Rushup edge resurfacing

Anyone remember this one?

DOVEDALE sanitised

You are a very good example of what I was on about, Danny. 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. Si has been a LAF member, Keith 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 IMBA 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 esme (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

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?

^from STW

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 real risks 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 ( http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/295837/MR1210-ChapelGate-App.pdf ) 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.

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?

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!

DCC job 1

DCC job 2

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. It has no obligation to consult, 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 here 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!

Rushop work officially “halted”