Rushup edge resurfacing

Anyone read the response yet? Is it good news?

Doesn’t read as good news to me:

The Council is … obliged to repair the route to a standard that is reasonably accessible to all types of user. To this end, materials natural to the area will be used for the repairs. Improved
drainage will provide a sustainable route and improve access to the countryside, providing opportunities for less able persons to enjoy the surrounding landscape. Furthermore, much of the existing bedrock will be retained as is practicable unless it presents a danger to users.

Lots of grumbling about mountain bikers. Lots of playing up comments that were in favour of what they’ve done, and dismissal of comments against. Sounds like they’re going to carry on as before and flatten the lot. Might leave some bedrock poking out here and there if we’re lucky.

Anyone read the response yet? Is it good news?

I wouldn’t have said so. There is a recommendation for the works to continue, some commitment of perhaps retaining some bedrock where it ‘doesn’t create a danger for users’ perhaps even creating a ‘tramper friendly’ line up the steps.

The views of the national park authority and possibly the biggest or second-biggest user group (us) are given equal weight with a large number of other groups representing horse riders, disabled access or walkers, with great play made of the impression this gives that the ‘majority of respondents’ favour the council’s original plans.

Whether the council has the budget or the skillset for tailoring its repairs to keep bedrock lines is not entirely clear.

The views of the national park authority and possibly the biggest or second-biggest user group (us) are given equal weight with a large number of other groups representing horse riders, disabled access or walkers

As it was, the other user groups couldn’t really use it. If it is made more accessible for all then they will be able to.

I’m disappointed with the responses, but can understand all of them. It seems the argument really hangs on the fact that this is a carriageway and not a bridleway and so should be repaired – and that’s probably right.

It’s just a shame that this consultation wasn’t done beforehand – perhaps the money could have been used more wisely and an approach similar to the Roych might have been possible. Now I’d be very surprised if there weren’t just a load more rocks tipped on top of what is already there.

My reading of it was similar to Martin’s. Despite mountain bikers being a much bigger user group than those that approved the work, the local councillor disapproving and the PDNPA saying they didn’t like the work they have used support from minority user groups such as disabled ramblers and mild backing from a horse riding group as validation that their destruction should go ahead.

This was, from what I have heard of Peter White, was exactly what we should have expected even of it’s not what we should have hoped for.

Where to go from here? A group letter from PDMTB? Possibly with some persuasion of other objecting groups to point out the above to DCC as a last ditch attempt to retain some character?

I suspect now the solution as opposed to plantings will be crushed aggregate topping as they have done on derwent edge, a similar bodge job and blight on the landscape.

So, as much as we pretend and they claim, that we have a democratic process or even any input at all, this is in fact, another Peter Whitewash.

Well there’s a surprise. Having worked in local authority before, I’ve seen the tactic of “hiding the numbers” in a report like this before. Three horse user group comments trumps one cycling body irrespective of the number of members each has.

As for it being a carriageway, that’s full on technicality bull shit. It’s a carriageway with a traffic regulation order on it which prohibits the use of motorised vehicles.

Self serving asshats!

The answer is, someone needs to have a very nasty crash coming down there too fast and bring a case against dcc for making it dangerous. Until it hurts dcc, there’s no motivation for them to listen.

munrobiker – …as they have done on derwent edge, a similar bodge job and blight on the landscape.

Although it doesn’t look to good now I suspect Derwent edge will weather in nicely given time

“It seems the argument really hangs on the fact that this is a carriageway and not a bridleway and so should be repaired”

Apparently, Rushup Edge used to be a bridleway, but was upgraded to a BOAT in September 2006. And therein lies the problem . . .

Indeed, however a TRO was later applied banning all motorised traffic, so it is now in effect a bridleway

Exactly, so the need to maintain it as a carriageway is a legal one, not a practical one.

If they’re going to level it and tarmac (effectively) they might as well lift the tro and let motorised vehicles back on.

Onzadog – If they’re going to level it and tarmac (effectively) they might as well lift the tro and let motorised vehicles back on.

but they are banned because they smell and are noisy, not because the route is unsuitable… regardless of what the paperwork reason is.

ps. I’m all for more motorised access

In all seriousness though, I think our best argument is that they’re trying to have their cake and eat it. Isn’t there an MP who oversees all this sort of stuff? Who took over from pickles?

The views of the national park authority

Actually, I viewed the comments of the PDNPA as fairly clearly critical of the repairs as planned.

I do wonder how the extent of the repairs would fall in with the need for planning permission, as I suspect that The NPA are the planning authority and could be persuaded to block the council from carrying on without further consultation and reports.

I can’t see any need for planning permission for ‘repairs’ to a highway by the highway authority. Why on earth was it upgraded in 2006? It would be a lot more economic in these times of austerity to downgrade most of the BOATs in the Peak, then they wouldn’t have to worry about it at all.

Apparently during the 1970s Lancashire County Council downgraded a lot of bridleways to footpaths, to reduce maintenance costs (allegedly) 🙁

Link to DCC report on the re-surfacing of Cut Gate

http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/images/2015.07.07%20(4j)%20Chapel%20en%20le%20Frith%20BOAT_tcm44-267129.pdf

DCC has been very selective in the comments that are included in the report. The report is going before Councillors on the same day that cuts to School Crossing Patrols / Community Transport will be agreed

Link to DCC report on the re-surfacing of Cut Gate

How to give STW a collective heart attack… 🙂

Sounds like the anti-clockwise Kinder circuit is about to get a whole lot easier….

That’s the thing, the old sunken road was fun to ride up or down. Both circuits have been spoilt.

Can someone post the details of the upgrade from bridleway to byway? Weblink with some reliable source would be fantastic. PD MTB are currently drawing the evidence together so these sort of hard facts will be invaluable.

Another plea: anyone who feels this issue or any issue about biking in the Peak District is important please sign up to become a full member. it takes less than a minute, is free and makes a huge difference to our campaign. We will be approaching elected members shortly and need your support.
http://www.peakdistrictmtb.org/index.php/home

I think it’s been said already, but there’s a special lunacy in repairing a BOAT that’s no longer effectively a BOAT thanks to the banning TRO on the basis that it is a BOAT. It’s proper 1984/Vietnam era stuff where villages had to be destroyed so they could be ‘saved’.

What I find disturbing about the whole thing is the desultory treatment of the PDNPA’s comments. If anyone should know about tracks in the Peak and have an informed take on the whole thing, it’s the National Park Authority, yet their objections are lumped in with all sorts of niche interest groups.

The whole thing is what you get when uninformed bureaucrats with their own agenda start messing about in areas where they have no real understanding or empathy. The PDNPA was very unhappy when this whole thing kicked off last year and I doubt things have changed much there.

If it’s any consolation, I’ve been riding off-road in the Peak since the early 90s and nothing, in terms of trail, repair, has proved to be long-term durable unless it’s based on properly pitched stone slabs and blocks, everything else just washes out. The sunken lane at Rushup is a natural drainage channel, anything based on aggregate or loose rocks will simply end up on the road below at some point in the future.

Things that have been ‘wrecked’ in the past – the Hayfield campsite descent or the Roych for example – are now decent riding again, in the case of the former, better than it was to start with. It may take a while, but half-arsed repairs aren’t going to last.

The PDMTB official response fro0m earlier in the year is very reasonable I reckon.

http://www.peakdistrictmtb.org/index.php/70-rushup-edge-our-official-response-to-derbyshire-county-council

It highlights some good points about the unsuitability of the route for disabled users. In general this is all good stuff but it could easily be construed as “mountain bikers want to play and don’t give a stuff about disabled users”. Hopefully the response is decent enough that people agree about the route’s unsuitability.

Also, did anyone read the Peak Horsepower response? It says that both bare rock and aggregate surfaces are unsuitable. If that’s the case what exactly do they propose to walk on? They also want an aggregate surface that is guaranteed not to wash away. Does such a thing exist?

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

The Council is … obliged to repair the route to a standard that is reasonably accessible to all types of user.

Judging from the state of the roads in the area I thought this was an attempt at satire.

I tried to contact my local county councillor but have just found the post is vacant, which two months after an election seems clever.

To me the main point that should ring with the councillors is that whatever they put up there isn’t going to stay put. They threw money at repairing Clough Lane (Birchover to Darley Bridge) and two years later its well on its way to returning back to its original condition. The section of Chapel Gate they are talking about is more of a drainage line than Clough Lane.

Would lobbying County Councillors (if you have one) help?

Apologies if this is not the place, but I’m planning on riding in the peaks on Sunday, is the edge already vandalised beyond the point of being fun or is it still mostly worth riding as things stand?

The edge in question is a relatively short section, but bloody horrible to ride over at the mo. You need to maintain speed and momentum and hope you don’t come off as the rocks are pretty big and sharp looking. I’m surprised the DCC have left it in that state for so long, it needs an injury and a jolly good suing to really hammer home their stupidity. However I don’t feel like volunteering for the injury part…

An apology: It was early, I didn’t sleep well – I meant Chapel Gate – Sorry

Hello all,

Well it’s been an interesting few days since that popped up. Typically DCC, they’ve tried to play some tricks such as very short notice on the report coming and the council hearing taking place. Peter White – our lovely friendly DCC officer – is also being very coy with details on the meeting too. Such as time and attendees.

Needless to say, the report is (to use words of another trail advocacy group) ‘appalling’.

It is selective of comments in the extreme and goes out of its way to discredit mountain bikers as simply moaning about losing a rough surface. It plays the disabled access card freely but doesn’t state that local disability advocacy groups weren’t actually consulted.

The worry is that this report is being trusted as the unbiased truth when it is far, far from it.

This report skews comment, takes things out of context and misrepresents opinion.

On social media today DCC have been described as ‘shameful’ and it’s true. This report is an entire dereliction of duty by the officers involved and completely disregards the last eight months of ‘consultation’.

I would encourage each and every one of you to contact the councillors at the meeting on Tuesday and express your concern that one of their officers is willing to ignore the overwhelming public opinion and pressure on budgets in the council in order to follow through with a bloody minded and unnecessary project.

Email addresses for Councillors and Officers are as follows:

Firstname.surname@derbyshire.gov.uk

For example Dean Collins is the Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Infrastructure, his email address is:

Dean.collins@derbyshire.gov.uk

Or you could attend the meeting / ask a question, please see the link below:

http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/council/meetings_decisions/open_government/openess/default.asp

Emailed, can everyone also take 10mins and express the points made my pook
I would also emphasise the point about altering the landscape and works not being carried out to match the environment etc.

Another plea: anyone who feels this issue or any issue about biking in the Peak District is important please sign up to become a full member.

Done. And I’ll be emailing councillors shortly. Absolute disgrace.

Do we have an up to date list of councillors/mps who are relevant to this? Also, it might be worth addressing each one personally. If there’s a number of names on the mailing list, people tend to assume someone else on the list will sort it.

So, who do we want?
Leader for the council at dcc.
no for the high peak
Leader of the opposition at dcc
Dcc councillor for transport and highways.

Who else is worth contacting?
Are any of the Derbyshire papers anti council?

Also wondering if it’s worth trying the department for communities and local government.

eter White – our lovely friendly DCC officer – is also being very coy with details on the meeting too. Such as time and attendees.

I’m sure you’ve already dug this out, but:

https://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/images/Timetable%202015-16%20v4_tcm44-261031.pdf

Has it down at 10.30am on the 7th.

http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/council/council_works/cabinet/cabinet_members/default.asp

From what I can make out, one from each grouping, so copying in everyone there would most likely reach the right folk. Democratic Services Team would have exact list of attendees, I’m sure.

democratic.services@derbyshire.gov.uk or by contacting the Democratic Services Team on 01629 538327.

PS

How do I ask a question at Cabinet?

Members of the public can ask questions on the open section of the Cabinet agenda. You do not need to give notice of your question but the question must relate to an item on the agenda for the meeting.

You are encouraged to notify the Democratic Services Team of your question or the agenda item to which it relates, the day before the meeting.

By doing so, this should enable a fuller response to be provided. You will be allowed to ask a supplementary question provided that it arises directly out of the original question or the response.

PPS

Local rags will love a good ‘council row’ story, especially if PDNPA advice has been so blatantly put to one side.

I’ve e-mailed democratic (lol!) services. I’ll let everyone know if I get something back.

I’ll cobble something together over the weekend when I’m less caustic, hostile and face-punchy.

Evening folks,

We’ve been working as always to progress things. Your emails and challenges are much appreciated and will hopefully at the very least make those involved think a little about what’s going on.
Peak District MTB and @KofheP have put their heads together to go back at DCC with something, but in the meantime here’s the latest.

http://peakdistrictmtb.org/index.php/84-a-quick-summary-of-dcc-s-rushup-edge-chapel-gate-report

What can you do? Well we’ve only got to this position with membership mandate. Join PDMTB and file @koftheP. That’s the support that got us into the room.

Without you lot this fight would have been lost months ago. We’re in round 11 but it’s tied right now.

Anyone seen Rocky I?

Is that the one where he picks them off in the forest one by one because they started exceeding their powers and authority and taking liberties with a man’s freedom and basic rights?

DCC didn’t like the email / website campaign last time

Just to put a little more spin on this.
(1) DCC are planning to makes cut to the Community Transport – this is a lifeline to a number of OAPs who live in the Peak District –

https://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/council/news_events/news-updates/2015/july/news_items/new_plans_for_community_transport_-_tell_us_what_you_think.asp

(2) DCC are planning to cut School Crossing Patrols

http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/council/news_events/news-updates/2015/june/news_items/were_set_to_consider_future_of_school_crossing_patrol_service.asp

http://www.burtonmail.co.uk/School-crossing-cuts-attracts-hundreds-signatures/story-26392029-detail/story.html

Cuts to SCP will save £96k

Cllr Dean Collins gave an interview on BBC East Midlands News (it was a bad interview) saying that cuts to Community Transport was needed in order to protect “frontline services”

Chris Doidge is the political reporter for BBC Radio Derby

https://mobile.twitter.com/BBCChrisD/tweets