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 😯

walking forums not aware..

http://www.forum.walkersforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=3884

As an aside I’ve never seen a horse on a Peak District bridleway

@Cruzcampo

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 am a campaigning road cyclist, a Sustrans volunteer and member of CTC committed to keeping the Derbyshire cycle routes open and maintained‘ 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 Kinder Loop Notes suggest they are actually using the (easier?) path alongside the bridleway:
“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.”

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.

Some good news?

https://mobile.twitter.com/peakchief/status/526985128074305536

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 REALLY 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.

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.

http://magic.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx?chosenLayers=aonbIndex,limestoneordIndex,lnrPIndex,lnrIndex,nnrPIndex,nnrIndex,sssiPIndex,sssiIndex,vmlIndex,25kIndex,50kIndex,250kIndex,miniscaleIndex,baseIndex&box=409337:382754:411122:383606&useDefaultbackgroundMapping=false

The list of “potentially damaging operations” for the Dark Peak SSSI which need consent:
http://www.sssi.naturalengland.org.uk/Special/sssi/old/OLD1003028.pdf

“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:

@peakdistrict staff have asked @Derbyshirecc staff to pause on repairs to Chapelgate. We’re visiting later this week to agree improved work

Seems more positive than what’s happened so far anyway.