MegaSack DRAW - 6pm Christmas Eve - LIVE on our YouTube Channel
The reply to DCC's post about looking after teenagers - saying they'd take kids like that mountain biking really made me laugh!
STOP ALLOWING FOOTPATHS BEING UPGRADED TO RESTRICTED BYWAYS OR BYWAYS OPEN TO ALL TRAFFIC (BOAT)
What on earth would their problem with a restricted byway be? It doesn't allow motorised traffic, are horses and carts that much of a threat?
@ninfan, the reason there is in the petition itself
"The Peak District National Park is reputed to be the 2nd most visited national park in the world and when you visit this area it’s not hard to understand why, the area is truly breath-taking and living in the Peak District is a real privilege.
Sadly not everyone who comes to the Peak District wants to enjoy the peace and serenity that the area offers.
The area is under continuous assault by off road enthusiasts who come in significant numbers to rally up and down lanes and bridal ways for recreational sport, these off roaders have learned that if a footpath has ever been used by a horse and cart since the early 18oos they can apply to have the use changed from a footpath to a byway or even worse a Byway Open to All Traffic.
To upgrade existing footpaths to byways of any designation blurs the distinction of what is permissible. Even the description of a route which allows for ‘limited use’ by motorised vehicles clouds the issue and implies some right of vehicular access."
molgrips - the work on the Gap was by a contractor for the National Park, no idea of the thinking behind it, but as soon as they were done we knew it would pull up again as they didn't do anything to manage the water. Even as owner of the land it travels over, we had no cotificatin or consultation.
In regards to Rushup and bits I've skimmed from here and there
The natural stone is sandstone?
They've filled in with limestone or similar?
Around here NRW and the Brecon Beacons NP would throw a massive hissy fit about not using local stone in the repairs. The paths on Pen-y-fan we have to spend a fortune on an inferior surfacing stone because it's local and in keeping.
18 months ago I got lambasted on this forum for suggesting that the start of the 'trail improvements' in and around Marple (which form a nice loop when joined with the up and out of Hayfield towards Jacobs Ladder and the recent added stone there too, before that then gets to Rushup Edge (see what I've done there, putting 2 and 2 together and all that !)), was the work of the local horse riding group, especially as there had recently then been a removal from office or post because the Chairman of the local horse group had also been an employee of the highway/footpath office at either DCC or local borough council (don't quote me on the precise details).
Well lesson learnt, do we know if anyone, or group, has contacted the local horse group to ask them if they are involved in what has gone on at Rushup Edge and if not, what is their opinion of the work, and if they think it's crap too will they join the protest ?
@timber thats very true, local scattered stone when repairs fall apart and boulders/rocks get strewn everywhere, don't look so out of place, and eventually give character to parts of a trail. The stuff DCC has put down is truly chalk and cheese 😯
As an aside I've never seen a horse on a Peak District bridleway
To upgrade existing footpaths to byways of any designation blurs the distinction of what is permissible. Even the description of a route which allows for ‘limited use’ by motorised vehicles clouds the issue and implies some right of vehicular access."
It really doesn't 'blur' anything!
a restricted byway does not give any rights for 'limited use' by motorised vehicles, it doesn't 'imply' some right of access for motorised vehicles - the whole petition sounds like it was dreamt up as a knee jerk whinge by someone who doesn't understand the first thing about the system.
Cyclists have an absolute right to ride on RB's, we can also claim RB's in our own right, we're not just 'tolerated' like we are on bridleways, we have a right to expect them to be in good condition for us to use and unlike bridleways we aren't some form of subservient lowlife that has to give way to everyone else. We should defend their existence and call for many more of them, we should be taking all the routes we've been riding for years and putting in user evidence to get them upgraded to RB - I won't have some bunch of nimbies telling me that I shouldn't have a legal right to ride on a path because they're scared that letting me on there sends the wrong message to motorbikers and 4WDers!
OK so being a Derbyshire (Belper) resident who rides in the Peak at least monthly I've mailed my councillor john.owen@derbyshire.gov.uk who states on his profile page that '[i]I am a campaigning road cyclist, a Sustrans volunteer and member of CTC committed to keeping the Derbyshire cycle routes open and maintained[/i]' and my MP pauline.latham.mp@parliament.uk and the local councillor for the Hope Valley jocelyn.street@derbyshire.gov.uk just for good measure.
It may not help, but at least it asks the questions and keeps up the pressure.
Whilst I don't really know one end of a horse from the other (both seem dangerous, in their own way 😯 ), I'm curious to know what sort of surfaces are preferred by riders.
The [url= http://www.peakhorsepower.co.uk/#/kinder-loop/4564966794 ]Kinder Loop[/url] Notes suggest they are actually using the (easier?) path alongside the bridleway:
[i]"Go through a gate and bear left to follow the stony track up the hill. The going is easier on the path to the right of the track."[/i]
That path is certainly getting eroded by use, and by the weather.
Has anyone had any emails / feedback from DCC yet?
Can soneone ask how many injury claims there are against DCC? I read a post on FB that thwy were being risk averse in showing maintained trails.
It's a glimmer of something vaguely positive but I don't like the way Jim Dixon is still referring to them as 'repairs'. A track that isn't suffering from erosion doesn't need any maintenance. That to me is like filling in the Grand Canyon and saying you're repairing it!
IMHO as long as the angry voices stay on the hills we're not going to get heard. I suggest a group of riders say 100 or so ride under the premise that our best trails are turned Into roads... So let's ride the road. We form up in Matlock ride 3 abreast at 10 second intervals in one direction with another group in the opposite direction doing the same. Maybe a gridlock around County might lift some heads... That and a mass ride on kinder!
Hora, that's exactly the foi request I made but who's to say one request is enough.
Even if there is some unseen hand behind this (horse riders, ramblers etc), it is highly unlikely there has been a massive campaign by them to get stuff like this done. As noted, I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of horses I have seen on Peak bridleways in 10 years. Most ramblers are just cheerfully getting on with their hobby IME. So even if a few poisonous individuals have been lobbying, it is not a mass movement, more just the excuse the likes of Peter White was waiting for.
Please remember that bad encounters stick in the mind. I wouldn't mind betting that all of us have 95% positive encounters with other users. There is no groundswell of opinion against us. There are a few miserable gits at worst.
The true enemy is DCC, and from what I gather, Peter White in particular.
I've spannered myself on Rushup- Rotor cuff. All my own fault though. I know the bridleway- what to expect, was just riding too quick in my own world.
Step back abit:
I can 'see' someone riding down there injuring themselves because they didn't expect a stepped/irregular feature in the trail like the bedrock then having a valid 'reason' to claim. A bridleway has to be maintained in a good condition? Should there be signs forewarning of irregular bridleway ahead with steps down and lose large rocks (there were lose large rocks over bedrock). If you are new to the area, on holiday on your old Rockhopper and you go down there, what happens if you break your ankle. Whose fault is it- your own or do you expect a Bridleway to have effectively drops in it with lose moving rocks over the top? Is that acceptable for a bridleway for safe use?
Walkers/ramblers for the main use footpaths to traverse and enjoy the countryside. The Bridleways are access for everyone- reasonable access provided?
Further round the loop (Roych?), I for one actually said the stepped down bedrock (great to manual off!) was dangerous to all users and sadly had to agree with the works needed. How could a horse rider use that section? People haven't seen horse riders there? Rare maybe as its easy for a horse to fall/break a leg? Its access for all.
I for one want interesting trails to ride. Its not natural riding though is it. Its shared trails which means a level of sanitisation IS needed to enable all to use and for the council to offset risk and the risk of being sued.
The council has to balance risk, maintenance versus enjoyment.
Flame me. I hate to say the above, I really do but interesting, gnarly bridleways aren't useable for ALL users safely.
What is the local trade association for tourism, hoteliers ? I would like to write direct to them saying how these works are a major discouragement to visiting the area.
I kind of agree, hora. The thing that pisses me off is that there have previously been attempts to maintain tracks in a way that is interesting for all. Take the southwards descent from South Head on the Pennine Bridleway. There are Singletrack ribbons off of both sides with 'marker stones' showing the entrance and exit of each 50m or so section. Personally I ride the loop the other way, so am climbing there (and I prefer rocky stuff to smooth Singletrack), but I still really appreciate the thought and the attempt to do something for all.
Then some tosser comes along and just dumps tonnes of out of place shit all over another classic section, barely two miles away.
Sympathetic (to all) maintenance doesn't have to involve complete flattening. All this stuff about horse drawn carriages is either post hoc justification or this Peter White bloke is tapped.
I really [b]REALLY[/b] hope they leave Jacobs Ladder alone.
However its second section is large lose rocks over solid rock/earth and the upper section has two sunken/dropped water bars with two water bars further down that silt/earth has washed away and left effectively stone barriers at 90degrees/head on to riders.
[quote=hora dijo]I really REALLY hope they leave Jacobs Ladder alone.
They've already done the climb from the bridge to the first hairpin, haven;t they?
I think Jacob's ladder is perfect as it is the bridal way hasn't changed over the last year.
As various people have said, the main trail is down to bedrock, and can't really erode any further. But, as Hora points out, the surface is now too difficult or too dangerous for some users (walkers, bikers, riders, whatever). As a result, they are using the grassy bank at the side of the main trail - which will cause further erosion.
Is this perhaps the "problem" which DCC are trying to fix?
They've already done the climb from the bridge to the first hairpin, haven;t they?
I rode it 4 weeks ago- has it been done since then?
At this rate I'm just going to start riding more in the Lakes.
Haven;t ridden it for years. Saw a pic on facebook a couple of days ago on a friends photo stream, assumed it was quite old -if it's newly done then this make things even more massive!
Are there farms tracks up that way that have foot deep ruts caused by tractors?
Can show you loads in Devon. They are unrideable and I can't imagine horses can use them.
That's the sort of track that needs attention.
I'll have a look tomorrow.
Has anyone asked what consents are in place for the work?
According to the Magic website, the trail itself falls inside the Dark Peak SSSI boundary - so they'd need consent from Natural England.
The list of "potentially damaging operations" for the Dark Peak SSSI which need consent:
"7. Dumping, spreading or discharge of any materials"
"24. Modification of natural or man-made features including the clearance of large boulders, loose rock or scree...."
James - not from what I can see. The SSSI only affects the final 100m at the ENE end, before it splits to Chapel Gate. The remainder carries no special designation, other than being in a National Park.
As has been touched on above, I suspect the true motive here is to stop walkers using the parallel path on the south side of the bridleway. It's mostly walkers, but I've seen load of people riding on that ribbon of track too, and I suspect the banks are getting badly eroded as a result of that, and all the footfall from the walkers.
Anyone remember the fences that sprung up around Hope Cross a few years back to stop people walking/riding along the edge of the sunken lane?
Peak Horse Power seem to recommend that riders also use the parallel path (see Kinder Loop guide)
Looks like about 1km of the RoW falls within the SSSI on the map.
But why do they have to be maintained for ALL users safely? Is it the law relating to bridleways and byways?
I accept the risks involved if I'm walking, running or MTB-ing off road. If they turn the route of the whole Kinder loop into some urban highway, it might be "safe", but it's also uninteresting.
I've already said this, but there are plenty of paths for walkers and safe flat trails for family bike rides, couldn't they just put a sign up warning users of rocky steps, drops, etc and that they use them at their own risk?
Being put off our local trails means we are more and more likely to drive further afield for every ride instead of being able to virtually go from the front door.
There are lots of unanswered questions still and on behalf of Peak District MTB I'd like to thank Singletrack for picking up the story and firing those questions - and more besides - at DCC.
We're not going to have all the answers overnight but we need to keep the pressure up on our elected councillors, DCC RoW team, Peak District National Park Authority and anyone else we think can have an influence or get us answers.
Other user groups are not our enemy. We should be aware of the fact that even within a user group some like the trails easier and some like them harder. Bear in mind that whatever comes out of all this will likely mean a compromise solution for mountain bikers as well as ramblers, horse riders and the off-roaders. I'd be surprised if the option to leave the trails alone completely is even an option.
I've been trying to get Peak Horsepower's view on all this and will continue that effort. I had a positive meeting with them 2/3 weeks ago but that was before the Rushup situation picked up this impressive head of steam.
Let's keep working together to establish the facts.
Looks like about 1km of the RoW falls within the SSSI on the map.
Made them aware? Both parties?
Looks like about 1km of the RoW falls within the SSSI on the map.
But not the section under contention here sadly, as otherwise that would have been subject to additional planning requirements.
Pity. I've asked Natural England the question on Twitter anyway.
couldn't they just put a sign up warning users of rocky steps, drops, etc and that they use them at their own risk?
Interestingly there's a sign part way down the campsite descent in Hayfield, which is part of the Pennine Bridleway warning riders to slow down. Most people probably don't realise it's there because it's placed at a point where you're already likely to be going quite fast and also focussed on the trail.
I bumped into a couple of Peak Park rangers while I was on foot and suggested that it would make sense for the sign to be sited at a point where someone might actually be able to read it.
I always wondered what happened to the promised Peak Park rangers on bikes concept. Has anyone ever seen one actually out on the trails?
Anyway, as someone posted above, Jim Dixon, who is the outgoing CEO of the PDNPA posted this on his twitter feed this morning:
[i]@peakdistrict staff have asked @Derbyshirecc staff to pause on repairs to Chapelgate. We're visiting later this week to agree improved work[/i]
Seems more positive than what's happened so far anyway.
I've started a thread to highlight the relevant [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/rushup-edge-dccs-view-perhaps ]DCC policy documents[/url], should anyone be interested 🙄
But please don't post on that thread, it's best to keep all comments here.
I would have hoped if they were going to carry out some work they would have done it in a similar way to the Roych.
Just off Rushup Edge is [url= http://streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=409550&y=382240&z=120&sv=409550,382240&st=4&ar=y&mapp=map.srf&searchp=ids.srf&dn=606&ax=409550&ay=382240&lm=0 ]this stables[/url].
They run a little cafe too called the [url= http://thenocarcafe.rushophall.com/ ]No Car Cafe[/url] - basically you can only get to it by horse, bike or on foot.
A lot of their revenue comes from people using them as an overnight stopping point for horses doing a "round the Peaks" trail. They offer various packages whereby you can leave your horse trailer there and head off for a 3-day tour on horseback stopping at various similar places overnight.
Might be worth seeing if they had any input into the works or if they were aware of the trail work being carried out? They'll probably also be able to put you in touch with the local BHS campaign group or whatever they have. Plus they do a really good Welsh Rarebit.
If you can only get to that cafe by bike, horse on foot, how do you get your trailer to it?
The Roych is a national trail that received additional funding.
Lots of background info to this and many of the other points raised on our website. If you can support us - and have not done so already - please sign up as a member.
[url= http://www.peakdistrictmtb.org ]http://www.peakdistrictmtb.org[/url]
Thanks
Dan
I emailed the national park, to ask if they knew that DCC were committing ecological vandalism (not my exact words...)
I got a response from Mike Rhodes....
Rhodes Mike <Mike.Rhodes@peakdistrict.gov.uk>Thank you for your e-mail.
We understand the concerns that people 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.
As you suggest, the National Park Authority clearly has a role here in relation to its management of recreation in the Park and this route in particular, 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.
Regards
Mike Rhodes
Access Manager
I emailed the national park, to ask if they knew that DCC were committing ecological vandalism (not my exact words...)I got a response from Mike Rhodes....
Great work Dan! Sounds like they weren't aware of the work and weren't engaged before it started.
its marketing innit, for punters to feel like its wilderness but convenient 😆whereby you can leave your horse trailer there
Good work dan1980 🙂
@crazy-legs thanks for that link to the no car cafe, very interesting
@dan, thanks for posting the reply and well done for actually getting one ! I think the issue here is maintenance, was it really required and who said so ? I do wonder what he meant by success of Cut Gate ?
Good work dan1980
Indeed. Is there any chance of one of the local guys being allowed to tag along if there is a site meeting? Presumably, as it's DCC involved, they won't mind if he just turns up without any warning or prior consultation. 😀
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]
