From the latest update:

But clearly the rocky outcrops in this particular area prevent some users entitled to use the route from doing so safely and so the work we’re doing is designed to make it accessible to all users.

Ok, so how many people wanted to use the trail and couldn’t? I reckon a big fat 0!

You have to be a bit careful with FOI requests, if they decide that you’re taking the proverbial (“vexatious requests”), or it’s going to cost them too much (£450 for local government), they’ll tell you to do one.

For all your FOI needs: https://www.gov.uk/make-a-freedom-of-information-request/the-freedom-of-information-act

Cutting back a few pages, a few people on the facebook page (and STW on the homepage stories) had been suggesting limestone had been used by DCC. Popped up there on Saturday and it’s definitely gritstone. Doesn’t look anything like the neighbouring stuff, though, so still useable in an argument as it has a negative impact on the appearance of the track.

Seems like there’s more information here than last time I checked:

DCC’s page on Chapel Gate / Rushup Edge

install a chair lift for those unable to walk up hills

Does it have an attachment for bikes?

There is more info now in Matrgees link
They seem to be getting a bit defensive and covering all there bases
Interesting they mention the works was presented in the December LAF meeting then provide a link to the November meeting minutes, where additional info on surfacing and fencing was requested
As pointed out by others earlier these additional details don’t appear to have been discussed at the December meeting
I think this should probably be the key point of any further complaints to DCC or PDNPA

Whether or not you agree with DCC’s various points, it’s certainly now a detailed and thorough response.

It’s their entire argument. Pick it apart!

The way I see it, the TRO supersedes the plan. The plan was made with motor vehicles in mind, it’s now technically a bridleway. They’ll have to treat it that way surely? It shouldn’t even be in highways’ scope.

Legally, any information would come under Environmental Information Regulations, not FOI:

http://ico.org.uk/for_organisations/environmental_information/guide/act#what%20are%20the%20environmental%20information%20regulations-10

If it was discussed bat a LAF why were the PDNPA unaware? I would be interested where the gritstone / sandstone is being sourced from as you compare the relative strengths characteristics on a BGS website

As they have a measure of who used this trail prior to the works, at the very least, we should insist they take the same measures afterwards. I for one would be interested to see the drop in use by established users and I would suggest, an almost unnoticeable increase in those who “access for all” is actually aimed at.

Fair play to those people who were saying 10-years ago that mountain bikers in the peak district needed to get organised like the horse riding and rambling user groups.

Unfortunately you were right.

So let’s get organised now. If we don’t, there’s a strong possibility that mountain biking in the Peak District will not exist ten years from now.

We need to respond, protest, make a fuss, let’s stop being so bloody middle class and expecting a few stiffly worded e-mails to make the blind bit of bloody difference. Don’t for one minute think that DCC are in any way bothered by any reaction to this work. They’re not! Until a response significant enough in number and action occurs they will continue with their hyper ridiculous rhetoric that seeks to further marginalise our voice.

The issue at the heart of this is deeper than MTB alone bit questions the fundamental ethics of outdoor recreation. DCC’s emotive stance on use for everyone and safety is an utter nonsense. We have the evidence from walkers and horse riders that this route is passable. The idea that steps of any variety should impede all but the least able is ludicrous and shameful

Where’s the “like” button!

Onzadog – Member
So let’s get organised now. If we don’t, there’s a strong possibility that mountain biking in the Peak District will not exist ten years from now.

We are. We have. Have you joined either PDMTB or Ride Sheffield, did you go on the Picnic Protest, can you do more, get involved – let us know, always room for willing volunteers. The more co ordinated we can be and the less random the better.

@Hezhoff – we do, but they have a raft of legal drivers that we cannot get close to altering unless we act in a concerted manner. Noise and action will go some way to helping but it’s at a higher level that we need to demand change.

Roger, I have joined PDMTB, I’ve also been rather vocal on the DCC faceache pages. My comment certainly wasn’t meant as a knock to you guys, or your efforts, more a call to arms for those who are reading the thread but wondering what to do.

I can see where Hezhoff is coming from though. I’ve worked in local authority in the past and there is a mentality of never admitting a mistake and pushing through bad ideas regardless. A bit of middle class tutting isn’t going to stop the DCC trail carnage.

I’m currently wondering if a letter to Eric Pickles MP might help. I remember a letter from him when I did work in LA which asked for common sense and to not hide behind red tape when we had all those street parties for the queens jubilee.

Just wondering if that same common sense approach is what’s needed here instead of DCC hiding behind “access for all” “making it same” and “can’t please all of the people”.

@Onzadog – part of me understands why they do shelter behind process, did 3 years penance in a quango filled with paranoid civil servants who would cancel projects at a cost of £10ks rather than risk the projects upset someone influential or fail to deliver. Projects that went ahead had to complete the agreed cycle irrespective of the consequences.

The current process is broken, we need to find a way to get a new process and that’s quite a slog. It’s way bigger than Rushup Edge.

Totally agree. I think the “use it or lose it” approach to local authority budgeting plays a bit part in this as well. That might be the angle that interests the general populous rather than “they broke my playground”.

The Hope Valley Cycle link or huge £250,000 white elephant is a shining example.
From Hathersage to Bamford, not enough money to get it to Castleton and all they did was widen what was already there and add a very limited number of signs. They used the money because it was there and had to be spent, there were far better options and we discussed them at length but whilst we were in the process of having the dialogue the diggers were deployed and the fate of the project sealed. Real token inclusion at tax payers expense.

Take to the footpaths and enjoy – these people show us no respect

Just read the updated update. Who are the ‘user groups entitled to use the trail but would have been prevented from doing so’? That seems to be a pretty key point to the argument. I’m racking my brains to think who this group would be.

People in wheelchairs knowing DCC

Seriously?

I am all for making sure there fair and equal access in general but if that is their argument, then much as it pains me to say it, it’s political correctness gone mad.

Is there any evidence that the users of other trails that have been sanitised have seen both an increase in both number and diversity of users after “treatment”?

The more I’ve thought about it and ferreted around and spoke to various family members who are members of disparate, unrelated social groups, groups who deal with DCC and the like on a regular basis, it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if that was a consideration.

If DCC’s logic for doing maintenance is this:

The poor condition of the track is likely to deter a wider range of users who are entitled to use it.

Then where exactly does it end? I know, let’s have a chair lift up Kinder Scout, my 89 year old Grandad would love the views up there but the poor condition of the rocky path has deterred him from going up there.

Basiclly it’s a b0110ck5 statement to justify anything they want to do.

And that will be the ongoing argument “discussion” between PDNPA and DCC.

Of course it’s bollocks from DCC but they have to justify their existence and be seen to be doing proactive ‘helpful’. ‘sensible’ things no matter whether it’s warranted, misplaced or not. I genuinely cringe at the culture of brain-dead bullshit we live in and has been created.

It’s not **** rocket science to have halved the amount of aggregate dumped into Rushup Edge and spent the money saved employing a landscape and surface expert to combine a safe track and passage for horse and rider, and enough interesting features for mountain biker and walker, walkers who genuinely like natural terrain.

I can feel bp going up again.

I am a member of the BMC and have e-mailed them asking if they can wade in too with their own campaigning weight. It does fall in their own descriptions of their remit re protecting our landscape. I strongly suspect they are going to refer me to their next Peak District regional meeting on 19th November, which, from the minutes only really covers climber issues, not so much the walkers they suggest they also support.

Alison, there was a thread on here recently asking who we should all join to protect ourselves from this sort of thing in the future.

Is it worth mentioning to the BMC that getting in on this one might be an opportunity to widen their circle by including mountain bikers?

If an exisiting body was willing to help with this and then to win, imagine the advert that would be for them. I’d happily join the BMC if I felt they represented me.

I’m confused, mind you doesnt take much, the DCC webpage about Rushup on making your views known:

Making your views heard

Anyone wanting to put forward their views should do so through local access forums. There are two in Derbyshire, the Derby and Derbyshire Local Access Forum (DADLAF) and the Peak District Local Access Forum (PLAF) (opens in a new window).

But the DCC Rights of Way Improvement plan on complaints about DCC says:

4. Dealing with complaints
If you wish to complain about our services you may do so in writing, by
fax, email or via the Council’s web site – http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk.

Would this not mean that if the only route of engagement is Local Access Forum – which meets quarterly – then the works would need to be delayed until after the next forum meeting? Otherwise the views of the public are not being taken?

I’m also wondering what the procedure is for identifying which routes the whole RoWIP applies to and which only selected parts apply to?

In particular I’m wondering how this approach sits with Aim 5 of the Derbyshire County Council RoWIP?

Aim 5 – Encourage greater community involvement in managing local rights of way.

RE BMC and mountain biking

Oddly enough I represented the Peak Area on the BMC’s national council for 5 years and during that time I did suggest that the BMC should consider including MTBs in it’s remit. It was in the context of whether the BMC should do more for hill walkers, and I pointed out that whilst they had the choice of joining the RA, there was no such body for MTBs.

Have to say there wasn’t much enthusiasm and I can see why. If you look at MTB topics on UKC you’ll see that whilst many climbers are also MTBers, a small but vocal minority are very much against.

The BMC are very useful allies – there is a major overlap – but their focus is always going to elsewhere. There are some very active volunteers in the Peak but they are probably concentrating on what PDNPA is up to on Stanage. Nonetheless I’m sure this will be raised at the next area meeting (always well worth attending – it’s the annual quiz!)

The other thing to point out is that it has taken the BMC a long time to get to where it is – it started off as a council of clubs and has only recently morphed into a pressure group.

I joined the CTC in the expectation that it would do a similar function as the BMC for cyclists, but I’m disappointed about how little it does for MTBs (very good on road justice though) and don’t think BC is any more active.

So I think for the time being we need to throw our weight behind Ride Sheffield and PDMTB and remember that they are volunteers. Also I’m not convinced DCC will listen to anyone.

This recent EpicTV video really highlights why people ride mountain bikes in the Peak District.

Could be useful from an ‘adventure tourism’ (horrible phrase) point of view?

http://www.pinkbike.com/news/riding-englands-finest-trails-whatever-the-weather-video-2014.html

mattrgee – Member
If DCC’s logic for doing maintenance is this:

The poor condition of the track is likely to deter a wider range of users who are entitled to use it.
Then where exactly does it end? I know, let’s have a chair lift up Kinder Scout, my 89 year old Grandad would love the views up there but the poor condition of the rocky path has deterred him from going up there.

Basiclly it’s a b0110ck5 statement to justify anything they want to do.

I agree with you a bit here, being more than fifty yards from the car park deters a large portion of the population, as does walking up hill, not being anywhere near Starbuck’s or Maccy D’s.
So by their logic, let’s move in the diggers, flatten the lot and build another retail park.
I am entitled to do a lot of things, but the poor condition of idiotic logic like this deters me.

Latest news from PDMTB Website – DCC post emergency closure notice

http://www.peakdistrictmtb.org/index.php/43-rushup-temporary-closure-notice

And the notice

http://www.peakdistrictmtb.org/images/PDFs/Chapel_BOAT144_Emergency_Notice.pdf

Do we know if PDNPA know about this one?

So people complain about the work that’s carried out. Answer close it and flatten it! I hope I’m wrong but.

“Access will be maintained on Chapel Gate where possible.

Interesting, as the “consultation” implies that the whole length from Edale to Sheffield Road should be called Chapel Gate and DCC claim we’re incorrectly calling it Rushup Edge.

I suggest we ride the socks off it then to illustrate this point. If we can get them to say it isn’t Chapel gate and we shouldn’t be on it due to the closure, then the consultation is invalid as DCC haven’t referenced it consistently or correctly.

I suggest we ride the socks off it then to illustrate this point. If we can get them to say it isn’t Chapel gate and we shouldn’t be on it due to the closure, then the consultation is invalid as DCC haven’t referenced it consistently or correctly.

I’m liking your thinking. Another Pootle Pook? Saturday?

Let’s find out what the hell is going on.