Chapel Gate under threat of TRO again

Communication from the Peak and Derbyshire Vehicle Users Group. If you care at all about trail riding in the Peak District, please read this and act on it!


The Peak District National Park is seeking a permanent TRO on Chapel Gate and inviting objections. Chapel Gate is currently the best driveable route in the Peak District. We need to muster as many objections as possible. On previous consultations for the Roych and Long Causeway we managed over 4000 objections.


We are aiming to have over 6000 objections for Chapel Gate. Please circulate and forward this to as many clubs, forums and users as possible all across the UK , with a request to ensure objections are submitted through the link here: http://consult.peakdistrict.gov.uk/details.cfm?TROID=6 or by email to [email protected] or by post BEFORE the middle of June.


The link above will give all the information needed from the Peak Park 's website. The objections do not need to be long or technical but your objection will carry more weight if you give good reasons. Asking questions of the National Park in your objection is a good tactic to increase their workload. To help, there are several points below, which you may wish to incorporate into any objection:


* The Peak District National Park Authority (PDNPA) is acting in a discriminatory fashion by singling out recreational vehicle users in this way.

* The PDNPA is openly prejudiced and biased against vehicle users, with Members of the Authority taking public positions and being members of pressure groups opposed to recreational drivers and riders.

* The recommendations of the Local Access Forum (LAF), which is a legal body formed to advise the PDNPA on matters around Rights of Way was ignored in proposing this Permanent TRO. The LAF had recommended a limited TRO.

* The Rights of Way Officers conducted a flawed survey as part of an unlawful Experimental TRO, yet they still used its biased and discriminatory findings to seek the approval of the PDNPA to proceed to a Permanent TRO.

* Much of the Authority's concern is for the ecology of the area, which is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) but they will not concede that the area is also Open Access and therefore subject to walkers leaving the route to wander freely across the landscape.

* The Authority claims to be concerned about damage to the lane and other users being forced from the route by vehicles or the 'expectation' of meeting vehicles and so creating parallel tracks. However, they are not concerned when walkers, cyclists and horse riders damage bridleways and create parallel tracks on other routes. In this way the PDNPA operates double standards.

* The PDNPA is utterly unconcerned that they are removing a legal right to use Chapel Gate for a small minority of users. The Authority is happy to suggest that vehicle users can use the surfaced road network as an alternative but refuses to suggest that walkers, cyclists and horse riders could use alternative footpaths and bridleways to avoid the Chapel Gate BOAT.


PLEASE object however briefly and please ensure that you submit the objection BEFORE 28 June.* Your effort will count.


Nigel Bennett

Peak and Derbyshire Vehicle User Group (PDVUG)

Here's a response from an non biker:

(Copied from ABR - cheers Richard)

Here's an interesting input from a non-trail rider...who is about to join the TRF because he is so concerned with the agenda that PDNPA is following.

It's the best response I've seen so far!


I have lived in, and enjoyed the Peak District for the last 63 years. I have enjoyed the Chapel Gate area many times over those years both on foot and on my mountain bike, and I hope to continue to do so for many years yet.
I do not currently own any mechanically propelled vehicle that would be capable of using Chapel Gate but I strongly object to your proposal to ban such vehicles from using it, and I take issue with the case you have set out. Perhaps when I can no longer cycle or walk up there I shall want to drive and you must not take away my right to do so.
Your schedule ‘Impacts of Mechanically Propelled Vehicles’ is no justification for removing a right that has existed since the invention of mechanically propelled vehicles, specifically
The route passes through designated habitats. In places the route has widened over time resulting in a net loss of vegetation.
Yes – well the same is true of the bridleway along the ridge - the ‘widening’ caused by walkers and persons who wish to hang-glide and cycle is there for all to see. The widening of Chapel Gate is minimal and is a tiny, tiny percentage of the whole and is not significant in the big scheme of things. The loss of vegetation is less than negligible.
The route passes through designated areas which are vulnerable to motor vehicles deviating from the route. In places two routes have developed and deviation by all users has taken place to avoid areas subject to waterlogging
Again this is no different to the bridleway where much of the route no longer follows the original line and a ‘hollow way’ can easily be seen to the side of it. Indeed it can be considered a natural process of the evolution of a track. ( Have a read of Peakland Roads and Trackways - Dodd and Dodd) Areas of waterlogging on both routes are caused by a lack of drainage maintenance which incidentally would be a much better way of spending your (our) money than trying to make a case for stopping a handful of people from enjoying themselves
The surfacing of the route has been damaged by use by vehicles. Sections of the route are down to bedrock which is being displaced. The sections on peat or shales are subject to deformation in wet ground conditions
Again this is no different to the bridleway on the ridge where large areas have been eroded by pedestrians. If indeed sections of Chapel Gate are down to bedrock then further weathering and erosion will only occur at a rate that is not a worry to anyone. Wet ground conditions? Well, do something about it and get the drainage working again!
Disturbance to nesting birds where susceptible to disturbance.
Now you are grasping at straws. I don’t think that the birds give a hoot (sorry)! They’re far more likely to be frightened by walkers, wandering sheep, and large mechanical birds (hang gliders) swooping around. Presumably you’re also aware that motorway corridors have some of the richest wildlife habitats in the country. Your point is irrelevant
Intrusiveness of vehicles has an impact on the setting of features. Evidence of passage or works to deal with that have an impact on the character of the area and hence the setting of features

I don’t even understand this one! Sounds like nonsense to me – the Peak District is full of man-made features – for example the remains of the Roman Road at Doctors Gate are worth a visit. It’s a good job that you lot were not around at the time else the Romans would have packed up and gone home
The impact from the passage of vehicles during the day or night is affected by the large visual envelope of the route, the popularity of the route for all users and the special characteristics of the area. There are periods of reduced transience where vehicles find difficulties in passing or as a result of the volume of vehicles.
I don’t understand this one either. It doesn’t bother me one bit seeing hoards of brightly dressed walkers, farm vehicles, gaudily dressed cyclists, motor bikes and 4x4s, and myriad hang-gliders. Why would it bother anyone? I’ve been up there three times in the last month and only once did I encounter vehicles – a young couple on off-road motorcycles. I found it quite entertaining watching them, particularly when one fell off in a large puddle! (no, they didn’t stray from the track to go around it – it’s all part of the fun I should imagine)
Evidence of the passage of vehicles is seen by wheel ruts on and adjacent to the route
So what? They’re no worse than the ruts caused all over the place by walkers
Deterrence of use by non-MPV users from presence or anticipation of vehicles Disturbance from vehicles
Vehicles don’t deter me – I’m more likely to keep away because of hordes of ramblers cluttering the place up, and glaring at me when I’m on my mountain bike. Far from banning vehicles isn’t it time that you put a restriction on ramblers group size and usage? I suggest a maximum group of 10, cheerfully step to one side to allow vehicles, cyclists, and horse riders to pass unimpeded, and stick to footpaths for preference. You want to ban vehicles because people might be put off visiting by the thought of them being there? What arrant nonsense! Ban the walkers, Ban the Hang gliders, Ban the Mountain Bikers....in fact ban everybody including yourselves – crikey who comes up with this stuff?
Noise impact on people Disturbance from vehicles on an elevated route with limited noise attenuation.
This is totally spurious. What about noise generated by the road up to Mam Nick, working farm machinery and the busy railway line in the valley? The noise from vehicles on Chapel Gate is nothing compared with those.
The surfacing of the route has been damaged by use by vehicles despite repairs on some sections. Damage to gates causes accessibility issues for all users and impacts on stock control.
All highways require maintenance and Chapel gate is no different. You can’t expect to do nothing and then blame off-roaders. In any case surely the County Council is responsible for maintenance?
‘damaged despite repairs’ well speaking as an ex highway maintenance specialist (25 years with DCC and 15 in private practice) I’m not surprised! I have seen many of your organisation’s attempts at maintenance work on paths and trails, and indeed have in the past voiced my concerns over your amateur efforts on the High Peak and Tissington trails.
The fundamental mistake that you make is that you do not sort out the surface water drainage before repairing the surface, with the result that the first thunderstorm washes away the new material!
In my opinion the bulk of the damage on Chapel gate is the inevitable result of uncontrolled water flows, and lack of maintenance. Yes vehicles do cause some wear and tear but no more so than cyclists and walkers in this particular case.
Gates are the responsibility of the farmers (Animals Act 1971)
To conclude I strongly object to your proposal to ban vehicles from Chapel Gate. You have not put up a compelling cased to do so and I believe that the majority of Peak Park residents would prefer that you spent your time and our money doing something constructive like improving parking facilities, providing toilets, and maintaining footpaths, and trails in good condition
Yours faithfully,
(Name removed)
PS please do contact me if you require any professional advice on how to properly maintain rural tracks and pathways. I have plenty of experience, and indeed was personally responsible for the works on Totley Moss, in 1994 I think it was

Objection filed

Also all join on

The date for objections was extended until TODAY...get your objection in now!!!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Anyone know the outcome?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Essexadventure said:

Anyone know the outcome?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Click to expand...

Closed and TRO'd

And Roych Clough too

So I gather

Not implemented yet

Crap!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

My local rag also says closed.

Oh crap! We tried, but we will never beat the system which is set up against us. When it comes down to it whatever we say it will just be ignored and they close them anyway!




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Can't believe what you always read but the rag said that there were cut-backs in most of the services due to the hard times we are having but an increase in funds to 'manage' byways to stop 4x4/bikes/quads going down them.

I have read somewhere that the byway is no more as of this Thursday.