So, trail impact on enjoyment? On Sunday we rode from Edale up Chapel Gate. Very sad to be able to climb on a previously iconic descent. Friendly walkers cheering us on (2,4,6,8 who do we appreciate? at which point I wobbled and started walking….). Then down Rushup Edge – still fun on the bits they haven’t touched, quite hard to maintain enough speed on the babyhead rocks that are infilling the steps. Met lots of grumpy mountain bikers and no walkers. Down Roych Clough – seems sensible trail improvements there, well done! Up to Mount Famine, and then, cheekily, across the unclassified trail to the top of Jacob’s Ladder, skipping the dull descent and climb into and out of Hayfield. Sue me now. First 1km is a bog fest, passed one sullen walker and one fell runner. The becomes lovely slabs. Met a friendly party of walkers who gave way to me before I had a chance to give way to them. Lovely final bit down to the top of Jacob’s Ladder – though there’s a corner that could do with a better berm if you’re reading this National Trust! Lovely descent down Jacob’s Ladder, trying to greet walkers cheerily even though I was concentrating on the trail. Back to the car, still a nice loop though surprised it was only 15km!

Very worrying letter in today’s sheffield telegraph from a British horse society access officer on behalf of hallam riders group

Congratulates DCC for restoring the paths on Stanage causeway and rushup edge. Says that the routes had been badly degraded due to the upsurge in mountain biking. Makes some other, valid points about respect and access for all, but utter rubbish on the degradation point.

This is where we’re going to have to be shit hot arguing the dual purpose tracks (where possible) case to DCC. It’s perfectly feasible to have a reasonably clean path for horses and more natural stuff for walker and mtber.

DCC will argue cost – which will be a straw man argument – Rushup Edge could have been done cheaper by halving the amount of shit thrown in it even including the added cost of employing a landscape advisor.

chris the tall – already been challenged.

Letter from BHS Access Officer
I like this bit:
Whilst some of the 2,100km of footpaths would be suitable as upgraded bridleways . . .

If Peak Horsepower want engaging and challenging trails, as I believe they do, this would be an idea time for them to add their voice despite any previous “issues”.

assistant access officer it would seem.

Might be worth checking this isn’t the same situation as CTC Simon.

Congrats to all for getting publicity about this.
But DCC have not stopped.
They have just paused in light of the publicity. They will press ahead with this (and other schemes) once the heat of publicity has faded.
And they will use every trick they can to do what they intended in the first place. Don’t be too surprised by the British Horse Society letter congratulating DCC. I am sure that other voices will come out of the woodwork supporting DCC – and I wouldn’t be surprised if some of them won’t be sent at the request of DCC. Its a strategy they have used before – getting other people to say you are doing good work is far more convincing than claiming it yourself.
They will also look for any argument to support what they intend to do.
We’ve already heard the spurious ‘legal duty to maintain’ argument. But they have lots of legal duties and they don’t manage to meet them all. Whenever I hear this argument I say ‘Pot holes’. Yes they have a legal duty to maintain and fill in pot holes in roads. But they don’t do them all – using the argument that they don’t have enough money! There are many other examples.
Access for disabled people is another common argument they use – in this case to support the decision to spend tens of thousands of pounds on this daft scheme. But at the same time they have just published proposals to cut millions of pounds from the Community Transport budget. Who will be most affected? Disabled peopl; many of whom will have their access to anywhere severely restricted. I think most disabled people in Derbyshire would prefer council tax to be spent on those schemes rather than dubious countryside ‘improvements’.
But the most important issue is what other similar ‘improvements’ have they already programmed? And what is the total budget that they have set aside this year and following years for similar schemes?
Under the freedom of information legislation we have a right to ask and they have a duty to tell us. They don’t plan these schemes from week to week but years ahead.
Whoever meets with the council should demand that they tell us – so that we can let a wider public know. But they will be reluctant to tell us and may try to avoid doing so.
Remember too that this is the council who removed the ‘historic’ Dovedale Stepping Stones and replaced them with concrete blocks – all for access and health and safety reasons. And they were persistent in justifying the unjustifiable.
Keep up the good work. It will be a long haul.

But the most important issue is what other similar ‘improvements’ have they already programmed? And what is the total budget that they have set aside this year and following years for similar schemes?

The following link details the Environmental Services Department plan for 2014/2015. Individual schemes are listed in the appendix.

DCC Service Plan

In terms of other planned works on bridleways page A-32 of the appendix reveals scheme number 03 01 05

Derwent Bridleway 5 Ladybower Reservoir to Cutthroat Bridge (Whinstone Lee Tor)
Surface improvements and drainage to improve accessibility and to support sustainable tourism and leisure, improve health & well-being and increase
resilience to climate change. Supports moorland restoration project.

Some routes, including Long Causeway and Rushup Edge, have badly degraded, exacerbated by the recent upsurge in mountain bikes.

The above is from the BHS letter. This is total horse carp. Any degradation would have been mainly by 4x4s and they have already been banned. There are plenty of easy trails for horse riders, rushup presents more of a challenge for both horse and rider. The peak district currently offers a variety of challenges for walker, horse riders and mountain bikers, flattening trails affects everyone’s enjoyment.

Why is it that those who want easy trails which already exist think that everything should be made an easy trail whether on horse or bike but if we ask to keep an existing challenging trail challenging, they claim that we want everything made “extreme”.

I’m sure there’s a proper name for that in psychology terms, transferring your failings onto others and then arguing against it.

Cuckoo – there’s many, many people involved in that. Don’t worry just yet.

Fasternotfitter- there are a lot of horse riders who are in the same mind as us. And walkers.

A very good point onzadog, we don’t want things made extreme we want trails to remain in their natural state unless they are truly unpassable or dangerous to all users. The variety of trails are what makes the peak district so appealing to bikers as there is something for everyone, regardless of skill level.

Pook I can’t imagine anyone that appreciates the natural beauty of the peak district is happy about what they have done up there. We could do with some horse riders and walkers joining us in condemning the work that has been carried out so far.

Working on it 😉

Well spotted Cuckoo.
But I suspect the document conceals more than it reveals. The purpose of the document is more administrative than informative. Its main purpose is to get ‘block’ approvals for all the planned expenditure – so that council officials don’t have to keep going back to council committees to get approval for individual schemes. Its purpose is not about informing the public. It also gives them enormous flexibility as they can drop and insert new schemes at any time as long as they keep within overall spending approvals. You will also have noticed that the document uses the term ‘various’ regularly. Lots of scope for change there.
I did a quick word search for ‘Rushup’ and couldn’t find any result which I thought strange given this is the plan of work for the financial year April 2014 to April 2015. No mention as far as I could see.
I think we need to ask the specific question.

Cuckoo, I couldn’t find any reference to ‘Chapel Gate’ in DCC’s service plan either.

More on grough

http://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2014/11/16/opinion-derbyshire-council-and-those-rushup-edge-bridleway-works

We’ve secured a meeting this morning with Secretary of State for Transport Patrick McLoughlin MP. His constituency is the Derbyshire Dales so we will be discussing Derbyshire County Council’s trail maintenance in the White Peak which was causing controversy long before the Rushup Edge saga kicked off.

More info here

Glad to hear things are still moving forward. Best of luck for today’s meeting.

Things are moving forwards but the work has not been reversed yet. Anything less means mountain biking is doomed in the peak district. I appreciate the efforts of peakmtb, you have definitely made an impact, but is there something else that the hordes of bikers on here can be doing? Letter writing, protest rides etc?

I know a number of people have made FOI requests to DCC. Has anyone had a response yet? They acknowledged my request and said they’d respond by 23rd November. Looks like they’re going to miss that deadline. Have they let anyone else down?

They can clam vexatious requests for failing to respond to FOi requests. I’m too knackered to find a link, but I’m sure it will be easy to find. Which is why some may not be answered.

On the plus side yesterday they repaired some of the potholes I reported 2 weeks ago

Time to report the one on the other side of the road now, didnt want them doing them all at once 😈

A couple of days after I made the request, I had an email telling me when their dead line was. I don’t see how they could claim it was vexatious. It related directly to their claim of acting in the interests of public safety.

Morning!
Quick bit of info culled from a pdf which is here clickety:

Under section 14(1) of the Act, public authorities do not have to
comply with vexatious requests. There is no public interest test.

Section 14(1) may be used in a variety of circumstances where a request, or its impact on a public authority, cannot be justified. Whilst public authorities should think carefully before refusing a request as vexatious they should not regard section 14(1) as something which is only to be applied in the most extreme of circumstances.

Section 14(1) can only be applied to the request itself and not the individual who submitted it.

Sometimes a request may be so patently unreasonable or objectionable that it will obviously be vexatious.

In cases where the issue is not clear-cut, the key question to ask is whether the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress.

This will usually be a matter of objectively judging the evidence of the impact on the authority and weighing this against any evidence about the purpose and value of the request.

The public authority may also take into account the context and history of the request, where this is relevant.

One of the comments on the walking forum

“Re: Rushup Edge destruction :- (

#53519
by Peak Rambler

30 Oct 2014, 21:26
I think the PDNP planners have only one thing in mind, how to increase revenue.

There are many laces in the PDNP where cycling is not permitted, t here are signs stating that (Stanage Edge being one area that springs to mind), but they still cycle through! I’ll rephrase that, race through!

I have come across some respectful cyclists, to the point they actually dismount and allow walkers to pass, before moving on at a reasonable speed.

To those few, they are great ambassadors to the mindless.
”

Had an email today relating to the financial ins and outs of what has been going on. I am sure you have all had the same but if not then let me know and I will post the links. Interesting point they made in thesis body of the email was ” the area you are referring to is not called Rushup Edge but Chapel Gate” is this correct? So many posts to keep up with I am probably way behind with this info, taken them an age to reply to my email mind.

Yes the entire route is referred to as chapelgate by DCC. Makes it all very easy for them to do the whole stretch in one go without separate “consultations” 😆

The Chapel Gate/Rushup Edge question is an interesting one. My thought is that if they’ve consulted adequately which they claim they have, then PDNPA wouldn’t have been surprised by what they were doing where.

Feels to me like DCC are trying to tag Rushup Edge onto Chapel Gate without anyone noticing. However, a few people might have noticed.

I’m sure someone will pitch in with the correct info but AFAIK the route crosses two parish boundaries and is known as both Chapel Gate and Rushup Edge. I’ve lived within sight of it for 20 years and as far as everyone I know Chapel Gate was commonly known to stop at the junction with the bridleway from Lords Seat to the road – or Rushup Edge as we know it. There are proper route numbers that identify the rights of way and if DCC had used these in the first place we would all be better informed. (oh and if they had told the public where to find the maps with the numbers – all a bit like having the Vogons as a highways agency)

@johnj2000 – if you can share the links that would be great, we are compiling as much info as possible so every little helps and it would be good not to miss anything.

linky1
linky2
linky3
linky4

There you go Roger

@john, this bit always makes me chuckle “Currently, many people are unable to use Chapel Gate because of the rocky ‘steps’ which have evolved due to damage over time.”

I know! Imagine being face by the those rocky steps as you round the corner, freak you right out 😉

I am now imagining poor people in therapy due to the trauma the rocky steps have inflicted upon them

It’s the shock after passing through the waist deep lagoon on the top of Lord’s Seat at the top of Rushup Edge. At least they are already sodden from the waist down so no one will see an expanding damp patch!!

Do you mean those rock steps that are a completely natural feature, the kind of thing that you would expect to see in the peak district?
Other proposed changes by DCC are an escalator to the top of kinder scout and all climbing routes on Stanage edge to have ladders installed so that as many people as possible can use them.

I’ve had a reply from DCC, only taken 20 days

The source of the stone is according to DCC:

The gritstone used to date to regulate out the steps on Chapelgate has been provided by Marchington Stone.

A quick Google shows that they are based in Disley

The Rucksack Club – founded in Manchester in 1902 – have got behind the Peak District MTB Rushup Edge campaign. It’s fantastic to get support beyond the mountain bike community 🙂

More info

Nice work tortoise.

I am very concerned though that DCC are just going through the motions, that the right buttons were pressed to get them to pause the work, but not the right buttons to get them to reverse the damage that has been done. I can’t help but feel that we need to increase the noise again in the build up to the meeting with DCC. I don’t want DCC to think that people have got over the initial shock and have started to accept it. I remain very upset, angry and fearful for the future of mountain biking in the peak district.