Just had this through from the TRF.
Make your views known.
"The last chance for us to object to the Chapel Gate Experimental TRO is up to 29 February. The more objections there are the more impact we may have.
The minimum that is needed is for an individual to send the following statement
I wish to object to the provisions of the Experimental Traffic Order, made on 10 August 2011 prohibiting mechanically propelled vehicles on the Chapel Gate Byway, being established on a permanent basis.
by email to
[email protected]
or by Post to :-
Mike Rhodes
Access and RoW Manager
The Peak District National Park Authority
Aldern House
Baslow Road
Bakewell
DE45 1AE
Any reasons why you object can be added possible reasons may be something from below, or any personal feeling / questions.
Lack of access - recreational vehicle users have considerably less access in the Peak District than other user groups and this has been reduced even further by the NERC Act 2006
The importance of Chapel Gate - Chapel Gate is not only an important route in it's own right but is a vital link in the wider green lane network, it's loss would cause real harm and distress to legitimate vehicle users
Surface improvements - one of the key concerns expressed by the authority was displacment of users (vehicular and others) onto environmentally sensitive adjacent land because of surface damage. This damage has now been repaired by the County Council
Suitability for vehicles- many anti vehicle campaigners claim that this route is not suitable for modern vehicles but Derbyshire CC have confirmed that the repairs carried out were to "byway standard" and the surface is now suitable for use trail bikes and land rover type 4x4s
Proportionality - The terms of the experimental order represent the most draconian restriction the authority can impose. This is wholely out of proportion to any real problems.
Alternatives - There are a wide range of alternative management options available to the authority that could be effective but which fall short of the blanket ban proposed by this ETRO. It would be grossly unreasonable of the authority to adopt the most restrictive option with out at least trialing less restrictive options first.
Please do take the time to raise an objection."
Thanks guys.
Make your views known.
"The last chance for us to object to the Chapel Gate Experimental TRO is up to 29 February. The more objections there are the more impact we may have.
The minimum that is needed is for an individual to send the following statement
I wish to object to the provisions of the Experimental Traffic Order, made on 10 August 2011 prohibiting mechanically propelled vehicles on the Chapel Gate Byway, being established on a permanent basis.
by email to
[email protected]
or by Post to :-
Mike Rhodes
Access and RoW Manager
The Peak District National Park Authority
Aldern House
Baslow Road
Bakewell
DE45 1AE
Any reasons why you object can be added possible reasons may be something from below, or any personal feeling / questions.
Lack of access - recreational vehicle users have considerably less access in the Peak District than other user groups and this has been reduced even further by the NERC Act 2006
The importance of Chapel Gate - Chapel Gate is not only an important route in it's own right but is a vital link in the wider green lane network, it's loss would cause real harm and distress to legitimate vehicle users
Surface improvements - one of the key concerns expressed by the authority was displacment of users (vehicular and others) onto environmentally sensitive adjacent land because of surface damage. This damage has now been repaired by the County Council
Suitability for vehicles- many anti vehicle campaigners claim that this route is not suitable for modern vehicles but Derbyshire CC have confirmed that the repairs carried out were to "byway standard" and the surface is now suitable for use trail bikes and land rover type 4x4s
Proportionality - The terms of the experimental order represent the most draconian restriction the authority can impose. This is wholely out of proportion to any real problems.
Alternatives - There are a wide range of alternative management options available to the authority that could be effective but which fall short of the blanket ban proposed by this ETRO. It would be grossly unreasonable of the authority to adopt the most restrictive option with out at least trialing less restrictive options first.
Please do take the time to raise an objection."
Thanks guys.
