Derbyshire County Council has been carrying out controversial works on the Rushup Edge track
When grough covered the recent furore over work carried out by Derbyshire County Council on bridleways and routes in the Peak District, we were taken to task over what some saw as giving a slanted view of the situation.
So we offered a voice to those concerned at the effects of the works, particularly on Rushup Edge near Mam Tor.
Here, Chris Maloney puts his opinion on the issue.
Derbyshire County Council has halted work on Rushup Edge, clearly demonstrating the power fragmented user groups can have when they work together.
When work started on resurfacing the bedrock steps of Rushup Edge, it was mountain bikers who first sounded the alarm, questioning Derbyshire County Council’s use of materials, cost, scope of work, but most vocally, their lack of adequate consultation.
This objection was picked up by many other groups, including the Peak national park, Friends of the Peak District, the British Mountaineering Council, local MP Andrew Bingham and hundreds of walkers, cyclists, runners, horse-riders and climbers online.
The resurfacing work on the Rushup Edge bridleway
Most recently the British Heart Foundation has expressed concern that attendance of its Hope Valley based challenge events will be also be affected, with a very real likelihood that the event simply will not happen. But to what end? Derbyshire County Council is seemingly under no obligation to listen; they believe they have done everything they need to in order to put the work through.
However, the breadth of objection and ‘roar’ from the united voice of people who use high moorland trails such as Rushup Edge could not be ignored. These are the very people DCC claims to have consulted with.
Hundreds of Facebook messages, Tweets, forum posts, freedom of information requests, telephone calls, a thousand-strong survey, emails, protests, newspaper reports and radio coverage say otherwise.
And Derbyshire County Council has taken a small step in the right direction, inviting the signatories of a recent open letter – Peak District MTB, Ride Sheffield, Keeper of the Peak, Friends of the Peak District/CPRE, the BMC – to meet with them to discuss their concerns and work out a way forward.
It is a tiny step forward towards proper collaboration. Of course, a meeting is one thing; positive action resulting is another. Whether an agreement can be reached on the future of Rushup Edge and future works around the Peak remains to be seen. However protesters are optimistic that this time DCC will listen.
What is clear is that thousands of people – many more than were originally consulted – care deeply about the fate of Rushup Edge and other high-moorland trails. If, as Derbyshire County Council say, they want the best for the Peak District, all the protesters ask is that they work with them to achieve it.
Fluff
16 November 2014Good summary, and to my mind much more balanced than the curiously-presented previous piece on this topic.
There is a point that hasn't been made in the article above, or the previous article, but one that I personally think affects everyone -whether they read Grough or not :-).
On the basis of numbers I have seen for Stanage Causeway, Wigley Lane, Chapel Gate, Rushup Edge & Whinstone Lee Tor, total expenditure on trail repairs by DCC must be approaching half a £million. (It may well have exceeded this.) There is a significant question here (in my opinion) about how a council chooses to its very limited public funds at a time of huge economic constraints.
Every expenditure in the current climate should be a carefully considered judgement call. Don't get me wrong: I want to to see money spent on (sensitively) maintaining the countryside. However at the moment, I (and I suspect most Derbyshire taxpayers) would prefer public funds were diverted towards potentially life-saving (for some) or life- impacting resources, such as keeping fire-stations and medical practices open, staffing the police service, keeping public transport services running, and running key utility services at a reliable level.
Steven
16 November 2014It's good to see that mountain bikers (and others) are being listened to. It isn't just the construction costs DCC need to consider, MTBers spend money in cafes, pubs and shops when they visit the Peaks and they'll visit fewer times if the trails become sanitised.
Ben
16 November 2014Well done to Grough for the right of reply, hopefully we can expect more balanced and fact based editorials in future.
My main objection is to the eyesore these works will cause, together with the danger, anyone who has walked or ran on chippings will know what I mean.
The loss of heritage, that connection to the past, knowing I tread where hundreds before me have.
The beauty of worn and weathered rock should not be destroyed in this way, let it continue to be enjoyed by 1000s.
harv
16 November 2014Thank you Grough for listening to your readerz
Dan Noble
17 November 2014Good summary Chris. Thanks for taking up grough's right to reply. We're all optimistic that better consultation will now happen, but there's still a long way to go. Listening is one thing; actually taking notice is another.
Pete
17 November 2014Great article, really highlights some major concerns and it's great to see a step in the right direction, even if it's just a baby step for now. It seems as though these works were commissioned by someone who had never even visited the Peaks, let alone cared about them as we all so clearly, passionately do.
Here's hoping that soon we can get back to enjoying the natural beauty of the area, without the constant fear that someone is going to cut a dirty grey stripe through it for no good reason.
The question I think needs asking about any of these works is, who benefits?
Nik (Walker, Runner and Cyclist)
17 November 2014Great follow up and Kudos to Grough for allowing this response to be made.
People seem to have the impression that because it's mountain biking groups who are pushing this forward, that it's only mtb groups that have a problem.
Many other user groups also have issue with this, it's just that MTB groups have been the quickest to act and other groups don't seem to have a strong base of members to make a difference.
Maybe this is down to a strong MTB community whilst other groups are un-united and don't have a cohesive hub like we have to make a difference.
All the walkers, horse-riders and fell runners I have been speaking to on my travels are against this work, but don't seem to think they have the ability to complain. "I'm just one man, they won't listen to me" was a common response.
Thanks to Chris for putting the balanced opinion across.
Paul Richardson
18 November 2014Nice piece Chris and thanks to Grough for allowing the right of reply to the original article.
James Dalby
18 November 2014Great reply, and well done Grough for allowing it.
Howard
18 November 2014It is clear from inspection that it was right to drive a halt to DCC's 'works' on Chapel Gate. They were covering a reasonable bridleway surface with excessively large rocks that would not consolidate and are a current danger to cyclists. In particular, the material used was around 50% hard limestone and hence not gritstone. This an appalling mismatch to the local environment, in what is a SSSI.
Andy Hayes, Chesterfield
05 January 2015Regardless of all the other points raised here and elsewhere, I object in the strongest possible terms to what I can only describe as vandalism by DDC to an ancient track in an outstanding upland area.
I call upon DDC to clear away the surfacing and reinstate the original surface.
I am a mountaineer, walker and mountainbiker and this track WAS one of my favourite ancient tracks.