Forum menu
Have we approached him to put his / ctc's name on the group letter of response?
Annoyingly I'm working on the day of the protest ride. However - would it not be more effective to protest on the 22nd outside the DCC offices in Matlock and around the town on a busy Saturday with shouting, placards and clanging of used bike bits? I know the riding isn't that technical but neither will Rushup Edge be if they're starting again on the 17th!.
It may get more attention than a protest in the quiet unspoilt (ahem) countryside?
CTC have emailed me this morning, they want to chat and are ok with the approach PDMTB & RS has taken so far - let's play nicely and we may be able to add them to our letter - I hope to speak to their rep on Monday. Will report back.
I was about to add my comments to Simon's blog but maybe best to leave him alone to lick his wounds. This could be the chance ctc need to be seen as worthwhile by mountain bikers and we can all move forward as "cyclists" with a single voice.
Hear hear
The council offices in Matlock are at the top of the hill, the town centre at the bottom. Knowing how many shop in Matlock, the protest would me more successful at Rushap Edge
Congestion around the matlock council office on a Monday morning at rush hour would certainly get noticed.
DCC they do consult (if you live in the Hope Valley)
Onzadog - absolutely
Woody21- yes, and in the middle of us discussin the first phase they started work and wasted £250k on what you see there now.
Ouch - they're not very good at consulting or taking advice
I have had a reply fro. Andrew Bingham's office saying they cannot deal wit my complaint as I am not a constituent but that "quite a number of other people" had been in contact and that he is looking into the matter.
Meanwhile I suspect DCC are fobbing you off by saying complaints should be made through the LAF. That is just an advisory body and in any case has no remit to look into individual problems over access. Nor, as far as I know, would it advise on highway matters as a matter of routine.
Is anyone in a position to press DCC on why they need an emergency notice? There are other types of notice they could have used. We need to know the nature of the emergency which justifies this particular type of notice.
Legally, each local authority has to have someone who acts as a "Traffic Manager" even if that's not the title the go by. The traffic manager should be able to answer that question.
Hi Neil,
We met with Andrew Bingham today. He was surprisingly well informed (thanks to people like yourselves). He had already written to DCC as he was "very cross" about the matter. He is going to chase their response and speak to Jim Dixon at Peak Park. He was interested to hear what we had to say and we have and are continuing to provide him with further ammunition. I believe he is supportive of our overall aims, an is particularly interested in the amount being spent on the works. He is also aware of the time pressures (i.e. the 17th of November notice).
So thanks for writing, I believe it has certainly helped as he was supportive from the off. We are also contacting other local MPs. Watching this space.
evh22, that does sound promising. Thank you and well done to all who were instrumental in that.
That does sound promising, thanks for speaking to him. Good work.
Good to see Dan's input at the bottom of that CTC blog.
It's just a shame that CTC don't make it a bit more obvious that they are at least aware of what's going on.
We have been asked by a couple of MTB Clubs and MTB sections of road clubs if they could affiliate to PDMTB to show support, the answers is a very big yes we would love you to. So, the geeks have set up an affiliation form on the website here: http://www.peakdistrictmtb.org/index.php/affilitate-with-us
One of the most frustrating things about this is the amount of badly needed cycling connections that could be built by DCC if they weren't wasting the funds on stuff like this.
Anyone with a bit of local knowledge can confirm that most of the cycle routes outlined in the 1998 E.Derbyshire greenway strategy remain unbuilt some 16 years later.
The plan can be seen here
http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/leisure/countryside/access/greenways/strategies/
DCC cite lack of access to dedicated cycle funding as the reason for slow progress. This is quite understandable and unlikely to improve any time soon given the recent department for transport "cycling delivery plan" which failed to guarantee predictable or continuous funding for cycling.
I would like to know how much this work has cost, where the money came from and who prioritised this work above competing requirements.
I can understand the circular routes around ladybower / derwent / howden being resurfaced due to "access for all" but Rushup Edge???
Onzadog - MemberIs it worth asking the Mountain Rescue Teams for their opinions.
Pook - Member
They're on the list
I raised this at our last team meeting, which sadly I couldn't attend, so I'm going off 2nd hand info. It was considered that this wasn't something our team should have an opinion on. Though Rushup Edge isn't on our "patch", there was a sense that regardless, what DCC get up to just wasn't anything to do with MR.
You may have better luck with the PDMRO rather than going to specific teams. They have a meeting on the 12th, so you will need to be quick if you want it discussing soon, otherwise you'll be waiting a few months!
[url=mailto:pdmro@mountain.rescue.org.uk]pdmro@mountain.rescue.org.uk[/url]
[url=mailto:secretary@pdmro.org.uk]secretary@pdmro.org.uk[/url]
[url= http://pdmro.org.uk/ ]http://pdmro.org.uk/[/url]
i should be wary of a love in with some horse riding chums.. some local groups are stringently against ALL wheeled access on bridlways and one very powerful well funded highly motivated groups stated aim is to close all green lanes/ bridleways to all but original user groups and have a target of within 10 years. this group and others worked long and hard and took the council to court to close many historic green lanes on the premise of quiet enjoyment of the national park..
In the same way that we wouldn't wish to be judged alongside everyone who rides a bike in the Peak District, we clearly can't lump all horse riders together. As in all walks of life, there's the good and the bad. If we can form alliances with the good, then that should be encouraged.
The current battle is not about access but about what constitutes an acceptable "repair" and the level of consultation with users. Anyone who feels that rushup edge has been over repaired and under consulted is an ally and should be wellcomed with open arms.
CALL TO ACTION: RUSHUP CONSULTATION SURVEY
We've prepared a survey to gather data on the DCC consultation and works on Rushup Edge. DCC are due to start work again next Monday so please respond and circulate ASAP to mountain bikers, walkers, horse riders and anyone else who can spare 5 minutes to fill it in.
More info on the [url= http://www.peakdistrictmtb.org/index.php/50-survey-rushup-edge-consultation ]website[/url] or click directly though to the survey here:
[url= https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/WFRDKK9 ]https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/WFRDKK9[/url]
Done. Survey glitched about halfway through, though, repeating a couple of the questions, and one of the questions (Q18) about consultation didn't feel quite right in terms of the answer choices.
Should probably stick it on a separate thread to get more attention.
Done, had the same issue of questions repeating.
Shared on my Facebook timeline for riding buddies to see.
Looks like DCC have had a cabinet re-shuffle.
Counciller Dean Collins in now in charge of highways.
Might be worth an initial contact by PDMTB @KOTP etc.
Remember he's new, and there is going to be an election in the next 18-24 months!!
Just re-checked the survey and found no duplicate questions. There are 2 [i]similar[/i] questions but one relates to how the work will change your [i]use[/i] of the track and the other is how it will affect your [i]enjoyment[/i].
They could have been worded more clearly, but they are different questions.
Sorry fella, but it repeated a page for me as well, it was defiantly the same q's
Done. As above, one page repeats.
Baffled. I have no repeats when I do it. What pages are repeating?
Just received DCC's email re the Cabinet Reshuffle - Councillor Dean Collins will be contacted shortly. Thanks for the heads up MartynS.
I stand corrected
Pook, it was definitely a repeat of the questions. The slightly different wording is repeated.
It looks like the repeating questions is a glitch we can do nothing about, perhaps due to the device you do the survey on. I've checked the survey preview and taken the survey myself and have no repeating questions.
I've checked the results collected so far and there is no duplication of question there, so whatever the problem it's not affecting the final analysis.
I've had the repeating questions glitch on my PC = Win7, chrome browser. Going back a page then forward sorted it. edit - in my case it was questions 7, 8 and 9 I think - the question about enjoyment of the sunken track then *use* of the sunken track, then use of the paths above the sunken track
same here
Great job otherwise!
AS above, use/enjoyment of the track questions repeated, but when I went back to check and then forward again, the sequence was correct. Firefox and Windows...
I'd imagine the results are already painting a pretty clear picture.
There is a little bit of a conflict regarding use of the resurfaced path in some respects in the survey questioning. The work will certainly discourage me to use the bridleway and if I'm to do the Hope/Hollins Cross/Rushup/Jacobs loop I will be massively "encouraged" to use the illegal top path. SO I can answer "extremely discouraged" to the bridleway usage and "extremely encouraged2 to the illegal path usage.
Since Chapel Gate was resurfaced I've never used it. Rushup is harder to cut out of loop planning so it's certainly more likely to result in illegal usage.
From a walkers perspective and hike including Rushup is going to be quite a long one so the rock steps where a non issue as the walk would only be taken on by the fitter/more active/more able walker. Also as a walker there is more of a view from the illegal path, IMO it is that which encourages walkers to use it rather than the rocky nature of the path.
Why is that a conflict Jambalaya?
I'm very less likely to use the route now it's been resurfaced, but on the rare occasions I will, I'll most deffinately use the side trail. So, less legitimate use than before and more illegitimate use.
Is the area on the bank above the sunken road 'illegal' as such or just something formed from shared use by all? Is it marked as a footpath?
I've completed the survey.
Technically it's trespass.
Which is a civil issue, not a criminal one. However, if the works would cause an issue for the landowner, they may well have grounds to object as well.
Thinking of who does or doesn't object, has anyone contacted any groups representing disabled access? DCC are claiming one of their drivers is access for all but is there a body representing disabled user interests and how do they feel about trails being leveled, allegedly in their name. I think we might be pleasantly surprised by the response.
@Onzadog - I would suspect that the dramatic cuts to support services for the disabled as part of DCC's £157m reduction in costs will figure a little higher on the priority list of most than would access to a high moorland trail.