Derbyshire County Council. Utter those words in a local access forum and someone will shudder, cold chills will go round the room, and someone will ca ...
By stwhannah
Get the full story here:
https://singletrackworld.com/2022/01/derbyshire-county-council-at-it-again-with-repairs/
🥲 amazing
I think there is some inconsistency here between Singletrack publishing an article about a council using the wrong material to repair a track in a National Park/SSSI and publishing a link in FGF 582 to a forum thread that actively encourages mountain bikers to ride ridgelines in the Lake District on paths they shouldn't be on.
Jesus are they at it again. Why do they not learn, that's an awesome descent as is Cave Dale. For god's sake.
I dread to think what Cave Dale might look like once they’ve had a go at it.
So no native species trees in the woods or non native animals in the waterways are bad in our environment, but dumping tons of former house brick/motorway tarmac backfill is just fine?
Worst thing is they will have paid someone to bring in that crap and dump it there 🙁
I think there is some inconsistency here between Singletrack publishing an article about a council using the wrong material to repair a track in a National Park/SSSI and publishing a link in FGF 582 to a forum thread that actively encourages mountain bikers to ride ridgelines in the Lake District on paths they shouldn’t be on
Correction - that an outdated law says taking a bike on those trails is a civil offence, not that they shouldn't be there or that it's illegal. And since the bikes being on the trails makes no difference whatsoever, it's massively different to DCC dumping tonnes of unsightly demolition waste on a limestone trail, changing the entire atmosphere of the place for decades to come.
I think there is some inconsistency here
Crossing land and dumping material are not the same thing, are they.
I mean, at Pindale you couldn't be any closer to a supply of appropriate limestone material to smooth out that track, if that's what you needed to do for access.
it’s massively different to DCC dumping tonnes of unsightly demolition waste on a limestone trail, changing the entire atmosphere of the place for decades to come.
The irony of all this being that the 'repairs' will last a couple of years at best before being torn apart by a combination of water damage and use, as per Chapel Gate's endless disintegration. A depressing waste of council money and my DCC council taxes.
I think both those tracks are part of the High Peak constituency, so I'll be e-mailing Robert Largan directly and I'd suggest other ST High Peak locals maybe do the same. He's actually quite responsive on local issues, not least because he's a few hundred swing votes away from losing his seat at the next election: robert.largan.mp@parliament.uk
Does anyone know how to find which county council division (ward) you are in? I suspect i’m in Derwent Valley but that could be anywhere between Yorkshire Bridge & Shelton Lock. The DCC website is impenetrable a map or an option to enter a post code and get a simple answer would be good.
@Munro Biker
an outdated law says taking a bike on those trails is a civil offence
......outdated in your opinion
And since the bikes being on the trails makes no difference whatsoever
Really? Have you seen some of the places you have been encouraging people to ride recently?
……outdated in your opinion
Whether that's my opinion or not, the fact that it's a civil offence means the only person who can say you should or should not take a bike on them is the landowner.
Really?
Yes. There's a good set of scientific studies (Wilson and Seney, 1994 - Hooves and Feet Erode More Than Wheels; Chiu and Kriworken - No significant difference between hiking and biking trail wear; Goeft and Alder - Erosion trends not clear; Crockett, 1986 - Minimal change from repeated bicycle passage) that show that bikes either do no more or in some cases less damage than other trail users. It looks different, but it's not worse. In fact, I only know of one study which says otherwise and that was only an undergraduate dissertation.
Have you seen some of the places you have been encouraging people to ride recently?
Yep, they were bloody good fun and in as good a condition as they ever were. Better than, for example, Rushup Edge and now Pindale after DCC dumped a load of stuff on them.
Looks like recycled 6F2 backfill material, but with a very high ratio of organic material.
Jesus are they at it again. Why do they not learn, that’s an awesome descent
Pindale.... awesome descent?
I'm intrigued. I reckon it was an awesome climb about 9 years ago when it was rough limestone, but had never considered it as an awesome descent. Is this recently or many many years ago?
With the greatest respect Munrobiker, 1986 and 1994 are pretty old and the landscape of users and numbers has moved on a bit.
Are there any more recent studies?
Email sent to my local councilor and my MP Robert Largan.
If you are local PLEASE make your voice heard.
Si
@rickmeister
Fill your boots - there's a few here to start with.
https://www.connectedpapers.com/main/124173adcc457610d5eb5e66955472d4036f2709/EROSIONAL-IMPACT-OF-HIKERS%2C-HORSES%2C-MOTORCYCLES%2C-AND-OFF%20ROAD-BICYCLES-ON-MOUNTAIN-TRAILS-IN-MONTANA/graph
A quick skim through the abstracts supports Munrobikers general somethingion in quite a few papers, and a couple of others put the maintenance and use of materials as more important than who or what is in contact with the trail surface (shoes/tyres/hooves)
I think both those tracks are part of the High Peak constituency, so I’ll be e-mailing Robert Largan directly and I’d suggest other ST High Peak locals maybe do the same. He’s actually quite responsive on local issues, not least because he’s a few hundred swing votes away from losing his seat at the next election: robert.largan.mp@parliament.uk
chapel gate & rushup are deff in the high peak, i think pindale and cavedale just sneak in, but the constituency boundary for derbyshire dales runs pretty close to castleton iirc.
Lagan is my local MP as well so will send an e-mail, however i know that there has been a long and ongoing campign from the likes of PeakdistrictMTB etc, many of which have been wel thought out and considered opinions - has anyone got an overview of the key talking points to cherry pick from? - other than stop ruining all the bridleways in the Peak and horse riders don't like it either!
what i don't get is how DCC get it so wrong when there are some good examples of restorative works in the same area to take inspiration from - roychs clough and cut gate spring to mind
it'll be tarmac liek Bamford clough soon... TBF, Pindale is probably a better candidate for tarmac than Bamford clough ever would be.
what i don’t get is how DCC get it so wrong when there are some good examples of restorative works in the same area to take inspiration from – roychs clough and cut gate spring to mind
First and foremost, cost. ^^that is cheap, the works at cutgate and roychs are not.
Also part of me thinks they haven't got it wrong but very right*. The sort of work they've done here, at rushup and elsewhere has the very distinct impact of making the tracks and area in general less appealing for visitors of just about all outdoorsy persuasions (baring blasting feathered things).
There are a lot of people who do vote in that area, who do write moaning letters to the council, local paper and so on who don't want us there, not on bikes, not on horses nor foot and not in our cars. Mainly just not getting in their way and generally making it look untidy.
It's really not heard to see that if the jobs of the people signing off on this sort of vandalism are beholden to people who couldn't care less about the works being done, let alone done in tune with their surroundings and very much could care less about visitors getting in their way, or noticing the raptors caught in those corvid traps and so on, that the "right" answer might be to do this. I'd like to be wrong but it really does feel like this sort of stuff is done precisely because it's bad and makes the nimbys happy.
My post from the other thread this morning since we've separated...
Daft question but isn’t pindale actually a road? I always assumed it to be when I’ve ridden up it.
That is a terrible mess though and I can’t see they got agreement from Nat England given the SSI etc. That to me looks very much like they got agreement on (a) did (b) – easier to seek forgiveness than permission as it were.
Who enforces planning against the council?
(That said, if it’s from the road down to the quarry is it actually the council’s planned maintenance or rather the new owners of the quarry have done that?)
I really do hope they don’t do anything like that to cave dale. Though as well as being a bw and definitely not a road that’s effectively a stream bed so can’t see the above being possible whether DCC wants to or not.
*The part which thinks, depressingly, that government, even with the current bunch, is actually better nearer the top.
There was a good thread re access rights on the back of some research done buy a guy from cycling UK.
The nub of it was that the whole "It is illegal for a cyclist to ride on a designated footpath" is only correct if there is a local law in place that specifically bans this from happening. Otherwise it is a matter for the landowner and he/she only has course to any action if it can be proved that usage of said footpath is causing a nuisance or impediment.
From the thread it became apparent that some on here were confusing footpaths with pavements. A very different scenario which is (as I understand it) covered by the Law.
In summary then, unless there is a specific local bye-law in place, then bikes have as much right to be on footpaths as walkers do.
In summary then, unless there is a specific local bye-law in place, then bikes have as much right to be on footpaths as walkers do.
False... Kind of. Bikes are not illegal on footpaths but neither do they have a right.
Basically if it's a footpath and you're on foot then when asked to leave you do not have to because you have a right to use it. If it's a footpath and you're on a bike and are asked to leave then you must do so because you do not have a right to use it.
There's all sorts of clauses and arguments and superseding local laws but that's the bare bones of it.
Oh and also there's a case in law that says cyclists may use the pavement if not doing so would endanger their lives. So riding on the pavement is both illegal and acceptable.
So riding on the pavement is both illegal and acceptable
A bit like a work party then?
I think Pindale is in the Bakewll electorate.
Cave Dale is in High Peak and Largan has a surgery at noon on Friday in Glossop if anyone wants to pop down and ask for 'help and advice'.
https://www.robertlargan.co.uk/events/glossop-advice-surgery-0
He's generally pretty good at responding to email, so I'll be taking that route.
Is this is Derbyshire County Council "fly tipping" their own waste tailings from the summer road surfacing programme. Cheaper than land fill disposal or providing material in keeping with the surroundings.
a forum thread that actively encourages mountain bikers to ride ridgelines in the Lake District on paths they shouldn’t be on.
Well the more they make bridleways/byways etc into horrible unsympathetic roads the more we are going to want to ride ridgelines/footpaths etc so maybe they should stop.
Has to be said it didn't look super-exciting to start with but it's difficult to imagine how they thought what they have done is in keeping or worthwhile.
Really? Have you seen some of the places you have been encouraging people to ride recently?
Such as Thrunton?
Give it a rest with the access rights stuff. If you want to argue about it start another thread.
spawnofyorkshire
Slight thread diversion but thanks. I'll pass that link across to our local trail team here in Black Forest, Germany. Maybe there are some articles to help us legally ride more than 2m fire roads in Baden - Wurtemburg.
Cave Dale? Guess I'll have to make an effort to get there before it's ruined repaired.
Anyone else find it strange that if you live in a National Park, you need to get permission to change the roof on your shed, yet decisions like this seem to get through with zero consideration of the aesthetic and historic impact?
Update just in from Derbyshire County Council:
A Derbyshire County Council spokesperson said: “We specified to the contractor that a limestone material be applied at the Pin Dale site and this was agreed with the Peak Park and the Peak District Local Access Forum. Following this issue being raised with us we have spoken to the contractor who has explained that they had to fill some deep ruts during the work and they are due to finish overlaying the path tomorrow with a pure limestone material.”
Like sprinkling glitter on a turd.
So the work was contracted by DCC... this is all their choice of action, not a land owner?
So the work was contracted by DCC… this is all their choice of action, not a land owner?
AFAIK, as it's a "road", it comes under DCC's control, not the landowner. The landowner is only obliged to keep a RoW (footpath or bridleway) clear, I don't think they can maintain a "road". Someone with more knowledge of access rights might need to confirm that - I'm not sure what the exact status of trails like that are now as I know they got rid of the confusing RUPP and BOAT designations.
And another update! I think this is a win for democracy, activism, contacting your councillor and generally making a fuss. Well done everyone!
A Derbyshire County Council spokesperson said: “Before work started we consulted and agreed with the Peak Park, Natural England and Historic England that a specific locally-sourced limestone would be used on the site.
“However, due to site conditions it was considered, with good intentions, that a recycled material would be better to form a good foundation, with a further layer of the locally-sourced limestone on top to complete the job.
“Following the concerns raised about the recycled material not being appropriate we are now looking at removing it and replacing it fully with locally sourced limestone, as was the original intention.
“We have halted work on site while we liaise with stakeholders about our proposal to remove the recycled material and will re-start work as soon as this plan has been agreed.”
with good intentions
Not just trying to save cash by dumping inappropriate, polluting and possibly illegal waste materials and hoping nobody would notice, then?
Well done to everyone who put pressure on DCC
I've just had this via email from DCC;
Good Afternoon,
Thank you for contacting Derbyshire County Council.
Thank you for your email on the work carried out recently at Pin Dale.
Before work started we consulted and agreed with the Peak Park, Natural England and Historic England that a specific locally-sourced limestone would be used on the site.
However, due to site conditions it was considered, with good intentions, that a recycled material would be better to form a good foundation, with a further layer of the locally-sourced limestone on top to complete the job.
Following the concerns raised about the recycled material not being appropriate we are now looking at removing it and replacing it fully with locally sourced limestone, as was the original intention. We have halted work on site while we liaise with stakeholders about our proposal to remove the recycled material and will re-start work as soon as this plan has been agreed.
I hope that this will alleviate your concerns.
Thanks Hannah (and everyone who's got involved!) - I'm glad to see that a bit of pressure from us all has achieved something, of sorts. I still think we're a long way from getting DCC to act differently, but let's keep it up.
I had the same email, which conveniently failed to mention anything of Cave Dale, which is more of a worry for me. I've responded, asking if there may be a different approach. We'll see..
The speed of response and furious backpedalling is an indicator of how obvious a **** up this is, and the scale of consequences the authority is attempting to avoid.
Robert Largan, MP for High Peak has taken time out from lying low and pretending that Boris Johnson doesn't really have anything to do with him to post this on FB:
<div class="kvgmc6g5 cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql ii04i59q">
<div dir="auto">Lots of Hope Valley residents have been contacting me about maintenance work on Pindale bridleway above Hope and Castleton.</div>
</div>
<div class="cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql o9v6fnle ii04i59q">
<div dir="auto">Despite assurances given to local access groups by the Council, the materials being used for the work are not in keeping with the area (see below).</div>
</div>
<div class="cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql o9v6fnle ii04i59q">
<div dir="auto">The local trail used for walking, running, and mountain biking forms part of the Peak District's protected landscapes.</div>
</div>
<div class="cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql o9v6fnle ii04i59q">
<div dir="auto">I contacted Derbyshire County Council, urging them to halt all further works on the ground to prevent further damage to the paths whilst this is investigated.</div>
</div>
<div class="cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql o9v6fnle ii04i59q">
<div dir="auto">They have now agreed to halt the works and resurface the bridleway with locally sourced limestone.</div>
</div>
<div class="cxmmr5t8 oygrvhab hcukyx3x c1et5uql o9v6fnle ii04i59q">
<div dir="auto">Thanks to everyone who flagged this with me!</div>
</div>
<div dir="auto"></div>
<div dir="auto">
</div>
Edit: that went well 🙁
I'll try again - Robert Largan, the MP for the High Peak, posted this on FB.
Lots of Hope Valley residents have been contacting me about maintenance work on Pindale bridleway above Hope and Castleton.
Despite assurances given to local access groups by the Council, the materials being used for the work are not in keeping with the area (see below).
The local trail used for walking, running, and mountain biking forms part of the Peak District's protected landscapes.
I contacted Derbyshire County Council, urging them to halt all further works on the ground to prevent further damage to the paths whilst this is investigated.
They have now agreed to halt the works and resurface the bridleway with locally sourced limestone.
Thanks to everyone who flagged this with me!
oh dear
The bit about saying Pindale now, Cave Dale next is surely not true?
Cave Dale isn't the same sort of RoW is it?
Bridleway vs Rupp/Boat?
I haven't (yet) seen bridleways ruined in quite this same manor.
The bit about saying Pindale now, Cave Dale next is surely not true?
Cave Dale isn’t the same sort of RoW is it?
Bridleway vs Rupp/Boat?
I think MTBers use "Cavedale" to mean [url= https://www.streetmap.co.uk/map?x=414719&y=382118&z=120&sv=414719,382118&st=4&ar=y&mapp=map&searchp=ids&dn=836&ax=414719&ay=382118&lm=0 ]this bit here, the actual gorge[/url]
However I think "Cavedale" more generically refers to the whole track along the top of that area. The bridleway bit is part of the Limestone Way long distance path so there's a possibility that it comes under DCC as well rather than individual landowners along the route.
it was considered, with good intentions, that a recycled material would be better to form a good foundation, with a further layer of the locally-sourced limestone on top to complete the job.
Is it just me, or isn't there some sense in this from a sustainability perspective? Seems a bit precious to get worked up about an unfinished job. Effectively another chunk of a hillside somewhere nearby will need to be blown up, crushed and laid down as a thicker layer of limestone to appease those who saw the job halfway through. Nothing wrong with saving money in the name of sustainability. Maybe I'm missing something. I wouldn't use Farrow and Ball paint to undercoat my walls, I'd use undercoat with a top layer of F&B (I wouldn't really, I'm too tight, MsJimmy would tho).
Tar from road planings will most likely leach into the surrounding ground, which makes it an utterly inappropriate surface for an SSSI, regardless or not of whether they dress it with limestone to make it look nice on top. The planings need to be disposed of in a safe way, which presumably costs more.
It's not a question of aesthetics, if it were, DCC would have just ignored people telling them to stop it, like they normally do.
As an employee of DCC not in Environmental Services I might add I can't believe my colleagues are making such a such a mess of this.
FYI
I've just looked at DCC mapping and Pin Dale is on the Bradwell / Castleton parish boundary and hence ward boundary as well
I wouldn’t use Farrow and Ball paint to undercoat my walls
Doesn't mean you'd "recycle" used engine oil for the job either.
As an employee of DCC not in Environmental Services I might add I can’t believe my colleagues are making such a such a mess of this.
Having seen the utter shambles that DCC have made of most of the off-road trails / roads in the area whenever they've touched them, I can easily believe they've made that much of a mess of this.
From Peak District MTB:
Is this still Peter White's one man vendetta against the countryside, or is someone else in charge of this?
Is it just me, or isn’t there some sense in this from a sustainability perspective? Seems a bit precious to get worked up about an unfinished job. Effectively another chunk of a hillside somewhere nearby will need to be blown up, crushed and laid down as a thicker layer of limestone to appease those who saw the job halfway through. Nothing wrong with saving money in the name of sustainability. Maybe I’m missing something. I wouldn’t use Farrow and Ball paint to undercoat my walls,
The difference is that your undercoat will stay under the F&B coat. The whole surface and foundation of this will move and mix together. The water and traffic will mix it up so it just ends up as a semi grey semi black homogenous agglomeration.
I'm also deeply sceptical as to whether they were actually planning a top coat of grey until theg were busted.
On a tangent, am I right in saying this is the second thread on this?
If so, why didn't it get closed like all other duplicate threads are? Btw230 has made an excellent point on the other thread which needs following up.
Or we could make this one a sticky 🤣😈
I'm pretty sure Peter White has retired recently.
On a tangent, am I right in saying this is the second thread on this?
If so, why didn’t it get closed like all other duplicate threads are? Btw230 has made an excellent point on the other thread which needs following up.
Well this one is a STW news story cross-posted onto the forum, the other one was a thread started at about the same time.
Tar from road planings will most likely leach into the surrounding ground
Tar being something that has to be tested for during road works/demolition and disposed of correctly. Any road planings in recycled aggregate used these days will be bitumen based.
Exact same problem here in North Wales. Ruined one of the best bits of singletrack in the area.
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/snowdonia-path-upgrades-or-unnecessary-motorways-through-the-hills
As someone who pays a lot of £££ of council tax in Derbyshire that is then repeatedly squandered, the incompetence of DCC is something only rivalled by the current occupant of No10 Downing Street.
They are perpetually hopeless.
I'll give you a different example. The top of my road, about 500 yards away. On the Southern side of the Peaks. The road surface was mainly OK but with a few local pot holes, and 1 sections where sub-surface cracks were surfacing and actually needed cutting out and re-doing properly.
So what do we get...
1. Some (not all !) Pot holes patch filled.
2. Then sections of the road re-surfaced properly. But only a few sections. And missed out 30 yards between 2 resurfaced sections - the bit that needed it most. It took more effort to do 2 sections than combine it as 1.
Then... literally within 2 weeks of the proper new tarmac being laid... the morons chip-sealed it over. Leaving the road positively dangerous with all the loose chips at a T junction that was at the bottom of 2 fast downhill sections of road. And of course chip sealed over the non-repaired section that actually needed fixing in the 1st place.
They need sacking for that level of incompetence.
Tar being something that has to be tested for during road works/demolition and disposed of correctly. Any road planings in recycled aggregate used these days will be bitumen based.
Apologies. Presumably there would still be the risk of various shitty hydrocarbons leaching out of bitumen-based waste?
The term 'recycling' seems to make the choice to dispose of this material sound a lot more benign than it actually is.
Doesn’t mean you’d “recycle” used engine oil for the job either
Fair enough, like the analogy.
Tar being something that has to be tested for during road works/demolition and disposed of correctly. Any road planings in recycled aggregate used these days will be bitumen based.
Apologies. Presumably there would still be the risk of various shitty hydrocarbons leaching out of bitumen-based waste?
The term ‘recycling’ seems to make the choice to dispose of this material sound a lot more benign than it actually is.
I think 'has to be' should not be confused with 'is', very much in the same way that sewage 'has to be' treated before being discharged into rivers / the sea.
Thanks for the link
They need sacking for that level of incompetence
It depends what you're trying to be competent at. If your end aim is to have perfect long lasting road surfaces, yes it's incomptence.
On the other hand if the end aim is to provide regular repeat work for the contractors and the food chain of quarries, processing, transport etc they reside within; plus spend all your budget so you get the same again (or more) next year, then you're being highly competent.
Worth remembering that for us it's pointless make-work, but for others its their livelihood. It's not "right" but I can see the logic.