The Roych. Photo: Michael Ely CC-BY-SA-2.0
Motorbikes and 4×4s are to be banned from using part of a national trail.
The Peak District National Park Authority will make an order excluding motor vehicles from the Roych, a 3½km (2-mile) section of the Pennine Bridleway near Chapel-en-le-Frith.
Wheelchairs, electric disability scooters and Trampers will still be able to use the route.
The authority’s audit, resources and performance committee decided a traffic regulation order was necessary on the Roych, west of Rushup Edge.
The decision follows a public consultation during which the authority received about 2,500 responses, with more than 1,000 objecting to the proposed TRO and at least 1,235 individuals and organisations in support of a ban.
Committee chair Christopher Pennell, Audit said: “We have not taken this decision lightly.
“The Roych is a very popular route with many different users but it crosses some of the most environmentally sensitive areas of the national park.”
“We considered partial regulation, but past attempts, on a voluntary basis, to partially restrict use by 4×4s and trail bikes have failed. The status quo was unacceptable and doing nothing was not an option.
“In light of evidence and feedback during public consultation, our members felt they had to use the powers Parliament gave them to restrict motorised recreational traffic in this particular case to protect the natural beauty and amenity of the Roych and its surrounding, stunning landscape.”
High levels of use on the route have led to conflict between users, vehicles have left the highway, both to avoid difficult features and to link to Chapelgate nearby.
A large amount of public funding has already been spent on the route and the levels of use were damaging repaired sections.
The authority said it has committed extra resources to managing green lanes, despite budget cuts in other areas.
Mr Pennell said: “In this case a full, permanent traffic regulation order was deemed necessary for what is a highly valued national trail for walkers, cyclists and horse riders.”
Detailed information is available on the Peak District authority’s website.
Richard
22 July 2013Mr Pennell is also a leading light in the Friends of the Peak District, which campaigned actively for the ban during the consultation period. I'm sure he did not let this obvious conflict of interest sway his judgement in any way!
The ban will only stop the legal and responsible users. Illegal users will turn up in increasing numbers, with unregistered, uninsured and possibly stolen vehicles, which they will thrash up and down the road, and across the surrounding countryside. Some vehicles are likely to be abandoned and burnt, with the consequential risk of horrendous damage to the local environment.
The police in Derbyshire have already stated that enforcing the TRO on the Roych will be an almost impossible task because of the remoteness of the area, and that a lack of resources mean that it will not be a priority for them.
Mr Pennell has admitted that any barriers or signs that the PDNPA erects to prevent the entry of motor vehicles are likely to be smashed, removed or just driven around. The route is still legal for disabled persons to use in wheelchairs and mobility vehicles so barriers capable of stopping 4x4s and motorcycles will constitute an illegal obstruction to disabled users.
GB
23 July 2013If it is a choice between stopping some or stopping none of the vehicles - then I vote for the former. I take the points above but the unregistered, uninsured etc, would be there regardless. I guess now if a vehicle is spotted/reported whether insured or not, it will be obvious that it should not legally be there. In my opinion, the amount of destruction and nuisance caused by off roaders ('well behaved' or not) to other users of our countryside is disproportionate and totally unacceptable. Let's hope this is adopted in other blighted areas.
Stigofthenest
23 July 2013I too am with GB on this, and as for blocking off mobility scooters - I'm yet to see one as wide as a 4x4..
So why not install substantial well embedded barriers.. something thats not going to be pulled out in 2 minutes..
The 4x4 community have thoroughly spoiled the hills of the north Berwyns near me.. scars visible for miles around.. its so unnescesary too - but they seem to delight in deliberately getting stuck - just so their clever mates can winch them out whilst they spin the wheels at 100mph - i've seen it - its what happens..
I'd ban the lot of them myself - there's little reason for anyone to own one unless they're a farmer or the like.
Smarticus
23 July 2013Most of England's road network was laid down by the Romans and rights of public use over these routes has been enshrined in law for centuries. To remove such rights is an extremely serious and potentially dangerous matter. No one who enjoys using Rights of Way should celebrate such rights being removed.
Dave
24 July 2013So what did the Romans ever do for us? apparently they are to blame for all these petrol heads roaring round the country ( and our streets ) in their dinky cars.
This is no denial of access it is a denial of motorised access, if you want to travel on these routes get out and walk, get a bicycle or get a horse, your access is safe.
One life live it, so don't waste your time behind the wheel of a car.
Richard
24 July 2013http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-23424220
The BBC has got the message.
By the way, it's nothing to do with 'off-road'
The Roych is an unclassified county road.
If you don't want to encounter the occasional motorbike or 4x4, you've got all the footpaths, bridleways, restricted byways and right to roam land. Unsurfaced rights of way with vehicular rights actually comprise less than 2 per cent of the RoW network in the national park.
Something wrong with 'live and let live' is there?
Chris
24 July 2013People complaining about the scars of 4x4s being visible, and championing the removal of access would do well to consider the ongoing fight for access on foot. Once rights to access are shown to be errodable, it can damage everyone. You think the scars on the landscape of footpaths used just by walkers aren't visible for miles? You think walker's boots don't cause much need for investment to keep maintained?
If particular routes are under stress, I don't mind the bans - walkers and cyclists also have route access revoked when there is a need for a way to recover. But blanket bans only fuel the fire. What happens when a farmer says access on foot is damamging his livestock? What happens when people start really complaining that MTB riders are too aggressive (any walker will know this is a background chunter while everyone is on their hobby-horse on 4x4s - but it will come back).
Will you accept reduced access at certain times of year? Do you think other groups should be banned? It's a slippery slop - and one you shouldn't under-estimate the willingness of this government to exploit.
Chris
24 July 2013RE: One live, so live it - why do we all think we can tell people what consitutes living their life? I'm sure I wouldn't like anyone telling me my recreational activities don't cut it and I should do something different.
(I am, by-the-by, a walker, not a 4x4 user, before anyone gets grumbly at me defending my own!)
Margaret
26 July 2013Interesting to note that a bicycle is classed as a vehicle and there is a potential £500 fine for cycling on the pavement, which many cyclists do.
How and when has it been OK for bicycles to use footpaths on the hill?
Dave
28 July 2013How dare you bigoted folk dictate how others should live their lives and dictate what vehicles they should or should not be allowed to drive.
I'm a mountaineer, a mountain biker, camper, climber and 4x4 enthusiast. I use the countryside every single day and believe it is there for everybody, not just busybodies.
Some people conveniently forget that in the poor weather, it is the kindly 4x4 driver that pulls a car from it's stricken parking spot, pulls ambulances, stricken bin trucks, juggernauts and even the tesco delivery truck bringing your food to your door.
During these times, the complainers and dictators should be left to metaphorically drown, freeze and starve. Then you'd see how useful the guy next door with a 4x4 is.
Rick Holmes
28 July 2013I've been mountain biking for 20 years in the peak district and have ridden behind 4x4's and motorcross bikes and although it's true they do damage to the trail the worst damage I've seen time and time again is when riding behind horses. Their hooves dig up big clumps of peat which then get washed away down the hill, they also loosen large rocks making it more dangerous for the cyclists and walkers.
Cyclists get a bad reputation in the peak district because some idiots ride too fast too close to walkers and frighten them but if you're seriously worried about erosion then I'm sorry but horses are by far the biggest offenders.
Margaret
29 July 2013Possibly true Rick but cyclists also damage footpaths - I refer to traditional mountain walking paths not 'trails'.
Richard
05 August 2013See
http://www.matlockmercury.co.uk/news/local-news/over-100-vehicle-users-descend-on-fun-day-1-5923252
I can't wait for the National Festival of Trail Riding!
Margaret
06 August 2013The modern mountain biker, it should be remembered, is a relative new kid on the hill.
That said, due consideration should be given to those mountaineer/cyclists active in the years before and after WW2. The Dundee crowd, for example, would head up to Clova on a Saturday afternoon, stay in the Youth Hostel. Then next day would climb over the Mounth Path to Loch Muick before the long cycle back to Dundee and not a vehicle or chairlift in sight.
As for motor bikes - the 'Scottish Six Day Trials' have taken place in Lochaber since the 1920s and are very popular around Fort William. They were using those west highland hill tracks when walkers were rarely seen and long before cyclists appeared.