarding safety. If, is as believed, the work is meant to improve safety, I would be interested to hear their views on the recent mountain biker accident on Stanage Causeway this weekend. It was highlighted at the time of the works that smooth surfaces plus water bars every 50 or 100m are much more likely to lead to high speed accidents. Whilst I don't know the specifics of the accident, Edale MRT described it as a substantial injuries requiring Helimed evacuation to Sheffield major trauma unit. I can only think that were the previous surface largely in place, or the work undertaken in a more considerate and sympathetic manner, this perhaps could have been avoided.
I went with:
"Dear Mr Botham
I do appreciate the difficult position you find yourself in, however I would respond by making two simple points:
1. It is not just mountain bike riders who are appalled by this work. Many runners and walkers are also against this insensitive and unnecessary work which makes the sunken road both ugly and more dangerous.
2. With a modicum of thought it would be possible to do these works and still leave part of the bridleway suitable or cyclists and other Peak users who do not want to walk/run on a path that they might find in a municipal park rather than a National Park.
I implore you to stop these works now and consult with the interested parties and find a sensible solution, rather than continuing with such an aggressive and ill-advised policy."
It was highlighted at the time of the works that smooth surfaces plus water bars every 50 or 100m are much more likely to lead to high speed accidents
I've been told we don't want to play this angle up too much, as the DCC response is that if the gravel isn't good enough, they'll just tarmac it instead....
(please note, there's an amount of Chinese whispers here, but I suspect not very much!)
someones wife on mums net?
http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2219547-Derbyshire-Council-wasting-70k
I pay my council taxes for you to do your job responsibly,
I doubt that's what your council tax is used for.
Jekkyl - cos there's no chance that it's a mountain biker who is also a mum?
Anyway, it's interesting to see the opinions of an more neutral group, which whole there were some sympathies, there was an opinion that a) £70k isn't that much and b) safety trumps everything.
Assume DCC are behind this too
@jekkly - liking LadyMud - great forum name !
@NorthernMat - yes absolutely perfect. Let me try and use that.
Just thinking back to my first MTB ride 6 years ago, when I attempted Charity Lane in Macclesfield Forest (for anyone not familiar with it, it's a rocky trail with a stream going down it and lots of loose stones and boulders). It was way out of my comfort zone, so I rode what I could, walked what I couldn't ride. It didn't once enter my head to complain to the council and ask them to sanitise it to make it easier. Several rides later, I could ride it all.
I just don't get the access for all in every place argument.
@jambalaya - I see where you're coming from but it would not just be better to show them pictures of the Roych and say "Do it like that"?
Just sent the following reply to the throwaway generic toss I got back from Mr Botham.
Dear Mr <insert clumsily pasted name here>Thank you for taking at least five minutes to draft a non-committal, waffling, generic email that you can just send out to everyone who has contacted you in the hope that you'll get rid of us. It is not going to be that easy.
I've chosen to see your disregard and raise you some sarcasm there.
This whole affair is getting pretty embarrassing for you guys. You already have the PDNP requesting a cessation of works and an immediate site visit and letting us know about it. That sort of thing doesn't happen very often between organizations such as DCC and PDNP. You are now paying the price for your high-handed and non-consultative approach.
I mean, fair enough that you disregard riff-raff like us, but not bothering to consult one of the major stakeholders, really? I hope you are as embarrassed as you should be by the over-zealous approach of council officers.
Please can you use the sheer depth and breadth of the emails and social media posts to justify a cessation of the current scheme? My honest hope would be that you would actually just remove all the material you have dumped. However, a more consultative approach and a revised scheme that would leave some interest in the route for all users would also go a long way to repairing the PR damage you have inflicted on yourselves and any future relations with many user groups.
This is not a few malevolent individuals hassling you. You should have realized by now that this is quite a broad-based movement whose formation was only caused by the ill-advised works on Rushup Edge.
Thank you for your time.
Might have got a bit carried away with the sarcasm, but there you go.......
I like that, would it be ironic if I cut and paste it to them as well.
Currently, many people are unable to use Chapel Gate because of the rocky ‘steps’ which have evolved due to damage over time.
Nonsense, those steps have probably been there our whole lifetime. I can ride rushup in both directions on a hardtail and I can walk it no problem as well. If a few horse riders can't handle it then they should wait until they have developed the necessary skills.
I personally think the trail had a rugged, worn, natural look that fitted perfectly with the peak district. A limestone path simply does not give the same experience, people do actually want to feel like they have been out in the countryside. At present the peak district is being run like a park in a city, if they keep going like this you will soon be able to roller skate around it.
I am still angry! 👿
Evening guys, not read back through the last two pages to apolagies if some of this has been covered.
1. Had a reply from PeakHorse power, and as I expected its not a good surface for a horse.
[b]"We are aware of what is going on and been in touch with one of the mountain bike groups and we are taking up with Peak Park, DCC etc including via the Local Access Forum (two of our committee members on this). One of our members has been up to take a look and take photos. You are right - you wouldn't be able to ride a horse up there at the moment.So we are on the case!"[/b]
2. I've also had a reply from Friends of the Peak. They have a section on the website called Influencing Landscapes, have a look at the link it sounds like they are the right people to oppose DCC's desecration ( http://www.friendsofthepeak.org.uk/Campaigns/Influencing_landscapes )
[b]"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!"
[/b]
2a. Does anyone have any contact details for Andy Botham or Joan Dixon???
3. Walkers forum don't seem to know about the work, and arn't overly keen on it so far
[b] http://www.forum.walkersforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=3884 [/b]
But dcc have already stated that they can't keep everyone happy...
Anyone know of one single person, other than Peter White, who is happy about this?
It might actually be worth reporting to the highways inspector for the area that the works are discharging onto the highway.
[url= http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/council/councillors/councillor_profiles/joan_dixon.asp ]http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/council/councillors/councillor_profiles/joan_dixon.asp[/url]
[url= http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/council/councillors/councillor_profiles/andy_botham.asp ]http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/council/councillors/councillor_profiles/andy_botham.asp[/url]
My Google-fu is strong this evening!
Thanks Gavin, i've read some other replies above and it seem Andy is hopeless. I'll try Joan Dixon instead 🙂
Also whats this all about "Chapel Gate (sometimes mistaken for Rushup Edge)" on the DCC site?
Also talking of the LAF, has anyone got the details of "chris allen" he represents cycling...
Also the cost of all this green lane work is £140,000 in total 😯
IIRC it's a different LAF within the national park boundary.
From my experience of working with Councillors and senior council officers, they will need a considerable amount of pressure from outside DCC before they reverse a piece of work done by their officers. This is especially so if they are the Transport member, as they will be meeting with the Head of Transportation/Highways on a weekly basis, so there is a professional relationship to be maintained there.
Getting them on the ground, reviewing the plans with PDNPA, FPD, PeakHorse etc is probably going to be more productive than anything. The greater the breadth of user groups who can be mobilised, the greater the chances of a change of tack.
Just checked, and I think the local MP is Patrick McLoughlin, coincidentally the Secretary of State for Transport, so he'll possibly have a view about this (if he can find time between justifying HS2 and HS3).
You could take a positive view regarding all this.
I mean the council has just dumped tons of perfect trail building material for you.
must be an opportunity to reshape the er natural terrain
That's interesting reading that Cabinet report linked above, as they refer to the Chapel Gate BOAT work as being necessary due to the route being in regular use by vehicles and requiring attention. Well, except that a permanent TRO is in place as per [url= http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/444870/1405-Chapel-Gate-Reg-14-Decision-Notice.pdf ]http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/444870/1405-Chapel-Gate-Reg-14-Decision-Notice.pdf[/url]
That TRO was implemented by the PDNPA to stop all vehicles using the lane - so the two approaches seem entirely in conflict: the former justifies itself on the grounds that it must maintain the route for the very vehicles which have been permanently banned from using the route.
😯
More interesting reading - here's the 24 July 2012 report to Cabinet on their Green Lanes policy:
From that report:
[i]However, the Council will
address the following key concerns:
1. Some consultees felt that the draft document should expressly state
that the County Council should have due regard for the Peak District
National Park and its concurrent powers.
Comment: The County Council has a strong and very positive
working relationship with the Peak District National Park Authority
(PDNPA). A paragraph will be included which expressively
recognises the relationship of the two authorities.[/i]
http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/looking-after/local-access-forum
LAF details Rob - Go back over some of their previous meetings as they actually seem quite pro-mtb particularly in respect of their comments to the PDNP cycle strategy.
Kinda reaffirms what I was saying this is the arena Peakmtb need to be feeding into to have any serious input
You may also be able to find details on their recent work if you can get hold of the 2014/2015 RoWIP schedule of works.
Another one...
18/06/2013 report to cabinet on the Rights of Way Improvement Plan statement of action
Some relevant quotes:
[i]Several comments were made expressing concern that the delivery of
the actions could increase the ‘managed’ feel of the network resulting in a reduction in the wilder countryside/natural experience. There are very clear statements within the document in relation to the underlying
themes and the supporting Environmental Statement that should
provide reassurance that this will not be the case.[/i]
[i]Aim 5: Greater Community Involvement
• The comments received in respect to this Aim reinforced the support for the actions to empower local community groups, user groups and local councils to encourage greater involvement in the management and
promotion of the network.[/i]
I got the same generic row locks from DCC as everyone else too. Lucky me!
I've responded via a freedom of information request asking for:
[list]
[*]All information relating to complaints made by users of a rights of way (In particular Chapel Gate) regarding the suitability of that right of way for that users needs [/*]
[*]Information relating to complaints made by users of a rights of way (in particular Chapel Gate) involving personal injury where it was claimed, or considered that DCC or their agents were either negligent or at fault in relation to the maintenance or repair of the right of way.[/*]
[*]Any information relating to the assessment of the maintenance and requirements for the Chapel Gate Bridleway.[/*]
[/list]
I think that covers the basics of: who said it needed repairing, who and how many are these 'many people' who are unable to use Chapel gate and how unsafe was the route before they did any work.
I'm looking forward to my next pointless and uninformative copy/paste reply.
[quote=oldman123 ] many people are unable to use Chapel Gate because of the rocky ‘steps’ which have evolved due to damage over time.
Which is presumably why folk have taken to the ground above the sunken route like here
[img] 
[/img]
and here
[img] 
[/img]
??
It won't be too long before that path beside the wall causes the wall itself to collapse.
Is that cyclists, walkers, horses (or a permutation of those) that are using those parallel tracks?
Another one...18/06/2013 report to cabinet on the Rights of Way Improvement Plan statement of action
Some relevant quotes:
Several comments were made expressing concern that the delivery of
the actions could increase the ‘managed’ feel of the network resulting in a reduction in the wilder countryside/natural experience. There are very clear statements within the document in relation to the underlying
themes and the supporting Environmental Statement that should
provide reassurance that this will not be the case.Aim 5: Greater Community Involvement
• The comments received in respect to this Aim reinforced the support for the actions to empower local community groups, user groups and local councils to encourage greater involvement in the management and
promotion of the network.
The RoWIP is for the whole of the local authority area so any such comments (200 respondents from a LA population of 770,000) are tenuous at best...
Exciting news! (Kind of)
As part of my original barrage of emails, I cc'd my local councilor, Beth Atkins.
She's said she'll look into this matter (And told me about her arthritis, which was kind of odd.).
However, she addressed the email "Dear Ms Dan1980".... 😕
dan1980.
Good work again.
Whatever the councillor's slight issues with your gender, she sounds like someone who actually bothers with people rather than some feudal lord who gets his underlings to send out generic toss to fob people off.
Keep it going, fella.
Just reading around, it seems momentum is building..........
The path to the side looks harder work than the steps in the bottom picture.
I'm a bit confused: I thought that Chapel gate in the past really was in a mess and genuinely difficult for most users, but can the same really be said for Rushup Edge? I've seen and ridden on the "repairs" to Chapel Gate and the horrible surface made from road planings, but I thought we were now talking about what's in the process of being done to the natural rocky steps of Rushup Edge?
vickypea, Chapel Gate as we know it (the DH into Edale) runs into the Rushup Edge byway that they're working on now. Technically I think they're the same 'Right of Way' in the view of the council. DCC are referring to both bits of trail as Chapel Gate. I guess this is in part an arse-covering strategy, in that the works currently under way could be presented as part of the original horrible 'repairs' they did to Chapel Gate, covered by the same "consultation" and suchlike red-tape.
You might have already seen but having put in a few emails and calls, this will be discussed on BBC Radio Sheffield tomorrow at about 11.15am. Peak MTB will be on
Time to join the forum and participate I reckon. Long time site lurker and PD rider from the Glossop side. I'll start up with the digital pressure and add another voice to the momentum, I've got extended family and friends still here. Having been born and bred here I know what you're up against with DCC, you literally are pissing in the wind (it's pointless going into descriptive insults). PDNPA is the key and leverage, hopefully.
Time to rattle some High Peak bones seeing as though it's Halloween time.
Sancho - Member
You could take a positive view regarding all this.I mean the council has just dumped tons of perfect trail building material for you.
must be an opportunity to reshape the er natural terrain
I suggested something similar earlier in the thread sancho but i used the same invisible ink as you. I'll try again and who knows, someone might get it.
Dear angry of England,
Please stop writing pointless angry emails to brain dead council folk and use this energy to get off your lazy arses and build a trail specifically for mountains bikes and leave the footpaths for the walkers and horse people.
Yours
The rest of the forking world.
p.s. The old trail looked shit anyway 😀
...and where shall we build it?
PS the old trail didn't look shit.
Names are a bit imprecise, and that's why footpaths and other RoW are given numbers. The northern part (Chapel Gate) is "BOAT 16 Edale parish" and the southern part (Rushup Edge) is "BOAT 144 Chapel-en-le-Frith parish". But they're referring to the whole thing as Chapel Gate.
I've been watching this thread for ages
i haven't ridden up their for ages
The trail was great. I think riding up it was my favourite MTB bit of the Peak
EURO I don' think your helping
The Fredom of information application seems sensible
What is the answer to the side trails? It's clearly an issue that needs adressing
...and where shall we build it?
Seriously? I'd stick to to the angry emails if you have that little imagination.
I'll admit that the trail was visually interesting but to ride it on anything with suspension would be really boring unless you went full tilt and as it's a shared path that'd be dumb. I truly can't see what all the fuss it about.
Thanks for the clarification mintimperial