[Closed] Rushup edge resurfacing

Wow - some fascinating information here: [url= http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/looking-after/vehicles/priorityroutes ]PD Priority Routes[/url] (apologies if already posted)
Just scroll down to Chapel Gate, and check out
[url= http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/426626/AP1403-Chapel-Gate.pdf ]Action Plan[/url]
[url= http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/227862/MP0912-Chapel-Gate.pdf ]Management Plan[/url]
[url= http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/295833/MR1210-ChapelGate.pdf ]Monitoring Report[/url]
[url= http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/295837/MR1210-ChapelGate-App.pdf ]Appendix[/url]
Surveys, photos of erosion, geological info, incident reports, and more.

As pointed out above, Chapel Gate is actually the full track, including Rushup Edge climb/descent, as well as the +++++ towards Edale. If only we'd known earlier 🙄

I might be over simplifying things here, as I have only had a quick skim. However, in the monitoring report linked above, it states that the majority of users of the route are cyclists - in which case why not consult with them as to how they would like it maintained?

Also it also stated that over 75% of the folks they interviewed couldn't think of anything that would have improved their visit. With that in mind, why carry out work which drastically changes the experience of those who visit? Don't spend tens of thousands of pounds on fixing something that isn't broken?

All seems a bit daft to me. Admittedly they were doing the survey to identify whether the temporary ban on motor vehicles should continue, but why employ someone to do a survey and then ignore the data it provides when making decisions which will have such a drastic effect in the future?

Just shows that, despite the email responses to the contrary, little or no logic or thought goes into the planning of this sort of 'repair' work and they just crack on regardless with what they think is right.

As someone said earlier in the thread, just a typical example of the Nanny state and folk deciding what is best for us 🙁

The 'alternate' path is a Public Footpath, not just a cheeky walk-around.

Aye, but the point made by someone else was that the erosion of the main track was causing people to divert onto the bank, I don't agree and believe that making the main track smooth and fast will cause more people to use and erode the bank.

imo that section of track has not changed at all in the 16 years I've been walking it and the 14 years I've been mtbing on it. Nor I think has the top top bit.

Some of those step downs look lots of fun but you wouldnt let a beginner roll them?

If they carry on regardless then something needs to change. What, I don't know. But the time and effort that has been spent trying to communicate with DCC, explain our concerns and get them to do something different could end up being a complete waste of time if they choose to ignore us.

They need to be shown that they can't simply do what they want when so many people oppose it.

Stop saying the didn't consult! They did, and here are the results 🙄
[b]Table J6 – Factors that would have made the visit more enjoyable[/b]
37 Different weather (warmer, sunnier, less wind, ice, snow, rain)
9 No Motor vehicles
8 Better ground condition (less muddy/more grass/less rocks)
7 Better signage
4 Better car parking
4 More trails / bridleways
4 Fewer bikes
3 Fewer people
3 Better gates
3 Rougher route
3 Better erosion control
3 Fewer gates
3 Vehicles allowed
2 Fewer animals on route
2 Pub / tea kiosk
2 Left route alone
1 No walkers
1 Fewer drainage gullies
1 Fill in troughs
1 Dogs on leads
1 More access points for dogs
1 More wildlife
1 Natural Rock
1 Access for people with disabilities
1 Campsite bit poor
1 Toilet at Mam Nick
1 Chosen different route
1 People sticking to the paths
1 Traffic
1 Wish I had chosen a different route

And more:
[b]Table J7 – Factors that made the visit less enjoyable[/b]
15 4x4s / Motorcycles
7 Repairs / Improvements to route
7 Bikes on the route
6 Parking / Parking charges
5 Roughness of route / Ruts
5 Drainage gullies
5 Weather
3 The TRO
3 Litter / Rubbish
3 Gates
3 Large groups of walkers / too many people
2 Getting lost / track obstruction
1 Accident on ride
1 High Stiles
1 Scrap cars
1 Spooked horses on route
1 Aggressive farmer
1 Poor campsite
1 Toilets at Edale
1 Puncture
1 Mud

Well, that's good.

7 Repairs / Improvements to route
5 Roughness of route / Ruts

40% more people think that the route improvements are a problem than think thr roughness of the route is a problem.

^ That poll does not consider anyway near enough people to remove chance. What is the demography of the people asked?

Is there any evidence that the general public, or the users of the bridleway, are pro these 'repair' works?

Has any environmental monitoring been carried out quantify the footpath/bridleway erosion?

Good to hear this got some focus on radio Sheffield this morning with simon barnes

I'm not deliberatly trying to derail this thread but...

Stop saying the didn't consult! They did, and here are the results

What you have there is a survey. Which [i]just[/i] an exchange of information.

To consult, you really [i]need[/i] to discuss (as per the dictionary definition).

Have discussions with (someone), typically before undertaking a course of action:

Where is the actual discussion on the contents of that survey, and who were actually involved, as that would have been the actual consultation.

Well, my foi request should be answered by the 23rd November. Anyone else had their first response yet?

To answer [b]Edward[/b] and [b]Dan[/b] and [b]Norbert[/b] (edit), those tables are just a small part of the overall consultation process. There was detailed discussion with various groups, such as the Local Access Forum and (presumably) the RoW Forum. This was an attempt to get the views of members of the public outside of these formal groups. If you actually read the documents linked here and elsewhere, you might find answers to your questions.

So mountain-bikers in the Peak District, and elsewhere, might like to think about how they are going to engage in this process in the future. Rather than "shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted", so to speak.

The lads (and lasses) who have set up [b]PDMTB[/b] are doing exactly that, and all credit to them. But what are [b]YOU[/b] all doing to support them? (Or in your own local area, if elsewhere.)

(That's not to say I agree with DCC's "vandalism". Something has clearly gone badly wrong somewhere along the line.)

Exactly my point dan1980

They went to the trouble of carrying out a survey of folks using the trail.

This demonstrated that a large chunk of those people were in fact cyclists and that the vast majority of the people they interviewed were happy with their visit.

So instead of talking to this group about the repairs, (or I'd wager, looking at the results of it at all) they just went ahead anyway and decided they'd flatten the whole thing. They then justified this as having to "keep everybody who uses the National Park happy"

There's no logic to it ...

PS.. I'm fully supportive of what PDMTB are trying to do, as I think are most on here?

So mountain-bikers in the Peak District, and elsewhere, might like to think about how they are going to engage in this process in the future. Rather than "shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted", so to speak.

The lads (and lasses) who have set up PDMTB are doing exactly that, and all credit to them. But what are YOU all doing to support them? (Or in your own local area, if elsewhere.)

If you speak to the PDMTB guys, you'l find that not only do they enjoy wide support from mountain bikers in the area, but they've also tried to engage with DCC with very limited success.

What would you suggest that WE should be doing to support them?

Of course we're all [i]supportive[/i] of PDMTB.

But what are people actually prepared to [b]do[/b]? Write a letter? Pick up a phone? Attend a council meeting? Or apply to join their local LAF?

It's not enough to merely think "supportive thoughts".

Esme, for those of us who haven't kept abreast of all this who should we contact?

I've made a foi request which I'll share once it arrives. I've added to the dcc Facebook page daily. I need to get some emails off tonight.

I'm also wondering how long dcc have to ignore you before you can justify a call to the local government ombudsmen.

Hopefully someone from PDMTB will be along shortly to answer the questions about how to help. But, if you're on FB, a good start would be to join the PDMTB group. And if you live locally, maybe think about attending any meetings, protests, etc which they need support for.

But more generally, it's useful to wise up on your own Local Access Forum, Rights of Way Forum, and so on.

The problem with LAFs, as I found when my local one was looking for cycling representation, is that the meetings tend to be during the day, in the week. This came through my local CTC branch (I'm a member).

Even evenings in the week would be a stretch as I have a young family, so by the time I've got home, put kids to bed and had something to eat, it's easily 8pm, so who wants to start a meeting at 8:30/9pm?

We are a disorganised bunch, but given the systems in place only really communicate through official channels, I'd suspect that the current system discriminated against a significant, disparate user group that no attempt has been made to communicate with. So, appeal to the European court of human rights about discriminatory practice, or get involved...

Though it has to be said, a press release to STW would have been more effective than anything else they've done as "consultation".

At last your begining to understand.... Go back and read posts on P15 and 16 about engaging with the LAF... It's simple really... Find some past LAF minutes and they were extremely positive of the value of mtb and what their needs are in their response to the PDNP cycle strategy

Keiths post exemplifies the general problem.... It is quite laughable of the opinion we seem to have of ourselves here how everyone should come to us....

Il say it again...there are established processes through which the local authority consults.... Other user groups seem capable of engaging with this.... Why do we think we deserve specific treatment??

This sorry tale has convinced me that some kind of organised body is required to represent us all, before it is too late.

So I'd say we need to register with PDMTB and get some kind get ourselves organised and co-ordinated so that we have a voice? Nobody is going to listen to individuals doing their own thing are they?

[url= http://www.peakdistrictmtb.org/ ]Peak District MTB[/url]

They are a nice bunch. I'd not heard anything about meetings since the first one I went to- are they still going on? I've not seen any mention on the facebook page. I was keen to get involved.

Well I've just linked this thread to both the MTB and Campaigning sections of the CTC forum, and emailed it to their campaigns department. Hopefully they can offer support and with it some national level clout to PDMTB.

I joined CTC several years ago as they were an advocacy group covering all cycling (Leisure, commute, utility, MTB) leaving BC to cover the racing aspect. It's a little disappointing that CTC haven't been all over this frankly.

Re: our ability to engage with the established processes.

Our sport came into the UK about 25 years ago? Generally as a young persons sport. So even if you took up MTBing at age 30, at the dawn of the sport, you'd be 55 now and presumably in Full Time work, nominally with family etc. (kids in uni?) to support so even the "old guard" of our sport are too busy with their lives to contribute.

The oldest active MTBer I know is in his 60s, recently a 2 time grandfather (to 2 of his daughters) and is chief exec of a county council. While it'd be great to have him on a LAF, does he really have the time to dedicate to that?

Other activities with longer established pasts, are more likely to have an active retired contingent eg ramblers.

We should be onto our existing representatives (CTC, BC, IMBA) to be coordinating and organising this in conjunction with local groups like PDMTB.

Sorry, this is a side track from the core issue of Rushup...

Good bit of campaigning there, [b]Keith[/b].
But you don't have to actually be a member of a LAF to have some influence. Read some recent minutes. Read the Member's Profiles to identify a sympathetic member, and talk to them IRL. Maybe over a pint, or even better on a ride or walk. They'll also lead busy lives, so make it easy for them - tell them what the local issues are for MTB.

I think that's the first time that I've seen IMBA mentioned on this thread.

I thought that IMBAUK was originally set up to represent mountain biking in the UK but I've not heard them mentioned for some time. Does it still exist as an organisation in the UK these days, and if so have they had anything to say about this travesty?

I think that's the first time that I've seen IMBA mentioned on this thread.

I thought that IMBAUK was originally set up to represent mountain biking in the UK but I've not heard them mentioned for some time. Does it still exist as an organisation in the UK these days, and if so have they had anything to say about this travesty?

There was a seperate thread about them earlier. I think with increasing trail sanitisation issues, a central, collective voice such as IMBA may be more effective/popular than it once was. Perhaps its time for another membership push. I actually went on the website earlier and the membership link doesn't work.

What's retired got to do with it?? Surely it's about inclination and wanting to contribute to the greater good?

I'm 31 I sat on a LAF for 3 years at aged 26-29 I wanted to be proactive rather reactive in the access process... It's just a shame the area where i was didn't have established umbrellas of RideSheffield and Peakmtb to feed into...

A LAF requires a general comittment of 1 2hr evening session per quarter. Ocassional sub group meetings or site visits. Generally they actually do recognise everyone has homelives and try and accomodate accordingly... But comes back to priorities and inclination again I suppose...

Nice [url= http://singletrackworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/rushup-roar-the-story-so-far/ ]update [/url] on the front page. Thanks STW!

Good point about IMBA - not heard anything of them for donkeys years. Having had a quick google, it seems that the last update on the IMBA UK site was Dec '13 saying they'd basically run out of steam.

A LAF requires a general comittment of 1 2hr evening session per quarter

10.30 on Thursday mornings for PDNPA LAF...

I think the problems is no one's heard of IMBAUK or any work it's been involved in. Beyond probably a minority knowing about the trail building document they wrote a few years ago that outlines the best practice for trail centers.

BC are only interested if it's the olympics or sponsored by Sky.

CTC would be a better bet, but again MTB'ers are probably a minority for them (and they have an image problem).

On the other hand if someone at the CTC was involved it would probably present the most acceptable face of cycling to DCC & ramblers et al as their percieved demographic is ramblers on bikes. Whereas a purely MTB organisation would come accoss like asking Max-Power for it's input on country lane speed limits.

Retired as they have the time. I would imagine walkers are well represented at the LAF. When you look at the usage report linked to above we as cyclists are the biggest users of that stretch

10.30 on Thursday mornings for PDNPA LAF...

Exactly my point.... The only game in town is one we can't get to...

Edit: Hence the need for CTC/IMBA et al to provide support and help out be getting people along who can represent our views, through their networks of members/contacts etc. eg: active CTC members are often retired, and while may not be MTBers, could be informed of our needs and represent us?

Piss-poor bickering, people.

Please leave the recriminations until after the real issue has ended (either in total trail desecration or something better). At least it took 15-odd pages for people to start turning against each other. 🙄

What are you on about, [b]dannyh[/b] ? All I see is posters discussing what can be done right now, and how this sort of debacle could be avoided in the future. Do you have anything positive to contribute to that debate?

Exactly my point.... The only game in town is one we can't get to...

Or can't be bothered to get to? Sadly, unless we are prepared to devote a bit of time to something we care about then it's difficult to moan when things don't go our way.

I'm not deeply involved in this issue, other than being interested in seeing how other LAF / user groups are managing their interactions with landowners / authorities. A few on here will recognise me as a member of TAG www.trailactiongroup.co.uk and while our issues are over access rather than surfaces, it's interesting that regardless of who 'the other side' happen to be the same issues keep coming up over consultation and a 'do what we like' mentality.

I echo what others have said, that we really could do with a national trail advocacy body that could represent the interests of all MTBers and give us a voice that would be recognised and which could speak to and for the majority of users. Until then....... we all need to do our bit.

Whoah!

All I am saying is that it is a bit early to be getting into all the advocacy group stuff and preventative measures for future issues (as well as all the 'well what have [b]you[/b] ever done' stuff that argument always seems to entail). This thread is titled 'Rushup edge resurfacing', that work is still hanging over us, so it is a bit early to start falling out [u]publicly[/u] on here.

For the record, I wanted to attend the picnic (and would have driven the 70-odd miles to do so, but I'd already had the previous week off work with no prospect of getting this Monday off). I have fired numerous emails off to DCC, more to East Midlands Today and MBR, put numerous posts on the DCC facebook page and, I hope, spread the word.

Not a lot compared to some, I freely admit.

Please don't get worked up at me - all I am saying is this is an immediate issue, here and now. Let's get this sorted if we can - by presenting a united front.

If we want to go down the advocacy group route, then great, but this groundswell of opinion that seems to be influencing DCC has not been the result of advocacy groups - it has been a spontaneous thing caused by DCC going too far.

We can do without re-enacting the Popular Front for the Liberation of Judea scene from the Life of Brian on here.

That is all.

Just text Simon mayo on radio 2 with a 3 worder. "rushup edge destroyed". Might get us a little more exposure.

Anyone remember this one?

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/derby/hi/people_and_places/history/newsid_8891000/8891900.stm ]DOVEDALE sanitised[/url]

You are a very good example of what I was on about, [b]Danny[/b]. Everyone (who wants to) can contribute in their own way. You couldn't attend the picnic, but sent emails and FB posts. I couldn't attend, but researched the DCC and PDNPA documents. [b]Si[/b] has been a LAF member, [b]Keith[/b] isn't free when meetings take place, but will lobby his contact there. So everyone can help in different ways. It's all good.

There is another thread on [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/bc-ctc-imba-who-fights-for-land-access ]IMBA[/url] and better access, etc - but there's not much traffic on it.

Nevertheless, I strongly believe that NOW is exactly the right time for people to think about getting involved in the various forums and groups. Why bother to become an activist when you're happy with a situation? It takes a conflict like this to make people realise the value of these groups/forums/committees.

Anyone remember this one?

DOVEDALE sanitised

OMG I had no idea they did that. WTF?! 😯

Yeah it looks totally shit, but that whole little area feels like Disney land anyway.

Strangely [b]esme[/b] (why all the bold font?) I agree with you almost entirely.

All I meant was that this is a public forum and is one of the centre pieces of the Rushup Edge 'campaign'. We should be presenting a united front, not getting ahead of ourselves and certainly not getting involved in a load of in-fighting.

Please don't go around looking to be offended, you will most likely find that a self-fulfilling prophecy.

After all the discussions here and on the PD MTB Facebook page, I'm not sure how I can help because the majority now seem to agree that the focus of the argument should be OFF MTB and on what the majority of users want. I am not convinced with that. So, acknowledging that I'm in the minority. I don't want to go to DCC or anyone else with a different argument that undermines the majority opinion.
This is what I had wanted to argue with them:
1. Safe, flat trails that are accessible to all are already in PLENTIFUL SUPPLY. There's the easy trails round Ladybower and Derwent, the Tissington and High Peak trail, Monsal trail, Longdenden trail, and hundreds of footpaths. The amount of challenging trails for MTB are limited and being further restricted. If many more are sanitized, there will be precious little left.
2. I really don't think there's much understanding of what MTB is, nor an appreciation of how popular it is, so they don't understand our needs.
3. If, after making point 1. and ensuring DCC understand what MTB is, they continue to waffle on about everywhere needs to be accessible to all, then it can be concluded that DCC are determined that there should be no place in the Peak District for challenging trails. So let them admit it, for once and for all and we just accept that MTB'ers are not welcome.

How ironic is this, stockport council have stopped a new bridleway being built on a footpath tonight...

Much to the opposition of the Seaba Stockport horse group...

"Thank you to everyone for attending the AGM tonight. Here is the info you need to lobby the councillors regarding them stopping the new bridleway at Chadkirk being implemented, also include Cllr Martin Candler
The Friends of Chadkirk have objected to the planned / approved new BW at Chadkirk estate. See their views and misinformation at this link. https://friendsofchadkirk.wordpress.com/2014/10/04/saturday-4th-october/
If you want to see this new Bridleway opened, please act now. Please write to these councillors to say how much this route is needed and will be used. The reasons we as horse-riders have asked for it are:-
- to avoid using the road which is slippery tarmac, and too narrow for cars to pass horses, especially on the corner;
- as you know only a small percentage of the rights of way network is available to horse riders so we welcome such an opportunity to create a circular route, which further improves access to the new Chadkirk bridge.
- the new route will create a circular route, which can be used by horseriders but also and proably more significantly, as a multi-user route by wheelchair / mobility scooter / childs buggy.
- The provision of easy circular routes was identified as desirable in the Rights of Way Improvement Plan, some years ago (2007 I think)
- The Area Committee has already approved this new route and Stockport Council as landowner has dedicated the route. So it now requires implementation.
- Remind them that horse-riders are voters and taxpayers too."

Whilst the friends of chadkirk are disgusted by the £20,000 price tag

[img] [/img]

Looks like Stockport Council, need some of the DCC members on board, £20k is pretty cash to them 😆

Cruz campo, please start a new thread if you like to discuss the Chadkirk bridalway, and I'll comment there. (Although you probably wouldn't like what I have to say anyway.)

2) I notice that you mention making the route “safe” several times in both the replies we’ve received . Could you expand on how the route was assessed to be dangerous and how you’ve risk assessed it will be safer as a result of your works?

I would suggest that a Risk / Benefit would be worth undertaking, rather than just risk assessment.
You also need to ask what 'qualifies' (may be experience or training, not just bit of paper) the person(s) to make that judgement.
You also need evidence of [b]real risks[/b] that face users. Concern does not equal risk. One incident elsewhere does not reveal pattern of risk, etc etc.
These risks then need putting in context of the rest of any access to that part of the route - cycling on the road for example on Rushup or up from Edale, is significantly more risky that off road - and so are DCC putting in control measures to assist anyone crossing or using roads in the area for example.

@flossie i don't want to discuss it, it was purely a comparison of the difference in council attitudes, and how in general councils are just always getting it wrong! 😉

DCC are running a consultation exercise on public / community transport. Any takers?

http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/council/have_your_say/consultation_search/Consultation_search_index/local_bus_and_community_transport_consultation.asp

I echo what others have said, that we really could do with a national trail advocacy body that could represent the interests of all MTBers and give us a voice that would be recognised and which could speak to and for the majority of users. Until then....... we all need to do our bit.

There is one IMBA UK. This site used to support it many moons ago, having a button up ^^^^^ there for us to click, follow and join when " everyone " was getting all excited about issues such as this.

Then, just as now our fellow riders will be very unlikely to join IMBA, local club or any other organisation. I would say that the majority of riders other than those on here probably aren't all that bothered about what's going on and what us being discussed on here is probably a very small representation of riders 💡

I am not from the area in question but have had the pleasure of riding in the area. I know from my own experience that very few if any of the riders I know or ride with are interested in joining clubs or other organisations. This is where our " sport/past time/hobby " whatever you wish to call it will always be disadvantaged compared to the walkers/orienteers/horse brigade 😐

I was actually at Coed y Brenin on the weekend IMBA UK was " born " 😕

Great link posted a few pages back (

) Really shows over the years how well the natural trails fare. Very little change overall!

Also the cyclist numbers are extremely high... not catering for the overall user groups then.

[URL= http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff100/capoz77/users_zps6b093384.jp g" target="_blank">http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff100/capoz77/users_zps6b093384.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]

Does the way they link chapelgate into one long track, save any of the features on the Rushup edge/lords seat track, or are all the best features doomed as part of the red route?

[URL= http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff100/capoz77/cgteack_zpsde4d9b49.jp g" target="_blank">http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff100/capoz77/cgteack_zpsde4d9b49.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]

So dcc would struggle to claim they swerve unaware of cyclists being a massive part of the user group. However, do they have any evidence that they tried to engage with that group? A quick post on a forum like this would have done the job.

Before anyone says why should they? I used to work in local authority and we were expected to take consultations to known user groups if they weren't part of the normal process.

I'd say that this shows dcc have really dropped the ball here.

We need someone on the inside!

[url= https://jobs.derbyshire.gov.uk/jobdetails.asp?jobid=43756ttps://jobs.derbyshire.gov.uk/jobdetails.asp?jobid=43756 ]DCC job 1[/url]

[url= https://jobs.derbyshire.gov.uk/jobdetails.asp?jobid=43616 ]DCC job 2[/url]

Cruzcampo, all the good stuff on rushup is on that red line. There's a flatish bit just before the junction but really, that tee junction is where the fun starts.

Any chance this thread can be made into a sticky? At least for as long as Singletrack are covering the story themselves and still waiting on questions being answered by DCC.

That's a damn fine idea. Would be a shame for this to run out of steam when so many people have taken an interest.

I've been having an email exchange with Mike Rhodes from the Peak National Park(who does seem like one of the good guys, as intimated by someone higher up).

One thing that genuinely surprised me was his comment (my bold):

... it is the Highway Authority (in this case DCC) which has the powers, duties and responsibilities in relation to public rights of way.[b] It has no obligation to consult,[/b] unless there are specific designations relating to a site (eg SSSI, when they consult Natural England), or there are planning restrictions.

.......

Our ‘duty of conservation’ in this regard is not backed up by powers.

If this is right, and I have no reason to think that he would be telling porkies, is this not something that needs to change?

I can't help but think that actually consulting the Park (or any NP for that matter) on matters that have a direct effect on rights of way and conservation within its boundaries would be a good thing?

Edit: +1 for the sticky idea

I think he is right. There may be no formal requirement, but they are encouraged to do so.

From re-reading some of the comments, part of the issue is them knowing who to consult, and how.

The other issue that I pulled up a few pages back is that DCC claim that this work was done to enhance access for all vehicles, despite the fact that in the time they have been drawing up these plans, PDNPA has put a permanent TRO in place for that BOAT to stop any motorised vehicle from using it. Once you have removed that usergroup from using the trail, who exactly are they improving it for?

Yes, he is right in legal terms. Just as a council can tell you when they're resurfacing the road outside your house, they don't ask when you want it done.

However, all levels of government are supposed to be moving more towards a customer driven agenda. We can't beat them legally for this reason but we need to keep pushing the ethical and moral side of things.

You'll have to pardon my ignorance here, I don't have the faintest idea how government budgets work but I've lost count of the number of times I've heard of local authorities blowing cash on seemingly unecessary things because they won't have that money to spend next year. Wonder if there's a bit of this going on with Rushup? Is it possible that if they spend £70k this year, by not doing so next year they'll effectively have made a saving? Does it work like that?

I just can't get my head around how they're cutting every other essential service because they're desperate to save money and yet they seemingly have insane pots of cash to spend on things like this? It just doesn't add up.

"In 2015/2016 we need to cut £48m to balance the budget.
Our 2014/2015 budget identified a number of potential cuts which amount to £23m of savings in 2015/2016"

From [url= http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/council/news_events/news-updates/2014/july/%20budget-cuts-proposals.asp ]here[/url] If you read further down the page, over the next 3 years they're looking to save nearly £3.5 million from Highways maintenance alone (I assume this comes under the remit of this rather than countryside services?)

From re-reading some of the comments, part of the issue is them knowing who to consult, and how.

I would have thought that if working within the boundaries of a national park, consulting them would have been a no-brainer?

Does anyone have any news of when the 'naughty boy' site visit with PDNPA is happening? I assume work has been suspended until then in any case(?)

Social Media, Singletrack, BBC Radio Sheffield - great stuff getting all those to feature this issue.

I guess the best angle we currently have, though, is the apparent falling out between PDNPA and DCC as a result of this - does anyone know when an outcome can be expected from this site visit?

What about a meeting with the Peak District Mountain Bike people and the cabinet member responsible at DCC?

@dan - well, yes, that would be the obvious one. It's seems to have been a glaring oversight from DCC on that one, especially as it was PDNPA who used their powers to ban 4x4s from that track last year, whereas DCC as the HA for the whole area don't seem to have picked up on that change, and have then proceeded with work to improve the track for 4x4s. That's the crux for me.

Just in case anyone missed it on the Peak MTB facebook page - Simon Bowns has just posted this:

BBC North West Tonight *might* be interested in covering the Rushup Edge trail story. We need some "before" video footage of the trail, broadcast quality.
Does anyone have Gopro (or similar) footage that they'd be willing to share and have used on a broadcast?

Just thinking there must be some footage from Peaks Pootles out there somewhere?

BBC North West Tonight have been in touch with me and *may* be interested in doing a piece on this whole story.

It hinges on us being able to provide them with some decent (ie broadcast quality) video footage of someone riding the trail BEFORE the work was done.

Does anyone have any GoPro (or similar) footage of them riding the trail? Climbing/descending/whatever!

Please et me know if you do - info@18bikes.co.uk

Sorry Simon ... jumping the gun a bit there 😳

*calling pook or other pootlers*

some footage at the start of this one:

also around 1:48 on this, quality not as high

Just text a mate of mine who filmed that poodle. Let's see what he's got. I assume it's needed stat.

Pootle, not poodle. Flaming auto correct.

I best get royalties for this!

Also, Christina Massey at the Matlock Mercury wants photos of the protest for a feature. Get them in asap

Second vid- from 1.47 onwards is a really good representation- it shows a few riders.

Here's a thought:

While the highways dept obviously doens't care for the characteristics of the route, DCC's Heritage officer may well be less than pleased with what amounts to wanton destruction of an historic landscape feature (that we happen to enjoy riding bikes on).

Given the track is man made (well, horse made probably but you know what I mean) the very nature of the track and its contribution to the character of the area as a whole may be considered significant, and (most importantly) if DCC didn't seek appropriate advice/guidance for the works, then they'll have to reverse them...

Anyone with a contact in somewhere similar that may be able to post a view?

go pro footage would be ideal for this.
video hosting web links are ok as well, it just needs to be a decent quality

Its not needed desperately urgently (I doubt very much it'll be done before next week)

I know Simon at 18 is kind of the contact, but if you want to post links to footage here I'm certain we can make sure they go the right way...;-)

Oh I would say posting a link to footage would imply its OK to use.

Do they want the "exclusive" on this or is it worth trying east Midlands today? I'm sure they'd love a pop at their derby neighbours.

oh god no, Its worth a punt at East Mids as well...!

If NWT did anything its not to hard to share.

Been watching this with interest - we have news!

[url= http://www.outdoorsmagic.com/outdoor-features/rushup-edge-work-halted-for-time-being/13527.html ]Rushop work officially "halted"[/url]