 | Home > Events > Chapel Gate TRO |
 
|
|
|
| SteveT247 Member Since: 21 Feb 2011 Location: Central Posts: 491   
|
Taken from another forum
"If you go laning, read this, then object. Don't let the ramblers get their way. Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 11:26 pmPost subject: Three weeks to save Chapel Gate? - Object now! As many of you will doubtless already be aware Chapel Gate Byway in the heart of the Peak District is currently closed to all motor vehicle traffic by virtue of a Experimental Traffic Regulation Order (ETRO). Quite what this experiment is supposed to be testing has been the subject of much speculation and to this day remains rather hard to determine. What is not in doubt however is the threat that this "experiment" poses to out future access. Not just to Chapel Gate of course but to the whole Peak Park area. I believe that this order, if made permanent would be the thin edge of a very large wedge. The future of our access in the Peak District is important for a lot of reasons, not least because this national park boast some of the best and most accessible green lanes in the country but it's more than just that. If this blanket closure goes ahead in it's current form then it will be a major victory for those organisations and individuals who seek nothing less than to destroy all legal recreational vehicle access in this country. They may be starting with the national parks but unless we act decisively they will not stop until all of our activities are illegal in every county in this country. Exageration? You decide for yourself but I don't think so. Access to our national parks is a national issue and I believe that it requires nothing less than a national response. Strangely and due to the bizarre way in which the relevant legislation is worded, anyone who wishes to object to the adoption on a permanent basis of an experimental TRO is required to do so during th efirst six months of that experiment. Now quite how you are supposed to comment meaningfully on an experiment that is less than a third of the way through is beyond me but despite the inherent silliness of this it is what the relevant legislation requires. So, as the first six months of the Chapel Gate ETRO expires at the end of February 2012 we have, as the title of this post states, about three weeks in which to oppose the permanent adoption of the current closure. So what are you waiting for? Lets get objecting! Letters or Emails stating your objection to the permanent adoption of the experimental TRO should be sent to: Mike Rhodes Access and RoW Manager The Peak District National Park Authority Aldern House Baslow Road Bakewell DE45 1AE or Email: mike.rhodes@peakdistrict.gov.uk Some points you might like to consider while writing your objection, 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 Finally, it is worth pointing out that the authority can very the terms of this order while it is in force so if you favour an alternative solution you could suggest that they use the remaining year fo this "experiment" to explore other options! Of course this list is not exhaustive and I'm sure other people will have other points to make. Feel free to use all, some or none of these but please do object." Link to the post & info on LZ. You have until the end of this month to object to permanent closure. http://www.landyzone.co.uk/lz/f13/chapel-g...ost1816845 |
||
9th Feb 2012 10:41am |
|
| Merlin Member Since: 30 Oct 2010 Location: Newmarket Posts: 981 
|
The PDNPA has made a permanent TRO on Chapel Gate. The Trail Riders Fellowship has issued this press release which sums up the situation perfectly:
Fury over lane closures The Trail Riders Fellowship is disappointed but not surprised by the decision of the Peak District National Park’s Audit Resources and Performance Committee to make Traffic Regulation Orders to close two historic routes to motor vehicles. It is the second attempt by the PDNPA to close Chapel Gate and The Roych. A TRO for the Roych was originally agreed in July 2013 but since then, a small section has been repaired by Derbyshire County Council so the decision was brought back for review before it was implemented. Members of the Authority's Audit, Resources and Performance (ARP) Committee confirmed the TRO after deciding the repairs had made no difference to their original grounds for the order. An earlier attempt to close Chapel Gate was ruled “illegal” and “irresponsible” by the High Court, and a subsequent public consultation yielded 1391 objections to the Order and only 994 submissions in favour. The TRF has to point out once again that the ARP Committee is chaired by a Mr. Christopher Pennell, who is also a Gold Guardian of the Friends of the Peak District: the organization which has coordinated the campaign for the closure of the two routes in question and announced this January that it intended to campaign for a law to make offtarmac motoring in the Peak District National Park a criminal offence. No lanes were closed by PDNPA prior to Mr Pennell’s appointment. The Trail Riders Fellowship can only wonder at how a situation where a key supporter of a political group that has led the campaign to remove vehicular rights was allowed to chair a committee tasked with making a series of quasi-judicial decisions on the same issue was allowed to arise. Residents of the Peak District should note that, although the PDNPA is putting up charges, sacking staff and cutting services in response to budget cuts, it has allocated yet more funds for the coming year to its campaign to drive motorcyclists away from the National Park. The TRF asks who is driving this agenda and what their motives might be. |
||
|
16th May 2014 4:21pm |
|
| gilarion Member Since: 05 Dec 2013 Location: Wales Posts: 5109  
|
It is many years since I visited Chapel Gate, has it been maintained or recovered from what I last saw, the ruts were so deep especially half way up that some vehicles had broken there diffs on the limestone rocks and there was thick black oil sludge all over the place.
There is a growing demand to close a lot of the lanes in the peak district not just from Ramblers but from conservationists as well. Chapel gate is one of the most used tracks in the Edale Valley and I am afraid that some 4x4 users have ill-treated this track, though obviously not necessarily all that use it, but over the years some users have not showed any thought of common sense about the damage they have done and it consequences on the wildlife and natural fauna that exists in this place. Personally I would not like to see Chapel Gate close however if it does then it is due to some of the 4x4 drivers who have wrecked it for others who treated it with more care. |
||
|
16th May 2014 4:52pm |
|
| Boyd Member Since: 11 May 2014 Location: Le Saint Posts: 172  
|
My email at the time:
Mr Rhodes, I am writing this email with regards to the proposed TRO on the chapel gate byway. As both a keen walker and a frequent vehicular user of many byways around the country I find it very sad that there is a push by many to close this essential byway to vehicular traffic. Chapel gate is indeed that 'a gate' into a number of byways in the area and to loose it would be a serious blow to recreational 'green laners' throughout the country the majority of which are perfectly sensible, mature, careful and considerate folk driving regular 4x4's with minimal modifications at appropriate speeds. Like many there are individuals and small groups within any activity who endeavour to spoil it for others, but they are this a minority and we need to push back on the government through the police or similar to regulate the use of byways not simply blanket ban anyone's use of them. I myself am plagued by equestrians on a number of my walking routes making areas (particularly around gates) so boggy it is ridiculous. I do not however complain to the council to try and get horses banned from my routes and convert them to footpaths only, no! Likewise there are many many groups of walkers, individuals or otherwise who spoil it for others by leaving rubbish, bags of poo, drinks bottles etc etc. all over our county side, national parks, mountains and otherwise, do we lobby a ban on walkers to protect our countryside? I say no! The issue is about education and regulation, not one of prohibition. Our countryside is to be enjoyed by all as it is indeed that our countryside, we need to educate dog walkers just as we need to educate recreational vehicle enthusiasts. Chapel gate itself, following its recent disrepair I hear reports that it's now been repaired to an appropriate standard to be deemed again appropriate for all traffic and I personally hope it remains that way and you and others withy your organisation can see it in your power to remain it as such .... open for all traffic. Kind regards, Michael My response: Mr Boyd I understand and respect your views, and the points you raise have been considered at length as part of the public consultation we undertook prior to the decision being taken to make the TRO. The report and the consultation responses and all background to the decision are at item 7 on the following web-page http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/about-us/co...nuary-2014 Please also note the Decision Notice on our web-page http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/looking-aft...strictions I hope therefore that despite your reservations, the TRO has been made in a reasonable and balanced way, after careful consideration of the arguments. Regards Mike 2003 Zambezi Silver TD5 110 XS SW overland prepped.... 2004 Santorini Black TD5 110 XS SW left hooker for sale! 2004 Alpine White TD5 110 left hooker (work in progress) |
||
|
19th May 2014 3:44pm |
|
|
|
| All times are GMT |
< Previous Topic | Next Topic > |
Posting Rules
|
Site Copyright © 2006-2024 Futuranet Ltd & Martin Lewis
