Urgent Help required South Wales Trail Riding

[Hew]

Please help by writing an objection to this draft proposal page 98 Table 7.2 ( thanks Gaz) This must be done before 31st August.
The proposal aims to exclude vehicles from the current ROW within the Park and several classic lanes will be lost. This has already happened on several unsurfaced roads in the Yorkshire Dales so please respond.

The email address to send objections to is
[email protected].
Please include you name and address

Dear All, URGENT ACTION NEEDED PLEASE Attached is a response to the Brecon Beacons National Park Authority (BBNPA Managing Change Together response V2.doc) in respect to their draft consultation papers which are also attached. If the park authority manage to get their Draft approved unaltered all the current routes in the NPA will eventually be closed, Sarn Helen, The Gap, and as you are aware many other popular routes.
If you look at the map on page 4 of the NPMP_draft_v2_final.pdf you will se the extent of the BBNP.
This is an important issue for everyone who enjoys motorised recreation in the area so:-



http://www.trf.org.uk/BreconBeaconsNationalParkManagementPlan.zip

These need to be sent in by the 31st August.


Dear Sir or Madam:
Brecon Beacons National Park Management Plan 2009-2014 Consultation Draft
The Brecon Beacons National Park Authority is preparing a new management plan for the next 5 years, entitled Managing Change Together. The plan lays out strategies for conserving and enhancing the Park’s natural and cultural resources, promoting understanding and enjoyment of the Park and fostering economic and social well-being of local communities.
Managing Change Together is the result of consultation which officially began in October 2006, involving a wide variety of partners. We continue to engage interested stakeholders to improve the quality of the Management Plan and, ultimately, improve the management of the Brecon Beacons National Park. This consultation draft is an important step in this process.
A draft of the new plan is now being distributed for public consultation which continues through 31 August 2008. It is also available at http://www.breconbeacons.org/content/the-authority/planning/strategy-and-policy/npmp.
During the consultation period, the Authority will organise a series of discussions to formulate management priorities for the next five years, including those of the Authority and other key stakeholders. Priorities will include a series of outcomes and related actions that will be accomplished during this period that ultimately keep the Park on track with the twenty-year aims and the vision. The Priorities for Action document will also be sent out for public consultation.
Please share your comments with us so that we can continue to successfully manage this ever-changing landscape TOGETHER! In order to make the most efficient use of your time, please refer to the Reviewer’s Guide (attached).
If you have any comments or questions regarding this consultation draft, please do not hesitate to contact me in writing, on my direct line at 01874 620411, or via email at [email protected].

Regards,

Brad Welch

National Park Management Plan Officer/Swyddog Cynllun Rheoli'r Parc Cenedlaethol
Brecon Beacons National Park Authority/Awdurdod Parc Cenedlaethol Bannau Brycheiniog
Plas y Ffynnon
Cambrian Way/Ffordd Cambrian
Brecon/Aberhonddu
LD3 7HP
Telephone/Ffôn - 01874 620 411
Fax/Ffacs - 01874 622 574




PR + Comms Officer TRF

 

[jasext]

just sent and here is one written out just add your name and address please or feel free to modify it


28th August 2008

Dear Sir
I am writing to you with regard to the Brecon Beacons Draft Management Plan 2009-2014

I would like to officially register my opposition to the BBNP’s attitude towards what is termed as “inappropriate activities”
Firstly I would like to point out that the term “inappropriate” is unsubstantiated, unfounded and unjustifiable given the records, history and evidence of such activities as listed in table 7.2.2 of you document NPMP_draft_v2_080331_final.pdf
These activities listed and in particular the use of recreational motorized vehicles within the BBNP boundaries have occurred for many decades without any real or factual problems or damage to the environment, in fact there are some listed activities within the table 7.2.1 which are far more hazardous to both the environment and other RoW users.
As far as I can tell, all studies of environmental impact of motorized vehicles on our RoW network have concluded that there are no negative issues other than other vociferous and bigoted users perceptions, studies of vehicular use on unsurfaced RoW’s have also shown there to be no significant impact on erosion, what we do know is that regular use of RoW’s by vehicles does in fact help to keep them clear and useable for all users as evidenced by those which have become impassable since vehicular rights have been removed.
It is the BBNP’s responsibility to protect the rights of ALL RoW users, it seems very clear from the document detailed above that BBNP is only content with the removal of legal rights for minority users.

I would like to know who exactly deemed certain activities as “appropriate” or “inappropriate”, and on what basis ?
I strongly object to the draft in its current form as it seeks to remove my right to use RoW’s legally and responsibly and further it appears to be founded on nothing but pure prejudice.



Yours



Your Name
Your Street
Your Town
Your County
Your POstcode

 

[millard]

just sent and here is one written out just add your name and address please or feel free to modify it


28th August 2008

Dear Sir
I am writing to you with regard to the Brecon Beacons Draft Management Plan 2009-2014

I would like to officially register my opposition to the BBNP’s attitude towards what is termed as “inappropriate activities”
Firstly I would like to point out that the term “inappropriate” is unsubstantiated, unfounded and unjustifiable given the records, history and evidence of such activities as listed in table 7.2.2 of you document NPMP_draft_v2_080331_final.pdf
These activities listed and in particular the use of recreational motorized vehicles within the BBNP boundaries have occurred for many decades without any real or factual problems or damage to the environment, in fact there are some listed activities within the table 7.2.1 which are far more hazardous to both the environment and other RoW users.
As far as I can tell, all studies of environmental impact of motorized vehicles on our RoW network have concluded that there are no negative issues other than other vociferous and bigoted users perceptions, studies of vehicular use on unsurfaced RoW’s have also shown there to be no significant impact on erosion, what we do know is that regular use of RoW’s by vehicles does in fact help to keep them clear and useable for all users as evidenced by those which have become impassable since vehicular rights have been removed.
It is the BBNP’s responsibility to protect the rights of ALL RoW users, it seems very clear from the document detailed above that BBNP is only content with the removal of legal rights for minority users.

I would like to know who exactly deemed certain activities as “appropriate” or “inappropriate”, and on what basis ?
I strongly object to the draft in its current form as it seeks to remove my right to use RoW’s legally and responsibly and further it appears to be founded on nothing but pure prejudice.



Yours



Your Name
Your Street
Your Town
Your County
Your POstcode

Done.

 

[Jeannot]

Done. Hope it helps

JC

 

[russ996duke]

also done....fighting rear guard action....we need a change of rulers!

 

[Berin]

Jasext, do you have any references to support your points;

"Firstly I would like to point out that the term “inappropriate” is unsubstantiated, unfounded and unjustifiable given the records, history and evidence of such activities as listed in table 7.2.2 of you document NPMP_draft_v2_080331_final.pdf"

"These activities listed and in particular the use of recreational motorized vehicles within the BBNP boundaries have occurred for many decades without any real or factual problems or damage to the environment, in fact there are some listed activities within the table 7.2.1 which are far more hazardous to both the environment and other RoW users."

especially;

"As far as I can tell, all studies of environmental impact of motorized vehicles on our RoW network have concluded that there are no negative issues other than other vociferous and bigoted users perceptions, studies of vehicular use on unsurfaced RoW’s have also shown there to be no significant impact on erosion, what we do know is that regular use of RoW’s by vehicles does in fact help to keep them clear and useable for all users as evidenced by those which have become impassable since vehicular rights have been removed."

I'm not being negative, but in the context of the rest of the report, which states as it's aims:

Conserving and Enhancing the Natural and Cultural Heritage of the Park
2028

• The beautiful and varied character of the landscape will continue to be well-managed and cared for. Landscape change will be encouraged to benefit the Park‘s biodiversity, geodiversity, and cultural heritage.
• The upland commons will be managed for the benefit of habitat conservation, grazing productivity, archaeological features, public accessibility, andto the provision of vital ecosystem services.
• Woodlands will be integrated with other aspects of countryside management. They will be extended and diversified where possible. They will be well-managed for their landscape, economic, ecological, and social values and as a renewable resource.
• The Park‘s stakeholders will encourage biodiversity to flourish and adapt to climate change. Improved habitat connectivity and exemplary management of designated nature conservation sites will enhance the condition and diversity of species and habitats in the Park.
• Experimentation with novel approaches to sustainable development and environmental conservation on NPA-owned lands will provide examples of best practice.
• The traditional pattern of farmedland and its characteristic, historic features and habitats will be conservedand enhanced, providing the basis for a thriving agricultural economy.
• Air, water, and soil resources will be used sustainably to integratethe needs of wildlife with the demands from human use. Their quality will be maintained at a high standard.
• The Park‘s internationally-renowned geologic and geomorphologic features will be conserved.
• The Park‘s historic settlement patterns and buildings will be conserved and enhanced. New development will adhere to sustainable design principles and complement the existing built heritage of the Park.
• Historic landscapes and archaeological features will be protected, conserved, and enhanced.
• Local traditions, community events, and the Welsh language will flourish and evolve as part of a living culture that cherishes the past and embraces the future.

and it's emphasis on sustainability, reducing carbon footprint, global impact, Kyoto agreement, renewables, recycling, lesbian basket weaving co-operatives etc. I'd say we really need to have some hard facts in here.

If you could point us to any of the studies and reports that can be quoted the objections would carry more weight.

thanks,

just sent and here is one written out just add your name and address please or feel free to modify it


28th August 2008

Dear Sir
I am writing to you with regard to the Brecon Beacons Draft Management Plan 2009-2014

I would like to officially register my opposition to the BBNP’s attitude towards what is termed as “inappropriate activities”
Firstly I would like to point out that the term “inappropriate” is unsubstantiated, unfounded and unjustifiable given the records, history and evidence of such activities as listed in table 7.2.2 of you document NPMP_draft_v2_080331_final.pdf
These activities listed and in particular the use of recreational motorized vehicles within the BBNP boundaries have occurred for many decades without any real or factual problems or damage to the environment, in fact there are some listed activities within the table 7.2.1 which are far more hazardous to both the environment and other RoW users.
As far as I can tell, all studies of environmental impact of motorized vehicles on our RoW network have concluded that there are no negative issues other than other vociferous and bigoted users perceptions, studies of vehicular use on unsurfaced RoW’s have also shown there to be no significant impact on erosion, what we do know is that regular use of RoW’s by vehicles does in fact help to keep them clear and useable for all users as evidenced by those which have become impassable since vehicular rights have been removed.
It is the BBNP’s responsibility to protect the rights of ALL RoW users, it seems very clear from the document detailed above that BBNP is only content with the removal of legal rights for minority users.

I would like to know who exactly deemed certain activities as “appropriate” or “inappropriate”, and on what basis ?
I strongly object to the draft in its current form as it seeks to remove my right to use RoW’s legally and responsibly and further it appears to be founded on nothing but pure prejudice.



Yours



Your Name
Your Street
Your Town
Your County
Your POstcode

 

[timeandtide]

Done; good luck we face the same issues here.

 

[Berin]

there's a good thread here and here with some other replies and a link to the TRF response.

 

[Hew]

Attached are the forms and letters in the TRF link above.
I hope this helps

 

[Hew]

Thanks for making it a sticky

 

[TaffyScouser]

Support the view of many in the off road fraternity but anyone who says that users of motorised vehicles have made no environmental impact within the park are talking bollocks. Many of the tracks and trails used are nothing like they were many years ago. Will support the cause the minute people admit to damage but try to repair the damage with working parties etc. rather than just denying anything has changed. Been there, done that and admitted that damage was being done...result...dont do any off roading anymore. Not saying that it is wrong to off road but saying there is little or no enviro damage is just unforgiveable.

 

[Hew]

Support the view of many in the off road fraternity but anyone who says that users of motorised vehicles have made no environmental impact within the park are talking bollocks. Many of the tracks and trails used are nothing like they were many years ago. Will support the cause the minute people admit to damage but try to repair the damage with working parties etc. rather than just denying anything has changed. Been there, done that and admitted that damage was being done...result...dont do any off roading anymore. Not saying that it is wrong to off road but saying there is little or no enviro damage is just unforgiveable.

Please can you give details of the off road experience you have had that has made you give up.
For clarity this is not off roading but the use of unsurfaced public roads.
There is a big difference between this and people tearing off across moors and quarries mainly on unlicensed machines
I am sure that you do use roads for which you pay tax for their upkeep and repair the roads here are also public roads that are maintainable at public expense but the council choose not to. Water erosion is the biggest cause of damage to these roads.
Working parties do make efforts to repair some sections.
http://www.trailbikemag.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13898

The council do however spend huge amounts of money encouraging hiking and repairing the damage and erosion caused to the paths by boots and poles but this falls in with their idyllic view of the world. Perhaps there should be a path tax.
Tolerance is the key otherwise we will be left with a very bland society where minority interests and hobbies will be banned