Win Hill is somewhere out there in the mist.

Hope Valley has a good covering of snow.

Summit to Hollins Cross

Yet the Mam Tor – Hollins Cross path is a BW and fair game as far as the law is concerned even though it’s one of the busiest Sunday walking routes in the Peak.

The one from the summit isn’t, that’s a very busy footpath there isn’t a BW to the summit, the one round the back of Mam Tor from Mam Nick that follows the gulley is a bridleway which joins the main route halfway to Hollins Cross.

But the point I was making was more about riding style in an inappropriate place at a silly time.

Two factors: PDNPA capped numbers & loss of challenge due to Rushup works by DCC.

Try and be nice to them, we are trying to get them on our side by going out repairing drainage with them.

Some can be a bit officious but when they have to deal with moans about riders such as the two descending Mam Tor last weekend like it was the Steel City Downhill, slaloming through dozens of walkers at full chat and kicking off every bump & rock on the footpath from the summit to Hollins Cross, you can see why they get a bit prescious.

If you are going to ride footpaths on a busy and sunny Sunday then a bit of consideration may help us all.

Just spent an awesome afternoon of anorakness at 216 Stand tasting all manner of MrTwinings best.
Came away with a bag of Lapsang Souchong, 2nd Flush Assam and Russian Caravan – if you can drink it without milk or sugar it’s a whole world of tastes to explore and another level of geeky obsession to add to the list. 😀

Living in a very popular road/MTB area with a lot of narrow lanes the pinch points are invariably parked cars. There seems to be an increasing tendency for drivers to seem to expect the cyclist to wait behind the parked vehicle so they pass it first the the cyclist can pull out and pass. Either that or compress the cyclist into some bizarre muiral on the door of the parked car.

But the depressing thing I see every weekend are the appalling manoeuvres made by cars with bikes on the roof/back when they are passing cyclists heading to and from their rides. It’s almost as it they chucked their cycling brains in the boot of the car with their helmets

Ninfan – re numbers in an event, PDNPA has a cap on events. The 500 rider BHF fundraiser has been cancelled due to this and the action of DCC flattening routed used in the event. So not just NFNPA. Sadly most are made up of people with vested interest and often they are sufficiently well connected to have real influence.

Excellent TV. Quality cast, acting & interesting viewpoint via a vis Cromwell & Moore.

4″ of snow in the Hope Valley, which would be fab if my new fat bike wasn’t in Bilston! 😀

Just a case of how fast I can get through today’s work this morning before I can go and play outside

Kelvin – that came up at the LAF meeting.
There was general interest in that approach but…

1. DCC are only interested in the highway, that’s the bit with the steps, the rest of the are to either side belongs to the landowner and using it is, technically, trespass.

2. It would be PDNPA that would have to approach the landowner to explore the acceptability of doing this to their land as DCC are not interested.

3. There would be a consideration of the change in nature of the landscape and that would probably not be supported by quite a few other user groups.

4. We were advised at the meeting that there’s no cash available at the moment for something like this.

Pook has a good point and we have sent our response to DCC over to DR and asked if they would share theirs with us. Hope fully if we can both see where the other is coming from we can reach some form of compromise.

At the LAF meeting they stressed that Rushup Edge / Chapel Gate is a BOAT and therefore a highway and should be surfaced accordingly. This negates the fact that there is far better highway, built by the Highways Authority 50m to the south. The problem seems to be as has been pointed out earlier, this is more of a failure of the designations to keep pace with the changing environment around Rushup Edge / Chapel Gate

@ slowoldman is it owned by a bloke called Bob by any chance?

We may yet see DCC use access for as it’s trump card. Stanage Long Causeway was lauded as a great improvement for the use of the Tramper.
These are videos of Stanage & Rushup showing the Tramper in action.
Long Causeway: http://youtu.be/Xe4a08THG6c
Chapel Gate: http://youtu.be/i-HkyQvez9o
The spec mentioned at the LAF was for a surface with no more than a 5″ step every 5′ to enable a Tramper to pass, more than that and it is too bumpy to be comfortable. There is also a declared intent on the DR website to have gates & stiles etc removed to aid access. It’s a veritable minefield of rights, legal issues and specifications and DCC may yet use them to try and thwart us.

Local in the Peak as usual.

Very cold out so hopefully some of the mud will be frozen.

The lightest sprinkling in air in the Hope Valley on tonight’s ride.

No, your face would drop off ‘cos of all Teh grinz® you’d be pulling, everyone needs a face!!

Just started knitting myself a a face net to catch mine as I have just purchased my first portly pushbike – rider and bike in perfect accord. 😀

Firstly, a huge thanks to all our supporters for the time and effort they have put in over the last year to raise our profile and make us a strong organisation to represent the voices of those who love the Peak District.
On 2 December 2015, Peak District MTB met with Derbyshire County Council (DCC) to discuss the work on Rushup Edge and other works in the Peak District. Ride Sheffield, Keeper of the Peak, the British Mountaineering Council (BMC) and Friends of the Peak (FOTP) District were also in the meeting to discuss the issue at hand. At the time we provided a brief update on the meeting, since then PDMTB has had chance to put together this, a more detailed report. Also included is a report from the site meeting which was requested subsequently to the main meeting with DCC. The site meeting happened on Tuesday 16th December and also included Ride Sheffield and FOTP.  DCC has requested that the user groups provide a formal response to their proposed work on Rushup Edge / Chapel Gate by the 16th of January 2015.  PDMTB will put forward its own response along with other groups. We hope there will be a lot of constructive comments. Until then we believe all work on Rushup Edge is on hold.
It’s a long and detailed report so here’s an ‘Executive Summary’, if you want to read the full report and site visit update, please click the ‘read more’ link.
Exec Summary:
PDMTB’s conclusion:
Following the meeting and site visit PDMTB has concluded the following:
1) Derbyshire County Council’s current plans for Rushup Edge have been barely modified and remain unacceptable to the vast majority of users of the Peak District.
2) Derbyshire County Council has failed to provide adequate justification for the works proposed.
3) Derbyshire County Council has a poor understanding of the needs of this trail as evidenced by their lack of research into user groups and their needs.
4) Derbyshire County Council cannot forecast any increased usage after the work and has not evidenced this after previous work on other routes.,
5) Derbyshire County Council has no consideration of the sustainability, long term environmental and economic impact of the proposed work.
6) Derbyshire County Council is unable determine the cost of the work or commit to any form of maintenance in the future:
“We don’t know how much a project is going to cost until we have finished it”
7) Derbyshire County Council has a history of inadequate consultation and reflection of user groups’ views in similar works.  We are yet to be convinced that they have learnt their lessons.
PDMTB’s proposed response to Derbyshire County Council’s proposals for Rushup Edge:
We demand that DCC:
1) remove all materials that have been placed on the route and return it to its original state.  
2) that all maintenance is as sensitive, minimal and sustainable as possible and we believe that can be achieved in a cost efficient manner.
3) if maintenance is unavoidable, we request the current materials are removed and replace with a planned and designed stone setting approach to reasonably accommodate all amenity users as has been achieved on a nearby route.
4) should the larger steps be removed we request smaller steps remain and that  solid bedrock is left intact and visible  remaining consistent with the nature of the trail.
For the full report follow this link – clickety

Top of Mam Tor again for midnight.

Certainly will, cheers Karl

Rode past this today – Peveril Castle

Next time I’m over visiting the ‘Olds’ I’ll bring my bike, not ridden in there since the mid 80s, may bring my Xmas money too 😀

Canklow Woods 😯
Scary place of my yoof, trust it’s less, err…dangerous than it used to be?
Would guess it’s council land as it comes off Boston Park – seem to remember some furore about someone trying to develop it ages ago and it being a ‘green space’.
I’d try the council if you are looking for official sanction to build/rebuild a trail.

Just put 4 new quite aggressive patterned winter tyres on MrsCat’s Panda 4×4 as two ordinary tyres were shot so took a chance they would be handy if it got bad – the transformation has been incredible, in the last dump of snow and ice it has not missed its footing once and it has managed to get where poorly shod 4x4s have failed. I was genuinely impressed with both the car and the tyres.

Where’s TJ and obsession with rotational injuries when there’s a thread just begging for his words of wisdom? 😀

Kevin Turvey’s ear – genius, sad loss.
Howled laughing at last nights prog.

You’re all bloody weird!

We’ve got bikes with big knobbly tyres, designed to go through mud and stuff, waterproof clothing and you moan about this awesome weather – big hills, big skies, high winds, mud, rain and best of all empty trails – winter is brilliant!

Green Pavillions Cafe, Buxton. Recovering from their veggie breakfast! Epic.

Deedaa land and Mankchester – they glow orange/red on the horizon like Mordor and Isengard

Bantam Cock

MrsCat is the rock upon which this family is built.
Love her to bits (not literally of course, that would be weird!)
Heartbreaking to see her in pain because of her back probs, maybe about to undergo her third bout of spinal surgery which means she’ll be more metal than the original Terminator, and only half as nice to people who upset the boys.
Biggest brownest eyes and a giggle that sounds like bubbles coming up through treacle, irreplaceable and the best friend anyone could ever have.

Congrats Dad, best word in the world. 😀

It’s right up there with “I’m a right laugh me!” Said in a DeeDaa accent. Usually the least funny person in the room.

I’ll not rise to the obvious troll! :p

It’s as Stilltortoise quite rightly points out – it’s the long route, I was at a meeting last night with all the interested parties in mountain biking held at the NT Longshaw Estate – the attendee list was impressive: NT, PDNPA, BC, CTC, Sport Derbyshire, the local LAF, Ride Sheffield, PDMTB, Chinley Churners, Hope Sports, I think that was everyone. The general consensus is that we need to come together and have a collective voice for mountain bikers.

Someone said to me at one of the many meetings I seem to suddenly be attending, that we are the invisible visitors. People see walkers because the are everywhere, roadies are – well all over the roads, paragliders are visible overhead. We arrive and promptly disappear from sight as we bugger off up some muddy track. We have only just made it onto the DCC radar as a grown up and large user group.

We are trying to sort a post DCC meeting meeting (I may yet kill myself) to look at the next step. All is not lost on Rushup, it has not been completely buried, the steps are being levelled but we have an engineers report that contests the longevity of the methodology and we are awaiting a response from DCC to our rebuttal document – copy on the PDMTB website to download.

It’s taken a lot of effort to get this far, the momentum is growing. If you want to chuck in the towel because of some work on one route then fine, but there’s lots of us who will continue to fight our corner because there is still plenty of good trails round here and with a little work there could be many more.

The day of the big meeting is upon us. Off to see DCC this morning in very good company and we are well prepared. We will post our feedback from the meeting on the PDMTB website and in here. Thanks to everyone for your support.

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!!

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.

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.

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.